Whooboy have the ‘tubes been rocking this morning.
Just in case you haven’t heard, President Obama was award the Nobel Peace Prize today. And the reactions couldn’t be more polarized or (in most cases) predictable.
First, from the President via TPM:
He said the prize often is given “as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.”
“I will accept this award as a call to action,” Obama said, outlining his goals – a world without nuclear weapons, confronting the threat of climate change and respectful of its peoples’ diverse religions and practices.
“These challenges can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation,” he said.
He called for “unwavering commitment to the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in security in nations of their own.”
“This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration,” he said, it’s shared with everyone who fights for “justice and dignity.”
And from the right, a sensible and objective view from Rush:
Limbaugh continued: “They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too.”
In all fairness, it is absolutely valid to ask why President Obama would be given this award, particularly since he had been inaugurated only 2 days before the deadline for nominations. Are we to assume that the Nobel commission is simple a set of Obama fanbois? Socialists? Groupies? Or is there something larger here?
Perhaps the Nobel community has seen fit to actually award the American people themselves, for their decision to overthrow the awful policies of the past 8 years and choose a new path. Make no mistake, hiring a black liberal (well, not even that liberal, but at least a moderate) for the top job was no easy feat. But since it’s difficult to award 300 million people, they have chosen to do exactly what Obama has said: provide momentum to a movement.
We are on the verge of changing how we take care of ourselves with healthcare. Rather than deciding in a skinny minute to invade and rape a sovereign nation, Obama has clearly taken an extraordinarily patient, diligent and objective path to decide how to deal with the growing problems of Afghanistan. The financial system is far, FAR from being repaired, but it is on the way to being stable. Note that since we caused the current financial crisis (fair enough, other country’s firms didn’t have to purchase our mortgage backed securities or insure with swaps, but we created them and they probably thought we knew what we were doing) as well as the Iraq debacle, it’s probably seen as a good thing that we are starting to endeavor to clean up our mess.
If nothing else, the Nobel Peace Price highlights, with laser like focus and extreme acuity, the fact that we ARE different than we were in the last 8 years. Getting past “Change we can believe in” and all the rhetoric, we can say, unequivocally, that our direction has begun to change. That is equal parts extraordinary and vital.
I, for one, am grateful to the Nobel community for acknowledging our efforts towards being a global leader in peace and prosperity once again, rather than the neo-Imperialist asshats we’ve been for the last 8 years… and risk becoming again if we don’t stay on top of things.
Bravo, I say, to their efforts to assist with ours.
Going to be some great responses to this one from the neotards.
Indeed. Watch them root for the home team, just as they did with the losing of the Olympics in Chicago.
Regarding the deadline.
I actually think there are a few exceptions. I “think” world leaders are “automatically” entered. I also think that you can vote, off list, and as a result “write in” a choice.
Fair enough BD, but I think at the very least, it’s valid to at least pose the question. And certainly many have and will continue. I’ve actually been enjoying the huge amount of press and noise this has made today. Have you noticed that FB is like, regularly unavailable?
I like the State Departments quote on this subject: “Gives us a sense of momentum when the United States has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes.”
I haven’t listened to the radio or watched tv all day today. I did see this mentioned on yahoo news (ap story I think) and glossed over the article. I didn’t realize it was all the rage today.
Late to the party I suppose. Why is this big news today? Rush was talking about this? I wonder why. I stopped paying attention to the nobel peace prize when Yasser Arafat won it in 94.
This award is right in line with so many that have been given out. It is not for accomplishment, although at times it is given for that. It is given for process and a sea change in thinking, as in ML King. He never saw the civil rights movement in a finished fashion, nor did the woman in Burma, whose name escapes me. What they did was create a change in the milieu that in turn made real change possible. By Obama engineering the overwhelming victory that he did over the philosophies of the Republican party, the war mongering, the greed, the cowboy diplomacy, and creating an environment that has dramatically turned us as a country back into the family of nations, he has done a tremendous service to the country and to the world at large. I am proud of him for what he has done and of us for having the insight as a nation to elect him.
Wasn’t Obama in office only 12 days when this was voted on?
Come to think of it, isn’t it strange that the man presiding over two wars is given the nobel peace prize? I could see if Obama had pulled us out of iraq like he said he would, right away.
Or if he just ended the war in afghanistan instead of escalating it as he has done.
But as far as I know he still has the killing machine working overtime. I can’t figure out exactly what he HAS done that outweighs the fact that our killing machine is still, well, killing people.
Weird.
I do think Obama is doing the right thing in killing our enemies by the boat load though. He’s got the drones bombing muslims terrorists in pakistan which is good, but he’s still killing civilians which is ugly, but unavoidable in war.
I think our enemies should be destroyed lest they destroy us and so I back obama’s decision to bring hell to the middle east, as he is doing. Way to go Obama. At least he is doing something I can agree with.
So this is how I, the right winger here, feel:
It’s a nice gesture on behalf of the nobel committe to award the president of the USA the Nobel Peace Prize. He does represent America on the world stage.
The NPP is worthless ever since Arafat won it in 94. He used millions in humanitarian aid to “compensate” suicide bombers families. Disgusting! It made a mockery of the NPP.
It’s strange that the man responsible for the killing of countless people in two current wars is awarded a peace prize! Amazing, but then again…Arafat.
Peace prize or not, I think Obama is doing the right thing in continuing the bloodshed in the middle east. These people are our enemies and they should all be killed. He has my support.
Edgar, try this on for size: The Nobel prize is an international distinction, given by the International community. Therefore, it is based on their view of whom has promoted peace internationally the most in the last year.
WGAF if you don’t understand, the world community does: the simple fact that Obama has made such efforts to calm the world and try to retarget the direction we’ve been going in is, for them, profound. Since you spend no time outside the US nor (clearly) have ever held any kind of international viewpoint, it is quite understandable why you’d not get this.
Note, BTW, that Obama did not start the killing, he is trying to bring it to a close. However, I doubt, given your post, that such a subtlety would be accessible to you.
I’ll wager you were one of the folks cheering that we lost the Olympics as well, huh?
Now Perk, be a little gentler with Edgar. He is trying to be civil, even though his backhanded compliment to Obama is a little disingenuous. After all, this war still belongs to the shrub and all his minions during the last 8 years. It is his (Edgar’s) sincerest hope that Obama makes the wrong choices in the big A and gains ownership of this mess. Beyond that, I recommend that all doubters who cite the date of nomination February 12th, as a time when Obama had accomplished nothing, are absolutely blind to the reality of change that came over this country over the process of election read the. But they know it has happened. The deathers, the birthers, the tea baggers (I still chuckle at that verbal misstep), the gun toting bile shouting calichi heads and the greedy, war mongering policy makers in that zombie party are desperate because they have no answers – no solutions. And they know deep down that the American people recognize it too.
Finishing my thought . . . I had to go to a spontaneous SDS reunion. Hippies in walkers are a stirring sight.
It is not just the American people, it is the people of the world who look to the US to lead and to set the path toward a truly civil society. What they have seen since Rotten Ronnie and the Bushies is our country become lost and bereft of a moral compass. Instead of a country that works for its people and for people all over the world, it has seen us become rudderless, striking out like the blinded giant in the Odyssey, a brutal, mindless and violent animal. The world has seen us move from an intellectually potent leader, to an impotent, superstitious (yes, I mean fundamentalist Christianity), greedy nation that must be stopped. What Obama did, with his election, was to bravely signal that a new process; a new value system was coming to the US and thus to the world. The Nobel Prize is a statement of encouragement to that movement. I applaud Obama for putting his life literally on the line to facilitate this change.
@Perk
“The Nobel prize is an international distinction, given by the International community.”
Oh, I thought the nobel prize was given by the nobel committee. The international community…Hmmm. Isn’t this the same community that dragged us into two world wars? The same international community that practiced anti semitism for 2000 years and continues to practice it. Why are they handing out awards?
Ah, it’s besides the point anyways. The nobel prize is given by a committee, the same committee that gave it to YASSER ARAFAT. That makes it just about worthless.
No need to get mad at me Perk. I’m still behind obama when it comes to his aggressive foreign policy. I believe in an aggressive foreign policy. See, this vouches for my ability to think critically.
