Cracker Jacks

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:33 am

Ferno wrote:
Will Robinson wrote: Nobel Committee = euroweenie political hacks. Committee gives Obama useless award that used to mean something.
End of story.
oh sure, like bush ever did anything to deserve one either.

You might have picked someone else that actually got one.

Ohh…never mind, you just wanted to mention Bush.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:43 am

Spidey wrote:
You might have picked someone else that actually got one.

Ohh…never mind, you just wanted to mention Bush.

Seems like the Nobel committee also wanted to bring up Bush:

"In a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the committee praised the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons."

And it seems accomplishments no longer apply:

"The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.

Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. “If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” he said. “It could be too late to respond three years from now.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 868905.ece

So give it out now no matter that in three year the winner may fall flat on his face.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:47 am

WELL CRAP, I'm going on a crusade to talk about World peace, I'm going to TALK,TALK,TALK. because I can sure use the Million Dollar prize that comes along with that award

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:48 am

Ferno wrote:
Will Robinson wrote: Nobel Committee = euroweenie political hacks. Committee gives Obama useless award that used to mean something.
End of story.
oh sure, like bush ever did anything to deserve one either.

Actually, he has - even President Obama gives him credit for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/01/world. ... index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00941.html

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:49 am

woodchip wrote:For decades the Us and Russia fought a cold war and negotiated endlessly. Russia finally surrendered when we broke Russia's economic back.

Just pointing out something ...

We didn't break Russia's economic back. Yes, the international economics that we encouraged did contribute to the economic woes that Russia dealt with, but we were not what broke Russia's economic back. A lot of it had to do with changes within Russia, the Russian political landscape, and the Russia's own economic practices at the time. The U.S. cannot take the blame for the economic struggles Russia experienced at that time. The U.S. only contributed ... and I'm not entirely sure that contribution was actually a good thing, either. Imposing economic struggles on another nation is "dirty pool" IMHO.

Sorry I don't have the time right now to give you references to data on that. Either way, Please make sure you have your facts straight before you make such a very definitive statement.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:50 am

TechPro wrote:... Imposing economic struggles on another nation is "dirty pool" IMHO....

Well when that nation is trying to expand it's influence, territory and military might across multiple continents and it's leader has screamed "We will bury you!" from the dais at the U.N. I think it was OK for us to play that way.

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:11 am

woodchip wrote:
Neville Chamberlain tried that approach and failed. What finally did work was beating the Germans so bad they surrendered.

The Japanese didn't even try to negotiate with us prior to Pearl Harbor (Cuda can clarify this). What brought about a lasting peace though was beating them so badly they too surrendered.
For decades the Us and Russia fought a cold war and negotiated endlessly. Russia finally surrendered when we broke Russia's economic back.
For years we and the world negotiated with Saddam Hussein. He finally surrendered when we pulled him out of a rat hole.

We lost in Vietnam because we tried to negotiate our way out out.
There is a North Korea because a settlement was negotiated to end the Korean war.
Starting to see a pattern here?

Yes I see the pattern - and for the record you're right (as are you Will) in that there are *many* examples of Peace being brokered without dialogue first. I wrote that comment before I thought about it at length - so I withdraw that statement as it's clearly erronious.

That being said, most of the examples you site Woodchip were examples of peace being established only after extended and violent conflict costing the lives of many thousands of combatants on both sides (not to mention civilian casualties). Hardly the ideas way to accheive peace (Combat is a reality of human existance and will be for as far as I can see. Combat in my opinion is also entered into far too quickly and far too often.) You can't easily negotiate with madmen, granted - but that doesn't mean you're insane if you attempt it.

As for the cold war between the US and Russia being being ended by Russia surrendering whe the US 'broke its back economically' ... no offense Woodchip but I find that notion far too simplistic to be credible. It fails to fully recognise the internal forces that help brought about democratic reforms in the country.

(EDIT: TechPro beat me to the punch there!

)

Will Robinson wrote: How do you measure the 'atmosphere' being less hostile? You can site Obama's willingness to have dialog but that doesn't automatically translate to results. Clinton sent Albright to talk to the N Koreans and people lauded his dialog to be superior to Bush Sr. so the N.Koreans talked about not building nukes ....while they built them anyway and laughed at us about it later!

In the examples of continuing hostilities I listed I can't see any change in the dialog coming back from those parties since Obama took over the microphone and just look at the Russians, they got Obama to back down so do they lessen the rhetoric? No, now they see weakness and make more demands...

...No peace agreement has ever been established without one party surrendering to another first! If it has it has been a follow up agreement between allies from a previous war like NATO etc.
So you can highlight the dialog part of the process if you want to but it isn't necessarily the cause of the peace, more likely simply a formality to document the results of the hostility.

So you are telling me he is more interested in the talking part of the process. That is no surprise to me. He's proven to be full of that. And now he gets a once prestigious award for being good at talking about the desire to talk about it....

Make no mistake I'd love for him to earn the award for actually getting things done and it isn't his fault for receiving it prematurely but it sure does bring to the forefront his record so far. My guess is his ego is too large to wish they never gave it to him.

You've heard the old saying - live by the sword, die by the sword? Well this is a case of live by the hype, die by the hype.

How do I measure the 'atmosphere being less hostile?' ...it's a fair question you ask Will and I must admit, I measure it anecdotally (not the most fair method of assessing something - but not totally without validity).

Frankly Will, when I refer to their being a less hostile atmosphere towards the US, I'm talking about the environment right here in Australia!

I'm not anti-american by any stretch, and neither is my country. But I cannot remember any other time in my life when I heard or witnessed so much venom aimed towards the US - or seen so much shame at being involved in a war - as I did towards the final days of Bush's administration.

Put simply - I have never seen so many Australians - act in such an Un-Australian way - as they did towards Bush, his administration, the 'Coalition of the Willing', US foreign policy, the whole F****ing ball of wax.

You are entitled to have any opinion you wish of your current president. 'Quote him, disagree with him - sanctify or villify him.' Frankly I don't really care which, take him as you find him.

But many people hated Bush here - make no mistake about that; and I witnessed that hate spill over into an overall antipathy towards North America and all things American.

Obama's overtures of peace and reconciliation towards enemies, friends and the indifferent alike have repaired your nation's standing amongst the Australian public, or at least by my assessment it has; Whatever Obama's flaws are, you can't take that away from him. Whether that can be *maintained* or not, I cannot say.

...And if Obama *is* just another bombastic politician full of empty promises - well I'm sure american voters will know just what to do about that

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:46 am

I see where you are coming from with the anti-Bush observations. Think of this though, in talking about the actual climate that nations negotiate in you aren't talking about the same thing as pop cultures feelings toward an individual. Sure Bush became a lightning rod for criticism and deservedly so in many ways. Obama was elected on a wave of those feelings. He promised to be so different etc.
He could talk for hours, quite impressively, about how Guantanamo bay should be closed down immediately.
Yet the reality of the situation, once he actually owned the responsibility for it, was such that he had to keep it open and struggles to this day to resolve the problem.

Well nations negotiating with each other deal in the same kind of realities so the climate in pop culture is often more stormy than the climate at the negotiating table where rhetoric never delivers the goods but governments with powerful armies and/or economies do.
So Obama has lightened the mood among the average Joe on the street, fine, it's of some value. Don't try to pay your bills with it or hold back the next wave of rockets launched out of Lebanon or convince Russia to support sanctions against Iran with it because all that talented teleprompter reading just doesn't work there.
It makes it a little easier for the next Australian leader to face his public if he's announcing a joint effort with Obama than with Bush but the devil in the details is Obama and Bush both saw the need for Guantanamo Bay didn't they?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:57 pm

I think this thread demonstrates perfectly the difference between “feel good” politics and reality.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:18 pm

dissent wrote: Actually, he has - even President Obama gives him credit for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/01/world. ... index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00941.html

More deserving than U2's Bono, who's started no less than four organizations for aid to Africa, plus all the benefit concerts?

Tripling aid to an impoverished country when you're the president isn't really much of an accomplishment, let alone deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.

A REAL accomplishment for a president would be to broker, cement, and enforce a peace treaty between two warring nations.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:51 pm

Ferno wrote:...

Tripling aid to an impoverished country when you're the president isn't really much of an accomplishment, let alone deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Well, no one ever awarded a Nobel Peace Prize to Bush, or even suggested he should be awarded one, so what's the point?

A REAL accomplishment for a president would be to broker, cement, and enforce a peace treaty between two warring nations.

That works for me...try and sell it to the committee that gave the Prize to Obama for reading good speeches. He should at least share the prize money with the people who created the actual content of his speeches!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:33 pm

As to my Russian economy breaking statement, I realize there were other factors. Still:

\"Here was Gorbachev speaking at a session of the Politburo in October 1986, days before he traveled to Reykjavik, Iceland to offer Reagan a groundbreaking disarmament plan, including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues:

[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. … If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.\"

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:29 pm

haha. Conan makes fun of Obama's nobel prize.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/101467/the-to ... vepisode,1

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:31 pm

Ferno wrote:More deserving than U2's Bono, who's started no less than four organizations for aid to Africa, plus all the benefit concerts?

Now it has to be "more deserving" than someone else? I thought your contention was that Bush never "did anything" to deserve such consideration.

Ferno wrote:]Tripling aid to an impoverished country when you're the president isn't really much of an accomplishment, let alone deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.

When you triple something that's in the billions of dollars, that's hardly insignificant.

Like countless Africans, Mzolisa looks forward to Barack Obama becoming America's first black president Jan 20. But — like countless Africans — Mzolisa says she will always be grateful to Bush for his war on AIDS, which has helped to treat more than 2 million Africans, support 10 million more, and revitalize the global fight against the disease.

"It has done a lot for the people of South Africa, for the whole of the African continent," says Mzolisa, a feisty mother of seven. "It has changed so many people's lives, saved so many people's lives."...

...Bush launched the $15 billion plan in 2003 to expand prevention, treatment and support programs in 15 hard-hit countries, 12 of them African, which account for more than half the world's estimated 33 million AIDS infections. The initiative tied in with a World Health Organization campaign to put 3 million people on AIDS drugs by 2005 — a goal it says was reached in 2007.

Congress last year passed legislation more than tripling the budget to $48 billion over the next five years, with Republicans and Democrats alike hailing the program as a remarkable success....

...Some critics, like rockers-turned-advocates Bono and Bob Geldof, have become admirers.

"The Bush regime has been divisive ... created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives," Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28605888/

The main reason for his popularity is that the fund to combat AIDS, which he created in 2003, has spent more than $15 billion on the continent over the past five years.

"It was incumbent upon us to help deal with this pandemic that ... could have literally wiped out an entire generation of Africans," Bush told reporters in the Tanzanian capital today.

The fund is the largest international health initiative ever to fight a single disease, and Bush wants to double that amount to $30 billion over the next five years.

"Different people may have different views about you and your administration and your legacy," Tanzanian President Jikaya Kikwete said. "But we, in Tanzania, if we are to speak for ourselves, and for Africa, we know for sure that you, Mr. President, and your administration, have been good friends of our country, and have been good friends of Africa."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4303636&page=1.

Ferno wrote:A REAL accomplishment for a president would be to broker, cement, and enforce a peace treaty between two warring nations.

Gosh, do you think so? Hey, let's tell the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee...

Stroodles · Post by **Stroodles** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:53 am

If he is going to do all these great things he's promising, which is doubtful, then wait until he's done them. So far, he's just TALKED about doing them.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:30 pm

heh. from Friedman and the NYT no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opini ... edman.html

S13driftAZ · Post by **S13driftAZ** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:16 pm

Stroodles wrote:If he is going to do all these great things he's promising, which is doubtful, then wait until he's done them. So far, he's just TALKED about doing them.

He does have 3 more years left. I find it hilarious that people expect something to happen as soon as he gets into office, like his slogan "Change" mentions the word "immediately" somewhere in it.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:19 pm

What...are you the king of the “non sequiturs”?

S13driftAZ · Post by **S13driftAZ** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:27 pm

Spidey wrote:What...are you the king of the “non sequiturs”?

Yeah

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:23 pm

dissent wrote:heh. from Friedman and the NYT no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opini ... edman.html

Wow! That is sweet!
If he would give that acceptance speech I'll send him a campaign donation, volunteer for his re-election campaign, and vote for him!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:18 pm

dissent wrote:Now it has to be "more deserving" than someone else? I thought your contention was that Bush never "did anything" to deserve such consideration.

well yeah it kind of is, because doing something when you're already president doesn't take nearly as much effort as someone else who has nowhere near the same amount of power.

All a president has to do is pick up the phone, whereas someone else has to work their ass off to get the same result.

Being awarded the nobel prize when you're the most powerful person in the country is like winning an emmy for taking a dump.

Look at the people who the prize was given to before they started giving them to presidents.

were they in power before being awarded the prize?

When you triple something that's in the billions of dollars, that's hardly insignificant.

again, all he has to do is pick up a phone.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:33 am

Your still trying to change the rules, Ferno. Your contention was that Bush never \"did anything\". I'm just pointing out that he did, and that the Africans are grateful for his efforts. I think you oversimplify with the \"just has to pick up a phone\" comment.

AFAIK the Nobel committee is more concerned that you've done something to promote peace, not necessarily that you had to overcome more obstacles than someone else to get it done. That makes for a better human story, though.

Sure, there were lots of other potential candidates for a Nobel Peace Prize, many who met the criteria you set out. Yet they gave it to Obama - that's the whole point of this thread.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:46 am

Well Obama hasn't even picked up the phone yet...

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:44 pm

dissent wrote:Your still trying to change the rules, Ferno. Your contention was that Bush never "did anything". I'm just pointing out that he did, and that the Africans are grateful for his efforts. I think you oversimplify with the "just has to pick up a phone" comment.

Do you really have to be so rigid?

the point i'm trying to make is that someone who has less power has to work a LOT harder to make a significant contribution.

even YOU can understand that.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:22 pm

Ferno wrote:
dissent wrote:Your still trying to change the rules, Ferno. Your contention was that Bush never "did anything". I'm just pointing out that he did, and that the Africans are grateful for his efforts. I think you oversimplify with the "just has to pick up a phone" comment.
Do you really have to be so rigid?

the point i'm trying to make is that someone who has less power has to work a LOT harder to make a significant contribution.

even YOU can understand that.

Ferno I think you are swimming sideways in this because originally you seemed to be saying Bush=not worthy of Peace Prize... and then swerved into Bono's Contributions>Bush.

1-Bono lifts a microphone and says some politically charged things to spur people to help people.
2-Bush signs executive order and makes a few calls to spur some action to help people.

In both cases the logistics of their efforts are just doing what they do in a days work anyway. Which is heavier the Presidents pen or the Rock Stars microphone....OK...Bono wins by lifting .78 lbs more mass to deliver his words....but the chicks are hotter in his dressing room...so it's a tie for second place and the people of Africa are the big winners.

Stroodles · Post by **Stroodles** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:30 pm

S13driftAZ wrote:
Stroodles wrote:If he is going to do all these great things he's promising, which is doubtful, then wait until he's done them. So far, he's just TALKED about doing them.
He does have 3 more years left. I find it hilarious that people expect something to happen as soon as he gets into office, like his slogan "Change" mentions the word "immediately" somewhere in it.

You are mis-interpreting what I said. If you believe he is going to do these things, okay. If you think it will take a few more years, okay. How about this: 2 or 3 years from now, when he does all these great things, give him the prize then. Giving him a prize because he might deserve later is a bit silly to me.

And Ferno, how does Bush have anything to do with this? You say that Obama getting the award isn't a bad thing because an unrelated person who never got it didn't do as much as another unrelated person who ALSO didn't get the award.

S13driftAZ · Post by **S13driftAZ** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:31 pm

Stroodles wrote:How about this: 2 or 3 years from now, when he does all these great things, give him the prize then. Giving him a prize because he might deserve later is a bit silly to me.

Agreed. I like him as president, but I never thought he ever did anything great enough to deserve a Peace Prize. If he became anything like Ghandi maybe. EDIT: and of course if he did anything great for this country in the future.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:26 pm

Ferno wrote:
dissent wrote:Your still trying to change the rules, Ferno. Your contention was that Bush never "did anything". I'm just pointing out that he did, and that the Africans are grateful for his efforts. I think you oversimplify with the "just has to pick up a phone" comment.
Do you really have to be so rigid?

Rigid?? You mean, like, factual? I responded to your contention that "oh sure, like bush ever did anything to deserve one either." I presented a bunch of evidence to the contrary, and how there are many people that agree that what Bush did was a good thing. If you want to disagree with me, and them (Bob Geldof, President Obama, the recipients of the retroviral drugs, etc.), then that's fine; let's agree to disagree.

Ferno wrote:the point I'm trying to make is that someone who has less power has to work a LOT harder to make a significant contribution.

I agree. Your point is obvious. The fact remains, however, that Bush could have put the emphasis for that spending elsewhere, but he still chose to support AIDS relief. Many more Africans are alive today because of that choice.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:00 pm

dissent wrote: AFAIK the Nobel committee is more concerned that you've done something to promote peace, not necessarily that you had to overcome more obstacles than someone else to get it done. That makes for a better human story, though.

Ok dissent, I'll bite.

In 1984 the award went to Desmond Tutu for his efforts in ending apartheid -- which continued for another 10 years. Thats some pretty big failure right there at the time they gave it to him.

Carl von Ossietzky won the Prize in 1935 for speaking out against the Nazi party. He was sent to a concentration camp and died long before the party fell. Maybe they should of withheld the prize for the epic failure of a achievement that guy had?

Aung San Suu Kyi -- Isn't she still under house arrest?

Neither of these people stood alone. In fact all of them symbolize countless others who fought for their cause -- not behind them, but along side of them. Indeed, the prize is usually intended to go to an individual who symbolizes a certain movement. Often when the movement was just beginning -- not when it was accomplished.

So, despite any hatred you may have for Obama, it can't be denied that he is one hell of a symbol for how far we have come as a nation. And in that sense it is fitting.

The more I read what you guys write, the better of a decision I think it was.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:04 am

Gooberman wrote:So, despite any hatred you may have for Obama,

since when has this become about hatred for Obama? why is it that those that disagree with him or in this case think he is unworthy for the award, have to HATE?

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:47 am

Gooberman wrote:So, despite any hatred you may have for Obama, ...

Not sure (at all) why this is being directed at me ...

...it can't be denied that he is one hell of a symbol for how far we have come as a nation.

No doubt. But that is not what he was awarded the prize for, was it? It was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

There's no doubt that Obama's election victory was significant. It's a tough slog (for anyone) just to make it through the candidacy process, but for a non-white candidate to have garnered that much white support in a national election was unprecedented.

But, to use your examples, was Barack Obama ever in danger of being put under house arrest for pursuing his candidacy. Did he, personally, live through decades of apartheid? Did he speak out against a monolithic party movement in his own country? Aung San Suu Kyi - a brave woman. Desmond Tutu and Carl von Ossietzky - both brave men. Barack Obama - also a brave man; a difficult thing to put yourself in that national spotlight. But, I reiterate, bravery was not what Obama was given his Nobel for.

There are lots of compelling stories among the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

Even Obama has said that he didn't deserve the award. Let's see what he does with the opportunity.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:51 am

CUDA wrote:
Gooberman wrote:So, despite any hatred you may have for Obama,
since when has this become about hatred for Obama? why is it that those that disagree with him or in this case think he is unworthy for the award, have to HATE?

Because, it’s the only thing they have…

The people Goob mentioned, each had specific causes they were fighting for/against, so I still can’t see a connection to Obama. (world peace…duh, give it to Ms. America)

And failure has nothing to do with it…that’s just a flail, at best.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:43 am

The funny thing is, the sentence first read: \"So, despite any hatred you have for Obama,\" where I thought the \"any\" would suffice. But trying to avoid the content of the post being ignored, and only that line grabbed, I edited it and put the \"may\" in there.

I guess there was some minor accomplishment as it was only the first thing each of you lead with (except for CUDA).

But, to use your examples, was Barack Obama ever in danger of being put under house arrest for pursuing his candidacy.

To this day he holds the record for more death threats as a candidate then any other. Ya, I think that counts. This country doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to the life-spans of their African American leaders. (Nor their presidents for that matter). When he gave his speech in that stadium for the DNC, I was nervous for him.

S13driftAZ · Post by **S13driftAZ** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:05 pm

News flash for me... I was just watching the Colbert Report and he said Obama was NOMINATED for a peace prize when he had only been in office for 11 days!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:12 pm

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:10 pm

I knew better, I really did....

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Spidey wrote:
CUDA wrote:
Gooberman wrote:So, despite any hatred you may have for Obama,
since when has this become about hatred for Obama? why is it that those that disagree with him or in this case think he is unworthy for the award, have to HATE?
Because, it’s the only thing they have…
I don't know who "they" are but the hatred toward Obama is very real and it's not just about liberal vs conservative. It's about color which makes him a very protected president.

Bee

Nope it couldn't possibly be about his "re-distributive" policies and practices. Nor could it be about his taking care of his SEIU cronies. Yep it just HAS to be his color.

WHATEVER!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:28 pm

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:40 pm

So, the prez has decided to delay his decision on further troop increases in the “necessary war”. (his words)

Gee, I can’t imagine why.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:29 pm

Bet51987 wrote:I don't know who "they" are but the hatred toward Obama is very real and it's not just about liberal vs conservative. It's about color which makes him a very protected president.

Bee

No, apparently, it isn't
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28399.html

Cracker Jacks

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: