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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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

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.