Jump to content

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded To President Barack Obama


Parsad

Recommended Posts

Whoever keeps the rednecks stirred up I'll vote for.

 

HAHA Thats great!!

 

Sign me up for that team also Eric.

 

;D

 

It is wonderful to see ideology victims foam at the mouth and kick and yell in frustration. Just for that the whole exercise is priceless. I too am having a wonderful time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the point made repeatedly since yesterday that Desmond Tutu won the prize years before his much progress was made toward abolishing apartheid, the inference being that sometimes the Peace Prize is awarded not so much for fulfilling a goal so much as encouraging continued work towards it.  Some may call that ideological, but it is the PEACE prize after all.  Obama's going to look pretty stupid if he acts as a warmonger with that thing sitting on his mantle.

 

I wish I could enjoy all the right wingers frothing at the mouth over this, but I don't really see anything as having changed there.  They've been frothing at the mouth all along anyway.  I guess it is nice that more and more they're being recognized for the ideologues that they are though.  I did enjoy this from Lukovich yesterday:

 

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/mike10092009.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest misterstockwell

The biggest war he is waging is on capitalism. Here is a 1976 interview with Margaret Thatcher after a similarly liberal party took charge in the UK:

 

I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

 

So applicable today. He has not made any strides towards peace anywhere on earth, but most evident in his own country. Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Broxburnboy

The biggest war he is waging is on capitalism. Here is a 1976 interview with Margaret Thatcher after a similarly liberal party took charge in the UK:

 

I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

 

So applicable today. He has not made any strides towards peace anywhere on earth, but most evident in his own country. Sad.

 

I have to take issue with this perception, that somehow "liberals" are responsible for all evils and are the atithesis of "capitalism".

Thatcher of course, was the UK's Ronald Reagan, who introduced supply side (Friedmanism, "trickle down") economics there.

This economic theory boiled down to borrow and spend in order to subsidize the "supply side"... banks, corporations, the established money.

The idea was that if left unfettered, the supply side would create jobs and hence more taxation (from the middle class) than it would

consume by the tax cuts. The greatest boom in history followed, but it was financed increasingly by borrowed money. Instead of trickling down, however, the resulting cash flow was invested in profligate spending, conspicuous consumer consumption, foreign wars, various asset bubbles and other malinvestments.

It created a downward debt spiral, resulting in today's debt, which is unreedemable. The Reagan revolution also marks the point in America, where conservatives previously in favour of sound money and balanced budgets, became neo-cons (borrow and spend, cut taxes) and the influence of corporate donors captured the legislative agenda. After a half hearted effort of balancing the budget under Clinton (through higher taxes), the Democrats capitulated and bought into the "supply side" theories. President Obama, continues the same policies of his Republican predecessors and there is no substansive difference between the two parties or their agendas.

Liberals and Conservatives have been marginalized to both the "left" and "right" fringes of the American politics.. coalescing around  Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. Interesting, their agendas are both very similar .. end the wars, cut government spending, pursue sound money policies and very "liberal".. dismantle the security state, legalize drugs, increase freedoms, end the Federal reserve.

 

I also particularly take issue with the statement "they (Liberals)  then start to nationalise everything". The march away from Liberalism (the founding philosphy of the US) and to National Socialism has been led by Reaganites and Thatcherites and has resulted in the means of production and most of the money in the US ending up at the very top of the economic pyramid. There are fewer and fewer mechanisms for the redistribution of income necessary for the maintenance of a liberal state,  the "freedom, liberty, equality" idealized in the American constitution.

The neo-cons have nationalized "other people's money" and concentrated power in the hands of the few. Obama (and the Democrats) has acqueised.. he is no more a liberal than Bush or Reagan was a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a sad day when all people of North America are not filled with a sense of pride when our President (or the president of an ally) is even nominated for such an honor.  Whether or not he deserves it is not up to us and the justification did not start on day 1 of his presidency.  There are several past recipients of this award who won in the early stages of their efforts toward widespread peace throughout the world.  These efforts may or may not have materialized, but the award was provided to them for their obvious efforts.  If nothing else we should be extremely proud that the world has so quickly regained faith in the US and its allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...