Comments on: Looks Who’s Famous :-P

By: cassandra m

cassandra m — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:35:40 +0000

Cassie’s general opinion on those with whom she disagrees seems to have become “How dare you! You have no right to say that!”

The people here with more than a 4th grade reading level do know that this is not true. This hasn’t any relation at all to what I said. This would be the second time today that you needed to misrepresent something I said to actually have a point to make. It is OK to just STFU when you can’t address the words in front of you.

By: Rhymes With Right

Rhymes With Right — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:20:40 +0000

“having on about their decision is pretty much a wank.”

What class, Cass.

By: Rhymes With Right

Rhymes With Right — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:19:17 +0000

Cassie’s general opinion on those with whom she disagrees seems to have become “How dare you! You have no right to say that!”

But hey, she is great at spouting the left-wing talking points for mind-numbed liberal bloggers, so maybe she will get next year’s Nobel prize for Literature.

By: cassandra m

cassandra m — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:17:52 +0000

A3 — the people who give out this prize do this for lots of inscrutable reasons. And it has been pointed out multiple times that people like Desmond Tutu were awarded the prize for the effort — not because apartheid was done at the time. Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin were given a Nobel for talking. Not for achieving peace for talking. And certainly there is still no peace in the mideast. Palestinians were not especially enthused about the Prize, either when done. The point being that the Nobel committee certainly does have quite a long history of awarding this prize for aspirational reasons only. But whether or not you or anyone else thinks that their explanation is a face does not obviate the point that the Nobel Committee does what it does and until you get a vote, having on about their decision is pretty much a wank.

By: RICO

RICO — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:54:29 +0000

RWR,

Your not a Norwegian??????????????

Then cassy is right, you are no where near being a member of the farcicle Nobel committee.

By: Anonthree

Anonthree — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:47:15 +0000

Cassandra, I think their explanation is a farce, too, and I’m neither a wingnut nor a wingnut’s pal but a committed progressive Democrat. This is the first time in the prize’s history that it was given to someone who merely showed good intentions but hasn’t accomplished anything. So don’t attack people who disagree with the president receiving what’s really just a rubber stamp. The Nobel committee is far from infallible.

By: cassandra m

cassandra m — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:43:16 +0000

A farce? You are no where near sitting on the Nobel Prize Committee and you think that their explanation is a farce.

That’s choice — and that really would be the problem here, right? That somehow the Nobel Committee should take into account what you or any of your wingnut pals think. Nobels have never taken into consideration what Americans think about anything. They aren’t especially designed to. Most of this peak wingnut crap is because they’ve been reminded once again that not one of them will ever be considered for one.

By: Rhymes With Right

Rhymes With Right — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:32:55 +0000

DD — they explained it, and it is a farce.

By: Anonthree

Anonthree — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:08:05 +0000

I did. After that, I ended up agreeing with the Daily Kos diarist.

By: Delaware Dem

Delaware Dem — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:39:26 +0000

Anonthree, are you incapable of reading the Committee’s reasoning. They explained it. They were the ones that awarded it. If you are looking for answers, please go there.

By: Anonthree

Anonthree — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:01:17 +0000

Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize in September 2008. Someone explain to me what he had done for world peace at that time. Last time I looked, that prize was for real achievement, not just campaign rhetoric. On the other hand, they gave it to Gore and Arafat, too. That explains it.

By: Unstable Isotope

Unstable Isotope — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:58:39 +0000

LOL. A Daily Kos diarist on why Palin deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama:

1. During a period when Russia was reasserting itself militarily, Palin's gently assertive gaze assured peace across the Bering Strait. No Russian leader would dare attack us while her keen eye was watching from her house. 2. Palin expressed her vision of harmony between African nations by referring to the continent as one big country. 3. Palin was so deeply upset by the implications of the Bush Doctrine that she refused to discuss it during TV interviews, even going so far as to pretend not to know what it was. 4. When degenerate boneheads attending her campaign rallies yelled out racial slurs against her Democratic rival, Palin didn't confront them by reminding them such language was un-American. No, rather than risk conflict with the crowd, she chose the path of peace: just keep up with her rousing speech. 5. Male moose are known to fight over females. By taking one down with a rifle, Palin lessened conflict in the natural world, thus bringing peace to Alaska's forests. 6. Ditto with the aerial culling of wolves. Howling wolves are distinctly unpeaceful. Shooting them from planes ensures all species can sleep easier. Palin's support for the aerial hunting of wolves is step toward a truly universal vision of peace, one that takes account even of peace and quiet in the natural world.