That was definitely my first thought: For What? Heck, he is still ramping up the Afghan war, continuing the Iraq war, and thinking about an Iran war. Yeah, that's very peaceful.
Y'know, the thing that scares me is that liberals *are* defending this nomination. I'm actually, for once, curious for Mark's input, since he's generally a good barometer for liberal thinking (or what passes for it).
Generally I'm loathe to write off an entire group for the actions of a few, but I'm getting closer and closer to just relegating all of Europe into the "retarded" pile.
Instapundit even has a link to The Huffington Post, of all places, questioning this decision. The author compares it to giving an Oscar to a young director in the hopes that he'll eventually make excellent films or giving the Pulitzer to a first time author for a novel he hasn't written yet.
My take is that this is another Rorschach test, separating the Obama true believers from the mere followers of convenience. It's clear that the Nobel committee is made up of True Believers. It would surprise me a little if Marky agreed with HuffPo on this one, but it is possible.
'Course, Marky declined to take the last Rorschach test I offered. (What is Ted Kennedy's reward in the afterlife?) It wouldn't surprise me that he declines this one too.
Nobel Prize award are and have been laughable for a while. Along the same lines as being "knighted". It probably meant something special at one time but now that Elton John and Paul McCartney are knighted, the real knights just roll in their graves. What a joke!
I reside in that ultra-liberal bastion of academia, and yet all of the responses to this announcement have been negative. Maybe that's because I'm in astrophysics, a subject for which you have to earn a nomination, let alone a prize.
I heard only one quasi-defense this morning, from someone outside the department. She quipped that, while it was definitely premature, maybe he'll work hard to earn it in the future. What an idea. After all the bailouts and the mortgage mess, it seems fitting that our President would be given a Nobel Prize on credit. I wonder what will happen if he defaults.
My gast hasw been well and truly flabbered this morning.
This is obviously one of God's Little Jokes...and boy is it a doozy!
You'll hear it elsewhere, but the cutoff for nominations for the prize is February 1st, so Obama's "work" for "peace" consists entirely of his activities between 20 January 2009 and 01 February 2009.
Just for comparison's sake, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for over TWENTY YEARS for his anti-apartheid for which he shared the prize with F.W.DeKlerk.
Our Alleged Hawaiian simply showed up and was "Present".
Transnational Statist Socialist Progressives, (who used to be called "Fucking Communists", in a simpler time), haven't changed their spots at all.
And they are still the world's most lethal pack of ass-hatted buffoons.
Adam:
"Y'know, the thing that scares me is that liberals *are* defending this nomination. I'm actually, for once, curious for Mark's input, since he's generally a good barometer for liberal thinking (or what passes for it)."
I just dropped by my favorite moonbat sweat-lodge, and the True Believers there are trying VERY HARD to make this a Communal Moonbat Joygasm.
This is an opportunity for moonbat liberals to bask in some sort of affirmation of their conceits.
And no-one will EVER accuse a Liberal of passing up an opportunity to feel good about themselves...
It's slowly dawning on others too. If Congress allows the gift (which I think they can and only they can allow -- how did Barack accept so quickly?) will that be Obama's Augustest moment? All hail Cæsar. LOL
Knowing the selection committee wants to hand these things out like M&Ms, I guess next year Dear Leader will get one for Economics. You watch, he'll be the first to collect all six.
Dear Leader is a total fraud, not one significant positive accomplishment to his name (other than getting elected which is debatable as to how positive that accomplishment is). I'd love to see the criteria they used to come to Obama as their recipient. Is there any adulation this world won't denigrate in their efforts to hand them out to Obama? How about a Hugo Award for his crap autobiography? How about an Olympic gold medal in curling? How about awarding him the Stanley Cup just so he can get his name on it? How about "rookie of the year" from the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB? How about "employee of the month" for the McDonalds in Newberry, MI? "Best Actor" Oscar would be one he could possibly be seriously awarded.
I just feel sorry for all those people, misguided and otherwise, who have genuinely worked to see peace brought to the various troubled regions of the world. Their efforts go completely unnoticed while the Nobel committee decides to hand the award to someone who hasn't lifted a finger to advancing peace in this world.
I'm sorry this turned into a rant, but I just don't see what is so wonderful about a man who has been given every opportunity to do good in this world and hasn't and expects to keep rising to the next level on the merits of his non-existent accomplishments. I don't get what the appeal is about Obama. What is it about him that so many prominent people are so willing to sacrifice their integrity and professionalism to heap adulation on this man?
Here's just one example, a Tweet from my Missouri State Rep:
[blockquote]RyanSilvey BREAKING NEWS: Nobel Committee adds all Miss USA contestants as co-winners of Peace Prize for also wanting world peace & giving a speech.[/blockquote]
I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award. Perhaps after a first term or a significant breakthrough in the Muslim world which apparently was why the award was given. From my stand point, all he did was take an excellent first step.
But Matt above is correct. He's not exactly a peace and granola guy. That being said, I think the reaction by the right is, as always, entertaining:)
That being said, I think the reaction by the right is, as always, entertaining
Really, Mark? Here is a sampling, word-for-word, of comments made by my super-liberal colleagues on Facebook this morning. Do you find these entertaining, too?
"Obama Nobel Laureate... WTF?"
"FREE Nobel Peace Prizes for everyone!!!"
"Make mine a Pulitzer, please. Just on the off-chance that one of my stories ever gets published!"
"Carter, Gore, IAEA and now Obama... I wonder how long being opposed (or different) to Bush the Younger and his Court will give bonus points to people on the Nobel Peace Prize shortlist."
Sarah, the left's negative reaction is largely due to the fact that President Obama has increased troop presence in AfPak. They don't see him as a peacenik. He's not so they are correct in wondering...wtf?
The right's reaction, however, is part of their overall (and ever eternal) short man syndrome so that's why I find it amusing.
Wait, wait, wait. I get it! For once I understand the logic Mark is TRYING to employ!
You see, if the LEFT feels some way about something, it's because of something where he LET THEM DOWN. That's the ONLY reason they might not like it, of course. If the RIGHT does it, it's the usual gun-toting, Al-Qaeda-like mentality.
Ah, of course. Because none of can find *anyone* else more deserving of a prize for peace.
Then again, stupidity is sort of a recurring theme of Nobel Prize selection.
Mark, the lefty reaction that I've seen examples of is similar to a reaction I would expect to see if a high-school football player who has just received an academic scholarship for the U-M football team was awarded the Heisman trophy.
I don't see any specific complaints about policy, yet.
Though, to be honest, the Nobel Peace Prize has gone to a wide mix of winners and losers.
Norm Borlaug deserved his, definitely...Carter at least had years of work to show for his Peace Prize, even if the work was fruitless...Yasser Arafat got it for signing a peace accord, even when he bragged on Palestine radio that his signature wasn't in good faith.
Teddy Roosevelt wins the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping a war between Russia and Japan. Woodrow Wilson won his Peace Prize for creating the League of Nations after WWI, an institution dedicated to peace and the forerunner to the UN. Jimmy Carter wins the Prize for a lifetime of work finding peaceful solutions to international conflicts. Obama wins the prize for...breathing? He was nominated no more than 12 days after taking office! So this prize is for what he did in those 12 days as president?
Gosh, really sucks to be someone that actually did something this year, or dedicated their whole life to some cause promoting peace and all that. Ugh. Let’s take a look at some of the other nominees, shall we?
Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.
Whew, sure am glad this joker didn’t get the prize, right? Anywho, probably most of his “victims” did not get rape-raped, right Whoopi?
Then there is Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”
Meh. Chicks shouldn’t be edumacated anyway, right? Especially in Islamic countries since it’s probably against Islam or the law or something and all cultures are equal so we just have to respect that they treat womens like crap, and not encourage uppity chicks like this one. Good job Nobel Prize committee on being The Man and keeping the womens down!
Next up for consideration is Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”
Bah! Innocent civilians should just suck it up and learn to be careful where they walk, right? So really, why bother cleaning them up? It's just busy work! Clearly it was good to skip these guys over.
Irena Sendler, a woman who saved 2,500 Polish Jews from the Holocaust.
Whoops, that was Al Gore who beat her out for the Nobel Peace Prize. She didn’t make a movie about her contribution to world peace after all, so can’t let her win!
Then there is this Bary dude who did, umm...well...see he said he was gonna do some stuff, but he hasn't had time to get around to it yet.
Oh yeah! Let's give it to this guy! Whoooo! he's gonna do stuff, and we can preemptively award him for those future deeds!
...the left's negative reaction is largely due to the fact that President Obama has increased troop presence in AfPak. They don't see him as a peacenik.
No. That's not it. It's precisely the sentiment you expressed not three comments above mine:
"I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award."
As karrde pointed out, at least the other NPP leftist stooges have something quasi-accomplishmentistic about them, but Obama was nominated two weeks after taking office. This is a farce, and even the die-hard liberals I work with know that it's a farce.
Where the death cults have gained supremacy, peace is to understood to be that of the grave. Hence, the Nobel Peace prize nominees who were passed over so they could award this --- harbinger.
I love that Tinkerballs thinks he can not only speak for every single lefty out there, but also every single righty as well. But, then again, when you make up definitions for words on the fly, you can represent whatever demographic you want, however you want. The pride of that halfwit continues to amaze and impress.
Fact of the matter is that Our Glorious President has not accomplished a bloody thing with the civil sevice job he was elected to... And he has certainly not done a bloody thing to put him in the same category as MLK, the Dalai Llama, Nelson Mandela, or Mother Theresa.
The Patron Saint of False Science, on the other hand, sounds just like Our Glorious President's kin.
Sarah, the left's negative reaction is largely due to the fact that President Obama has increased troop presence in AfPak. They don't see him as a peacenik. He's not so they are correct in wondering...wtf?
Really?
To quote 'Allahpundit' at Hot Air, "Meanwhile, at which rabidly right-wing blog did this headline appear this morning: “Whatever Happened to Awarding for Deeds Actually Done?” Answer here:"
It's in the first segment entitled "Obama brings another honor to America." Oh, and the beginning has a nice segment of a variety of people cheering America's loss of the Olympics. My oh my...you people sure have come a long way...happy over a US defeat.
It didn't really convince me that he "deserved" the award but it is an interesting take. I didn't realize that there were so many people awarded simply for effort.
Oh, and sayeth Boss Limbaugh...
"Something has happened that we agree with the Taliban and Iran about...he doesn't deserve the award..."
The GOP, the Taliban, and Iran...hmmm...now who was it that said our fundamentalists and their fundamentalists have much in common? :)
Imagine George W. Bush being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize only twelve days after taking office as President and then being awarded that prize nine months later.
What would be your reaction?
This kind of test can be performed in most any such case and its value is that it removes one's own political leanings from the test.
You wrote:
"I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award. "
Which is irrelevant. The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded for "time in office", and thus his time in office when nominated is irrelevant. He does not deserve the prize because he has not earned it.
So, tell us, teacher boy, why do people who make this observation deserve ridicule from anyone? Why is getting it right worthy of contempt?
Oh, and the beginning has a nice segment of a variety of people cheering America's loss of the Olympics.
Mark, if the Obamas had sincerely wanted the Olympics for America and the American people, then I would agree that the gloating would be detestable (in that it would resemble liberal behavior during the previous eight years). But it was abundantly clear that the Olympics bid was about the Obamas. Count how many times either of them said "I" or "me" in their speeches. It was not about America. People are gloating about the Obamas losing out on the Obamalympics, not America losing out on the Olympics.
We have the most "me" presidency I can remember in the last 40 years. The liberals I work with are getting fed up with the constant exposure on TV, the parties, the endless campaigning months after Obama has taken office, and now accepting an award that everyone knows he doesn't deserve. They're gentle in their reproach, but even they're waking up to the fact that his presidency is not about serving America, it's not about serving us, it's about us catering to Obama and his celebrity.
Being President of the United States is the biggest ego trip the world has to offer. What is amazing is that Obama is making Slick Willie look like a slacker in the stoking of the presidential ego.
Sarah, what a sad comment to make. The propaganda machine has done quite a job on you and, quite frankly, I pity anyone with this point of view.
To say that you are wrong about him is the understatement of...forever. Your comment perfectly illustrates the right's eternal short man syndrome that I mentioned above. President Obama could take a bullet for Jonah Goldberg and you would still say he was just doing it to increase his celebrity. You don't like him. You don't know him. You don't understand him. And your bias precludes you from ever doing so.
DJ, essentially, I agree with you. I don't think he has achieved anything to warrant the award. But what if the award is based in effort and not achievement? Rachel's list in the above link is fairly compelling and I don't think you should discount it. Still, though, I remain unconvinced that his service to the world warranted the award.
My reaction with Bush would've probably been the same...what has he done? Did he achieve anything? Did he give any effort? Ironically, had Bush not had his psychotic daddy complex and a desire to make his pals in the defense and oil industry rich (Iraq), he might've had a shot a Nobel. He was, after all, the first sitting president to declare that the Palestinians deserve their own state. And that was right after 9-11. One of his few good moments and one that I actually do not agree with...from the other side!
Glad you brought up, verbatim, again, Unix. The above clip reminded me that Charles Krauthammer coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which has been used VERBATIM here several times. That makes two examples (Ingraham, useful idiots being the first).
Michael Moore brought up an interesting point on this site today.
"The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity.
At precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him won it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in the Grant Park Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown Chicago, billions of people around the globe were already breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as if, in that instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the world -- and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve."
An interesting take and it does explain the thinking behind the award but I'm still not convinced. President Obama is not quite at the MLK or Desmond Tutu level yet. Of course, he could be but then that would just be for his own ego and celebrity, right?
You're glad I brought up that you didn't know what verbatim meant, insisted you did, and when you finally told us what you thought it meant (and were totally wrong, defining it in contradiction to what it meant), you refused to admit you'd been totally wrong?
That's got what to do with what?
That we've referred to BDS for people - like yourself - who get totally unhinged about Bush? Then you quote Michael Moore, in a perfect display of BDS?
The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Seems to me that the 22nd Amendment has a better claim.
Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked.
Aside from the slander there, no, they weren't, Mark.
As much as Obama ran against Bush - Bush wasn't running for office. Hell, McCain opposed Bush on most policy initiatives for 8 years, you could make the same claim for McCain.
Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve.
Ah, so he's got billions of people ready willing and able... but the minority (Not even 300!) of Evul Republicans keep thwarting him?
You really are this disjointed in the thinking department, aren't you?
President Obama is not quite at the MLK or Desmond Tutu level yet.
As he admitted. IN fact, conceded that he had a inferior claim to others nominated. Then accepted it.
You ran off at the mouth for something you could have known in under 30 seconds, and you were wrong.
I bought up verbatim, because you've never even made the marginal effort to admit that you were totally, 100% wrong, and now you're trying to attack me with the word.
You're pretty much defining "shameless". It's not detracting from me and my credibility.
But then again, I do like watching him trip and fall down every time he acts like he is 'thinking' and 'making a point' much like I like the watching the Keystone Kops
Mark, you're the pitiable fool here. What frightens me is the brainless fervor with which you buy into the idea that Obama is anything but a light-weight narcissistic poseur, a corrupt shill for a discredited ideology who associates with violent creeps, a man with no real experience, no accomplishments to his name, and who is presiding over a nation more divided than at any other time since the Civil War.
