 |
|
 |
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:44:59 -0700 (PDT), BJ Conner <...@hotmail.com
Nitwit
It was an award to the American people for getting rid of Bush and
his gang of theives, liars and cowards. It's going to help world
peace. They could have awarded it randomly to 5 or 10 people in the
US but they might have picked some moron like yourself.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:16:45 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 11:44 am, BJ Conner <...@hotmail.com
Hear! Hear!
And it only took us eight years! Not a record, perhaps, but we should
certainly be proud of our accomplishment, nevertheless.
Yep, any day now.
Well, yeah, they have.
Well, yeah, they have.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 06:37:51 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
This will end up doing a ton of harm to this country...and his
administration.
With not even a year in office and things being worse than ever...not
only amongst Americans...but the U.S. relations with tyrants like
Ahmaddinejab,who is more than ever now going to taunt obama and have
him for a chew toy,this will not sit well with the majority.
Before considering him...they should have at least waited until he got
out of office...and examined the record in totality.His getting this
now...with things much worse than a year ago...will only fuel
anomosity.
Bad decision. This would have been like officially giving the Titanic
an award for smoothest Atlantic crossing an hour after it left
England.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:23:46 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 8:37 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
Hm.....
Sanity, or a close enough approximation, anyway.
Who are you what did you do with whatever the hell the moron's name
is?
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:41:25 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-09 07:58:58 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
<...@gmail.com
Ken, he wasn't eligible for the NPP. He was in office less than two
weeks before he was nominated. He did nothing to earn it.
OTT, it is a wet day here in the Georgia mountains. Doing some real
estate looking this a.m., and hope to wet a line later this afternoon.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:27:28 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 8:41 am, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Someone should inform the committee. Boy are THEY gonna be red it the
face or what, huh?
Idiot.
Well, that much at least, appears to be true.
Nevertheless, pig.....liar.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 06:43:21 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
" Ken, he wasn't eligible for the NPP "
it's true....love is blind........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 8:43 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
Well, if you take it from behind, as you so much enjoyed for eight
years, visual acuity is moot.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:08:44 -0700 (PDT), DaveS <...@msn.com
On Oct 9, 6:43 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.comHello Beanman
Done any fishing lately? How about a trip report or something on
flies, gear etc.? Something about conservation, or your favorite
river, good booze, whatever? Tax season is over. Winter is around the
corner. How about a trip report for the Gipper?
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:20:24 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
not much to report...i have been gettin' skunked lately....
we have fished some awesome spots...not many bites..
landed a few small brookies...beautiful colors...we have spent
some time getting the whaler set up, oiled the teak..took
it out on 3 - 6 sessions at the local lake...she seems to be running
fine...i expect to upgrade the 225 ob to 250 this year...that ought
to give it a nice reserve of power ... and still be pretty quick up
here on the lakes...nice fishing platform for the time being....
not much else to report, other than my dad died last week...after
years of having parkenson's (sp?) ....
cheers
outt....
ps: gettin a new color 3d (sidways sonar) fishfinder this season...i
will
do the install on the whaler and have it ready for spring........
On Oct 10, 4:08 pm, DaveS <...@msn.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:40:52 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
When did the Nobel people put you on their rules committee ?
Congrats, what did you do to earn that ?
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:52:03 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-09 10:40:52 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
<...@gmail.com
Real simple; I told them you were an asshole.
d;op
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:24:43 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
You should read the actual words of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
The statement is worth reproducing here:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for
2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between
peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision
of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics.
Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on
the role that the United Nations and other international institutions
can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for
resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of
a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and
arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now
playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic
challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to
be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the
world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His
diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world
must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the
majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate
precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama
is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's
appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of
responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 4:24 pm, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.comwrote:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:51:47 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-09 17:24:43 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
<...@gmail.com
Well, thank you for that, young fella. I read the exact same words
several hours ago. Still doesn't answer the question: "How could they
nominate him (and who did nominate him, btw) with only two weeks in
office?" I don't care what my-dick-is-longer-than-yours contest he
wins, but let it be legitimate. This one isn't. Two weeks in office
and he's nominated? Riiiiiiight. Could it be just another sign of
Obama's failure, a sign given by the ultra-leftist Nobel group, simply
as a political maneuver designed to help a fellow traveler in need?
d;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 4:51 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Um.....I raise the "skeptical" flag.
Well, the short version is someone says....or writes.....I hereby
nominate, blah, blah, or words to that effect.
"Them." Yes, it was definitely "them".....um.....or "him".....or
"her."
Oh....that. See, they'd been dithering over George III for ever so
long when all of a sudden someone told them that he was no longer in
office (though still an unmitigated idiot) so they said "who's next?"
or something like that and somebody said, "um.......you
know.....uh......the tan guy" or something like that, and next thing
you know, VIOLA!, it's George Hamilton!
You're a liar.
You measured George Hamilton's dick? :(
I've spent two weeks in an office. Anybody who has should get a prize
of some sort or other.
Or leeeeeeeft. And the difference is.....?
Well, yeah, o.k., you got us there......that's what prizes USUALLY
mean.
Uh.....o.k., ya got us there too. Every right thinking person knows
that the road to peace is paved with more guns, bullets, bombs,
missiles, rockets, mortars, cannons, tanks, MIRVs, ICBMs, nukes,
HUMVEES, IREs, handgrenades, bayonettes, barded wire, gas-chambers,
waterboards, garrots, bows, arrows, slings, stones, spears, howitzers,
mustard gas, bouncing betties, punjie sticks, rocks, crematoria, saps,
lead pipes, guillotines, nooses, trip wires, lasers,
heros.....um.......oh yeah, and dynamite.
Fukkers ought'a be gut-shot and left on the curb as a warning, to
others, ainna?
Imbecile.
Pig.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:39:08 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
Anyone can be nominated if someone wants to take the time and
effort to do so. Hell, someone once nominated Rush Limbaugh.
Was that you, Louie ?
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is a penis contest ?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound ?
Well, it's certainly an indication of how low the right-wing
American whackjobs will go to denigrate their president.
Why do you hate America so much ?
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:02:14 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-09 18:39:08 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
<...@gmail.com
Uh, yeah, and also Oprah. Hell, she's done more for peace than Obama.
The other people who were nominated ALSO have done more than Obama. He
hasn't done squat, Ken. We're still in Iraq and when he accepts the
award, he will be ordering more troops into Afghanistan. Does that
sound like peace to you. The man is a do nothing liar.
And you don't? This guy could kill his wife and you'd say she
deserved it. He can do NOTHING wrong in your eyes. He's your
Socialist Savior.
I should ask you, seriously, the same question. I served my country
and continue to do so. You, sir, have done and continue to do nothing.
A do-nothing-in-his-life president being lauded and celebrated by a
do-nothing-in-his-life fawning parasite.
