Friday, October 09, 2009

Way off topic

Not being George W. Bush has its benefits, just ask Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

Now back to your regularly scheduled housing bust...

41 comments:

  1. Dont get me wrong, I really really like Obama. I voted for him. I even campaigned for him - but what in gods name has he done for world peace?

    IMHO - the voters in stockholm really diminished the award by handing it to someone who has (yet) to do much for world peace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I second that.. he has talked good stuff.. waiting for action on world peace

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally, if I were Barack Obama right now I'd be a bit embarrassed. I'd rather not win a prize than have people wonder why I won it. At this stage, I think Bill Clinton is far more deserving of a Nobel than Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that I would prefer if it were awarded based on his accomplishments, but I also like to believe that they did not award this on a whim. I see this as a way to throw their support behind him in the hope of giving his agenda more weight.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see this as a way to throw their support behind him in the hope of giving his agenda more weight.

    Exactly -- and exactly the type of thing the comittee shouldnt be doing -- lest they turn this into just another award based not on results but ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous said...
    "I see this as a way to throw their support behind him in the hope of giving his agenda more weight."

    That does appear to be why they did it. I don't mind them trying to use the prize to proactively promote peace. However, I think the Nobel Prizes have value because they are given to people who have truly earned them. When a Nobel Prize is given to someone whose accomplishments are in doubt, it diminishes the value of the prize itself. This ultimately defeats the purpose for which the prize was intended.

    From watching the speech, it did appear that Obama didn't think he deserved it. He said, "To be honest, I do not feel I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize." He also avoided taking any questions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course, this comes on the same day that the United States bombed the moon. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course, this comes on the same day that the United States bombed the moon. ;-)

    Did you watch that on TV this AM? How anticlimactic - no explosion, no nothing. I wish I had that 5 minutes of my life back.

    Honestly, it reminds me of those who pontificated about a TSUNAMI of foreclosed homes which would soon be UNLEASHED onto the Immunington/Immundria market, with HELLFIRE AND FURY, putting prices BACK IN THE STONEAGE----BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    What a big nothingburger that turned out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, this prize is quite silly. I am certainly pro-Obama but the Nobel Peace Prize? He hasn't accomplished anything for peace yet! He is, in fact, currently waging 2 wars (albeit not ones he started). Maybe the best explanation is that by merely being elected President he prevented John 'Bomb-Bomb Iran' McCain from getting us into a 3rd concurrent war. I guess that counts for something.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe the best explanation is that by merely being elected President he prevented John 'Bomb-Bomb Iran' McCain from getting us into a 3rd concurrent war. I guess that counts for something.

    If thats the criteria, then the prize should have been given to the American electorate. Moreover, by that standard we could have elected Hank the angry drunken dwarf and been given the prize because it wasnt McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, hank the angry dwarf might have decided to declare war on midgets. Plus he probably wouldn't have held up on the national stage. Americans like tall presidents. And to your second point, i think this was in large measure meant to be an award to the american electorate, or the part that was sane at least. But I don't think you can give a nobel prize to 70 million people. The limit is 3.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Boy, talk about grading on a curve. After the last guy, it appears that just putting your name and home-room number at the top of the page is all that is required for a gold star. -Jim A

    ReplyDelete
  13. And to your second point, i think this was in large measure meant to be an award to the american electorate, or the part that was sane at least.

    All the more proof that they are dumbing down this award. It cheapens the blood sweat and tears that prior winners put into it in an effort to make the world a better place. Like many here, I too like Obama - yet the more I think about this, the angrier I get that he got this award based on what he "could be" (a peacemaker) or "isnt" (McCain), versus what he has "done" (thus far very little).

    ReplyDelete
  14. The award has no meaning after it was given to Arafat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. James said: At this stage, I think Bill Clinton is far more deserving of a Nobel than Obama.

    Don't ya mean the Bonel Prize?

