2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner: Barack Obama

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

Ah, the old "you can't use Wikipedia" cop-out. How about commenting on the objective data instead of attacking the source?

jimmyjammer69

Some of us do actual research you know.

Read my above post.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Some of us do actual research you know.

MarcusAntonius

Read my above post.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

I said "IIRC." I could be wrong, but nevermind that. Did you really just use Wikipedia as a source? That would explain a lot.

MarcusAntonius

Ah, the old "you can't use Wikipedia" cop-out. How about commenting on the objective data instead of attacking the source?

Some of us do actual research you know.

So why don't you show us this wonderful research?

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] So what was the figure?jimmyjammer69

Read my above post.

I'm just some average dude, what would I know about anything as compared to the mighty Wikipedia?

Though my sense of resourcefulness did come across this obscure, underground website.

I have nothing against the man but I don't think he deserves this award. Not in the meantime at least.

Nifty_Shark

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Read my above post.

MarcusAntonius

I'm just some average dude, what would I know about anything as compared to the mighty Wikipedia?

Though my sense of resourcefulness did come across this obscure, underground website.

In my opinion this was definitely premature. He is certainly doing alot of good but i still think its premature, of course you would also have to consider who the other candidates were to really make a judgement call.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] So who does actual research?jimmyjammer69

I'm just some average dude, what would I know about anything as compared to the mighty Wikipedia?

Though my sense of resourcefulness did come across this obscure, underground website.

Looks like there's a browse funtion. Admittedly, I've only come to this site in the past few months to track CBO's research into the effects of H.R.3200 (the infamous healthcare bill).

As far as the national debt, I haven't looked closely, I know its exploded, and that's all I care about next to doing something about changing that. The other two are more preoccupied about which president contributed to what amount.

It was pretty funny that everyone's (AND I DO MEAN EVERYONE)initial reaction this morning was "for what? My wife thinks it's because he's the first black president and I can't think of any reason to disagree. I would really like to know what he did to get this award. And it better be something good 'cause I got nothin'.

Even he doesn't know why he got it. That should tell you something.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The United States invasion did more damage in human life and ecnomically draining than AQ has ever done.MarcusAntonius

I hear the World Trade Center did a few bucks of business now and again. Like Engrish, you make the mistake of associating the war with economic downturn. The international banking/loan/investment fraud caused the collapse.

Just because the two of you keep repeating your remarks over and over again doesn't make them true.

You're willfully missing the point and you're using strawmen. They didn't say the war directlycaused the collapse. They are saying that spending money on an unneccesary war hurts us economically, which is something that the terrorists wanted. You really can't get around the fact that the terrorists wanted wasteful war and Bush gave them wasteful war.

I think they just did this to piss people off.

EDIT: Just to make myself clear, I am pretty neutral about this. I am not pissed off about it, but I know that a lot of people are or will be.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The United States invasion did more damage in human life and ecnomically draining than AQ has ever done.Tragic_Kingdom7

I hear the World Trade Center did a few bucks of business now and again. Like Engrish, you make the mistake of associating the war with economic downturn. The international banking/loan/investment fraud caused the collapse.

Just because the two of you keep repeating your remarks over and over again doesn't make them true.

You're willfully missing the point and you're using strawmen. They didn't say the warcaused the collapse. They are saying that spending money on an unneccesary war hurts us economically, which is something that the terrorists wanted. You really can't get around the fact that the terrorists wanted wasteful war and Bush gave them wasteful war.

Strawmen? Oh please.

I'm quite sure their desired intent was to get to the Twin Towers. (Hint: they tried before) Oh yeah, and Bill Clinton took us to war in Somalia, which we ran away from after a poorly executed campaign which only emboldened our enemies to try us again after seeing our lack of resolve. So I think that point has been pretty much exhausted.

You're giving way too much credit to them. By the way Tiger, care to respond to my point on Wikipedia and just how quickly I presented a better source?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-address

This recent SNL video more or less illustrates why the awarding of this prize to Barack Obama was an absolute international embarrassment. He has not done anything.

I think they just did this to piss people off.

EDIT: Just to make myself clear, I am pretty neutral about this. I am not pissed off about it, but I know that a lot of people are or will be.

[QUOTE="lonewolf604"]has he actually done much?Shame-usBlackley

Nope.

