Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama

223 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
The Norwegian Nobel Committee just announced that this years Nobel Peace Prize goes to Barack Obama.

While I like Obama, I also think it might have been better to wait a while with a prize like this. A little bit unwize giving it so soon in my opinion.
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Exactly, just what has he done so far?

    They wouldn't even dare giving it to a Chinese dissident for the fear of offending China.

    With recipients like Arafat, I have lost all respect for the peace prize.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260493].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    They say it's because of his vision of a world free from nuclear weapons.

    The NYT also says "President Obama's name had not figured in speculation about the winner until minutes before the prize was announced here."

    I find it weird. I like Obama, and think it's cool he won, but that doesn't make it any less weird. I've found several of the recent Nobel selections weird. I mean, Krugman for Economics last year? Please.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260583].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

      They say it's because of his vision of a world free from nuclear weapons.
      You mean like all the BILLIONS of people before him? HECK, remember the star trek episode when people go back in time, annd save a pacifist that then stops the atom bomb from being created, and stops the US involvement in WWII!? Of course, it wasn't an original idea THEN either.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260607].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        You mean like all the BILLIONS of people before him? HECK, remember the star trek episode when people go back in time, annd save a pacifist that then stops the atom bomb from being created, and stops the US involvement in WWII!? Of course, it wasn't an original idea THEN either.
        Heck,

        even President Ronald Reagan expressed his wish for a world without nuclear weapons.


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260729].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Perhaps he won because he also helped changed the tone on the planet at least between the U.S. and our allies and with the moderate Muslim world.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      That's it exactly. It may be premature but Obama has already changed the tone and accomplished the important task of regaining some of the respect that we lost during the Bush years.

      "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Perhaps he won because he also helped changed the tone on the planet at least between the U.S. and our allies and with the moderate Muslim world.


      TL
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261103].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Scot Standke
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.
        I guess it has been colder than **** here this year, thanks Barack

        Anyone that single handily fixes global warming is truly deserving of the reward.

        Scot
        Signature

        Discover A New & Profitable Niche Every Day... FREE Niche Ideas + 2 Killer Bonus Items With Resale Rights!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261147].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Scot Standke View Post

          I guess it has been colder than **** here this year, thanks Barack

          Anyone that single handily fixes global warming is truly deserving of the reward.

          Scot
          I don't think they'd give an award to the sun for not producing sun spots.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261198].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

            "In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261349].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

              "In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."
              So what?

              Even a former recipient hasn't mentioned ANYTHING concrete that Obama has actually DONE - other than getting elected, or being a nice guy.

              I still say there were plenty of people and organizations that were more deserving.

              Also, don't assume you know my political beliefs. (Just a friendly reminder)

              Or do you really think he is the MOST deserving? Just curious.

              All the best,
              Michael
              Signature

              "Ich bin en fuego!"
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261422].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Did you read what he said? Read it again and let it sink in.
                Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

                So what?

                Even a former recipient hasn't mentioned ANYTHING concrete that Obama has actually DONE - other than getting elected, or being a nice guy.

                Michael
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261447].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author acrasial
    I disagree with the choice... and I think it may take away from the respectfulness of the peace prize in the first place.

    Granted that a certain country is still invading other countries, with the promise to pull out not followed through with- I do not see then, how that is peaceful... that is a shame.

    Heck, I would be happy if a warrior got it! cheez... why not then? let's nominate warriors for next years' round!

    I Nominate the Warrior Forum- for being the most peaceful internet marketing forum around... bringing people from all nations to a common goal and point; helping those in the community, and bettering all of the internet as a whole!
    Signature
    The Wait Is Almost Over...

    Do You SUCK At Writing & Marketing Articles? Just Wait Till You Get Your Hands On My Book! (Coming Soon!)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260802].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jason_V
      Originally Posted by acrasial View Post

      I disagree with the choice... and I think it may take away from the respectfulness of the peace prize in the first place.

      Granted that a certain country is still invading other countries, with the promise to pull out not followed through with- I do not see then, how that is peaceful... that is a shame.

      Heck, I would be happy if a warrior got it! cheez... why not then? let's nominate warriors for next years' round!

      I Nominate the Warrior Forum- for being the most peaceful internet marketing forum around... bringing people from all nations to a common goal and point; helping those in the community, and bettering all of the internet as a whole!
      I agree. What do you say guys:

      Allen Says for Nobel Peace Prize 2010?

