RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 10:04:52 AM

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.

Other surprise losers include celebrity noneconomist and filmmaker Michael Moore; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 10/12/2009 10:07:02 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 10:21:44 AM

Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline

Not shocking to me. There was a time such prizes were reserved solely for those with an academic background in theoretical economics not for political economics. For example you wouldn’t usually give a politician a Nobel prize for stem cell research just because they passed a law allowing it to happen.

We could go on forever awarding politicians for the advancement of society just because they had a say in it, they should just be content with re-election.

< Message edited by SL4V3M4YB3 -- 10/12/2009 10:26:06 AM >

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 10:23:00 AM

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Merc
OOOOOOOh the wit is flowing today
I do like a healthy sense of the ridiculous:)
thanks and happy thanksgiving

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 10:39:39 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

Bush had a choice. He chose Iraq. Obama has a choice. He chooses Afganastan 9 years late and after al queda has moved on. More dead American men and women on the far, barren outposts of empire. The Gen. Petreas CounterInsurgency Handbook ratio of troops needed to protect population suggests by the math that we will need 600,000 pairs of boots on the ground. No clear purpose. No goal. No exit strategy. Another woeful blunder. FUK!! Obama should be the co-recipient with Bush for the LBJ prize for stupid presidential wars. When will we learn to stop making WAR? Time to bring home all the troops.

No, Bush chose Afghanistan, but his attention deficit disorder didn't allow for the completion of the task and we went off into a happy little adventure in Iraq.

Did you believe we should not be in Afghanistan in the days and weeks following 9/11?

And what about now? Do you really believe that Al-Quaida has moved on from Afghanistan? The Taliban gave them support and shelter before 9/11 and the Taliban is reasserting control over the country.

(in reply to looking4princess)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 10:42:56 AM

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
And what about now? Do you really believe that Al-Quaida has moved on from Afghanistan? The Taliban gave them support and shelter before 9/11 and the Taliban is reasserting control over the country.

This is true, but at this point they're spread through the north west territory of Pakistan as well. Do you really fancy invading there after them? That's likely to kick up a much bigger fuss than there was over Iraq.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 10:54:58 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

well, since we are already the fuck there, our whole deal in Afghanistan militarily should be not to fight, but simply surround them, and starve them out, then they have to go into Pakistan and raise hell there, and Pakistan is already tired of it, and Pakistan can start killing the fuckers.

R

(little more complex than that but a model that is understandable to Joe the Plumber strategists)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Moonhead)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 10:55:38 AM

Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

True, he didn't win the Nobel prize. But the Yankees just announced they're making him the MVP for the divisional playoffs they just won so he's not too bad off.

< Message edited by SpinnerofTales -- 10/12/2009 10:56:11 AM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 11:00:35 AM

Posts: 855
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline

This just in: Obama has won the Heisman trophy for attending a college football game. 3 months early even. Can you believe it?

Well we all knew our next story was going to happen eventually. Oprah has announced plans to create the Obama TV Network. So as not to disappoint his fans, every news story will cover only Obama interspersed with his hilarious antics at sporting events, and private moments in the cough cough, Whitehouse, hereinafter referred to as the home. The only tv commercials allowed will be for products endorsing Obama.

What's next for this guy Joyce, perhaps a resort retreat on the moon? I don't know Bob, but I sure would like to meet him at the Kobe Bryant Hotel in Colorado for an exclusive personal interview. Hint Hint, if you're listening out there.

(in reply to Moonhead)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 11:05:15 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
And what about now? Do you really believe that Al-Quaida has moved on from Afghanistan? The Taliban gave them support and shelter before 9/11 and the Taliban is reasserting control over the country.

This is true, but at this point they're spread through the north west territory of Pakistan as well. Do you really fancy invading there after them? That's likely to kick up a much bigger fuss than there was over Iraq.

The difference being Pakistan is our ally, supposedly.

There seems to have been tacit approval from their government over the US incursions to pursue Al-Quaida across the border. Though they paid lip service to publicly condemning it for internal political reasons.

(in reply to Moonhead)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 11:40:47 AM

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

"Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No,...............it's..................."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 12:24:22 PM

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
And what about now? Do you really believe that Al-Quaida has moved on from Afghanistan? The Taliban gave them support and shelter before 9/11 and the Taliban is reasserting control over the country.

This is true, but at this point they're spread through the north west territory of Pakistan as well. Do you really fancy invading there after them? That's likely to kick up a much bigger fuss than there was over Iraq.

The difference being Pakistan is our ally, supposedly.

There seems to have been tacit approval from their government over the US incursions to pursue Al-Quaida across the border. Though they paid lip service to publicly condemning it for internal political reasons.