Davey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:09:36 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 5:39 pm, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.comwrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:39:25 -0400, "Tim J." <...@comcast.net.invalid
<snip
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of the
century.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:02:04 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
Thank you, but if you really want to nominate me the
Norwegian Nobel Committee has some paperwork hurdles
you'll need to satisfy.
Do they give an award for that ?
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:19:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon <...@cs.nmsu.edu
On Oct 9, 6:39 pm, "Tim J." <...@comcast.net.invalid
Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? :-)
Jon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:19:56 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.
If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.
But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:11:07 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
On Oct 10, 6:19 am, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.comwrote:
There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people. I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does. The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club. (BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)
Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. But he isn't in the club. Sounds
a little childish.
Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.
I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 8:11 am, Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
To put a somewhat finer point on it, they are not interested in ideas
at all.
What an international organization is doing isn't quite as clear to me
as it seems to be to you.....let alone their motivation for doing so.
However, let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that your
assessment is correct. That makes the Nobel committee about as
puerile (though not quite so reprehensible) as those whom they seek to
criticise without having the balls to state clearly, simply, and
unequivocally that Bush et al. were, and remain, a pack of pigs.
Meanwhile, a comprehensive record of Mr. Obama's foregin policy
successes and failures remains to be written.....should take about
another three and a half or seven and a half years if I understand the
rudiments of national government in this country.
Don't hold your breath.
giles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:17:22 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
Duh. Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" He should have used the word
hypocricy.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.
Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. He hasn't done anything.
He's still campaigning.
Yes, you do.
In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. Correct.
And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 9:17 am, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Idiot.
Pig,
Filth.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
On Oct 10, 9:17 am, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Wrong on all counts. Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence. What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.
There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.
If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?
Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it? Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize? Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.
Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. Seriously? If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. That certainly does not qualify.
Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?
Respectfully (for now),
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:42:24 -0400, "Mark Bowen" <...@charter.net
"Family-Outdoors" <...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 10, 9:17 am, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Wrong on all counts. Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence. What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.
There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.
If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?
Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it? Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize? Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.
Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. Seriously? If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. That certainly does not qualify.
Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?
Respectfully (for now),
Paul
I think I love you Paul! If we ever meet, I want your autograph.
Op
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:40:05 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
" Respectfully (for now), Paul "
ha...i'll give that a week or two.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:07:52 -0700 (PDT), DaveS <...@msn.com
On Oct 10, 9:40 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
Hello Beanman
Done any fishing lately? How about a trip report or something on
flies, gear etc.? Something about conservation, or your favorite
river, good booze, whatever? Tax season is over. Winter is around the
corner. How about a trip report for the Gipper?
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:00:50 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 11:40 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.comwrote:
Moron.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:05:39 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
On Oct 10, 11:40 am, "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.comwrote:
You don't think so???? Of course I can remain respectful...asshole!
Just kidding.
Paul (very respectfully)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:26:49 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 13:05:39 -0400, Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
"For now" has a threat to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 1:26 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Dumbass.
Pig.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:03:18 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
On Oct 10, 1:26 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Dave:
I do not threaten anyone. Ever. I have no reason to disrespect you.
I am perfectly capable of allowing for the fact that you disagree with
me and still might be a perfectly decent, yet of course misguided,
human being. The "for now" was more an allusion to the reality that I
have noticed that occasionally some of these threads stray to the
absurd. Since we do not know one another, I just wanted to allow for
the possibility that I might have to adopt a less tactful tone. I am
sure it won't be necessary. I am currently enjoying the exchange.
I would find it difficult to join the Democratic Party (there is no
such thing as the Democrat Party...another silly tactic) as I am pro-
life to the degree of militancy and am fiscally conservative beyond
the bounds of any politician I am aware of in any party. While it may
seem that Ken Fortenberry and I may adopt similar stances on this and/
or other matters, I am pretty certain from the posts I have read, he
and I are miles apart philosophically. Even still, I can recognize
that he is coherent in his thought processes.
I am just saying that I have made the personal judgement that the lack
of intelligent thought in the controlling arm of the "conservative"
movement is astounding and I wish to have nothing to do with them. It
is an error in logic to assume I should join the Democratic Party
because I find Tea Party Protestors, Conservative Talk Show Hosts, and
the controlling apparatus of the party to be either deficient in
intellect or in excess of malice.
I did not state that I disliked O'Reilly. I simply stated that
conservatives were not in want of media outlets where they could
listen to their ideology being espoused. I rather like O'Reilly. I
believe he is by-and-large fair and seems to be a smart guy. I also
do not dispute that Reagan did far more than Obama has done and is
likely to do. I believe I mentioned that I DO believe there was a
message being sent in the award of this prize beyond Obama's
accomplishments.
Still Respectfully,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:42:37 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 17:03:18 -0400, Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
Fair enough.
Be well.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 4:03 pm, Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
Ah, the proverbial fly in the ointment! A positive indicator of
faulty judgment based on a misidentification of thinly disguised
bullshit. Too bad; up till now much of what you've written had the
appearance of rationality.....well, apart from the still unexplained
nonsense about disconnects, etc.
giles
who won't hold his breath waiting for expansion or explication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:25:10 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 12:07:15 -0400, Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
It is not just them. The entire liberal part of the Dem Party is just
as you described Rove.
Then you should continue your hypocrisy and join the Democrat Party.
You will feel right at home. Rove is NOT any representative of mine.
He holds no office.
SO WHAT? Are they not representatives of their people? They should
act like their PEOPLE want them to act, not according to some rule that
you have set up.
No. He does NOT deserve the prize. He has PROMISED to do all the
things the Norwegian want him to do, but he has done nothing. How in
the hell can you accept a Peace Prize in one hand and stamp the ok to
up the forces in Afghanistan by another 30k or so with the other.
That's the problem of ALL politicians - they promise everything for
everyone and do nothing for all.
What the hell does Limbaugh and Hannity have to do with this? Reagan
DID defeat the Soviet Union - brought them to their knees - brought
down the Berlin Wall - freed millions of people from Communist
domination. All far more than Obama has done. Obama's party OWNS both
houses of Congress. If he can't get something done it is because of
his LACK of leadership.
Well, duh. Read everything I've said. He hasn't done SQUAT, just promises.
Huh?
Your arguments are naive at best. We are talking about a president who
HIMSELF said, "I won WHAT?" He knows he doesn't deserve it. You and
Fortenberry seem to think he does. Vanilla Strawberry (at best).
Fox News is not considered the MAIN media because it is cable news.
While they beat every other news source on cable, they are still not
the news broadcast over your local news networks. No one watches the
main networks because they (we) are tired of the bias. Everyone
complains about Bill O'Reiley, yet when I watched him a couple of years
ago, he was slicing and dicing George Bush. Now he is doing the same
to Obama *when he sees wrong.* Limbaugh is an entertainer. Nothing
more. Yet the left is scared to death of him. Silly if you ask me.