You would probably think that I could find NOTHING good to say about Obama. But that’s not true is it? I have a bias toward him in that he is a liberal and I’m a conservative but that didn’t stop me from looking for some common ground. I’m not one of those people who says that EVERYTHING obama does is wrong, foolish, arrogant etc…
I’m big enough to give credit where credit is due, because I think critically. Obama IS a chess player! He IS a smart guy, I think. He knows that America’s interests around the world need to be protected, even militarily. That’s why he has escalated the war in afghanistan. That’s why we are STILL in Iraq!!
He understands. He also understands that his base does NOT understand. So what does he do? He tells YOU want you want to hear out of one side of his mouth, while the other side of his mouth says WAR. He understands how people think. That’s how he got elected. That’s how Napoleon climbed the ladder. He told the people, “Peace, Democracy!!” – but he too was speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I understand this is necessary though. Obama wants to be president for 8 years and he also wants a democrat to be elected after him. He MUST keep his base happy. But he knows he must also escalate the bloodshed, and he’s doing just that.
He has my support. You’ve been fooled because you failed to think critically about obama. He was your man, the liberal democrat and you fell right in line. Now we are still in Iraq, escalating the killing in pakistan/afghanistan and the public option is likely dead. At least I can think critically and find common ground with my intellectual adversaries.
Willy,
“Now Perk, be a little gentler with Edgar. He is trying to be civil, even though his backhanded compliment to Obama is a little disingenuous.”
Thank you Willy. Even though I disagree with you on just about everything, I can tell you are a man of seasoned reason. Your approach from the other side is almost always very smart. You understand how to communicate persuasively because you DO think critically.
However, every now and then you do say some ironic things.
I find it funny how liberals always complain about the arrogance of America. Yet at the same time liberals can say, as you put it, “it is the people of the world who look to the US to lead and to set the path toward a truly civil society.”
NO! That’s not ARROGANT!! The WHOLE WORLD looks to America to lead them to a truly civil society.
Again, the irony is just delicious! One minute you are saying we should be like the rest of the world because they don’t get into wars, then you are saying that the whole world looks to America to lead them to civility?
Absolutely amazing! Ask ahmedinezad or the Dear Leader if they look to America to lead them to a truly civil society. Ask the 2 billion muslims if they are looking to America for leadership esp in the ways of civil society.
Professor, you are such a likable guy that it truly pains me to highlight your inconsistencies like this but I have to. Consider me a partner in your pursuit of truth.
PErk
“Note, BTW, that Obama did not start the killing, he is trying to bring it to a close. ”
roflmao:
BREAKING NEWS! Obama has escalated the war in afghanistan.
roflmao:
You STILL think that he is trying to bring it to a close? LMFAO!!! LMFAO!!!
Don’t be fooled perk. Obama and ALL the dems wanted to pull the troops out IMMEDIATELY in the last year of the Bush presidency. It’s been almost a YEAR and Obama has NOT pulled the troops out.
He could have pulled the troops out on DAY ONE, but he didn’t.
That’s why he has MY support!
Edgar:
“The Nobel prize is an international distinction, given by the International community.”
Oh, I thought the nobel prize was given by the nobel committee. The international community…Hmmm. Isn’t this the same community that dragged us into two world wars? The same international community that practiced anti semitism for 2000 years and continues to practice it. Why are they handing out awards?”
You can’t be serious, or perhaps this is a real entree to your political philosophy (ie: never pay attention to history unless it can be used for some short term political gain like the utilization of the “Hitler” image to smear Obama). Please recognize that I have used the specific example of right wing duplicity which you may or may not adhere to. My apologies if I misjudged you specifically, but I’m sure you see the reference as an apt one in this circumstance. Historical accuracy has not been a trait that the right has displayed of late.
Society, local or international, should be in the process of perfecting itself. Ideally, as we develop new methodologies, new materials, new insights to the nature of living on this planet, we develop newer and more successful strategies for doing it. The whole idea of the Nobel prize is to stimulate a focus on that process so that the progress is toward a more peaceful and productive planet, rather than a more fragmented and violent one. At different times, a different stimulus is warranted.
The developed world is in the process of moving ahead. Instead of looking to the ideologies that took us into WWII, for example, through processes like the Nobel, clearer and more productive answers have been developed to meet that need. It is an ideal, not a perfect process, and it can become perverted. In the early 1960s, a man spoke with a new clarity that excited and thrilled a whole segment of the US population. His speeches and ultimate actions inspired a total change in the philosophy and process of the country. His name was Martin Luther King, Jr. The Nobel was given to him, not because of what he had accomplished, because by the time of his death (after the prize had been given him), he still had not achieved his goal, it was bestowed on him to assist in giving focus on his movement and to move toward its accomplishment. That time the award was an integral part in reaching a human goal that all real Americans recognize today as essential to our moving forward as a country.
There have been times when the award has been less successful in achieving those goals. You mention Yassar Arrafat. Indeed, giving him the prize did not accomplish the desired goal of peace in the Middle East, but at the moment that he received it, it was an attempt to lift his cause, the liberation of Palestine, to a level that the negotiations with Israel could be evenhanded and successful. Here’s the important part. The prize can only suggest a way. Whether or not the recipient follows that lead is up to the person himself. Ultimately, Arrafat gave in to the political and personal expediencies of his time and the process failed. That is not the fault of the prize, however. In the quest for peace, we must utilize every tool at our disposal, and the prize is one of those tools.
The prize, as stated by the selection committee, was given to President Obama, to assist him in his movement toward the goal of bringing us back from the precipice that Reagan/Bush, and I’ll grant you Clinton to a degree, have mistakenly pushed this country. Now he may or may not be successful. That remains to be seen. However, his voice and the power of his presence, along with the most intelligent campaign I have experienced in my lifetime has moved and galvanized our country to pursue the quest.
It is a deeply important quest because, as you rightly point out, the rest of the world looks to America to lead. Historically, we have not led on the basis of being the biggest bully on the block and that point is the stimulus for that worldwide perspective. Obama signaled that he intends to return the US to that position of leadership, and the Nobel committee chose to, in their particular way, support that effort. Now, whether or not he is successful, we will have to see.
Finally, to what you consider my likable inconsistencies: to lead means that in some way, you possess the qualities or capabilities to affect change. Having those qualities does not mean you will always utilize them wisely. For almost 30 years, since the ascension of Reagan to the conservative throne, the US has been playing more and more to the military industrial card to get its way. Obama is striving to get us back on the path of negotiation and cooperation instead. As he has said however, the ship of state is not a speedboat that can change direction on a dime. It is rather, a giant vessel that takes much distance and time to change course.
I find the conservative criticism and that of the far left as well, to be politically juvenile. Not only is it silly to think that Obama would simply pull up stakes and walk out of either the big I or the big A. That is just not possible without greater damage being done than already has been caused by our previous cowboy policies. What does remain to be seen however, is how true he stays to the goal and how good his chess game is to get us out in an expedited and positive manner. I’m betting on his chances for success.
Forward, “partner.”
Willy,
In response to my criticism of the international community you said, “You can’t be serious, or perhaps this is a real entree to your political philosophy (ie: never pay attention to history unless it can be used for some short term political gain like the utilization of the “Hitler” image to smear Obama).”
Yes, I’m serious. This international community which you hold in high esteem is responsible for more murder, mayhem and corruption than peace. Are you denying the fact that we were dragged into two world wars? Just think about it for a moment. From 1914 to 1945 the world was either at war or ginning up for it. From 1945 to 1990 the cold war cast an ugly tension across the world. Countries were putting up walls to keep people in. The arab nations were gathering up against israel. Genocide in Africa and terrorism from the middle east and escalating anti semitism still rampant in the international community at large.
Yes I’m serious Willy. The international community has an ugly recent history. The twentieth century saw more murder and bloodshed than the world had ever saw. And they give out peace prizes?
The nobel committee does not represent the international community. What about Ahmedinejad and the Dear Leader? What about the 2 billion muslims? Perhaps you are being selective when you survey the international community.
@Yasser Arafat
It’s not the prizes fault, I know. But it makes a mockery of the nobel prize and diminishes its significance to the point where its just worthless. Giving a peace prize to a terrorist?
Giving a peace prize to a terrorist (I say it again)!! That makes it a joke Willy. An unfunny joke.
You are correct in pointing out that the prize isn’t really for accomplishment. It’s not for bringing peace to the international community. No, it’s a political tool. A shallow and transparent gesture.
