| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
On the Nobel acceptance...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=news letter
And if I may be so bold, I'd suggest asking George Bush and Jimmy Carter, too. Regardless of politics, both men were faced with some pretty tough issues not of their own making, and while things might have been handled better, they could have been much, much worse (and the same is true of Obama - at the end of the day, things could be a whole ****potful of worse, both objectively and subjectively). And also at the end of the day, if the US is, in fact, "WE, the people...," and the whole idea is to reconcile as much as possible so as to lead to rational debate that then leads to a better US and world, it might be time to shelve partisan nonsense, at least for a few hours. It is often said that the sign of a successful compromise is that no one is particularly happy, but no one is particularly upset, either. I want Obama to be "successful" in his "mission of hope and change." IMO, the only way he will or can be is for as many people as, well, humanly possible to say, "He succeeded" even if they can't or won't say "I agreed with everything he did." And that will necessarily include those with differing views to his own and each others'. HTH, R |
On the Nobel acceptance...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:39:39 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=news letter And if I may be so bold, I'd suggest asking George Bush and Jimmy Carter, too. Regardless of politics, both men were faced with some pretty tough issues not of their own making, and while things might have been handled better, they could have been much, much worse (and the same is true of Obama - at the end of the day, things could be a whole ****potful of worse, both objectively and subjectively). And also at the end of the day, if the US is, in fact, "WE, the people...," and the whole idea is to reconcile as much as possible so as to lead to rational debate that then leads to a better US and world, it might be time to shelve partisan nonsense, at least for a few hours. Sounds like Brokaw has gone soft in the head. And SHRUB ?!?! Obama was awarded the prize, in part, for being the anti-Shrub. Why on earth would he **** on the Norwegians by taking that warmongering idiot to a Peace Prize ceremony ? Uh-huh. That's the spirit... I'd offer that Brokaw makes a pretty good case for using the Peace Prize - you know,the one that some say is supposed to be for intentions and promise and all that kinda stuff - to actually create a little of it. And if Obama is such a statesman/peacemaker/diplomat/all-around wonderful person, willing to extend his hand to all comers from around the world, extending it in such fashion so as to do the most good for the US internally doesn't seem such a strange thing to do. It is often said that the sign of a successful compromise is that no one is particularly happy, but no one is particularly upset, either. I want Obama to be "successful" in his "mission of hope and change." IMO, the only way he will or can be is for as many people as, well, humanly possible to say, "He succeeded" even if they can't or won't say "I agreed with everything he did." And that will necessarily include those with differing views to his own and each others'. Obama made a reputation in the Illinois Senate as a deal maker and a compromiser. One of his early campaign ads featured a GOP state senator who was happy to endorse Obama for precisely that reason. I can't discern any spirit of compromise whatsoever in the GOP lawmakers or their civilian nitwit Steele. The GOP strategy appears to be attack, delay, smear, spread fear and pray for 2010 to get here real soon now. I don't think it is humanly possible to compromise with folks who refuse to compromise. The somewhat amusing, mostly disheartening hypocrisy (and irony of the overall situation) of you making ad hominem attacks on those who you feel are making ad hominem attacks aside, Bush made a similar reputation as Governor of Texas. And I'd also remind you that the vast majority of the US population was also in favor of both "wars" at the outset of each. Bush's approval rating actually shot up some 15-20 points (from about 10 points higher than Obama's is now, 45-ish versus 55ish, to the mid-70s) with the outset of Iraq. And during the outset of Afghanistan, his approval rating was in the 80's. If nothing else, he was doing the bidding of his employers...you know, the same bunch that elected Obama. HTH, R |
On the Nobel acceptance...
