Obama on his political opponents: "They Bring a Knife...We Bring a Gun" Obama to his supporters: "Get in Their Faces!" Obama on ACORN mobs: "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!" Obama to his mercenary army: "Hit Back Twice As Hard" Obama on the killer Iranian regime murdering their own people in the street: "The Iranians are having a robust debate." Obama on defending genocide (2007): The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there. Obama defending killing babies who survive an abortion: "Essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision."
Obama: "I don't Want the Folks Who Created the Mess to Do a Lot of Talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."
Quote by PapaG on his extremely selective citation and use of language between presidents. "I'm a big fat hypocrite"
How is any of that hypocritical? He posted quotes for goodness' sakes. It's not like he tried to explain them out of context. He didn't bring up anything comparing presidents. If anything, you should match those quotes up against other Peace Prize winners, right? Watch the 3rd-grade attacks.
A "uniter". "White folk's greed runs a world in need" [video=youtube;DdLX3aRNaNk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk[/video] - Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father
So, who is the hypocrite? Obama on his political opponents: "They Bring a Knife...We Bring a Gun" Obama: "I don't Want the Folks Who Created the Mess to Do a Lot of Talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."
Why is it when a leftie posts quotes (several of which are untrue) it is considered an appropriate way to debate, but when a rightie does the same it's being "a big fat hypocrite"? I guess it become evident who the real hypocrite is.
I think you might have missed my point. I was suggesting that "We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters." might have some relevance to this thread. barfo
That is a great quote. Rarely do you see the opposition to Obama present an alternative idea. They don't say "Mrs. XYZ should have gotten the Nobel", they just say "He doesn't deserve it". They don't say "We should ..... to reform health care", they say "Just say 'No'" Instead of "We should have ..... to bring the Olympics to the US" they say "Obama failed." It's turned into a contest of rephrasing "I don't like Obama" as many different ways as possible.
It is a great quote. It'd be great if he lived up to it. But as for "alternative ideas", Here you go. Please tell me something Obama did to deserve the Peace Prize. I submit that W. Bush (for one) was more qualified to win than Obama was. B/c instead of talk, he led the American troops in their liberation 2 nations under UN sanctions from tyranny, got Congress to spend billions improving quality of life in Africa and the Middle East, spearheaded aid to disaster-ravaged Far Eastern countries (using the US military as a catalyst), etc. President Obama....talked during his campaign and hasn't "brought the troops home"--hasn't closed Gitmo--is talking about a surge in forces in Afghanistan. While I agree with the results of all of these, hardly seems more "peaceworthy" than W., does it? But that's been talked over...nothing new on my end for that. The Olympics to the US wasn't a problem. I personally wouldn't have gone to CHI, just like I won't go to Rio. If CHI wanted to spend the billions it would take to make the Olympics what they should be, that's the city's call. However, the President, his wife and Oprah going to pitch the committee using personal stories of his life in his adopted hometown seemed to perpetuate the "cult of personality" around him that a lot of us seem to be uncomfortable with. Where was the pitch about CHI's improved mass transit plan, or great art and culture, or weather, or financial worthiness, or lack of crime, etc.? It seemed less about CHI and more about he and his wife and Oprah. The alternative idea to that? Don't do that. Pitch the city. Pitch the government support of the plan. Pitch the resources that can be brought to bear to make the games great. Is that "alternative" enough? I don't believe government should be in the health insurance business. I don't believe that any benefits should be going to people in our country illegally. And as an aside, I don't quite get it. Medical care is expensive. A heart attack costs $50k or so whether you're insured or not, right? So either your premiums stay high to pay for those coverages, or the "insurance company" loses money? But if the government is the insurance company that loses money, then the deficit goes up, or our taxes go up, (or both) to pay the difference, right? Why not talk about caps on costs of drugs, or procedures? Why not talk about government-paid free clinics, or the tort reform, etc.? Why is this just a matter of getting everyone government health insurance? Where is the debate on other aspects of health care, and not just "health coverage"? "Just say no" is fine in certain areas. If someone hypothetically was to say "I'd love to pass a bill that finds a way to put convicted child molesters' halfway houses near elementary schools" I'd say no, on general principle. I wouldn't debate about how it's going to be paid for, or what the rehabilitation time should be, or if it's going to be a boon economically to the community. It's unfortunate that anyone who doesn't seem to accept the social progressivism or big government aspect of Obama and the Congress is a Fox-watching rightie who doesn't deserve intelligent debate about their ideas and concerns.