@Iraq and Afghanistan
OHHHHHHH, When the liberals wanted Bush to pull out of Iraq immediately there were no good reasons to stay. Liberals didn’t want to hear that we “Have to stay the course in Iraq lest we leave and the whole place erupts into violence”
No way Jose. The reason for the continued violence THEN was the simple fact that we were there!
Now of course it’s totally different. We just can’t pull out right? Even though that’s exactly what the libs wanted all this time. Liberals don’t think our presence there is the cause of the violence right now?
Interesting. Obama has owned this war for about a year now. It belongs to him.
@Arrogance.
Saying that the whole world looks to us for leadership in establishing a truly civil society is arrogant. I love it mind you, but it’s arrogant. It’s the definition of arrogance.
Obama has not signaled any such leadership. Weren’t you listening to his speech a few weeks back when he said, (Paraphrased), “The world should not look to America to lead anymore. You will have to pull your own weight and think of us as equals, not leaders”
That’s what he Willy and that is exactly opposite of what you said.
See, those are facts and they can’t be disputed. You are simply wrong. Full of words, justification and misdirecting discourse – but wrong.
1. The nobel prize is a joke.
2.The international community is not represented by the nobel committee (can’t ignore 2 billion muslims) ie you are selective.
3. Obama says we wont lead anymore but will merely participate as an equal in international affairs – not a leader.
4. The nobel prize is nothing more than a political tool – arafat- obama.
5. Suggesting that the international community needs america to lead them to a truly civil society is to say that they are not civil. It is to say we are better than they are.
Tell me willy, why do you think that America is the only true civil society in the world? Please tell me what qualifies America in your mind to “lead the world to a truly civilized societ.”
Inconsistencies again willy. Just a moment a day or two ago you said we were a nation of fundamentalist christian wackos. Now we are the only true way to a civil society???
This is cognitive dissonance Willy. You can’t have it both ways all the time. Again, I think this lack of clarity in your thinking is the result of a lack of critical thinking. I would humbly suggest that you not just practice your critical thinking skills when debating a conservative. Don’t forget to think critically about your own bias’s.
Forward to the truth, follow me.
Oh Edgar. What am I going to do with you? We are starting to get snarky again. Tsk, tsk. Am I going to have to use my “Poo Poo head” line on you like i did Nash?
You said:
“Yes, I’m serious. This international community which you hold in high esteem is responsible for more murder, mayhem and corruption than peace. Are you denying the fact that we were dragged into two world wars? Just think about it for a moment. From 1914 to 1945 the world was either at war or ginning up for it. From 1945 to 1990 the cold war cast an ugly tension across the world. Countries were putting up walls to keep people in. The arab nations were gathering up against israel. Genocide in Africa and terrorism from the middle east and escalating anti semitism still rampant in the international community at large.”
“Yes I’m serious Willy. The international community has an ugly recent history. The twentieth century saw more murder and bloodshed than the world had ever saw (sic). And they give out peace prizes?”
*********************
Again son, you have selective memory. First of all you left out the Korean war and Vietnam, the Panama Canal and, oh yes Reagan’s great victory at Grenada. We weren’t just involved in two world wars, we did our share of killing and maiming. All the things you list are benchmarks in a very bloody century. The problem with your statement is that you fail to take in consideration (as most head in the sand neo cons don’t) the fact that the world has moved on from those times. Europe and much of Asia are not interested in great military adventures, as they have found more productive and effective means of maintaining the peace and keeping their population alive.
Unfortunately, the European community, the Asian community, and the Middle Eastern community all have a bloody history that goes back far beyond the 20th century. Try about 8,000 years. We, being a very young nation also have a very bloody history, but only about 500 years if you don’t count the Vikings and their short sorties in the north. The Indian wars, the Mexican war, and the Spanish American war were all bloody adventures in which we claimed our rightful spot as a killer and defiler. The 20th century was just the natural followup to a very checkered history for us and the world. The Nobel Prize is an attempt at changing that bloody intention that we all as nations seem to carry. None of us are innocent. Read the real history son and get the red, white and blue sand out of your eyes.
******************
“The nobel committee does not represent the international community. What about Ahmedinejad and the Dear Leader? What about the 2 billion muslims? Perhaps you are being selective when you survey the international community.
@Yasser Arafat
It’s not the prizes fault, I know. But it makes a mockery of the nobel prize and diminishes its significance to the point where its just worthless. Giving a peace prize to a terrorist?
Giving a peace prize to a terrorist (I say it again)!! That makes it a joke Willy. An unfunny joke.
You are correct in pointing out that the prize isn’t really for accomplishment. It’s not for bringing peace to the international community. No, it’s a political tool. A shallow and transparent gesture.
**********************
The Nobel Prize does represent the international community you silly guy! If it didn’t, we wouldn’t even be talking about it. The prize is an ongoing inspiration put forth by the advanced world to inspire by spirit and action the things necessary to make the world safer and more livable. It carries tremendous weight with the rest of the world. That, as I said above is the reason for Arafat’s award. It isn’t a race or a football game, it is international recognition for, in some way, advancing the cause of peace. It is only in recent times (the neo con era), that America has lost all sense of respect for international opinion. When Arafat got it, instead of helping to influence him toward a treaty, the right wing in this country denounced it and him. It is possible that the foot stamping that my neo con brothers and sisters did helped Arafat to duck out of the treaty. We’ll never know for sure on that one. That lack of respect is not unusual for an imperialistic country, so I guess we are not unusual.
But think of what you said about 2 billion Muslims. It would seem to me that even utilizing basic school yard logic, a relatively small country of only 300,000,000 people, some of whom are also muslims, would not go out of its way to piss off 2 billion! People have long memories Edgar. If we simply clean out the middle east as you have suggested in previous blogs, the day will come when the revenge strikes. Take it from a 70 year old, you can’t remain the biggest dick on the block forever. And when you are not, those you have done evil to will reflect it back on you. And Edgar, time moves quickly these days.
As I said earlier, Obama has pulled this country back off the precipice. It is a major accomplishment, as the cowboy turd blossom always wanted to move to confrontation first. It was so easy for him, as long as he was clear of the danger. Such a coward.
************************
@Iraq and Afghanistan
OHHHHHHH, When the liberals wanted Bush to pull out of Iraq immediately there were no good reasons to stay. Liberals didn’t want to hear that we “Have to stay the course in Iraq lest we leave and the whole place erupts into violence”
No way Jose. The reason for the continued violence THEN was the simple fact that we were there!
Now of course it’s totally different. We just can’t pull out right? Even though that’s exactly what the libs wanted all this time. Liberals don’t think our presence there is the cause of the violence right now?
Interesting. Obama has owned this war for about a year now. It belongs to him”
**********************
First of all my friend, this isn’t Obama’s war yet. When he makes his decision about the big A, then it’s his. I don’t know what he’ll do, but I’m betting it will not be the quagmire that your guy got us into. And remember, he is faced with this shit because of the stupidity of the last eight years. Let’s see what he comes up with before we jump to conclusions. In the mean time, why don’t you guys take a little credit for the massive screw up that your incompetent boys and Condoleeza created.
As far as Iraq is concerned, it is just like stepping in shit. Like it or not, you have to clean off your boots. It’s a shitty job, but must be done. We liberals were pissed at Bush and the congress (reps and dems) for going headlong into this thing. With the international support we had, even in Iran for crying out loud, we could have dealt with this as a police action, gotten Bin Laden and saved all this trouble, loss of life and treasure. It was a stupid move and now we have to back away very carefully. The idea is not, however, onward to victory, but how do we get out without having the whole place fall like a house of cards? There is no victory possible in either Iraq or Afganistan. Bush even copped to that. What Obama is attempting to do is get us out, keep the Taliban/Al Queda from coming back, and to build a new relationship with that area. His speech in Cairo was a game changer for the muslim world. For the first time, they realized that they could be dealing with an American president who would act with respect rather than ego. This was a major consideration for the Nobel committee.
**************************
“@Arrogance.
Saying that the whole world looks to us for leadership in establishing a truly civil society is arrogant. I love it mind you, but it’s arrogant. It’s the definition of arrogance.
