quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Wow. Even the NY Times op-ed getting a piece. Although I'm not familiar with Ross Douthat.

He's the Times' replacement for Bill Kristol if that tells you anything.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

ala Fark...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ala Fark...

lol @ beer summit!

___________________

An interesting take:

quote:

No Doubt Obama Deserves the Nobel! Bernard-Henri Lévy French philosopher and writer Posted: October 12, 2009 05:53 PM It is said that Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize without having any concrete accomplishments. To the contrary, in his eight months in office he has worked for peace in very concrete ways. Take the race question in the United States, still a purulent, throbbing wound that stirs up conflict. Since the eve of his election in his Philadelphia speech until his recent peaceful and pacifying response to the alarmist remarks with which Jimmy Carter evoked the persistence of racial conflict in the Deep South, Obama does not cease repairing, cauterizing, mending, in short, pacifying. Nor have his actions only been in words. When the planet's most powerful man rallies the UN Security Council to the idea of ending nuclear proliferation, it's hardly a matter of mere words. And what about the hand he extended to Islam in his Cairo speech? It's a speech, but more than a speech since it puts an end to eight years of Bushite stupidities and sounds the death knell on the discourse of the clash of civilizations, which was until now the American response to the war launched by bin Laden. When the president of the United States reaches out to moderate Muslims and tells them that America is their ally not their enemy, it's more than just words. It's an event, a historical event that clearly goes in the direction of peace. Does Obama do this, some ask, as a Westerner or as a citizen of the world or even as a Muslim? Plainly, he speaks and acts as a Westerner. The Cairo speech is a great Kennedyesque kind of presidential speech which says straight to the Muslim world: we are your friends, your brothers, but it remains for you to achieve what the West has painfully and painstakingly undergone and what you are the only part of the world not yet to have undertaken: exorcising in yourselves and among yourselves, in your memories and your hearts, the memory of fascism in which in the past you have been steeped no less than Westerners -- and which has its continuation in movements like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. While a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often held up as something the West must give the Muslim world to advance peace, Obama fully grasps that peace is not just tit-for-tat. Dialogue and peace have to be a common, a shared construction. And Obama has done -- again it is a deed, not just words -- an absolutely enormous thing. His predecessors, Clinton as well as Bush, waited until the final year of their second term to suddenly realize the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian war and to concoct a vague solution that might enhance their legacy. Obama himself has done the opposite. He has thrown himself in motion from the first day of his first term. And he has done it to the chorus of Israeli and Palestinian citizens who cry out in one voice, "Peace Now." Consider as well his approach to the Iranian problem. Nicolas Sarkozy asserts -- and he's not wrong -- that Tehran is pursuing its nuclear program under the cover of dialogue and negotiation. I assert in turn that El-Baradei and his teams are going to be able to visit the new nuclear site at Qom. To what do we owe this sudden show of "wisdom" on the part of Iranian leaders who are better known for being arrogant? To Obama's mix of firmness and dialogue, which I believe is the only way of being taken seriously in Iran. In other words, never has the perspective of war seemed less credible than today to the leaders in Tehran, and never has the "exit" door of a diplomatic solution been so open. It is because Obama has made this combination of toughness and dialogue, because he has deftly maneuvered through the diplomatico-miltary trap, that he has begun to make the fanatics step back. Similarly in Afghanistan, Obama is behind a new strategy that goes beyond the idiotic alternative of withdrawal or troop buildup and whose results I think we are going to see very quickly. Isn't the very idea of giving the Nobel Peace Prize to a sitting head of state who makes war, and may do so tomorrow even more so, ultimately strange? Not if you think, as I do, that the war in Afghanistan is a just war whose sole aim is peace. I am of course sad for the Afghan feminist Sima Samar, the Chinese dissident Hu Jia, and the Colombian Piedad Cordoba, all of whom also merit the prize. But isn't there a point on which paradoxically Obama joins them? President though he is, he too is a person who is clearly, concretely, physically threatened. He too in his own country is someone whom a part of America has literally condemned to death. And he is a man who belongs, if I may put it this way, to two families. The family of those singular men and women whose lives are in danger because of their struggle for peace. And the family of the other great heads of state who have won the Nobel before him, two of whom, Rabin and Sadat, it must be said, ended up being assassinated. Let us say that from this standpoint the Nobel contributes to providing him "sanctuary." Sanctuary not sanctification. And it considerably reinforces him in dealing with people like Ahmadinejad, the leaders of North Korea, and the Syrians. How will he arrive at his inevitable meeting with Ahmadinejad? With a Nobel Peace Prize in hand, a timely and formidable trump card. Translated from French by Helene Brenkman.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov An interesting take:

Surely obama's "mere speeches" do much more to advance peace around the world than any actions of an afghan femist. I'm not saying obama should get the award, but it's ridiculous to say he hasn't accomplished anything because what he brings to the table can't be measured with rulers.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Surely obama's "mere speeches" do much more to advance peace around the world than any actions of an afghan femist. I'm not saying obama should get the award, but it's ridiculous to say he hasn't accomplished anything because what he brings to the table can't be measured with rulers.

What's interesting to me is that the primary goal of "change" in Obama's foreign policy was to alter the way that the world looks at the United States. The Nobel to me is the first real sign that there has been a fundamental shift - here we have people in the US saying he doesn't deserve it, and his biggest defenders are all abroad - many of whom the very same people that were so bitter about the United States and its more aggressive role in the world circa 2003-2008. To that extent, it seems Obama's foreign policy has been a big success.

Levy's last point about credibility in dealing with foreign despots is a good one too - it really shows that the world stands behind Obama's negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and really delegitimizes Ahmedinejad's claim that the United States is acting counter to peace and the interests of other nations.

We'll see, but I've started to come around on this award and its significance a little bit. With both Ehud Barak and leaders of the democratic movement in countries like Iraq and Egypt lauding the award, the Nobel Committee, and not Rush Limbaugh, may get the last laugh. The United States finally has some momentum that we can use to tackle issues in Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, etc. These are largely intractable issues, but now Obama has the legitimacy and the relevance to act with authority as a peace-maker.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov What's interesting to me is that the primary goal of "change" in Obama's foreign policy was to alter the way that the world looks at the United States. The Nobel to me is the first real sign that there has been a fundamental shift - here we have people in the US saying he doesn't deserve it, and his biggest defenders are all abroad - many of whom the very same people that were so bitter about the United States and its more aggressive role in the world circa 2003-2008. To that extent, it seems Obama's foreign policy has been a big success. Levy's last point about credibility in dealing with foreign despots is a good one too - it really shows that the world stands behind Obama's negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and really delegitimizes Ahmedinejad's claim that the United States is acting counter to peace and the interests of other nations. We'll see, but I've started to come around on this award and its significance a little bit. With both Ehud Barak and leaders of the democratic movement in countries like Iraq and Egypt lauding the award, the Nobel Committee, and not Rush Limbaugh, may get the last laugh. The United States finally has some momentum that we can use to tackle issues in Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, etc. These are largely intractable issues, but now Obama has the legitimacy and the relevance to act with authority as a peace-maker.

very good point.



Speaking of rush, I got a good laugh out of this. Does Rush (one of the biggest douche bags on earth, obviously) think on any level except republic v democrat:

quote:

CNN) — Rush Limbaugh says he'd gladly sit down for a conversation with President Obama if the controversial talk-radio host ever scored an invite to the White House. "Absolutely," Limbaugh, among the president's fiercest critics, told NBC when asked if he'd be willing to speak with Obama. "I'd be honest with him. The President of the United States is the President of the United States. I want this country to succeed, and if he invited me up there to chat, I would owe him up the dignity of being honest." The comments aired on NBC's Today Show in the second part of an interview that first ran Monday. Limbaugh was also asked to play word association when the interviewer named the following political figures: President Obama: "Disaster" Michelle Obama: "Garden" Jimmy Carter: "An utter disgrace and embarrassment." Sarah Palin: "Misunderstood and underestimated. I admire her. People have tried to destroy her. She has more backbone than any man in the Democrat Party." George W. Bush: "He's just the most decent, down to earth, real man you could ever hope to meet." Hillary Clinton: "Nurse ratchet"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...eak-with-obama/


I can't even fathom what guides this man's morals and ideals. War is decent and trying to help the poor/less fortunate is disasterous? What?

the fact that this douche makes 50M a year is phenomenally ridiculous. Although you can't blame him or clear channel for that, I blame texas, south carolina, and oklahoma.

well said Leb,

here's a great article that looks at the six out of eight hundred and twenty one people that refused the Nobel Prize

quote:

