AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

" Respectfully (for now), Paul "

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-10 12:07:15 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 9:17*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:



On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of
t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. *Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. *W
hy
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" *He should have used the word
hypocricy.

*I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

*(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. *He hasn't done anything.
*
He's still campaigning.



Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sou
nds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.



Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what i
t
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. *Corr
ect.



I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave



Wrong on all counts. Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence.

It is not just them. The entire liberal part of the Dem Party is just
as you described Rove.

What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.

Then you should continue your hypocrisy and join the Democrat Party.
You will feel right at home. Rove is NOT any representative of mine.
He holds no office.

There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.

SO WHAT? Are they not representatives of their people? They should
act like their PEOPLE want them to act, not according to some rule that
you have set up.

If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?

No. He does NOT deserve the prize. He has PROMISED to do all the
things the Norwegian want him to do, but he has done nothing. How in
the hell can you accept a Peace Prize in one hand and stamp the ok to
up the forces in Afghanistan by another 30k or so with the other.
That's the problem of ALL politicians - they promise everything for
everyone and do nothing for all.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it?

What the hell does Limbaugh and Hannity have to do with this? Reagan
DID defeat the Soviet Union - brought them to their knees - brought
down the Berlin Wall - freed millions of people from Communist
domination. All far more than Obama has done. Obama's party OWNS both
houses of Congress. If he can't get something done it is because of
his LACK of leadership.

Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize?

Well, duh. Read everything I've said. He hasn't done SQUAT, just promises.

Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.

Huh?

Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. Seriously? If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. That certainly does not qualify.

Your arguments are naive at best. We are talking about a president who
HIMSELF said, "I won WHAT?" He knows he doesn't deserve it. You and
Fortenberry seem to think he does. Vanilla Strawberry (at best).

Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?

Fox News is not considered the MAIN media because it is cable news.
While they beat every other news source on cable, they are still not
the news broadcast over your local news networks. No one watches the
main networks because they (we) are tired of the bias. Everyone
complains about Bill O'Reiley, yet when I watched him a couple of years
ago, he was slicing and dicing George Bush. Now he is doing the same
to Obama *when he sees wrong.* Limbaugh is an entertainer. Nothing
more. Yet the left is scared to death of him. Silly if you ask me.
He is a nothing.

They estimate at least 300,000 people marched on DC during the Tea
Party. No one was arrested. There was no trash to pick up. Yet the
"main" media didn't cover it at first, and then when they did, then
said a "few thousand" demonstrated. they were very "rowdy", and it
should be unlawful to do what they did. IOW, bias reporting

Respectfully (for now),

Paul

If you can not remain respectfull, don't threaten me with your future
lack of it

Just plain old,

Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

"For now" has a threat to it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

"Family-Outdoors" wrote in message
...
On Oct 10, 9:17 am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:



On Oct 10, 6:19 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of
t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? :-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" He should have used the word
hypocricy.

I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. He hasn't done anything.
He's still campaigning.



Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. But he isn't in the club. Sounds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.



Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. Correct.



I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave



Wrong on all counts. Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence. What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.

There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.

If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?
Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it? Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize? Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.

Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. Seriously? If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. That certainly does not qualify.

Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?

Respectfully (for now),
Paul

I think I love you Paul! If we ever meet, I want your autograph.

Op

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors
wrote:

On Oct 10, 9:17*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:



On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. *Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. *Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" *He should have used the word
hypocricy.

*I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

*(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. *He hasn't done anything. *
He's still campaigning.



Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sounds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.



Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. *Correct.



I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave



Wrong on all counts. Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence. What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.

There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.

If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?
Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it? Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize? Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.

Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. Seriously? If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. That certainly does not qualify.

Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?

Respectfully (for now),
Paul

That's all well and good, but I think y'all are not considering the practical
reality of this. For example, it is highly suspicious that an operative from
the Nobel committee has been dispatched to the US to teach Kanye West how to say
"MAMMA MIA! ABBA not only ROCKS, but they rule!" in Swedish...and while Bruno
has said he's, er, ready to fly, Eminem has said, "**** YOU! I'M NOT GETTING A
FACEFUL OF SOME SWEDISH FAG'S ASS!!!"...

HTH,
R
....I mean, after not even Chuck Schumer would show up for the media blitz
surrounding the award of the "World Cocktail Meatball Cookoff" host city, they
had to do SOMETHING...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 1:26*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? *Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

"For now" has a threat to it.

Dave:
I do not threaten anyone. Ever. I have no reason to disrespect you.
I am perfectly capable of allowing for the fact that you disagree with
me and still might be a perfectly decent, yet of course misguided,
human being. The "for now" was more an allusion to the reality that I
have noticed that occasionally some of these threads stray to the
absurd. Since we do not know one another, I just wanted to allow for
the possibility that I might have to adopt a less tactful tone. I am
sure it won't be necessary. I am currently enjoying the exchange.

I would find it difficult to join the Democratic Party (there is no
such thing as the Democrat Party...another silly tactic) as I am pro-
life to the degree of militancy and am fiscally conservative beyond
the bounds of any politician I am aware of in any party. While it may
seem that Ken Fortenberry and I may adopt similar stances on this and/
or other matters, I am pretty certain from the posts I have read, he
and I are miles apart philosophically. Even still, I can recognize
that he is coherent in his thought processes.

I am just saying that I have made the personal judgement that the lack
of intelligent thought in the controlling arm of the "conservative"
movement is astounding and I wish to have nothing to do with them. It
is an error in logic to assume I should join the Democratic Party
because I find Tea Party Protestors, Conservative Talk Show Hosts, and
the controlling apparatus of the party to be either deficient in
intellect or in excess of malice.

I did not state that I disliked O'Reilly. I simply stated that
conservatives were not in want of media outlets where they could
listen to their ideology being espoused. I rather like O'Reilly. I
believe he is by-and-large fair and seems to be a smart guy. I also
do not dispute that Reagan did far more than Obama has done and is
likely to do. I believe I mentioned that I DO believe there was a
message being sent in the award of this prize beyond Obama's
accomplishments.

Still Respectfully,
Paul

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 9:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

Hello Beanman
Done any fishing lately? How about a trip report or something on
flies, gear etc.? Something about conservation, or your favorite
river, good booze, whatever? Tax season is over. Winter is around the
corner. How about a trip report for the Gipper?
Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 9, 6:43*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
Hello Beanman
Done any fishing lately? How about a trip report or something on
flies, gear etc.? Something about conservation, or your favorite
river, good booze, whatever? Tax season is over. Winter is around the
corner. How about a trip report for the Gipper?
Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-10 17:03:18 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 1:26*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? *Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

"For now" has a threat to it.

