Exactly.

By any reasonable measure, all American's should be proud.


I couldn't agree more, and how long until people finally grow tired of the constant vitriol?

By any reasonable measure.

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 rainbows 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. -_-


written by MaxWilder

It's amazing to me when intelligent people can miss a point so completely.

If this award helps to re-commit our president to the pursuit of peace, then will you still have such disdain for their award decision?


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?

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

That's all well and good, and he is striving towards making changes - but I still think there were others much more deserving of the award. Others who not only pursued peace and change, but who have actually made achievements in doing so, and all the while having had to transcend the normal individual limitations of influence without access to great wealth.

It is pretty absurd that they gave him the prize, and even he knows it. He's dedicated his efforts thus far largely to improving and maintaining the lives of some of the world's wealthiest, most powerful people. It's damaging to the peace prize as an institutional device and a foolish decision by the Nobel committee that I was surprised to see them make.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by oxdottir.

>> ^EndAll:
It's damaging to the peace prize as an institutional device and a foolish decision by the Nobel committee that I was surprised to see them make.


I'm sure they lie awake, crying at night knowing that they have now lost you as one of their supporters. This is something they will never forget.

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^EndAll:
It's damaging to the peace prize as an institutional device and a foolish decision by the Nobel committee that I was surprised to see them make.

I'm sure they lie awake, crying at night knowing that they have now lost you as one of their supporters. This is something they will never regret.


Is that really all you have to say? Disappointing, vogrumptuous. Obviously that remark I made has no significance to anyone outside this comment page. 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.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
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.

>> ^EndAll:
It's damaging to the peace prize as an institutional device and a foolish decision by the Nobel committee that I was surprised to see them make.


It's amazing to me when intelligent people can miss a point so completely.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace prize is like a slap in his face. It says, "We've heard all the pretty words, Mr. President, and they were inspiring. Now are you going to follow through on those words?"

He doesn't pass laws, but he sets the tone and direction of what is probably still the most powerful country on the planet. As such, he is perhaps the single most powerful person in the world. If you had the ability to give him a shove and remind him of everything he has said about prioritizing peace in the past few years, wouldn't you do it?

If this award helps to re-commit our president to the pursuit of peace, then will you still have such disdain for their award decision?

Does anyone else have less respect for the prize after watching this?

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

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."

>> ^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!

MadCow right in one respect. The NPP has not been oriented around 'accomplishments' for most of its existence. NPP awards given to people for accomplishments are the exception rather than the rule. The NPP is a political orientation award. It is a neolib award given to neolibs for pushing neolib dogma. When you keep that reality firmly in mind it makes perfect sense that people like Carter, Gore, and Obama would be thier boys. The NPP is an award that the European socialist left dangles to get movers and shakers to line up and march the way they like. It's that simple.

Just call it the "Neolib Puppet Prize". Bullseye.

Neolib...just doesn't quite have the same bite of 'Neocon', does it ?

>> ^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.

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.

Neocons make personal attacks because they can't find enough about specific policies to disapprove of, other than cost. The problem is their posterchild, George W Bush, spent more during his eight years than any president of any party before him. Therefore their arguments ring insincere because they only became concerned about spending when it wasn't their guy spending it.

The same goes with the constitutional argument. George W Bush called the Constitution a "Goddamn piece of paper" and using signing statements subverted the document at every opportunity, including but not limited to: Torture of prisoners, warrantless wiretapping of American Citizens on a scale never before seen, and they created the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security which are just extentions of unconstitutional governmental powers.

They lie to their constituents when they say they'll fight to end abortion and gay marriage. Without those to run on, they'd never get elected at all. And the entire movement is primarily organized by two ENTERTAINERS (Limbaugh and Beck) who get more money when their viewership goes up.

Conservatives honestly could give a rat's ass what happens to America, they just want to be the people in charge, because it makes them feel superior... and they have one helluvan inferiority complex.

>> ^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?

what?!

>> ^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.

You should write a letter to the Nobel people, and tell them they are awarding their awards wrong. I'm sure you know better.

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


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

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.

Hm - you're using the term 'neocon' badly in many respects. I'll illuminate...

The problem is their posterchild, George W Bush, spent more during his eight years than any president of any party before him. Therefore their arguments ring insincere because they only became concerned about spending when it wasn't their guy spending it.

In this bit you are not talking about 'neocons'. You are talking about 'fiscal conservatives'. "Neocons" are persons who believe in a strong military. GWB is a 'neocon' only in the sense that he supported the military as opposed to denuding it (ala Clinton). Bush was definitely NOT a fiscal conservative. Believe me they were very much concerned about Bush spending. Fiscal conservatives are also very concerned about Obama tripling Bush's debt in only 9 months - an issue neolibs seem to have no problem with incidentally.

The same goes with the constitutional argument.

In this bit you're talking about constitutional constructionism (CC) which is only related to 'neocons' in the most tangental way possible. People who are CC believe the document is critically important. The constitution supports a strong military. In that sense, a neocon COULD be a CC in regards to the military - but not CC in any number of other respects such as social issues, state's rights, and so forth.

They lie to their constituents when they say they'll fight to end abortion and gay marriage.

Here you are now talking about SOCIAL conservatives (SOcons) who don't give a patoot about the military per se. The are single-issue voters that fixate on social issues like abortion, gay rights, and so forth. Sometimes they latch on to military issues (gays in military) or spending (government paid abortion), but in and of themselves they are dominated by their desire to influence government towards socially conservative issues.

And the entire movement is primarily organized by two ENTERTAINERS (Limbaugh and Beck) who get more money when their viewership goes up.