    ReplyDelete
  16. yet the more I think about this, the angrier I get that he got this award based on what he "could be" (a peacemaker) or "isnt" (McCain), versus what he has "done" (thus far very little).

    look, i agree with you on substance, but i'm not angry about it. It was clearly a political statement, i personally don't think it was particularly useful, and at this point obama hasn't done anything to deserve it. But that's how they voted so yay! america's president won't the nobel peace prize. If nothing else its symbolic of a vast turn in the tide of global public opinion, and that's actually important. If the perception of the US and its motives becomes much more positive this only hurts our enemies and helps us. Soft Power matters. So instead of being angry why not be hopeful that this award will help Obama do some things that end up justifying it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ...so yay! america's president won't the nobel peace prize. But at some level, this cheapens the award to OTHER (ex) presidents who've won:
    Teddy Roosevelt helped to negotiate the end of the Russo-Japanese war and Jimmy Carter helped to get the Egyptions and Israilis talking to each other as well and monitoring elections in every third world crapshack.
    --Jim A

    ReplyDelete
  18. But at some level, this cheapens the award to OTHER (ex) presidents who've won:
    Teddy Roosevelt helped to negotiate the end of the Russo-Japanese war and Jimmy Carter helped to get the Egyptions and Israilis talking to each other as well and monitoring elections in every third world crapshack.

    Yeah - all part of the dumbing down of everything where performance doesnt matter. Kinda like my kid's soccer league where thet dont keep score and "everyone gets a trophy - YAY!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think its funny how bitter people are over this nonsense. I don't care if he won a prize from the ol' boys club or not, but I love how angry conservatives are over it. "Dr. Smiths diaper ointment" will clear up that rash on your rear end you cry babies.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If President Obama gets forced by Iran to take action, will the European elites take back the Nobel Peace prize from Obama?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous said...
    "If President Obama gets forced by Iran to take action, will the European elites take back the Nobel Peace prize from Obama?"

    Nope. The prize now gives Obama free reign to nuke any country he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "...Immunington/Immundria market, with HELLFIRE AND FURY, putting prices BACK IN THE STONEAGE----BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

    That's funny. I've been laughing about the housing doomers.

    What's positively weird is they slamming the old, cramped SFH and TH in Immunington and Immundria from their rental apartments, with the narrow halls, the neighbors who drop marbles all night "tock-tock-tock".

    Here's what it looks like down the street in Immundria.

    Here's another street near by.

    These houses never, ever go on the market. Kids and grand kids fight over them when gramm passes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. kahner said...
    "Maybe the best explanation is that by merely being elected President he prevented John 'Bomb-Bomb Iran' McCain from getting us into a 3rd concurrent war."

    It's really sad that most people don't realize that John McCain was singing an actual song by Vince Vance & The Valiants. The press, which loves any chance to manufacture a controversy, intentionally didn't tell anyone either. Here are the original lyrics from 1980, when Iran held 53 Americans hostage for over a year:

    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb Iran
    Let's take a stand
    Bomb Iran
    Our country's got a feelin'
    Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

    Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks
    Tell the Ayatollah, "Gonna put you in a box!"
    Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb Iran
    Our country's got a feelin'
    Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

    Ol' Uncle Sam's gettin' pretty hot
    Time to turn Iran into a parking lot
    Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb Iran
    Our country's got a feelin'
    Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

    Call the volunteers; call the bombadiers;
    Call the financiers; better get their ass in gear
    Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb Iran
    Our country's got a feelin'
    Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
    (Let's nuke 'em! Whoo!)

    Call on our allies to cut off their supplies
    Get our hands untied, and bring em' back alive
    Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb Iran
    Our country's got a feelin'
    Really hit the ceilin', bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb,
    Bomb Iran
    Let's take a stand
    Bomb Iran
    Our people you been stealin'
    Now it's time for keelin', bomb Iran
    Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran


    You can buy the MP3 from Amazon.com here.

    ReplyDelete
  24. James, perhaps not only did the Euro Elites intend to take a jab at former President Bush but also at the nutcase President in Iran. Does the prize gives Obama international political coverage if he decides to take action against Iran?

    ReplyDelete
  25. James, why would it matter whether it was an actual song? The sentiment expressed is the same. If I sang a song "kill, kill, kill the jews" at a political rally would it be better if someone had written that song and I could buy it on amazon?

    This wasn't a case of McCain just singing a song he liked in the car. He was clearly using the song to express a willingness and in factg eagerness to bomb a Iran which would have had terrible consequences.

    And I really have to say, people here are crazy worked up about this Nobel thing. Get over it. A committee of a few people in a small country decided to make a political statement. This doesn't cheapen the award made to others. The accomplishments of others stand on their own, Nobel or not. I must say it is funny to see how upset this makes conservatives, while liberals are mainly indifferent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There are actual songs written by skinhead neonazi bands called "hang the n*gger" but you wont be catching me singing that crap. Im sure lots of mislead white trash at a KKK convention out in the woods dancing and singing to it though.