If I cared one iota about your opinion, I'd be insulted by your insinuation that I have no brain of my own, no capacity to use inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion that is more than supported by several independent facts. Instead, my opinion must be the result of secret encoded right-wing-frequency brainwaves that tell me what to think of Obama. So, who exactly is telling me what to think of Obama? Who on the right is feeding me this opinion? I want you to name names.
Sarah, thanks for cementing my point even further.
"who is presiding over a nation more divided than at any other time"
Agreed. And why is that?
"Obama is anything but a light-weight narcissistic poseur, a corrupt shill for a discredited ideology who associates with violent creeps.."
Eternal short man syndrome...
"So, who exactly is telling me what to think of Obama? Who on the right is feeding me this opinion? I want you to name names."
Thanks GOF...you can start with the usual crowd of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and move on to the commenters on this site. They speak of the same ideas you do...in some cases VERBATIM. You've bought into a theory, Sarah, that helps you to feel more comfortable about your paranoia and rage towards the government. Starting with these thoughts makes it certain that whatever he does, he will fail in your eyes which is the admitted goal and vision of Boss Limbaugh.
"But what if the award is based in effort and not achievement?"
Then it would be meaningless, and that is what the reaction of so many people is in this case.
Only one runner wins the race; one doesn't award a gold medal to everyone who makes an effort.
"The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize."
Afred Nobel's will states why the peace prize should be awarded; "... who shall have done ..." Obama had done nothing toward earding such a prize. Thus we see a double standard, which is one reason among many why jackasses such as Moore are worthy of contempt.
"Sarah, thanks for cementing my point even further."
There you go again with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like your side being accused of. As with #2, one often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
Goddamn, little boy, but you are predictable. You cannot learn, can you?
you can start with the usual crowd of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin
And?
You also ignored my questions to you. Funny, that. (Not really)
about your paranoia and rage towards the government.
You keep saying that, but you don't demonstrate at ALL where it's true. The one raging is you.
I'm pretty sure we're all mostly laughing at Obama - that's what you can't figure out. We're not enraged that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize as an Affirmative Action move (but this ought to demonstrate, even to you, the problems with AA. It won't, though.)
By his, and the committee's admission, he doesn't qualify for the prize. Yet we're not enraged. Most of us lost our outrage over the NPP when they gave one to Arafat, and that's if you hadn't lost respect for it after they gave one to Gorbachev... For following Ronald Reagan's lead. That was all I needed to know what the NPP had become. Then the awards to Gore and Carter... I didn't get outraged about them, I laughed. Pitiful attempts by pitiful people to protest the US.
At the "Tea Party" protests - do you see rage there?
(Well, you will, but that's because of your Unchangeable Narrative.) You see a lot of people who pick up after themselves. You like to throw us "Have you...." Well, have you talked to people who went to those meetings? I have. They all - in more than 15 states so far - reported that it was a fun time. People laughed, and joked and .. had a good time. Yes, they're outraged, much as I am by the fact that my daughter will have to owe - so far - almost $300k in taxes to pay off the debt (So pushing a million with inflation and interest by the time she's working (in a enslaving W-2 job, and trying to get an enslaving mortgage)) - and she's not even born yet. So they're upset, and they're practicing their Constitutionally-protected rights to share their views. Funny how you want to shut that down. Almost like your complaints about being called a "banner" when you want to ban guns.
The G-20 summit protests, however, filled with people who agree with you?
We're not enraged over Obama's policies simply because we oppose them in theory, or (unlike you) have the intellectual and educational chops to cite where they're going to fail. It's not just theory - so far, we've been 100% correct. (Yes, I know, guns in parks as a rider that he opposed but signed. Yes, Mark, that makes ALL the difference. When is it you're going to take "Civics" in high school again? Ok, We'll discuss this after you do.)
Boss Limbaugh.
Your continued narrative that we all take orders and follow and flock behind Limbaugh is telling, reinforcing the observation and analysis that LabRat made 2 years ago now - you live in a narrative. LabRat is a smart person, who's good at analysis.
The only person here, worshipping at the feet of The Won, is you. Look at Moore's quote. It's factually laughable. It's idelogically frightening. And you wave it and say "Proof proven" to you "conservatives".
We don't worship Limbaugh - most don't listen to him. We don't worship Malkin, etc, etc. We might reflect or agree with them and quote them when they have a point, but first they must make that point, and it must be a good point to make.
You're projecting onto us. You have been for years. Nobody's "feeding us opinions". We're observing that those opinions are completely correct.
"Completely correct" - something you don't understand. Verbatim. (Thanks for continuing to support me, by continuing to use that word.)
"who is presiding over a nation more divided than at any other time"
Agreed. And why is that?
Because we are in the middle of a culture war, and Obama as a hard-line partisan is facilitating the delineation between the two sides more than any other leader in recent times. I don't expect you to understand that, even though you have clearly chosen a side.
"Obama is anything but a light-weight narcissistic poseur, a corrupt shill for a discredited ideology who associates with violent creeps.."
Eternal short man syndrome...
You'll have to explain. For what, allegedly, am I compensating?
Thanks GOF...you can start with the usual crowd of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin...
Even though I don't listen to Rush or Beck? Even though I don't watch FOXNews at all? Even though until a few months ago, I didn't even have TV and had never heard of Beck? These are truly amazing mind-control powers of which you speak.
...and move on to the commenters on this site.
ROFL!! So I, as an active contributor here, am being fed an opinion by the other commenters? Furthermore, these commenters are all also being programmed by the Rush-Beck-Malkin mind-control consortium. Dare I ask, from where do Rush-Beck-Malkin receive their orders to hate Obama?
You've bought into a theory...
A theory is a rigorous model of reality that is supported by facts. You have no idea what this word means.
... that helps you to feel more comfortable about your paranoia and rage towards the government.
It's only paranoia if it's not happening, and I can see with my own eyes what's happening. As for rage, stop projecting your idiot emotions on me. I feel no rage when I look at Obama and the direction in which our country is moving. I feel sadness and frustration.
Does it occur to you that I, as a hard scientist with an IQ and a Ph.D., use my powers of observation and reasoning to take reported facts and Obama's own words and actions to formulate my opinion of him and his policies? In other words, why do you need to believe that everyone here cannot possibly have arrived at similar opinions independently? Why do you find that so threatening?
Starting with these thoughts makes it certain that whatever he does, he will fail in your eyes which is the admitted goal and vision of Boss Limbaugh.
Projection. You just described your side for the last eight years.
I said this right after the election, and I mean it. If Obama were to miraculously espouse free market ideals, I would do cartwheels and sing his praises all over the land.
See, this is the difference between your side and mine. Your side is tribal. It's always your guy versus our guy. You hate Bush and every conservative regardless of what they do. But you love Obama even though he is as anti-gay as any mainstream conservative (and based on his Christian faith, no less), you love him even though he is continuing a war you called "illegal" for five years, you love him even though he is ten times the cronyist that Bush was. That's because, to the degree that your cognitive dissonance permits you to believe this, the man and the ideology are inseparable. Conservatives are not tribal. The grassroots conservatives in this country are loyal to principles, not people. That's why we didn't much care for Bush and despised McCain. Who gives a shit if they call themselves conservatives? They didn't act like it. And that's why, if through some alien brain-flop technology Obama suddenly became a real conservative, he'd have our support.
I do not hate Obama. I do not want Obama to fail to lead this country in the right direction. I do, however, want his socialist policies to fail. Fervently.
Yes, I have. I've "bought into the theory" that extortion and armed robbery are wrong. And that having a majority of the population vote to have the police and the IRS commit extortion and/or armed robbery by proxy against X chosen group for them doesn't make it any less wrong.
I have "bought into the theory" that people are not going to care as much about strangers as they will about friends, family and loved ones. They just ain't gonna, no matter what you do. And that if you try to force them to care as much about strangers as they do about their loved ones, you'll end with sullen, rebellious, non-productive people. They won't bother to try to lift themselves out of misery because they are taught every day that there's no future in it, that the only way to lift themselves out of their misery is to carry the entire gang, all 300 million of em.
I've "bought into the theory" that a greedy, corrupt scam artist doesn't magically cease to be a greedy, corrupt scam artist just because he has a union membership or a (D) behind his name. To be sure, he doesn't cease to be a greedy, corrupt scam artist by having an (R), or anything else, behind his name either. The only difference, note that, the only difference, is that now he has the power to commit armed robbery by proxy, as noted above.
Want to know why I've "bought into this theory"? Because it is borne out by observation of the real world, that's why.
Now, exactly what part of that theory do you disagree with, and why?
Wow. Even more wrong. The above two statement are actually true of YOU....a hard line partisan for the base of the party and most assuredly on a side.
"For what, allegedly, am I compensating?"
I'm not certain. DJ is the one who can give psychological diagnosis over the Internet. I don't know you personally but your comments mean that it is something. Perhaps you are beginning to understand that your ideology has failed you and that just won't do. Admitting mistake=end of universe.
"am being fed an opinion by the other commenters? "
Yes...it's called groupthink.
"Dare I ask, from where do Rush-Beck-Malkin receive their orders to hate Obama?"
They, like any business people, know that there is a market for what they say. Essentially, it's political porn...people want to hear a certain thing and they get off on it. They are very astute and are playing to their audience. No one is ordering them...although they make money from like minded businesses or special interests...mostly, they do and say what they want to make money and gain more power.
"as a hard scientist with an IQ and a Ph.D., use my powers of observation and reasoning to take reported facts and Obama's own words and actions to formulate my opinion of him and his policies?"
What absolutely slays me about folks on this site is that because you are all scientists and engineers that...somehow...using your knowledge in these areas...that you MUST be right about politics and history.
WTF?
And....NOT!
I'll grant you that I know nothing about engineering nor most scientific fields (ex: the list below). In these areas, I will cede that you know best. But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education. Perhaps you do as well. But to use your background as a scientist or engineer to somehow make your political ideology more truthful and say that it is REALITY is complete bullshit. The reality actually is I think, again, you are not so certain about this ideology and are trying to compensate for it.
"If Obama were to miraculously espouse free market ideals, I would do cartwheels and sing his praises all over the land."
Well, there's your version of free market ideals (see: fundamentalist, Christian) and the actual ones which we have in reality. To say that you look at facts in regards to our latest economic crisis is preposterous. You refuse to take into account ANY of the actual events as they transpired and look only to your ideology-gubmint bad, ugh!-and then work backwards from there. A textbook case of confirmation bias. I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
"I do, however, want his socialist policies to fail. Fervently."
HIS POLICIES (AND HE) ARE NOT FUCKING SOCIALIST!!!
You say you deal with facts? Go look up the definition of socialism in the dictionary. Explain to me how our government now magically controls the means of production (ALL production) in this country and has taken over 23 trillion dollars in wealth. You are letting your emotions get away with you and are going to the bad place...please...for the love of God...come off the ledge, have some hot coca and chill out...
And while you are at it, explain to me how a country that is run by private banks is socialist. Sheer lunacy...
There you go again with your Standard Response #6. You deliberately miss the point.
You blithering idiot, you accused HER of exhibiting the "Eternal short man syndrome..." She is not physically capable of it.
Goddamn, little boy, but you're just making noise for the sake of engaging in argument. Do you really not have anything better to do? Go rearrange your sock drawer.
DJ, it's a variation on "Sure you want to go there?" It's not having the guts to say plainly, until someone triple-dog-dares him into a corner, what he is more than happy to imply. Maybe it's a proto-Response #11. (If so, then response #12 is whining about personal attacks when he gets what he has coming to him.)
I'm amused that the everyone here apparently is blank-minded Rushbots who follow what Rush, Malkin and Beck tell them, but when Marky recites Maher and Moore, he's just expressing his own opinion.
I've told him many times before that I don't listen to Rush. He doesn't even notice. He's just making noise so someone will take him seriously and give his tiny little ego a semblance of importance.
because you are all scientists and engineers that...somehow...using your knowledge in these areas...that you MUST be right about politics and history.
Isn't that your sole argument to tell us we're wrong about the education biz? (And it is a biz.)
Explain to me how our government now magically controls the means of production (ALL production) in this country and has taken over 23 trillion dollars in wealth.
You won't understand, and I know this, but...
It's called the "Commerce Clause".
Any business is "magically controlled" (your words) by the government. (And agreed to by the USSC.)
The Okra in my backyard is under federal regulation since the okra I grow affects the market that Sarah might buy from.
You refuse to take into account ANY of the actual events as they transpired
... Says the man who still insists that the mortgage market is unregulated and that Bush, who he denounced as a racist for trying to correct some obvious problems, ignored the problems and is to blame.
Anyway. Back to the commerce clause and I know you didn't understand (But I betcha DJ, Russell, Kevin, Sarah, LabRat and Ken could write a small essay on it off the top of their head) but that's why the government has taken control of quite literally all production. Just because they haven't exerted it in total, doesn't mean they don't claim it.
Before you reply: Check this out. The federal government is insisting that they control any and all means of production that can turn out a firearm - even if it never leaves the state.
As usual, you're the one failing in facts and leaving huge thread of discussion - that you brought up! - abandoned.
Sweet! Already been called a hate and fear monger, I can add 'war monger' to my list of accomplishments!
And yes, I am short. Shorter than Kim Jong-il, in fact, which explains why I replaced my brain with a radio receiver that has Fox news pumped in, 24/7, and has Limbaugh playing on a higher frequency that taps straight into my spine. Verbatim.
For once I agree with you, Mark, except it's more endemic on your side.
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
Me, personally? I don't read Worldnet Daily or Hot Air. Show me any thread on this blog where I have offered a link to Worldnet Daily or Hot Air. You keep foisting this stereotype on me and others here, because you are a classic bigot. You know next to nothing about me, but you make assumptions based on a very broad stereotype of conservatives. Why don't you ask first and quit making yourself look like even more of a fool.
...because you are all scientists and engineers that...somehow...using your knowledge in these areas...that you MUST be right about politics and history.
As usual, you miss the point. The point is that we are trained to be extremely systematic in our thinking and to deal with things the way they are. Unlike people in the social "sciences," it's obvious to us when we get something wrong. Things blow up, buildings collapse, stuff like that. The development of the hard sciences began millenia ago and culminated with a winning formula, the scientific method. It's designed to compensate for one of the great barriers to knowledge, which is human emotion. The social "sciences," however, have not progressed as far in that time, and have no such safeguard from human emotion. For that reason, they remain mired in an alchemistic state. You are a less-educated, yet prime, example of pseudo-scientific alchemistic thinking.
I'll grant you that I know nothing about engineering nor most scientific fields (ex: the list below). In these areas, I will cede that you know best.
Because we have degrees in those fields.
But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education.
Because you have degrees in political science, history, economics, sociology, psychology, and education? Yes?
P.S. Just because the U.S. didn't become 100% socialist the femtosecond Obama took office does not nullify the idea that Obama is a socialist. The fact remains, Obama is a socialist. What the hell else is someone who believes in "spreading the wealth," you dipshit?
"I'll grant you that I know nothing about engineering nor most scientific fields ..."
You are not trained to think rationally, to reason from facts to conclusions, said conclusions being subject to better data and/or reasoning, and it shows. Indeed, you exhibit ad nauseam that you do not understand the concept.
"HIS POLICIES (AND HE) ARE NOT FUCKING SOCIALIST!!! ... Go look up the definition of socialism in the dictionary. Explain to me how our government now magically controls the means of production (ALL production) in this country and has taken over 23 trillion dollars in wealth."