Dave:
I do not threaten anyone. Ever. I have no reason to disrespect you.
I am perfectly capable of allowing for the fact that you disagree with
me and still might be a perfectly decent, yet of course misguided,
human being. The "for now" was more an allusion to the reality that I
have noticed that occasionally some of these threads stray to the
absurd. Since we do not know one another, I just wanted to allow for
the possibility that I might have to adopt a less tactful tone. I am
sure it won't be necessary. I am currently enjoying the exchange.

I would find it difficult to join the Democratic Party (there is no
such thing as the Democrat Party...another silly tactic) as I am pro-
life to the degree of militancy and am fiscally conservative beyond
the bounds of any politician I am aware of in any party. While it may
seem that Ken Fortenberry and I may adopt similar stances on this and/
or other matters, I am pretty certain from the posts I have read, he
and I are miles apart philosophically. Even still, I can recognize
that he is coherent in his thought processes.

I am just saying that I have made the personal judgement that the lack
of intelligent thought in the controlling arm of the "conservative"
movement is astounding and I wish to have nothing to do with them. It
is an error in logic to assume I should join the Democratic Party
because I find Tea Party Protestors, Conservative Talk Show Hosts, and
the controlling apparatus of the party to be either deficient in
intellect or in excess of malice.

I did not state that I disliked O'Reilly. I simply stated that
conservatives were not in want of media outlets where they could
listen to their ideology being espoused. I rather like O'Reilly. I
believe he is by-and-large fair and seems to be a smart guy. I also
do not dispute that Reagan did far more than Obama has done and is
likely to do. I believe I mentioned that I DO believe there was a
message being sent in the award of this prize beyond Obama's
accomplishments.

Still Respectfully,
Paul

Fair enough.

Be well.

Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

not much to report...i have been gettin' skunked lately....
we have fished some awesome spots...not many bites..
landed a few small brookies...beautiful colors...we have spent
some time getting the whaler set up, oiled the teak..took
it out on 3 - 6 sessions at the local lake...she seems to be running
fine...i expect to upgrade the 225 ob to 250 this year...that ought
to give it a nice reserve of power ... and still be pretty quick up
here on the lakes...nice fishing platform for the time being....

not much else to report, other than my dad died last week...after
years of having parkenson's (sp?) ....

cheers

outt....

ps: gettin a new color 3d (sidways sonar) fishfinder this season...i
will
do the install on the whaler and have it ready for spring........






On Oct 10, 4:08*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 9, 6:43*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
Hello Beanman
Done any fishing lately? How about a trip report or something on
flies, gear etc.? Something about conservation, or your favorite
river, good booze, whatever? Tax season is over. Winter is around the
corner. How about a trip report for the Gipper?
Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 10-Oct-2009, jeff wrote:

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with petty purposes and ideas. i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee...

i'm incredibly proud of obama......

though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim g) in recent months who are willing to express
their dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.


I concur
Especially w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.

I was hoping that as the first man of color as our Prez that he would reach
out to the other world leadrers in countries like Iran, N Korea and some
third world countries and at least make a few peaceful overtures,...
We shall see but whatever happens Its still better than seeing and hearing
the outright lies & bs from the previous reprobates

Fred

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

http://www.missourah.com/2009/09/15/...sm-flow-chart/

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-10 19:21:09 -0400, "Fred" said:

I concur
Especiall w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Fred, you don't live up to the Nobel Prize. It is given for things you
have already done. Do you think they would give the Science Prize to
my wife if she said she could make light travel faster? That would be
one hell of a discovery. The same holds true for the Peace Prize. My
wife can't make light travel faster than God meant it to travel, and
Obama has done nothing to bring peace to the world. Reagan did more.

Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

David LaCourse wrote:
"Fred" said:
I concur
Especiall w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Fred, you don't live up to the Nobel Prize. It is given for things you
have already done. Do you think they would give the Science Prize to my
wife if she said she could make light travel faster? That would be one
hell of a discovery. The same holds true for the Peace Prize. My wife
can't make light travel faster than God meant it to travel, and Obama
has done nothing to bring peace to the world. Reagan did more.

Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee which awards the Peace Prize has
a longstanding reputation for awarding potential. Look at the
recent winners. The 1984 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
Desmond Tutu for his fight against apartheid. Apartheid didn't
end until 1994. To say that the Peace Price adheres to the
same standard as the "Science Prize" is a display of laughable
ignorance. Especially since there is no Nobel "Science Prize".

You're a moron, Louie. And I'm done with you.

--
Ken Fortenberry

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 10-Oct-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Dave

I stick by this because the way the world and planet is headed is not
promising for my grandchildren
who are the red headed apples of my eyes

Obama - I thought represented a nice chamge
Whether it will happen or not depends on many factors most out of our
control (we differ here)

so not to belabor any points .. We have our grandcildren, we have our
animals & foul
We have water and fish
and deer all around if necessary

....and the means to protect what we have...
I think that is the best that I can do for my family

The way we were headed was Cheney's war in Iran
And pls note that wars are for money$$$$$ greed and usually little else

Ya kniow *I fish to forget this ****!
I play musuic becaues it takes me away also

Sincerely (always to Dave)
Fred

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 8:11*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:


There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

To put a somewhat finer point on it, they are not interested in ideas
at all.

I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does. *The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club. *(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sounds
a little childish.

Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

What an international organization is doing isn't quite as clear to me
as it seems to be to you.....let alone their motivation for doing so.
However, let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that your
assessment is correct. That makes the Nobel committee about as
puerile (though not quite so reprehensible) as those whom they seek to
criticise without having the balls to state clearly, simply, and
unequivocally that Bush et al. were, and remain, a pack of pigs.
Meanwhile, a comprehensive record of Mr. Obama's foregin policy
successes and failures remains to be written.....should take about
another three and a half or seven and a half years if I understand the
rudiments of national government in this country.

I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

Don't hold your breath.

giles

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 9:17*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:





On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. *Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. *Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" *He should have used the word
hypocricy.

*I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

*(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. *He hasn't done anything. *
He's still campaigning.



Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sounds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.



Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. *Correct.



I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Idiot.

Pig,

Filth.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

Moron.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 1:26*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
" Respectfully (for now), *Paul *"

ha...i'll give that a week or two.......

You don't think so???? *Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)

"For now" has a threat to it.

Dumbass.

Pig.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 4:03*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:

...While it may
seem that Ken Fortenberry and I may adopt similar stances on this and/
or other matters, I am pretty certain from the posts I have read, he
and I are miles apart philosophically. *Even still, I can recognize
that he is coherent in his thought processes....

