Ironworks Gaming Forum - OMGods !! Obama...

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - OMGods !! Obama... (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101099)

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Quote:

Originally Posted by John D Harris (Post 1234382)

Nice try spirit but no cigar, for someone who waxes long on they abilies, and tries to puff himself up by attempting to make other look bad. (see you response before about spelling)

Hmmm. You seem to have an issue with this as you've referenced it around 3 times now in different posts. I am sorry you feel that way, as this was not my intent in correcting your spelling of the word "Bias". It was more of a joke than anything else and was not meant to be taken personally or as a personal attack on you.

We all spell things incorrectly, typos, tiredness, laziness etc. The joke was that I felt you should know that word inside out, rather than your spelling the word incorrectly. I would have said this to anyone here had they been in the position you were, so again, not a personal attack as opposed to a contextual one. I do have a bar I won't cross, despite what some may think. We good? :)

Quote:

It was very clear the facts I was asking about refered to the below post you made. That's why I quoted it before asking for facts. So I'll quote it again for you.

Not it wasn't. If it was, someone else would have chimed in by now clarifying it for me before you did. But nobody has until you did it yourself. Cerek even misread it and started posting stuff about Al Gore.

Now I understand what you want. Saying things like "any facts" just improves the confusion.

Quote:

what facts do you have that I am mad? Do you posses some magical power that from 4,000 miles away you can read minds?

I don't think you are red-faced, hopping and screaming with anger, mad, but you don't like that he won, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be typing all this. Unless of course, I am wrong, and you actually do think he should have won, in that case I would wonder wtf you're doing here? Mad, ticked off, not thrilled, not happy, you choose.

Btw I do possess said magical power, but it's range is only 3500 miles.

Quote:

what facts do you have that Glen Beck is nutty....etc.

Just because he hasn't been in a mental home doesn't mean he's not a nutjob. There are thousands of people roaming the streets that should otherwise be in one. In this case, Glenn has been given a platform on TV to showcase his nuttiness. As for evidence that he is nuts? Lol, just watch him. He's on Fox now btw. Did you see that one where he went around NY city pointing out the communist statues? My god. Or how about when he starts crying out of nowhere? Or how about when he calls Obama a racist and really believes it. Or when he says that "there are more of us than there are of them" with a great fear in his eyes as if he's ready to hide in the cellar. Please.

What do you know about him really? He has had alot of emotional trauma in his life, the childhood death of his parents, then the suicide of his brother, and then becoming an alcoholic at the age of 17/18. His mother was suffering from a psychiatric disorder too, so they say. He has been diagnosed with ADD, which would explain the fast-moving pace of his show and the fact that he seems to interrupt one crazy thought with a different one without letting them end.

I am not trying to belittle the man, in fact, he has more money than any of us so he couldn't care less what I or you say. Frankly, I feel sorry for him because his mental state is not just ignored, it is encouraged. And I do not think people should look to him as a moral compass or heed anything that comes out of his mouth. He is what I would call "damaged goods", and Fox take advantage of his rantings because let's face it, crazy is good tv. That's why I watched Flava of Love on Vh1.

Quote:

I'll offer you some free advice don't give up your day job, if you are counting on making a living mind reading. I've been here for years and any of the old timers can tell you that when I get mad, there is no doubt I'm mad I come out say it. I'm not some namby pamby afraid to speak and especialy not over the internet. What's the worst that can happen I get banned... big whoopty doo I've been shot at and shot before, WTF is an internet banning conpaired to that

Nor am I afraid to speak my mind, yet I have yet to be shot at (Felix doesn't know where I live yet). I try not to "get mad" on the internet as it is kinda retarded and/or pointless. I have alot more fun just screwing with people who come in with guns-barred, so to speak.

