rhaig

I haven't seen the list of nominees. In a parallel universe, the nominee list is going to be different anyway. Maybe Jesse Jackson is President of the USA and the judge awards 2 points for the question dodge. -- Rob

It's a bad, bad day for people that actually deserved the award. The only opinion that counts is that of the Nobel committee. Yours is irrelevant. as is yours. -- Rob

Because the Nobel committee chose him. Well that explains it. Thank you for your in depth explanation. Indeed it does explain it. If you want more detail the Nobel Commitee already provided it for those who are TRULY interested and don't just want to rant: nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html "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, 9 October, 2009 and for cut/pasting that, I'd like to nominate you for the Nobel prize. I still wonder who nominated Obama and what they thought he'd done that he deserved the nomination. -- Rob

so why was he nominated? What did he do before Feb 1? I'm curious who nominated him and what their reasons are. -- Rob

yes. and it would be even better if it was for a reason other than who he isn't -- Rob

Bill I'm sure you'll have an answer for this but I have to ask. What did President Obama do in the first 11 days of his presidency that warranted a nobel nomination? Nothing negative towards the man or the office here. just asking what he did that was so great in 11 days. Because I don't see it. What was the success here that got him the award? -- Rob

the nominations were due on Feb 1. 11 days in office he was nominated for not being bush. and they awarded the prize. Doesn't say much of anything about Obama (unless he refuses to accept), but speaks volumes about the Nobel award comission (or whatever they're called). -- Rob

nice dodge of the question btw: that situation is why we need line-item veto. also, you ASSume that I'm a republican apologist. (FAIL!!) I don't need a tax cut. Actually I'd rather have the fairtax plan which would result in me paying more taxes every year actually. And I don't want crap rammed through the process to make laws. Look at what happened 8 years ago with the Patriot Act .... "if you don't pass this legislation.... the terrorists win..." what a load of crap. Laws that take away rights deserve to be held up forever. -- Rob

shouldn't you both have said "fucking piece of shit lying asshole politicians" ??? -- Rob

I typically start with http://gun-deals.com/ammo.php?caliber=12+Ga -- Rob

from the article: "The deadline for nominations for the peace prize was February 1, so someone nominated the President of America for his achievements 11 days into his presidency. So does the prize come with a box of cracker jacks, or in one? -- Rob

her comfort level might also have had something to do with the shooter being HER HUSBAND! -- Rob

The members of our military are an asset. A highly trained asset. Servicing that asset with advanced medical care when it's damaged, is in the best interest of the military machine. Training costs money. Replacing these assets costs money. That money is better spent on medical care maintaining those assets that it would be on retraining new assets. -- Rob

the legal definition of assault varies based on state law. Typically it's that there was a threat that was believable that it would be followed through. So yes, menacing behavior, when believable that the threats would be acted upon, would be assault. since assault is typically based on intent, I don't understand the use of the phrase "intent to assault". Isn't it a little like "PIN number" (man, that's annoying) -- Rob

let me ask you a simple question then bill. really simple. shouldn't require much explanation on either part. would you rather that your elected representatives A:held up legislation so that they could know what it said and understand it's content, or that they B:vote based on the last version that they read while hoping that the last minute changes made in the previous 24hours didn't have anything that would make them change their minds? -- Rob

Medicine, as science, is not a majority rules situation. ... and anthropomorphic climate change is held as true by "popular scientific opinion". -- Rob

the gun doesn't do shit. The person carrying the gun may choose to use the gun to protect their wallet and watch. That's a poor decision. if a mugger tells me to give him my wallet and watch and cell phone or whatever, then I give it to him. Even if I'm carrying my gun. It's stuff. It can be replaced. Carrying the weapon doesn't increase your chances of getting shot, using it poorly or when you don't have to may increase your chances of getting shot. -- Rob

my first thought was that there would be a theatre full of Texans cheering at California falling into the ocean. Then the trailer went on to showcase global devastation. which politically correct message is this movie going to carry? Shouldn't this be a poll?? -- Rob

You mean he's not quoting python? I assumed he'd seen some python sketch I hadn't seen. Good job bill. Looked just like python to me. -- Rob

oddly enough I dreamed last night that I was packing. I haven't jumped in a couple of years so it was odd. -- Rob

there are tasers with video cameras on them so that they start recording when they are activated. Just like the dash cam and belt-tape system for recording an officers actions and words. There are ways to inflict pain that don't show marks, and that don't involve any devices. Yet these corrupt officers you fear aren't cuffing people and inflicting pain on them. -- Rob

It's not his idea that it's safe, so it's not. were we to argue that it's better they all have guns and no less lethal, the discussion would go the other way. no pleasing people that don't trust the LEOs. In general they are good people. Let them do their jobs and GTFO of the way -- Rob

have you ever seen sites like publicdata.com? And did you read this bit on the front page of the web site you just linked? yeah... what's your point? That looking someone up by license plate might be illegal if anyone reported how they looked up such information. Mine was that they didn't have to call up the DMV. -- Rob

have you ever seen sites like publicdata.com? -- Rob

I generally don't have a problem with vaccines. I know people who do. I also know people with medical condition that were caused by vaccines. (or so the judge said after looking at the testimony) So some people would certainly have issues with vaccines, and what seems to me to not be on conspiracy theory grounds. Me personally? I'll be getting a flu shot in 2 weeks for free at work. If it was legislated, I'd expect it to be available for free. If you're going to tell me I must do something (whether it's you, or the government telling me) it better be free, or something I'll get enough personal value out of that I don't mind paying for it. -- Rob