      Let's get the campaign rolling!
      Signature
      "When you do something exactly wrong, you always turn up something."
      -Andy Warhol
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262249].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    It's just their way of making up for Chicago not getting the Olympics.



    I saw a clip of the announcement, and much of the audience gasped when his name was announced. At least he'll now get a check for $1,400,000!

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260830].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      SO, will he put his money where his mouth is, and give the money BACK to the US!?!?!? MAYBE the $1.4 million will help pay for ONE of his AF1 jaunts!

      Steve
      I was wondering if he was going to give it to the US, too.

      Maybe he will donate it to charity, or use the check to further peace in the world.

      I tried, but I couldn't even type that with a straight face.

      Aw man! I crack myself up!!!



      Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he will be holding a press conference very soon...so, we'll see.

      Also, there were over 200 people up for the prize.

      All the best,
      Michael
      Signature

      "Ich bin en fuego!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261027].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
        Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

        I was wondering if he was going to give it to the US, too.

        Maybe he will donate it to charity, or use the check to further peace in the world.

        I tried, but I couldn't even type that with a straight face.

        Aw man! I crack myself up!!!



        Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he will be holding a press conference very soon...so, we'll see.

        Also, there were over 200 people up for the prize.

        All the best,
        Michael
        Mike:

        US law dictates he has to turn that money over to the treasury. I'm not even sure he can keep the medal (that may have to be turned over too).

        On another note, if he can get a peace prize after 10 days in office (nominations closed in February), I think I should at least be nominated.

        Over 20 years, I've done the following:

        -Freed half a billion people from the grip of totalitarian commumism.
        -Freed Kuwait
        -Kept Taiwanese elections free from Chinese interference
        -Done humanitarian work in Mexico and the Philippines

        Who wants to run my campaign to get nominated. Think of all the money you could make on adsense with the blog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266373].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      It's just their way of making up for Chicago not getting the Olympics.



      I saw a clip of the announcement, and much of the audience gasped when his name was announced. At least he'll now get a check for $1,400,000!

      All the best,
      Michael

      What do the Nobel prize people have to do with the Olympic people??


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261125].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        What do the Nobel prize people have to do with the Olympic people??


        TL
        Nothing. It was a joke.

        That's why I used a smiley face. I figured some people wouldn't get it, looks like the smiley was too confusing for some.



        ~M~
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261143].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

          Nothing. It was a joke.

          That's why I used a smiley face. I figured some people wouldn't get it, looks like the smiley was too confusing for some.



          ~M~
          My mistake!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261169].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Imran Naseem
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260937].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      Originally Posted by Imran Naseem View Post

      I think he deserved it.

      "Change has come".

      Couldn't have given it to a better man...
      How about the head of Doctors Without Borders, or the people who run refugee camps, or anyone who has actually DONE something instead of just saying something.

      I'm not saying his message is bad, just that, as of now, it's only that - a message.

      On the other hand, you are not from the US, so that shows people in other countries are hopeful about Obama being our president.

      Nothing wrong with your feeling that way.

      All the best,
      Michael
      Signature

      "Ich bin en fuego!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260953].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Imran Naseem
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1260970].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Imran Naseem View Post

          Well I am sure they saw something in him to award him the prize.

          Even though I am from the UK I think he is a fine President. And so far
          he has done an outstanding job from his predecessor.
          I'm still looking for even ONE accomplishment! Just ONE!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    its a bunch of crap. I'm sorry, i like obama and all, but he hasnt done anything to warrant a nobel peace prize
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261052].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I agree the methods for awarding these "prizes" - the level of qualification in recent years seems based more on media coverage and "appearance" than on any real substance.

      It erodes my respect for an award that used to make me think "wow" when it was given to someone with outstanding achievements who wasn't in the spotlight all the time.

      I also agree with the comment about doctors without borders. Someone who is giving of themselves hands-on day after day deserves more respect than any politician.

      kay
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261093].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Imran, I really do appreciate your being happy for our president. I also think it's a good thing that he seems to be well-received in other parts of the world. Though it doesn't matter THAT much what other countries think about who WE elect. People in the US get to decide who they think is best.

    While I think it's nice that people like our president, that's not the same as ability to lead - it's just winning a popularity contest.

    But, ultimately, he should have DEMONSTRATED his ability to back up his words. Because if they start giving Peace Prizes for rhetoric, then anybody can win.

    Nothing agsinst a president winning, but what has he actually DONE - actions, not words?

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    It there a Nobel prize for folks that do work like doctors without borders?