Ah, the proverbial fly in the ointment! A positive indicator of
faulty judgment based on a misidentification of thinly disguised
bull****. Too bad; up till now much of what you've written had the
appearance of rationality.....well, apart from the still unexplained
nonsense about disconnects, etc.

giles
who won't hold his breath waiting for expansion or explication.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 1:25*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 12:07:15 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:





On Oct 10, 9:17*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of
*t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. *Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. *W
hy
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" *He should have used the word
hypocricy.

*I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

*(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. *He hasn't done anything.
*
He's still campaigning.

Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sou
nds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.

Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what i
t
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. *Corr
ect.

I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave

Wrong on all counts. *Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence.

It is not just them. *The entire liberal part of the Dem Party is just
as you described Rove.

*What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. *This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. *The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. *What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.

Then you should continue your hypocrisy *and join the Democrat Party. *
You will feel right at home. *Rove is NOT any representative of mine. *
He holds no office.



There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. *Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. *They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.

SO WHAT? *Are they not representatives of their people? *They should
act like their PEOPLE want them to act, not according to some rule that
you have set up.



If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?

No. *He does NOT deserve the prize. *He has PROMISED *to do all the
things the Norwegian want him to do, but he has done nothing. *How in
the hell can you accept a Peace Prize in one hand and stamp the ok to
up the forces in Afghanistan by another 30k or so with the other. *
That's the problem of ALL politicians - they promise everything for
everyone and do nothing for all.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it?

What the hell does Limbaugh and Hannity have to do with this? *Reagan
DID defeat the Soviet Union - brought them to their knees - brought
down the Berlin Wall - freed millions of people from Communist
domination. *All far more than Obama has done. *Obama's party OWNS both
houses of Congress. *If he can't get something done it is because of
his LACK of leadership.

Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize?

Well, duh. *Read everything I've said. *He hasn't done SQUAT, just promises.

Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.

Huh?



Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. *Seriously? *If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. *That certainly does not qualify.

Your arguments are naive at best. *We are talking about a president who
HIMSELF said, "I won WHAT?" *He knows he doesn't deserve it. *You and
Fortenberry seem to think he does. *Vanilla Strawberry (at best).



Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. *When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?

Fox News is not considered the MAIN media because it is cable news. *
While they beat every other news source on cable, they are still not
the news broadcast over your local news networks. *No one watches the
main networks because they (we) are tired of the bias. *Everyone
complains about Bill O'Reiley, yet when I watched him a couple of years
ago, he was slicing and dicing George Bush. *Now he is doing the same
to Obama *when he sees wrong.* *Limbaugh is an entertainer. *Nothing
more. *Yet the left is scared to death of him. *Silly if you ask me. *
He is a nothing.

They estimate at least 300,000 people marched on DC during the Tea
Party. *No one was arrested. *There was no trash to pick up. *Yet the
"main" media didn't cover it at first, and then when they did, then
said a "few thousand" demonstrated. *they were very "rowdy", and it
should be unlawful to do what they did. *IOW, bias reporting

Respectfully (for now),

Paul

If you can not remain respectfull, don't threaten me with your future
lack of it

Just plain old,


Good god, you are just plain stupid.

Well, that and evil.

Imbecile.

Pig.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 3:48*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors
wrote:





On Oct 10, 9:17*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:

On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. *Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. *Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" *He should have used the word
hypocricy.

*I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

*(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. *He hasn't done anything. *
He's still campaigning.

Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sounds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.

Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. *Correct.

I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave

Wrong on all counts. *Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence. *What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. *This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. *The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. *What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.

There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. *Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. *They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.

If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?
Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it? *Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize? *Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.

Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. *Seriously? *If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. *That certainly does not qualify.

Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. *When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?

Respectfully (for now),
Paul

That's all well and good, but I think y'all are not considering the practical
reality of this. *For example, it is highly suspicious that an operative from
the Nobel committee has been dispatched to the US to teach Kanye West how to say
"MAMMA MIA! *ABBA not only ROCKS, but they rule!" in Swedish...and while Bruno
has said he's, er, ready to fly, Eminem has said, "**** YOU! *I'M NOT GETTING A
FACEFUL OF SOME SWEDISH FAG'S ASS!!!"...

HTH,
R
...I mean, after not even Chuck Schumer would show up for the media blitz
surrounding the award of the "World Cocktail Meatball Cookoff" host city, they
had to do SOMETHING

Moron.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 6:56*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 19:21:09 -0400, "Fred" said:

I concur
Especiall w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Fred, you don't live up to the Nobel Prize. *It is given for things you
have already done. *Do you think they would give the Science Prize to
my wife if she said she could make light travel faster? *That would be
one hell of a discovery. *The same holds true for the Peace Prize. *My
wife can't make light travel faster than God meant it to travel, and
Obama has done nothing to bring peace to the world.

Hm.....not stupid. Who are you?

Reagan did more.

Never mind.

Idiot.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 10, 9:49*pm, "Fred" wrote:
On 10-Oct-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

*I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Dave

I stick by this because the way the world and planet is headed is not
promising for my grandchildren
who are the red headed apples of my eyes

Obama - I thought represented a nice chamge
Whether it will happen or not depends on many factors most out of our
control (we differ here)

so not to belabor any points .. We have our grandcildren, we have our
animals & foul
We have water and fish
and deer all around if necessary

...and the means to protect what we have...
I think that is the best that I can do for my family

You should visit Earth sometime.

The way we were headed was Cheney's war in Iran
And pls note that wars are for money$$$$$ greed and usually little else

Ya kniow *I fish to forget this ****!

And a fine job you are doing of it! :)

I play musuic becaues it takes me away also

Oh yeah.

Sincerely (always to Dave)

Twit.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-10 20:23:22 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

David LaCourse wrote:
"Fred" said:
I concur
Especiall w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Fred, you don't live up to the Nobel Prize. It is given for things you
have already done. Do you think they would give the Science Prize to
my wife if she said she could make light travel faster? That would be
one hell of a discovery. The same holds true for the Peace Prize. My
wife can't make light travel faster than God meant it to travel, and
Obama has done nothing to bring peace to the world. Reagan did more.

Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee which awards the Peace Prize has
a longstanding reputation for awarding potential. Look at the
recent winners. The 1984 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
Desmond Tutu for his fight against apartheid.

"for his fight against apartheid." He DID something. You say so
yourself. He fought apartheid, went to jail for it, organized others
to fight it. He didn't just talk about it or say, "I have this idea."
You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Obama is all talk.
Tutu DID something. Asshole.

Apartheid didn't
end until 1994. To say that the Peace Price adheres to the
same standard as the "Science Prize" is a display of laughable
ignorance. Especially since there is no Nobel "Science Prize".

Me bad. Make that Nobel Prize in Physics. As a Nobel Prize, it
adheres to the same regulations as the Peace Prize. And, you know damn
well what I meant. No prize for Joanne - none for Obama. Neither of
them have done what they SAID they could/would do. It's political,
Ken, and the quicker you understand that, the better off ALL of us will
be.

You're a moron, Louie. And I'm done with you.

Well, perhaps so..... but I am a happy and wealthy moron who fishes a
helluva lot more than you. And, if you were really, really done with
me, OH how much happier would I be.

Louie (aka Dave, moron, idiot, pig, filth, and any other name you want
to call me)

d;o)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-10 22:49:55 -0400, "Fred" said:


On 10-Oct-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Dave

I stick by this because the way the world and planet is headed is not
promising for my grandchildren
who are the red headed apples of my eyes

Obama - I thought represented a nice chamge
Whether it will happen or not depends on many factors most out of our
control (we differ here)

so not to belabor any points .. We have our grandcildren, we have our
animals & foul
We have water and fish
and deer all around if necessary

...and the means to protect what we have...
I think that is the best that I can do for my family

The way we were headed was Cheney's war in Iran
And pls note that wars are for money$$$$$ greed and usually little else

Ya kniow *I fish to forget this ****!
I play musuic becaues it takes me away also

Sincerely (always to Dave)
Fred

Nice feelings, Fred, but Obama STILL hasn't done anything, and
everything pre-Obama is still in place - Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan (we
are now losing that fight), housing mess, banking mess, a deficit that
is higher than anyone ever thought it could be. Someone is making a
helluva lot of money, and it ain't Cheney.

Go fishing, Fred. I am - NC this morning.

Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:51:36 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:



for more than a year prior to feb 2009, obama gave clear indications of
his positions, philosophies, and character (for those willing to read
and listen)...enough that my wife and i independent of one another took
notice, hoped he would announce as a candidate, and then began our
active support. something we'd not done with any heartfelt enthusiasm
since our 20s. i doubt we were the only ones affected in this way.

No, you weren't. Unfortunately, he didn't give clear indications of much of
anything (good or bad). Which, at least for me, makes the utter polarization
surrounding him all the more sad and strange. Neither you, as a fairly
well-spoken, general-purpose supporter, or me, as a somewhat skeptical, "devil's
advocate," kinda guy (or even Forty, as a paradoxically wild-eyed-but-blind,
frothing-at-the-mouth rabid fan and Louie, as a drooling right-wing Rush
Glenbeck-listening loony) can really support, with substantive and objective
proof, a strong case for OR against.

he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009.

No, he really hasn't. But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...

i just don't understand the schadenfreude for obama that some have...

I don't either - thus far, he really hasn't done or accomplished much of
anything - from any standpoint. A ban on guns? Nope. A rise in taxes? Nope.
Gay atheist Muslim dope-smoking liberal hippie commies encouraging grade-school
kids to use condoms for unnatural sex in Heartland, Kansas? Nope. The Abortion
Czar putting PETA supporters at every mall with a coathanger? Not even close.
"Christmas (or Hanukkah) - no, Kwanzaa (or Ramadan) - yes." Hardly. Are Bush,
Cheney, and the CIA being investigated? Nop...er, ye...er, nop...er, ye....er,
nop...well, maybe...or not...

Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)

IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed

unless they simply acknowledge being a rascist.

Hmmm...what about when certain sectors (and I mean sectors of races, not entire
races) of the various... um.... non-(half)white people blamed _everything_ on
white people...? Was that not "racist?" As an aside, is a rascist anything
like a facist?

i'll wager though that of all the nobel recipients, he
is easily the most recognizable and best-known in the world.

Except, apparently, in Poland...

And your statement above is a pretty good indication of what I feel is the whole
problem - "Americancentricism." And note that I did not write "Americentric" or
similar.

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with petty purposes and ideas.

Um, who exactly is "we"...?

i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee.

What makes you think he is "admired and respected" by "world leaders?"

i'm incredibly proud of obama...he's doing a terrific job as president
under the worst of circumstances.

OK. Please give examples of why you feel he is doing a terrific job.

though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim g) in recent months who are willing to express
their dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.

I'm curious - when Obama said he didn't deserve it, did you feel that he was
being honest, falsely modest, disingenuous, or ??? And if you feel he was being
honest, why do you disagree with him? IOW, why do you feel that he does deserve
it when he honestly disagrees with you?


jeff

TC,
R

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

Why stop at the Nobel peace prize?

I Would Like to Nominate Barak Obama for the Heisman Trophy.
Or at least the Navy Cross...... how about the Eagle scout badge?
How bout a blue ribbon for the best pie?


Let's give him a birth certificate and make him an honorary
American citizen.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-10 20:23:22 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

David LaCourse wrote:
"Fred" said:
I concur
Especiall w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Fred, you don't live up to the Nobel Prize. It is given for things you
have already done. Do you think they would give the Science Prize to
my wife if she said she could make light travel faster? That would be
one hell of a discovery. The same holds true for the Peace Prize. My
wife can't make light travel faster than God meant it to travel, and
Obama has done nothing to bring peace to the world. Reagan did more.

Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee which awards the Peace Prize has
a longstanding reputation for awarding potential. Look at the
recent winners. The 1984 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
Desmond Tutu for his fight against apartheid. Apartheid didn't
end until 1994. To say that the Peace Price adheres to the
same standard as the "Science Prize" is a display of laughable
ignorance. Especially since there is no Nobel "Science Prize".

You're a moron, Louie. And I'm done with you.

d;o) Which means I WIN! Thanks. Now, go try some of that stale
cheese (probably in a jar) and that sour whine you always accuse others
of drinking.

Davey

(PS: When Jo does invent the light accellorator, we will put on the
patent that one Kenneth Fortenberry may not benefit from it. That'll
show ya. And we won't invite ya to Oslo either. Asshole.

d;o)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On 2009-10-11 20:54:38 -0400, jeff said:


"give peace a chance"

Hmmmmm. We've had 9 months of "give" so far, and peace in the near
future seems to be more rare than a snowball in hell. He has NOT
closed Gitmo. Why? Because it IS the logical place to keep captured
combatants. We are still in Iraq and now the enemy seems emboldened to
continue that war. We are losing in Afghanistan and it does not look
like he is going to take his generals advice. Even some of his
staunchest allies have told him to act quickly with getting those 40k
troops in country. But he seems indecisive, unsure. He can certainly
talk a good show, but so far in 9 months, having both Houses with a
decidedly Dem advantage, he has done little.

It seems to me (and to many of my friends, both Dem and Repub) that
Pelosi and Reid are running the show. THEY seem more powerful than he.

