@DCGoldPants Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Except I think they have decided to go with the humur bit. They are laughing about it. Which actually is the best thing they could have done. Don't agree. They seem angry. Laughing would be saying "Whatever, you have fun with your award" and then not giving it another second of attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Up in arms? Heck we're laughing about this, not up in arms. It is not the Presidents fault but the Nobel commitee didn't do Obama any favours in giving him this award and most certainly damaged the award itself (not that there was much more to damage). These responses sure make me chuckle. I like how people are just trying to brush off some of the emotion this award has created. "Psssh, we are simply laughing about this. Hahaha." Yeah, like when the right-wingers were calling Obama a traitor for traveling around the globe and speaking with others, it was all a joke, right? "Oh, I was only joking when I said that Obama only won the award due to affirmative action." Yep. This is rip-roaring ha-ha time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Because the right-wingers have been attacking Obama for the exact reasons to why he won the award. And now they are attacking him again.The left-wingers want to see MORE peace efforts from Obama, not less, which is the source of their criticisms. The Right are attacking Obama just to attack him-- just to call him "the One," or a narcissist, or whatever petty response they have. Or, as one right-winger joked, Obama was only chosen due to "affirmative action." Sounds awfully familiar to four years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I dont give a damn about the WMD. considering his CONFIRMED ties to terrorism and his hatred for America. I would rather err on the side of caution. And I damn sure AM aware that we supported Saddam in the beginning. Which is exactly why we had a responsibility to clean up our mess. By some estimates Saddam was responsible for over two million deaths. How many more would have died and suffered had he been left in power. How many more would have died and suffered under his sons after he was gone? How many decades would the horror have gone on? Given the choice between two tough futures, I chose the one that gives hope for freedom from oppression for the Iraqi people. You support the one that leaves the evil dictator in power. Which of us is worse? With that I'm going to leave this thread before the stupidity of your comments starts bringing out the worst in me. Have fun in La La land. Here's my problem with that argument. Yes, everything you said is true. The dude was a murderous **** who neeeded to be removed. THat's fine. But be honest about it, and don't insult my intelligence by lying to me about why you want to take him out. If we had said: "he's a bad guy, murderer, and he tried to kill my daddy, i'm going to take him out" I could respect that. But the way we did it was bordline lying, and that I can't accept. In the same way I can't accept Clinton lying about 'not having relations with that woman'. Same thing. Tell me the ****ing truth! Edit: Confirmed ties to terrorism? Where, link please. In fact, the fundamentalists hated Sadam. This is why we supported him in the 80s when he fought a war against Iran. The Bathists are secular, and "the terrorists" are, in teh case of Bin Laden, Muslim fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law on the middle east. Osama hated Sadaam for setting up a secular government in the middle east. We, through our fumbling misunderstanding of the regional history, made allies out of traditional enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky72 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I understand your position, but do you really think Piedad Cordoba should have won the award? She is a bit of a controversial figure, after reading her background. Maybe she should have, but I would probably have to read more on her. She's allegedly sympathetic to FARC, or they're sympathetic to her. We know that currently Obama is sympathetic to continuing the Afghanistan War and preventative detainment, etc. So far I'd say she's done much more concrete things for peace, with much less actions possibly hurting peace, than Obama. But if these people had won the award over Obama -- then fine. Good. I just do not see the need for all the fuss, because some folks are acting as if Obama has done absolutely nothing at all, which is not true. I just think, either way, some of us are getting bent out of shape over it. After all, all I did was agree that Obama's choice was acceptable, and people are even attacking my position over it. I just think if Obama is acceptable, nearly every President in the past is acceptable. We can ignore Bush's wars of choice and civil rights abuses, and concentrate on his aid to Africa and Road Map for Peace. We can ignore Reagan's ventures in South/Central America and proliferation, and concentrate on his words of disarmament late in his term, or say he ended the Cold War through strength of arms. The choice just seems shockingly premature, coming out of left-field If nothing else, what is the Nobel Committee going to do if he actually achieves peace progress, award him another Peace Prize? And at this rate if what he's done in his campaign and eight months is worthy of a Nobel, he's going to win one for the next three years. And the next seven if he wins another term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Did he win two then? I could have sworn that Carter won one for brokering the Egypt/Israeli Peace deal?...Or maybe I just tied the two up in my head. Begin and Sadat won for the Camp David Accords. Carter only won one for the Korean debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 haha, thats actually funny, at least you're not one of the angry ones on here- I have no issue with Obama trying- but here's the thing- he made a speech or two. So? Many others have done much much more than that- I just think its a bit premature to give him this award at this point. and Baculus- I'm not an idiot- and thanks for continuing to "brush with a broad stroke"- all people who may disagree with Obama as Conservative Republican idiots...how about you try practicing what you preach? Well, thank ya ma'm! As I posted on one of the first pages, I agree that it's really too early. That said, I'll be damned if I'm going to be anything but proud of