>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
I think you may have missed my point a bit. =/
Of course if this somehow transforms Barack into the president I was hoping (and voted) for then awesome!
I understand that, to some, this marks an international "holding his feet to the fire".
My point is, more then likely, it won't.
In other words, awards praise and hope do not make the forces subduing real change flee.
If so:
Bush would have been impeached.
Cheney would be in jail.
We'd have begun reversing melting icecaps.
And we all would only have to work one job while driving tesla sportscars.
The second part was to acknowledge the absurdity and question the validity of awarding someone a PEACE prize when their actions obviously don't promote True PEACE.
Are those observations without merit? Am I deranged for contemplating something other then roses and sunshine?


There's a big difference between saying "It probably won't work but I can see why they tried" and saying "It's not a magic pill. It won't fix anything."

I would like to encourage those who push Obama towards peace, while your words seem to imply that we should all just give up. Or at the very least you seem to be claiming knowledge that giving him the Nobel Prize can't possibly help. Why should we not use all available resources to encourage him to make his actions suit his words?

I know that there are people pulling the president's strings, but I believe he has the ability to resist them and guide the world back to a state of peace if we keep putting pressure on him.

>> ^chilaxe:
Mashiki, Chinese dissidents have accomplished nothing on the national level and particularly nothing on the global level.
There's good data on both sides. We can argue the data skews toward one side, but those who argue the data all goes toward whatever side they're behind aren't looking at a very big picture.


As we all know, subtly and innerworking through long-term reform mean nil correct? That's why things are remarkably stagnate there still. If you believe that to be true, then you don't understand how the political underclass is formed still.

WP, you have so many arguable points there that you state as fact, it is rather intimidating, which is no doubt why you went to such lengths.

Just to mix it up, I'll do yours in reverse.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
..I'd say your opinion of the Republican party's unity is somewhat exaggerated. There are innumerable factions in the GOP. The Democrat as I see it is far more efficient about corralling in thier 'mavericks'. This whole health care debate has only gotten this far because of the extremist fringe Democrats stomping on the necks of the moderates.


So during the Bush years, when Dixie chicks were called terrorists, when anyone who had an opposing view was universally considered by the right as 'empowering' the terrorists, when people who had objections to the Patriot Act were told vote for this or 9/11 will happen again... those were not 'neck-stomping' tactics as you so racially.. er... cleverly put it?


What about when all the protests occurred when the President was going to 'indoctrinate' our children in schools? Several news outlets interviewed principals who had taken calls from concerned parents, and while they were used to dealing with upset parents, what made it so special was how all the parents used the same phrases over and over, as if they had all heard it somewhere. Hmmmm... I wonder how that might have happened?

Neolib talking points come from a variety of musicians, but the song is always the exact same song. Similarly, right wing talking points come from from way more sources than just Limbaugh & Beck but the message is almost identical.

Are you suggesting that all people who feel the way you describe throughout your comment are 'Neolibs'? Are you not the same man who had four or five different flavors of conservative just to make sure your views weren't mixed in with all the plebians? Are you at least willing to admit that sometimes people who are not 'Neolib' (which means whatever conservatives think it means I guess) might possible share some of the same opinions on things? You are being either accidentally imprecise there, or deliberately accusatory hoping to put people on the defensive. You should probably look into that.

Still, to suggest the Democrats are even half as organized and on point as Republicans does not agree with the facts at hand. Republicans were able to push through controversial policies much more effectively than the Democrats have so far... that is almost solely due to their speaking with one voice, vs the Democrats all listening to all sides and giving and taking.. thereby weakening their relative position.

Most voters are sheep who join a "big party" and they are too consumed with cheering on their 'team' than caring whether their team is a bunch of self-serving jackasses. It is very similar to the tunnel vision fanboi-ism rampant in modern US sports. "Kobe Bryant is a rapist? M'eh - who cares as long as he wins games..." Sigh.

I've been guilty of going off point myself, so I won't mock or question your use of Kobe Bryant's crimes as if it were somehow meant to be on topic. We are fellow independents... and I would have gladly voted Ron Paul in the last primaries if Kentucky would allow Independent voters to vote during primaries.. alas it was not to be. I voted for the person most likely to let me live my life unimpeded.. and ironically, it was the 'big government Democrat'.

The vast bulk of American voters are fiscal conservatives who want smaller government, balanced budgets, less spending, & lower taxes. Sadly, all we end up with are left wing liberal extremist tax & spenders like Bush & Obama.