Actually the really big problem is that Pakistan's government and military (who quite like being your ally, or at least much prefer it to the alternative at present) are completely incapable of policing huge chunks of their own country. That's why they decided to allow a bunch of unelected wankers who think it's still the 14th century to impose Sharia law on the northwestern territories in the first place, wasn't it? Anybody who didn't think that was pretty much an open invitation for the Taliban to steam in and take over a chunk of the country probably doesn't belong in politics in the first place.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/12/2009 1:15:52 PM

looking4princess

Posts: 165
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

Bush had a choice. He chose Iraq. Obama has a choice. He chooses Afganastan 9 years late and after al queda has moved on. More dead American men and women on the far, barren outposts of empire. The Gen. Petreas CounterInsurgency Handbook ratio of troops needed to protect population suggests by the math that we will need 600,000 pairs of boots on the ground. No clear purpose. No goal. No exit strategy. Another woeful blunder. FUK!! Obama should be the co-recipient with Bush for the LBJ prize for stupid presidential wars. When will we learn to stop making WAR? Time to bring home all the troops.

No, Bush chose Afghanistan, but his attention deficit disorder didn't allow for the completion of the task and we went off into a happy little adventure in Iraq.

Did you believe we should not be in Afghanistan in the days and weeks following 9/11?

And what about now? Do you really believe that Al-Quaida has moved on from Afghanistan? The Taliban gave them support and shelter before 9/11 and the Taliban is reasserting control over the country.

I believe Bush acted properly in going into Afganistan but we lost Osama in Tora Bora and he escaped into injun country in the Wild west of Pakistan ... a rather tall man attached to a kidney dialysis machine and he got away across the rock strewn mountains. My best guess, from what I have read actually, is that we were betrayed by local tribal allies who took our cash and laughed.

Look at this youtube presentation to catch a glimpse of Gen Petreas affirming that Al-Q has indeed moved on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJjtanf7MqU

Let me know if you can prove this is just anti-war propaganda.

A couple other points I wish to make. The 9/11 attacked was planned operationally in Hamburg. We did not invade. If Al-Q is now in the Northwest Territories and are driven out from there and from Afganistan, they will move on to bases in Yemen or Somalia or New Jersey (kidding about NJ) So, what I am suggesting is that a massive troop build up to fight the Taliban is a buildup to fight the wrong enemy for the wrong purpose with the wrong strategy. Nope, don't ask me. I can't think of anything but Special Ops and Assassination Squads. The drones are taking out too many innocents.

Oh, and as for the Taliban. Yes! Let them have Afganistan. It is a shithole. We have no obligation. The Brits broke it. The Russkies broke it. We and Karsi broke it more. Let it rot. Better that than more brave young Americans lost needlessly. 50,000 in Vietnam, 4300 in Iraq, and counting in Afganistan. Well fu@k that!

So, that's what I am thinking. would like to see us bring the boots home and fight a different kind of war. Open to any suggestions but Obama is not taking my phone calls. Sheesch!

Oh excuse me for running on....let me add this information from Frank Rich's NY Times column:

quote:

Gen. David Petraeus stipulates that real counterinsurgency requires 20 to 25 troops for each thousand residents. That comes out, conservatively, to 640,000 troops for Afghanistan (population, 32 million). Some 535,000 American troops couldn’t achieve a successful counterinsurgency in South Vietnam, which had half Afghanistan’s population and just over a quarter of its land area.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&em

< Message edited by looking4princess -- 10/12/2009 1:21:35 PM >

_____________________________

vincent....

Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance? I ask you.

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/13/2009 11:43:46 PM

Posts: 333
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

No, no, Lucy, not letting Sanity off the hook that easily. Neville Chamberlain, the all-time poster boy for appeasement, was a conservative, not a liberal....exactly the opposite of his argument. I'm just waiting for Sanity to acknowledge it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Ah, yes. The Noble Liberal, and "Peace in our time".

Aw, Sanity, I love ya, man. Bringing up Neville Chamberlain, waving that piece of paper, the very personification of appeasement to this day.

One little thing, though. In 1930 Chamberlain, elected as a Conservative MP, became Chairman of the Conservative Party. During this period, he founded and became the first head of the Conservative Research Department. He went on to serve as the Conservative Minister of Health, and became Prime Minister on 28 May 1937, and leader of the Conservative Party a few days later. The next year, he sold out the Czechs to appease Hitler.

And so came the largest, deadliest war ever fought. But they probably didn't give him the Nobel Prize because he was....wait, what was it?

Shhhhhhhhhhh McBride, England is socialist country didn't you know???..... so a Conservative to the UK population is a liberal in the US, hence the discombobulation of Obama being considered a Conservative in the UK and a marxist communist mooozlem to some of the "right" in the US.
Lucy

(in reply to Lucylastic)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/14/2009 12:23:07 AM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

No, no, Lucy, not letting Sanity off the hook that easily. Neville Chamberlain, the all-time poster boy for appeasement, was a conservative, not a liberal....exactly the opposite of his argument. I'm just waiting for Sanity to acknowledge it.