He is a nothing.
They estimate at least 300,000 people marched on DC during the Tea
Party. No one was arrested. There was no trash to pick up. Yet the
"main" media didn't cover it at first, and then when they did, then
said a "few thousand" demonstrated. they were very "rowdy", and it
should be unlawful to do what they did. IOW, bias reporting
Respectfully (for now),
If you can not remain respectfull, don't threaten me with your future
lack of it
Just plain old,
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:15:56 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 1:25 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Good god, you are just plain stupid.
Well, that and evil.
Imbecile.
Pig.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.comwrote:
That's all well and good, but I think y'all are not considering the practical
reality of this. For example, it is highly suspicious that an operative from
the Nobel committee has been dispatched to the US to teach Kanye West how to say
"MAMMA MIA! ABBA not only ROCKS, but they rule!" in Swedish...and while Bruno
has said he's, er, ready to fly, Eminem has said, "FUCK YOU! I'M NOT GETTING A
FACEFUL OF SOME SWEDISH FAG'S ASS!!!"...
HTH,
R
...I mean, after not even Chuck Schumer would show up for the media blitz
surrounding the award of the "World Cocktail Meatball Cookoff" host city, they
had to do SOMETHING...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
Moron.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 06:42:58 -0700 (PDT), Jon <...@cs.nmsu.edu
As one article mentioned, nominations for the prize close on Feb 1,
just 12 days after the President took office. Perhaps someday he will
have a record deserving of the prize, but right now anyone with at
least half a brain, supporter or not, must be thinking "Huh?"...
Jon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:38:28 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
He's the American president and he's not George W. Bush. That
should be enough right there. And just because nominations
close on February 1st doesn't mean the selection committee
has to sequester themselves in isolation chambers between
February 1st and the selection voting.
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:43:58 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 9:38 am, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.comwrote:
Low potential breeds low expectations.
Enough for what?
I can put words on paper.....and I'm not Ernest Hemingway.....where's
my million dollars?
Can't speak with any authority about whether the selection committee
is or is not sequestered bewteen February 1st and the selection
voting, but the closure of nominations of February 1st suggests rather
strongly that Obama was nominated on or before that date. Sorta makes
the question of sequestration slobberingly meaningless in the present
context, ainna?
Moron.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:52:51 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-09 09:42:58 -0400, Jon <...@cs.nmsu.edu
Ta Da!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:44:49 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 1:52 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Ah.....yes.....nice gloss.
Imbecile.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
On Oct 9, 1:52 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
There is a disconnect in the thinking of those who state that Obama
lacks respect in he world community and then make clear they are
disappointed he won this prize. There may be question as to whether
he has accomplished enough to deserve the prize but to ridicule him
and the committee for accepting and awarding the prize respectively is
disingenuous. If you simply despise the man and wish him failure and
lack of respect, without a reason you'd care to bring to light,
simply state this and cut with the twisted logic. I believe for some
there is nothing for which he will be granted credit.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:31:40 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 3:26 pm, Family-Outdoors <...@gmail.com
Where's the disconnect? Seems perfectly consistent to me.
Once again, I fail to see any inconsistency. How is ridiculing the
committee and the candidate for awarding and accepting, respectively,
what is perceived as an undeserved prize disingenuous?
"Twisted logic" will do as well as any other description in what
passes for "discussion" (here as well as in so many other places and
venues in the world), I suppose. But it cuts both ways.
You're absolutely right. On the other hand, there are some for whom
nothing that he does well ever be wrong. And between them, these two
groups comprise the vast majority. Almost makes a boy wish that the
the stupid buzz word (or, "term" to be more precise, I suppose) of a
couple of decades ago had some validity.....that they were, in fact,
silent.
giles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 8:42 am, Jon <...@cs.nmsu.edu
I suspect that people with half a brain would be lucky to articulate
"Huh?" (or anything else, for that matter) on their best days, and it
isn't likely that they can support themselves in an upright position
(or anything else, for that matter).
Aside from that, cogent (if somewhat belated) observation.
Gosh, this thread has already driven several people well beyond their
capabilities. Maybe the Swedes ain't as dumb as they look.
giles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
<...@gmail.com
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.
And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.).
HTH,
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
So.....um.....they missed you again, huh?
Tsk, tsk.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:39:13 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
Would you like some cheese with that whine ?
Obama was awarded The Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation
between peoples".
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and even though it was surprising
to even hint at some sort of skulduggery is just petulant whining.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee has never claimed to be an agenda
free selection committee and I think they're flippin' the bird to
Shrub as much as they're honoring Obama. To which I can only say,
BRAVO, well done.
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 10:39 am, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.comwrote:
Ooh! Piquant!
Which, if you read it closely (or just glance at it), seems eerily
close to meaning something or other, doesn't it?
surprise.
Skullduggery? Intrigue? Questionable motives? Obscure intentions?
Impenetrable logic? The Nobel committee?
No.....say it ain't so.
Which, perforce, makes all of their decisions unassailable.....right?
Wouldn't it have been much easier (not to say much more decorous and
much less wasteful) to simply tell the world that Bush was a pig and
an idiot, and then give the prize to someone who had actually
accomplished something or other to bring about, or at least promote,
peace in this world?
Well, yeah, we believe that.
Dumbass.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0500, georgecleveland <...@msn.com
Jeez richard. Sour grapes make lousy whine.
Alfred Nobel created the prize to be awarded "to the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding
and promotion of peace congresses."
Hopey has been going around the world for the last 9 months trying to
do those very things. And, as should be obvious, while the nominations
were in February the voting by the committee was just a short while
ago. All it takes to be nominated is to have one qualified person,
like a history professor, forward said nomination to Oslo. Limbugh has
been nominated, as was W.
hth
Geo. C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:57:21 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 9, 10:18 am, georgecleveland <...@msn.com
Yeah, but if it's all ya got to work with..... :)
Undoubtedly, there have been worse candidates.
There! See what I mean?
Nevertheless, even for a famously opaque and inscrutable
organization, the Nobel committee seems to have outdone itself this
time around. Surely there is SOMEONE in the world who has actually
accomplishment something or other of significance in bringing about,
or at least encouraging, peace in this world in the last year or so.
Or maybe not.
Maybe, every once in a while, they should just hold on to one or
another of the prizes for a year or two.....just until a credible
winner, or at least candidate, shows up.
A reasonable voice always does.
giles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0500, georgecleveland <...@msn.comwrote:
And you feel that he had done that by Feb 1, 2009?
He has? Lessee - on the recent trip to Copenhagen (not to campaign for the
Olympics) the White House touted his meeting with McChrystal (the military
commander he personally picked to help win a war) about troop build-ups.