Okay... now I know you're kidding... Bush was a left wing liberal??? And you still call yourself moderate? That has to be a joke. For what it's worth, I'm all for smaller government, it is a sad day when I have to vote Democratic to get it. Give me a viable Independent candidate or Ron Paul and I'll be all over it. But until then you can only judge the choices you are given.

There are more ways to approach 'peace' than the neolib world view accepts.

There was a lot more about your comment than I quoted, and while I disagree with your statement that Carter was a Neolib (because that terminology wasn't even in use then) I agree there are many ways to pursue peace. What I'm curious about is that obviously the way Bush did it (pissing off the world, and when they objected telling them to eat sh*t and die) didn't work, perhaps we should try something different.

Or to quote you back, "There are more ways to approach 'peace' than the neoCON world view accepts."

Oh, and the guy who's doing it won a peace prize thanks to his efforts. I'm pretty sure if you want to know if you are promoting peace, you ask other countries.. just like if you want to know if someone isn't an asshole, you don't ask him, you ask people who know him.


Wow.. this is hard WP, kudos for doing this all the time.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
*quality

>> ^volumptuous:
There's more, but it apparently doesn't matter to a lot of people. Unless he's ended both invasions/occupations of Afgh/Iraq, personally kidnapped and murdered those responsible for the economic clusterfuck, landed Bush/Cheney in the Hague for war crimes, and given everyone a beautiful pony, he hasn't done shit!


In all honesty, I'd settle for the first three items, combined with putting a stop to the "state secrets defense", and warrantless wiretapping, and actual action on the don't-ask-don't-tell abomination.

Those were the things I cared about when I campaigned and voted for him. Not one has advanced to any significant degree, and most have been abandoned.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
The point still stands that he's failed at all his promises


http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/promises/

>> ^chilaxe:

It depends. If his efforts for which they awarded it to him produce positive outcomes, I'll say I was for it the whole time.
On the other hand, if his efforts for which they awarded it to him fail, I'll say efforts are overrated, and we shouldn't encourage them.

I'm a strong believer in awarding people for doing something substantial. The guy in germany who in '35 did something actively a before he was awarded, Nazism had been an 'organizational policy' and on the rise for 4 years already. Tutu did the same thing, he'd been working on it for a long time. I've strongly disagreed with Carters for various reasons due to his policies. Regardless of that it should always be based on 'stuff done'. I can think of many people more so deserving like the Chinese dissidents who've been working since the massacre for reforms, and getting China to modernize. Seems to be working doesn't it? How about the nameless diplomats around the world who are the actual pushers and pullers who do the work. Clinton is more deserving of it.

People who thinks that this is well researched are fooling themselves.

I think you may have missed my point a bit. =/

Of course if this somehow transforms Barack into the president I was hoping (and voted) for then awesome!
I understand that, to some, this marks an international "holding his feet to the fire".

My point is, more then likely, it won't.
In other words, awards praise and hope do not make the forces subduing real change flee.
If so:
Bush would have been impeached.
Cheney would be in jail.
We'd have begun reversing melting icecaps.
And we all would only have to work one job while driving tesla sportscars.

The second part was to acknowledge the absurdity and question the validity of awarding someone a PEACE prize when their actions obviously don't promote True PEACE.

Are those observations without merit? Am I deranged for contemplating something other then roses and sunshine?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Yes, when people are awarded for something other than bombing innocent people
It is somewhat typical for neolibs to frame discusions in which there are only two choices of process - one being "neolib" and the other being "bomb innocent people". Is this not the didactic "either-or"-ism that neolibs claim to despise? Viewed objectively, it seems quite similar to the Bush Doctrine.
I call her MadCow because she's just as insane, extreme, and propogandist in presentation as people like Dolberman, Maher, Beck, Hannity, & D'ohReily. There's little (if any) value in the whole lot of them, journalistically speaking. But it provides me with amusement to see otherwise self-proclaimed 'sensible' people go into paroxysms of hate over a guy like BO, but turn into fawning simpletons over the drivel that MadCow trowels out. They're both pigs living in opposite sides of the same sty.


So you are suggesting moderation then WP? You are.. a moderate?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
MadCow right in one respect.

Ooooh, name calling at its finest!

Yes, when people are awarded for something other than bombing the shit out of innocent people, neocon's like WP dismiss the award, the committees and the organizations entirely. Even though I'm sure he applauded it when people like Kissinger received one.

And we don't have to even discuss how the Neolib Leftists have infected the practices of Physics, Chemistry and Medicine. What a boondoggle that has been for Pelosi and her band of commie-fascist, tree-hugging, gay-married terrorists.

