[luke warm]

• Just because we don't take responsibility for our policies, don't insult us by pointing that out publicly.
  
• As we do in Chicago, vote early & often.
  
• They didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing.
  
• Except for killing OBL and destroying Al Queada, everything else is Bush's fault
  
• Transforming America—one executive order at a time
  
• Pipelines? Pipelines? We don't need no stinking pipelines.
  
• Transparency in government has been postponed till after the election
  
• 3.01% more and we win!
  
• More of your money for more of our programs.
  
• The Obama Doctrine: Leading and lying from behind
  
• If you want it – and we think you need it - we’ll borrow from China to get it for you

[hrothgar]

Obama in 2012: 75 Million racist crackers can be wrong!

[cherdano]

luke warm, on 2012-October-21, 09:30, said:

• Just because we don't take responsibility for our policies, don't insult us by pointing that out publicly.
  
• As we do in Chicago, vote early & often.
  
• They didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing.
  
• Except for killing OBL and destroying Al Queada, everything else is Bush's fault
  
• Transforming America—one executive order at a time
  
• Pipelines? Pipelines? We don't need no stinking pipelines.
  
• Transparency in government has been postponed till after the election
  
• 3.01% more and we win!
  
• More of your money for more of our programs.
  
• The Obama Doctrine: Leading and lying from behind
  
• If you want it – and we think you need it - we’ll borrow from China to get it for you

Wow, these are just amazingly bad. I watched Obama's and Romney's speeches at the Al Smith dinner, and while I naturally thought Romney was twisting the fact even in his jokes, I had to admit that quite a number of them were actually pretty funny and witty. (Definitely funnier than Obama!)

Btw, which Romney are you going to vote for, Jimmy? The one from the primaries, or Moderate Mitt?

[awm]

Obama 2012: Still hoping for the same change we wanted 4 years ago!

Honestly I don't understand why people on the right keep saying that Obama won't talk about his record. He talks about his record all the time. He says things like "GM is alive and Osama Bin Laden is dead" and "5 million private sector jobs created" and "Insurance companies can no longer deny care because of pre-existing conditions or kick you off your plan when you become sick." Don't any of these lines seem familiar? I understand that he frames the conversation in a different way than Republicans would prefer -- basically Obama likes to compare to how things were at the bottom of the recession (actually a few months after he took office) and claim we have made quite a bit of progress (which is true) whereas conservatives prefer to compare the absolute state of the economy to how things were in good economic times and claim we aren't there yet (which is also true) -- and I can understand debating this point. But the claim that Obama won't take responsibility for his policies or won't discuss his record is bizarre.

The right-wing also claims that Obama has "no plan to create jobs" which is also weird. He had one so specific that it was an actual bill that he tried to get through Congress (and Republicans blocked). It involves sending money to states to hire teachers, firefighters, and police... and lots of spending on infrastructure (including a public-private partnership infrastructure bank). Obama has made a long series of weekly internet addresses telling people to contact their congressperson and tell them to pass his jobs plan! Now of course you can argue that his plan might not work, repeating that "he has no plan" seems like a pure falsehood.

[lalldonn]

luke warm, on 2012-October-21, 09:30, said:

As we do in Chicago, vote early & often.

Lukewarm: Apparently in favor of disenfranchising up to 5 MILLION voters in order to prevent another 10 false votes in 12 years.

(Or maybe it's just to help his side win no matter whose rights are taken away? Nah, no Republican could possibly sink that low.)

luke warm, on 2012-October-21, 09:30, said:

They didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing.

So which is it? Do we believe in American exceptionalism, or do we mock our own President when he receives the Nobel peace prize because we don't think he deserved it?

luke warm, on 2012-October-21, 09:30, said:

Pipelines? Pipelines? We don't need no stinking pipelines.

Maybe he is stalling the pipeline not just because of the environment, but to save (yes, save) jobs! (Not to mention keeping gas prices from increasing in some areas and saving a few lives in the process)


But it's all ok. Your desperation makes it clear you are not as confident in the race as you claim and thus makes me more confident.

[kenrexford]

So, why exactly did Mr. Obama get the Nobel prize?

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-21, 13:43, said:

So, why exactly did Mr. Obama get the Nobel prize?

For not being Bush, of course.

[nigel_k]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-21, 13:53, said:

For not being Bush, of course.

Hey, I'm not Bush either. I don't really want the prize now that it's tainted by having been given to people like Obama and Arafat, but I could use the money.

[lalldonn]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-21, 13:43, said:

So, why exactly did Mr. Obama get the Nobel prize?

Even he said he didn't deserve it. What I can't believe it Republicans actually seeming disappointed/upset/annoyed that he did. Can't they be glad for America? Does anyone want to give back the 1980 Olympic hockey gold medal because we weren't actually the better team?

[awm]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-21, 13:43, said:

So, why exactly did Mr. Obama get the Nobel prize?

It was for his efforts to reduce nuclear weapons, and corral "loose nukes" in former Russian republics. This was a major thing he worked on during his four years in the Senate. Probably didn't deserve the prize, but the Nobel Peace Prize (unlike the scientific awards) has a history of being given somewhat prematurely to people who are "outspoken advocates for peace" rather than based on actual accomplishments.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-21, 09:30, said:

• Except for killing OBL and destroying Al Queada, everything else is Bush's fault

Say what you want about George Bush, but he was no racist.

[kenrexford]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-21, 14:02, said:

Even he said he didn't deserve it. What I can't believe it Republicans actually seeming disappointed/upset/annoyed that he did. Can't they be glad for America? Does anyone want to give back the 1980 Olympic hockey gold medal because we weren't actually the better team?

See hrothgar's answer. If you were a Bush supporter, would you consider that award to be a genuine reflection on America winning something or instead a means of the committee actually smacking down that half of America who supported Bush (on these types of issues)?

Would this view become all the more annoying as Mr. Obama became while president after this award more and more like Bush in those areas where Mr. Obama challenged Bush from the sidelines?

In other words, Republicans did not begrudge him an award for a job well done. They were offended by an award for not being like the president they loved. That seems fair. If the definition of handsome in the Nobel Dictionary was "not looking like lalldonn," would you be offended?

[lalldonn]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-21, 15:58, said:

See hrothgar's answer. If you were a Bush supporter, would you consider that award to be a genuine reflection on America winning something or instead a means of the committee actually smacking down that half of America who supported Bush (on these types of issues)?

To my knowledge, hrothgar is not on the Nobel committee. And if I was a Bush supporter, it would be option A.

kenrexford, on 2012-October-21, 15:58, said:

If the definition of handsome in the Nobel Dictionary was "not looking like lalldonn," would you be offended?

That's a silly analogy because that definition only exists in your head, but I'll answer the one you should have used. If you won a Nobel award for most handsome even though most people don't consider you the most handsome person, and my supporters thought you won it because you don't look like me, I would not believe my supporters should be offended. I would believe they are behaving like paranoid idiots.

[phil_20686]

awm, on 2012-October-21, 14:20, said:

It was for his efforts to reduce nuclear weapons, and corral "loose nukes" in former Russian republics. This was a major thing he worked on during his four years in the Senate. Probably didn't deserve the prize, but the Nobel Peace Prize (unlike the scientific awards) has a history of being given somewhat prematurely to people who are "outspoken advocates for peace" rather than based on actual accomplishments.

I thought it was along the lines of "Congratulations America, you have elected a black president. Now you are only the most racist industrialised country by a little bit. Lets hope for continued improvement."

[kenrexford]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-21, 16:18, said:

To my knowledge, hrothgar is not on the Nobel committee. And if I was a Bush supporter, it would be option A.


That's a silly analogy because that definition only exists in your head, but I'll answer the one you should have used. If you won a Nobel award for most handsome even though most people don't consider you the most handsome person, and my supporters thought you won it because you don't look like me, I would not believe my supporters should be offended. I would believe they are behaving like paranoid idiots.

Your overall position would be greatly improved with an actual reason for the award. An argument that naysayers are ridiculous in claiming no justification sounds hollow with no justification offered in rebuttal.

Oh, and the hockey team did win, you know. You get most medals for winning the event, not for just showing up (except special Olympics).

[lalldonn]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-21, 17:43, said:

Your overall position would be greatly improved with an actual reason for the award. An argument that naysayers are ridiculous in claiming no justification sounds hollow with no justification offered in rebuttal.

It's not very hard work to find the justification.

Quote

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to U.S. President Barack Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.

And more specifically...

Quote

[Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjorn] Jagland said "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts. Involvement in which can now be proven as early as March 2009. Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals. The New York Times reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naive for accepting a young politician’s promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'"

You can reasonably feel he didn't deserve it, but you can not reasonably feel there was no justification.

kenrexford, on 2012-October-21, 17:43, said:

Oh, and the hockey team did win, you know.

As did Obama, you know.

[y66]

According to Thomas Friedman, there are at least 2 items on his record that Obama does not talk a lot about.

Quote

ONE thing that has struck me about the debates so far is how little President Obama has conveyed about what I think are his two most innovative domestic programs. While I don’t know how Obamacare will turn out, I’m certain that my two favorite Obama initiatives will be transformative.

His Race to the Top program in education has already set off a nationwide wave of school reform, and his Race to the Top in vehicles — raising the mileage standards for American-made car and truck fleets from 27.5 miles per gallon to 54.5 m.p.g. between now and 2025 — is already spurring a wave of innovation in auto materials, engines and software. Obama mentioned both briefly in the last debate, but I want to talk about them more, because I think they are the future of progressive politics in this age of austerity: government using its limited funds and steadily rising performance standards to stimulate states and businesses to innovate better economic, educational and environmental practices.

[squealydan]

Lukewarm's initial list pretty much summed up why most of us in the rest of the world truly despise the Republican Party and most of its supporters. Even those of us who occasionally vote for right of centre parties in our own country.

It's lame, it's dumb, it's untruthful, it's mean. Both the list, and the Republican Party.

[Zelandakh]

Obama 2012 Campaign Slogan:
"I'm not Romney; I'm not Republican; I'm not in the same group as the Tea Party; and I won't disenfranchise 47% of Americans."

[y66]