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261115].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      It there a Nobel prize for folks that do work like doctors without borders?


      TL
      Yeah, it's caled the Nobel Peace Prize, but DWB doesn't promote the Noble agenda. DWB doesn't have celeb status, so they don't make for good marketing.

      What about the check? Who could use the $1,400,000 more Obama, or Doctors Without Borders? Who would put it to BETTER use?

      Like it or not, this year's peace prize was an epic FAIL!

      All the best,
      Michael
      Signature

      "Ich bin en fuego!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261136].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

        Yeah, it's caled the Nobel Peace Prize, but DWB doesn't promote the Noble agenda. DWB doesn't have celeb status, so they don't make for good marketing.

        What about the check? Who could use the $1,400,000 more Obama, or Doctors Without Borders? Who would put it to BETTER use?

        Like it or not, this year's peace prize was an epic FAIL!

        All the best,
        Michael
        Perhaps your feelings about the President is has a little to do with the your seeing this year's prize as...

        Epic Fail???

        That's little much - don't you think?

        I wonder what your hero John Lennon would say?

        I sincerely doubt if he would come close to echoing your sentiments.

        He was way left if I recall correctly.

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261159].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Perhaps your feelings about the President is has a little to do with the your seeing this year's prize as...

          Epic Fail???

          That's little much - don't you think?

          I wonder what your hero John Lennon would say?

          I sincerely doubt if he would come close to echoing your sentiments.

          He was way left if I recall correctly.

          TL
          He would say, "why didn't I win?"

          And you have no idea who I voted for, or what my political beliefs are. I didn't vote for McCain. So you can stop assuming.

          I don't think it's a little much. Again, I think it's great that he's well-received in other parts of the world. But the Nobel PEACE prize should transcend politics - it doesn't. The Nobel PEACE prize shouldn't be a popularity contest - it is.

          That's what I'm trying to say.

          And based on that, it was an epic fail.

          So...what has he DONE? What actions? To warrant getting the prize?

          All the best,
          Michael
          Signature

          "Ich bin en fuego!"
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261196].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

            He would say, "why didn't I win?"

            And you have no idea who I voted for, or what my political beliefs are. I didn't vote for McCain. So you can stop assuming.

            I don't think it's a little much. Again, I think it's great that he's well-received in other parts of the world. But the Nobel PEACE prize should transcend politics - it doesn't. The Nobel PEACE prize shouldn't be a popularity contest - it is.

            That's what I'm trying to say.

            And based on that, it was an epic fail.

            So...what has he DONE? What actions? To warrant getting the prize?

            All the best,
            Michael
            OK, perhaps I went to far regarding your feelings vs. the prez.



            What warrants him getting the prize???

            "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

            You know corny ( and wimpy ) stuff like...

            - Let's work together to solve global probs instead of kiss my grits - who needs you.

            - We are for peace if you are for peace instead of...

            I'm from the Federation and we'll kick your a## unless you do as we command.

            I could go on and on regarding the ugly American syndrome of the previous 8 years and how it has hurt us and the world etc.

            Note:

            If our safety and standard of living are involved, I really couldn't give a hoot about what the rest of the world thinks about anything but...

            ... that totally unnecessary ugly American crap of the previous 8 years did not serve anyone well.

            As the biggest player on the planet, the policies and attitudes of our admin does make a huge difference in how we are perceived and how much help we'll get when we need it and the climate ( there's that word again ) for positive cooperation on this planet called Earth.



            But I guess that's just not enough for you and many others.

            All The Best!!

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261442].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              OK, perhaps I went to far regarding your feelings vs. the prez.



              What warrants him getting the prize???

              "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

              You know corny ( and wimpy ) stuff like...

              - Let's work together to solve global probs instead of kiss my grits - who needs you.

              - We are for peace if you are for peace
              I said those things too. Where's MY Nobel???

              I agree that there's been a "climate change" - but I feel that has less to do with Obama directly and more to do with the fact that ANYONE getting elected after Bush would have garnered the same sentiment.

              The prize should be based on ACTUAL change fostered DIRECTLY by the recipient...Obama still has a lot to prove to a LOT of people. As would ANY President.
              Signature

              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261471].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                I said those things too. Where's MY Nobel???

                I agree that there's been a "climate change" - but I feel that has less to do with Obama directly and more to do with the fact that ANYONE getting elected after Bush would have garnered the same sentiment.

