So Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:17 pm

Take that Limbaugh and Beck!

I think this award is more indicative of the world's dislike of Bush and his cronies than of their love for Obama.

All the guy had to do was just utter encouraging positive words of diplomacy, and they handed him the prize.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:43 pm

The amount of ill-thought-out freakout accompanying this is maddening. Here's some of what I've read.

People are saying that the Nobel Prize is a joke. First off, no it's not. Next, if it's a joke, then why on Earth are you so upset about Obama winning it?

A ton of people are mad at Obama for winning it. What sense does this make? It's not like Obama awarded himself the prize. Or campaigned for it. Or requested it.

A lot of people say that he didn't deserve to win. That's something I can agree with. Even Obama himself came close to saying it (calling it both surprising and humbling). I'm amazed at how many people can't simply say, "I don't think he's done anything that merits this," and instead get pissed off or say that the prize itself is a joke.

I expect that kind of thing from those with obvious biases like people on Fox News or certain blogs, but from "normal" people? It's crazy!

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:42 am

Im with Smooth (yes that just happened). I cant wrap my head quite around the reasoning for him getting the nod. Sure, its an amazing accomplishment that he became the first black president, yadda yadda. My problem comes from the fact that hes been in office since Feburary.....it took Mother Teresa and Ghandi how long to get recognized?? Granted they threw one at Al Gore for his work with his environmental platform, that I can see that more than Obama's work to do what? Set a date for our troops to pull out of Iraq? Throw more imaginable money at a huuuuuge financial crisis? Maybe its his PROPOSED universal health care plan.

Im not dogging Obama, im a supporter, I voted for the guy. I just dont see this award as a worthy recognition for a president whos barely gotten anything done.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:44 am

To sum up my feelings.

Nobel Prize = awesome and prestigious award.

Obama = Great guy

People who awarded Obama the Nobel Prize = bad decision

People who claim the Nobel Prize is a joke = idiots

Post by **Best First** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:22 am

Good summary.

Externally though i can see why even the small amout Obama has done in terms of foriegn policy he has reset the way the US i engaging the rest of the world.

That said it feels more like a nod that he is heading in the right direction than a suggestion that he has actually got there, which seems a bit at odds with the prize itself.

Then again maybe they were just trying to draw out gibbering reactionary idiots - in which case - score!

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:00 pm

Best First wrote:\
Then again maybe they were just trying to draw out gibbering reactionary idiots - in which case - score!

It's not a difficult thing to do...

Have you seen that video of the conservative news network reacting to the news that Chicago won't get the Olympics? They start cheering LOUDLY because it means they get to trash Obama.

I simply can not get over the fact that a large number of people want the problems in the US to get worse JUST so they can pin it on Obama (and the Democrats). It's maddening. President Bush took the country very close to utter ruin (and that's after spending 1/4 of his time on vacation). Now, somebody's actively trying to salvage the place and people are trying to stop him because he's not on their team.

It's not a goddamn baseball game! When the people in power are trying to keep the country from falling apart, you do not try to stop them for the sole purpose of making them look bad.

Perhaps the biggest shame in all of this is that the US' previous president messed up (not only the US, but the entire) world so badly that when the new guy suggests that he'll try to fix things, he gets the NOBEL PRIZE.

I honestly don't think that a lot of people (in the US) understand just how bad it got. How close they came to becoming "fall of the USSR part 2." Things got (and in many ways still are) REALLY bad.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:25 pm

Professor Smooth wrote: Perhaps the biggest shame in all of this is that the US' previous president messed up (not only the US, but the entire) world so badly that when the new guy suggests that he'll try to fix things, he gets the NOBEL PRIZE.

That's exactly it. And he gets it despite fighting in two active wars and maintaining facilities like Guantanemo Bay! Things had gotten so bad, that ANY sort of movement in the right direction was deemed worthy enough for the prize.

Which is sad. Sadder still, as you say Smooth, how freakin annoying is it that right wingers want to see Obama fail, even at the expense of the country, full well knowing just how bad it had gotten because of their very own policies?

There is a very deep-seated racism behind all of this that is shocking.