Obama has not signaled any such leadership. Weren’t you listening to his speech a few weeks back when he said, (Paraphrased), “The world should not look to America to lead anymore. You will have to pull your own weight and think of us as equals, not leaders”
That’s what he Willy and that is exactly opposite of what you said.
See, those are facts and they can’t be disputed. You are simply wrong. Full of words, justification and misdirecting discourse – but wrong.”
***********************
Again my young friend, you do screw up history. First of all, let’s clean up what he said in his speech. I believe, if you read it objectively, he said that the US would no longer act alone, but in concert with other nations. No more unilateralism for us. That is in no way a walking away from leadership. It is walking away from being the international bully, the technique utilized so much by your neo con friends, most of whom never spent a second under fire. Like your hero Rush the drugster, they all had metaphorical cysts on their butts.
We are looked to for leadership. Brown said it in the UK, Sarkozi in France, the Japanese premier, and many others. The reason they do is because of the image we created after WWII, when we literally saved Europe and Asia with the Marshall plan and the UN (our creation). They came to see the US as a beacon, the shining light as Reagan said, depending on us to assist the world toward a more peaceful and economically viable world. Now I grant you, a lot of that was merely smoke and mirrors, but that image has worked well for us in the area of diplomacy. Once the shrub came to power, all he wanted to do was insult people. Bolten in the UN, Cheney with his foul and quite vocal ideas about power, and poor Condoleeza and her impotent state department. Take the mote from your eye.
************************
“See, those are facts and they can’t be disputed. You are simply wrong. Full of words, justification and misdirecting discourse – but wrong.”
***********************
Now that is arrogance. Build a more thorough argument before you say “can’t.” I think I’m doing pretty well for an old guy!
**********************
“Suggesting that the international community needs america to lead them to a truly civil society is to say that they are not civil. It is to say we are better than they are.
Tell me willy, why do you think that America is the only true civil society in the world? Please tell me what qualifies America in your mind to “lead the world to a truly civilized societ.”
************************
Unfortunately, America is the only real superpower at this time. That won’t last, because China owns us now and the rug will be pulled out sooner or later. But being the current “decider” when it comes to currency, sheer military power, and the ability to step into conflicts like Northern Ireland for example, and having people like Bono, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton (who it was just released, has raised over 24 billion dollars for food and education internationally), we have inherited the mantel for now. It’s not arrogance. It’s just a fact. We have a history of it. And since recently, we have become the bully boy of the world, who could have more influence over our rapacious ways than America itself. Hence, Barack Obama, the newly elected president of all of us has set a path toward that greater civility, and truly deserves the prize.
************************
“Inconsistencies again willy. Just a moment a day or two ago you said we were a nation of fundamentalist christian wackos. Now we are the only true way to a civil society???”
*************************
Yeah, I said that in my last post. Tonight I have only one example of our fundamentalist christian wackodom: Sarah Palin – I rest my case on that.
*************************
“This is cognitive dissonance Willy. You can’t have it both ways all the time. Again, I think this lack of clarity in your thinking is the result of a lack of critical thinking. I would humbly suggest that you not just practice your critical thinking skills when debating a conservative. Don’t forget to think critically about your own bias’s.
Forward to the truth, follow me.”
When you delve with depth, there is no dissonance. When you make silly arguments like “The Nobel Prize is a joke,” you do not forward the discussion. Debating a conservative isn’t that hard these days. You don’t have to worry about any new ideas (OUCH!).
Yes, forward to the truth. But remember, right now you are in the caboose.
Willy,
“Oh Edgar. What am I going to do with you? We are starting to get snarky again. Tsk, tsk. Am I going to have to use my “Poo Poo head” line on you like i did Nash?”
Now sit down Willy and stop waving your arms around. We are all friends here, take it easy. I know it’s difficult to hear opposing points of view but you must learn to embrace different perspectives, even if only to allow you to understand the other side. Don’t be scared. You don’t have to agree but do try to make the best of it.
“Again son, you have selective memory. First of all you left out the Korean war and Vietnam, the Panama Canal and, oh yes Reagan’s great victory at Grenada.”
Perhaps you thought I was trying to give a full, comprehensive account of 20th century history. My point was that the international community that you hold in such high regard, isn’t worthy of such regard. My recollection is selective. My point needed some reference to history, so I naturally selected (get the darwinian pun?) the evil deeds done dirt cheap by your esteemed international community.
My point was not that America is not guilty of war, which was the point you refuted.
You are willing to look past the, oh, 100,000,000 killed in a couple of world wars. That doesn’t stop you from holding the ‘international community’ in high regard. But when America goes to war in Iraq we are just unforgivable hatemongers who have lost all credibility in the eyes of this Holy International Community. That’s not a balanced approach.
“Again my young friend, you do screw up history. First of all, let’s clean up what he said in his speech. I believe, if you read it objectively, he said that the US would no longer act alone, but in concert with other nations.”
Tell that to Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.
Who is being selective here?
Just to make sure I understand you Willy, are you saying that we went unilaterally into iraq? Let’s see how good your history is. Can you name all the countries that were involved in the iraq war? If not then I suggest you familiarize yourself with recent history before criticizing me for being overly selective.
More…
“Unfortunately, America is the only real superpower at this time. That won’t last, because China owns us now and the rug will be pulled out sooner or later. But being the current “decider” when it comes to currency, sheer military power, and the ability to step into conflicts…”
This doesn’t address the core point in regards to civility. You claimed that America is the nation in the world that can lead the IC to civility.
I asked you how you came to qualify America in that way. You say that we are the only superpower, sidestepping completely the issue of civility.
Civility Willy, civility. Address the civility part please.
“Barack Obama, the newly elected president of all of us has set a path toward that greater civility, and truly deserves the prize.”
You say he has “set” a path toward civility. To say one has SET something implies that something has been done. Can you give me some examples of his ‘setting’ ??
Words are cheap Professor and so far that’s all we’ve seen from Obama. Just words. Words are cheap indeed.
So far you have said that it’s ok that Obama hasn’t done anything yet (12 days into his presidency) and the nobel prize is sometimes given to people for political reasons.
Then you change direction and say that Obama has ‘set’ a course of peace.
You scoff at me when I say America may lose its greatness, then you go on to say that America is the ONLY country in the world that can lead the rest to TRUE civility.
You say we are a wacky fundamentalist nation of christian conservatives, no different that that radical muslims, yet we are more civil than the rest of the world.
You easily forgive the killing of one hundred million people in two world wars but will not ‘forgive’ Bush for leading us into iraq, even though congress was the one who declared war.
You criticize me for being selective, whatever that means, and go on to say that the Nobel Prize represents the consensus of the international community. Yet you omitted the 2 billion muslims factor.
You wanted Bush to pull us out of iraq on the double but it’s OK for obama to not make a decision, which is actually deciding to continue the war.
You failed to address my questions. You only address peripheral issues. I would like your thoughts.
Edgar, Edgar, Edgar. Hey! it was late last night and besides, you still haven’t addressed my points about what you are afraid of in the last blog, Mr. Avoidance!
OK, civility: Bush ended all “civility” from the US with his cowboy antics. His was the most boorish and confrontational American government since . . . maybe ever. When the super power isn’t civil, the world gets real nervous. It is not that the US is the bastion of civility, it’s that we had left it behind. The world was hoping for a return from us and Obama provided it, starting with his campaign. Put two plus two together and you get my point.
Your “set” noodle: For the last eight years, the shrub set a path that was so dangerous, so mindless, so mindlessly violent, that the country had to change or something very bad could occur. Obama, with his campaign, completely reignited the American people with the flame (that’s called a metaphor) that changed the whole milieu of the country. By the time he came to power, the whole country was in a different place psycho-emotionally. That change was due totally to Obama and his dramatic campaign.
Yes, words are cheap. I have taken the time to read yours again and again. However, the Nobel isn’t just for actions. It also rewards ideas that spawn actions (read MLK for example, no real action. Mainly ideas). Obama’s ideas have given the US a new direction. I know it is difficult for the cement heads of the right, firmly positioned with their heads either focused backward at saint Ronnie, or giving themselves a visual colo rectal exam.
Again, your selective argumentation about WWII vs Iraq is amazing. In both WWI and WWII, there were direct provocations of the US, the first being the sinking of American neutral shipping by the Germans and the attack on Pearl Harbor with the Germans declaring war on us. A very different situation than the fiasco of Iraq. Idiot boy just decided on his own to attack Iraq. That is unforgivable. And, congress didn’t “declare war” dummy. We haven’t done that since WWII.