I think you'll need to start up your own prize. It isn't realistic to expect the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to someone who invades other countries, even if is to "liberate" them. The peace prize committee prizes peaceful solutions (I know that sounds completely illogical, but it's true). It seems, frankly, a pretty petty complaint. You know that the Chicago delegation probably put together reams of data on all the reasons Chicago should be picked, right? Obama didn't need to go over that in detail, the committee had already seen and considered it by the time Obama talked. His role was to provide some star power, not to present a laundry list of qualifications. You might have missed it, but in fact the drug companies are making some concessions on pricing as part of this package. It isn't even a matter of that, much less just a matter of that. If those in that category tried debating the actual issues, instead of silly nonsense like the Olympics, the Nobel Peace Prize, and whether illegals are going to be covered under non-existent government insurance plans that they fear might one day be enacted... If your ideas and concerns are about what Obama should have said in a speech about the Olympics, well, then I'm not sure how that can lead to intelligent debate. barfo
To be fair, though, this is politics. Or, really, what politics seems to have devolved into. That's not just opponents of Obama's that do that. Same thing happened for the last 8 years with Bush. And before that with Clinton. And before that with Bush. Etc. And comments like this don't make it any better, as if you have forgotten about"your side" (sorry, am just assuming, I know that isn't the smartest thing to do always) doing much the same. It happens in ridiculous and viscious cycles, and when "your" side is in power, history is forgotten. And once they lose power, the attack begins anew. I will say this is true for some people, what you have stated. But it is true of both sides. Theer are also plenty who do like to offer solutions. Or alternative methods of solving a problem. You'll see too often, someone will criticize Obama, and the immediate response from many in here is...Well Bush blah blah blah. Not exactly a response to what Obama might be doing in Afghanistan. It's just excuse making and deflection.
OK, here is a half ass case for why Obama should have won the Nobel Peace prize (just for argument's sake. FYI I don't think he deserved. Before you bash me please consider this.) He traveled to more countries than previous presidents in his first days in office. He scrapped the Missile Air Defense project in Western Europe He banned extreme interrogation techniques for terrorists. He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. His administration is talking to U.S. foes, like Iran, North Korea and Cuba. He said he wants a nuclear-free world. He pledged to take the lead against climate change. He reached out a U.S. hand to the world's Muslims. He's been an advocate for gay rights. And most importantly, he's alive still. Gandhi was chosen but was never awarded because it can not be given posthumously. Perhaps the committee was thinking ahead this time in more ways than one.
Fair enough. As I said, this is all in the other thread. The petty complaint, that, once again, it seems as if he's focusing the attention on the force of his personality, rather than the caliber of the qualifications or the correctness of the choice? With the "reams of data" CHI was in first place, if you believe Reuters. But again, the failure or success isn't the issue. It's a matter of how it was handled. And if you think that the President was correct in making a personal speech about himself, rather than about CHI, that's fine. I disagree, b/c I think too much is made of him personally (much like Bush, but the opposite effect) and not on his policies. But you're correct that that's not a "major issue". I did miss it. I'm not sure which version of the bill is being debated now...I only get snippets. Oh? Then why does it keep being brought up that "everyone needs health care", and the only stats I hear about it (in my limited "snippets") are 49M uninsured and 1T over 10 years? I don't hear about the prices of heart surgery going down. I hadn't heard about cheaper prices for drugs, though I'll take your word for it. I addressed the Nobel and Olympic things in my "cult of personality" response. If you think that (relatively blindly) following a charismatic leader who's talking about changing the establishment b/c people didn't like what happened before, there's a bad precedent for that. As for the "illegals" issue: there's strong precedent for many of the specific people in office right now to attempt to, for whatever reason, selectively interpret what American laws are followed and adjudicated. I disagree fundamentally with that. I think that Obama's quote from Dreams is coming true: the blue-painted faces are happy that they won, and will not brook anyone saying anything contrary about their president. I'm not saying that there aren't red-painted faces trying to shotgun poop on the wall to see what sticks--I'm saying that there isn't "debate" for the most part. There's "you got that from Fox news, so I immediately discount it" or "that's a liberal talking point from dailyKos" or "you're racist". Do you not agree? EDIT: And one of the sad parts for me is when one of the President's mouthpieces basically confirms this on a national TV interview. What does Dreams have to say about that?
Everyone needs health care doesn't necessarily equate to government health insurance. What we will end up with of course I can't say, but right now it looks like the public option is, if not dead, at least looking into hospice care. Changing the establishment? Obama is not a radical. Let's not pretend like minor modifications to health insurance are going to overturn the American way of life. It's incremental at best. I think congress makes the laws, they aren't in charge of enforcement or adjudication. I agree completely. barfo
