Obama only wants military leaders who will fire on US citizens (Denver, rating)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize and giving a lecture are not evidence that someone was officially nominated.

Do you have any idea how insane such an assertion is?

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Who would have any doubt considering the overwhelming evidence that he was.

Why all the nonsense if you knew the whole time Obama was nominated? Again, what game are you playing?

Why do you doubt Mr. Garrow's nomination?

You seem to be very selective in what nominations you consider valid, and your decisions appear to be politically driven.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Do you have any idea how insane such an assertion is?

No - because it is not "insane" at all.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

No - because it is not "insane" at all.

It is raving lunatic, complete break from rationality and reality insane.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Harrier

No - because it is not "insane" at all.

Um, yes, it is. To say "Winning the Nobel Peace Prize and giving a *lecture are not evidence that someone was officially nominated" sounds pretty insane to me too.

*the lecture you were referring to was the Noble Peace Prize winner's lecture

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

It is raving lunatic, complete break from rationality and reality insane.

It is much more sane than your entirely unsubstantiated claim that Mr. Garrow was not a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Harrier

It is much more sane than your entirely unsubstantiated claim that Mr. Garrow was not a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

First rule of holes, H. Stop digging.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

*the lecture you were referring to was the Noble Peace Prize winner's lecture

True - but I only question whether the president was officially nominated.

I am just raising doubt, whereas you entirely dismiss the nomination of Mr. Garrow.

I am on more solid ground.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Why do you doubt Mr. Garrow's nomination?

You seem to be very selective in what nominations you consider valid, and your decisions appear to be politically driven.

Politically driven? How in God's name did you come up with that? The only circumstances under which I believe somebody has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize are: 1) when that person is announced as winner 2) when a qualified nominator makes a public statement indicating the person he or she nominated.

Obama (whom* you brought up, not me) qualifies under category 1). "Dr." Jim Garrow does not fit either description. And I'm especially keen on dismissing his claim based on the absurd story behind it and the fact he's a lying, fraudulent, con-man.


*Note, I actually used whom properly

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

First rule of holes, H. Stop digging.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but I will say that when the president gives the order to fire on American citizens, a foxhole in a defensive position will be rather useful, the deeper the better.