I call you selective because you cherry pick arguments and evidence, like Bush/Cheney did, ignoring other facts placed before you. If you read my blog, I address the 2 billion muslims. And, I speak of how much of their perspective changed when Obama spoke in Cairo. No, the problem wasn’t simply solved then, but we were seen in a different light than during the neanderthal’s reign.
I wanted Bush to actually give a thought about what he was doing, rather than act like a foolish child, thrashing around his play room. Obama is doing that, like an adult. We will see what the result is, but it will certainly be more considered than that of Bush.
Now, I’ll pet your elephant if you’ll kiss my ass.
Willy,
“Now, I’ll pet your elephant if you’ll kiss my ass.”
The imagery is very unpleasant! All I can picture is this 70 year old dude pedaling his bicycle (covered with Obama/Biden stickers still) down the street, ponytail flailing behind him, wearing skin tight spandex of course. Yuck!
Ok Willy, let’s continue this egg throwing contest.
Let’s see how the Professor answered the questions: Why do you think that America is the only way to a truly civil society. What qualifies America in your mind to “lead the world to a truly civilized societ.
“OK, civility: Bush ended all “civility” from the US with his cowboy antics. His was the most boorish and confrontational American government since . . . maybe ever.”
Your answer:Bush was not civil – this does not qualify America to lead the world to a truly civil society.
“When the super power isn’t civil, the world gets real nervous. It is not that the US is the bastion of civility, it’s that we had left it behind.”
OK, no explanation of what qualifies america to lead the world in civility yet.
“The world was hoping for a return from us and Obama provided it, starting with his campaign. Put two plus two together and you get my point.”
You answered the question:Why did Obama win the NPP. But as far as what qualifies America in your mind to lead the world to civility…
Nope, nothing here either. What qualifies America in your mind to lead the world to a truly civil society?
-George Bush is not president
-we left civility behind
-the world wanted change
Those three reasons fail to support your argument that America is qualified to lead the world to a truly civilized society.
Now you can call me Sonny-boy, cement head, youngster, poopie head, right wing nutcase, nit-picky etc…but you simply stated an argument and made it game for discussion. I have asked you for reasons for your argument and you truly have failed to support your claim. You are off the mark Professor.
@Iraq, International Community, WW1 and WW2
“Again, your selective argumentation about WWII vs Iraq is amazing. In both WWI and WWII, there were direct provocations of the US”
You got confused again Willy. I think you might be having trouble following the thread of this argument. My reference to ww1 and ww2 was intended to show that the IC doesn’t deserve all the praise you so gushingly heap upon it.
The other reason I made that reference was to highlight your imbalanced and unfair approach ie, you will forgive the killing of one hundred million in 2 wars (at the hands of the IC) but you refuse to let it go when it comes to bush.
Iraq was firing on US planes anyway.
@Nobel represents the IC and 2 billion Muslims
“If you read my blog, I address the 2 billion muslims. And, I speak of how much of their perspective changed when Obama spoke in Cairo.”
Now you are speaking for 2 billion muslims? LMAO!!! Come ON willy! The messiah gives a speech in Cairo and now you are speaking for the Muslim world. Amazing!
So the muslim community now trusts america and obama right? They think America is SO GREAT that our president should get the nobel prize. How can you speak on behalf of the 2 billion muslims?
References please?
By the way, I’m not a republican. I don’t defend what republicans do. I am not on their team and they don’t represent me. They are a do nothing party. I’m not happy with the two party system we have and it’s a mistake to think that I’m Rush Limbaugh incognito.
Rush wont give credit to Obama for anything at all. At least I give him credit for escalating the war in afghanistan, which I think is probably necessary. I give Obama credit for not pulling out of Iraq even though his base has wanted just that for the last 5 years.
I give Obama credit for not being rigid when it comes to the health care plan. He was quite willing to give up on the public option just to get something passed.
See, I give him credit. I’m not Rush.
Excellent essay, Edgar!
However – haven’t you learned that logic to Willy is like kryptonite to Superman?
Even though I am an atheist, I am pro-choice, and I oppose censorship, I am somehow labelled a “Right-Wing Water Carrier”. Why? Because I dare to refute the propoganda spouted here.
America was hoodwinked last November. It was the Republican’s election to lose, and that they did, by deciding to run the least viable candidate. If they had made the right choice, wewould be debating President Romney’s position on Health Care.
PrezBO getting the Nobel Peace Prize?
For WHAT?
Give me a BREAK! That nullifies all of the other peace prizes handed out previously.
What has PrezBO accomplished? Since he was elected, Iran and South Korea have been showing their butts even more. Cash For Clunkers was a failure, and “Obamacare” will be as well.
PrezBO’s “Year In Review” highlight will most likely be the “Beer Summit”, which accomplished nothing except slightly higher sales of Bud Light. And, that should actually anger an anti-capatalist like him….
Something else PrezBO and I agree on. (That, and that marriage is for one man and one woman)
There is some truth to that.
No. Only a backward liberal would come up with that thought.
Sure it is.
All you have to do is:
1) Hire some company, like say, I don’t know –ACORN – to stuff ballot boxes,
2) Convince a lot of welfare recipients that they’re going to get some “Obama Money” if they register and vote for Obama
You do realize that it was a year and a half between the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Also, Saddam was given plenty of time and warning about the WsMD.
“Clean up”?
How? By the government taking over the banking, mortgage, auto and health industries?
Yes, I agree that speculators, predatory lenders and real estate agents created this housing/mortgage mess.
I also agree that we need to make our cars as safe, affordable and reliable as the imports (mainly by doing away with the unions).
However, government bureaucracy is NOT the answer.
Nash, you are definitely not a right winger like me but I can see you have the ability to think critically and honestly. You make a lot of sense and, unlike Willy and me, you say what you need to say with few words.
What are your thoughts on my discussion with Willy? Do you think I’m being detrimentally selective?
I just want an opinion from someone more or less neutral (willy is a lefty, I’m a righty and you seem to be in the middle)
Edgar, you don’t like the image, huh? Just wait, tiger, every day you get closer!! 70 years ain’t for sissies!
Let’s put this civility thing to rest, ok? What I am talking about is not my perception, but an international one. Historically, America has been looked upon as a country with a constitution and a political process that allows for a more civil society than has been historically the fact in other parts of the world. Many countries have built their political model after ours. Hence, the images of the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, etc. America also established a sense of cooperation as the best form of international interaction (ie: Wilson with Versellies, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Nixon with the Soviets, etc.). That’s history. Also in our recent history, starting 30 years ago with Ronnie, and culminating with the shrub, the sense of distain for ideas foreign has become the trend in the US. Distain for the French for example, “Freedom Fries,” etc. It has been adolescent foolishness, rather than an adult approach to the world. Now Obama, through his oratory, his very potent election campaign, and such actions as his speech in Cairo, new cooperation with the Russians over Iran, and other things, has begun to effectively reverse that 30 year descent into bullyism and move toward a more civil interaction with other countries.
When a country becomes the primary superpower in the world, it brings with it responsibilities and choices. The US qualifies as the country to lead the world in many impulses, including civility because its position as a superpower puts it in the position to make the rules. The world is urging the country to move in the direction of civility in the hopes that more war and violence can be avoided through effective negotiation. When China takes its place sometime toward the middle of this century, we will see what choices they make. I doubt that I will still be blogging when that happens, but you probably will. Pray for civility.
Yeah, I called right wingers all those names. You ought to examine yourself if those zingers felt as if they went your way. If the shoe fits, etc. Sounds like you assumed the “mark.”
Please don’t misquote me.
1. I never “forgave” the killing of one hundred million in 2 wars. I despise war and have an extremely limited set of criteria for its ever being used as a technique of international interaction. However, I did clearly demonstrate that the reason for our participation in those wars was totally different and (legalistically speaking) legitimate compared to the con job Bush pulled on Iraq.
2. I didn’t speak “for” 2 billion muslims, I paraphrased the writings and media that washed over the country when Obama spoke in Cairo. When I talk of media and writings, I am not just speaking of mainstream media in the US. I referenced middle eastern media. Do you ever go to sites like the English version of Al Jazeera, or Newsweek International? I don’t think so. Get your head out of the sand my friend. You may not be a Rush fan, but you do utilize some of his techniques of distortion.
Finally, in response to your second post: we will have to see just what Obama has in mind for both the war and health care. I think you might be suprised. It heartens me to know that you are not a Republican. Your IQ just went up a tick or two on my scale. I just wish you would objectively reflect on other positions from people not in your position in life. I wish you would clearly address my inquiry on your fears of Obama. I think you could really grow if you did that self examination. I don’t know what your position is, but as Perk said above, that he doesn’t believe you have travelled much. You certainly do not reflect a broad curiosity for others. It sounds young and more didactic, as is often the case with the very young and less experienced. That might not be an accurate picture of you, but neither is your picture of me as a long haired hippie on a bike with Obama stickers. I think you might be surprised were we to meet.
Adieu, mon ami.
Edgar,
My opinion? Apples and Oranges.
Here’s a quote from Willy:
“It heartens me to know that you are not a Republican. Your IQ just went up a tick or two on my scale. I just wish you would objectively reflect on other positions from people not in your position in life.”
Do you notice what happened there?
Willy is biased against repubs. You can make the same statements you have made, but just because you denounce republicanism, you “gain a couple of IQ points” from Willy.
He THEN tries to use a term like “objectively”.
Willy has no idea what objective is! He is the OPPOSITE of objective in his posts.
And, all of Willy’s posts are tainted with “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and Obamamania.
The only difference between WW2 and The War on Terror is technique. We have more sophisticated strategy and weapons now. However, the idea is the same.
Nash: spoken with true intellect and awareness . . . Not!!
Then don’t marry a man, Nash. Quite simple.
There is some truth to that.
Yes there is: “They love” and “U.S.” Incredible! We actually agree!
LOL Nash – only conservatives think backwards. Liberals and progressives are looking forward.
Sure it is.
All you have to do is:
1) Hire some company, like say, I don’t know –ACORN – to stuff ballot boxes,
2) Convince a lot of welfare recipients that they’re going to get some “Obama Money” if they register and vote for Obama
LOL You can’t stuff ballot boxes, Nash, only register people to vote. On election day, these people vote or not, that’s it. But beside that, are you saying that welfare recipients are less American than you? And I’d love it if you could actually disprove all polling from all news organizations to demonstrate that Obama’s overwhelming victory was all welfare recipients. That’d be superb.
Also, Saddam was given plenty of time and warning about the WsMD.
It is well documented and publicly stated by officials of the time that the DAY AFTER 9/11 Bush was looking for a way to tie it to Iraq. Oh I know, you’ll not believe any of those sources, only Bush and Cheney and their minions, but that’s the truth of it. And regarding “plenty of warning” – that’s why the international inspectors were in there doing their jobs. They were rushed out and we attacked before they could issue their report: why? Because that would have proven that there WERE NO WMDs. So Dubya had to attack and get us involved before his first, flimsy reason was exposed.
I also agree that we need to make our cars as safe, affordable and reliable as the imports
Excellent.
Ope, there we go. Tell you what: if we were to enforce that the white collar components of corporations have to disclose precisely what THEY make, their benefits packages, everything is transparent, and there’s some form of fairness and insurance against personal injury implemented in the overall structure, then I can get behind re-examining unions. But so long as executives can take salaries that are more than 300 times larger than what the linemen make, then no, we’ll need to keep unions. See – you’ve been fooled into believing that it’s the lowly linemen that are too expensive and cost the company profitability. What you’re saying is that it’s OK for for corporate executives to rape the company for money, and to keep regular Joe’s down – and that it’s not OK for regular Joe’s to try to keep a decent, living wage from a profitable company. I just didn’t take you for someone that callous and anti-middleclass Nash, that’s surprising.
Well, I’d often agree – but in many cases, where business infringes on the notion of the commons, government (or unions LOL) are the only entity that fight for you and me. If you simply take a drink of your water and notice that there’s less DDT, mercury and toxic particulate matter, you can thank a government bureaucracy for that. Don’t be lulled into the easy, seductive, yet naively shallow notion that the government is evil and bad.
You always impress me Nash, with just how shallow yet loud your side can be. Very impressive.
Willy,
“Yeah, I called right wingers all those names. You ought to examine yourself if those zingers felt as if they went your way. If the shoe fits, etc. Sounds like you assumed the “mark.”
Well, you were talking to me and you know I consider myself a right winger type. But it doesn’t bother me at all. Feel free to take jabs if you need to, no biggy.
@Civility
“Let’s put this civility thing to rest, ok? What I am talking about is not my perception, but an international one.”
I beg to differ with you Professor but it’s you *perception* of the international perception. That’s what you were talking about and that’s why it’s still your perception.
“Historically, America has been looked upon as a country with a constitution and a political process that allows for a more civil society than has been historically the fact in other parts of the world.”
Willy, get the Red, White and Blue sand out of your eyes. Half the civilized world was communist. They believed that our system was unfair and unjust. Russia and China certainly don’t appreciate our “civil” influence do they?
Presenting your perspective of the international perspective as fact is a little over the top.
But none of this tells me why YOU think america is the only country to truly lead the world to a civil society. You said it’s because we are the only superpower and thus we are obliged to use that power wisely in the absence of another super power.
But the ABILITY (superpower) is not the qualifying factor. To say that we are the only true way to civility is to say that our culture, our way of life, our ideals and philosophy as a nation is more civil (and better) than the rest of the world.
Which aspects of our culture, ideals, philosophy and way of life do YOU THINK qualify America to be more civil than the rest of the world? Superpower does not address the core issue of civility and the qualities america holds, which is absent in the international community.
Secondly, do you therefore admit that the rest of the world is in need of civil correction? Is the IC uncivilized? Must be if they need to be lead to a truly civilized society.
Third, do you therefore see the USA as being obliged to impose these corrections? Or should we understand that different cultures around the world may not need civil leadership? Have you thought about the possibility that what WE consider to be civil may just be relative to OUR society?
It seems to me that you are prescribing a moral absolute in what may be a morally relative world based on differences in culture, tradition and varying world views.
Our notion of civility, your notion of civility, the european notion of civility may not be acceptable to other cultures. Yet, in short you are saying that America should lead the world (impose our will because we are a superpower – in a way that Willy sees fit and just) in the pursuit of a civil society, and there is only one interpretation of what a civil society is.
I detect a hint of moral absolutism in your thinking. You are not a very consistent moral relativist. You ARE a moral relativist right?
So once again, why do you think America is more civil than the rest of the world? Justify your zealous nationalism for me.
Very childish.
The truth to his statement is that a lot of people would like to see the US dispose of all weapons, leaving the US defenseless.
I personally would LOVE a world where we didn’t need these weapons, but we’re never going to see that.
Yeah, riiiiight.
Like you don’t have your head in the sand.
I will concede this –
The CURRENT Republican party is but a shell of its former self. Some of them should be ashamed to call themselves Republicans. Those that have drifted toward the “Dark Side” are backward-thinking.
I was speaking metaphorically.
I will make a note to not do it again..
Anyway, by “stuffing ballot boxes”, I meant that they were offering rides to the voting booths, among other services, to prospective Obama voters, to give their side an advantage.
We all know FULL WELL that there were a LOT of people that registered to vote for the first time for one reason only –
to elect the first non-white president, because he made promises to steal from the rich and give to the poor.
By WHOM? What sources?
So, why were the weapons inspectors even over there to begin with?
Yes, some mistakes were made, but they were going by the best intel they had at the time.
There were no “lies” or “ulterior motives”.
That’s nobody’s business.
People start businesses for only reason only – to make a profit. They do so by providing goods and services that people need. Free enterprise. As long as I’m following the laws, the government has no business telling me how to run my business.
What the government needs to spend more time on is the companies that pay illegal immigrants under the table.
As for “drinking water”, that’s part of what I pay taxes for, so yes, I expect that to be done.
Now, I am against the price gouging that is going on with houses, and what is trying to transpire with oil and gasoline, mainly because there seems to be a cap on the fuel economy of current American vehicles, so therefore the cost of operating a vehicle can only be so low right now.
Do you think the government should tell me how much money I can make selling big screen TVs?
Very childish.
The truth to his statement is that a lot of people would like to see the US dispose of all weapons, leaving the US defenseless.