Thus providing a perfect example of the truth of my previous statement, one of many. You imply that you believe Obamateur cannot be a socialist unless the gubmint actually owns and controls everything.
An example of this illogic would be to claim that Person A cannot be a stark-raving crazy murderer unless everyone were dead.
"But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education."
Then why do you exhibit so little understanding of any of these subjects?
Once again, little boy, you're dealing with grownups here. You're not up to it. You are simply exhibiting episode n+1 of the same old shit.
But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education.
I can't speak for education, but your statements on this blog indicate that your "knowledge" about political science, economics, and sociology is shallow and one-dimensional, about what one might expect to develop from reading Newsweek and mistaking it for cogent analysis.
Your purported understanding of what "socialism" is seems to have been frozen at Marx, and does not take into account Fabianism, Bernsteinism, modern social democracy, Gramsci, or more current theories of so-called "de-commodification." Ergo, you refuse to accept that anything is socialism that does not correspond to a series of checkboxes drawn from Webster's Dictionary.
Your purported understanding of Fascism seems to be taken entirely from communist propaganda about the alliance of business power with government, which is precisely the opposite of true fascism (as defined by its inventor, Mussolini: "Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"). I refer you to the work of Juan Linz, an eminent political scientist and sociologist.
You have not demonstrated any knowledge of economics at all, besides uncritically repeating the arguments for increased regulation without showing an ounce of comprehension of what they are based on, and what premises they assume. I recommend to you Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, which can be found online in its entirety.
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
Yes, I've linked to Hot Air for supporting documentation. That's a problem for you? Ed Morrissey and Doctor Zero both have a strong tendency to label their opinions as opinions, and bolster them with facts stated as facts and supported as such. Does that make them invalid?
How about the times I've linked to the Huffington Post? Is that invalid as well?
What's your standard of "objective analysis" anyway? The New York Times, who admits they deliberately chose to scrub a story critical of Obama just before the election because it would have been "a game changer"? CBS, who took a forgery an 14 year old could spot, played it as straight news and, when caught in such an obvious fabrication, defended it as "fake but accurate"?
Maybe Rolling Stone, where "objective analysis" is two fantasies for the price of one?
A guy who cites a former Enron advisor as the ultimate authority on economics is gonna lecture us about making poor choices concerning what qualifies as "supporting information"? Really?
Pay no attention to my laughter, that's just my paranoid rage showing.
I'm reading Harry Stein's I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican, and it strikes me that a substantial part of the problem in dealing with Mark is that he takes nearly everything he believes about conservatism as axiomatic. Though most of it is uninformed and grossly caricaturesque, it is as firmly entrenched in his mind as the parallel postulate.
Like many of the figures in Stein's book, Mark's belief that, by definition, conservatism is evil and horrible, gives him the assurance that it is literally impossible for him to be wrong. Which is why every fact and reasonable argument in existence will bounce off of him like BBs off a bulletproof vest. And like the figures in the book, he is blind to his own deep bigotry and considers himself, by definition, to be righteous, rational, and high-minded. Which recuses him from any pangs of conscience when he lies, distorts, and back-tracks in his various accusations of our crimes against humanity.
Mark's beliefs are emotionally-ensconsed; no amount of fact or reason will dislodge them. For someone like Mark to change his mind will require an emotional paradigm shift on the scale of the magnetic poles flopping in the Sun. This is much bigger than any of us. I, for one, am done with him.
Wow. Even more wrong. The above two statement are actually true of YOU....a hard line partisan for the base of the party and most assuredly on a side.
When what's-his-name in Alaska got the boot for being corrupt, didn't that event basically get a chorus of "Good! Throw the bum out!" from us?
Do you not remember all the dissatisfaction with and dislike of John McCain you found here?
When Bush decided to bail out the banks, did we not grumble about what a stupid move it was?
And yet...
- Refusal to prosecute open-and-shut voter intimidation when done by Democrat supporters.
- Negligent homicide while driving drunk.
- Refusal to even investigate decades of corruption, complete with paper trail.
- Use of government funds to pay prostitutes.
- Tax evasion. The very taxes you insist must be paid to help the poor and minorities that you claim Republicans don't care about, or actively hate.
- Assault and battery, complete with a paper trail leading straight to the President's senior advisor.
- Conspiracy to commit tax evasion.
- Conspiracy to commit child prostitution.
- Conspiracy to commit mass murder.
And it doesn't matter whether there are indictments, convictions, confessions, the perpetrators caught in the act on video, I have yet to see you even once say anything along the lines of, "Good! Throw the bum out!"
On the contrary, what we've heard from you in response to those things has been either "You're all racists!", "It's all a conspiracy between the RNC, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News!", or a conspicuous silence.
Meanwhile, "Bush lied about WMD as an excuse to go to war", even though he would have had to get four seperate intelligence services and a POTUS of the opposing party to agree to that lie three years before he was elected President in order to be true.
Joe Wilson is "fucking racist" because he called someone a liar when he caught him in a lie.
And you actually expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim that no, you haven't "chosen a side", we have?
"You are a less-educated, yet prime, example of pseudo-scientific alchemistic thinking."
That's actually an excellent summation of your analysis of history and our current political system.
I'm also wondering why you lecture me on the dangers of human emotion and clearly let yours get the better of you in your assessment of President Obama in your comments above. Stunning...but not surprising given the cinemascope projection that goes on constantly with the right.
"Because you have degrees in political science, history, economics, sociology, psychology, and education? Yes?"
Yes, master's is in instruction though, not education to be clear. And economics was a minor not a major.
"The fact remains, Obama is a socialist. What the hell else is someone who believes in "spreading the wealth," you dipshit?"
This is a perfect example of how much of dipshit (and hyper paranoid)YOU are. Usually, I don't like to devolve into personal attacks but your belief (generated by emotion) that President Obama is a socialist is completely baseless.
Letting the Bush Cap gains tax cuts expire is not socialism. Heck, even raising the tax rate on the top 1 percent to 50 percent is not socialism, which btw, is not going to happen. We had that during Reagan and I wouldn't call him a socialist. We had 90 percent during Eisenhower and there were still rich people, middle class, and poor people. There was plenty of inequality for you to delight in. There still will be when Obama's time in office will be done. The elite of this country will still be pulling the strings on our government and have more than enough money.
Somehow, though, our barometer has changed (by a group of psychotics) who think that if we have anything other than the pyramid scam and legalized greed known as the American economy, then it's socialism. It's not.
Wait, Sara...you claim to not read sites like Worldnet Daily and Hot Air and then...you link to one with the cartoon?
First of all, classic political porn. The guy that did this knows none of it is true...he just put it up so he can capture an already captured audience.
Second, I find it amusing that you think right wing criticism is the same as left wing criticism and deals more in facts. Child rapist? Wow...
Third, where is this totalitarian state I hear about? Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama, corporate welfare, a bustling right wing pundit business, and privately owned corporations running our state (see: plutonomy, Citigroup doc).
Weird fantasy, dude. I'm sure it will get weirder:)
Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama...
You specifically intend this as evidence that Obama is not an enemy of gunowners' rights, do you not, Wormtongue?
Given the number of times and ways this has been debunked here and elsewhere, the only thing your claim is evidence of is that you argue either from little wit or bad faith (quite likely both, based on your ample record).
As usual, Mark dodges all the things he realizes he's been roundly thrashed about, and sticks to what he thinks he can win.
Too bad he's still laughable:
Sarah: "The fact remains, Obama is a socialist. What the hell else is someone who believes in "spreading the wealth," you dipshit?"
Mark: This is a perfect example of how much of dipshit (and hyper paranoid)YOU are.
But you didn't answer her.
but your belief (generated by emotion) that President Obama is a socialist is completely baseless.
If it was indeed, completely baseless, then you could demonstrate that. Your projection on emotion is sadly, par for your course, since you cannot think logically.
And you demonstrate immediately:
Letting the Bush Cap gains tax cuts expire is not socialism.
Non-sequitur. (Remember when you said you didn't engage in logical fallacies?) Your - your - not our - insistance on black/white issues either he's a full-blown SOCIALIST or he's NOT!!!!!!! HOW DARE YOU!! is your problem. Not ours.
Yes, it indicates that yes, he believes in the tenants of socialism. No, you're somewhat right, it's not a complete proof by itself.
(even raising the tax rate on the top 1 percent to 50 percent is not socialism,
I'd ask you define socialism, then, but we've seen what happens when you try and actually define the words that are central to your argument.
which btw, is not going to happen.
Says the man who demanded we stop calling Obama a gun banner simply because he's called for gun bans, and at the time, had a call for a gun ban on the white house web site. I think I'll keep my own counsel there, thank you very much. (You might be correct, but it's not because of keen insight.)
We had that during Reagan and I wouldn't call him a socialist. We had 90 percent during Eisenhower
1) That's mostly a nonsense statistic.
2) It's not refuting whether Obama is a socialist.
3) Is one of DJ's labeled standard failures of yours. (Sorry, didn't have it handy, I'm sure DJ will fix that quickly.)
There was plenty of inequality for you to delight in.
Projection. Not refutation.
I'm happy when everybody does well, Mark. I'm sure Sarah is too. I just won't agree with you that taking my money to give to Sarah is the way to accomplish that. Especially when you're taking a cut of it.
There still will be when Obama's time in office will be done.
Does not disprove in any way Obama = Socialist.
The elite of this country will still be pulling the strings on our government and have more than enough money.
Does not disprove in any way Obama = Socialist.
Didn't even make a stab at it. But you think you did.
But that last paragraph is the real kicker.
I agree with you. So does (I'm speaking her for them) - Kevin, LabRat, DJ, Ed, Sarah, Russell, .. just about all the other commentators!
YES! EXACTLY! That's exactly what will be the situation!
Which is why the rest of us want to cut out as much power to the government as possible, and it's so staggeringly agonizing for you to screech about how corrupt the system is and then insist we do it MORE, only HARDER! and calling us crazy!
Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama
*sigh* I'm glad you've got a new cut-n-paste. It's at least marginally better than your last one which was about retired cops.
privately owned corporations running our state (see: plutonomy, Citigroup doc).
I'm still waiting to "see" the Javier story. How about you get to that rather than waving randomly in a direction and saying "SEE SEE"? Especially since according to what most of us here would want, it wouldn't be possible for that to be occur.
"Given the number of times and ways this has been debunked here and elsewhere"
Debunked? Did he or did he not sign into law a bill which allowed expanded rights of gun owners in federal parks? And has he, as of yet, signed any other bill into law that has curtailed gun rights?
Two simple questions, Ken. Let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is.
"Debunked? Did he or did he not sign into law a bill which allowed expanded rights of gun owners in federal parks? And has he, as of yet, signed any other bill into law that has curtailed gun rights? "
How many times do we have to explain this to you so that you actually show some evidence, however slight, of understanding it?
Part 1:
The President does not author bills in Congress. Senators and/or Representatives author bills in Congress. All the President gets to do is sign or veto a bill that Congress votes on and sends to him. Thus, the contents of a bill that Congress sends to the President is not evidence of what the President thinks of the subject matter therein.
Now read that last sentence about a thousand times, teacher boy, until it sinks in and you understand it.
Part 2:
The President almost never, ever gets what he wants in a bill that Congress sends to him. He is faced with Hobson's Choice; he can sign the bill into law or veto it. He must balance what the bill contains that he wants against what the bill contains that he doesn't want. The President signed the bill in question because the contents of the bill, on balance, were favorable to him.
Now read that last sentence about a thousand times, teacher boy, until it sinks in and you understand it.
Part 3:
You make the assertion that, because the President signed the bill in question, he must have been in favor of a particular part of it that you wish to argue about, a part that is diametrically opposed to damned nearly all his prior history on the subject.
Now read that last sentence about a thousand times, teacher boy, and then try to find some evidence, somewhere, that you are correct. You can't read his mind, yet you continue to spew unbelievable, incredible horseshit as if you can.
We require evidence to believe your assertion. You have not provided it. That is not a failure on our part, rather it is a failure on your part.
Why do you continue to insult our intelligence on this matter?
I still don't have time to answer Marky's Two Facts We "Ignore" idiocy. But this is one of them. But I've already done the research. Here are my links. Can someone organize them for the terminally stupid?
BTW, the bill Obama signed was all about Credit Regulation. It just had an unrelated rider about guns in national parks. (Attaching unrelated riders to bills is a practice I consider completely unethical, but that's for another time.) Obama really, really wanted the credit regulations, so he signed the bill in spite of the rider. It's kind of like buying a car you really, really want even though you hate the wheels. It doesn't hurt much to have something come with it that you don't really like when you're planning to just replace them anyway.
Oh, two names: Rahm Emmanuel and Sonya Sotamayor: Two completely anti-gun Obama appointees put into positions to implement an anti-gun, anti-self-defense agenda.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at Sara. From what I can see, Big Hollywood is pretty much the same as HotAir or Worldnet Daily. These headlines...
"Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson"
"Confronting Al Gore with An Inconvenient Question"
"Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Janeane Is Off Her Meds and Other Stories"
Combine this with blog roll that has some real beauties and my original point...
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
Mark, that's an outstandingly stupid and ill-thought out tactic even for you.
You won't answer "did he, or did he not" questions, you run away from them, and they're far more pointed and less stupid than that one.
But if you want to start with that... We can start with did he, or did he not, exist in Bill Ayer's mentored world....
We'll end up with did he, or did he not, ever do anything as a lawyer, did he or did he not ever argue in any courtroom or even head up any negotiation?
...
You'll run away, because the one thing you do not want to do with your "method" of thinking . Because even you know how badly you'll look.
Watching the standard responses from Markadelphia leads me to conclude one of three things must be true:
1/ He's barking mad. I mean, deluded and so far out of touch with reality that his pink elephant friends regularly give him sound advice.
2/ He's incredibly dumb. and by that I mean, mouth breathing, drool dropping, knuckle dragging rock hard stupid
3/ He's one of the most determined trolls on the internet that I have ever seen. Somehow this gives him great satisfaction for his otherwise frustrated life.
I guess it's not really two since he can at least use a spell checker, 1 is possible, and 3 is most likely. Perhaps even a combination of the first and third.
pd, I had looked into the definition of aphasia as part of handling Marky's personal word definitions. From there I found neologism, which appears to more precisely describe how Marky treats words. Given that, and his apparent inability to even register certain concepts, I've started wondering if he actually has a form of autism.
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
Christian Science Monitor and NYTimes are I'm pretty sure the last two links I've provided, out of a couple of dozen I'd guess. So nowhere near the 99% you pulled out of a dark foul place M.
I found this, an AFP article dated May 22, 2009, titled Obama signs credit card reforms. The lede is (emphasis added):
"President Barack Obama Friday signed sweeping credit card reforms into law, aiming to shield consumers from predatory fees and shock rate hikes, despite complaints from the industry.
""Credit card debt is easily a one-way street," Obama said, as he signed the legislation at a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.
""It is easy to get in, but almost impossible to get out," Obama said, decrying small print on credit card statements containing traps for unwary borrowers.
"The White House's Democratic allies have cast the legislation as a central piece of their effort to re-write the rules of the US economy to help consumers battered by the global financial meltdown."
Thus, the reason Obamateur signed the bill into law was because he wanted the parts in it about credit card reforms.
The caveat is:
"Obama signed the bill despite a controversial clause inserted in the legislation by allies of the gun lobby group National Rifle Association.
"The language permits gun owners to carry concealed weapons in national parks, a rule which gun control advocates complain threatens public safety."