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:39:39 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=news letter And if I may be so bold, I'd suggest asking George Bush and Jimmy Carter, too. Regardless of politics, both men were faced with some pretty tough issues not of their own making, and while things might have been handled better, they could have been much, much worse (and the same is true of Obama - at the end of the day, things could be a whole ****potful of worse, both objectively and subjectively). And also at the end of the day, if the US is, in fact, "WE, the people...," and the whole idea is to reconcile as much as possible so as to lead to rational debate that then leads to a better US and world, it might be time to shelve partisan nonsense, at least for a few hours. Sounds like Brokaw has gone soft in the head. And SHRUB ?!?! Obama was awarded the prize, in part, for being the anti-Shrub. Why on earth would he **** on the Norwegians by taking that warmongering idiot to a Peace Prize ceremony ? Uh-huh. That's the spirit... I'd offer that Brokaw makes a pretty good case for using the Peace Prize - you know,the one that some say is supposed to be for intentions and promise and all that kinda stuff - to actually create a little of it. And if Obama is such a statesman/peacemaker/diplomat/all-around wonderful person, willing to extend his hand to all comers from around the world, extending it in such fashion so as to do the most good for the US internally doesn't seem such a strange thing to do. It seems ridiculous to me. Why would Obama take the occasion of an award ceremony in Oslo, Norway to award an international Peace Price as an opportunity to smooth ruffled feathers in the United States ? His acceptance should be international in scope just like he award he's accepting. It is often said that the sign of a successful compromise is that no one is particularly happy, but no one is particularly upset, either. I want Obama to be "successful" in his "mission of hope and change." IMO, the only way he will or can be is for as many people as, well, humanly possible to say, "He succeeded" even if they can't or won't say "I agreed with everything he did." And that will necessarily include those with differing views to his own and each others'. Obama made a reputation in the Illinois Senate as a deal maker and a compromiser. One of his early campaign ads featured a GOP state senator who was happy to endorse Obama for precisely that reason. I can't discern any spirit of compromise whatsoever in the GOP lawmakers or their civilian nitwit Steele. The GOP strategy appears to be attack, delay, smear, spread fear and pray for 2010 to get here real soon now. I don't think it is humanly possible to compromise with folks who refuse to compromise. The somewhat amusing, mostly disheartening hypocrisy (and irony of the overall situation) of you making ad hominem attacks on those who you feel are making ad hominem attacks aside, Bush made a similar reputation as Governor of Texas. And I'd also remind you that the vast majority of the US population was also in favor of both "wars" at the outset of each. Bush's approval rating actually shot up some 15-20 points (from about 10 points higher than Obama's is now, 45-ish versus 55ish, to the mid-70s) with the outset of Iraq. And during the outset of Afghanistan, his approval rating was in the 80's. If nothing else, he was doing the bidding of his employers...you know, the same bunch that elected Obama. And I would remind you that the vast majority of the US population is dumber than a box of rocks. I sure as hell don't want a President who leads by reading the poll numbers. Here's some poll numbers I read about yesterday in Salon: Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009 14:15 EDT Time for Tennesseans to lay off the Jack Daniel's Even in the wide, wonderful world of politics, there are sometimes poll results that can be pretty depressing. Then there are the polls that make you just want to shut down the computer, crawl back into bed, pull the covers up and go to sleep for, oh, 70 years or so. A new survey conducted by Middle Tennessee State University falls squarely within the latter category. The pollsters asked respondents, all from Tennessee, a few questions about President Obama. What they got back was more than a little disturbing. Thirty-four percent of respondents, including 47 percent of Republicans, say Obama was either probably or definitely not born in the U.S. (Fortunately, 50 percent say he was probably or definitely born here. Thank goodness for small favors, right?) Similarly, 30 percent of all respondents, including 48 percent of Republicans, believe it's probably or definitely true that Obama is a Muslim. Worst of all: A plurality of all respondents, 46 percent, believe that Obama's probably or definitely a socialist. Forty-two percent said they don't believe that's true. Seventy-one percent of Republicans, though, believe it is. (Hat-tip to Marc Ambinder, who has some interesting related thoughts.) ― Alex Koppelman |
On the Nobel acceptance...
On Oct 15, 11:48*am, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:39:39 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/10/14/AR200.... And if I may be so bold, I'd suggest asking George Bush and Jimmy Carter, too. Regardless of politics, both men were faced with some pretty tough issues not of their own making, and while things might have been handled better, they could have been much, much worse (and the same is true of Obama - at the end of the day, things could be a whole ****potful of worse, both objectively and subjectively). *And also at the end of the day, if the US is, in fact, "WE, the people...," and the whole idea is to reconcile as much as possible so as to lead to rational debate that then leads to a better US and world, it might be time to shelve partisan nonsense, at least for a few hours. Sounds like Brokaw has gone soft in the head. And SHRUB ?!?! Obama was awarded the prize, in part, for being the anti-Shrub. Why on earth would he **** on the Norwegians by taking that warmongering idiot to a Peace Prize ceremony ? Uh-huh. *That's the spirit... * I'd offer that Brokaw makes a pretty good case for using the Peace Prize - you know,the one that some say is supposed to be for intentions and promise and all that kinda stuff - to actually create a little of it. *And if Obama is such a statesman/peacemaker/diplomat/all-around wonderful person, willing to extend his hand to all comers from around the world, extending it in such fashion so as to do the most good for the US internally doesn't seem such a strange thing to do. It is often said that the sign of a successful compromise is that no one is particularly happy, but no one is particularly upset, either. *I want Obama to be "successful" in his "mission of hope and change." *IMO, the only way he will or can be is for as many people as, well, humanly possible to say, "He succeeded" even if they can't or won't say "I agreed with everything he did." And that will necessarily include those with differing views to his own and each others'. Obama made a reputation in the Illinois Senate as a deal maker and a compromiser. One of his early campaign ads featured a GOP state senator who was happy to endorse Obama for precisely that reason. I can't discern any spirit of compromise whatsoever in the GOP lawmakers or their civilian nitwit Steele. The GOP strategy appears to be attack, delay, smear, spread fear and pray for 2010 to get here real soon now. I don't think it is humanly possible to compromise with folks who refuse to compromise. The somewhat amusing, mostly disheartening hypocrisy (and irony of the overall situation) of you making ad hominem attacks on those who you feel are making ad hominem attacks aside, Bush made a similar reputation as Governor of Texas. *And I'd also remind you that the vast majority of the US population was also in favor of both "wars" at the outset of each. *Bush's approval rating actually shot up some 15-20 points (from about 10 points higher than Obama's is now, 45-ish versus 55ish, to the mid-70s) with the outset of Iraq. And during the outset of Afghanistan, his approval rating was in the 80's. *If nothing else, he was doing the bidding of his employers...you know, the same bunch that elected Obama. HTH, R Well, heck, if Obama got one'a them ther Nobel Peace prizes without starting a single war and Bush was more popular for starting two, why then, he had ought'a got um......let's see here....uh.....THREE a' them fukkers! Moron. g. who knows a boy cain't argue with third grade logic. |
On the Nobel acceptance...