I personally would LOVE a world where we didn’t need these weapons, but we’re never going to see that.
“Very Childish?” Ooooh, I’m struck. Did you write that yourself?
How you can extract that in my loving America I want to see her either disarmed or defenseless is astonishing – and equally illuminating of your personality and incapability to see anything other than what you want to see.
Don’t let the fact that I am a black belt and 3 time national Jujitsu champion deter you from your frantically held-onto notions of what I must be Nash. Defenseless? Disarmed? If you think that’s what I’m saying then you’re simply an idiot.
But I don’t think so – I don’t think you’re an idiot, only someone waiting for me to stop typing so that you can type more at me, without having actually read anything I say.
Yeah, riiiiight.
Like you don’t have your head in the sand.
I will concede this -
The CURRENT Republican party is but a shell of its former self. Some of them should be ashamed to call themselves Republicans. Those that have drifted toward the “Dark Side” are backward-thinking.
The very definition of a conservative is that what WAS (ie., yesterday’s values, structures etc) are superior. A liberal, by definition is open to and aggressively pursues new ways of thinking and solutions to problems.
I will make a note to not do it again..
Anyway, by “stuffing ballot boxes”, I meant that they were offering rides to the voting booths, among other services, to prospective Obama voters, to give their side an advantage.
We all know FULL WELL that there were a LOT of people that registered to vote for the first time for one reason only -
to elect the first non-white president, because he made promises to steal from the rich and give to the poor.
You’re just jealous because, after having done that very thing for so long on your side of the aisle, we decided it could work for us to balance the scales. So it will never work for you the same way again, because we can do it also.
By WHOM? What sources?
Well, let’s start with Richard Clark. Reported almost exactly what I am saying – and told directly to him. Or try reading Bob Woodward’s book, “Plan Of Attack” which outlines Bush’s push to war after thousands of hours of interviews with Bush himself as well as his staffers. You can get an abstract here, it’s worth it – if you want to have your mind opened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_Attack
Yes, some mistakes were made, but they were going by the best intel they had at the time.
There were no “lies” or “ulterior motives”.
Um, yes there were. First: Weapons inspectors were there because the world wanted to know, as we all should. Why did Bush rush it? Why did he rush to war just WEEKS before the release of the report? After a bunch of years with a valid containment strategy in place, why suddenly did we have to go to war? What was so nasty that a few weeks could no longer be avoided?
That’s nobody’s business.
People start businesses for only reason only – to make a profit. They do so by providing goods and services that people need. Free enterprise. As long as I’m following the laws, the government has no business telling me how to run my business.
Ah. So it’s OK for the large corporation to make a profit, and they can do whatever they want to do to make that. And it’s OK for the corporate executives to make a profit, and it’s nobody’s business what they make, or how profitability of the company would be affected by raise/lowering of their packages. But it is wrong and awful for your regular Joe to do the same: endeavor to make a profit. That makes you a fascist in economic terms Nash, do you realize that? I’d like to go on arguing, but if I’m not talking with an American involved in Democracy, but rather a seperatist involved in seeing my nation converted to a corporatist/fascist state then we have nothing to debate.
I think we’re seeing that, and I agree. I think it is silly to blame illegal immigrants for the problem: if we create a vaccuum here that can be filled by impoverished peoples south of the border, who can blame them for trying to make a better life for themselves?
Ah… we’re getting to it. So you see drinking water as part of the commons – that is good. I see clean air as part of the commons too. I see not having to worry about dying from a disease brought in from Africa as part of the commons as well. Can we agree on all that?
… so you’re for SOME government controls? And by what criteria, exactly, do you evaluate what things the government should get involved in and what should they stay out of?
Of course not. But neither should you as a TV seller (trying the hardest you can to maximize your profit) be able to tell the group of people that work for you that they cannot also try to maximize THEIR profit, safety and security. And here is a really important point: if we had a single payer system and employees and employers no longer had to worry about health care at all, think how much more the TV seller could make, pay his employees or perhaps lower the price of his TVs to be competitive?
What do you think Rush meant by “neutered”?
He meant “disarmed”.
YOU quoted that as if it were an wbsurd statement. How else am I to infer it?
I am not sure what you mean by “yesterday’s values”. Some, like “Peace Through Strength” are tried and true. If it ain’t broke, no need to fix it.
We always have new problems and challenges before us. Reagan found a way to defeat the spread of communism, something JFK couldn’t do at the time.
“New” does not equate “better”.
PrezBO is trying new things, but so far, two of his “fixes” only created more deficit.
What the HELL are you talking about?
Are you suggestion that Republicans have been trying to stack the voting lines?
We have established that Wikipedia is not a credible source.
Um, no there wasn’t.
For something to be a “lie”, it must be known to be false when it is declared.
Again, everyone, including Hillary and John Kerry, trusted the evidence before them at the time.
I am not sure where you are going here.
“Regular Joe” can “make a profit” by starting his own business, going back to school, whatever it takes. However, he accepted a job at a set amount of pay.
No.
You went overboard.
We pay taxes for water, and there are regulations regarding clean air.
Worrying about a “disease brought in from Africa” depends on what you are referring to. Something like “Bird Flu” is monitored by the CDC, but something like HIV from unprotected sex is a behavioral choice that is not the government’s place to fix.
Another example is a guy who drinks, smokes and eats too much and then expects the government (or somebody else) to heal him.
1) Things that are in the Constitution;
Military protection, post office, etc.
2) Things that our taxes pay for;
Police, fire, etc.
We pay taxes for roads, so I feel that anything that goes on these roads should be as safe as possible.
(this last part is just my opinion)
3) Goods and services that are based on necessity or safety, such as food and workplace conditions, for example. Again, my opinion.
1) Who says that they can’t? They can work OT, get a 2nd job, ask for raises, etc.
2) How can the employees “maximize their profit”, other than working overtime, and/ or furthering their education to move up the ladder?
Do you think that all jobs in the private industry should be treated as a public service?
Don’t you realize that the employer offers them benefits like paid leave, 401K, health insurance and incentives?
I thought that you said that you were a business owner. Do all of your employees make the same money you do, or do you pay them market wage to do a specific job?
Oh, wait – I heard about MCD in Virgina, and that the main reason you went out of business was because a few employees, including your partners, were embezzling.
Only have a moment, so this’ll have to be quick:
@Wikipedia: Noting that you did not even go, I am not quoting WP as the authoritative source Nash, only that you can get a Cliff-notes like outline of the book pretty quickly. FFS.
@ Republicans stacking voting lines: no, I’m not inferring it. I’m stating it. And that’s just the kind stuff. Knock off the innocent rap, it’s really silly.
@ Regular Joe, making a profit: Ah, it’s back to Animal Farm, is it? some people are just more equal than others, right? so it’s OK for a business owner to exploit his workers, but it’s not OK for the workers to bind together and demand that they not be exploited. Absurd, and patently un-American. I thought I mentioned that I have no desire to argue with a Fascist.
@ taxes, water, air: the commons. Note that water and air are not in the Constitution, neither is a fire department or the CDC. Interesting: you want safe roads – that’s so that you don’t get killed from a dangerous situation or someone else hitting you, right? So then the commons include the space on roads that you and I come into close vicinity?
@ I am, and have been a business owner for almost all my life. Yes, my employees make an excellent wage and way, WAY more in line within the notion of risk/reward than the corporate pirates of Wall Street. Absolutely.
@ McCord – LOL careful now, you have no idea what you’re talking about there. You are completely misinformed, although there is the element of truth there in that there was a person that did get arrested for embezzling, and he did work for us, but he got busted in the company he worked for after ours. Note that all of that happened more than 2 years after we had sold the company, in any case. Sorry to disappoint.
And to this day, our employees stay in touch with us and assert that it was the finest company and working environment that they have ever been in. Sorry, we walk the talk.
But all that said, go there like that again, and it’ll be the last time you ever post here. I promise.
@Perk
“But all that said, go there like that again, and it’ll be the last time you ever post here. I promise.”
Why are you SO ANGRY Perk? Where is all this intolerance and anger coming from? With all the personal attacks that go on here (except for me and willy) I would think that you have thicker skin than that.
Perk, you should learn from your friend Willy. You have a bombastic approach at times and that’s really not when you are at your best, in my opinion.
