The Liberal Gun Club Forum

whitey wrote: I'll just keep my mouth shut

You're not allowed to do that.

KVoimakas wrote:Thanks for the info Progurt. There was an interesting article (I wish I remember where I read it) that talked about how President Obama has received support from Dems and liberals that, under the Bush administration, were condemned roundly.

Partisanship anyone?

I've seen a few articles to that effect. It concerns me that something can be considered unacceptable when one person does it, and acceptable when another does, based on the political affiliation of the person making the judgement and the person taking the action. Then people start trying to make excuses, or justifications, for why it's different when their guy does it and not the other guy. For why what the other guy was worse than what their guy did. People start tallying up things by the number. So what if their guy did five bad things? This other guy did six bad things! Way worse!

This isn't something unique to Democrats, or to Republicans, or even to Americans. Everybody does it, everywhere.

Is there an objective right and wrong? Are some things acceptable and other things unacceptable depending on who does them? Since we live in what is allegedly a participatory democracy, it's up to us to think about the things our government does in our name, and to try to change those things if they don't represent us. We shouldn't be giving politicians a free pass because sometimes their goals are aligned with ours, we should be calling them to task when their actions so wildly stray from an objective standard of right and wrong. Sure, there may be people in the world worse than our leaders, there may be actions in the world worse than our actions, but you can't use that as a standard. There's nothing which can't be excused or justified by that mindset, and things just get worse and worse.

Sorry, from now on anytime Progurt posts another plagiarized post from the interwebs

Plagiarism?

whitey wrote: Sorry, from now on anytime Progurt posts another plagiarized post from the interwebs I'll just keep my mouth shut and bow down to the Almighty for enlightening me on where I have been led astray

uh.... it's not plaigirism if you reference it and don't claim it as your own.....

the comedian wrote:For the record, in Muslim nations " Tariq" and " Aziz" are names as common as " Bob" and " Jones" are in the States.

Ironic that the Iraqi foriegn minister, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. Bush's 2003 invasion has gone a long way toward finishing off Christianity there.

Back on topic, why in the world did Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize? Giving fine speechs? Anything else?

troutkiller wrote:

the comedian wrote:For the record, in Muslim nations " Tariq" and " Aziz" are names as common as " Bob" and " Jones" are in the States.

Ironic that the Iraqi foriegn minister, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. Bush's 2003 invasion has gone a long way toward finishing off Christianity there.

Back on topic, why in the world did Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize? Giving fine speechs? Anything else?

First black american president.

gendoikari87 wrote:First black american president.

You sure? He ain't no hershey...er...ever seen a picture of his mother?

gendoikari87 wrote:

troutkiller wrote: Back on topic, why in the world did Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize? Giving fine speechs? Anything else?

First black american president.

I'm sure that's what a good deal of teabaggers think but I think the intent was to approve the change in policy that the president promised during his campaign more than the race of the president.

I wonder whether any member of the committee looks back on their decision and realize just how much Obama made fools of them all.

troutkiller wrote:

the comedian wrote:For the record, in Muslim nations " Tariq" and " Aziz" are names as common as " Bob" and " Jones" are in the States.

Ironic that the Iraqi foriegn minister, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. Bush's 2003 invasion has gone a long way toward finishing off Christianity there.

Back on topic, why in the world did Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize? Giving fine speechs? Anything else?

If I recall correctly, our president received his nobel before he had had much of an opportunity to demonstrate who and what he was truly all about. To bad they can't take it back. He certainly doesn't deserve it.

The Nobel committee said it gave Obama the Peace Prize "...for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_No ... _laureates

Whatever that means...

But any discussion of undeserved Nobel Peace Prizes has to begin with Henry frickin' Kissinger.

larrymod wrote:The Nobel committee said it gave Obama the Peace Prize "...for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_No ... _laureates

Whatever that means...

But any discussion of undeserved Nobel Peace Prizes has to begin with Henry frickin' Kissinger.

Is that the actual wording? Lol, in other words, they gave him the nobel price because he wasn't bush.

Here's the exact words from the Nobel website: (btw, I'm linking to the original website and indicating that the nobel committee is saying this, that makes it not plagiarism)

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

Emphasis mine.

Incidentally, the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama came back into the news again recently.

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Nobel Peace Prize officials were facing a formal inquiry over accusations they have drifted away from the prize's original selection criteria by choosing such winners as President Barack Obama, as the nomination deadline for the 2012 awards closed Wednesday.

The investigation comes after persistent complaints by a Norwegian peace researcher that the original purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations.

If the Stockholm County Administrative Board, which supervises foundations in Sweden's capital, finds that prize founder Alfred Nobel's will is not being honored, it has the authority to suspend award decisions going back three years — though that would be unlikely and unprecedented, said Mikael Wiman, a legal expert working for the county.
...
"Do you see Obama as a promoter of abolishing the military as a tool of international affairs?" Heffermehl asked rhetorically.

Nobel, a Swedish industrialist and inventor, gave only vague guidelines for the peace prize in his 1895 will, saying it should honor "work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Emphasis, again, mine.

I thought it was for 'Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence'.

ErikO wrote:I thought it was for 'Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence'.

Ha!

wlewisiii wrote:So when do we get the posts about how ebil Obama is going to start using the drones against his "enemies" stateside?

Droners. Birthers. Truthers. Any real difference?

Well, yes, there is a difference. There actually are drones being used in the US. They haven't been used to kill anybody, but have been used for surveillance.

I don't expect government-controlled drones to start shooting people down in the streets.

Unless, of course, we really get out of hand.

Or the country gets overrun by terrorists.