FOCUS: Analysis Saying 'No thanks' to Nobel By Andrew Wander Some have called for Barack Obama to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize [AFP] They are the most prestigous awards on the planet, reserved to recognise those at the very top of their field. It is no surprise that cases of people passing up a Nobel Prize are few and far between. But that is exactly what some critics are saying Barack Obama should have done when he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize last week. Just eight months into the Obama presidency, they believe that refusing the prize on the grounds that he had not yet had time to earn it would have sent a powerful message of intent. Such a refusal would also have seen him join an exclusive club of winners who have turned down the prizes, which are awarded annually for outstanding achievements in the fields of Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Literature, Economics and Peace. Of the 821 Nobel laureates that have been awarded the prizes since their inception in 1901, just six people have refused them. Four of those were pressured into rejecting the award by their governments- three Germans who Hitler barred from accepting prizes in the run-up to the Second World War, and the Russian writer Boris Pasternak, who refused the 1958 Literature prize for fear of reprisals from the Soviet government. His son collected the medal on his behalf in 1989. Only two people have refused the awards of their own volition, and they did so for very different resons. Peace prize during war In 1973, North Vietnamese negotiator Lu Duc Tho was jointly awarded the Nobel peace prize with Henry Kissinger for their talks to end the violence in South East Asia. He immediately rejected it, pointing out that peace had not yet been established in Vietnam, and the award was therefore premature. His reaction caused acute embarrassment to Kissinger, who had initially accepted the award, and then unsuccessfully tried to return it when news of Tho's refusal emerged. Nobel prizes cannot be returned, nor can they be rescinded; it is simply not possible to be stripped of a prize after it is awarded. With the US military still in Iraq and the prospect of increasing troop commitments in Afghanistan, some claim that awarding Obama the peace prize while his country is at war is a contradiction. But Alfred Nobel himself, perhaps fittingly for the inventor of dynamite, did not specify that peace was a prerequisite for receiving the prize. In his will, he said that the prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Philosophical problems The only other refusal of a Nobel prize came from French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who turned down the literature prize in 1964. He believed that accepting the award would compromise his status as a writer. "It is not the same thing if I sign Jean Paul Sartre or if I sign Jean Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize winner," he explained at the time. "A writer must refuse to allow himself to be transformed into an institution, even if it takes place in the most honourable form." As the author of two bestselling books that helped to launch his political career, Obama has already made the very leap that Sartre rejected; the writer "transforming" into an institution. For Obama it is the addition of "President of the United States", rather than "Nobel Prize Winner" to his signature that makes the difference; the pressures that come with the latter pale into insignificance when set against those of the former. He could hardly, as Sartre did, see accepting a Nobel prize as compromising the integrity of his work. Besides, regardless of a Nobel laureate's feelings about the prize, the committee still records them as the winner. "The fact that he has declined this distinction does not in the least modify the validity of the award," the awarding panel noted rather tersely when Sartre tried to turn it down. In the end, he was never presented the award, but remains listed as its winner. The spirit in which this year's award was given would have made refusal even more complicated. "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve," said Thorbjoern Jagland, the head of the committee explained, when asked why Obama had been chosen. He was hinting that aspiration, and not achievement, had swayed the judges' decision. Had Obama refused the prize, he would have been snubbing supporters of the very agenda he has committed himself to pushing, and to some extent, rejecting the values for which he was being rewarded. Deserved or not, his acceptance of the award was almost inevitable. Turning down a Nobel prize is even more difficult than winning one - just ask Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize Winner, 1964. Andrew Wander, a media fellow with legal charity Reprieve, works on Al Jazeera's Public Liberties and Human Rights Desk. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/...2723118884.html

re: Rush, isn't the point of a word association game to come up with one or two words than a pre worded sentence?

how did he become such a mean spirited hate filled man? did an half black / hispanic democrat who was a gay liberal member of FETA kill both his parents not with a gun like its done in the south but by accidentally crashing his French Peugot into his parents Ford on the Sabbath while they were driving to church?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Levy's last point about credibility in dealing with foreign despots is a good one too - it really shows that the world stands behind Obama's negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and really delegitimizes Ahmedinejad's claim that the United States is acting counter to peace and the interests of other nations. We'll see, but I've started to come around on this award and its significance a little bit. With both Ehud Barak and leaders of the democratic movement in countries like Iraq and Egypt lauding the award, the Nobel Committee, and not Rush Limbaugh, may get the last laugh. The United States finally has some momentum that we can use to tackle issues in Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, etc. These are largely intractable issues, but now Obama has the legitimacy and the relevance to act with authority as a peace-maker.