And here you're just talking about people of all stripes that listen to conservative broadcasting as opposed to getting thier talking points from DailyKOS, Maher, MadCow, or Dolberman. I doubt Limbaugh or Beck spend any time 'organizing' the entire conservative movement. They just harp on whatever news story happens to be circulating around at the time. I don't see them driving issues as much as exploiting what issues are already in the public discourse.

Conservatives honestly could give a rat's ass what happens to America, they just want to be the people in charge

If you said "Republicans" then I would agree with you. But 'conservatives' are not Republicans. They are people who believe in conservative principles who may or may not vote Republican. Certainly the Republican party has stopped being conservative a long time ago. They pay lip service for voting blocs, but (as you say) they govern like liberals when they are in charge.
So there you go - you are mixing your terminology badly. Glad to help you learn how to be more specific.

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

Depends on what you mean. Both Democrats and Republicans like to co-opt the term 'moderate' when it suits their political purposes. Neither of them are moderate. I am a fiscal conservative, strict constitutional constructionist with libertarian leanings. I think we are in the midst of a "Government Bubble" that badly needs popping. Is that 'moderate'? I doubt a neolib who hears me say that government needs to be reduced in size and scope by about 75% would say that I'm moderate.

Remember, WP. The fabricated evidence used to justify the US invading a sovereign nation, was called a "slam dunk", and the man in charge of the fabrication received a medal of motherfucking freedom and the entire world hated us.

Then some uppity black man talks about stuff like dignity, peace, empathy, pride, geneva conventions, and not killing people 400x times over, and suddenly people think the US is almost like kinda cool again?

How dare these dirty Europeans try to tell the rest of the world who's ideas are worthy of attention and who's (the neocons) are nothing but evil, stinking, pustulating piles of dogshit.


Oh... and free market, and liberty, and the constitution, and neolibs or something. But anyway, yeah, Rachel Maddow is a lesbian with stupid hair.

Americans that cheer when America loses, and love America so much they hate American success.

It goes back to the whole "Real Americans" vs. "Democratic Americans" during the election.

It's like the Civil war never finished, it just became part of the culture.

What if I won the prize for the same reasons. You don't know me. Would you still hate me the same way?

Well, I have to admit, I am slightly flattered WP deconstructed my rather hastily written comment so thoroughly. And I will fully admit right now, that I was uninformed about all the various shades of conservatism in this country. I was basically using "Neocon" and Republican interchangably, and perhaps that was imprecise. But perhaps that isn't my problem, perhaps that is a problem with conservative branding. If you don't like being mixed in with all those various conservative groups, you shouldn't allow them to act like they speak for the entire block of conservatives as they yell and shout.

But the fact remains, there were no tea party gatherings under Bush. There was not the mass yelling and screaming about the debt (though the few Republicans who did criticize Bush did so mainly on fiscal grounds). And the only people yelling about Constitutional issues were liberals under Bush.

Why aren't the liberals shouting now? Because whatever you can say about Barack Obama, he hasn't done ANY damage to the Constitution that wasn't done by dozens of men before him. And to hear people throwing the Constitution around now just rings hollow.

Also, one last point, if you think Liberals get their arguments from any one place, that sadly proves you have little information about liberals as a group. Getting liberals to agree on anything is like herding cats, take the current government for example: Why is there any discussion of the health care reform? If this were 2002, and this were a Republican initiative, it would have been over and done with in two months. Say what you will about Republicans, they are ALWAYS... ALWAYS on point, and they take no goddamn prisoners.

I rather wish liberals had more of that in them I must say.

Then some uppity black man talks about stuff like dignity, peace, empathy, pride, geneva conventions, and not killing people

His policies are what people object to, not skin melanin. There are more ways to approach 'peace' than the neolib world view accepts. Carter is a neolib, has a NPP, and his weak policies all but created modern world terrorism via Iran. Reagan was a hawk who ended the cold war through Brinkmanship & arms buildups. A Dove that created violence, and a Hawk that established peace... Clearly this whole 'peace' thing is a bit more complicated myopically pursuing neolib policies of unilateral disarmament. Peace is a cycle of pressure, buildup, and release - and the "Nevile Chamberlain" school of appeasement merely prolongs the 'buildup' stage and makes the 'release' more problematic.

If you don't like being mixed in with all those various conservative groups, you shouldn't allow them to act like they speak for the entire block of conservatives as they yell and shout.

"Shouldn't allow?" I'm afraid that my belief in Freedom of Speech makes that kind of approach unfeasible. The real issue here is one where people like myself who are fiscal conservatives are the antithesis of BOTH major US political parties. What we true conservatives want would END the free lunch. NEITHER party wants that to happen. 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.

But the fact remains, there were no tea party gatherings under Bush.

The objections were there. Even you acknowledge it. The national attention was more consumed with Iraq war protesting. I'm an unaffiliated voter, and I didn't vote Republican so my objections had little weight I deem. 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.

Because whatever you can say about Barack Obama, he hasn't done ANY damage to the Constitution that wasn't done by dozens of men before him. And to hear people throwing the Constitution around now just rings hollow.

If people who were howling about the Constitution under Bush were also howling about it now, then there would at least be consistency. To hear neolibs howl about the constitution under Bush but fall silent now - as you say - "rings hollow".

Also, one last point, if you think Liberals get their arguments from any one place, that sadly proves you have little information about liberals as a group

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.

Say what you will about Republicans, they are ALWAYS... ALWAYS on point, and they take no goddamn prisoners.

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.

>> ^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.

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.

Is it too much to ask that people argue from the actual wording of the prize and not from their own fucking concept of what a peace prize should be? I'll quote:

"(...) and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

If you want to keep arguing how Obama is undeserving, please tell me how he does not fulfill any of these three quite specific criteria. Also keep in mind that the NPP is to be awarded for actions during the last year, not for a lifelong achievement.

>> ^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.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by geo321.