Quote:

Still waiting on which words Glen Beck used that was a dishonor to Irena Sendler. Surely it can't be that hard to find after all you made a big show about your prowess with the English language, or is it only limited to spelling? hmmm... let me see I believe Glen Beck said: An amazing story I'll never forget, or words to that effect... hmmm amazing yep that sure sounds like dishonor to me... Oh and let's not forget that Glen Beck dishonored her by remembering her and her story... WOW the nerve of Him doesn't he know what a dishonor it is to remember what someboby did... for shame for shame Glen Beck how dare you remember when somebody does something takes great personal risk to save other humans. Prehaps it was Glen Beck's words that Irena wouldn't have been bothered by the fact that she didn't win the Nobel Peace prize.... HOLY HORSE MANURE That has to be the most dishonorable thing I have ever read in my life. How dare Glen Beck say that woman who saved over 2500 children, was beaten and tortured wouldn't worry about some personal glory. Oh yes I can sure see that is dishonorable.

Well yes, the fact the HE mentioned her, sullies her good name. Or are you telling me that you think Glenn Beck is an impartial observer in all this? If so, why hasn't he done shows about her before?

Quote:

The remark about the Republicans and the troops, purely and opinion nothing more nothing less. Talk about Irony, you claim that Glen Beck is furthering a political agenda, while having your own political agenda. Well paddle my behind and paint it purple. Have you served in the US military if not then prehaps it would be best to let those here who served state if they were insulted by the Actions of the Republicans. Shall we settle that by having a vote of all here who served state if they were insulted?

Of course it's an opinion, this is what makes up the two sides. They think one thing, the other side thinks the other. Rational people will call BS on which one doesn't make sense. If someone doesn't speak up for those who are being used as political tools for political gains, all the while under the guise of honoring them, who will?

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Quote:

Originally Posted by John D Harris (Post 1234385)

No one claimed you said she didn't exsist, Show which words where used that make that claim.... come on it can't be that hard to do just hit the quote button and you got them.

Sorry, just noticed this other post.

I never claimed someone did...

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior (Post 1234389)

ILOL! did not misread John D.'s post. You reacted to Glen Beck's video with emotional perspective and opinion rather, which is understandable since the facts presented by Beck were indisputable. You then claimed Beck was "dishonoring" Irene Sandler by suggesting her efforts made her more worthy of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize than Al Gore. When John D. again asked you to provide facts that countered
Beck's claim, you responded with a rambling post about opinions. So I tried to help you out by listing several facts about the multiple errors in Al Gore's film as well as his personal hypocrisy on reducing energy consumption. You, of course, countered with the argument that I haven't seen the movie (which still doesn't change the fact that multiple errors exist in the film), all while artfully dodging John D's request that you give something more substantial than personal opinion about what was wrong with the story presented by Glen Beck. Which, of course, still has not been done.

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerek (Post 1234399)

Either you missed a page or you're choosing to ignore it. Either ways, the usual channels don't seem to be working here, and now it's just becoming silly. You may not LIKE the answers to your questions, but let's not pretend they weren't answered. We also did this with the Al Gore thing many moons ago yet you're acting like this is all new groundbreaking info. so I will point out to you for the second time, that it was discussed before in CE, between you and me. What gives?

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior (Post 1234400)

LOLOL! I love the way you always try to imply a position of intellectual superiority in your posts by claiming others missed information or didn't understand. It always provides me with a good chuckle.

I'm not acting as if the inconvenient truths about Al Gore's film is groundbreaking. I'm merely pointing out (with facts) the reasons I don't feel Gore or his film were remotely worthy of a Nobel Prize of any kind. Now it's true that it's my opinion the film (and Al Gore personally) are unworthy, but I back that opinion with facts to show why I feel that way.

You choose to ignore the errors in Gore's film and feel that a man who admittedly uses alarmism and exaggerations deserves your respect and his film (which had absolutely nothing to do with "peace") was as worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize as the efforts of a woman who literally risked her life every day to save the lives of 2500 innocent children from almost certain death in the Nazi camps. That's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

My opinion is that the only dishonor done to Irene Sendler comes from those who would even remotely consider a faulty climate slide show worthy of being mentioned in the same context as her heroic efforts.

