Health Care Thread II

[chaos]

Originally Posted by tad10

So for the "non-Anti-Obama folks" cynicism is the new hope? How far the mighty have fallen -- and in only ten months. One wonders where y'all will be in twenty months.

As for wishing the award would matter -- "we are the dreamers of dreams."

What a load of shit. It's not cynicism, just a realization that there are more important things in the world than looking at every single situation with an angle on how to pin this on Obama or make Obama look bad. It's obsessive and it's sad.

No one cares because it's a non-issue, in the real world we have real problems to solve, more than enough to keep us occupied without inventing shit.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Fuck.. dealing with these Wingers must be what parenting a 14 year old girl must be like.

"I HATE YOU! YOU'RE TRYING TO RUIN MY LIFE WITH SOCIALISM" /slams door.

I feel like we've been witness to one giant temper tantrum since inauguration.

[MagicNumbers]

The thing is, that most elected Republicans congratulated the President and moved on. I think they realize that turning this into an indictment of the president isn't helpful to their cause.

[Warrian]

Originally Posted by chthonic-anemos

It did seem like a joke when I read about it but no accomplishments towards peace?

Obama is the most powerful black man in America and he hasn't shot anyone, or stole a bike, or even raped any white women.. yet.

But to add to your stereotype, he has smoked weed and snorted coke. 2 out of 5 isn't so bad.

[Czaza]

Coke is so elitist, crack is where it's at!

[Zitar]

Originally Posted by Czaza

Coke is so elitist, crack is where it's at!

No shit. Typical liberal elite. Real Americans smoke crack from a glass pipe with a little chore boy stuffed in it. How are we working class people suppose to relate to these upper crust liberals that get their cocaine in powder form.

[Suineg]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Your grasp of complex situations is astounding. Gore didn't get the Peace Prize only because of his "presentation in a shitty movie". His involvement in environmental issues goes back to the late '70's when he was one of the first politicians to actually turn things like clean air, clean water and toxic waste into real political issues that need addressing. He was the first national politician to actually hold hearings about climate change and even wrote a book about it in 1992 before he was even elected as VP. Prior to winning the Peace Prize he has either been directly or indirectly involved in the founding of numerous organizations based on sustainable environmental technologies and strategies.

I know it's your modus operandi to dumb an issue down as much as possible, but do your best to at least attempt to make a reasonable argument before making yourself look dumber than you already do.

Also...





...it helps if you don't contradict yourself one sentence later.

So now it's the Nobel Environmentalist Prize?

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Falkensyn

I'm not sure if you're serious Soriak, but if you really think they deserved the peace prize you (and the commitee) have a very broad definition of "peace".... I'm a huge fan of Yunus' work and microfinancing in general, but it has nothing to do with creating peace, unless you correlate poverty levels to war zones and argue that reducing poverty reduces the risk of war, in which case you have a valid argument, but one I disagree with.

You disagree with a link between poverty and violence? Aside from that, women greatly benefit from the work of the Grameen bank, so there's certainly a civil rights issue. A strict reading might not justify a peace prize for anything but conflict resolving between nations - but I think it's fair enough to include civil rights in the listing... the committee chosen to award the prize seems to share that view.

As for combating global climate change - that one is most certainly justified. Unless stopped, it's going to significantly decrease the yield from farming in some areas, change rainfall patterns, etc. One only has to look at Darfur to see what conflict over resources leads to, and it'd happen on a much larger scale.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Soriak

As for combating global climate change - that one is most certainly justified. Unless stopped, it's going to significantly decrease the yield from farming in some areas, change rainfall patterns, etc. One only has to look at Darfur to see what conflict over resources leads to, and it'd happen on a much larger scale.

By that arguement any scientific advancement that benefits a large number of people would qualify...

To quote the man who originated the prize...

Originally Posted by Nobel's will

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should 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."

source : Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By that measurement at best Gore's dedication to the global warming cause might be considered increasing "fraternity between nations". Even that is a little stretch.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Suineg

So now it's the Nobel Environmentalist Prize?

Wow dude. I mean you say some stupid shit but this is actual Astrocreep territory here.

Do I really have to sit here and explain how finding and utilizing sustainable energy would lead to a sharp decrease in world wide conflict? Do you need me to hold your hand through the entire process of why resources are important enough for countries to kill people for?

Honestly are you conservatives reveling in stupidity now? It seems as if absolute ignorance of an unprecedented scale is the new conservative way and not only should you be as simple minded as possible, you should be celebrating the fact you can't critically think your way out of a wet paper sack.

Thank you Haus for further proving the point while I was writing this.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Thank you Haus for further proving the point while I was writing this.

So pointing out the criteria the person who established the prize set for it, and asking how Gore's prize fit those criteria is being stupid now? Wouldn't that also make Nobel himself stupid for setting the criteria as he did?

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Haus

So pointing out the criteria the person who established the prize set for it, and asking how Gore's prize fit those criteria is being stupid now?

Because you can't see how establishing clean air and clean water standards and technologies worldwide might lead to greater fraternity between nations? Maybe because you're couldn't possibly understand how having access to sustainable, renewable and clean resources would lead to the reduction of standing armies?

How many wars have been fought, at their core over resources?

You didn't point anything out. All you did was personally decide what you thought the criteria meant, realized that what Gore did does not fit within your personal criteria and then hit "Submit Reply".

[Neferata]

Screamfeeder we can't expect these morons to connect more than 2 dots. These people are essentially children, and should be treated with the same amount of respect and in the same manner that you would treat a child who was throwing a temper tantrum. They are going to complain about what Obama does no matter what. There is literally nothing he can do that will result in them not complaining about it. People like this should not be talked to with any sort of respect whatsoever. They are intellectual dishonesty incarnate, and people like them literally fall below house pet on the respect scale for me. I mean this.

They aren't even really people to me at this point. They're moving objects that make noise. A lot of noise.

[Agraza]

Tell me about it. My family is a fucking kaleidoscope of team players, those that are permanent members of blue or red for dozens of reasons, true or false. I can't comprehend it or discuss it. They have apoplectic fits if you try to reason something less akin to conspiracy theory. The extremists on either side are mentally stunted wastes of voting power. And it seems that our elected representatives are, on average, no better.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Your grasp of complex situations is astounding. Gore didn't get the Peace Prize only because of his "presentation in a shitty movie". His involvement in environmental issues goes back to the late '70's when he was one of the first politicians to actually turn things like clean air, clean water and toxic waste into real political issues that need addressing. He was the first national politician to actually hold hearings about climate change and even wrote a book about it in 1992 before he was even elected as VP. Prior to winning the Peace Prize he has either been directly or indirectly involved in the founding of numerous organizations based on sustainable environmental technologies and strategies.

I know it's your modus operandi to dumb an issue down as much as possible, but do your best to at least attempt to make a reasonable argument before making yourself look dumber than you already do.

Also...






...it helps if you don't contradict yourself one sentence later.

Yes his entire career was based off a hoax. man made global warming is just another scare tactic to keep the sheep in line. its been cool outside so they are throwing this swine flue scare around, but they will be sure to trot out the starving polar bears again during the spring.

you know something is bullshit when even the BBC says so
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

as for his shitty movie and scare campaign bringing alt sources of energy for peace. lol thats a nice stretch. might as well say that when "Gore invented the internet" it saved oil by people staying at home. thats at least more believable