Now, in fairness, that's a statement by the author of the article, not by Obamateur. He continues:
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs sidestepped a question in his daily briefing over Obama's position on the legislation.
"Obviously it's not related to the credit card reforms, and I don't know individually how the president views the legislation, but thinks overall the credit card reform bill is important for consumers and should be signed.""
I don't know how he views it either. He hasn't said how he views it that I can find. As Sebastian noted, his signing statement made no mention of guns. But this statement by his spokesman, and his own statements at the signing, are clear evidence that he signed it into law because it had something he wanted and, on balance, was favorable to his politics.
But we do have clear evidence of what he thinks of it.
Late in 2008, the Interior Department of the Bush Administration issued a rule change that removed the federal restriction on guns in National Parks. In early 2009, several gun control groups filed a lawsuit challenging that rule change. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted an injunction to the plaintiffs which prevented implementation of the rule. Significantly, the Interior Department of the Obamateur Administration filed a statement with the court that it would not oppose the Judge's injunction. So much for Obamateur being in favor of a rule change removing federal restrictions on guns in National Parks.
In summary, there is no statement from Obamateur or his press department as to what he thinks of this rule (which isn't surprising), but his Interior Department has acted in opposition to it. Thus, our only evidence as to his opinion of the rule change is in line with his past history of statements about guns.
Not all of them, Ed. The first few I have already seen. But, I'm in the middle of tiling a bathroom floor and walls and I'm worn smooth out. It's too much down-on-the-floor-scurrying-about-behavior.
"We're biased towards positions which are confirmed by actual evidence and sound logic."
Right...arguing with leftists is like talking to Charles Manson. Liberals are pyschotic killers. By gum, you are right, Ed! Sound logic, indeed!
DJ, I'm surprised at you. You recently chastised me for relying too much about how President Obama thinks or what he says. You told me I should be more concerned with what he actually does. Well, he signed a bill into law, a portion of which increased the rights of gun owners. This was a definable act. In fact, you said that what was most important was what he signed into law.
And now you are talking about what he thinks as being more important?
And now you are talking about what he thinks as being more important?
And now you talked right past all the points made to you, dealing with none, right back to your original point. Or, in other words, losing the debate since you merely repeated what you said without any regard for any analysis. The Animantronics at Disney do just as well.
Which, really, proves all the other points made about you.
Sound logic, indeed!
You have to understand something to satirize it. Which is why you fail so badly, Ralph. (See what I did there!?)
"You recently chastised me for relying too much about how President Obama thinks or what he says."
No, I have repeatedly chewed your ass for claiming to know what Obamateur thinks, i.e. claiming to be able to read his mind. You can't do it, you know you can't do it, but you keep on claiming that you can by telling us what he thinks. I have have "chastised" you for making shit up.
"You told me I should be more concerned with what he actually does."
That is partly correct. I have told you repeatedly that what a politician has done or said in the past when he was not campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors tells you much more about what his beliefs are than anything he says when he is campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors. The primary tool of a politician is the lie, and thus any politician is at his least untrustworthy when he has the least incentive to lie.
You claim to "know quite a bit about political science" and yet you don't appear to understand this.
"Well, he signed a bill into law, a portion of which increased the rights of gun owners. This was a definable act."
Yup. He did, and it was.
I have repeatedly explained to you why he did so, and I have shown you the words of his own spokesman as verification. You continue to ignore it.
I have repeatedly explained to you what conclusions cannot be drawn from it and why. You continue to ignore it.
Again, you claim to "know quite a bit about political science" and yet you don't appear to understand the simple fact that a President signing a bill into law is not evidence that he is in favor of everything in the bill. Yet again, you have not thought through the consequences of your words before posting them.
"In fact, you said that what was most important was what he signed into law."
Show me my own words. I don't know what you are referring to.
"And now you are talking about what he thinks as being more important?"
What he thinks IS important. What I have been trying to get you to understand is that him signing the bill in question into law does NOT indicate in any way that he has changed his thinking concerning guns.
And what do you do, yet again? You exhibit your Standard Responses #6, i.e. you deliberately miss the point, and #7, you simply ignore any evidence that does not square with the conclusion you have already jumped to.
You continue to assert that him signing the bill in question means he was in favor of the portion of that bill which removed the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks, despite that portion being diametrically opposite to his entire public history on the subject and despite the complete absence of any statement BY HIM that he does so.
In plain English, teacher boy, you continue to claim to know something that you have no evidence for. So put up or shut the fuck up. Find the public statement BY HIM that he specifically supports and favors the portion of that bill which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks and show it to us. Showing us that he signed the goddamned bill into law does NOT do that.
Well, he signed a bill into law, a portion of which increased the rights of gun owners.
Before you go blind jerking yourself off over this one TINY thing, perhaps you should check in on how Team Obama is weighing in on the Chicago 2nd Amdt case the Supreme Court is about to hear. If he supports the 2nd against Chicago, then I will happily concede he has transformed into the pro-2nd person you imagine him to be. If not, well, then we will have been proved right and you wrong - again.
I think I'm going to answer this in the way that you would: The simple act of signing the bill means that he supports it. By your own rules, sir, thinking about something or saying something does not mean support and favor. A definable act of voting or signing does signify this...which he did....which you informed me was the ONLY way to gauge support of a law.
If you recall, I related that President Obama stated repeatedly that he "favored sensible gun laws." You chastised me, saying "Who cares what he says? It's what he actually does that I care about. And if he signs something into law, then I will credit him for it."
Juris, what does it matter what he "thinks" or "says" about the case before the Surpreme Court? They have the decision in this instance and his views will have no bearing on the case. Nor will he be taking any definable action one way or the other. He could say that he thinks 2nd rights are being violated but so what? By the rules set here, he still hasn't DONE anything.
1. Read comments/post.
2a. Not understand a dang thing.
or
2b. Misunderstand everything.
3. Post for the world to see shocking ignorance and bloody minded bullheadedness.
They have the decision in this instance and his views will have no bearing on the case.
His DoJ will argue either in favor of McDonald or in favor of Chicago. That's the way the adversarial system of justice works - you argue for or against. That is why I said "Team Obama" - it is the position that his ADMINISTRATION, as a whole takes. It damn sure will matter to SCotUS what the Administration thinks/argues on a major Constitutional question; and it will make plain - too plain for even you to ignore - what is the real Obama position on guns. That you are looking for wiggle room already tells me what you anticipate. Too bad you aren't man enough to do more than wet yourself at the prospect.
MEMBERS of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize have issued an extraordinary defence of their decision after a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the US president.
Asked to comment on the uproar after Friday's announcement, members of the five-strong panel said they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.
"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "He got the prize for what he has done."
He singled out Mr Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and to scale down a Bush-era plan for an anti-missile shield in Europe. "All these things have contributed to … I wouldn't say a safer world, but a world with less tension," Mr Jagland said.
Might want to ask the Poles and Czechs how tense they are now that they've been abandoned.
So the Nobel Committee is under such pressure that they - for the first time ever - have had to defend their choice. You can try and blame it on the Republicans like Mark will, but I don't think there are too many Republicans in those guy's "Country Clubs" (or whatever.)
In 2007 President Bush vetoed a war funding bill that was passed by Congress due to a rider for SCHIP legislation that was added by Democrats.
So, applying Marks logic, by vetoing the war bill, President Bush was against the Iraq war. Someone inform the Norwegians, I think George is up for a peace prize…
Apply his premise to the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The premise is that a vote for a bill by a Senator or Representative is prima facia evidence that said congresscritter supports everything in the bill, and so if the bill contains something that said congresscritter was previously opposed to, then his vote is prima facia evidence that he has changed his stripes, as it were. We may conclude that all of the Senators and Representatives of the Dimocrat Party who used to be anti-gun and who voted for the H.R. 627 are now pro-gun.
But, what's that you say? The premise applies to Presidents but not to Senators? Now why would that be? Well, Obamateur was a Senator right up until he took the oath of office as President. Golly. Who knew taking that oath would magically change how he thinks?
I've been thinking about this. It seems to me that the Nobel Committee's choice of Obama isn't quite as bad as their choice of Yasir Arafat. When it comes to reducing conflict in the world, Obama has pretty much had a NULL result. While we hold the opinion that his unwillingness to stand up to aggressors will lead to disaster, those aggressors haven't made us pay for that position yet.
"January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
"January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an "open house" party at the White House.
"January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how's that working out?)
"January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
"January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
"January 25: Skipped church.
"January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.
"January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
"January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
"January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
"January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
"January 31: Took the day off.
"February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party."
C'mon, teacher boy. The challenge is still on the table:
Find the public statement by President Obamateur that he specifically supports and favors the portion of that bill (H.R. 627) which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks and show it to us.
Are you going to accept the challenge, or you going to pretend I never issued it?
"Third, where is this totalitarian state I hear about? Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama, corporate welfare, a bustling right wing pundit business, and privately owned corporations running our state (see: plutonomy, Citigroup doc)."
Y'know, I shouldn't be surprised that Mark disappeared from yet another horrific mental beating, but it is a little tiring *knowing* that he'll be back and will pull the same shit again.
This is looking more and more like a repeat offense case in serious need of capital punishment.
Unfortunately, there's no real equivalent in intellectual affairs.
C'mon, it's a simple notion: Obamateur does not believe something unless and until he actually achieves that something, thus the lack of achievement means there is no corresponding belief.
If you understand that this is precisely the opposite of how he (ahem) thinks concerning Bush, it becomes so much easier to understand.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/next-one-will-walk-on-water.html (147 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
That was definitely my first thought: For What? Heck, he is still ramping up the Afghan war, continuing the Iraq war, and thinking about an Iran war. Yeah, that's very peaceful.
Y'know, the thing that scares me is that liberals *are* defending this nomination. I'm actually, for once, curious for Mark's input, since he's generally a good barometer for liberal thinking (or what passes for it).
Generally I'm loathe to write off an entire group for the actions of a few, but I'm getting closer and closer to just relegating all of Europe into the "retarded" pile.
UN says he's the pres. of the world so he just tell everybody to play nice. In his pipe dreams!!
I note that even Obama's fans who retain some ember of independent thought capacity are in a state of WTF?
Adam,
Instapundit even has a link to The Huffington Post, of all places, questioning this decision. The author compares it to giving an Oscar to a young director in the hopes that he'll eventually make excellent films or giving the Pulitzer to a first time author for a novel he hasn't written yet.
My take is that this is another Rorschach test, separating the Obama true believers from the mere followers of convenience. It's clear that the Nobel committee is made up of True Believers. It would surprise me a little if Marky agreed with HuffPo on this one, but it is possible.
'Course, Marky declined to take the last Rorschach test I offered. (What is Ted Kennedy's reward in the afterlife?) It wouldn't surprise me that he declines this one too.
Nobel Prize award are and have been laughable for a while. Along the same lines as being "knighted". It probably meant something special at one time but now that Elton John and Paul McCartney are knighted, the real knights just roll in their graves. What a joke!
Next year he'll win the Nobel Prize for medicine for not curing cancer.
I reside in that ultra-liberal bastion of academia, and yet all of the responses to this announcement have been negative. Maybe that's because I'm in astrophysics, a subject for which you have to earn a nomination, let alone a prize.
I heard only one quasi-defense this morning, from someone outside the department. She quipped that, while it was definitely premature, maybe he'll work hard to earn it in the future. What an idea. After all the bailouts and the mortgage mess, it seems fitting that our President would be given a Nobel Prize on credit. I wonder what will happen if he defaults.
Heinlein's Crazy Years: Let me show you them.
I stopped paying attention to the Peace Prize when they gave one to Arafat.
They gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat.
I'm thinking anyone they offered one to after that should have had the integrity to turn the motherfucker down.
Heheheheheh. *high five to Joel*
Kevin:
My gast hasw been well and truly flabbered this morning.
This is obviously one of God's Little Jokes...and boy is it a doozy!
You'll hear it elsewhere, but the cutoff for nominations for the prize is February 1st, so Obama's "work" for "peace" consists entirely of his activities between 20 January 2009 and 01 February 2009.
Just for comparison's sake, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for over TWENTY YEARS for his anti-apartheid for which he shared the prize with F.W.DeKlerk.
Our Alleged Hawaiian simply showed up and was "Present".
Transnational Statist Socialist Progressives, (who used to be called "Fucking Communists", in a simpler time), haven't changed their spots at all.
And they are still the world's most lethal pack of ass-hatted buffoons.
Adam:
"Y'know, the thing that scares me is that liberals *are* defending this nomination. I'm actually, for once, curious for Mark's input, since he's generally a good barometer for liberal thinking (or what passes for it)."
I just dropped by my favorite moonbat sweat-lodge, and the True Believers there are trying VERY HARD to make this a Communal Moonbat Joygasm.
This is an opportunity for moonbat liberals to bask in some sort of affirmation of their conceits.
And no-one will EVER accuse a Liberal of passing up an opportunity to feel good about themselves...
Thomas Sowell called it in 1996: Self-contgratulations as a basis for social policy.
It's not what you DO that matters, it's what you intend.
Fun Nobel Peace Prize fact: Stalin was nominated. Twice.
Graves are peaceful. He filled a lot of them.
Sitting President Accepts Big Money Gift
It's slowly dawning on others too. If Congress allows the gift (which I think they can and only they can allow -- how did Barack accept so quickly?) will that be Obama's Augustest moment? All hail Cæsar. LOL
I can't believe I'm saying this, but at least Stalin had some verifiable accomplishments. Nine million dead kulaks doesn't happen in just two weeks.
It's not what you DO that matters, it's what you intend.
From "Yellow is the New Red," at http://thepyramidmustfall.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/yellow-is-the-new-red/
"I curse because that’s who I am, because I care, and because I’m not dead inside."
You really ought to check this guy out and maybe have some fun with him: makes Wormtongue look like a model of reason and coherence.
Be on the lookout for sly insinuations of racism based on invalid comparisons to MLK's prize.
Knowing the selection committee wants to hand these things out like M&Ms, I guess next year Dear Leader will get one for Economics. You watch, he'll be the first to collect all six.
Dear Leader is a total fraud, not one significant positive accomplishment to his name (other than getting elected which is debatable as to how positive that accomplishment is). I'd love to see the criteria they used to come to Obama as their recipient. Is there any adulation this world won't denigrate in their efforts to hand them out to Obama? How about a Hugo Award for his crap autobiography? How about an Olympic gold medal in curling? How about awarding him the Stanley Cup just so he can get his name on it? How about "rookie of the year" from the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB? How about "employee of the month" for the McDonalds in Newberry, MI? "Best Actor" Oscar would be one he could possibly be seriously awarded.
I just feel sorry for all those people, misguided and otherwise, who have genuinely worked to see peace brought to the various troubled regions of the world. Their efforts go completely unnoticed while the Nobel committee decides to hand the award to someone who hasn't lifted a finger to advancing peace in this world.
I'm sorry this turned into a rant, but I just don't see what is so wonderful about a man who has been given every opportunity to do good in this world and hasn't and expects to keep rising to the next level on the merits of his non-existent accomplishments. I don't get what the appeal is about Obama. What is it about him that so many prominent people are so willing to sacrifice their integrity and professionalism to heap adulation on this man?
At least some good is coming out of this.