A pretty good view of the prize:
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6501 A very short read, and fwiw, I think the last sentence is a bit strong. To me this episode says only something about who awarded the prize, not about the recipient. I know nothing about the President's humility (mentioned in the last sentence), but there's no way politically he could have declined the award. Jon. |
On the Nobel acceptance...
On Oct 15, 10:10*pm, Jon wrote:
A pretty good view of the prize: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6501 A very short read, and fwiw, I think the last sentence is a bit strong. To me this episode says only something about who awarded the prize, not about the recipient. I know nothing about the President's humility (mentioned in the last sentence), but there's no way politically he could have declined the award. Jon. Correct. He could not decline the award, he could not keep the money, and he could not donate it to the United States treasury. In fact, he had no viable option but to accept it graciously and humbly, and to donate the money to charity. Not all that bad a position to be in.....the only option just happens to be the best of all possible options. The rabid smirking third grade morons will be rabid smirking third grade morons regardless. Best not to give them anything more substantive than their own ankles to gnaw on. That's the nice thing about having a competent career politician this time around.....there's plenty enough embarassment to go around without keeping the white house stocked to the rafters with clowns, idiots, felons, and moral degenerates. g. |
On the Nobel acceptance...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT), Jon wrote:
A pretty good view of the prize: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6501 A very short read, and fwiw, I think the last sentence is a bit strong. To me this episode says only something about who awarded the prize, not about the recipient. I know nothing about the President's humility (mentioned in the last sentence), but there's no way politically he could have declined the award. Jon. I would agree insofar as it saying only something about who awarded the prize...in fact, that is exactly what I said early on. But I'd don't necessarily agree that this reflects upon Norwegians, "Oslovians," or anyone else besides the 2 goofballs on the committee who initiated it (well, 3, I guess, counting the goofball who nominated him...assuming they didn't intend it to be joke...hell, maybe they got stoned and nominated Obama AND Limbaugh...) and the 3 who allowed themselves to be convinced against, apparently, their better initial judgment. I say "apparently" because AFP and Reuters are reporting that the Norwegian paper Verdans Gang reported that 3 of the 5 members of the committee had initial reluctance, but were convinced by the head of the committee to go with Obama. And the committee has already demonstrated that it is no more than a silly joke anyway, what with Al Gore and Kofi Annan (note that the Peace Prize is completely separate from the others - the rest are handled by/in Sweden). The thing I find most amusing in all of this is the Obamanics who insist on justifying and rationalizing the decision of 5 Norwegian goofballs like it is some anointing from God... TC, R |
On the Nobel acceptance...
Jon wrote:
A pretty good view of the prize: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6501 A pretty offensive view, in my opinion. To state that "Oslovians" believe the awarding of a Peace Price signals a hope that American foreign policy will be run by an enlightened elite in Oslo is beyond absurd. And Norwegians feeling guilt because American munitions "can trace their lineage" to a Swede is a laughably ridiculous notion. I think poor Patrick has a screw loose and Jon, you might have them check the rattling around in your poor head too. Pretty good view ? Oh, fer cryin' out loud. -- Ken Fortenberry |
On the Nobel acceptance...
On Oct 16, 5:19*am, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT), Jon wrote: A pretty good view of the prize: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6501 A very short read, and fwiw, I think the last sentence is a bit strong. To me this episode says only something about who awarded the prize, not about the recipient. I know nothing about the President's humility (mentioned in the last sentence), but there's no way politically he could have declined the award. Jon. I would agree insofar as it saying only something about who awarded the prize...in fact, that is exactly what I said early on. *But I'd don't necessarily agree that this reflects upon Norwegians, "Oslovians," or anyone else besides the 2 goofballs on the committee who initiated it (well, 3, I guess, counting the goofball who nominated him...assuming they didn't intend it to be joke...hell, maybe they got stoned and nominated Obama AND Limbaugh....) and the 3 who allowed themselves to be convinced against, apparently, their better initial judgment. *I say "apparently" because AFP and Reuters are reporting that the Norwegian paper Verdans Gang reported that 3 of the 5 members of the committee had initial reluctance, but were convinced by the head of the committee to go with Obama. *And the committee has already demonstrated that it is no more than a silly joke anyway, what with Al Gore and Kofi Annan (note that the Peace Prize is completely separate from the others - the rest are handled by/in Sweden). The thing I find most amusing in all of this is the Obamanics who insist on justifying and rationalizing the decision of 5 Norwegian goofballs like it is some anointing from God... TC, R Distillation: The members,once again, failed to consult with (let alone bow to) the diminutive member. Imbecile. g. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter