Top Quotes From This Year's Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[PapaG]

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."

 

[PapaG]

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."

 

[barfo]

Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there's no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: 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. But I don't think so.

BARACK OBAMA, The Audacity of Hope

barfo

 

[boatsandstars]

Quote by PapaG on his extremely selective citation and use of language between presidents.
"I'm a big fat hypocrite"

 

[BrianFromWA]

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.

 

[PapaG]

Quote by PapaG on his extremely selective citation and use of language between presidents.
"I'm a big fat hypocrite"

Personal attack? Nice comeback.

 

[PapaG]

barfo

A "uniter".

"White folk's greed runs a world in need"

[video=youtube;DdLX3aRNaNk]

- Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father

 

[PapaG]

Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there's no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: 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. But I don't think so.

BARACK OBAMA, The Audacity of Hope

barfo

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."

 

[Eastoff]

these aren't nearly as funny as W's quotes

 

[Wizard Mentor]

these aren't nearly as funny as W's quotes

let alone Dan Quayle's.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Quote by PapaG on his extremely selective citation and use of language between presidents.
"I'm a big fat hypocrite"

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.

 

[barfo]

So, who is the hypocrite?

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

 

[bluefrog]

Where did you get these quotes from?

 

[bluefrog]

barfo
Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there's no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: 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. But I don't think so.

BARACK OBAMA, The Audacity of Hope

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.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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.

 

[barfo]

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.

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).

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?

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.

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?

You might have missed it, but in fact the drug companies are making some concessions on pricing as part of this package.

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?

It isn't even a matter of that, much less just a matter of that.

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.

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

 

[RR7]

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.

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.

 

[bluefrog]

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.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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).

Fair enough. As I said, this is all in the other thread.

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.

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".

You might have missed it, but in fact the drug companies are making some concessions on pricing as part of this package.

I did miss it. I'm not sure which version of the bill is being debated now...I only get snippets.

It isn't even a matter of that, much less just a matter of that.

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.

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

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?

 

[barfo]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 congress makes the laws, they aren't in charge of enforcement or adjudication.

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?

I agree completely.

barfo

 

[barfo]

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.

Not sure specifically what you are talking about here, but if what they confirmed is in fact true, then isn't that better than falsely denying it?

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

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?

All good points, BFW.

I don't really see the "cult of personality" here in rural North Carolina. Maybe it's different in WA. I see a lot of blind hatred for Obama and innuendos of lynching or assignation.

It's refreshing to read criticism of Obama or the Democrats presented in an intelligent fashion with supporting evidence.

 

[PapaG]

Not sure specifically what you are talking about here, but if what they confirmed is in fact true, then isn't that better than falsely denying it?

barfo

I'm guessing Brian is referencing the current "FoxNews vs. the White House" episode, and how FoxNews is the "research arm for the Republican Party". Just another ingredient in the "Obama is a hypocrite" pie. The words he writes and reads (written by others) often contradict the actions he has taken.

 

[yakbladder]

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.

Could you provide evidence of this? What makes you think that these "people in office right now" are going to be allowed to run things the same way other than just your conviction that no one will stop them this time around? How will these people in office have an effect on laws being followed? I think you're referring to enforcement. So you want government out of health care but you want government to intervene in health care when it's necessary to follow your set of beliefs? And if you don't support government in health care are you saying you don't support Medicare? What about Social Security or Welfare, are you against those as well? In your eyes, why should people's health be a for-profit enterprise? 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?

In my mind it really comes down to a matter of trust. It all started back in the 80's when the mood in Congress became less cooperative and more partisan. Can you say with a straight face that Dems weren't screwed when Bush ruled and controlled Congress? That their ideas weren't shuffled to the ground and left to rot? So now that you're in the minority you're suddenly asking them to give up everything and trust the people that just beat them over the head continually for nearly a decade? You know what it would take - it would take a leading GOP'r to say "You know what, the health plan has a couple of good initiatives in it, we agree that we need reform, here are some proposals we have..." rather than frothing at the mouth every time there's even a hint that the government might have some say in health reform. I can think of a few areas where Obama has held onto GOP ideas but he gets s*** credit for that from the GOP because most of the congressional leaders hold a grudge in one hand and the stick up their arse in the other. Obama can't change everything on his own, and yes, some Dems will have to change too. But right now I don't see the GOP budging one micrometer and until that changes why are the Dems supposed to keep heaping concessions up?