Really, in America, in this age, it has been the biggest surprise to me in quite some time that there is a large portion of the population that still clings to the backward ways of the early 1900's. I used to think it was just mountain folk who felt this way, but it's not.

When the people of great nations stop caring for one another, lose trust in one another, and desire to see the toppling of their elected leader, that nation is truly on the brink.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:29 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:I honestly don't think that a lot of people (in the US) understand just how bad it got. How close they came to becoming "fall of the USSR part 2." Things got (and in many ways still are) REALLY bad.

TBH, I'm not sure anyone would be of the opinion that things got so bad in the US that there was a risk of states seceding from the Union.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:24 pm

Rebis wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:I honestly don't think that a lot of people (in the US) understand just how bad it got. How close they came to becoming "fall of the USSR part 2." Things got (and in many ways still are) REALLY bad.
TBH, I'm not sure anyone would be of the opinion that things got so bad in the US that there was a risk of states seceding from the Union.

I think he might have been speaking more towards the rate at which the USSR fell apart, going from international superpower to just another has-been country in the world.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:06 pm

Rebis wrote:
TBH, I'm not sure anyone would be of the opinion that things got so bad in the US that there was a risk of states seceding from the Union.

Yaya's correct about what I meant. However...

Did you know that more than one state put that on the table during the Bush years? Or that some lawmakers from Texas have threatened to do it since Obama became President?

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:08 pm

Texas? Shanti, you'd better not be behind this...

All the blather about what Obama has failed to do is crap. The guy has been stymied at every turn by Republicans.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:30 am

bumblemusprime wrote:All the blather about what Obama has failed to do is crap. The guy has been stymied at every turn by Republicans.

I know the feeling. All my best endeavours are ruined by publicans.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:46 pm

I don't think everything can be blamed on the Republicans.

I think Obama has shown his inexperience from time to time.

I feel like at times, he demeans the office and respect the position of the Presidency should hold. When you are a president of a nation, you don't appear on late night TV shows. You just don't. You don't get into scuffles of little significance, like the one with that Boston cop and that black professor. These are things maybe a Senator can do, but a president shouldn't, IMO. I think it's cool, sure, that he's willing to come down to the level of the average citizen. But you have to maintain the reverence that comes with the position you are in.

All things considered though, he is worlds ahead of Bush, both junior and senior, and he's only been in office less than a year.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:51 pm

I think it's cool he talks to ppl on the same lvl. He's just a man, not a super human being who's better than us all.
It's this kind of link that builds bridges between ppl and nations, not being aloof...

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:35 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I think it's cool he talks to ppl on the same lvl. He's just a man, not a super human being who's better than us all.
It's this kind of link that builds bridges between ppl and nations, not being aloof...

I think it's cool too, but the mistake is that in many people's eyes, this comes off as petty. You can lose respect, and in politics, how your opponents see you carries a lot of weight.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:20 pm

Does it? If your democracy is worth anything its what the people think that matter, not the opposition.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:25 pm

And if the people disagree with how the opposition see you, then surely that's a winner too?

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:53 pm

I think it was mostly political. He was awarded the prize to give him some "clout"... he's trying to make good, and with the oppositon he's been facing he needs what he can get. Plus it's a lot more than most have done recently.

I expect that kind of thing from those with obvious biases like people on Fox News or certain blogs, but from "normal" people? It's crazy!

I find that "normal" people just regurgitate half the **** they see on TV without having a go at forming their own opinions 'cause they're too busy gettin' their drink on and busting stuff and other people up with their cars/fists. Or maybe that's just Alberta.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:33 pm

Best First wrote:Does it? If your democracy is worth anything....

Exactly.

I don't think the U.S. is the democracy that it's touted to be. When more than 95% of the nations wealth is in the top three percent of hands without any semblence of regulation, democracy as it's intended to be won't exist.

The power of the dollar has assured that America is no longer the country it once was. Decisions are made not through votes but by who is economically the most influential.

It's why health care is a debacle. It's why people like Madoff can steal billions of retirement money from citizens and get away with it for years. It's why Cheney can incite wars for personal profit for the sake of oil. Are these decisions made by the people, for the people?

How can a system like this, with an electoral college easily swayed by lobbyist, be called a democracy in the true sense?

