TOPIC: Re: Any truth to the rumor...

<br />'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there!.'  <br />

<br /><br />ROFL.  That got me going.  Not in relation to Obama, but just the idea as metaphor.  It helped that you actually gave a visual.<br /><br />What have you got against terrapins?

Hardy har har - much funnier when it applied to GWB, who ended up in the White House thru fraud and criminal activity in both FL and OH.

I personally feel the same about Bush as well.  I have no party affiliation just a belief in certain views.

<br />Hardy har har - much funnier when it applied to GWB, who ended up in the White House thru fraud and criminal activity in both FL and OH.<br />

<br /><br />You don't think a politician from Chicago (much less Illinois where half of the governors of the 20th century were indicted for some kind of crime) is not also rife with fraud and criminal activity?  Just look at the Olympic committee...<br /><br />Also, to the point that Obama was given the award in order to spur peaceful tendencies, why wasn't GWB given the award every year or his presidency?<br /><br />The answer:  Because just like Clinton, Obama can't make a decision by himself.  Something GWB (and his father for that matter) could do.<br /><br />Ok, no more politics from me in a thread started about a politician.<br />

Agreed. If the Republicans weren't so crooked and self serving, they'd easily be more popular than the crazy radicals that have hijacked the once proud democratic party. Personally I am an independent libertarian, and I beg for a third party that would be moderate and unpolarized and dare I say, honest once in a while?  

GWB get a Nobel Peace Prize?  The man who came up with the Bush Doctrine? (In what respect, Charlie?)  The man who invaded two countries that had not attacked us, with one not even remotely connected to any threat to us?  Yeah, he was a real winner.<br /><br />I didn't realize that we were now determining the worth of a politician by where they are from.  Why not just get rid of the justice system and create a system of Guilt By Association?  "Oh, the defendant is from Chicago?  Obviously GUILTY!"<br />

I like the turtle pic .  Personally I think the entire thread is highly amusing and so far doesn't seem to have resulted in people calling each other names.  <br />On politicians:<br />I have come to the opinion over recent years that if its a politician and its mouth is open it must be lying.  I would be happy to join in bashing Obama or Bush or most politicians, but it's not really a challenge and gets old.  Now a real challenge would be to show an actual honest politician who *gasp* really does know what he/she is doing and actually gives a flying **** about the people who live here!  Not that I've grown bitter or anything...<br /><br />Jennifer

bpsymington, you missed my point.  If Obama was awarded the "Peace" in order to encourage him to make peace (something he hasn't done yet), then why wouldn't they encourage GWB to make peace, also.  And, to that matter anyways, wasn't one of Obama's huge platform points "Invade Afghanistan" or at least that we need strengthen our troop presence there?  The whole election last year could be boiled down to "Invade Afghan" vs. "Drill Baby Drill".<br /><br />shastelly, *sigh*, I totally agree.<br /><br />One closing thought:  I'm surprised anyone thinks the Nobel Prizes are real.  I forgot about them after Gore "won" his.  Yes, this Al Gore:<br /><br /> www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp <br /><br />Though, while searching for this I did find this (and I wonder when Gore "started" paying green credits...):<br /><br /> www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp <br /><br />And this!<br /><br /> www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp <br /><br />And I quote:  "For a U.S. president to have produced accomplishments worthy of Nobel Prize recognition after a mere eleven days in office would have been a truly remarkable feat indeed. "  And the parenthesis after this comment talks about Obama.<br /><br /><br />

< pardon the soapbox installation ><br /><br />I think the real problem is the tendency for humans to want a leader (and the corresponding team).  We put much too importance on our political leaders and parties, as we jettison any kind of rational thought to support them.  A cursory glance at party platforms reveal a set of discombobulated planks at odds with each other, but nonetheless needed to hold the coalition together.  We seem eager to supplant good sense to our need for the whole leader/group dynamic.  We are like two factions on a sinking pirate ship with both sides fighting for the longest survival by seeking control of the crows nest -- instead of ignoring our leaders' foment and simply patching the hole in the hull.  <br /><br />Most of us are like the aforementioned "damned souls" on the pirate ship who can't seem to see that their salvation won't come from their leaders or group, but it will come if they can resist the leader/group urge so they can think and act to save themselves and their children. 

<br />GWB get a Nobel Peace Prize?  The man who came up with the Bush Doctrine? (In what respect, Charlie?)  The man who invaded two countries that had not attacked us, with one not even remotely connected to any threat to us?  Yeah, he was a real winner.<br />

<br /><br />Hilarity. <br /><br />You didn't get it did you? I thought the point was obvious but I think you were so eager to get to the partisan hack'ery that you completely wiff'ed. GWB _DOESN'T_ deserve it. Just like Obama _DOESN'T_ deserve it. The argument by some is that Obama got it because the nobel committee were not awarding his _achievements_ for which he has none, but as a carrot or incentive to do the right thing at some point in the future. If that is the case, then the similar argument would be that GWB should have gotten it every year since who else would the Euros have wanted behavioral changes from more than GWB.<br /><br />Get it? If not, I could break it down further.<br /><br />> Booo! This is what I get for reading/addressing each thread one at a time. I see Nep already addressed your miscomprehension.

<br />< pardon the soapbox installation ><br /><br />I think the real problem is the tendency for humans to want a leader (and the corresponding team).  We put much too importance on our political leaders and parties, as we jettison any kind of rational thought to support them.  A cursory glance at party platforms reveal a set of discombobulated planks at odds with each other, but nonetheless needed to hold the coalition together.  We seem eager to supplant good sense to our need for the whole leader/group dynamic.  We are like two factions on a sinking pirate ship with both sides fighting for the longest survival by seeking control of the crows nest -- instead of ignoring our leaders' foment and simply patching the hole in the hull.  <br /><br />Most of us are like the aforementioned "damned souls" on the pirate ship who can't seem to see that their salvation won't come from their leaders or group, but it will come if they can resist the leader/group urge so they can think and act to save themselves and their children.  <br />

<br /><br />Personally, I don't advocate supporting any particular political party as much as hating one. It makes things a lot easier and you don't run into problems like platform consistency. You just simply have to loathe and be against everything one party supports. Ta da! Easy.

I didn't misunderstand at all.  Comparing Bush and Obama is ridiculous.  Saying Obama doesn't deserve it b/c he has yet to accomplish X is one thing.  Saying Bush doesn't deserve it b/c he was one of the worst presidents in history and b/c he followed a policy of violence and aggression is quite another.<br /><br />One thing Obama has accomplished is improving the chances of world peace simply by not being GWB and refuting his polices.<br /><br />I won't even get into the specious arguments regarding Al Gore.<br />