His harrowing significance couldn't even sway the Olympic committee. The award basically represents insignificant Norway's ability to influence US domestic and foreign policy, and he's falling for it hook line and sinker. If it's taking you this long to "come around" on Obama being deserving of this award, then you must fully understand that it is not deserved. Effort and intention, not achievement, are now sadly the hallmark for Nobel Peace Prize recognition. So here are a few examples of how the world is reacting to our Pacifist in Chief:

North Korea fired off another 5 test missles 2 days ago, and plan on more next week. After giving concessions to Russia with nothing in return, suddenly they are "hesitant" to put new sanctions in Iran, even though they were just caught having more secret uranium enrichment facilities and detonator construction, and continue to defy one UN resolution after another.... and after a German ship was caught today delivering weapons and ammo to Syria for Hamas via Iranian funding. To appease Iran further, Obama's State Department killed funding for the Iranian Human Rights Watch agency- at a rather odd time given what just happened in their elections. Obama called for Israel to stop building settlements, and they refuse to listen to him. Today, the Palestinians said, "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated" because he supposedly "gave in to presssure from the Zionist lobby". Sarkozy says Obama's ego is too large, and he's "naive and conceited." We've sided against our allies like Honduras, Poland, Ukraine, etc... for the sake of appeasing the hard line dictators. Please angry anti-American leaders, love America! Despite the faulty idea that if we just appease them and make concessions, they'll table their hard line intentions and behavior... well, that's a fool's game. All the sanctions and tough talk has only lead to North Korea getting more brazen and Iran developing the bomb. They're playing Obama like a fiddle.

Appeasement should not be justification for a nobel peace prize. Appeasement, to show the world how much he isn't George Bush, will make the world more dangerous, not less; and this stupid peace prize is simply a reward by the world to Obama for neutering the United States.

Take it away, Mr. Hitchens!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss His harrowing significance couldn't even sway the Olympic committee. The award basically represents insignificant Norway's ability to influence US domestic and foreign policy, and he's falling for it hook line and sinker. If it's taking you this long to "come around" on Obama being deserving of this award, then you must fully understand that it is not deserved. Effort and intention, not achievement, are now sadly the hallmark for Nobel Peace Prize recognition. So here are a few examples of how the world is reacting to our Pacifist in Chief: North Korea fired off another 5 test missles 2 days ago, and plan on more next week. After giving concessions to Russia with nothing in return, suddenly they are "hesitant" to put new sanctions in Iran, even though they were just caught having more secret uranium enrichment facilities and detonator construction, and continue to defy one UN resolution after another.... and after a German ship was caught today delivering weapons and ammo to Syria for Hamas via Iranian funding. To appease Iran further, Obama's State Department killed funding for the Iranian Human Rights Watch agency- at a rather odd time given what just happened in their elections. Obama called for Israel to stop building settlements, and they refuse to listen to him. Today, the Palestinians said, "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated" because he supposedly "gave in to presssure from the Zionist lobby". Sarkozy says Obama's ego is too large, and he's "naive and conceited." We've sided against our allies like Honduras, Poland, Ukraine, etc... for the sake of appeasing the hard line dictators. Please angry anti-American leaders, love America! Despite the faulty idea that if we just appease them and make concessions, they'll table their hard line intentions and behavior... well, that's a fool's game. All the sanctions and tough talk has only lead to North Korea getting more brazen and Iran developing the bomb. They're playing Obama like a fiddle. Appeasement should not be justification for a nobel peace prize. Appeasement, to show the world how much he isn't George Bush, will make the world more dangerous, not less; and this stupid peace prize is simply a reward by the world to Obama for neutering the United States. Take it away, Mr. Hitchens! Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If we'v learned anything from the last 4 years, it is, America is no longer going to play the policeman of the world under this administration. Frankly, who cares if North Korea launches a few of their shitty missiles. Or if Iran has a nuke bomb? Yea, they'r violating treaties, but America isn't the one charged by the world to enforce them. We have too much debt to be worrying about other people's problems. That's why we have to the UN.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That's why we have to the UN.

Possibly one of the more corrupt and impotent bodies in the world, which can't even sustain without U.S. funding.