And the NYT compares him to such "lofty company" (maybe they should have said
"transformative figures"...) as Lech Walesa and Teddy Roosevelt. Lech Walesa's
thoughts? "What? So fast? Well, there hasn't been any contribution to peace
yet. He's proposing things, he's initiating things, but he is yet to deliver."
Teddy didn't give any thoughts on the matter.
The 1976 joint winner, Mairead Corrigan: "President Obama has yet to prove that
he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in
Afghanistan and many other issues"
And the Middle East peace he is supposedly inspiring? Let's see...
Hamas - ""Obama does not deserve this prize."
Iran: (Government Spokesman) "The decision in this area was hasty, and
conferring this prize was premature."
Iran: (Ahmedinejad) "I hope that by receiving this prize, he will start taking
practical steps to remove injustices in the world."
Fred Armisen:
"Out of Iraq? Nope, not even close..."
"Close Guantanamo Bay? Not Done..."
"Improve Afghanistan? Actually, I think it's worse..."
And guess who said this:
"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of
the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
In your opinion, was the speaker being honest, falsely modesty, disingenuous, or
???
And yes, I realize there are numerous quotes out there that either show outright
support (or at least don't directly question it) for his win.
Well, it might not be as "obvious" as you think. The nominations were reviewed
and a "short list" was compiled by, IIRC, March 15, 2009. Do you feel that he
had accomplished the above by then? If so, why? The voting was in August. IAC,
can you objectively show how and why you feel he is "the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the
abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of
peace congresses," even as of yesterday?
And what your reaction be if "Limbugh" (I'm guessing you mean Rush Limbaugh) had
won (or even found out he was under serious consideration)? Bush is another
matter - while IMO he wouldn't be an appropriate choice (or deserving choice
overall), his selection would at least have had a marginally-defensible claim
for actual accomplishments and attempts in Africa.
Finally, again, barring anything untoward from Obama's camp, this doesn't really
reflect upon him, but rather, greatly diminishes an already-diminished Peace
Prize. Should a undergrad that shows great promise be given a degree based on
that promise? Should a med student who shows great promise be allowed to skip
further training because of that promise? Would you loan your life savings to
your broke-ass deadbeat brother-in-law because he promised - greatly - to pay
you back...?
TC,
R
>Geo. C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:51:36 -0400, jeff <...@suddenlink.net
for more than a year prior to feb 2009, obama gave clear indications of
his positions, philosophies, and character (for those willing to read
and listen)...enough that my wife and i independent of one another took
notice, hoped he would announce as a candidate, and then began our
active support. something we'd not done with any heartfelt enthusiasm
since our 20s. i doubt we were the only ones affected in this way.
he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009. i just don't understand the
schadenfreude for obama that some have...unless they simply acknowledge
being a rascist. i'll wager though that of all the nobel recipients, he
is easily the most recognizable and best-known in the world.
my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with petty purposes and ideas. i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee.
i'm incredibly proud of obama...he's doing a terrific job as president
under the worst of circumstances.
though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim <gtheir dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.
jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:21:09 GMT, "Fred" <...@highaltitudes.net
On 10-Oct-2009, jeff <...@suddenlink.net
I concur
Especially w the last point about the prize
I hope that Obama can live up to it.
I was hoping that as the first man of color as our Prez that he would reach
out to the other world leadrers in countries like Iran, N Korea and some
third world countries and at least make a few peaceful overtures,...
We shall see but whatever happens Its still better than seeing and hearing
the outright lies & bs from the previous reprobates
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:56:11 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 19:21:09 -0400, "Fred" <...@highaltitudes.net
Fred, you don't live up to the Nobel Prize. It is given for things you
have already done. Do you think they would give the Science Prize to
my wife if she said she could make light travel faster? That would be
one hell of a discovery. The same holds true for the Peace Prize. My
wife can't make light travel faster than God meant it to travel, and
Obama has done nothing to bring peace to the world. Reagan did more.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:22:01 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 6:56 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Hm.....not stupid. Who are you?
Never mind.
Idiot.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:23:22 -0500, Ken Fortenberry <...@gmail.com
Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee which awards the Peace Prize has
a longstanding reputation for awarding potential. Look at the
recent winners. The 1984 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
Desmond Tutu for his fight against apartheid. Apartheid didn't
end until 1994. To say that the Peace Price adheres to the
same standard as the "Science Prize" is a display of laughable
ignorance. Especially since there is no Nobel "Science Prize".
You're a moron, Louie. And I'm done with you.
--
Ken Fortenberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:22:50 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 20:23:22 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
<...@gmail.com
d;o) Which means I WIN! Thanks. Now, go try some of that stale
cheese (probably in a jar) and that sour whine you always accuse others
of drinking.
Davey
(PS: When Jo does invent the light accellorator, we will put on the
patent that one Kenneth Fortenberry may not benefit from it. That'll
show ya. And we won't invite ya to Oslo either. Asshole.
d;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:57:26 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 20:23:22 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
<...@gmail.com
"for his fight against apartheid." He DID something. You say so
yourself. He fought apartheid, went to jail for it, organized others
to fight it. He didn't just talk about it or say, "I have this idea."
You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Obama is all talk.
Tutu DID something. Asshole.
Me bad. Make that Nobel Prize in Physics. As a Nobel Prize, it
adheres to the same regulations as the Peace Prize. And, you know damn
well what I meant. No prize for Joanne - none for Obama. Neither of
them have done what they SAID they could/would do. It's political,
Ken, and the quicker you understand that, the better off ALL of us will
be.
Well, perhaps so..... but I am a happy and wealthy moron who fishes a
helluva lot more than you. And, if you were really, really done with
me, OH how much happier would I be.
Louie (aka Dave, moron, idiot, pig, filth, and any other name you want
to call me)
d;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 11, 6:57 am, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Imbecile.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:49:55 GMT, "Fred" <...@highaltitudes.net
On 10-Oct-2009, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Dave
I stick by this because the way the world and planet is headed is not
promising for my grandchildren
who are the red headed apples of my eyes
Obama - I thought represented a nice chamge
Whether it will happen or not depends on many factors most out of our
control (we differ here)
so not to belabor any points .. We have our grandcildren, we have our
animals & foul
We have water and fish
and deer all around if necessary
...and the means to protect what we have...
I think that is the best that I can do for my family
The way we were headed was Cheney's war in Iran
And pls note that wars are for money$$$$$ greed and usually little else
Ya kniow *I fish to forget this shit!
I play musuic becaues it takes me away also
Sincerely (always to Dave)
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 10, 9:49 pm, "Fred" <...@highaltitudes.net
You should visit Earth sometime.
And a fine job you are doing of it! :)
Oh yeah.
Twit.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:01:29 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
Why stop at the Nobel peace prize?
I Would Like to Nominate Barak Obama for the Heisman Trophy.