Also, he has not addressed the unrest in this country. The 300,000
people that marched on DC recently was unaswered by him and most of the
press. Why is that? If he is THEIR president, he has to answer.
Those people were voting Americans, many whom had voted for him, and
many others who were Dems. A protest of that size should not go
unnoticed.

The Nobel Prize is a political one and you should know that, Jeff.
Yassar Arafat a Nobel winner? Gimme a break. He was one of the
biggest non-peace keepers in the world. Reagan opened the Iron
Curtain, saw the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and the demise of the
Soviet Union and he didn't win it? Politics and agenda. The Peace
Prize is a farce.

I am happy that you are proud of him. I wish I could be. But, he must
DO something first, not give me a bunch of promises and words. He's
still stumping the hustings, campaigning. Someone has to tell him that
the "I inherited this" is over and that he has to do something instead
of bitch and moan like Fortenberry.

In other news: Joanne and I have just about settled on a beautiful
home on a ridge in North Georgia with an unbelievable view from south
to north overlooking several smaller ridges and two or three mountain
ranges. They just seem to keep on coming as you look west. The sunset
is beautiful. The home is in a gated community surrounded by the
Chattahoochee Nat'l Forest. Dukes Creek is around the corner, with
Fontana Lake about an hour and a half away. We'll keep the Yankee home
and use (hopefully) this one in the winter.

Dave

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 11, 6:57*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 20:23:22 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:





David LaCourse wrote:
"Fred" said:
I concur
Especiall w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Fred, you don't live up to the Nobel Prize. *It is given for things you
have already done. *Do you think they would give the Science Prize to
my wife if she said she could make light travel faster? *That would be
one hell of a discovery. *The same holds true for the Peace Prize. *My
wife can't make light travel faster than God meant it to travel, and
Obama has done nothing to bring peace to the world. *Reagan did more..

Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee which awards the Peace Prize has
a longstanding reputation for awarding potential. Look at the
recent winners. The 1984 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
Desmond Tutu for his fight against apartheid.

"for his fight against apartheid." *He DID something. *You say so
yourself. *He fought apartheid, went to jail for it, organized others
to fight it. *He didn't just talk about it or say, "I have this idea." *
You don't know what the hell you are talking about. *Obama is all talk.
*Tutu DID something. *Asshole.

Apartheid didn't
end until 1994. To say that the Peace Price adheres to the
same standard as the "Science Prize" is a display of laughable
ignorance. Especially since there is no Nobel "Science Prize".

Me bad. *Make that Nobel Prize in Physics. *As a Nobel Prize, it
adheres to the same regulations as the Peace Prize. *And, you know damn
well what I meant. *No prize for Joanne - none for Obama. *Neither of
them have done what they SAID they could/would do. *It's political,
Ken, and the quicker you understand that, the better off ALL of us will
be.

You're a moron, Louie. And I'm done with you.

Well, perhaps so..... but I am a happy and wealthy moron who fishes a
helluva lot more than you. *And, *if you were really, really done with
me, OH how much happier would I be.

Louie *(aka Dave, moron, idiot, pig, filth, and any other name you want
to call me)

Imbecile.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 11, 1:01*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
Why stop at the Nobel peace prize?

I Would Like to Nominate Barak Obama for the Heisman Trophy.
Or at least the Navy Cross...... how about the Eagle scout badge?
How bout a blue ribbon for the best pie?

Let's give him a birth certificate and make him an honorary
American citizen.

Moron.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 11, 7:01*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 22:49:55 -0400, "Fred" said:







On 10-Oct-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

I hope that Obama can live up to it.

Dave

I stick by this because the way the world and planet is headed is not
promising for my grandchildren
who are the red headed apples of my eyes

Obama - I thought represented a nice chamge
Whether it will happen or not depends on many factors most out of our
control (we differ here)

so not to belabor any points .. We have our grandcildren, we have our
animals & foul
We have water and fish
and deer all around if necessary

...and the means to protect what we have...
I think that is the best that I can do for my family

The way we were headed was Cheney's war in Iran
And pls note that wars are for money$$$$$ greed and usually little else

Ya kniow *I fish to forget this ****!
I play musuic becaues it takes me away also

Sincerely (always to Dave)
Fred

Nice feelings, Fred, but Obama STILL hasn't done anything, and
everything pre-Obama is still in place - Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan (we
are now losing that fight), housing mess, banking mess, a deficit that
is higher than anyone ever thought it could be. *Someone is making a
helluva lot of money, and it ain't Cheney.

Idiot.

Go fishing, Fred. *I am - NC this morning.

Hm.....

Pig.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 11, 9:34*am, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:51:36 -0400, jeff wrote:
wrote:

for more than a year prior to feb 2009, obama gave clear indications of
his positions, philosophies, and character (for those willing to read
and listen)...enough that my wife and i independent of one another took
notice, hoped he would announce as a candidate, and then began our
active support. something we'd not done with any heartfelt enthusiasm
since our 20s. i doubt we were the only ones affected in this way.

No, you weren't. *Unfortunately, he didn't give clear indications of much of
anything (good or bad).

Unlike you, huh?

Which, at least for me, makes the utter polarization
surrounding him all the more sad and strange. *Neither you, as a fairly
well-spoken, general-purpose supporter, or me, as a somewhat skeptical, "devil's
advocate,"

Third grade moron.

kinda guy (or even Forty, as a paradoxically wild-eyed-but-blind,
frothing-at-the-mouth rabid fan and Louie, as a drooling right-wing Rush
Glenbeck-listening loony) can really support, with substantive and objective
proof, a strong case for OR against.


Rereading that after typing it kinda makes you wonder what life would
be like if you actually had something to say, ainna?

he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009. *

No, he really hasn't. *But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...

We can hardly wait. :)

i just don't understand the schadenfreude for obama that some have...

I don't either - thus far, he really hasn't done or accomplished much of
anything - from any standpoint. *A ban on guns? *Nope. *A rise in taxes? *Nope.
Gay atheist Muslim dope-smoking liberal hippie commies encouraging grade-school
kids to use condoms for unnatural sex in Heartland, Kansas? *Nope. *The Abortion
Czar putting PETA supporters at every mall with a coathanger? *Not even close.
"Christmas (or Hanukkah) - no, Kwanzaa (or Ramadan) - yes." *Hardly. *Are Bush,
Cheney, and the CIA being investigated? Nop...er, ye...er, nop...er, ye.....er,
nop...well, maybe...or not...

Moron. Tedious moron.

Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed

And......how do you feel about all of that?

unless they simply acknowledge being a rascist.