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Quote:

LOLOL! I love the way you always try to imply a position of intellectual superiority in your posts by claiming others missed information or didn't understand. It always provides me with a good chuckle.

Or when people call you out on hypocrisy and you all but flee the thread? Chuckles galore. :)
I mean, if that's what you want to label this to make yourself feel better about it, more power to you. It doesn't change the fact that you clearly didn't understand or, like I said, don't want to.

Quote:

I'm not acting as if the inconvenient truths about Al Gore's film is groundbreaking. I'm merely pointing out (with facts) the reasons I don't feel Gore or his film were remotely worthy of a Nobel Prize of any kind. Now it's true that it's my opinion the film (and Al Gore personally) are unworthy, but I back that opinion with facts to show why I feel that way.

Well, it seems like you are saying this is all fresh stuff. For the third time, we had this discussion in CE and I debunked some of those. You are posting them as if they are still true. This is why I said it is becoming silly now. If you don't like the answers say so, but don't pretend they weren't given.

Like I said, you haven't seen the flick. Yet you criticize it. You have no idea what these criticisms are referring to really, because you never once took the time to view the work. Yet you defend this position like it's no big deal. Wtf?

You're citing third-party criticism based on third-party knowledge. You're ranting and posting links about something you know soley from word-of-mouth with no firsthand experience. Imagine if a movie got a bad review from someone who never saw it. If you expect ANY credibility in this endevaour, go spend the money and rent the film. Go on Cerek, the cash goes toward a good cause, and of course we see here how much you are about backing up good causes :).

Quote:

a man who admittedly uses alarmism and exaggerations deserves your respect

LoL, and in this very thread you describe someone ELSE with these words, yet fail to see the one who is truly deserving of such a description. My god. Perspective mas.

Quote:

My opinion is that the only dishonor done to Irene Sendler comes from those who would even remotely consider a faulty climate slide show worthy of being mentioned in the same context as her heroic efforts.

And you are welcome to this opinion by all means (but you used the same words Glenn did in that video which makes me wonder whether you're just regugitating his one but w/e.)

But let's not muddy the waters by making things up, or dragging her name into a political debate where you think that one man (who just happens to be a Democrat) does not deserve an award. Doing this, takes something away from that woman. Like Glenn said at the end of the video "If you ask Irene she would be worried about other things". The irony is he still persisted in including her in his show after saying that...knowing that things like this wouldn't concern her.

So, in a way, he not only dishonored her by using her as a tool on his attack against the other guy, he, by his own admission said she would say that these things wouldn't matter to her, yet still insisted in using her. What do you think she'd say after being used like this? Do you think that this would even be featured on his show if the guy who did win wasn't Al Gore, a politician and democrat? I think the answer will set you free, if you're brave enough to ask the hard questions.

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

A bit unorthodox..If he accomplishes even half of the good stuff he's promising, he'll have done well, but thats some vote of confidence.

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

This guy seems reasonably educated enough about the prize to have a valid opinion. WSJ - da journal the messenger, happy shooting.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB3000...047317314.html

Quote:

Pop quiz: What do Bertha von Suttner, Henri La Fontaine, Ludwig Quidde, Norman Angell, Arthur Henderson, Eisaku Sato, Alva Myrdal and Joseph Rotblat have in common?

Answer: Barack Obama.

If you're drawing blanks on most of these names, don't be hard on yourself: They're just some of the worthies of yesteryear who were favored with a Nobel Peace Prize before disappearing into the footnotes of history.

On the other hand, if you're among those who think Mr. Obama's Nobel was misjudged and premature, not to say absurd, then you really know nothing about the values and thinking that have informed a century of prize giving. Far from being an aberrant choice, President Obama was the ideal one, Scandinavianally speaking.

The peace Nobel is a much misunderstood prize. With the exception of a few really grotesque picks (Le Duc Tho, Rigoberta Menchú, Yasser Arafat), a few inspired ones (Carl von Ossietzky, Norman Borlaug, Andrei Sakharov, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Aung San Suu Kyi) and some worthy if obvious ones (Martin Luther King, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk), most of the prize winners draw from the obscure ranks of the sorts of people the late Oriana Fallaci liked to call "the Goodists."