@Rushing to War in Iraq
12 years, 16 resolutions and many months of shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone.
That’s hardly a rush. What did you want, to wait 20 years?
Edgar, same goes for you as well – don’t play as if you don’t understand.
One warning only. I’m not angry, but neither am I kidding.
It’s late, but I have to say one thing to Edgar. Your lame argument about resolutions and shooting at our planes in the “no-fly” zone is really bogus. The Korean war has been over for almost 50 years. There is a demilitarized zone between the two Koreas. Regularly, firing across the lines take place. Many of our troops have been killed there. Using your logic, we should be again in an all out war in Korea. Six years, a trillion dollars and all those deaths, for “shooting at our planes!” Give me a break son.
Willy,
You are always so GRUMPY when you blog late at night.
It’s your logic that we are using, not mine. You said our involvement on ww1 was justified just because one of our ships were sunk. You appealed to direct provocation.
Shooting at our planes is direct provocation. I guess if one of our planes were shot down you would have been fine with that. After all, it’s would only have been one of Bush’s minions. I can see why it’s not a big deal to you.
I guess we should have waited 50 years but Bush, Hillary and the rest of the dems/repubs felt it was necessary.
12 years, 16 resolutions and direct provocation. Some rush.
@Perk,
Oh brother, I didn’t know you were SO SENSITIVE…*group hug*
Edgar, read your history. This is not a free course I’m going to teach you. Silly arguments. You just don’t pay attention. Besides, “12 years, 16 resolutions and direct provocation” had very little to do with our invading Iraq and you know it. If we are going to talk, how about let’s be honest with each other. I don’t have time for this silliness.
I think I’m not ignorant of history Willy and I’m certainly not trying to entice you into giving me a free history lesson.
I don’t need to read the history of the Iraq war. For goodness sakes Willy, it’s a current event that I’ve been living through, paying attention to and actively discussing in political circles for since it began.
Now to address the only bit of substance in your reply, “Besides, “12 years, 16 resolutions and direct provocation” had very little to do with our invading Iraq and you know it. If we are going to talk, how about let’s be honest with each other.”
I guess you are saying that I’m not being honest. OK, either show me that it wasn’t 12 years, there weren’t 16 resolutions passed and that there was no direct provocation or agree with me.
“And I know it…” you say. Remember my earlier post when I mentioned that I was surprised when the focus of the Iraq war shifted from violations of UN resolutions, violations of the Gulf War peace treaty and direct provocation to the WMD issue?
12 years, 16 resolutions and sustained direct provocation does not equal a rush to war.
The argument is there Professor, address IT instead of my ignorance, lack of knowledge, silliness etc…
Edgar, I only mention the lack of perspective in history, because you fly fast and loose with the facts. You do need to read the history of the Iraq war. There is a plethora of books which, if you wish and when I have a bit more time, I would be glad to list for you. Of course it may not really be your breadth of knowledge on the subject. It could very well be that you simply refuse to consider the whole picture of evidence about the war and its origins. If that is the case, we really don’t have much to talk about, as you refuse to broaden your scope of thinking on the subject.
When you select the UN resolutions and violations as the material reason for the war, you completely deny all the voluminous evidence as to why Bush went in. Of course he hung his hat on those issues, but it was a whole series of other issues that the neo cons in Bush’s admin pursued both during his administration and earlier in Clinton’s to get the specific war on Iraq going. To simply say that those resolutions and violations were his reasoning suggests that Bush wished to support and defend the UN. That, considering who he named as ambassador to the body (John Bolton!), and the attitudes that Bush and most of his administration demonstrated toward the UN make that assertion laughable.
Willy,
Let’s make a distinction here. On the one hand we are talking about why Bush and Congress went to war in Iraq.
On the other hand we are talking about this notion that Bush rushed to war. Two separate issues which are starting to get meshed together in your responses. Let’s keep them separate so it will be easier to discuss.
@ The Rush To War
It’s in response to the assertion that Bush rushed to war that I bring up the facts; 12 years, 16 resolutions and sustained direct provocation.
My point is to refute the idea that Bush rushed to war. As you acknowledged, the war in Iraq was ginning up for a long time, even when Clinton was in office. Now as to your point about ‘neo-cons’ being responsible for all the mischief, well, that is just sheer speculation that’s better discussed when talking about WHY we went to war.
Willy, 16 resolutions don’t happen overnight. That’s a long, long process. That is anything but a rush. 12 years of defiance from Saddam is not a rush. It’s just a matter of math. 12 years=not a rush.
@Why we went to war in Iraq
The main reason we went to war in Iraq is because Congress approved it. You are right Willy, we didn’t declare war as I had carelessly stated. All the same Congress approved it. There were PLENTY of dems who approved it too. Plenty.
Why is that an important point? Because it tells us something about the evidence that the president and congress were examining. There must have been something very compelling about the evidence if even the liberal democrats in congress were convinced enough to sign off on war.
One factor that might have made this body of condemning evidence more convincing for liberal democrats is the broad global consensus. There was almost unanimous agreement among nations like Russia, China, England, France, Germany, even Islamic nations, that Saddam had WMD’s.
People had different ideas about how to respond to the growing Saddam problem but that’s not my point here. I’m just trying to consider the nature of the evidence and why that may have persuaded some of the more skeptical congressmen and woman to approve military action in Iraq.
Why did we go to war in Iraq? We all recognize that liberal democrats are the ones most vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq, so I think it would do us some good to ponder just exactly why some of these same people voted for the war. Again, I come back to the evidence and the nature of the evidence. You and I didn’t review the evidence like our republican and democratic congressmen did so we can’t speak for or against the evidence with any authority.
We went to war in Iraq because both liberal and conservative politicians in Washington saw fit to do so, based on the classified evidence they examined together.
Just pinning it all on Bush merely speaks to the blind partisanship of some left wing ideologues. Be critical in your thought.
Perk, who cares what the world thinks when we A’muhrecins (5%) are the most important part of it?
I’m trying to parody the right, but the sad thing is that a bunch of people honestly do think that way.
Agree VS – unfortunately, there’s a large component of folks that think Steven Colbert is actually f’reals.
Vsloathe,
Your comment was particularly engaging. Tell me, do you sit in front of your computer before you post and make farting noises with your hand and armpit?
BTW, who cares what anyone thinks when you are a post modernist? Everything might not even exist. We might all be in someones imagination. There is no truth. There is no right and wrong. There is no better or worse. It’s all just SHEER SPECULATION.
Tell me MR “Truth doesn’t Exist” – why is it wrong to put America first if you are American? Is that somehow against your version of morality?
Please explain.
Please explain how judge some Americans so harshly. What standard do you use to judge by? You think it’s wrong to put America first if you are American but I’ve not heard you say why. Is there some kind of objective morality that you measure our deeds by?
Just what is it that allow YOU to judge other Americans for their sense of nationalism? Can you answer that like a big boy without perks or willy’s help?
Doubt it.
And today, Barack “Napoleon” Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. Did you notice how uncomfortable he looked in giving his acceptance speech? LMAO! There he is accepting the NPP, explaining away the fact that he *just* escalated the war in Afghanistan! What a phony! Pfft!
You liberals must be squirming in your seats over this one.
Obama has NO plan for victory, yet he just sent 34,000 new troops to afghanistan. Why? Are we trying to win the war? If not, then why send more troops?
WHY is Obama so anti-peace?
You’re very funny Edgar. A troll, but funny.
Yeah, I purchased a sense of humor last weekend at walmart…
I was listening to Tom Hartman today (tag, your it…) and he agrees with me about Obama and afghanistan. I know you listen to him everyday Perk, so you heard him too.
Tom said, “he’s hoping that B.O. will become a good presedent…” which I thought was pretty levelheaded of him.
I agree and yes, I listen to Thom every chance I get (which is not, unfortunately, every day – only days when I am out on rounds).
Thom is perhaps the most erudite Liberal on the radio today and I love his approach. Particularly his beliefs about “The Commons” and am always impressed with his willingness to bring the most vocal and vehement opponents to his positions on the radio and debate them for us all to hear.
LOL @ “Tag, you’re it”
I applaud you listening to him, regardless of your position or like/dislike. It’s like me subscribing to American Thinker or taking in a Bill or Beck show. American Thinker, particularly, is difficult for me to stomach, but it is important to see what and how others are arguing their cases.