Agrippa Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 ...the credibility of the left wing radical panelists who are responsible for distributing it... Left wing radical panelists? Eh, what? Really Chief, it pays to do a little research before making statements like that.... Have you even checked who makes up the committee? It probably also pays to be bear in mind that the most liberal democrat in existence in the US is still situated towards the very farthest of the far right as far as European politics in general is concerned, and for that sake in terms of the politics of the rest of the world's democracies. Which probably puts those whom you label left wing radicals just a little right of center in our terms. As for the relevance of the prize in the world today, the fact that it was once given to someone most Americans didn't like means only that it has (irrevocably, no doubt) lost it's relevance in the US. But then the US would appear to consider all prizes not awarded by the US as being of little or no relevance in the first place, or indeed most things not of US origin, be they prizes or otherwise (well, except perhaps watches), so little or nothing was likely actually lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 .......the most liberal democrat in existence in the US is still situated towards the very farthest of the far right as far as European politics in general is concerned, and for that sake in terms of the politics of the rest of the world's democracies. Where do you place Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, on the world political scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakemaster Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why the hate? He's done so much to help us all. A truly incredible inspiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Where do you place Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, on the world political scale? Without knowing Mr. Sanders' political views in more depth than I do I wouldn't like to say, but I would think that like most of those who are labeled "liberals" in the US, he would fall somewhere to the right of center. One thing he certainly isn't is a socialist, but then the term socialist appears to mean something entirely different in the US than it does anywhere else in the world. Socialism, to wit, is the doctrine that the workers should themselves own all means of production, i.e. that everything barring personal possessions should be owned by the collective. A socialist state does not not exist anywhere, has never existed anywhere and to my knowledge there is no-one in the world today who is actually advocating the adoption of a socialist system. Well, except a few tired, old Stalinists here and there who no-one listens to and one or two dictators who say "socialism", but actually means "it's all mine!!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllergyDoc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Next year: Michael Moore, for his tireless, and selfless, crusade against the mean spirited capitalistic way of life. (His acceptance speech will be given from a cheap hotel room he rents for that purpose, while he stays in the Ritz and pays his crew pennies.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Socialism, to wit, is the doctrine that the workers should themselves own all means of production, i.e. that everything barring personal possessions should be owned by the collective. A socialist state does not not exist anywhere, has never existed anywhere and to my knowledge there is no-one in the world today who is actually advocating the adoption of a socialist system. Well, except a few tired, old Stalinists here and there who no-one listens to and one or two dictators who say "socialism", but actually means "it's all mine!!". I think you are confusing socialism, a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community (remember, Obama is a 'spread the wealth' kind of guy) & communism, a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power. Having once been duped into working for the uber-socialist Shirley Chisholm campaign (who cloaked herself with the same community organizer cred as Obama has), I have learned that if it walks like a duck & talks like a duck but calls itself a toaster, it is best not to give it any bread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Next year: Michael Moore, for his tireless, and selfless, crusade against the mean spirited capitalistic way of life. (His acceptance speech will be given from a cheap hotel room he rents for that purpose, while he stays in the Ritz and pays his crew pennies.) Great movie (& I understand he pays his staff pretty well). Very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 No confusion here Freddy. Socialism and communism is in fact one and the same. Socialism @ Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Communism @ Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: com·mu·nism Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\ Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively Or more exactly, communism is a form of socialism. Same difference really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Oh I disagree strongly sir, do you not remember the Carter and Clinton years? If I recall correctly they were the ones who forced the banks to lend to people who couldn't pay them back. It just so happened that it all came tumbling down during the Bush years. Yes. Good point. And to be fair, President Clinton did put forth measures to Congress from his desk to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were ignored and voted down. And too President Bush. Ironic. Bush's means to that end were shot down, but his will and want to invade Iraq, purported by some the biggest blunder