Who are the Goodists? They are the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technologies, systems, complexes (as in "military-industrial") and everything else except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own moral intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution, whatever the problem. Above all, the Goodists are the people who like to be seen to be good.

Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler, who won the Peace Prize in 1931, was a Goodist. In 1910 he wrote that "to suppose that men and women into whose intellectual and moral instruction and upbuilding have gone the glories of the world's philosophy and art and poetry and religion . . . are to fly at each others' throats to ravage, to kill, in the hope of somehow establishing thereby truth and right and justice is to suppose the universe to be stood upon its apex."

The First World War, which began four years later, rendered a less charitable judgment on the benefits of moral and intellectual instruction. Yet Butler later became a leading campaigner for the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war as "an instrument of national policy." This monument to hope, which won U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg a Nobel in 1929 (France's Aristide Briand had already won it in 1926 for the equally feckless Locarno Pact), was immediately ratified by dozens of countries, including Japan—which invaded Manchuria in 1931; and Italy—which invaded Abyssinia in 1935; and Germany—which invaded Poland in 1939.

Characteristically, the Nobel Committee awarded no Peace Prizes for most of the Second World War: not to Franklin Roosevelt for turning America into an arsenal for democracy; not to Winston Churchill for rallying Britain against the Nazi onslaught; not to Charles de Gaulle for keeping the flame of a free France alive; not to the U.S. Army Rangers for scaling the heights of Pointe du Hoc on a June morning in 1944; not to Douglas MacArthur for turning Japan into a country at peace with itself and its neighbors.

These were the soldiers and statesmen who did more than anyone else to assure the survival of freedom in the 20th century. Being Goodists, however, the Nobel Committee chose instead to lavish its honors on people like the wan New England pacifist Emily Greene Balch (in 1946), the tedious British disarmament obsessive Philip Noel-Baker (1959) and the Irish antinuclear campaigner and Lenin Prize Winner Seán MacBride (1974).

These names don't exactly spring to mind as having made a lasting and genuine contribution to world peace. Nor, one suspects, will history lavish its highest honors on Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Wangari Maathai, Mohamed ElBaradei, Al Gore or Martti Ahtisaari, to name some of this decade's winners. They are merely the Frank Kelloggs and Seán MacBrides of the future.

Which brings us, at last, to this year's prize winner.

Typical of the laments about Mr. Obama's Nobel is that he's done nothing yet to deserve it. But what, really, did most of the other Goodists do before they won their prizes? Mr. Obama, at least, got himself elected president, the first man to do so on explicitly Goodist terms: hope, change, diplomacy, disarmament, internationalism. He is, so to speak, the son Alfred Nobel never had (minus the dynamite fortune), the best and most significant spokesman for everything the Peace Prize has stood for these 108 years.

So let there be no doubt that the Nobel Committee did well in choosing Mr. Obama. What this portends for the kind of peace and security that has been bequeathed to us by the exertions of such non-Nobelists as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is another question.

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Good article Chewy, I can see it being a Nobel goodist prize. I think He gave an acurate discription of who the prize is given too.

"They are the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technologies, systems, complexes (as in "military-industrial") and everything else except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own moral intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution, whatever the problem. Above all, the Goodists are the people who like to be seen to be good."

Re: OMGods !! Obama...

Good article, wookie.

I think Obama handled it as gracefully as he could. He recognized what we all did, that this cannot be based on the past but on the Nobel Committee's hope for the future. The Nobel Committee does not observe politics from afar and make awards based on a detached set of standards -- they participate in the political process.

Also, as someone else has noted, Norway's chief exports are iron ore and sanctimony. :)

That said, I am glad to see an American win the award, I always am glad when a countryman wins an international competition. Aren't all Americans? Well, except those who hate America, I guess. :whackya: