Lightnin’, I have invited everyone to give me one example of Obama (or any other politician) being abused for being too modest or for turning down an undeserved award. Nobody has brought up a single example. Not one. Funny, that … so until you do, I will say that the idea that Obama will be abused for being modest about his achievements to date is nonsense.
Abused for many things, yes, some deserved and some not, some reasonable and some ridiculous.
But ANYTHING? Not. That’s just propaganda from the Anti-Conservative Squad.
(And while the “fist-bump” was puerile blather from the brain-dead, the Reverend Wright is racist. Explaining why he hadn’t talked to Obama after the sermon blew up in his face, Wright said “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.” Of course, when called on it, he explained it all … * “Let me say like Hillary, I misspoke. Let me just say: Zionists… I’m not talking about all Jews, all people of the Jewish faith, I’m talking about Zionists."* But then he apologized for that as well, saying “I mis-spoke and I sincerely meant no harm or ill-will to the American Jewish community or the Obama administration… I have great respect for the Jewish faith and the foundational (and central) part of our Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Now to me, black racism is much more understandable than white racism. However, it is still racism. But that’s a different thread.)
elucidator, that was not my meaning nor my aim at all. My writing was very poor and unclear, my bad. I meant visions of a better world, without Guantanamo, or war in Afghanistan, not religious visions. The other interpretation didn’t occur to me. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
However, it is another example of killing the messenger. Too many Democrats seem to think that anyone who opposes something Obama has done should be drummed (or bribed) out of the Democratic Party … where’s the “big tent” when it is needed? I say again, Obama makes mistakes just like the rest of us. If we don’t clean up our own party’s mistakes, the Republicans will be more than happy to do it for us, and I guarantee that it won’t be pretty.
But if you want to send me cookies, I’ll eat them, especially if you use the Toklas recipe, I’ll see if I can’t “twist it to hallucination” …
The Big Tent, with an elephant and everything, was the Republicans (at one time). In fact, there was a time when they liked, and promoted that image (meaning there was room for everyone, and room for differing opinions). We’ve seen how that turned out, during the “support our president or you’re helping terrorists” years. It seems that the “dissent = treason” outlook was perfectly fine with some people for ummmmm about 8 years. I don’t see many Dems saying “get out of the country” or anything like that.
We were always at war with Oceania. We were never at war with Oceania.
I think **intention **is someone who dares to question the anti-Reupblican orthodoxy on this MB, and is getting a pile-on for doing so. I don’t agree with his idea that Obama should decline the prize, but I understand where he is coming from and why he’s not particularly thrilled with the DNC’s statement.
This is where the actual disagreement occurs between you and the Nobel committee. They are pleased that he is taking the difficult step of closing the prison down. As has been said (even by Lech Walesa), this award was a indication that the folks at nobel appreciate the direction that Obama is going in. You would prefer that the award be given after the fact.
Of course, another thought just occured to me (which is noteworthy as I’m only known to have one or two a day tops) that this was not just an “atta boy” to the president. It was in part a message to the american people that this is the sort of direction the rest of the world agrees with. An attempt to cut through some of the noise being generated by the nattering naybobs of negativity. Pure speculation on my part but something to chew on.
Not the fault of my awesomely poor reading skills. It’s alla them big words you done been throwin’ with yer liberal elitist disyllabic and polysyllabic words. Makes my poor brain justa start ta sizzle.
All smartassery aside, I’d like you to point out a post of mine in this thread that comes across as Obama worship or premature cheering.
Turns out that whooshing sound wasn’t just the wind over the majestic peaks of the himalayas. May have been the wind between my ears, or the wind beneath Bette Midler’s wings.
And on this, you and the nobel committee have a disagreement. Not something that renders the award meaningless. The award was given as an encouragement. As for your points regarding Afghanistan, wiretapping, and prosecuting torture, I think Punoqllads explained the logic behind those rather well. You may disagree with the reasoning behind it, but that’s not been addressed and I would so hate to argue prematurely. I’m still having problems with the cheering and all.
For my part, I have little problem with his views. I only take objection to the way he is stating them. There is a difference between “I don’t feel Obama should have accepted the award” and “Obama is a thief and this renders the NPP entirely meaningless.” It’s possible that he’s knee jerking as a result of offense taken to the DNC’s statement, but as of yet he has not indicated such.
Since I neither said nor implied that you were the one who worships Obama, I find your sensitivity on this point quite interesting.
Regarding premature cheering, unless I misread the tea leaves, you think he deserves a Nobel Prize for something that he has not yet done. I call that “premature cheering”, as in cheering someone for an accomplishment that hasn’t occurred. Perhaps my meaning was not clear, that’s been going 'round lately …
I said he was stealing the prize from those who actually deserved it, back a few pages. Probably over the top, I know … but hey, call me crazy, I do think the guy who actually climbs the mountain should the mountain-climbing prize.
Not the guy who came up with the idea of climbing the mountain. Not the guy who laid out the route. Not the doctor who stayed at Campground 4 while the climber went to the top. The one who actually stood on the summit deserves the prize. If the guy who said “I have a vision, that we could climb Everest” accepts the prize, to me he’s stealing it from the man or woman who should have gotten it.
I said it greatly diminishes the Peace Prize (or something like that, I can’t be arsed to look up my exact words right now), and in this case, I do think it is a meaningless accolade. I find it hugely ironic that the immediate effect of this “Peace” prize has been to divide the world into warring camps … which should tell people something right ther.
And yes, my response was, to some extent, a knee-jerk reaction to the DNC’s statement. I don’t like being equated with terrorists, particularly by my own party.
If he had actively pursued such an outcome, you would have a case.
My two bits, if he had any hint this was about to happen, he would have been on the horn to the US ambassador to Norway toot damn sweet, begging for a diplomatic way to put the quiet kibosh down. He’s a long-tailed cat in a room full of stainless steel rocking chairs, and this shit he does not need. And the man I voted for is smart enough to know that.
If it’s any consolation, I believe the spokesman was specifically referring to a statement that Rush Limbaugh made:
The White House and the Democratic Party have been pushing the meme that Limbaugh is the chief spokesman for the Republican Party, and I believe the statement was in that vein. They weren’t saying that everyone who believes that a more worthy candidate should have won was allying themselves with terrorists, but that the Republican Party did so explicitly.
That’s not a disagreement between me and the Committee. It is a disagreement between the Committee and Alfred Nobel’s will, which they are ignoring. Nobel said the money and the prize were for people who have done things. Not to encourage people to do things. Which is why, as I said, that the Prize has lost its lustre.
Sorry, I missed Punoqllads explanation. Punoqllads, thanks for taking the time to defend them. Let me take them point by point. He said:
But … but … but that is exactly my point! That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It is easy to envision this stuff and hard to accomplish it. You say in effect ‘Just wait, he’ll do it’. And in response I can only say ‘OK, you’re right, so we’ll just wait, and we’ll give him the plaudits when he’s done it.’
Which is why Nobel offered the prizes for people who have accomplished something. And it is also why the cheering is premature.
Nope, the issue is not state secrets in the discovery phase of this trial, you have totally misunderstood the issue. It is about whether the government can issue a warrantless wiretap. From Slate (emphasis mine)
In other words, we need secret warrantless wiretaps. Here is Eric Holder, Obama’s pick for Attorney General:
Fookin’ weasel, but obviously Holder doesn’t think it was illegal … and you seriously believe Obama has renounced warrantless wiretapping??? Puh-lease …
Note that the issue is not state secrets. It is whether a president can bypass Congress and adopt a warrantless surveillance program. But hey, don’t worry, Holder says they won’t abuse the privilege, viz:
Gosh, that makes me feel much better, Holder is protecting us. And of course, when the next Bushalike comes to power and Obama has made warrantless wiretapping established law, who will protect us then? Quick, give Holder a Nobel Peace Prize to encourage him to protect us forever …
See also the discussion of the EFF’s case here. The money quote is:
Great. Not only can they do it, but if we find out, Obama says we can’t do a damn thing about it. Peace Prize for that? No problem, it is to encourage him to do better next time.
In addition, in 2008 then-Senator Obama voted for the warrantless wiretaps (the FISA Act), as well as for immunity for the telecoms that gave the information to Bush. But here is Obama on the campaign trail …
That’s why having “vision” is not enough. He had the vision of no warrantless wiretaps … until he became President. But now they’re all right, and Holder says they’re not illegal, and Obama says even if they are illegal, too bad, we have no recourse.
And that deserves the Peace Prize … how?
You have this one totally backwards. Obama has said a number of times that he doesn’t want legal action taken against the people at the top. Not the sergeants and corporals. He doesn’t want to try the people at the top.
As a result, Holder is reduced to investigating low-level flunkies who went outside the Bush guidelines, the ones that you say should not be prosecuted, and letting the big boys walk.
The worst part of this misguided course of action is that this enshrines the despicable idea that the only illegality was going outside the Bush guidelines. This, of course, means it is legal for the President to set the guidelines on what is and what is not torture. I find that stance morally repugnant, that is not and should never be a Presidential power, but you think that it deserves the Nobel Peace Prize … how?
So if you ramp up and fight a terrible unjustifiable war like Bush did, a war against against somebody with little regard for human rights and “military-grade weaponry and the skill and desire to use them”, that’s terrible and you deserve ostracism by all right-minded people.
But on the other hand, if you ramp up and fight a justified war as Obama is doing, a noble war against somebody with little regard for human rights and “military-grade weaponry and the skill and desire to use them”, then you are a great guy and you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize … how?
Seriously, guys, you need to take a hard look at what is actually happening to our Democratic Party and our country. Not the dream, not the vision, not the Holder “I won’t answer” myopic view, but what is actually happening. We’ve become the war party in Afghanistan, the “we won’t prosecute torture” party in the courts, the “no habeas corpus” party in Baghram, the “we’re going to close Guantanamo someday soon and send the prisoners to Baghram” party in Cuba, the spying party in the US …
And that deserves a Nobel Peace Prize … how???
And, of course, I’m the bad guy who should be bribed to leave the Party for pointing these things out …
Well, that’s definitely over the top. I certainly wouldn’t describe the situation as two “waring camps”. People disagree, sometimes vigorously, but this is just a blip on the radar screen.
I understand that. I fully understand where you think their statement isn’t helpful. I think a lot of people on this MB don’t distinguish between gestures that make them feel good, and gestures that actually accomplish something. The Republicans have turned off many of the independents and swing voters with their vicious rhetoric. The Dems shouldn’t follow suit.
I can’t help it. I do have a feeling. You could say I’m hooked on it.
Never said he deserved it. I think the rationale expressed by the committee makes a certain sense. Next time read posts instead of tea leaves.
Can’t be arsed to go back to page one on a message board? Bad enough you barely read the posts of others. You can’t even bother to read your own.
And “warring camps” is another in a string of ridiculous overstatements on your part. What warring camps? I think “strong disagreement” would be overstating it, and that’s not even mentioning that a fair chunk of one of these “warring camps” would be arguing if Obama proclaimed that water could leave one feeling damp.
As I said in my first post in this thread, I do enjoy to a certain extent the republicans being hoisted by their own overly accusing petards with regards to being in cahoots with terrorists. I do not like the continuing degradation of the political conversation taking place in this great nation that results from these allegations (I know that sentence reads silly, but it makes more sense if you hear it coming from Jesse Jackson), which of course the possibly endless stream of hyperbolic vitriol clattering forth from your keyboard is a part of.
“The rationale expressed by the committee makes a certain sense”? What, you’ve been taking evasion lessons from Eric Holder?
Just answer the question – do you think he deserves the Nobel Prize or not? It’s not a complex question, a simple yes or no will do, ignore the “rationale expressed”. I think you do, but you might surprise me.
I’d say that “warring camps” exactly describes what is happening here in this thread, unless you think that “endless stream of hyperbolic vitriol” is some term of endearment.
To be blunt, I could give a crap. To be more reasonable, I was surprised that Obama won the peace prize. I have my doubts as to whether or not he was the best person for it but having read the explanation I can see where the folks at Nobel were coming from.
As I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve no issue with the essence of your disagreement. Merely the tone of your response. Not sure what camp that puts me in in your little war.
I didn’t think the exact wording was an important enough issue to waste my time looking up. If you think it’s so crucial, then do your own work and look it up yourself. Or not. But don’t abuse me because I won’t do your work.
And if you don’t think it’s important enough to look up, then what are you on about?