All he's done is apologized over and over again in the hope of repairing "damaged relations" with foreign countries. He's given speech after speech, but when it comes time for another country to help this one, they've told him to pound sand or made him look even more moronic and naive than Bush. He went over to Europe and they all told him how much they loved him, but when he asked them to give us troops to help with Afghanistan they told him no. Then when he gave his big, bloated, pompous speech on nukes at the U.N., Iran made him look like an ill-informed, doe-eyed nobody by admitting they have a secret weapons site and launching a few test missiles in the air for good measure. Meanwhile, he removed the missile shield over our ally countries in Europe, which sounds like DEFENSE DISARMAMENT, not NUKES. He also flew to Copenhagen with Oprah to try and get the Olympics to come to Chicago while his Afghanistan commander was begging him for more troops, and he's spent so much money (quadrupled the deficit in ONE YEAR) that foreign investors are calling for another form of currency than the dollar because they know this guy's finishing the job that Bush started by bankrupting the country, and that there is a very good chance that all the DOLLARS they've invested will be worthless due to hyperinflation when the house of cards comes tumbling down. He promised that unemployment wouldn't hit 8 percent if he got his crapulus bill passed, and now we're going to be passing 10 percent any day.

Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize, too, and he was about a spineless, do-nothing, self-loathing, douchebag. I'd say the award is a perfect fit. The ONLY thing Obama has really done right is ordering the SEALs to perform the Snipefecta on those idiot pirates who were holding that captain hostage -- that's about it. Granted, that WAS awesome (and we haven't seen much on pirates since we've started SHOOTING BACK, have we?), but it's certainly not much in terms of history.

EDIT: AND he let Nancy Pelosi handle the first draft of his (signature campaign promise) health care bill. What kind of a moron takes his supposedly "term-defining" agenda item and lets an unpopular socialist like Pelosi handle how it gets written? And then Obama got all upset when the country kicked it back in his face and he had to go on TV and say he was going to introduce his own bill, which he STILL hasn't done. This guy's ten pounds of BS in a five pound sack. He talks and talks, but does nothing. And what he does do is horrible. The guy's a mess. He has ZERO legislative experience, and it shows. He has ZERO business experience, and it shows. You've basically got a Junior Senator who used to work for Acorn running the country. And IT SHOWS.

I think they just did this to piss people off.

EDIT: Just to make myself clear, I am pretty neutral about this. I am not pissed off about it, but I know that a lot of people are or will be.

Odd... there are probably much more deserving people than him, considering he hasn't done much.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

I hear the World Trade Center did a few bucks of business now and again. Like Engrish, you make the mistake of associating the war with economic downturn. The international banking/loan/investment fraud caused the collapse.

Just because the two of you keep repeating your remarks over and over again doesn't make them true.

MarcusAntonius

You're willfully missing the point and you're using strawmen. They didn't say the warcaused the collapse. They are saying that spending money on an unneccesary war hurts us economically, which is something that the terrorists wanted. You really can't get around the fact that the terrorists wanted wasteful war and Bush gave them wasteful war.

Strawmen? Oh please.

I'm quite sure their desired intent was to get to the Twin Towers. (Hint: they tried before) Oh yeah, and Bill Clinton took us to war in Somalia, which we ran away from after a poorly executed campaign which only emboldened our enemies to try us again after seeing our lack of resolve. So I think that point has been pretty much exhausted.

You're giving way too much credit to them. By the way Tiger, care to respond to my point on Wikipedia and just how quickly I presented a better source?

I didn't give them any credit. The point was that they waned the US in a wasteful campaign and Bush played into that. They don't get any credit for Bush's stupidity. After all, they didn't push anybody's hand. The whole point was that Bush didn't scare the crap out of our enemies. Rather, he did something foolish that they wanted him to do. I'm not saying it was their influence that caused him to do it.

Instead of dismissing Wikipedia for being Wikipedia, you should clearly dispute the figure with another. That's all I'm interested in. I don't care what source you think is better than Wikipedia unless you're proving Wikipedia's data wrong.

And yes you did use a strawman. You said that they attributed the collapse to the war, which is something they didn't say. That's a strawman.

Actually it is very relevant - especially since none of the insurgents we fought in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Netherscourge

Accomplished? The adminstration paid off the main group of insurgents with in the Iraq to fight against AQ.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

You're willfully missing the point and you're using strawmen. They didn't say the warcaused the collapse. They are saying that spending money on an unneccesary war hurts us economically, which is something that the terrorists wanted. You really can't get around the fact that the terrorists wanted wasteful war and Bush gave them wasteful war.

Tragic_Kingdom7

Strawmen? Oh please.

I'm quite sure their desired intent was to get to the Twin Towers. (Hint: they tried before) Oh yeah, and Bill Clinton took us to war in Somalia, which we ran away from after a poorly executed campaign which only emboldened our enemies to try us again after seeing our lack of resolve. So I think that point has been pretty much exhausted.

You're giving way too much credit to them. By the way Tiger, care to respond to my point on Wikipedia and just how quickly I presented a better source?

I didn't give them any credit. The point was that they waned the US in a wasteful campaign and Bush played into that. They don't get any credit for Bush's stupidity. After all, they didn't push anybody's hand. The whole point was that Bush didn't scare the crap out of our enemies. Rather, he did something foolish that they wanted him to do. I'm not saying it was their influence that caused him to do it.

Instead of dismissing Wikipedia for being Wikipedia, you should clearly dispute the figure with another. That's all I'm interested in. I don't care what source you think is better than Wikipedia unless you're proving Wikipedia's data wrong.

And yes you did use a strawman. You said that they attributed the collapse to the war, which is something they didn't say. That's a strawman.

No, that was my interpretation. Their lack of clarity isn't my responsibility. That isn't a strawman. This is you trolling. In fact, what you're doing here is arguably a strawman. Why don't you look up strawman on Wikipedia too.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Strawmen? Oh please.

I'm quite sure their desired intent was to get to the Twin Towers. (Hint: they tried before) Oh yeah, and Bill Clinton took us to war in Somalia, which we ran away from after a poorly executed campaign which only emboldened our enemies to try us again after seeing our lack of resolve. So I think that point has been pretty much exhausted.

You're giving way too much credit to them. By the way Tiger, care to respond to my point on Wikipedia and just how quickly I presented a better source?

MarcusAntonius

I didn't give them any credit. The point was that they waned the US in a wasteful campaign and Bush played into that. They don't get any credit for Bush's stupidity. After all, they didn't push anybody's hand. The whole point was that Bush didn't scare the crap out of our enemies. Rather, he did something foolish that they wanted him to do. I'm not saying it was their influence that caused him to do it.

Instead of dismissing Wikipedia for being Wikipedia, you should clearly dispute the figure with another. That's all I'm interested in. I don't care what source you think is better than Wikipedia unless you're proving Wikipedia's data wrong.

And yes you did use a strawman. You said that they attributed the collapse to the war, which is something they didn't say. That's a strawman.

No, that was my interpretation. Their lack of clarity isn't my responsibility. That isn't a strawman. This is you trolling. In fact, what you're doing here is arguably a strawman. Why don't you look up strawman on Wikipedia too.

Now you're using the"you're trolling me" trick. What rules am I breaking? If I'm trolling, why haven't I gotten a moderation? It's kind of lame to cry "troll" when someone merely accused you of a logical fallacy. It's not like I insulted you.

This has nothing to do with their lack of clarity. It has to do with you responding to an argument they never made. They said that our ventures in Iraq caused us economic harm. They did not say that the wars directly caused the collapse, which is what you attributed to them. Like it or not, your "interpretation" is a strawman. You are arguing against an argment that was not made.

Also, why are you not responding to what I said about Wikipedia? You complained about the source yet have not refuted the figure. What good does it do to cry about the source and say you have all this wonderful research if you can't debunk the numbers? You dismissing Wikipedia immediately because it is Wikipedia is the equivalent of an ad hom fallacy. Just focus on the figure. It doesn't matter if you think Wikipedia is a crappy source.

Wow surprising, what has he done so far?

Extremely premature and panderous. Then again, it kind of lost credibitilty anyway.

I'm not an Obama hater, but the chance that I gave him this year is drying up. This wasn't his choice, but he hasn't done anything huge and substantial enough to even be considered this award. I think someone else deserved it more.

For his crazy long list of accomplishments!

I see now!

i don't know who else was worthy of this but i tend to disagree with this decision. however, the prize does affirm that barack obama is truly a political rockstar still despite his approval rating being reported at 50%.

does anyone remember the arizona state controversy?

Previous winner: Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. What a joke.fidosim

Why do you think so?

Well, even though I don't understand why; I am happy for him.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Previous winner: Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. What a joke.chessmaster1989

Why do you think so?

Much like judging his presidency this is far to early to do imo

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Previous winner: Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. What a joke.battlefront23

Why do you think so?

I was referring to why he thinks Gore and Carter winning it were jokes. :P

Much like judging his presidency this is far to early to do imo

Serraph105

I agree.

I was referring to why he thinks Gore and Carter winning it were jokes. :P

chessmaster1989

Yeah it's a bit of a rip. It's like how every book I see that's about "greatest speeches of all time" and that crap all have him on the front. I'm 100% sure there are much better speeches then his inauguration speech.

has he actually done much?lonewolf604

I can see what they were trying to do, but one of those "it sounded better in my head ideas"