Post by **Best First** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:29 pm

Probably not.

But if that is the case encouragig a guy to act in a more Presidential manner and court the approval of his opponents more seems like an odd tack - those are aspects of the status quo so if he is saying balls to it more power to him.

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:26 pm

Brendocon wrote:And if the people disagree with how the opposition see you, then surely that's a winner too?

Depends on if they're actually right or just think they're right because their party tells them its right. Right?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:17 pm

IronHide wrote:
Brendocon wrote:And if the people disagree with how the opposition see you, then surely that's a winner too?
Depends on if they're actually right or just think they're right because their party tells them its right. Right?

You mean right-wing....right?

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:36 am

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A.

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:52 pm

Eh. Democracy is like that everywhere, not just the US.

Frankly, the whole system was founded for city-states by the ancient greeks, it is totally ineffective for the controlling of a country.

Also it is founded on the mistake that people are all equal. They are not, and never will be (if they will be, we'll be in the nightmarish utopia of Harrisson Bergeron - by Kurt Vonnegut - and trust me, you don't want to live in a world like that). Someone will alway have to lead, and the pretense that the masses are in actual control is just there to satisfy said masses. Perhaps that's what I hate most in democracy, that it's trying to pretend to be a system based on equal rights and that voters decide, when it's NEVER like that. I prefer open leadership - if the top 3% who actually controls America would come forward and admit this, I would not agree with them but I'd respect their honesty.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:56 pm

BB Shockwave wrote: if the top 3% who actually controls America would come forward and admit this, I would not agree with them but I'd respect their honesty.

They don't want your respect. They want your money.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:30 pm

Could you imagine a United States where governmental power is devolved to state level, where each individual state is represented at an international level and matters of state are resolved by referendum?

Now, could you imagine it ever coming to pass?

No? Neither could I.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:05 pm

Rebis wrote:Could you imagine a United States where governmental power is devolved to state level, where each individual state is represented at an international level and matters of state are resolved by referendum?

Now, could you imagine it ever coming to pass?

No? Neither could I.

You think the economy is borked now?

Something like that would likely cause a second civil war (or World War 3) the first time Pittsburgh refused to ship steel to Detroit, or New Orleans blockaded the Mississippi River.

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:16 pm

I think the title 'United States' would have to change were that the case.

That would be an interesting circumstance though....would open the door to a large amount of state by state changes. Would be an fun little experiment.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:02 am

Optimus Prime Rib wrote:
Rebis wrote:Could you imagine a United States where governmental power is devolved to state level, where each individual state is represented at an international level and matters of state are resolved by referendum?

Now, could you imagine it ever coming to pass?

No? Neither could I.
You think the economy is borked now?

I never mentioned economy. I was just outlining a process whereby the definition of a democracy in the US would be more in-line with Yaya's interpretation.

As BB Shockwave said, a true democracy would be totally ineffective for national-level government, due to the vast number of participants in any decision-making process, which is why there are multiple layers of government where each layer's members are elected as representatives of (usually geographic) divisions of the immediately lower layer.

Something like that would likely cause a second civil war (or World War 3) the first time Pittsburgh refused to ship steel to Detroit, or New Orleans blockaded the Mississippi River.

Actually, were that to occur, it would be no more a civil war than it would have been had hostilities broken out over things such as the French boycotting the British over sheep, beef, and the like.

The United States would no longer be a country, and, as IronHide said, would probably no longer be called that, but have some more representative title, such as the Federation of American States or North American Federation, etc.

That would be an interesting circumstance though....would open the door to a large amount of state by state changes. Would be an fun little experiment.

Imagine it: Alaska forms even closer ties to the Russian Federation; Puerto Rico, Guam and other US territories are redefined as federation members; Texas secedes from the federation to form its own Union; and several New England states apply to join the British Commonwealth while still able to retain their federal status.

IronHide · Post by **IronHide** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:34 pm

I would be more interested in how it would effect trade relations between 'territories' as well as other countries. Would the dollar still be the dominant currency? Would there be some kinda of 'passport' you would need to travel from state to state? Could each state have to option to regulate the amount of involvement they have with world relations?