TJ are you peeking in my windows again? ya perv

shush it's there now

I KNEW IT

Robin....fun huh?

what was this thread about????????????//

Haha after reading the last few posts I forgot, but it's been fun to read. All that was missing was the popcorn.

all I know is some wackos came in just to debunk my story of no speakers...they couldn't do it. what is this world coming to???

I know I know

I created a monster with quietman, winx won't let me post the turd definition and TJ is taking pictures at my window

Anyone can disagree with me all they like, I'd just like to see people explain their position. There is much I don't agree with TJ with, but unlike others here when I ask a simple straight forward question I get a straight forward answer. Frankly I'm probably closer to agreeing with those who are arguing here with me. Anyway most others here just give some lame excuse as to why they think the question doesn't apply and refuse to answer. TJ gave his excuses why he didn't think it applied in this case, but he still answered the question. I singled out Boo because I've asked several direction questions and not gotten a single answer. That to me says she's never going to so what's the point debating. It's not a debate when the other person just goes off on some tangent when they can't defend their position. That's too much like a politician and I don't like politicians.

since 99 percent of the Nobel committee are jewish, in my opinion they gave it to him for his turning the other way with his dealing with Israel. I'm the first person to yell that US should not interfere with affairs overseas, however as a Palestinian, i'm offended when America trouts around the world pretending to be the bastian of Human Rights yet never pressures the UN about the atrocities being committed by Israel.

I think the counsel has gone over and over their reasons....is it me or are the threads moving very slowly tonight?

Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize

OSLO – One judge noted with surprise that President Barack Obama "didn't look particularly happy" at being named the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Another marveled at how critics could be so patronizing.

In a rare public defense of a process normally shrouded in secrecy, four of the Nobel jury's five judges spoke out Tuesday about a selection they said was both merited and unanimous.

To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.

For nine-year Nobel committee veteran Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, Obama's demeanor spoke volumes when he first acknowledged the award during a news conference Friday on the lawn of the White House Rose Garden.

"I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told the AP by telephone.

"Obama has a lot of problems internally in the United States and they seem to be increasing. Unemployment, health care reform: They are a problem for him," she said.

She acknowledged there was a risk the prize might backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and giving ammunition to his critics. "It might hamper him," Ytterhorn said, because it could distract from domestic issues.

Still, she added: "Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it" so the Obama controversy was not unexpected.

It was unusual, however, for the Nobel jury to speak out so candidly about their selection.

Even the most seasoned Nobel watchers were surprised by Obama's Nobel — they hadn't expected the U.S. president, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

Jagland said that was never an issue for the Nobel committee, which followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite who established the prize in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said.

"Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that Obama was undeserving of the honor.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said from the coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the Peace Prize decision. That's fine."

World leaders have reacted positively to Obama's Nobel in most cases, the committee said, with much of the criticism coming from the media and Obama's political rivals.

"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," Jagland said.

In announcing the award Friday, the committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, applauded the change in global mood brought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation. They also praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The White House declined comment on the Nobel judge's latest statements.

However, Obama expressed surprise and humility at Friday's news conference, saying the prize should be considered not a "recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Nobel Peace Prize selections have often been surrounded by fierce debate. Controversial awards include the 1994 prize shared by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for Mideast peace efforts, as well as the joint prize to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho for a 1973 cease-fire agreement. The Vietnam War continued for two more years.

So the Nobel jury "expected that there would be a discussion" about Obama's award, said Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member.

Valle said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by Obama's Nobel.

"Of course I expected disagreement and debate on ... giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."

___

Ritter reported from Stockholm.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama

This thread has gotten so off topic that I'm not even sure what questions you're referring to anymore.

and that's all YellowRose's fault!!! see page 13

Last night I went back and found your question, I opened a quote to answer it and then got a phone call. When done with the call I forgot about the question and read on and ended up responding a later post, before I had a chance to answer your original question. I was ticked off because you were insulting me by saying I was avoiding and bs'ing when that was not what I was doing at all, I just had not yet answered your original question.

And the answer is NO, I would not do something someone asked that would not do it themselves.

Next time don't assume I am ignoring the question when it's more than likely I didn't yet see the question. I don't spend my entire day sitting waiting for responses to Mingle. And frankly some posts get so long from quotes and unrelated content, I some times miss a post completely. I'll be happy to admit when I have misinterpreted a comment, and I believe that I did at some point, but you didn't have to make the assumption I was trying to avoid the question when you had no bloody idea if that is what I was doing.

Even if I misinterpreted the conversation that didn't mean what I 'did' say about the subject had no validity, it had just as much validity as your comments. Now you accuse Me of going on a tangent?

Yes, I know, and that particular discussion just made it worse as each time I'd ask a question referring to her statements she'd go off on another tangent to avoid the question. I could go back and get them but it really doesn't matter at this point. In a sense my questions have all been answered in that she obviously doesn't have answers as to why she feels the way she does. Which is what she should have said in the first place instead of trying to hide it. Ah well live and learn and life goes on . Hope you're having a great day, I know I am

It's her choice to feel the way she does. You seem to have the need for her to validate her opinion, which she doesn't really need to do. If you were not satisfied with her response, that's your issue, not hers.

As I recall some of the questoins asked weren't a matter of opinion. They were yes or no questions that in no way could be validated by an opinion.