of this millenium so far, was successful and had Congressional support. I think the ire of the American people is aimed at the wrong building(s) on Capital Hill. Not so fast, Demsey. Yes. It was too flippant, my remark. It gives no due credit to Israel. The harbingers of a Six Day War. Before it's even ramped up. Before the faintest shadow of the inevitable is cast, before the first set of wheels up, like Nostradamus, I will tell you; "Israel has achieved air superiority". I think Tehran had better start thinking better of sabre rattling. I mean, Lord. Think of the children. President Obama will have no collateral then. You are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Left wing radical panelists? Eh, what? Really Chief, it pays to do a little research before making statements like that.... Have you even checked who makes up the committee? The award has been about this group's view of international politics for a long time, and Obama's calls for things like unilateral disarmament in the US play right in to their world view. The committee chairman even stated Jimmy Carter's award was intended as a "kick in the leg" of GWB's policies leading up to the Iraq war (we hadn't even invaded yet). As for the relevance of the prize in the world today, the fact that it was once given to someone most Americans didn't like means only that it has (irrevocably, no doubt) lost it's relevance in the US. But then the US would appear to consider all prizes not awarded by the US as being of little or no relevance in the first place, or indeed most things not of US origin, be they prizes or otherwise (well, except perhaps watches), so little or nothing was likely actually lost. It's not an American view, it's a well established general view today as well as at the time it was granted. Begin was known to have previously been the leader of a militant group that carried out organized terrorist bombings. But that didn't disqualify him. It hasn't ended there, either. Nobel Panelists have even resigned in protest over the designation of awardees, such as when Arafat won. So if the award still has meaning today, one has to really look hard to find it. Even if you eliminate all the controversial winners of years past, you still have to question the importance and stature of the award when it is being handed out not on the basis actions or deeds but on the basis of well aligned speech writing. It's like giving students an A simply for having the guts to enroll in a challenging course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why the hate? He's done so much to help us all. A truly incredible inspiration. I apologize if any anti-Obama comments have come across as hate. I think most (at least, mine) come more from bewilderment (how can a guy like Obama, with no actual experience managing anything, come to manage the most powerful organization in the world?) than contempt. And I have to ask - What has Obama actually done for us all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I apologize if any anti-Obama comments have come across as hate. I think most (at least, mine) come more from bewilderment (how can a guy like Obama, with no actual experience managing anything, come to manage the most powerful organization in the world?) than contempt. And I have to ask - What has Obama actually done for us all? Fakey's remarks are tongue-in-cheek Freddy. Facetious. Sarcastic even. If I know Fakey. And I do. I hold less animosity to the man than I do his constituency. I think that is a thread running through this topic. Which is more frighteneing to me. He's just one guy. The fact there are so many 'subjects in the Emporer's' kingdom who can see his clothes' scares the crap out of me. Maybe him too. If my sister wanted to marry Barack Obama I would be so glad. For him to be the CIC? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 And I have to ask - What has Obama actually done for us all? I'd like to know as well. So far, all I see are plans to put us so far into debt that my kids and possibly their kids will be paying for a long time to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Fakey's remarks are tongue-in-cheek Freddy. Facetious. Sarcastic even. If I know Fakey. And I do. In that case, just put my remarks on hold for the next person who poses the same comment (seriously) that Fakey did (sarcastically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllergyDoc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Jimmy Carter just choked on his corn flakes Because if Obama hadn't gotten it, it would be racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The award has been about this group's view of international politics for a long time That's just your opinion though and anything but a statement of fact, but of course an opinion you're entitled to. However, since the current committee is made up of people ranging from the political moderate left to the extreme right (in European terms, of course) it would seem to have limited factual merit. It's not an American view, it's a well established general view today as well as at the time it was granted. Again, that's just your personal opinion. My impression is different, but of course neither of us can prove our opinions right. Begin was known to have previously been the leader of a militant group that carried out organized terrorist bombings. More to the point, in my opinion, Menachem Begins's Irgun is considered the progenitor of modern terrorism. As far as I'm concerned there was far better cause to revile the awarding of the prize in -78 than in -94. Even if you eliminate all the controversial winners of years past Not sure who you are referring to here, possibly because the view of the awardees in the US and here likely differs a great deal. If we take the last 10 years for