He'll just tell you Hitler was a liberal. Watch.

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to mcbride)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/14/2009 7:14:05 AM

Posts: 492
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I strongly believe that the Cheneys of this world are wrong, that an open dialogue with other nations is not a sign of weakness and kowtowing but an absolute necessity with friend and foe alike. We don't have to like what we hear, we don't have to listen to it, we don't have to change our attitudes and decisions based on it necessarily, but to make any kind of progress, now or eventually, we must have that dialogue. No, that doesn't mean we should seek to placate our enemies, and no, it doesn't mean that they are just poor and misunderstood. It does mean that without dialogue, only force is left. Dialogue doesn't remove force from the table, but relying on force alone limits our strength quite considerably--especially in Iran and North Korea, where our force is insufficient (i.e., we invaded Iraq because we could...not so easy with Iran and North Korea, as the consequences and repercussions would be far more severe). If we can't even talk, we are the ones unreasonable.

Much of the rest of the world feels this way (especially Europe), so it's not surprising that Oslo does. Obama opened the door to the possibility of a real change from an eight year era of frigid relations with friend and foe alike--again, a policy isolation that I believe is foolish, dangerous, and short-sighted. We aren't as all-powerful as we like to fantasize. Being part of the discussion serves us much better, even when we disagree with the direction of that discussion. We should at least be there to say so and why, willing at least to listen to alternative proposals, if not necessarily accept them.

So a tiny corner of the world decided to take $1.4 million and use their only chance at a large stage to express their congratulations on a change in policy, a change that they apparently strongly believe is crucial to peace in the world.

Are they right? And is this a good use of the Prize? That's all fair game for debate. But they're also well within their rights to do with it as they please--and they have.

Amen- reprinted to echo the thoughts. the last 8 years of foreign policy gave proof to the maxim that when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to resemble a nail- military force was not a last option, but seemingly the ONLY option ever considered.
Dialogue was considered weakness and appeasement, and foreign policy became really just a Kabuki dance of domestic politics,with each candidate outdoing each other in a show of masculinity and bluster.

The world is reacting with hope and approval that this Administration is heading in a different direction- half of foreign policy is gaining trust and alliances- after 8 years of bullying allies and turning the world against us, earning the trust and confidence of the world is a good start.

_____________________________

"The words 'I am...' are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you." - A.L. Kitselman.

see my profile masterkspet

(in reply to AnimusRex)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/14/2009 7:23:57 AM

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Open dialogue only works if you are dealing with sane people. That unfortunately is not the case with the leaders of North Korea and Iran.

(in reply to scarlethiney)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/14/2009 8:26:51 AM

Posts: 492
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Your president just got awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Anywhere else in the world, this would be a cause for celebration.

Here, however, it's just an excuse for pissing in each other's Corn Flakes.

What does it say about the state of the national psyche? Is it just fucked, or is it well and truly fucked up? Regroup, people. Refuckingroup.

Agreed kittin. Some people cannot help but be negative. Honestly, I do not think it would matter who were elected. To these people, the need to spread dissention is a priority.

I voted for Obama and yet I do not agree with everything he is doing. I support the majority of his intentions. Were McCain and Palin (God help us) elected, yes I would be upset, but I would also do my best to believe his intentions to improve our country and the lives of its citizens to be honest. I would not spend the next year condemning and criticizing every move he made. I would give him a real chance to make good on his word.

Perhaps Obama may not accomplish every thing he wants to, or everything we want him to, but in my opinion he gets an "A" for trying.
Like it or not,Obama is the leader of our country and was elected by a majority of its citizens. Agree or disagree with his policies, with his being chosen as a recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, he deserves our support, because anything less divides us as a nation.

_____________________________

"The words 'I am...' are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you." - A.L. Kitselman.

see my profile masterkspet

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/14/2009 8:39:34 AM

zenny

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/13/2008
Status: offline

Not quite - more like ~26%. Also, he wasn't elected by the people, he was elected by the electorate college.

(in reply to scarlethiney)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/14/2009 8:53:22 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Open dialogue only works if you are dealing with sane people. That unfortunately is not the case with the leaders of North Korea and Iran.

That's what Reagan told us about Libya.

(in reply to servantforuse)

RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize - 10/14/2009 8:58:50 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenny

Not quite - more like ~26%. Also, he wasn't elected by the people, he was elected by the electorate college.

So Obama was elected by only 26% of voters? That sounds to me like he would have lost, but my math skills are a little rusty.

And what exactly is the electorate college?

(in reply to zenny)

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.400