Hmmm...what about when certain sectors (and I mean sectors of races, not entire
races) of the various... um.... non-(half)white people blamed _everything_ on
white people...? *Was that not "racist?" *As an aside, is a rascist anything
like a facist?

Well, probably not as much as imbecile is like idiot.

i'll wager though that of all the nobel recipients, he
is easily the most recognizable and best-known in the world.

Except, apparently, in Poland...

Ah! An authority! Tell us more.....please.

And your statement above is a pretty good indication of what I feel is the whole
problem - "Americancentricism." *And note that I did not write "Americentric" or
similar.

I noted that you didn't write "Shoofngrangle." Does that count?

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with *petty purposes and ideas.

Um, who exactly is "we"...?

Look in your pants. You may safely refer to anyone or anything
resembling what you see there as "we."

i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee.

What makes you think he is "admired and respected" by "world leaders?"

What makes you think he isn't?

i'm incredibly proud of obama...he's doing a terrific job as president
under the worst of circumstances.

OK. *Please give examples of why you feel he is doing a terrific job.

Please give examples of why you feel that we should believe you think.

though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim g) in recent months who are willing to express
their dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. *it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.

I'm curious

No, that is one thing you are not, have never been, and never will be.

when Obama said he didn't deserve it, did you feel that he was
being honest, falsely modest, disingenuous, or ???

What did you think about it?

And if you feel he was being
honest, why do you disagree with him? *IOW, why do you feel that he does deserve
it when he honestly disagrees with you?

Why do you feel whatever the hell you feel?

Moron.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Oct 11, 9:07*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-11 20:54:38 -0400, jeff said:

"give peace a chance"

Hmmmmm. *We've had 9 months of "give" so far, and peace in the near
future seems to be more rare than a snowball in hell. *He has NOT
closed Gitmo. *Why? *Because it IS the logical place to keep captured
combatants. *We are still in Iraq and now the enemy seems emboldened to
continue that war. *We are losing in Afghanistan and it does not look
like he is going to take his generals advice. *Even some of his
staunchest allies have told him to act quickly with getting those 40k
troops in country. *But he seems indecisive, unsure. *He can certainly
talk a good show, but so far in 9 months, *having both Houses with a
decidedly Dem advantage, he has done little.

It seems to me (and to many of my friends, both Dem and Repub) that
Pelosi and Reid are running the show. *THEY seem more powerful than he.

Also, he has not addressed the unrest in this country. *The 300,000
people that marched on DC recently was unaswered by him and most of the
press. *Why is that? *If he is THEIR president, he has to answer. *
Those people were voting Americans, many whom had voted for him, and
many others who were Dems. *A protest of that size should not go
unnoticed.

The Nobel Prize is a political one and you should know that, Jeff. *
Yassar Arafat a Nobel winner? *Gimme a break. *He was one of the
biggest non-peace keepers in the world. *Reagan opened the Iron
Curtain, saw the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and the demise of the
Soviet Union and he didn't win it? *Politics and agenda. *The Peace
Prize is a farce.

I am happy that you are proud of him. *I wish I could be. *But, he must
DO something first, not give me a bunch of promises and words. *He's
still stumping the hustings, campaigning. *Someone has to tell him that
the "I inherited this" is over and that he has to do something instead
of bitch and moan like Fortenberry.

In other news: *Joanne and I have just about settled on a beautiful
home on a ridge in North Georgia with an unbelievable view from south
to north overlooking several smaller ridges and two or three mountain
ranges. *They just seem to keep on coming as you look west. *The sunset
is beautiful. *The home is in a gated community surrounded by the
Chattahoochee Nat'l Forest. *Dukes Creek is around the corner, with
Fontana Lake about an hour and a half away. *We'll keep the Yankee home
and use (hopefully) this one in the winter.

Idiot.

Pig.

g.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-11 20:54:38 -0400, jeff said:


"give peace a chance"


In other news: Joanne and I have just about settled on a beautiful home
on a ridge in North Georgia with an unbelievable view from south to
north overlooking several smaller ridges and two or three mountain
ranges. They just seem to keep on coming as you look west. The sunset
is beautiful. The home is in a gated community surrounded by the
Chattahoochee Nat'l Forest. Dukes Creek is around the corner, with
Fontana Lake about an hour and a half away. We'll keep the Yankee home
and use (hopefully) this one in the winter.

Dave


great...look forward to having you as a seasonal neighbor... rachel and
i still hope to do something with our land in graham county...but still
mired down east.

jeff

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:54:38 -0400, jeff wrote:

wrote:

First and foremost, since you seem to have put some thought into a reply, and
done so (seemingly) seriously, reasonably and courteously, I wanted to return
the favor, if you will. Please note that this was written as I've had a spare
moment here and there, over a couple of days, since your reply - I've tried to
edit/proofread, but I've probably missed some things.

he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009.

No, he really hasn't. But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...

well...yes, he really has. he began a movement...a sea-change in ideas
and ideals and politics.

Among who? How? Can you give some examples of this "sea-change"? Now, if you
mean that "liberals" are now fans of the POTUS and "conservatives" aren't, sure,
but that's not Obama, that's politics. It seems there has been very little
change in politics or ideas, only a change in who is in the majority and pushing
their own agendas. And yep, if McCain had won (other than with perhaps my
hoped-for-but-unrealistic McCain/Obama ticket), there would not have been
anything much new, either.

now, diplomacy is different.

It is? How?

UN policy and talk is decidedly different.

Are you serious? The only thing most of those heavily involved with UN are
interested in is having a continued tit to suck. Look no further than all the
shtick with al-Qaddafi and the tent and, what, the second or third major
walk-out over the Ahmedinejad, Israel, and the Holocaust? The UN, for the most
part, is a ****in' circus.

foreign relations are different.

Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Israel, for example...? Or are you
referring to the fact that the government of France hasn't been quite as bitchy
for a few months?

appreciation of civil rights, individual liberties, constitutional rights are
different.

The Dem-controlled Senate - specifically, AHEM, the Judiciary Committee - just
started the process to renew substantial portions of the Patriot Act...at the
behest of and with the support of the Obama administration...and Obama wanted to
be able to "seize the Internet" or some such nonsense. Frankly, it seems to me
that those on the left are willing to let other lefties **** them, but bristle
when they think the right is trying to do it. I would offer as a instant
example Obama's recent speech, but lack of overall action, on the whole "gay
rights" issue. Look, I don't understand the whole "gay marriage" thing, but I
can't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same right to be unhappy as
straight folks... Seriously, though, why is a secular national government even
involved in or concerned with who marries who versus "civil unions"?

torture policies are different.

AHA! So that's what he's done with "Don't ask, don't tell"...