But giving George Tenet a "medal of freedom" for lying a country into a war, is something to be very very proud of.

>> ^EndAll:
I at least contributed more than an "Exactly." and offered my opinions and perspective in a respectable manner, while you go the route of mocking me with snarky sarcasm and evade any real response to what I said.


Because I don't generally see any point in debating empty rhetoric with anything other than snark. Otherwise I'd be on LGF all day trying to convince people that Obama isn't a secret muslim, and Soros doesn't control the media.

This flourish of "the worlds wealthiest and most powerful people" is either misinformed, or just empty rhetoric. It's so easy to be willfully ignorant of actual achievements people make when you already hate them.

Here's a few things Obama has done thus far, that I'm not sure how they benefit the "most powerful":

• $19billion for electronic medical records
• Stopped the anti-missile defense plan in Poland
• The Obama administration and Russia announced plans to begin talks on a new START treaty to reduce nuclear arsenals to approximately 1,500.
• Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons.
• Signed an executive order to ban torture and subject all interrogations to Army Field Manual Standards that conform to the Geneva Conventions.
• $2,500.00 tax credit for college students
• $2billion for advanced car battery R&D
• $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces.
• Public Land Management Act of 2009 has put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks. The conservation effort - the largest in the last 15 years - came with the stroke of a pen
• Obama's meetings with Turkish and Armenian officials, Turkey and Armenia announced plans to normalize relations.
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended Gaza aid conference, pledging $900 million in aid in order to "foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized."


There's more, but it apparently doesn't matter to a lot of people. Unless he's ended both invasions/occupations of Afgh/Iraq, personally kidnapped and murdered those responsible for the economic clusterfuck, landed Bush/Cheney in the Hague for war crimes, and given everyone a beautiful pony, he hasn't done shit!

Sooo... you didn't watch the whole video then. To be fair it is quite long, so I'll summarize; She researched previous winners of the peace prize showing that not all winners had by that point seen the achievement of what they were campaigning for, that it was the effort of campaigning for peace that was being rewarded. She then researched what Obama was campaigning for prior to his winning the presidency, demonstrating that the early nomination during his presidency was justified based on years of campaigning for peace leading up to that point in time. What journalism indeed! Pretty good by all accounts.

I'd like to say that as a part of the "rest of the world", he ain't no joke, only your republicans think that and they'll keep ignoring all evidence to the contrary due to their "derangement syndrome."

>> ^Taint:
Wow. She really nailed it on this one. Well researched, well written, and performed on point.


Yes. It was very well hacked out in her typical fashion. She's a joke.

What research did she do exactly? She put together a bunch of clips of people attacking Obama. Wow! What journalism.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
The point still stands that he's failed at all his promises ( gitmo, don't ask don't tell, stopping corporate crooks).
Just because people hope he'll stop sucking and be the best president he can be doesn't guarantee he will.
The Nobel Peace prize isn't some magical pill that makes foreign policy perfect and rainbow shoot out of your hands. It doesn't fix anything.
Let's not forget that the abuses at Guantanamo Bay have NOT stopped. He continues two pointless unending wars. And he endorsed the Israeli invasion which massacred 1500 Palestinians last January.
..And we should, by any reasonable measure, be proud he was awarded a - PEACE - prize???
Yay, hope! I'm sure the Iraqis with no power or phones, the Afghan refugees with no parents, and the blind burnt Palestinian children are filled with hope and international pride over this. -_-


What's with the 'FAILED' rhetoric the right is spewing lately? HOnestly, I cannot help but be surprised and sadly impressed at how well the ENTIRE CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUENCY OF THE UNITED STATES can start using the same phrasing and marketing speak on the exact same day. Seriously, have you guys all signed up for a newsletter or something?

FYI, he hasn't failed unless he is no longer president and his promises haven't materialized. The guy has been president for barely ten months. He has THREE YEARS to go. Conservatives have FAILED at keeping the trust of the American people, and they have FAILED at keeping the country on the right track, they have FAILED to end abortion despite six years having majorities in all three branches of government, in fact, conservatives have FAILED at everything they've tried.

Now I realize that last sentence may be factually incorrect, and I invite any conservative talking heads to show me any major point that conservatives have succeeded on in the last ten years.

>> ^lampishthing:
Does anyone else have less respect for the prize after watching this?


It depends. If his efforts for which they awarded it to him produce positive outcomes, I'll say I was for it the whole time.

On the other hand, if his efforts for which they awarded it to him fail, I'll say efforts are overrated, and we shouldn't encourage them.