instance, I can only recall 1 price as being particularly controversial - specifically the one that went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore Jr. No surprise there, given that a large segment of the population does not accept that there is such a thing as non-natural climate change. In the preceeding 10 years there was Arafat et. al., but no other great dramas I can recall and beyond that my memory is getting gradually foggier, with the exception of the odd memorable highlight here and there. you still have to question the importance and stature of the award when it is being handed out not on the basis actions or deeds but on the basis of well aligned speech writing Again, that just your personal opinion, nothing more. Mine is pretty much the opposite, although perhaps not quite. Anyway, I have no real opinion of Obama and probably won't have for another couple of years, so I'll bow out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason M Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) The Nobel Peace Prize stopped being relevant quite some time ago.... right around the time they started handing it out to terrorists. It's a "feel good" award which, if it had to do with actual accomplishments, many previous winners would have been unqualified to receive... and the current recipient... well, you tell me. After Yasser Arafat got awarded the Noble Peace Prize in 1994 - after having had a hand in the death of so many, from fellow Arabs to westerners - I really lost all interest in this award and what it stands for. The fact that President Barak Obama was nominated just 12 days after entering office - having not accomplished any of his goals to date - really puts the award into question once again. I say the same to those whom would condemn President Obama so early on - let the man develop and execute some of his plans (as long as they do not guide us into a brick wall) before we judge his efforts. By the same token, we should not be celebrating his "accomplishments" before they are accomplished. Agrippa quote: More to the point, in my opinion, Menachem Begins's Irgun is considered the progenitor of modern terrorism. As far as I'm concerned there was far better cause to revile the awarding of the prize in -78 than in -94. I don't see how that's a far better cause to revile the award. I see them as the same cause to revile it. If you have a specific reason, I'd like to read it. As far as I'm concerned, they used the same tactics (terror) and killed innocents along with legitimate targets. Edited October 10, 2009 by Jason M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllergyDoc Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 They're celebrating his rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 purely political to me .. just give's Punahou (private school) more to be big headed about.. founder of AOl.. Michelle Wie.. lots of athletes Manti Teo being the latest,... with the Men and Women in control of forming the European Trade Union and their efforts in seeing a North American Trade Union come to fruition (Canada, Mexico, USA).. I'm sure that this has something to do with swaying our Government their way... Seeing that every standing President has been involved with their rule... Regardless, after only 12 days in Office how can anyone be "Nominated" for such a distinction.. granted he has captured the World by shaking up World "Attention", in as far as America needs a new direction .. but I believe "Accomplishments" .. need to be set before such an Award is Honoured. Does this "diminish" the Award ?? Dunno? .. I am Proud that OUR President has received such a Prestigious Award.. as the Russian President did at one time I believe. But to put anyone on the same plain as Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa .. without results to our Country's issues "yet".. may be a bit premature.. But I am realist .. Politics over rides "Results" and Countries are playing their trade and money Politics all the time.. Been true since Man walked the earth.. I just hope it does some good.. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipSlap Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 But what it does do is diminish the meaning of the award itself and the credibility of the left wing radical panelists who are responsible for distributing it, if having previously given it to a known terrorist wasn't enough already. You mean Henry Kissinger? Now THERE'S a guy who didn't deserve it. Not to mention that bomb-thrower Begin. Of course Sakharov was a member of the team that gave Stalin the atomic bomb, and led the team that gave Khrushchev the hydrogen bomb. The peace prize has long been a vehicle for political statements, but it's not really Obama's fault he got it so early; he wasn't on the selection committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OrenG Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Why the hate? He's done so much to help us all. A truly incredible inspiration. Then name one thing he's done that is helpful to the American people. Edited October 10, 2009 by OrenG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkay Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 OrenG: Reagan deregulated the banking industry. Those regulations were put into place to prevent another Great Depression, and Reagan tore them up. Don't re-write history to suit your own political views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Man there is some great stuff in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dani Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Plain insane to give it to him as many others in the past.. If you think its ok your just stupid. Peace price not talk about peace price.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now