Or at least the Navy Cross...... how about the Eagle scout badge?
How bout a blue ribbon for the best pie?
Let's give him a birth certificate and make him an honorary
American citizen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 11, 1:01 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" <...@gmail.com
Moron.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:01:35 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-10 22:49:55 -0400, "Fred" <...@highaltitudes.net
Nice feelings, Fred, but Obama STILL hasn't done anything, and
everything pre-Obama is still in place - Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan (we
are now losing that fight), housing mess, banking mess, a deficit that
is higher than anyone ever thought it could be. Someone is making a
helluva lot of money, and it ain't Cheney.
Go fishing, Fred. I am - NC this morning.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 11, 7:01 am, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Idiot.
Hm.....
Pig.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:51:36 -0400, jeff <...@suddenlink.net
No, you weren't. Unfortunately, he didn't give clear indications of much of
anything (good or bad). Which, at least for me, makes the utter polarization
surrounding him all the more sad and strange. Neither you, as a fairly
well-spoken, general-purpose supporter, or me, as a somewhat skeptical, "devil's
advocate," kinda guy (or even Forty, as a paradoxically wild-eyed-but-blind,
frothing-at-the-mouth rabid fan and Louie, as a drooling right-wing Rush
Glenbeck-listening loony) can really support, with substantive and objective
proof, a strong case for OR against.
No, he really hasn't. But from the other side, um...no, he really hasn't...but
see below...
I don't either - thus far, he really hasn't done or accomplished much of
anything - from any standpoint. A ban on guns? Nope. A rise in taxes? Nope.
Gay atheist Muslim dope-smoking liberal hippie commies encouraging grade-school
kids to use condoms for unnatural sex in Heartland, Kansas? Nope. The Abortion
Czar putting PETA supporters at every mall with a coathanger? Not even close.
"Christmas (or Hanukkah) - no, Kwanzaa (or Ramadan) - yes." Hardly. Are Bush,
Cheney, and the CIA being investigated? Nop...er, ye...er, nop...er, ye....er,
nop...well, maybe...or not...
Thus far, about all he has REALLY accomplished is to REALLY divide those he is
supposed to be President of....yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - it's ALL the fault of
the other side...(and in all seriousness, most of the division isn't his
"fault," nor did he "cause" all of it, but OTOH, neither he nor his
administration has done much of anything to ease it, either, and they have
encouraged some of it)
IAC, while I haven't polled them, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the
great majority of the world don't really know or care about Obama or any other
POTUS, anymore than most of those in the US know or really care about how
Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, or those any other country feel or are governed
Hmmm...what about when certain sectors (and I mean sectors of races, not entire
races) of the various... um.... non-(half)white people blamed _everything_ on
white people...? Was that not "racist?" As an aside, is a rascist anything
like a facist?
Except, apparently, in Poland...
And your statement above is a pretty good indication of what I feel is the whole
problem - "Americancentricism." And note that I did not write "Americentric" or
similar.
Um, who exactly is "we"...?
What makes you think he is "admired and respected" by "world leaders?"
OK. Please give examples of why you feel he is doing a terrific job.
I'm curious - when Obama said he didn't deserve it, did you feel that he was
being honest, falsely modest, disingenuous, or ??? And if you feel he was being
honest, why do you disagree with him? IOW, why do you feel that he does deserve
it when he honestly disagrees with you?
TC,
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
Unlike you, huh?
Third grade moron.
Rereading that after typing it kinda makes you wonder what life would
be like if you actually had something to say, ainna?
We can hardly wait. :)
Moron. Tedious moron.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And......how do you feel about all of that?
Well, probably not as much as imbecile is like idiot.
Ah! An authority! Tell us more.....please.
I noted that you didn't write "Shoofngrangle." Does that count?
Look in your pants. You may safely refer to anyone or anything
resembling what you see there as "we."
What makes you think he isn't?
Please give examples of why you feel that we should believe you think.
No, that is one thing you are not, have never been, and never will be.
What did you think about it?
Why do you feel whatever the hell you feel?
Moron.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:54:38 -0400, jeff <...@suddenlink.net
well...yes, he really has. he began a movement...a sea-change in ideas
and ideals and politics. now, diplomacy is different. UN policy and talk
is decidedly different. foreign relations are different. appreciation
of civil rights, individual liberties, constitutional rights are
different. torture policies are different. integrity of
decision-making is different. honest statements to the
public...different. economic push, different. regard for the balance of
power between branches of govt...different. appointment of federal
judges...way, way different (and better...<ginstead of creating facts to talk about...huge difference. he's restored
pride to a substantial segment of the population that felt lost, left
out, used, taken for granted, and burdened. he can speak intelligently,
powerfully...inspiring folks...way different. there is a sense of
integrity, honor, and truth. there is a recognition of the value of
other cultures and different perspectives. his efforts for a nuclear
weapon-free world. (or nukular) he's black. just look at how he was
received here and in other countries in 2008... why do you think that
happened?
folks want him to fail, want to find fault. go out of their way to
condemn him. ...and, of course, it's all his fault. are you saying he's
not tried in any meaningful, substantive, and honest way to implement or
initiate important change? what do you think he should have done, or
done differently? pick something...and talk about his efforts
objectively as the executive branch...
tell me...what has he done to cause the divide...other than be black? my
take is he's bent over backwards to try to find consensus, to encourage
discussion and compromise. ken and others may be right...perhaps he
should just say screw the repubs and push the agenda. i don't think so.
i like his approach.
i haven't polled them either...but i'll go out on the same limb and say
more people in the world can tell you who obama is than can tell you who
herta muller is (and probably more than can identify william faulkner).
think back on his speech in germany...his visits to other
countries...the muslim world reaction... i think you understate the
general view of world leaders ... russia, china, us, uk, israel, middle
east, etc., and their political systems and populaces.
yeah, yeah...racist... and i don't think racists exist only in a
single color or race. still, i accept there is an historical and real
basis for the black hatred of whites in the u.s. - a basis or reason for
the emotion that i can't find an equal underpinning for with the white
racists...maybe you can explain it?
too obscure for me...but see above...
don't get your meaning...but that's nothing new. please explain.
we = u.s. public/society/culture
i think it based on my reading... and based on newscasts i've seen on
teevee.
see above... i trust you understand "worst of circumstances."
i thought he was being genuine...a real and humble and honest human
being...who recognized the power of his symbol and his efforts, that
were being encouraged. i don't think i chimed in saying he did or did
not deserve it...the nobel committee, carrying out the will of alfred
nobel, decided he deserved it. the committee is comprised of
non-americancentrists, don't you agree? they've been in the business of
making selections since early 1900s. it's their job and their
choice...not yours or mine. we can debate our view of the merit of the
selection...but it ain't debatable that i'm proud of it and encouraged
by it.
i admit i was surprised. i believe i said i was proud and encouraged
that our president received the prize.
