Author Topic: Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! (Read 1345 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2009, 07:32:03 PM »

Your comment is kind of odd, Robert. Do you have some kind of contempt for ordinary people?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2009, 09:27:45 PM »

Quote from: Robert Rawhide

As if I care what a bunch of ordinary people decide behind the giving of this prize. Who are they? :whistleblower:

One of them is the moderator of this site. That is why he posted a portion of this article. Your contempt for "ordinary people" comes through rather strongly here, Rawhide. Why? Are you NOT ordinary?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2009, 07:02:22 AM »

Quote from: Robert Rawhide

You need help Eamon.

Nice try, Tony. Why have you switched to using my first name, as if you know me? Why do you attempt to make it an issue of my mental health?

Why did you come back in the early hours of the morning just to make this post? Don't you have things to do, a family to support?

Your dedication to these matters and this site is all out of proportion with someone who is a newbie and knows nothing about sgg.org/cult other than what he has learned here since Octobeer 7th.

Your comment is plain as day, and the meaning is NOT what you are not pretending.

Belloc · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2009, 07:43:55 AM »

Quote from: Browny

Apparently Obama was nominated only 2 weeks after taking office. Even St Barrack the Great couldn't bring about world peace that quickly.

Also, if you read what the Nobel committe said, apparently you can win a Nobel for basically talking the talk and giving people hope. Apparently you don't actually have to do anything these days.

Anyway, I'm planning to cure all disease, solve the problem of world hunger and end al crime in the next few years, so if any of you need any of my details to complete my nomination, just ask

so, what is there lest for me to do...?

and why is the song Jesus Christ Superstar now stuck in my head, geesh.... :dancing-banana: :bob-marley: :headbanger: :jumping2: :applause: :dancing:

SJB · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:27:28 AM »

Quote from: Robert Rawhide

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: Robert Rawhide
You need help Eamon.

Nice try, Tony. Why have you switched to using my first name, as if you know me? Why do you attempt to make it an issue of my mental health?

Neither my baptismal, nor my birth certificate, ever had the name Tony or Anthony on it. (Am I a liar?)

Two days ago you signed a message on this forum "Eamon Patrick Shea". Why not call you as you call yourself?

I said nothing of mental health. You came (breaking forum rules of going off topic) and insultingly accused me of having contempt for ordinary people, and even had the puerility to mention that the moderator is an ordinary person, just to foment trouble. You blatantly read something into my words that was not there. You need help, and I don't know what the problem is. Maybe you need anger management, maybe spiritual help, maybe hormone therapy, maybe you need to lay off alcohol before touching a keyboard, maybe you need cataract surgery, maybe you need to go learn reading comprehension, maybe you have a brain tumor. Maybe multiple things.

Here is more nonsense from you:
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Why did you come back in the early hours of the morning just to make this post? Don't you have things to do, a family to support?

Some of my 46 hours on the clock are done with night shifts....in order to support my family. Yes, I weekly get a check signed by my employer, taxes taken out and all. Yes, I have a living, female wife, due to our reception of one of the 7 Sacraments of the Catholic Church called Matrimony. (Am I lying?)

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Your dedication to these matters and this site is all out of proportion with someone who is a newbie and knows nothing about sgg.org/cult other than what he has learned here since Octobeer 7th.

Another contradiction; you complained in the other thread that I was delaying and not answering things, now you accuse me of the opposite; now I am dedicated out of proportion!

Yes, I am a newbie on the things I have addressed. As I type, I don't even know the 16-year-old's name who did the smoking. (Am I a liar?)

If you say I am a liar, you DO need help, and it will be obvious to all.

Whether you are a liar or not doesn't really matter to me right now. You haven't said anything of substance. You remind me of somebody defending the Novus Ordo, having an answer for each little detail but ignoring the larger picture.

Just like the NO, it's not each little detail that makes one realise that it's a fraud, it's the larger picture.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** October 17, 2009, 09:48:06 AM »

Quote from: Robert Rawhide

Quote from: SJB
You haven't said anything of substance. You remind me of somebody defending the Novus Ordo, having an answer for each little detail but ignoring the larger picture.

Just like the NO, it's not each little detail that makes one realise that it's a fraud, it's the larger picture.

Ironically, your statement about substance, lacks substance.

I don't see any irony. I was merely making an observation about your lack of substance.

Quote

Those who do not know that the whole is judged by its parts remind me of those who would have trouble with the round-peg-square-hole test. It is so fundamental. I will explain that soon.
:wave:

You can also explain the parts in such a way that they don't reflect the reality of the whole. That seems so fundamental too, doesn't it?

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** October 18, 2009, 12:33:47 PM »

Quote from: Robert Rawhide

Quote from: SJB
I don't see any irony. I was merely making an observation about your lack of substance.

Apparently, you are not familiar with irony.

No, I just don't see any where you apparently do.

Quote

Quote from: SJB
You can also explain the parts in such a way that they don't reflect the reality of the whole. That seems so fundamental too, doesn't it?

Most certainly one can fail in following a principle, which goes without saying.

Fail in applying the principle, or apply a principle in a pharisaical way, in order to explain away a reality that one finds objectionable?

Quote

Nevertheless, the principle remains and should be attempted to be followed. Those who try to thwart the attempt are already in some violation of the principle.

Yes, of course. Except who is trying to "thwart the attempt" to apply the principle here? The benefit of the doubt is given until it can no longer be given. Do you deny there is a point where we can no longer "assume the best" because we actually know differently?

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** October 18, 2009, 02:29:12 PM »

Quote from: Robert Rawhide

You have tried to thwart the attempt when you said, "it's not each little detail that makes one realise that it's a fraud, it's the larger picture"

Yes, you. When I hardly even got into anything yet.

Really? What can you actually "get into" if you don't know the situations in some detail? Just tell us to "assume the best" in ALL cases?