AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
You should read the actual words of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...009/press.html
snip

Well, thank you for that, young fella. I read the exact same words
several hours ago. Still doesn't answer the question: "How could they
nominate him (and who did nominate him, btw) with only two weeks in
office?"

Anyone can be nominated if someone wants to take the time and
effort to do so. Hell, someone once nominated Rush Limbaugh.
Was that you, Louie ?

I don't care what my-dick-is-longer-than-yours contest he
wins, but let it be legitimate. This one isn't.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is a penis contest ?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound ?

Two weeks in office
and he's nominated? Riiiiiiight. Could it be just another sign of
Obama's failure, a sign given by the ultra-leftist Nobel group, simply
as a political maneuver designed to help a fellow traveler in need? d;o)

Well, it's certainly an indication of how low the right-wing
American whackjobs will go to denigrate their president.

Why do you hate America so much ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
snip
Well, it's certainly an indication of how low the right-wing
American whackjobs will go to denigrate their president.

Ooooooo, another nomination.

Thank you, but if you really want to nominate me the
Norwegian Nobel Committee has some paperwork hurdles
you'll need to satisfy.

This one is for the most ironic post of the
century.

Do they give an award for that ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 2009-10-09 18:39:08 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
You should read the actual words of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...009/press.html
snip

Well, thank you for that, young fella. I read the exact same words
several hours ago. Still doesn't answer the question: "How could they
nominate him (and who did nominate him, btw) with only two weeks in
office?"

Anyone can be nominated if someone wants to take the time and
effort to do so. Hell, someone once nominated Rush Limbaugh.
Was that you, Louie ?

Uh, yeah, and also Oprah. Hell, she's done more for peace than Obama.
The other people who were nominated ALSO have done more than Obama. He
hasn't done squat, Ken. We're still in Iraq and when he accepts the
award, he will be ordering more troops into Afghanistan. Does that
sound like peace to you. The man is a do nothing liar.

I don't care what my-dick-is-longer-than-yours contest he wins, but let
it be legitimate. This one isn't.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is a penis contest ?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound ?

And you don't? This guy could kill his wife and you'd say she
deserved it. He can do NOTHING wrong in your eyes. He's your
Socialist Savior.

Two weeks in office and he's nominated? Riiiiiiight. Could it be
just another sign of Obama's failure, a sign given by the ultra-leftist
Nobel group, simply as a political maneuver designed to help a fellow
traveler in need? d;o)

Well, it's certainly an indication of how low the right-wing
American whackjobs will go to denigrate their president.

Why do you hate America so much ?

I should ask you, seriously, the same question. I served my country
and continue to do so. You, sir, have done and continue to do nothing.
A do-nothing-in-his-life president being lauded and celebrated by a
do-nothing-in-his-life fawning parasite.

Davey

On Oct 9, 5:39*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
You should read the actual words of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...009/press.html
snip

Well, thank you for that, young fella. *I read the exact same words
several hours ago. *Still doesn't answer the question: *"How could they
nominate him (and who did nominate him, btw) with only two weeks in
office?"

Anyone can be nominated if someone wants to take the time and
effort to do so.



Hell, someone once nominated Rush Limbaugh.
Was that you, Louie ?

I don't care what my-dick-is-longer-than-yours contest he
wins, but let it be legitimate. *This one isn't.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is a penis contest ?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound ?

Two weeks in office
and he's nominated? * Riiiiiiight. * Could it be just another sign of
Obama's failure, a sign given by the ultra-leftist Nobel group, simply
as a political maneuver designed to help a fellow traveler in need? * d;o)

Well, it's certainly an indication of how low the right-wing
American whackjobs will go to denigrate their president.

Why do you hate America so much ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 9, 6:39*pm, "Tim J." wrote:

Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of the
century.

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

Jon.

Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of the
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

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 the
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. 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.

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.

Paul

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0500, georgecleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:15:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,

Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.).

HTH,
R


Jeez richard. Sour grapes make lousy whine.

Alfred Nobel created the prize to be awarded "to the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding
and promotion of peace congresses."

And you feel that he had done that by Feb 1, 2009?

Hopey has been going around the world for the last 9 months trying to
do those very things.

He has? Lessee - on the recent trip to Copenhagen (not to campaign for the
Olympics) the White House touted his meeting with McChrystal (the military
commander he personally picked to help win a war) about troop build-ups.

And the NYT compares him to such "lofty company" (maybe they should have said
"transformative figures"...) as Lech Walesa and Teddy Roosevelt. Lech Walesa's
thoughts? "What? So fast? Well, there hasn't been any contribution to peace
yet. He's proposing things, he's initiating things, but he is yet to deliver."
Teddy didn't give any thoughts on the matter.

The 1976 joint winner, Mairead Corrigan: "President Obama has yet to prove that
he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in
Afghanistan and many other issues"

And the Middle East peace he is supposedly inspiring? Let's see...

Hamas - ""Obama does not deserve this prize."

Iran: (Government Spokesman) "The decision in this area was hasty, and
conferring this prize was premature."
Iran: (Ahmedinejad) "I hope that by receiving this prize, he will start taking
practical steps to remove injustices in the world."

Fred Armisen:

"Out of Iraq? Nope, not even close..."
"Close Guantanamo Bay? Not Done..."
"Improve Afghanistan? Actually, I think it's worse..."

And guess who said this:

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of
the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

In your opinion, was the speaker being honest, falsely modesty, disingenuous, or
???

And yes, I realize there are numerous quotes out there that either show outright
support (or at least don't directly question it) for his win.

And, as should be obvious, while the nominations
were in February the voting by the committee was just a short while
ago.

Well, it might not be as "obvious" as you think. The nominations were reviewed
and a "short list" was compiled by, IIRC, March 15, 2009. Do you feel that he
had accomplished the above by then? If so, why? The voting was in August. IAC,
can you objectively show how and why you feel he is "the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the
abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of
peace congresses," even as of yesterday?

All it takes to be nominated is to have one qualified person,
like a history professor, forward said nomination to Oslo. Limbugh has
been nominated, as was W.

And what your reaction be if "Limbugh" (I'm guessing you mean Rush Limbaugh) had
won (or even found out he was under serious consideration)? Bush is another
matter - while IMO he wouldn't be an appropriate choice (or deserving choice
overall), his selection would at least have had a marginally-defensible claim
for actual accomplishments and attempts in Africa.

Finally, again, barring anything untoward from Obama's camp, this doesn't really
reflect upon him, but rather, greatly diminishes an already-diminished Peace
Prize. Should a undergrad that shows great promise be given a degree based on
that promise? Should a med student who shows great promise be allowed to skip
further training because of that promise? Would you loan your life savings to
your broke-ass deadbeat brother-in-law because he promised - greatly - to pay
you back...?

TC,
R

hth

Geo. C.

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

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