I'd offer that if you think what you'd consider "torture" has stopped under
Obama, I think you'd be sadly disappointed. And I'd offer as evidence his
endorsement of certain US Army manuals. They allow things that would be
considered "torture" under the same guidelines used to classify water-boarding
"torture".

integrity of decision-making is different.

Here, I substantially disagree. While Bush's decisions weren't always right, he
did tend to stick by both them and his people. And while I understand the
argument that if it appears from reasonable and credible evidence that one has
made a "wrong" decision, changing one's mind would make sense. Unfortunately,
many of the decisions a President must make are difficult ones and aren't ones
such that lend themselves to "instant (reasonable) feedback." And thus far with
Obama, I don't see a lot of decision-making of any kind.

honest statements to the public...different.

Um, do you mean different lies or ??? Assuming you mean to imply that Obama is
more honest than past presidents, what about "transparency"? Howsabout time for
public input on major legislation? Closing Gitmo? Troops out of Iraq? How
about just being honest about a friggin' trip to Copenhagen?

economic push, different.

Two words - Ben Bernanke.

regard for the balance of power between branches of govt...different.

Actually, all POTUS' since Nixon/Ford have been doing is taking back some of the
power "snatched" by Congress in the wake of Watergate. And Obama certainly
hasn't done anything to reverse the trend. And I suspect that if he could do
some more, um, "snatching" with regard to Pelosi, Reid, Sessions, and a few
others, he wouldn't hesitate for a second.

appointment of federal judges...way, way different (and better...g)

Again, I disagree. Sotomayor gives no evidence of being a serious legal scholar
of any stripe, or even a particularly "even" and (merely) competent jurist.

talking about the facts
instead of creating facts to talk about...huge difference.

Well, I will grant you that he certainly does a lot of talking...

he's restored pride to a substantial segment of the population that felt lost, left
out, used, taken for granted, and burdened.

Um, who, exactly?

he can speak intelligently, powerfully...inspiring folks...way different.

Again, his speech-making can and will only do much - sooner or later, he's gonna
need to quit talking about what he's gonna do and do _something_ - accomplish
_something_ substantial - that he promised he'd accomplish...

there is a sense of integrity, honor, and truth. there is a recognition of the value of
other cultures and different perspectives. his efforts for a nuclear
weapon-free world. (or nukular) he's black. just look at how he was
received here and in other countries in 2008... why do you think that
happened?

The media, including the Internet "media." It's also why Paris Hilton is, well,
Paris Hilton. And if his racial makeup is important (I'm not sure why it would
be important as to policy, etc. but...), he's not "black," he's half-black and
half-white. That in and of itself isn't particularly important to his handling
of substantive issues, but it is important that you, like most people, seem to
forget it. Well, "forget it" isn't quite right, but when you point out his
racial makeup, you are inaccurate about it. Based upon his actual racial
makeup, why would you not say, "he's white"? It is just as accurate.

i just don't understand the schadenfreude for obama that some have...

I don't either - thus far, he really hasn't done or accomplished much of
anything - from any standpoint. A ban on guns? Nope. A rise in taxes? Nope.
Gay atheist Muslim dope-smoking liberal hippie commies encouraging grade-school
kids to use condoms for unnatural sex in Heartland, Kansas? Nope. The Abortion
Czar putting PETA supporters at every mall with a coathanger? Not even close.
"Christmas (or Hanukkah) - no, Kwanzaa (or Ramadan) - yes." Hardly. Are Bush,
Cheney, and the CIA being investigated? Nop...er, ye...er, nop...er, ye....er,
nop...well, maybe...or not...

folks want him to fail,

Some do, yes. Most don't. IMO, the vast majority of those in the US (and
really, the world) don't want _any_ major leader who (generally) mirrors their
(general) views to "fail." Basic nature and decency aside, it's just not in
their interest.

want to find fault.

Why was it, for some, so "patriotic" to question every move Bush made, every
word he uttered, but it's only the insert ad hominem here that would question
_anything_ Obama does or says? Are you suggesting he has done nothing with
which anyone could/should objectively find fault?

go out of their way to condemn him. ...and, of course, it's all his fault.

See above.

are you saying he's not tried in any meaningful, substantive, and honest way to implement or
initiate important change?

Not tried? There's not really enough information to determine that. I will say
that there is very little evidence that he has really tried to implement
important change. Take, for example, his "transparency, ""public review period"
and "no lobbyist" promises. These are things over which he has more-or-less
complete control, and yet, no real change in spite of all the talking about
them.

what do you think he should have done, or
done differently? pick something...and talk about his efforts
objectively as the executive branch...

See immediately above.


Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)

tell me...what has he done to cause the divide...other than be black? my
take is he's bent over backwards to try to find consensus, to encourage
discussion and compromise. ken and others may be right...perhaps he
should just say screw the repubs and push the agenda. i don't think so.
i like his approach.

Again, he's not "black," but that aside, for one, he could have provided a copy
of his birth certificate. From a purely objective standpoint, if an employee
has to prove citizenship to get a job in the US, an alleged citizen has to prove
it to get Medicare, etc., why shouldn't he? IOW, why is the demand of an
employer to see proof of citizenship improper? I fully realize the touchiness
of that topic, but objectively, why not end the controversy and do what,
technically, is a legal requirement (and I'll grant that I'm not sure whether
the "short-form" already bandied about would suffice or not)? If you want more
examples, I can provide them, but that is one of the simplest for him to
dispel/clear up and "heal the divide," if you will. And it would have the added
benefit of shutting up the truly out-there "birthers" or whatever they are
called. OTOH, if he doesn't actually want to "heal the divide" and shut up the
loons for his own political reasons....


IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed


i haven't polled them either...but i'll go out on the same limb and say
more people in the world can tell you who obama is than can tell you who
herta muller is (and probably more than can identify william faulkner).

I;m not sure of your point, but I'd agree with the statement. IAC, how about
Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Wen Jiabao, Musharraf, Patil, Yudhoyono, Gandhi,
Muhammad, Allah/God (and no, I'm not comparing anything but numbers of people of
can identify them)? How about the various members of the Bachchan family
(including Aishwarya Rai, and again, simple name-recognition comparison)? David
Hasselhof, Jerry Lewis, Posh and Becks or whatever they are called?

think back on his speech in germany...his visits to other
countries...the muslim world reaction... i think you understate the
general view of world leaders ... russia, china, us, uk, israel, middle
east, etc., and their political systems and populaces.

Oh, there's no doubt the media whipped some in Europe into the same tizzy into
which they whipped those in the US (and you'll note you're referring to yet
_another_ speech), but I think you are the one who is misreading world leaders
in general, esp. "rulers." For example, Norway - while it is a perfectly nice
country with generally nice folks, I'm sure, it ain't exactly a "world power." I
think many "rulers" saw a novice, feel-good kinda guy from whom they could get
more of their way with than they could other of the potential choices (and that
includes Hillary Clinton). IOW, their glee was more at their chances than the
US'...and he has probably done more to damage the US' rep with our two
most-powerful allies in the Middle East - Israel and the Iranian _people_ - than
Bush did. And he hasn't done much to keep the heat on Pakistan's leadership,
either.

unless they simply acknowledge being a rascist.

Hmmm...what about when certain sectors (and I mean sectors of races, not entire
races) of the various... um.... non-(half)white people blamed _everything_ on
white people...? Was that not "racist?" As an aside, is a rascist anything
like a facist?

yeah, yeah...racist... and i don't think racists exist only in a
single color or race. still, i accept there is an historical and real
basis for the black hatred of whites in the u.s. - a basis or reason for
the emotion that i can't find an equal underpinning for with the white
racists...maybe you can explain it?

Oh, to be sure, there are still some sheet-cutting rednecks around who dislike
Obama simply because he's half-black (to them, any black in the racial makeup is
_black_ - hint, hint), and others who are just...well, not really "racist" in
the common phrasing, but "racist" in the general sense that most folks are more
comfortable with those "like them," be they "white," "black," "brown," "yellow,"
or whatever other keying term one uses. But I don't think the majority of those
who aren't as enamored of Obama as you feel the way they do because of race.
Which is another thing, IMO, he has failed to do - take a firm stand on the
issue. He (and the administration) allow supporters (and to a lesser extent,
surrogates) to label those opposed to his proposed policy(s), ideas, promises,
etc. as "racist." His proposals, stated ideas, etc. are generally pretty
standard left-ish Dem stuff, many of which any of the "usual suspects" would
propose and which most center-right-to-right "usual suspects" would oppose, all
regardless of respective "race." Simply put, he's using (and tacitly allowing
the use of) the charge of "racism" to foster a divide and attempt to make a
political advantage with it.

i'll wager though that of all the nobel recipients, he
is easily the most recognizable and best-known in the world.

Except, apparently, in Poland...

too obscure for me...but see above...

It was a reference to Lech Walesa and his comments, "Who?...." And you
might want to look over the list of winners. I would agree he is probably the
best-known of the 2009 nominees from the "western world." I'm not sure that's
what it was intended to be all about, though.


And your statement above is a pretty good indication of what I feel is the whole
problem - "Americancentricism." And note that I did not write "Americentric" or
similar.

don't get your meaning...but that's nothing new. please explain.

Well, read your own post. It's from the perspective of an "American," of
course, but it seems to indicate your belief that what an "American" believes or
thinks about Obama is what the world population believes or thinks. Why, for
example, would an "average worker" in China, India, Indonesia, etc., know or
care much about Obama or his policies, promises, "hope," etc.? To be sure, some
of the world populace thinks of "America" and what they perceive that it
represents _for them_, some good (ala "the American Dream") and some bad ("the
HQ of the infidels"). But I'd offer that most are pretty much agnostic about
it. Yet, "Americans" think that the thoughts of the world _population_ revolves
around "America." Again, to be sure, a portion of the world "ruling class" has
knowledge of it and does pay attention to a fair portion of "American" things,
but it is mostly out of self-interest as opposed to desire to be "American." The
Peace Prize is awarded by 5 people chosen by the Norwegian legislature - we're
not talking about, pardon the pun, a great council of "world leaders" or even a
large body of the world's peoples, yet "Americans" who support Obama want to
point to it as some vast affirmation of him by the world. And what are other
"leaders" supposed to say about his win? Of course they are gonna be diplomatic
about it, at least those who want something.

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with petty purposes and ideas.

Um, who exactly is "we"...?

we = u.s. public/society/culture

Oh. I thought you might mean all of mankind or something...just checking...and
see above, Americancentricism...

i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee.

What makes you think he is "admired and respected" by "world leaders?"

i think it based on my reading... and based on newscasts i've seen on
teevee.

Uh-oh. How much "world news" do you watch/follow?


i'm incredibly proud of obama...he's doing a terrific job as president
under the worst of circumstances.

OK. Please give examples of why you feel he is doing a terrific job.

see above... i trust you understand "worst of circumstances."

Where above? Are you referring to his speeches, teevee, or ???

though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim g) in recent months who are willing to express
their dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.

I'm curious - when Obama said he didn't deserve it, did you feel that he was
being honest, falsely modest, disingenuous, or ??? And if you feel he was being
honest, why do you disagree with him? IOW, why do you feel that he does deserve
it when he honestly disagrees with you?


i thought he was being genuine...a real and humble and honest human
being...who recognized the power of his symbol and his efforts, that
were being encouraged. i don't think i chimed in saying he did or did
not deserve it...the nobel committee, carrying out the will of alfred
nobel, decided he deserved it. the committee is comprised of
non-americancentrists, don't you agree? they've been in the business of
making selections since early 1900s. it's their job and their
choice...not yours or mine. we can debate our view of the merit of the
selection...but it ain't debatable that i'm proud of it and encouraged
by it.

Again, the Peace Prize is chosen by 5 people who themselves are chosen by the
Norwegian legislature. Let me ask you this, if 5 people chosen by the Senate or
the House "chose" to nuke, say, Belgium today, would you support it? Or let me
put it in real terms - since about 20 people chosen by the Senate, which was
supposedly chosen "by the people" (US) voted in support of the bulk of the
Patriot Act (with the support of Obama), will you state your unequivocal support
for that part brought forward?

i admit i was surprised. i believe i said i was proud and encouraged
that our president received the prize.

Why? What is it about the opinion of those 5 people that is so important _to
you_?

clearly, to me and based on the statements contained in nobel's will,
the prize is intended to recognize and encourage potential and the
possible effects of the selection. i think obama was perceived as
bringing a better sense of reason and balance to a precarious and
dangerous set of world circumstances.

Er, no. While it was not intended to be based solely on results, it was to
based upon efforts. Let me ask you this - if it is such a powerful motivational
tool, why not give it to all of the leaders in the Middle East every year until
there is peace? I mean, with such a powerful motivation for potential, it
wouldn't take but a couple of years, right?

jose merida (yeah, about as well known as jeff miller) said he thought
the prize to obama also "recognized the american people who dared to
vote for a change of the u.s. role in the world." perception can become
reality... "give peace a chance"

And you feel continuing the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan - neither of which
are really "wars" and neither of which is "winnable" by any side in a "warfare"
sense - is giving peace a chance?


jeff


TC,
R