    ReplyDelete
  27. McCain jokes around a lot. His singing of "Bomb Iran" was a joke.

    Don't ever go watch The Capitol Steps in D.C. "Bomb Iran" is one of the songs that has repeatedly been part of their comedy routine over the years. The Capitol Steps must be a neo-Nazi comedy troupe.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The sad thing is that many believe that because the offensive utterances of an elderly person originate from a song excuse them. They don't.

    ReplyDelete
  29. McCain jokes a lot cause that is exactly what he is....a joke. Thank god he picked even a bigger joke as his running mate or we would have been in Bush term #3.

    So let him sing all he wants, I dont mind him singing and joking as his legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Tuskenrayder said...
    "The sad thing is that many believe that because the offensive utterances of an elderly person..."

    The sad thing is that a lot of people on the far left think it's acceptable to bash the elderly. Insult someone because of their race, gender, or sexual preference? That's wrong. Insult someone because of their age? Apparently the far left considers that perfectly acceptable.

    It's sad to see the huge amount of age-related insults -- not jokes, insults -- that die-hard Obama supporters post on the web.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous said...
    "McCain jokes a lot cause that is exactly what he is....a joke."

    Is that really your argument? That a politician with a sense of humor is a joke?

    ReplyDelete
  32. James, when you're running for President of the US during two wars and with many members of the US political establishment calling for a military strike on Iran its no "joke" to sing "Bomb Iran" at a political event. To excuse it as a joke is farcical. Times of war are the most serious of times and the presidency the most serious of responsibilities. If he was in fact joking he's a fool and an incompetent. But I don't believe he was "joking" at all. Just being wildly irresponsible and making war and death into a cheap political rallying cry.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The only joke will be on us who voted for Obama if he feels that much external political pressure to unjustly cower to countries like Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous said...
    The only joke will be on us who voted for Obama if he feels that much external political pressure to unjustly cower to countries like Iran.

    That's the kind of superficial, emotion-based, tough guy rhetoric that has characterized US foreign policy during the bush years. It doesn't really even mean anything.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Kahner, you simpleton it is a lot more than your knee jerk reference to the hapless Bush years.

    ReplyDelete
  36. um, once again you comment doesn't seem to hold any meaning. What is my "knee jerk reaction to the hapless bush years"? Since your comments are vague generalities with no meaningful content, facts or logical argument you might as well just type random letters with a couple childish insults like "simpleton" thrown in ever other sentence. Or just stop wasting your time and not post at all.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Kahner, your comment has no meaning: "That's the kind of superficial, emotion-based, tough guy rhetoric that has characterized US foreign policy during the bush years. It doesn't really even mean anything."

    You see the world from a simple perspective. Just because there is a Democrat in the White House, does not mean Iran will alter any of its long term plans.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Just because there is a Democrat in the White House, does not mean Iran will alter any of its long term plans."

    What are you talkingh about? When did I ever say or imply that because a democrat was in the whitehouse Iran would alter any plans? If you want to just make stuff up, I'll have to say once again: stop wasting your time posting.

    In fact, I believe Iran will continue its nuclear program regardless of what the US does short of a full scale invasion. Our actions and negotiations should driven by the goal of mitigating the negative repercussions of their nuclear program. But since you just like to spout nonsense and make stuff up, I don't know why I'm continuing to respond. I guess its that I like to point out how ridiculous you are and then laugh quietly to myself while I type.

    ReplyDelete
  39. kahner said: "Our actions and negotiations should driven by the goal of mitigating the negative repercussions of their nuclear program."

    They will have nuclear weapons. Are some negative repercussions inclusive of one of their nuclear weapons exploding over foreign or domestic soil? How do we mitigate the threats besides more foreign aid?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Wow, you're stupid. Lots of countries have nuclear weapons. We went through a decades long military and political standoff with one. At one point they even tried putting nuclear missiles in Cuba, but somehow we managed to get through all those decades without firing a bullet or invading so much as a library. It was called the Cold War, maybe you heard of it. But probably not since you are a complete moron. So our nation's policy for 40 or so years was to mitigate (very successfully) the threat of those nuclear weapons through a wide variety of policies and decisions. If the only one you can think of is foreign aid, maybe you need to read a book. Or buy a clue. I'm done replying now because you're too boring to even laugh at anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I should amend my statement a bit. We did enter a couple proxy wars during our stand off with the soviet union. But if anyone wants to argue that those conflicts were a good idea or at all successful, knock yourself out.

    ReplyDelete