it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Except I think they have decided to go with the humur bit. They are laughing about it. Which actually is the best thing they could have done. That's what I have been doing in this entire thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perky72 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 By some estimates Saddam was responsible for over two million deaths. How many more would have died and suffered had he been left in power. How many more would have died and suffered under his sons after he was gone? How many decades would the horror have gone on?Given the choice between two tough futures, I chose the one that gives hope for freedom from oppression for the Iraqi people. You support the one that leaves the evil dictator in power. Which of us is worse? I guess this is off-topic, but I sure hope you lobbied just as hard for the invasion of Pol Pot's Cambodia or Idi Amin's Uganda or Caecescu's Romania, etc. etc. If you're going to trot out the caring about humanity card, you need to be consistent. And currently, should be arguing for an invasion of several countries in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 "Obama was who we thought he was (the Messiah)! That's why we had the damn election. Now if you want to crown Him, then crown his ass! But Obama was who we thought they were! And we let him off the hook!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I said they gave Obama the award because he is not Bush. Meaning they don't like Bush and they are just happy Obama is president.See? Reading really *IS* fundamental. :doh: Writing is fundamental too. Maybe you should have explained yourself a bit better, eh? Naw, a sarcastic remark is much better, I suppose. I dont give a damn about the WMD. What? That is the prime reason why we went into Iraq. Why wouldn't you care about it? This is a bizarre response. considering his CONFIRMED ties to terrorism and his hatred for America. I would rather err on the side of caution. Tell that to the dead. "Oh, we invaded Iraq because he hated America and we believe he had ties to terrorism. You can thank us later." Err on the side of caution? Thousands of dead and billions spent -- yes, we sure did "Err on the side of caution." BTW, Al Aqaida and other terrorists were NEVER as prevelant in Iraq until we toppled Iraq's government. And I damn sure AM aware that we supported Saddam in the beginning. Which is exactly why we had a responsibility to clean up our mess. Yes, which demonstrates that the US has supported dictators in the past and to why we NEED to be careful in foreign affairs. And why the US has not been wholesome -- that we, ourselves, have supported terrorists. By some estimates Saddam was responsible for over two million deaths. How many more would have died and suffered had he been left in power. How many more would have died and suffered under his sons after he was gone? How many decades would the horror have gone on? It is inarguable that Saddam was a madman, a brute, and a murderer. That, I do not dispute. But there are a lot of brutes in the world, and it is very difficult to destroy all of them. To be honest, this, to me, considering we had past ties with Saddam, is a moot point. He only became a hated foe once he became inconvenient and invaded a neighboring country. Before that, he was an ally, even if he brutalized his people. Given the choice between two tough futures, I chose the one that gives hope for freedom from oppression for the Iraqi people. You support the one that leaves the evil dictator in power. Which of us is worse? In the future, Iraq may be a successful democracy and their future may be bright. I will totally concede that point, and I have said in the past that I want our efforts there to be successful so that the loss of life means something. That still does not explain away the past, to our support of Saddam nor to the dubious reasons given to the public to why we invaded that country. With that I'm going to leave this thread before the stupidity of your comments starts bringing out the worst in me. Have fun in La La land. The only stupid remarks I see are the ones suggesting that we needed to kill Iraqis in order to save them. I live in historical reality -- how about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 She's allegedly sympathetic to FARC, or they're sympathetic to her. We know that currently Obama is sympathetic to continuing the Afghanistan War and preventative detainment, etc. So far I'd say she's done much more concrete things for peace, with much less actions possibly hurting peace, than Obama. Maybe that is true -- maybe it isn't. It was up to the Nobel Prize committee to make that choice. If she had won the award, I am sure the suggested FARC ties would have become a possible point of contention. BTW, I wasn't trying to suggest she was unworthy of the award. I just think if Obama is acceptable, nearly every President in the past is acceptable. Fair enough argument. We can ignore Bush's wars of choice and civil rights abuses, and concentrate on his aid to Africa and Road Map for Peace. That is the thing -- it is hard to ignore the wars started by Bush and any perceived civil rights abuses. Some may argue, of course, that is is also hard to ignore "Predator drones in Pakistan" during the Obama administration. We can ignore Reagan's ventures in South/Central America and proliferation, and concentrate on his words of disarmament late in his term, or say he ended the Cold War through strength of arms. Well, once again, it is hard to ignore Reagan's militarism. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if perhaps Reagan was under consideration at one point. The choice just seems shockingly premature, coming out of left-field If nothing else, what is the Nobel Committee going to do if he actually achieves peace progress, award him another Peace Prize? And at this rate if what he's done in his campaign and eight months is worthy of a Nobel, he's going to win one for the next three years. And the next seven if he wins another term. I guess we will have to see, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I honestly can't say, but then I've not given it much thought other than just today when all the Right-wingers went screaming from their Fox News TV's and threw themselves into traffic over this.And its like you say, the Right-wingers continually dismiss the international community and their opinions and then when the international community does something that the Right-wingers don't like then they are all up in arms about it. Which only leads me to believe one thing, they only like the international community's opinion when it agrees with their own. My exact point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 What exactly has he done other than become the President of America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 As I posted on one of the first pages, I agree that it's really too early. That said, I'll be damned if I'm going to be anything but proud of it anyway.So you are proud of an accomplishment you do not feel the recipient has earned (yet). Interesting. I wonder what your pride is then based upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 and Baculus- I'm not an idiot- and thanks for continuing to "brush with a broad stroke"- all people who may disagree with Obama as Conservative Republican idiots...how about you try practicing what you preach? What? When did I ever say that those who disagree with Obama is a "conservative Republican idiot"? When I did say anything about you? I am criticizing those folks for their inability to keep a consistent position. It is that simple. If you are one of these folks, then explain your POV and we can debate about it. How about you practicing what you preach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 What exactly has he done other than become the President of America? Have you been ignoring the news over the last eight months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 They don't have a "You tried and now you can blow them up award". Plus, those are rather broad strokes you're using. I honestly can't say, but then I've not given it much thought other than just today when all the Right-wingers went screaming from their Fox News TV's and threw themselves into traffic over this.And its like you say, the Right-wingers continually dismiss the international community and their opinions and then when the international community does something that the Right-wingers don't like then they are all up in arms about it. Which only leads me to believe one thing, they only like the international community's opinion when it agrees with their own. You may have, but the frothing Right-wing would have only used it as an excuse to criticize the Pres for not doing more to improve America's image around the globe.Sorry, but with the Right wing these days there is NO pleasing them...none. According to them everything Obama does is wrong and even when Obama does what they want him to do he's still wrong. I'm sure Rush, Hannity, and Beck will have fun with this today, I hope they enjoy their news cycle, I just wish they'd actually start working to better our country and the world rather than just trying to score cheap political points. Good Lord I long for the day when our political vision can extend past the next news cycle. huh ? The only people getting all up in arms are the ones who don't like anyone questioning why Obama got this. I'm not a right winger, but nice to lump anyone who questions Obama into one category. Hell, even several self proclaimed liberals on this board are baffeled at this award. What do you say about them? Nice when someone has a legitimate question the response is "You're just a hate filled Right wing conservative." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 What exactly has he done other than become the President of America? He was the President of the Harvard Law Review :whoknows: Other than that....nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 So you are proud of an accomplishment you do not feel the recipient has earned (yet). Interesting. I wonder what your pride is then based upon. You could argue that he has done a good bit to re-engage the international community while in office (and even between the election and the innauguration). It matters to the Europeans -- big time. They want to be respected, and he gives it to them. He turned back the unilateralism taht defined that last 8 yeas. Right or wrong, they view that as a big step, and have given him this award as recognition of it. I dont' see this as being particularly complicated or hard to undersatand. The Nobel peace prize isn't always given to someone who cures a diesase or invents something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 What? When did I ever say that those who disagree with Obama is a "conservative Republican idiot"? When I did say anything about you?I am criticizing those folks for their inability to keep a consistent position. It is that simple. If you are one of these folks, then explain your POV and we can debate about it. How about you practicing what you preach? you have a short memory...:hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 At first I was going to say its a ****ing joke that they gave it to him for doing absolutely nothing. But then I remembered that Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are also recipients. So Obama is in good company for receiving the award and having done jack **** to deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Here's another angle on it. Ok, so maybe he hasn't cured cancer, or built a time travel machine. And maybe he's getting the award for nothing more than being nice to the europeans. But what does that tell you? The rest of the world was so bent out of shape from the unilateralism of the last 8 years, that they're willing to give this guy Nobel just for being nice to them. Its a sign of how bad relations where, and what he's doing to improve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 When I first heard this I thought it was a joke. Than when it sank in that it wasn't, all I could do was :doh: 11 days in office was all they had to work with in order to qualify him for this prize. Name something in those 11 days that he did to qualify?? NOTHING!! This is not only ridiculous, but makes the prize like a grammy or an entry into the rock N roll hall of fame. An honor that's worthless. But hey, considering he hasn't done antyhing since in office, I suppose a worthless honor is priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 you have a short memory...:hysterical: IS that really your response? Seriously? Show me WHERE I said "anyone who disagrees with Obama is a conservative Republican idiot"? You can't, because I never said that. Nice try, though, in putting words in my mouth with your knee-jerk response. The sort of knee-jerk response I was criticizing in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.