clearly, to me and based on the statements contained in nobel's will,
the prize is intended to recognize and encourage potential and the
possible effects of the selection. i think obama was perceived as
bringing a better sense of reason and balance to a precarious and
dangerous set of world circumstances.
jose merida (yeah, about as well known as jeff miller) said he thought
the prize to obama also "recognized the american people who dared to
vote for a change of the u.s. role in the world." perception can become
reality... "give peace a chance"
jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:07:38 -0400, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
On 2009-10-11 20:54:38 -0400, jeff <...@suddenlink.net
"give peace a chance"
Hmmmmm. We've had 9 months of "give" so far, and peace in the near
future seems to be more rare than a snowball in hell. He has NOT
closed Gitmo. Why? Because it IS the logical place to keep captured
combatants. We are still in Iraq and now the enemy seems emboldened to
continue that war. We are losing in Afghanistan and it does not look
like he is going to take his generals advice. Even some of his
staunchest allies have told him to act quickly with getting those 40k
troops in country. But he seems indecisive, unsure. He can certainly
talk a good show, but so far in 9 months, having both Houses with a
decidedly Dem advantage, he has done little.
It seems to me (and to many of my friends, both Dem and Repub) that
Pelosi and Reid are running the show. THEY seem more powerful than he.
Also, he has not addressed the unrest in this country. The 300,000
people that marched on DC recently was unaswered by him and most of the
press. Why is that? If he is THEIR president, he has to answer.
Those people were voting Americans, many whom had voted for him, and
many others who were Dems. A protest of that size should not go
unnoticed.
The Nobel Prize is a political one and you should know that, Jeff.
Yassar Arafat a Nobel winner? Gimme a break. He was one of the
biggest non-peace keepers in the world. Reagan opened the Iron
Curtain, saw the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and the demise of the
Soviet Union and he didn't win it? Politics and agenda. The Peace
Prize is a farce.
I am happy that you are proud of him. I wish I could be. But, he must
DO something first, not give me a bunch of promises and words. He's
still stumping the hustings, campaigning. Someone has to tell him that
the "I inherited this" is over and that he has to do something instead
of bitch and moan like Fortenberry.
In other news: Joanne and I have just about settled on a beautiful
home on a ridge in North Georgia with an unbelievable view from south
to north overlooking several smaller ridges and two or three mountain
ranges. They just seem to keep on coming as you look west. The sunset
is beautiful. The home is in a gated community surrounded by the
Chattahoochee Nat'l Forest. Dukes Creek is around the corner, with
Fontana Lake about an hour and a half away. We'll keep the Yankee home
and use (hopefully) this one in the winter.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
On Oct 11, 9:07 pm, David LaCourse <...@aol.com
Idiot.
Pig.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:08:52 -0400, jeff <...@suddenlink.net
great...look forward to having you as a seasonal neighbor... rachel and
i still hope to do something with our land in graham county...but still
mired down east.
jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:54:38 -0400, jeff <...@suddenlink.net
First and foremost, since you seem to have put some thought into a reply, and
done so (seemingly) seriously, reasonably and courteously, I wanted to return
the favor, if you will. Please note that this was written as I've had a spare
moment here and there, over a couple of days, since your reply - I've tried to
edit/proofread, but I've probably missed some things.
Among who? How? Can you give some examples of this "sea-change"? Now, if you
mean that "liberals" are now fans of the POTUS and "conservatives" aren't, sure,
but that's not Obama, that's politics. It seems there has been very little
change in politics or ideas, only a change in who is in the majority and pushing
their own agendas. And yep, if McCain had won (other than with perhaps my
hoped-for-but-unrealistic McCain/Obama ticket), there would not have been
anything much new, either.
It is? How?
Are you serious? The only thing most of those heavily involved with UN are
interested in is having a continued tit to suck. Look no further than all the
shtick with al-Qaddafi and the tent and, what, the second or third major
walk-out over the Ahmedinejad, Israel, and the Holocaust? The UN, for the most
part, is a fuckin' circus.
Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Israel, for example...? Or are you
referring to the fact that the government of France hasn't been quite as bitchy
for a few months?
The Dem-controlled Senate - specifically, AHEM, the Judiciary Committee - just
started the process to renew substantial portions of the Patriot Act...at the
behest of and with the support of the Obama administration...and Obama wanted to
be able to "seize the Internet" or some such nonsense. Frankly, it seems to me
that those on the left are willing to let other lefties fuck them, but bristle
when they think the right is trying to do it. I would offer as a instant
example Obama's recent speech, but lack of overall action, on the whole "gay
rights" issue. Look, I don't understand the whole "gay marriage" thing, but I
can't see any reason why they shouldn't have the same right to be unhappy as
straight folks... Seriously, though, why is a secular national government even
involved in or concerned with who marries who versus "civil unions"?
AHA! So that's what he's done with "Don't ask, don't tell"...
I'd offer that if you think what you'd consider "torture" has stopped under
Obama, I think you'd be sadly disappointed. And I'd offer as evidence his
endorsement of certain US Army manuals. They allow things that would be
considered "torture" under the same guidelines used to classify water-boarding
"torture".
Here, I substantially disagree. While Bush's decisions weren't always right, he
did tend to stick by both them and his people. And while I understand the
argument that if it appears from reasonable and credible evidence that one has
made a "wrong" decision, changing one's mind would make sense. Unfortunately,
many of the decisions a President must make are difficult ones and aren't ones
such that lend themselves to "instant (reasonable) feedback." And thus far with
Obama, I don't see a lot of decision-making of any kind.
Um, do you mean different lies or ??? Assuming you mean to imply that Obama is
more honest than past presidents, what about "transparency"? Howsabout time for
public input on major legislation? Closing Gitmo? Troops out of Iraq? How
about just being honest about a friggin' trip to Copenhagen?
Two words - Ben Bernanke.
Actually, all POTUS' since Nixon/Ford have been doing is taking back some of the
power "snatched" by Congress in the wake of Watergate. And Obama certainly
hasn't done anything to reverse the trend. And I suspect that if he could do
some more, um, "snatching" with regard to Pelosi, Reid, Sessions, and a few
others, he wouldn't hesitate for a second.
Again, I disagree. Sotomayor gives no evidence of being a serious legal scholar
of any stripe, or even a particularly "even" and (merely) competent jurist.
Well, I will grant you that he certainly does a lot of talking...
Um, who, exactly?
Again, his speech-making can and will only do much - sooner or later, he's gonna
need to quit talking about what he's gonna do and do _something_ - accomplish
_something_ substantial - that he promised he'd accomplish...
The media, including the Internet "media." It's also why Paris Hilton is, well,
Paris Hilton. And if his racial makeup is important (I'm not sure why it would
be important as to policy, etc. but...), he's not "black," he's half-black and
half-white. That in and of itself isn't particularly important to his handling
of substantive issues, but it is important that you, like most people, seem to
forget it. Well, "forget it" isn't quite right, but when you point out his
racial makeup, you are inaccurate about it. Based upon his actual racial
makeup, why would you not say, "he's white"? It is just as accurate.
Some do, yes. Most don't. IMO, the vast majority of those in the US (and
really, the world) don't want _any_ major leader who (generally) mirrors their
(general) views to "fail." Basic nature and decency aside, it's just not in
their interest.
Why was it, for some, so "patriotic" to question every move Bush made, every
word he uttered, but it's only the <insert ad hominem here_anything_ Obama does or says? Are you suggesting he has done nothing with
which anyone could/should objectively find fault?
See above.
Not tried? There's not really enough information to determine that. I will say
that there is very little evidence that he has really tried to implement
important change. Take, for example, his "transparency, ""public review period"
and "no lobbyist" promises. These are things over which he has more-or-less
complete control, and yet, no real change in spite of all the talking about
them.
See immediately above.
Again, he's not "black," but that aside, for one, he could have provided a copy
of his birth certificate. From a purely objective standpoint, if an employee
has to prove citizenship to get a job in the US, an alleged citizen has to prove
it to get Medicare, etc., why shouldn't he? IOW, why is the demand of an
employer to see proof of citizenship improper? I fully realize the touchiness
of that topic, but objectively, why not end the controversy and do what,
technically, is a legal requirement (and I'll grant that I'm not sure whether
the "short-form" already bandied about would suffice or not)? If you want more
examples, I can provide them, but that is one of the simplest for him to
dispel/clear up and "heal the divide," if you will. And it would have the added
benefit of shutting up the truly out-there "birthers" or whatever they are
called. OTOH, if he doesn't actually want to "heal the divide" and shut up the
loons for his own political reasons....
I;m not sure of your point, but I'd agree with the statement. IAC, how about
Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Wen Jiabao, Musharraf, Patil, Yudhoyono, Gandhi,
Muhammad, Allah/God (and no, I'm not comparing anything but numbers of people of
can identify them)? How about the various members of the Bachchan family
(including Aishwarya Rai, and again, simple name-recognition comparison)? David
Hasselhof, Jerry Lewis, Posh and Becks or whatever they are called?
Oh, there's no doubt the media whipped some in Europe into the same tizzy into
which they whipped those in the US (and you'll note you're referring to yet
_another_ speech), but I think you are the one who is misreading world leaders
in general, esp. "rulers." For example, Norway - while it is a perfectly nice
country with generally nice folks, I'm sure, it ain't exactly a "world power." I
think many "rulers" saw a novice, feel-good kinda guy from whom they could get
more of their way with than they could other of the potential choices (and that
includes Hillary Clinton). IOW, their glee was more at their chances than the
US'...and he has probably done more to damage the US' rep with our two
most-powerful allies in the Middle East - Israel and the Iranian _people_ - than
Bush did. And he hasn't done much to keep the heat on Pakistan's leadership,
either.
Oh, to be sure, there are still some sheet-cutting rednecks around who dislike
Obama simply because he's half-black (to them, any black in the racial makeup is
_black_ - hint, hint), and others who are just...well, not really "racist" in
the common phrasing, but "racist" in the general sense that most folks are more
comfortable with those "like them," be they "white," "black," "brown," "yellow,"
or whatever other keying term one uses. But I don't think the majority of those
who aren't as enamored of Obama as you feel the way they do because of race.
Which is another thing, IMO, he has failed to do - take a firm stand on the
issue. He (and the administration) allow supporters (and to a lesser extent,
surrogates) to label those opposed to his proposed policy(s), ideas, promises,
etc. as "racist." His proposals, stated ideas, etc. are generally pretty
standard left-ish Dem stuff, many of which any of the "usual suspects" would
propose and which most center-right-to-right "usual suspects" would oppose, all
regardless of respective "race." Simply put, he's using (and tacitly allowing
the use of) the charge of "racism" to foster a divide and attempt to make a
political advantage with it.
It was a reference to Lech Walesa and his comments, re: "Who?...." And you
might want to look over the list of winners. I would agree he is probably the
best-known of the 2009 nominees from the "western world." I'm not sure that's
what it was intended to be all about, though.
Well, read your own post. It's from the perspective of an "American," of
course, but it seems to indicate your belief that what an "American" believes or
thinks about Obama is what the world population believes or thinks. Why, for
example, would an "average worker" in China, India, Indonesia, etc., know or
care much about Obama or his policies, promises, "hope," etc.? To be sure, some
of the world populace thinks of "America" and what they perceive that it
represents _for them_, some good (ala "the American Dream") and some bad ("the
HQ of the infidels"). But I'd offer that most are pretty much agnostic about
it. Yet, "Americans" think that the thoughts of the world _population_ revolves
around "America." Again, to be sure, a portion of the world "ruling class" has
knowledge of it and does pay attention to a fair portion of "American" things,
but it is mostly out of self-interest as opposed to desire to be "American." The
Peace Prize is awarded by 5 people chosen by the Norwegian legislature - we're
not talking about, pardon the pun, a great council of "world leaders" or even a
large body of the world's peoples, yet "Americans" who support Obama want to
point to it as some vast affirmation of him by the world. And what are other
"leaders" supposed to say about his win? Of course they are gonna be diplomatic
about it, at least those who want something.
Oh. I thought you might mean all of mankind or something...just checking...and
see above, re: Americancentricism...
Uh-oh. How much "world news" do you watch/follow?
Where above? Are you referring to his speeches, teevee, or ???
Again, the Peace Prize is chosen by 5 people who themselves are chosen by the
Norwegian legislature. Let me ask you this, if 5 people chosen by the Senate or
the House "chose" to nuke, say, Belgium today, would you support it? Or let me
put it in real terms - since about 20 people chosen by the Senate, which was
supposedly chosen "by the people" (US) voted in support of the bulk of the
Patriot Act (with the support of Obama), will you state your unequivocal support
for that part brought forward?
Why? What is it about the opinion of those 5 people that is so important _to
you_?
Er, no. While it was not intended to be based solely on results, it was to
based upon efforts. Let me ask you this - if it is such a powerful motivational
tool, why not give it to all of the leaders in the Middle East every year until
there is peace? I mean, with such a powerful motivation for potential, it
wouldn't take but a couple of years, right?
And you feel continuing the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan - neither of which
are really "wars" and neither of which is "winnable" by any side in a "warfare"
sense - is giving peace a chance?
TC,
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:14:56 -0700 (PDT), DaveS <...@msn.com
There is a lot that I could comment on but I will stick to one area.
Foreign relations. Its not your opinions/ideology that are so striking
but the huge hole in your info base. Given what you said it is not
possible to believe you venture outside of the FOX circuit or much
beyond local papers and right-wing blogs, unless you are just spinning
some absurdities for effect. I don't get abroad much but I assumed
that you traveled more and talked to folks at least some. It doesn't
sound like you have much conversational contact with foreigners.
Even if you listened to BBC America, itself seriously dumbed down and
censored for our American biases, you would not seriously be able to
say what you said. You say yourself that you do not understand the
fuss the World is making over Obama, and whether and why perceptions
of the US are shifting in many places. Maybe you don't get it because
you are not listening, or reading, or talking outside your normal
circle of cranky hardliners?
Richard, the Internet makes all kinds of foreign broadcast news and
English editions easily available. PBS has a 1000% more active
correspondents than does FOX or the major networks for that matter.
Even a weekend NYT once a month can give you the broad outlines. My
stalwarts are Australian Broadcasting, Haaretz in English, the
Economist (right up your Tory alley).
The Australians are particularly uncensored and deal with all the
taboos and most of the stories that we mostly self censor. Deutsche
welle and Radio Sweden are next to useless, Moscow and China radio are
what you would expect, and some insightful stuff from a non-western
viewpoint comes from India, accessible from the late nite/early AM,
BBC news, and their world-talk phone-in show.
I am sure that this post could piss you off. But really man, you may
disagree with everything the man says and does, but to persist in this
assertion that Obama has not shifted perceptions of the US in many
places in the World is just silly. Roff interactions are no substitute
for wider reading and listening.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:16:55 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
Imbecile. Prolix, ever so tedious imbecile. Third grade playground
sissy imbecile.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:20:36 -0700 (PDT), DaveS <...@msn.com
There is a lot that I could comment on but I will stick to one area.
Foreign relations. Its not your opinions/ideology that are so
striking
but the huge hole in your info base. Given what you said it is not
possible to believe you venture outside of the FOX circuit or much
beyond local papers and right-wing blogs, unless you are just
spinning
some absurdities for effect. I don't get abroad much but I assumed
that you traveled more and talked to folks at least some. It doesn't
sound like you have much conversational contact with foreigners.
Even if you listened to BBC America, itself seriously dumbed down and
censored for our American biases, you would not seriously be able to
say what you said. You say yourself that you do not understand the
fuss the World is making over Obama, and whether and why perceptions
of the US are shifting in many places. Maybe you don't get it because
you are not listening, or reading, or talking outside your normal
circle of cranky hardliners?
Richard, the Internet makes all kinds of foreign broadcast news and
English editions easily available. PBS has a 1000% more active
correspondents than does FOX or the major networks for that matter.
Even a weekend NYT once a month can give you the broad outlines. My
stalwarts are Australian Broadcasting, Haaretz in English, the
Economist (right up your Tory alley).
The Australians are particularly uncensored and deal with all the
taboos and most of the stories that we mostly self censor. Deutsche
welle and Radio Sweden are next to useless, Moscow and China radio
are
what you would expect, and some insightful stuff from a non-western
viewpoint comes from India, accessible from the late nite/early AM,
BBC news, and their world-talk phone-in show.
I am sure that this post could piss you off. But really man, you may
disagree with everything the man says and does, but to persist in
this
assertion that Obama has not shifted perceptions of the US in many
places in the World is just silly. Roff interactions are no
substitute
for wider reading and listening.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:20:36 -0700 (PDT), DaveS <...@msn.com
I said that?
Sorry, but as sure as you may be, you're just wrong.
That's not what I said. He has shifted perceptions "in many places," some for
the better, some for the worse, but for the most part, most of the world's
population doesn't really shiv a git or know anything about him or who is POTUS,
if they even know who is POTUS.
There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet, and for the majority, who is
POTUS, Prime Minister of <insert your choice hereFearless Leader, or Duke of Earl just doesn't matter or figure into their daily
lives in the least. They didn't care one way or the other when Bush was POTUS
and they don't care one way or the other Obama.
And some of them are in the US...
HTH,
R
...and jeff, if you see this, please refer to Dave's post for another example of
"Americancentricism," if you'd like another one...
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:22:14 -0700 (PDT), Giles <...@yahoo.com
Nah.....you've never said anything.
Actually, we all know that he's right.
Of course not.....you've never said anything.
They haven't read Clancy?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Moron.
Morons? Oh yeah,
Dumbass.
g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:34:54 -0700 (PDT), DaveS <...@msn.com
Il 13 ottobre, 4:05, rdean3REM ... @ bellsouth.net ha scritto:
Mantenere viva la speranza
Mantenere viva la speranza
Dave
Deportare Tories TUTTI a Nova Scotia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT), DaveS <...@msn.com
You have really fouled up this time. Gone waayyy too far. I will just
point out that, despite your pretense that Tories are loyal to the
American way, this dear friends is another specific example of just
how twisted and confused Tory verbal machinations can become.
Richard, for your damn information it is common AMERICAN knowledge
that no-one can stop the Duke of Earl. Maybe you think that comparing
the Duke to POTUS or whatever is cute but I doubt that Gene Chandler
would catch the humor. Or perhaps is your real message developed in
verses 3-5?
Richard, despite what may be some hidden desire you have and your
occasional bitchiness, to borrow a phrase, you are no Duchess of Earl,
I knew the Duchess and you are no Duchess of Earl. The Dutchass maybe.
Duke of Earl
(E. Dixon, E. Edwards Sr., B. Williams)
Gene Chandler (Eugene Dixon) & The Dukays
Pop Chart #1 Jan. 13, 1962
Vee Jay Records single #416
(original master Nat Records
(Bill Sheppard & Carl Davis producers)
Album: Golden Hits Vol. 11
Compose Records 9048-2 (1989)
Transcriber: Awca...@aol.com
Chorus:
Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
As I-I walk through this world
Nothing can stop The Duke of Earl
And-a you, you are my girl
And no one can hurt you, oh no
Yes, a-I, oh, I'm gonna love you
Oh, oh
Come on let me hold you, darling
'Cause I'm the Duke of Earl
So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah and
And when I hold you
You'll be my Dutchess
Dutchess of Earl
We'll walk through my Duke-dom
And a paradise we will share
Yes, a-I, oh, I'm gonna love you
Oh, oh, nothing can stop me, now
'Cause I'm The Duke of Earl
So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Woo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo
Doo-ooo-uke
Oh-oh-whoa-oh
Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo
Du-ooo-hoo-uke
Oh-oh-oh
Yeah, I
Oh, I'm gonna love you
Oh-oh
Nothing can stop me, now
'Cause I'm the Duke of Earl
So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Du-hoo-hoo-ooo-uke
Du-hoo-hoo-uke
So, whoa, whoa, ho-whoa
FADES-
Woo-hoo-hoo-hoo.
Dave
Finish the Job
Deportare Tories TUTTI a Nova Scotia
~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|