Here's just one example, a Tweet from my Missouri State Rep:
[blockquote]RyanSilvey BREAKING NEWS: Nobel Committee adds all Miss USA contestants as co-winners of Peace Prize for also wanting world peace & giving a speech.[/blockquote]
I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award. Perhaps after a first term or a significant breakthrough in the Muslim world which apparently was why the award was given. From my stand point, all he did was take an excellent first step.
But Matt above is correct. He's not exactly a peace and granola guy. That being said, I think the reaction by the right is, as always, entertaining:)
We're upset somebody got something he doesn't deserve why is it entertaining?
I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award.
Ladies and gentlemen, the clown that keeps on beclowning...
...and his sidekick, Grima Wormtongue.
I keep giggling. Oh, sure, I had my WTF?! moment, but this stuff is comedy gold.
Iowahawk would be hard pressed to come up with something so bizarre. Of course, even doing a rerun he still hits it out of the park.
We may be headed to the Endarkenment, but the in flight movie is all kinds of awesome!
That being said, I think the reaction by the right is, as always, entertaining
Really, Mark? Here is a sampling, word-for-word, of comments made by my super-liberal colleagues on Facebook this morning. Do you find these entertaining, too?
"Obama Nobel Laureate... WTF?"
"FREE Nobel Peace Prizes for everyone!!!"
"Make mine a Pulitzer, please. Just on the off-chance that one of my stories ever gets published!"
"Carter, Gore, IAEA and now Obama... I wonder how long being opposed (or different) to Bush the Younger and his Court will give bonus points to people on the Nobel Peace Prize shortlist."
Sarah, the left's negative reaction is largely due to the fact that President Obama has increased troop presence in AfPak. They don't see him as a peacenik. He's not so they are correct in wondering...wtf?
The right's reaction, however, is part of their overall (and ever eternal) short man syndrome so that's why I find it amusing.
Good, Mark, now take that next step and just say it out loud: "It's okay when we do it, but not when you do."
Come oooonnnn! You'll feel so much better!
"The right's reaction, however.."
Wait, wait, wait. I get it! For once I understand the logic Mark is TRYING to employ!
You see, if the LEFT feels some way about something, it's because of something where he LET THEM DOWN. That's the ONLY reason they might not like it, of course. If the RIGHT does it, it's the usual gun-toting, Al-Qaeda-like mentality.
Ah, of course. Because none of can find *anyone* else more deserving of a prize for peace.
Then again, stupidity is sort of a recurring theme of Nobel Prize selection.
Mark, the lefty reaction that I've seen examples of is similar to a reaction I would expect to see if a high-school football player who has just received an academic scholarship for the U-M football team was awarded the Heisman trophy.
I don't see any specific complaints about policy, yet.
Though, to be honest, the Nobel Peace Prize has gone to a wide mix of winners and losers.
Norm Borlaug deserved his, definitely...Carter at least had years of work to show for his Peace Prize, even if the work was fruitless...Yasser Arafat got it for signing a peace accord, even when he bragged on Palestine radio that his signature wasn't in good faith.
Mark:
I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award.
Welcome to the bitter clingers, my fellow leftist.
Teddy Roosevelt wins the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping a war between Russia and Japan. Woodrow Wilson won his Peace Prize for creating the League of Nations after WWI, an institution dedicated to peace and the forerunner to the UN. Jimmy Carter wins the Prize for a lifetime of work finding peaceful solutions to international conflicts. Obama wins the prize for...breathing? He was nominated no more than 12 days after taking office! So this prize is for what he did in those 12 days as president?
Gosh, really sucks to be someone that actually did something this year, or dedicated their whole life to some cause promoting peace and all that. Ugh. Let’s take a look at some of the other nominees, shall we?
Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.
Whew, sure am glad this joker didn’t get the prize, right? Anywho, probably most of his “victims” did not get rape-raped, right Whoopi?
Then there is Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”
Meh. Chicks shouldn’t be edumacated anyway, right? Especially in Islamic countries since it’s probably against Islam or the law or something and all cultures are equal so we just have to respect that they treat womens like crap, and not encourage uppity chicks like this one. Good job Nobel Prize committee on being The Man and keeping the womens down!
Next up for consideration is Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”
Bah! Innocent civilians should just suck it up and learn to be careful where they walk, right? So really, why bother cleaning them up? It's just busy work! Clearly it was good to skip these guys over.
Irena Sendler, a woman who saved 2,500 Polish Jews from the Holocaust.
Whoops, that was Al Gore who beat her out for the Nobel Peace Prize. She didn’t make a movie about her contribution to world peace after all, so can’t let her win!
Then there is this Bary dude who did, umm...well...see he said he was gonna do some stuff, but he hasn't had time to get around to it yet.
Oh yeah! Let's give it to this guy! Whoooo! he's gonna do stuff, and we can preemptively award him for those future deeds!
Gah!
...the left's negative reaction is largely due to the fact that President Obama has increased troop presence in AfPak. They don't see him as a peacenik.
No. That's not it. It's precisely the sentiment you expressed not three comments above mine:
"I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award."
As karrde pointed out, at least the other NPP leftist stooges have something quasi-accomplishmentistic about them, but Obama was nominated two weeks after taking office. This is a farce, and even the die-hard liberals I work with know that it's a farce.
Gandalf. What's not to understand?
Where the death cults have gained supremacy, peace is to understood to be that of the grave. Hence, the Nobel Peace prize nominees who were passed over so they could award this --- harbinger.
I love that Tinkerballs thinks he can not only speak for every single lefty out there, but also every single righty as well. But, then again, when you make up definitions for words on the fly, you can represent whatever demographic you want, however you want. The pride of that halfwit continues to amaze and impress.
Fact of the matter is that Our Glorious President has not accomplished a bloody thing with the civil sevice job he was elected to... And he has certainly not done a bloody thing to put him in the same category as MLK, the Dalai Llama, Nelson Mandela, or Mother Theresa.
The Patron Saint of False Science, on the other hand, sounds just like Our Glorious President's kin.
I think the reaction by the right is, as always, entertaining
For entertaining reactions, I find it hard to beat this one:
http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2009/10/mehdi-hasan-bush-administration-oba
Sarah, the left's negative reaction is largely due to the fact that President Obama has increased troop presence in AfPak. They don't see him as a peacenik. He's not so they are correct in wondering...wtf?
Really?
To quote 'Allahpundit' at Hot Air, "Meanwhile, at which rabidly right-wing blog did this headline appear this morning: “Whatever Happened to Awarding for Deeds Actually Done?” Answer here:"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/barack-obama-nobel-peace_b_314899.html
Note that it has already been pulled from the site less that 12 hours later, possibly in hopes of denying it ever existed in the first place.
Color me surprised.
...and his sidekick, Grima Wormtongue.
I think you over-estimate Markadaffya with that allusion ken. Grima had a plan, and was in league with someone powerful who could possibly deliver.
M has a plan about like he has a clue.
And he has certainly not done a bloody thing to put him in the same category as MLK, the Dalai Llama, Nelson Mandela, or Mother Theresa.
Yeah, well Linoge, that's just racist. [/clueless snarkasm]
One or two good quotes of the day at Samizdata
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/
Some more thoughts on the Nobel Peace Prize deal...
Rachel Maddow had a long list of people that have won the prize over the years and accomplished nothing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
It's in the first segment entitled "Obama brings another honor to America." Oh, and the beginning has a nice segment of a variety of people cheering America's loss of the Olympics. My oh my...you people sure have come a long way...happy over a US defeat.
It didn't really convince me that he "deserved" the award but it is an interesting take. I didn't realize that there were so many people awarded simply for effort.
Oh, and sayeth Boss Limbaugh...
"Something has happened that we agree with the Taliban and Iran about...he doesn't deserve the award..."
The GOP, the Taliban, and Iran...hmmm...now who was it that said our fundamentalists and their fundamentalists have much in common? :)
The GOP, the Taliban, and Iran...hmmm...now who was it that said our fundamentalists and their fundamentalists have much in common?
Since that statement carries the status of "proof" in your eyes, let me rephrase it:
The Huffington Post, the Taliban, and Iran...hmmm...now who was it that said our fundamentalists and their fundamentalists have much in common?
Heinlein's Crazy Years: Let me show you them.
No Thanks. I'm already living them, and that's quite enough for me.
Markaphasia, try this:
Imagine George W. Bush being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize only twelve days after taking office as President and then being awarded that prize nine months later.
What would be your reaction?
This kind of test can be performed in most any such case and its value is that it removes one's own political leanings from the test.
You wrote:
"I don't think he's had enough time in office to really warrant the award. "
Which is irrelevant. The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded for "time in office", and thus his time in office when nominated is irrelevant. He does not deserve the prize because he has not earned it.
So, tell us, teacher boy, why do people who make this observation deserve ridicule from anyone? Why is getting it right worthy of contempt?
Oh, and the beginning has a nice segment of a variety of people cheering America's loss of the Olympics.
Mark, if the Obamas had sincerely wanted the Olympics for America and the American people, then I would agree that the gloating would be detestable (in that it would resemble liberal behavior during the previous eight years). But it was abundantly clear that the Olympics bid was about the Obamas. Count how many times either of them said "I" or "me" in their speeches. It was not about America. People are gloating about the Obamas losing out on the Obamalympics, not America losing out on the Olympics.
We have the most "me" presidency I can remember in the last 40 years. The liberals I work with are getting fed up with the constant exposure on TV, the parties, the endless campaigning months after Obama has taken office, and now accepting an award that everyone knows he doesn't deserve. They're gentle in their reproach, but even they're waking up to the fact that his presidency is not about serving America, it's not about serving us, it's about us catering to Obama and his celebrity.
Being President of the United States is the biggest ego trip the world has to offer. What is amazing is that Obama is making Slick Willie look like a slacker in the stoking of the presidential ego.
Sarah, what a sad comment to make. The propaganda machine has done quite a job on you and, quite frankly, I pity anyone with this point of view.
To say that you are wrong about him is the understatement of...forever. Your comment perfectly illustrates the right's eternal short man syndrome that I mentioned above. President Obama could take a bullet for Jonah Goldberg and you would still say he was just doing it to increase his celebrity. You don't like him. You don't know him. You don't understand him. And your bias precludes you from ever doing so.
DJ, essentially, I agree with you. I don't think he has achieved anything to warrant the award. But what if the award is based in effort and not achievement? Rachel's list in the above link is fairly compelling and I don't think you should discount it. Still, though, I remain unconvinced that his service to the world warranted the award.
My reaction with Bush would've probably been the same...what has he done? Did he achieve anything? Did he give any effort? Ironically, had Bush not had his psychotic daddy complex and a desire to make his pals in the defense and oil industry rich (Iraq), he might've had a shot a Nobel. He was, after all, the first sitting president to declare that the Palestinians deserve their own state. And that was right after 9-11. One of his few good moments and one that I actually do not agree with...from the other side!
I still respect him for saying it, though.
The propaganda machine has done quite a job on you and, quite frankly, I pity anyone with this point of view.
Verbatim, I'm sure. Maybe it enslaved her? Perhaps it should be more regulated.
I'm sure DJ will handle this as well, but it was bugging me to leave this hanging:
But what if the award is based in effort and not achievement?
Not surprisingly to us, it's not.
From the will of Alfred Nobel:
"and one part 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."
10 freaking seconds of Google. Literally. Verbatim.
Glad you brought up, verbatim, again, Unix. The above clip reminded me that Charles Krauthammer coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which has been used VERBATIM here several times. That makes two examples (Ingraham, useful idiots being the first).
Michael Moore brought up an interesting point on this site today.
"The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity.
At precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him won it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in the Grant Park Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown Chicago, billions of people around the globe were already breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as if, in that instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the world -- and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve."
An interesting take and it does explain the thinking behind the award but I'm still not convinced. President Obama is not quite at the MLK or Desmond Tutu level yet. Of course, he could be but then that would just be for his own ego and celebrity, right?
Mark:
You're glad I brought up that you didn't know what verbatim meant, insisted you did, and when you finally told us what you thought it meant (and were totally wrong, defining it in contradiction to what it meant), you refused to admit you'd been totally wrong?
That's got what to do with what?
That we've referred to BDS for people - like yourself - who get totally unhinged about Bush?
Then you quote Michael Moore, in a perfect display of BDS?
The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Seems to me that the 22nd Amendment has a better claim.
Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked.
Aside from the slander there, no, they weren't, Mark.
As much as Obama ran against Bush - Bush wasn't running for office. Hell, McCain opposed Bush on most policy initiatives for 8 years, you could make the same claim for McCain.
Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve.
Ah, so he's got billions of people ready willing and able... but the minority (Not even 300!) of Evul Republicans keep thwarting him?
You really are this disjointed in the thinking department, aren't you?
President Obama is not quite at the MLK or Desmond Tutu level yet.
As he admitted. IN fact, conceded that he had a inferior claim to others nominated. Then accepted it.
You ran off at the mouth for something you could have known in under 30 seconds, and you were wrong.
I bought up verbatim, because you've never even made the marginal effort to admit that you were totally, 100% wrong, and now you're trying to attack me with the word.
You're pretty much defining "shameless". It's not detracting from me and my credibility.
I think I pity Marky, so full of hate and stupid.
But then again, I do like watching him trip and fall down every time he acts like he is 'thinking' and 'making a point' much like I like the watching the Keystone Kops
Carry on, O Enraged Awaken Giant!
Mark, you're the pitiable fool here. What frightens me is the brainless fervor with which you buy into the idea that Obama is anything but a light-weight narcissistic poseur, a corrupt shill for a discredited ideology who associates with violent creeps, a man with no real experience, no accomplishments to his name, and who is presiding over a nation more divided than at any other time since the Civil War.
If I cared one iota about your opinion, I'd be insulted by your insinuation that I have no brain of my own, no capacity to use inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion that is more than supported by several independent facts. Instead, my opinion must be the result of secret encoded right-wing-frequency brainwaves that tell me what to think of Obama. So, who exactly is telling me what to think of Obama? Who on the right is feeding me this opinion? I want you to name names.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck of course, Sarah.
Whether or not you actually listen to them (I don't) is beside the point. It's all encoded into secret sub-carrier waves broadcast by Fox News.
Sarah, thanks for cementing my point even further.
"who is presiding over a nation more divided than at any other time"
Agreed. And why is that?
"Obama is anything but a light-weight narcissistic poseur, a corrupt shill for a discredited ideology who associates with violent creeps.."
Eternal short man syndrome...
"So, who exactly is telling me what to think of Obama? Who on the right is feeding me this opinion? I want you to name names."
Thanks GOF...you can start with the usual crowd of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and move on to the commenters on this site. They speak of the same ideas you do...in some cases VERBATIM. You've bought into a theory, Sarah, that helps you to feel more comfortable about your paranoia and rage towards the government. Starting with these thoughts makes it certain that whatever he does, he will fail in your eyes which is the admitted goal and vision of Boss Limbaugh.
"But what if the award is based in effort and not achievement?"
Then it would be meaningless, and that is what the reaction of so many people is in this case.
Only one runner wins the race; one doesn't award a gold medal to everyone who makes an effort.
"The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize."
Afred Nobel's will states why the peace prize should be awarded; "... who shall have done ..." Obama had done nothing toward earding such a prize. Thus we see a double standard, which is one reason among many why jackasses such as Moore are worthy of contempt.
"Sarah, thanks for cementing my point even further."
There you go again with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like your side being accused of. As with #2, one often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
Goddamn, little boy, but you are predictable. You cannot learn, can you?
you can start with the usual crowd of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin
And?
You also ignored my questions to you. Funny, that. (Not really)
about your paranoia and rage towards the government.
You keep saying that, but you don't demonstrate at ALL where it's true. The one raging is you.
I'm pretty sure we're all mostly laughing at Obama - that's what you can't figure out. We're not enraged that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize as an Affirmative Action move (but this ought to demonstrate, even to you, the problems with AA. It won't, though.)
By his, and the committee's admission, he doesn't qualify for the prize. Yet we're not enraged. Most of us lost our outrage over the NPP when they gave one to Arafat, and that's if you hadn't lost respect for it after they gave one to Gorbachev... For following Ronald Reagan's lead. That was all I needed to know what the NPP had become. Then the awards to Gore and Carter... I didn't get outraged about them, I laughed. Pitiful attempts by pitiful people to protest the US.
At the "Tea Party" protests - do you see rage there?
(Well, you will, but that's because of your Unchangeable Narrative.) You see a lot of people who pick up after themselves. You like to throw us "Have you...." Well, have you talked to people who went to those meetings? I have. They all - in more than 15 states so far - reported that it was a fun time. People laughed, and joked and .. had a good time. Yes, they're outraged, much as I am by the fact that my daughter will have to owe - so far - almost $300k in taxes to pay off the debt (So pushing a million with inflation and interest by the time she's working (in a enslaving W-2 job, and trying to get an enslaving mortgage)) - and she's not even born yet. So they're upset, and they're practicing their Constitutionally-protected rights to share their views. Funny how you want to shut that down. Almost like your complaints about being called a "banner" when you want to ban guns.
The G-20 summit protests, however, filled with people who agree with you?
We're not enraged over Obama's policies simply because we oppose them in theory, or (unlike you) have the intellectual and educational chops to cite where they're going to fail. It's not just theory - so far, we've been 100% correct. (Yes, I know, guns in parks as a rider that he opposed but signed. Yes, Mark, that makes ALL the difference. When is it you're going to take "Civics" in high school again? Ok, We'll discuss this after you do.)
Boss Limbaugh.
Your continued narrative that we all take orders and follow and flock behind Limbaugh is telling, reinforcing the observation and analysis that LabRat made 2 years ago now - you live in a narrative. LabRat is a smart person, who's good at analysis.
The only person here, worshipping at the feet of The Won, is you. Look at Moore's quote. It's factually laughable. It's idelogically frightening. And you wave it and say "Proof proven" to you "conservatives".
We don't worship Limbaugh - most don't listen to him. We don't worship Malkin, etc, etc. We might reflect or agree with them and quote them when they have a point, but first they must make that point, and it must be a good point to make.
You're projecting onto us. You have been for years. Nobody's "feeding us opinions". We're observing that those opinions are completely correct.
"Completely correct" - something you don't understand. Verbatim. (Thanks for continuing to support me, by continuing to use that word.)
Oh no.
Now those leading conservatives on Saturday Night Live are feeding us opinions!
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/saturday-night-live-mocks-obama-winning.html
I'm amused that enemies of freedom and liberty all but fell over themselves trying to congratulate The Won.
Gee, that nickname is even more fitting now!
"who is presiding over a nation more divided than at any other time"
Agreed. And why is that?
Because we are in the middle of a culture war, and Obama as a hard-line partisan is facilitating the delineation between the two sides more than any other leader in recent times. I don't expect you to understand that, even though you have clearly chosen a side.
"Obama is anything but a light-weight narcissistic poseur, a corrupt shill for a discredited ideology who associates with violent creeps.."
Eternal short man syndrome...
You'll have to explain. For what, allegedly, am I compensating?
Thanks GOF...you can start with the usual crowd of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin...
Even though I don't listen to Rush or Beck? Even though I don't watch FOXNews at all? Even though until a few months ago, I didn't even have TV and had never heard of Beck? These are truly amazing mind-control powers of which you speak.
...and move on to the commenters on this site.
ROFL!! So I, as an active contributor here, am being fed an opinion by the other commenters? Furthermore, these commenters are all also being programmed by the Rush-Beck-Malkin mind-control consortium. Dare I ask, from where do Rush-Beck-Malkin receive their orders to hate Obama?
You've bought into a theory...
A theory is a rigorous model of reality that is supported by facts. You have no idea what this word means.
... that helps you to feel more comfortable about your paranoia and rage towards the government.
It's only paranoia if it's not happening, and I can see with my own eyes what's happening. As for rage, stop projecting your idiot emotions on me. I feel no rage when I look at Obama and the direction in which our country is moving. I feel sadness and frustration.
Does it occur to you that I, as a hard scientist with an IQ and a Ph.D., use my powers of observation and reasoning to take reported facts and Obama's own words and actions to formulate my opinion of him and his policies? In other words, why do you need to believe that everyone here cannot possibly have arrived at similar opinions independently? Why do you find that so threatening?
Starting with these thoughts makes it certain that whatever he does, he will fail in your eyes which is the admitted goal and vision of Boss Limbaugh.
Projection. You just described your side for the last eight years.
I said this right after the election, and I mean it. If Obama were to miraculously espouse free market ideals, I would do cartwheels and sing his praises all over the land.
See, this is the difference between your side and mine. Your side is tribal. It's always your guy versus our guy. You hate Bush and every conservative regardless of what they do. But you love Obama even though he is as anti-gay as any mainstream conservative (and based on his Christian faith, no less), you love him even though he is continuing a war you called "illegal" for five years, you love him even though he is ten times the cronyist that Bush was. That's because, to the degree that your cognitive dissonance permits you to believe this, the man and the ideology are inseparable. Conservatives are not tribal. The grassroots conservatives in this country are loyal to principles, not people. That's why we didn't much care for Bush and despised McCain. Who gives a shit if they call themselves conservatives? They didn't act like it. And that's why, if through some alien brain-flop technology Obama suddenly became a real conservative, he'd have our support.
I do not hate Obama. I do not want Obama to fail to lead this country in the right direction. I do, however, want his socialist policies to fail. Fervently.
>>>"who is presiding over a nation more divided than at any other time"
>>Agreed. And why is that?
Oh, I called that before the election. The only unity Obama offers is the unity of conformance to his worldview, and fealty to his team.
It's. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Therefore, the division and lack of unity is our fault. QED.
You've bought into a theory...
Yes, I have. I've "bought into the theory" that extortion and armed robbery are wrong. And that having a majority of the population vote to have the police and the IRS commit extortion and/or armed robbery by proxy against X chosen group for them doesn't make it any less wrong.
I have "bought into the theory" that people are not going to care as much about strangers as they will about friends, family and loved ones. They just ain't gonna, no matter what you do. And that if you try to force them to care as much about strangers as they do about their loved ones, you'll end with sullen, rebellious, non-productive people. They won't bother to try to lift themselves out of misery because they are taught every day that there's no future in it, that the only way to lift themselves out of their misery is to carry the entire gang, all 300 million of em.
I've "bought into the theory" that a greedy, corrupt scam artist doesn't magically cease to be a greedy, corrupt scam artist just because he has a union membership or a (D) behind his name. To be sure, he doesn't cease to be a greedy, corrupt scam artist by having an (R), or anything else, behind his name either. The only difference, note that, the only difference, is that now he has the power to commit armed robbery by proxy, as noted above.
Want to know why I've "bought into this theory"? Because it is borne out by observation of the real world, that's why.
Now, exactly what part of that theory do you disagree with, and why?
See above. "It's okay when we do it, but not when you do."
When two liberals agree, especially when one of them is Mark, it shows the strength of the viewpoint. Sometimes its proof positive of its validity.
When two conservatives agree, it proves they're taking orders from some great shadow dictator, or are part of a fearageanoid hive-mind.
"Obama as a hard-line partisan"
Wrong.
"even though you have clearly chosen a side."
Wow. Even more wrong. The above two statement are actually true of YOU....a hard line partisan for the base of the party and most assuredly on a side.
"For what, allegedly, am I compensating?"
I'm not certain. DJ is the one who can give psychological diagnosis over the Internet. I don't know you personally but your comments mean that it is something. Perhaps you are beginning to understand that your ideology has failed you and that just won't do. Admitting mistake=end of universe.
"am being fed an opinion by the other commenters? "
Yes...it's called groupthink.
"Dare I ask, from where do Rush-Beck-Malkin receive their orders to hate Obama?"
They, like any business people, know that there is a market for what they say. Essentially, it's political porn...people want to hear a certain thing and they get off on it. They are very astute and are playing to their audience. No one is ordering them...although they make money from like minded businesses or special interests...mostly, they do and say what they want to make money and gain more power.
"as a hard scientist with an IQ and a Ph.D., use my powers of observation and reasoning to take reported facts and Obama's own words and actions to formulate my opinion of him and his policies?"
What absolutely slays me about folks on this site is that because you are all scientists and engineers that...somehow...using your knowledge in these areas...that you MUST be right about politics and history.
WTF?
And....NOT!
I'll grant you that I know nothing about engineering nor most scientific fields (ex: the list below). In these areas, I will cede that you know best. But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education. Perhaps you do as well. But to use your background as a scientist or engineer to somehow make your political ideology more truthful and say that it is REALITY is complete bullshit. The reality actually is I think, again, you are not so certain about this ideology and are trying to compensate for it.
"If Obama were to miraculously espouse free market ideals, I would do cartwheels and sing his praises all over the land."
Well, there's your version of free market ideals (see: fundamentalist, Christian) and the actual ones which we have in reality. To say that you look at facts in regards to our latest economic crisis is preposterous. You refuse to take into account ANY of the actual events as they transpired and look only to your ideology-gubmint bad, ugh!-and then work backwards from there. A textbook case of confirmation bias. I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
"I do, however, want his socialist policies to fail. Fervently."
HIS POLICIES (AND HE) ARE NOT FUCKING SOCIALIST!!!
You say you deal with facts? Go look up the definition of socialism in the dictionary. Explain to me how our government now magically controls the means of production (ALL production) in this country and has taken over 23 trillion dollars in wealth. You are letting your emotions get away with you and are going to the bad place...please...for the love of God...come off the ledge, have some hot coca and chill out...
And while you are at it, explain to me how a country that is run by private banks is socialist. Sheer lunacy...
Sarah: "For what, allegedly, am I compensating?"
Markaphasia: "I'm not certain.
There you go again with your Standard Response #6. You deliberately miss the point.
You blithering idiot, you accused HER of exhibiting the "Eternal short man syndrome..." She is not physically capable of it.
Goddamn, little boy, but you're just making noise for the sake of engaging in argument. Do you really not have anything better to do? Go rearrange your sock drawer.
DJ, it's a variation on "Sure you want to go there?" It's not having the guts to say plainly, until someone triple-dog-dares him into a corner, what he is more than happy to imply. Maybe it's a proto-Response #11. (If so, then response #12 is whining about personal attacks when he gets what he has coming to him.)
...anyone got a spare close-bold tag I can borrow?
How's that?
I'm amused that the everyone here apparently is blank-minded Rushbots who follow what Rush, Malkin and Beck tell them, but when Marky recites Maher and Moore, he's just expressing his own opinion.
Thank you, Kevin.
Not to be a pest, but do you think you could send me this week's batch of opinions I'm supposed to hold by 1000 EDT tomorrow? Busy week coming. ;)
I've told him many times before that I don't listen to Rush. He doesn't even notice. He's just making noise so someone will take him seriously and give his tiny little ego a semblance of importance.
because you are all scientists and engineers that...somehow...using your knowledge in these areas...that you MUST be right about politics and history.
Isn't that your sole argument to tell us we're wrong about the education biz? (And it is a biz.)
Explain to me how our government now magically controls the means of production (ALL production) in this country and has taken over 23 trillion dollars in wealth.
You won't understand, and I know this, but...
It's called the "Commerce Clause".
Any business is "magically controlled" (your words) by the government. (And agreed to by the USSC.)
The Okra in my backyard is under federal regulation since the okra I grow affects the market that Sarah might buy from.
You refuse to take into account ANY of the actual events as they transpired
... Says the man who still insists that the mortgage market is unregulated and that Bush, who he denounced as a racist for trying to correct some obvious problems, ignored the problems and is to blame.
Anyway. Back to the commerce clause and I know you didn't understand (But I betcha DJ, Russell, Kevin, Sarah, LabRat and Ken could write a small essay on it off the top of their head) but that's why the government has taken control of quite literally all production. Just because they haven't exerted it in total, doesn't mean they don't claim it.
Before you reply: Check this out. The federal government is insisting that they control any and all means of production that can turn out a firearm - even if it never leaves the state.
As usual, you're the one failing in facts and leaving huge thread of discussion - that you brought up! - abandoned.
Night, Ralph.
"And while you are at it, explain to me how a country that is run by private banks is socialist. Sheer lunacy..."
Let's start with you explaining the meaning of 'country', 'run', 'private', 'banks', 'socialism' and 'lunacy' first?
We can tackle the meaning of 'is' later...
Russell:
You must be a very very very very very very short man!!!!
(and I think firing that much overloaded Snark into Willfully Blind is a war crime under the ICC....)
Sweet! Already been called a hate and fear monger, I can add 'war monger' to my list of accomplishments!
And yes, I am short. Shorter than Kim Jong-il, in fact, which explains why I replaced my brain with a radio receiver that has Fox news pumped in, 24/7, and has Limbaugh playing on a higher frequency that taps straight into my spine. Verbatim.
Essentially, it's political porn
For once I agree with you, Mark, except it's more endemic on your side.
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
Me, personally? I don't read Worldnet Daily or Hot Air. Show me any thread on this blog where I have offered a link to Worldnet Daily or Hot Air. You keep foisting this stereotype on me and others here, because you are a classic bigot. You know next to nothing about me, but you make assumptions based on a very broad stereotype of conservatives. Why don't you ask first and quit making yourself look like even more of a fool.
...because you are all scientists and engineers that...somehow...using your knowledge in these areas...that you MUST be right about politics and history.
As usual, you miss the point. The point is that we are trained to be extremely systematic in our thinking and to deal with things the way they are. Unlike people in the social "sciences," it's obvious to us when we get something wrong. Things blow up, buildings collapse, stuff like that. The development of the hard sciences began millenia ago and culminated with a winning formula, the scientific method. It's designed to compensate for one of the great barriers to knowledge, which is human emotion. The social "sciences," however, have not progressed as far in that time, and have no such safeguard from human emotion. For that reason, they remain mired in an alchemistic state. You are a less-educated, yet prime, example of pseudo-scientific alchemistic thinking.
I'll grant you that I know nothing about engineering nor most scientific fields (ex: the list below). In these areas, I will cede that you know best.
Because we have degrees in those fields.
But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education.
Because you have degrees in political science, history, economics, sociology, psychology, and education? Yes?
P.S. Just because the U.S. didn't become 100% socialist the femtosecond Obama took office does not nullify the idea that Obama is a socialist. The fact remains, Obama is a socialist. What the hell else is someone who believes in "spreading the wealth," you dipshit?
"I'll grant you that I know nothing about engineering nor most scientific fields ..."
You are not trained to think rationally, to reason from facts to conclusions, said conclusions being subject to better data and/or reasoning, and it shows. Indeed, you exhibit ad nauseam that you do not understand the concept.
"HIS POLICIES (AND HE) ARE NOT FUCKING SOCIALIST!!! ... Go look up the definition of socialism in the dictionary. Explain to me how our government now magically controls the means of production (ALL production) in this country and has taken over 23 trillion dollars in wealth."
Thus providing a perfect example of the truth of my previous statement, one of many. You imply that you believe Obamateur cannot be a socialist unless the gubmint actually owns and controls everything.
An example of this illogic would be to claim that Person A cannot be a stark-raving crazy murderer unless everyone were dead.
"But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education."
Then why do you exhibit so little understanding of any of these subjects?
Once again, little boy, you're dealing with grownups here. You're not up to it. You are simply exhibiting episode n+1 of the same old shit.
And isn't it astounding that 77+ comments could arise from a short post by Kevin that you actually agree with?
You're not here to contribute intelligently to any discussion. You're here to make noise.
This is for you, Mark.
But I do know quite a bit about political science, history, economics, sociology, and psychology as well as education.
I can't speak for education, but your statements on this blog indicate that your "knowledge" about political science, economics, and sociology is shallow and one-dimensional, about what one might expect to develop from reading Newsweek and mistaking it for cogent analysis.
Your purported understanding of what "socialism" is seems to have been frozen at Marx, and does not take into account Fabianism, Bernsteinism, modern social democracy, Gramsci, or more current theories of so-called "de-commodification." Ergo, you refuse to accept that anything is socialism that does not correspond to a series of checkboxes drawn from Webster's Dictionary.
Your purported understanding of Fascism seems to be taken entirely from communist propaganda about the alliance of business power with government, which is precisely the opposite of true fascism (as defined by its inventor, Mussolini: "Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"). I refer you to the work of Juan Linz, an eminent political scientist and sociologist.
You have not demonstrated any knowledge of economics at all, besides uncritically repeating the arguments for increased regulation without showing an ounce of comprehension of what they are based on, and what premises they assume. I recommend to you Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, which can be found online in its entirety.
I would continue, but I have work to do.
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
Yes, I've linked to Hot Air for supporting documentation. That's a problem for you? Ed Morrissey and Doctor Zero both have a strong tendency to label their opinions as opinions, and bolster them with facts stated as facts and supported as such. Does that make them invalid?
How about the times I've linked to the Huffington Post? Is that invalid as well?
What's your standard of "objective analysis" anyway? The New York Times, who admits they deliberately chose to scrub a story critical of Obama just before the election because it would have been "a game changer"? CBS, who took a forgery an 14 year old could spot, played it as straight news and, when caught in such an obvious fabrication, defended it as "fake but accurate"?
Maybe Rolling Stone, where "objective analysis" is two fantasies for the price of one?
A guy who cites a former Enron advisor as the ultimate authority on economics is gonna lecture us about making poor choices concerning what qualifies as "supporting information"? Really?
Pay no attention to my laughter, that's just my paranoid rage showing.
GoF:
RACIST!
SHORT MAN! SHORT MAN! SHORT MAN!
RACIST!
I'm reading Harry Stein's I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican, and it strikes me that a substantial part of the problem in dealing with Mark is that he takes nearly everything he believes about conservatism as axiomatic. Though most of it is uninformed and grossly caricaturesque, it is as firmly entrenched in his mind as the parallel postulate.
Like many of the figures in Stein's book, Mark's belief that, by definition, conservatism is evil and horrible, gives him the assurance that it is literally impossible for him to be wrong. Which is why every fact and reasonable argument in existence will bounce off of him like BBs off a bulletproof vest. And like the figures in the book, he is blind to his own deep bigotry and considers himself, by definition, to be righteous, rational, and high-minded. Which recuses him from any pangs of conscience when he lies, distorts, and back-tracks in his various accusations of our crimes against humanity.
Mark's beliefs are emotionally-ensconsed; no amount of fact or reason will dislodge them. For someone like Mark to change his mind will require an emotional paradigm shift on the scale of the magnetic poles flopping in the Sun. This is much bigger than any of us. I, for one, am done with him.
"I, for one, am done with him."
He will not win by default.
We do it for the bystanders.
"even though you have clearly chosen a side."
Wow. Even more wrong. The above two statement are actually true of YOU....a hard line partisan for the base of the party and most assuredly on a side.
When what's-his-name in Alaska got the boot for being corrupt, didn't that event basically get a chorus of "Good! Throw the bum out!" from us?
Do you not remember all the dissatisfaction with and dislike of John McCain you found here?
When Bush decided to bail out the banks, did we not grumble about what a stupid move it was?
And yet...
- Refusal to prosecute open-and-shut voter intimidation when done by Democrat supporters.
- Negligent homicide while driving drunk.
- Refusal to even investigate decades of corruption, complete with paper trail.
- Use of government funds to pay prostitutes.
- Tax evasion. The very taxes you insist must be paid to help the poor and minorities that you claim Republicans don't care about, or actively hate.
- Assault and battery, complete with a paper trail leading straight to the President's senior advisor.
- Conspiracy to commit tax evasion.
- Conspiracy to commit child prostitution.
- Conspiracy to commit mass murder.
And it doesn't matter whether there are indictments, convictions, confessions, the perpetrators caught in the act on video, I have yet to see you even once say anything along the lines of, "Good! Throw the bum out!"
On the contrary, what we've heard from you in response to those things has been either "You're all racists!", "It's all a conspiracy between the RNC, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News!", or a conspicuous silence.
Meanwhile, "Bush lied about WMD as an excuse to go to war", even though he would have had to get four seperate intelligence services and a POTUS of the opposing party to agree to that lie three years before he was elected President in order to be true.
Joe Wilson is "fucking racist" because he called someone a liar when he caught him in a lie.
And you actually expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim that no, you haven't "chosen a side", we have?
*snort*
"You are a less-educated, yet prime, example of pseudo-scientific alchemistic thinking."
That's actually an excellent summation of your analysis of history and our current political system.
I'm also wondering why you lecture me on the dangers of human emotion and clearly let yours get the better of you in your assessment of President Obama in your comments above. Stunning...but not surprising given the cinemascope projection that goes on constantly with the right.
"Because you have degrees in political science, history, economics, sociology, psychology, and education? Yes?"
Yes, master's is in instruction though, not education to be clear. And economics was a minor not a major.
"The fact remains, Obama is a socialist. What the hell else is someone who believes in "spreading the wealth," you dipshit?"
This is a perfect example of how much of dipshit (and hyper paranoid)YOU are. Usually, I don't like to devolve into personal attacks but your belief (generated by emotion) that President Obama is a socialist is completely baseless.
Letting the Bush Cap gains tax cuts expire is not socialism. Heck, even raising the tax rate on the top 1 percent to 50 percent is not socialism, which btw, is not going to happen. We had that during Reagan and I wouldn't call him a socialist. We had 90 percent during Eisenhower and there were still rich people, middle class, and poor people. There was plenty of inequality for you to delight in. There still will be when Obama's time in office will be done. The elite of this country will still be pulling the strings on our government and have more than enough money.
Somehow, though, our barometer has changed (by a group of psychotics) who think that if we have anything other than the pyramid scam and legalized greed known as the American economy, then it's socialism. It's not.
Wait, Sara...you claim to not read sites like Worldnet Daily and Hot Air and then...you link to one with the cartoon?
First of all, classic political porn. The guy that did this knows none of it is true...he just put it up so he can capture an already captured audience.
Second, I find it amusing that you think right wing criticism is the same as left wing criticism and deals more in facts. Child rapist? Wow...
Third, where is this totalitarian state I hear about? Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama, corporate welfare, a bustling right wing pundit business, and privately owned corporations running our state (see: plutonomy, Citigroup doc).
Weird fantasy, dude. I'm sure it will get weirder:)
"I'm sure it will get weirder"
I agree, especially since you're the one driving just how weird things get.
Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama...
You specifically intend this as evidence that Obama is not an enemy of gunowners' rights, do you not, Wormtongue?
Given the number of times and ways this has been debunked here and elsewhere, the only thing your claim is evidence of is that you argue either from little wit or bad faith (quite likely both, based on your ample record).
As usual, Mark dodges all the things he realizes he's been roundly thrashed about, and sticks to what he thinks he can win.
Too bad he's still laughable:
Sarah: "The fact remains, Obama is a socialist. What the hell else is someone who believes in "spreading the wealth," you dipshit?"
Mark: This is a perfect example of how much of dipshit (and hyper paranoid)YOU are.
But you didn't answer her.
but your belief (generated by emotion) that President Obama is a socialist is completely baseless.
If it was indeed, completely baseless, then you could demonstrate that. Your projection on emotion is sadly, par for your course, since you cannot think logically.
And you demonstrate immediately:
Letting the Bush Cap gains tax cuts expire is not socialism.
Non-sequitur. (Remember when you said you didn't engage in logical fallacies?) Your - your - not our - insistance on black/white issues either he's a full-blown SOCIALIST or he's NOT!!!!!!! HOW DARE YOU!! is your problem. Not ours.
Yes, it indicates that yes, he believes in the tenants of socialism. No, you're somewhat right, it's not a complete proof by itself.
(even raising the tax rate on the top 1 percent to 50 percent is not socialism,
I'd ask you define socialism, then, but we've seen what happens when you try and actually define the words that are central to your argument.
which btw, is not going to happen.
Says the man who demanded we stop calling Obama a gun banner simply because he's called for gun bans, and at the time, had a call for a gun ban on the white house web site. I think I'll keep my own counsel there, thank you very much. (You might be correct, but it's not because of keen insight.)
We had that during Reagan and I wouldn't call him a socialist. We had 90 percent during Eisenhower
1) That's mostly a nonsense statistic.
2) It's not refuting whether Obama is a socialist.
3) Is one of DJ's labeled standard failures of yours. (Sorry, didn't have it handy, I'm sure DJ will fix that quickly.)
There was plenty of inequality for you to delight in.
Projection. Not refutation.
I'm happy when everybody does well, Mark. I'm sure Sarah is too. I just won't agree with you that taking my money to give to Sarah is the way to accomplish that. Especially when you're taking a cut of it.
There still will be when Obama's time in office will be done.
Does not disprove in any way Obama = Socialist.
The elite of this country will still be pulling the strings on our government and have more than enough money.
Does not disprove in any way Obama = Socialist.
Didn't even make a stab at it. But you think you did.
But that last paragraph is the real kicker.
I agree with you. So does (I'm speaking her for them) - Kevin, LabRat, DJ, Ed, Sarah, Russell, .. just about all the other commentators!
YES! EXACTLY! That's exactly what will be the situation!
Which is why the rest of us want to cut out as much power to the government as possible, and it's so staggeringly agonizing for you to screech about how corrupt the system is and then insist we do it MORE, only HARDER! and calling us crazy!
Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama
*sigh* I'm glad you've got a new cut-n-paste. It's at least marginally better than your last one which was about retired cops.
privately owned corporations running our state (see: plutonomy, Citigroup doc).
I'm still waiting to "see" the Javier story. How about you get to that rather than waving randomly in a direction and saying "SEE SEE"? Especially since according to what most of us here would want, it wouldn't be possible for that to be occur.
"Given the number of times and ways this has been debunked here and elsewhere"
Debunked? Did he or did he not sign into law a bill which allowed expanded rights of gun owners in federal parks? And has he, as of yet, signed any other bill into law that has curtailed gun rights?
Two simple questions, Ken. Let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is.
Intent, Wormtongue.
He signed a bill that had a gun rider on it. This has been covered here ad nauseam.
He hasn't signed a gun control bill because Congress hasn't given him one to sign. Do you claim he would veto one if Congress sent him one?
A piece of advice for you: If you don't like being treated here like Obama's punk (and by punk I specifically mean catamite), stop acting like it.
Markadipshit: The link is to Big Hollywood, not Hot Air or Worldnet Daily. Your stupidity knows no bounds.
"Debunked? Did he or did he not sign into law a bill which allowed expanded rights of gun owners in federal parks? And has he, as of yet, signed any other bill into law that has curtailed gun rights? "
How many times do we have to explain this to you so that you actually show some evidence, however slight, of understanding it?
Part 1:
The President does not author bills in Congress. Senators and/or Representatives author bills in Congress. All the President gets to do is sign or veto a bill that Congress votes on and sends to him. Thus, the contents of a bill that Congress sends to the President is not evidence of what the President thinks of the subject matter therein.
Now read that last sentence about a thousand times, teacher boy, until it sinks in and you understand it.
Part 2:
The President almost never, ever gets what he wants in a bill that Congress sends to him. He is faced with Hobson's Choice; he can sign the bill into law or veto it. He must balance what the bill contains that he wants against what the bill contains that he doesn't want. The President signed the bill in question because the contents of the bill, on balance, were favorable to him.
Now read that last sentence about a thousand times, teacher boy, until it sinks in and you understand it.
Part 3:
You make the assertion that, because the President signed the bill in question, he must have been in favor of a particular part of it that you wish to argue about, a part that is diametrically opposed to damned nearly all his prior history on the subject.
Now read that last sentence about a thousand times, teacher boy, and then try to find some evidence, somewhere, that you are correct. You can't read his mind, yet you continue to spew unbelievable, incredible horseshit as if you can.
We require evidence to believe your assertion. You have not provided it. That is not a failure on our part, rather it is a failure on your part.
Why do you continue to insult our intelligence on this matter?
DJ: I could say it is because he has none of his own, but that would be mean.
I still don't have time to answer Marky's Two Facts We "Ignore" idiocy. But this is one of them. But I've already done the research. Here are my links. Can someone organize them for the terminally stupid?
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/4908728856812277827/
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2005/04/randy-barnett-on-joyce-foundation.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/281556.php
http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080328_obama_iviquestionaire_091096.html
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=66551746-3048-5C12-00921D2BE9528C54
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21cards.html
BTW, the bill Obama signed was all about Credit Regulation. It just had an unrelated rider about guns in national parks. (Attaching unrelated riders to bills is a practice I consider completely unethical, but that's for another time.) Obama really, really wanted the credit regulations, so he signed the bill in spite of the rider. It's kind of like buying a car you really, really want even though you hate the wheels. It doesn't hurt much to have something come with it that you don't really like when you're planning to just replace them anyway.
Oh, two names: Rahm Emmanuel and Sonya Sotamayor: Two completely anti-gun Obama appointees put into positions to implement an anti-gun, anti-self-defense agenda.
One word: Biden
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at Sara. From what I can see, Big Hollywood is pretty much the same as HotAir or Worldnet Daily. These headlines...
"Debating Leftists is Like Debating Charles Manson"
"Confronting Al Gore with An Inconvenient Question"
"Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Janeane Is Off Her Meds and Other Stories"
Combine this with blog roll that has some real beauties and my original point...
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
...stands.
Did he or did he not ...
Mark, that's an outstandingly stupid and ill-thought out tactic even for you.
You won't answer "did he, or did he not" questions, you run away from them, and they're far more pointed and less stupid than that one.
But if you want to start with that... We can start with did he, or did he not, exist in Bill Ayer's mentored world....
We'll end up with did he, or did he not, ever do anything as a lawyer, did he or did he not ever argue in any courtroom or even head up any negotiation?
...
You'll run away, because the one thing you do not want to do with your "method" of thinking . Because even you know how badly you'll look.
Okay, okay we're biased. We're biased towards positions which are confirmed by actual evidence and sound logic.
Once again, The Genetic Fallacy is NOT sound logic.
What does it take to get that through your thick skull?
Ed:
What does it take to get that through your thick skull?
Betcha whoever discovers that will get a Nobel Prize.
I offer as proof
Just like "Theory" "Hypothesis" and "Verbatim", you don't know what "proof" means.
You gonna answer my question, teacher boy, are are we gonna see your Standard Response #1 yet again?
Watching the standard responses from Markadelphia leads me to conclude one of three things must be true:
1/ He's barking mad. I mean, deluded and so far out of touch with reality that his pink elephant friends regularly give him sound advice.
2/ He's incredibly dumb. and by that I mean, mouth breathing, drool dropping, knuckle dragging rock hard stupid
3/ He's one of the most determined trolls on the internet that I have ever seen. Somehow this gives him great satisfaction for his otherwise frustrated life.
I guess it's not really two since he can at least use a spell checker, 1 is possible, and 3 is most likely. Perhaps even a combination of the first and third.
pd, I had looked into the definition of aphasia as part of handling Marky's personal word definitions. From there I found neologism, which appears to more precisely describe how Marky treats words. Given that, and his apparent inability to even register certain concepts, I've started wondering if he actually has a form of autism.
I offer as proof the 99 percent of links that you put up as "support" of your views. Worldnet Daily? Hot Air? Laughable...and confirmation bias.
Christian Science Monitor and NYTimes are I'm pretty sure the last two links I've provided, out of a couple of dozen I'd guess. So nowhere near the 99% you pulled out of a dark foul place M.
pdwalker, he is barking mad, incredibly dumb, and a determined troll. No embellishment is necessary.
I found this, an AFP article dated May 22, 2009, titled Obama signs credit card reforms. The lede is (emphasis added):
"President Barack Obama Friday signed sweeping credit card reforms into law, aiming to shield consumers from predatory fees and shock rate hikes, despite complaints from the industry.
""Credit card debt is easily a one-way street," Obama said, as he signed the legislation at a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.
""It is easy to get in, but almost impossible to get out," Obama said, decrying small print on credit card statements containing traps for unwary borrowers.
"The White House's Democratic allies have cast the legislation as a central piece of their effort to re-write the rules of the US economy to help consumers battered by the global financial meltdown."
Thus, the reason Obamateur signed the bill into law was because he wanted the parts in it about credit card reforms.
The caveat is:
"Obama signed the bill despite a controversial clause inserted in the legislation by allies of the gun lobby group National Rifle Association.
"The language permits gun owners to carry concealed weapons in national parks, a rule which gun control advocates complain threatens public safety."
Now, in fairness, that's a statement by the author of the article, not by Obamateur. He continues:
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs sidestepped a question in his daily briefing over Obama's position on the legislation.
"Obviously it's not related to the credit card reforms, and I don't know individually how the president views the legislation, but thinks overall the credit card reform bill is important for consumers and should be signed.""
I don't know how he views it either. He hasn't said how he views it that I can find. As Sebastian noted, his signing statement made no mention of guns. But this statement by his spokesman, and his own statements at the signing, are clear evidence that he signed it into law because it had something he wanted and, on balance, was favorable to his politics.
But we do have clear evidence of what he thinks of it.
Late in 2008, the Interior Department of the Bush Administration issued a rule change that removed the federal restriction on guns in National Parks. In early 2009, several gun control groups filed a lawsuit challenging that rule change. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted an injunction to the plaintiffs which prevented implementation of the rule. Significantly, the Interior Department of the Obamateur Administration filed a statement with the court that it would not oppose the Judge's injunction. So much for Obamateur being in favor of a rule change removing federal restrictions on guns in National Parks.
In summary, there is no statement from Obamateur or his press department as to what he thinks of this rule (which isn't surprising), but his Interior Department has acted in opposition to it. Thus, our only evidence as to his opinion of the rule change is in line with his past history of statements about guns.
Now, where have I heard this before?
DJ, did you get a chance to look through the links I provided?
Not all of them, Ed. The first few I have already seen. But, I'm in the middle of tiling a bathroom floor and walls and I'm worn smooth out. It's too much down-on-the-floor-scurrying-about-behavior.
I'll get there.
Yowsa. So you're about as busy as I am. I hope your project is going well.
"We're biased towards positions which are confirmed by actual evidence and sound logic."
Right...arguing with leftists is like talking to Charles Manson. Liberals are pyschotic killers. By gum, you are right, Ed! Sound logic, indeed!
DJ, I'm surprised at you. You recently chastised me for relying too much about how President Obama thinks or what he says. You told me I should be more concerned with what he actually does. Well, he signed a bill into law, a portion of which increased the rights of gun owners. This was a definable act. In fact, you said that what was most important was what he signed into law.
And now you are talking about what he thinks as being more important?
And now you are talking about what he thinks as being more important?
And now you talked right past all the points made to you, dealing with none, right back to your original point. Or, in other words, losing the debate since you merely repeated what you said without any regard for any analysis. The Animantronics at Disney do just as well.
Which, really, proves all the other points made about you.
Sound logic, indeed!
You have to understand something to satirize it. Which is why you fail so badly, Ralph. (See what I did there!?)
"You recently chastised me for relying too much about how President Obama thinks or what he says."
No, I have repeatedly chewed your ass for claiming to know what Obamateur thinks, i.e. claiming to be able to read his mind. You can't do it, you know you can't do it, but you keep on claiming that you can by telling us what he thinks. I have have "chastised" you for making shit up.
"You told me I should be more concerned with what he actually does."
That is partly correct. I have told you repeatedly that what a politician has done or said in the past when he was not campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors tells you much more about what his beliefs are than anything he says when he is campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors. The primary tool of a politician is the lie, and thus any politician is at his least untrustworthy when he has the least incentive to lie.
You claim to "know quite a bit about political science" and yet you don't appear to understand this.
"Well, he signed a bill into law, a portion of which increased the rights of gun owners. This was a definable act."
Yup. He did, and it was.
I have repeatedly explained to you why he did so, and I have shown you the words of his own spokesman as verification. You continue to ignore it.
I have repeatedly explained to you what conclusions cannot be drawn from it and why. You continue to ignore it.
Again, you claim to "know quite a bit about political science" and yet you don't appear to understand the simple fact that a President signing a bill into law is not evidence that he is in favor of everything in the bill. Yet again, you have not thought through the consequences of your words before posting them.
"In fact, you said that what was most important was what he signed into law."
Show me my own words. I don't know what you are referring to.
"And now you are talking about what he thinks as being more important?"
What he thinks IS important. What I have been trying to get you to understand is that him signing the bill in question into law does NOT indicate in any way that he has changed his thinking concerning guns.
And what do you do, yet again? You exhibit your Standard Responses #6, i.e. you deliberately miss the point, and #7, you simply ignore any evidence that does not square with the conclusion you have already jumped to.
You continue to assert that him signing the bill in question means he was in favor of the portion of that bill which removed the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks, despite that portion being diametrically opposite to his entire public history on the subject and despite the complete absence of any statement BY HIM that he does so.
In plain English, teacher boy, you continue to claim to know something that you have no evidence for. So put up or shut the fuck up. Find the public statement BY HIM that he specifically supports and favors the portion of that bill which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks and show it to us. Showing us that he signed the goddamned bill into law does NOT do that.
Well, he signed a bill into law, a portion of which increased the rights of gun owners.
Before you go blind jerking yourself off over this one TINY thing, perhaps you should check in on how Team Obama is weighing in on the Chicago 2nd Amdt case the Supreme Court is about to hear. If he supports the 2nd against Chicago, then I will happily concede he has transformed into the pro-2nd person you imagine him to be. If not, well, then we will have been proved right and you wrong - again.
Wow, DJ...veins popping out of your head much?
I think I'm going to answer this in the way that you would: The simple act of signing the bill means that he supports it. By your own rules, sir, thinking about something or saying something does not mean support and favor. A definable act of voting or signing does signify this...which he did....which you informed me was the ONLY way to gauge support of a law.
If you recall, I related that President Obama stated repeatedly that he "favored sensible gun laws." You chastised me, saying "Who cares what he says? It's what he actually does that I care about. And if he signs something into law, then I will credit him for it."
He did....and you...didn't. What a shock.
Not to mention, DJ, that The Won had nothing to do with the rider being in that bill.
Nothing. At. All.
Juris, what does it matter what he "thinks" or "says" about the case before the Surpreme Court? They have the decision in this instance and his views will have no bearing on the case. Nor will he be taking any definable action one way or the other. He could say that he thinks 2nd rights are being violated but so what? By the rules set here, he still hasn't DONE anything.
By the rules set here, he still hasn't DONE anything.
Hey, maybe he'll win a Nobel Peace Prize, then!
OH WAIT!!!!
"I think I'm going to answer this in the way that you would: The simple act of signing the bill means that he supports it."
The way I would answer it? I have answered it in precisely the opposite way, several times.
It is difficult for me to imagine a greater degree of utter inability to admit reality than you have just exhibited.
I think Marky is a script. Here's the flow:
1. Read comments/post.
2a. Not understand a dang thing.
or
2b. Misunderstand everything.
3. Post for the world to see shocking ignorance and bloody minded bullheadedness.
Repeat until stack overflow.
They have the decision in this instance and his views will have no bearing on the case.
His DoJ will argue either in favor of McDonald or in favor of Chicago. That's the way the adversarial system of justice works - you argue for or against. That is why I said "Team Obama" - it is the position that his ADMINISTRATION, as a whole takes. It damn sure will matter to SCotUS what the Administration thinks/argues on a major Constitutional question; and it will make plain - too plain for even you to ignore - what is the real Obama position on guns. That you are looking for wiggle room already tells me what you anticipate. Too bad you aren't man enough to do more than wet yourself at the prospect.
"Right...arguing with leftists is like talking to Charles Manson. Liberals are pyschotic killers. By gum, you are right, Ed! Sound logic, indeed!"
Brussel Sprouts!
(Hey, it has about as much to with the central issue of the Genetic Fallacy as your… Hey, Look! A Pony!)
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Nobel-prize-panel-defends-Obama.5730075.jp
MEMBERS of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize have issued an extraordinary defence of their decision after a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the US president.
Asked to comment on the uproar after Friday's announcement, members of the five-strong panel said they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.
"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "He got the prize for what he has done."
He singled out Mr Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and to scale down a Bush-era plan for an anti-missile shield in Europe. "All these things have contributed to … I wouldn't say a safer world, but a world with less tension," Mr Jagland said.
Might want to ask the Poles and Czechs how tense they are now that they've been abandoned.
So the Nobel Committee is under such pressure that they - for the first time ever - have had to defend their choice. You can try and blame it on the Republicans like Mark will, but I don't think there are too many Republicans in those guy's "Country Clubs" (or whatever.)
"Repeat until stack overflow."
What is the usual result of a stack overflow? The execution of that marvelous virtual op code "JMP SWH" (jump somewhere).
+++Eternal Denial Error+++Out Of Excuses Error+++CALL Conservatives=Terrorists.BAT+++RUN RND Enemy Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman/Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly+++Reboot Enemy Y/n?+++
In 2007 President Bush vetoed a war funding bill that was passed by Congress due to a rider for SCHIP legislation that was added by Democrats.
So, applying Marks logic, by vetoing the war bill, President Bush was against the Iraq war. Someone inform the Norwegians, I think George is up for a peace prize…
Nice catch, CAShane. It will not penetrate the Invincibly Ignorant Giant Awakened Sta-Puft Potty Mouth, but nice catch all the same.
CAshane:
Brilliant point.
Even aside from Mark's incoherence on S-CHIP, that's just brilliant.
Well, Mark, there you go. Bush has done more to stop the Iraq War than Obama has.
Gateway Pundit has gathered a collection of "peaceful" quotes by our newest Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Oh wait, it's from a conservative site, so it doesn't count, even though Obama actually said those things. What was I thinking?
Apply his premise to the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The premise is that a vote for a bill by a Senator or Representative is prima facia evidence that said congresscritter supports everything in the bill, and so if the bill contains something that said congresscritter was previously opposed to, then his vote is prima facia evidence that he has changed his stripes, as it were. We may conclude that all of the Senators and Representatives of the Dimocrat Party who used to be anti-gun and who voted for the H.R. 627 are now pro-gun.
Reductio ad absurdum strikes again.
But, what's that you say? The premise applies to Presidents but not to Senators? Now why would that be? Well, Obamateur was a Senator right up until he took the oath of office as President. Golly. Who knew taking that oath would magically change how he thinks?
Yup, reductio ad absurdum is a fine tool.
I've been thinking about this. It seems to me that the Nobel Committee's choice of Obama isn't quite as bad as their choice of Yasir Arafat. When it comes to reducing conflict in the world, Obama has pretty much had a NULL result. While we hold the opinion that his unwillingness to stand up to aggressors will lead to disaster, those aggressors haven't made us pay for that position yet.
On the other hand, Yasir Arafat was "the godfather of 20th century terrorism". If anything, he caused wars, strife and death on a wide scale.
So even though Obama didn't deserve to win it — something even he admits — at least Zero is better than a Huge Negative.
True... but by that standard, you, me and Markadelphia should get one as well, along with most of the population of the earth.
"Congratulations. You didn't start a major war this year. Here's your Nobel. And here's your check for 35 cents. Is your neighbor home?"
This is hilarious:
"How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days"
"January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.
"January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an "open house" party at the White House.
"January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how's that working out?)
"January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.
"January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.
"January 25: Skipped church.
"January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.
"January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.
"January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.
"January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.
"January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.
"January 31: Took the day off.
"February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party."
C'mon, teacher boy. The challenge is still on the table:
Find the public statement by President Obamateur that he specifically supports and favors the portion of that bill (H.R. 627) which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks and show it to us.
Are you going to accept the challenge, or you going to pretend I never issued it?
Are you going to accept the challenge, or you going to pretend I never issued it?
I suspect Standard Response #1 on that one.
Get after it, teacher boy. We're waiting.
Or do you have the sack to admit you're wrong?
It appears Obamateur cannot legally accept the Nobel prize. Think he'll notice?
Since when has Constitutional restrictions had any effect on Obama's thinking?
- Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State
- Numerous "Czars" that are an end run around the Constitutional confirmation process
- Gun control
- Government ownership of a private corporation
- "Universal" Health care
- and many more.
Note that George Bush also accepted the Abdul Aziz Order, apparently while he was still President. That was wrong too.
From an e-mail I just received:
"BREAKING NEWS:
"Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!
"And, he won the Pulitzer Prize for reading the TelePrompter announcing the final score!"
Who knew it could be so easy?
Been ignoring this thread, on purpose, but I finally took a look yesterday.
The stupid fucker actually BELIEVES that, too.Simply LOVED this one, from the usual suspect;
Only TWO ways outta this, and both are things I don't like even considering.
"Third, where is this totalitarian state I hear about? Thus far, we have expanded gun rights under Obama, corporate welfare, a bustling right wing pundit business, and privately owned corporations running our state (see: plutonomy, Citigroup doc)."
Mass Conflation.
And he doesn't even know it.
Hmmm.... should leftists be banned under international treaty as Weapons of Mass Conflation?
Y'know, I shouldn't be surprised that Mark disappeared from yet another horrific mental beating, but it is a little tiring *knowing* that he'll be back and will pull the same shit again.
This is looking more and more like a repeat offense case in serious need of capital punishment.
Unfortunately, there's no real equivalent in intellectual affairs.
"Mass Conflation."
C'mon, it's a simple notion: Obamateur does not believe something unless and until he actually achieves that something, thus the lack of achievement means there is no corresponding belief.
If you understand that this is precisely the opposite of how he (ahem) thinks concerning Bush, it becomes so much easier to understand.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>