                The prize should be based on ACTUAL change fostered DIRECTLY by the recipient...Obama still has a lot to prove to a LOT of people. As would ANY President.

                Not Mr. Mccain.

                He was very clear about continuing the basic policies and attitudes of the previous admin.

                Just think, another 4 or 8 years of non-productive belligerence.

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261497].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  Not Mr. Mccain.

                  He was very clear about continuing the basic policies and attitudes of the previous admin.

                  Just think, another 4 or 8 years of non-productive belligerence.

                  TL

                  And Barack is sending more troops overseas.

                  Change? How?

                  So I guess we'll just settle for 4 years of constant overspending, more "Help Me" programs designed to give handouts to lazy people at the expense of hard-working tax payers ...

                  In other words, I have YET to see an Administration on either side have a solid 4 years that would satisfy the people on the opposite fence.

                  You could pick out every negative thing in the Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and even further back. People on the right could pick out everything negative from Carter (a FIELD day with that one), Clinton and now Obama.

                  Does it mean we're right? Or just narrow-minded, Party Line spewing Drones?

                  Let's see how honest you are with yourself here
                  Signature

                  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261565].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                    And Barack is sending more troops overseas.

                    Change? How?

                    So I guess we'll just settle for 4 years of constant overspending, more "Help Me" programs designed to give handouts to lazy people at the expense of hard-working tax payers ...

                    In other words, I have YET to see an Administration on either side have a solid 4 years that would satisfy the people on the opposite fence.

                    You could pick out every negative thing in the Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and even further back. People on the right could pick out everything negative from Carter (a FIELD day with that one), Clinton and now Obama.

                    Does it mean we're right? Or just narrow-minded, Party Line spewing Drones?

                    Let's see how honest you are with yourself here
                    One side is no better than the other. But i dont see the programs he's putting out as 'help me' programs. I see them as help yourself programs. You cant go through life in any country with nothing on your mind but yourself, or only helping the people you like. There are a lot of people that need help, more that do than dont, so much more that if they arent help, their sheer numbers will pull those that dont need help right down into the crapper with everyone else
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261671].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                    And Barack is sending more troops overseas.

                    Change? How?

                    So I guess we'll just settle for 4 years of constant overspending, more "Help Me" programs designed to give handouts to lazy people at the expense of hard-working tax payers ...

                    In other words, I have YET to see an Administration on either side have a solid 4 years that would satisfy the people on the opposite fence.

                    You could pick out every negative thing in the Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and even further back. People on the right could pick out everything negative from Carter (a FIELD day with that one), Clinton and now Obama.

                    Does it mean we're right? Or just narrow-minded, Party Line spewing Drones?

                    Let's see how honest you are with yourself here
                    My earlier reply was deleted so I'll make this short.

                    I'm a registered independent.

                    - It has not been decided what we're going to do about Afghanistan.

                    But I think we can both agree the admin was left with a huge mess that should have been dealt with in 6-7 years.

                    - Solid dems and repubs on each side are never going to be happy with the admin - you should know better.

                    Both parties are fighting over the people in the middle who shift depending on conditions.

                    Overspending...

                    Either we strategically invest as a nation or this situation will continue for another 10-20 maybe more years.

                    I understand it's OK for some people but not for me.

                    With strategic investments we can grow our way out of this mess.

                    Health Care: Energy: Education: Infrastructure:

                    Giveaways to the lazy...

                    - What about the destructive tax cuts from 2001 ( almost 200 billion a year ) going to the wealthiest 1 percent... ( that wrecked the balanced budget )

                    ... and all the silly corporate tax breaks?

                    We're talking at least 100 billion a year in stupid corporate tax breaks.

                    Where's the outrage over that???


                    At least the lazy crowd could really use it while with the others it's just gravy.

                    I'm a registered independent.

                    My support ( not blind ) for this admin and what it's trying to do is practical and based on the history of this country and of the two parties...

                    ...and most importantly their philosophies.


                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262628].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

            He would say, "why didn't I win?"

            And you have no idea who I voted for, or what my political beliefs are. I didn't vote for McCain. So you can stop assuming.

            I don't think it's a little much. Again, I think it's great that he's well-received in other parts of the world. But the Nobel PEACE prize should transcend politics - it doesn't. The Nobel PEACE prize shouldn't be a popularity contest - it is.

            That's what I'm trying to say.

            And based on that, it was an epic fail.

            So...what has he DONE? What actions? To warrant getting the prize?

            All the best,
            Michael
            Michael,

            Aren't you assuming the reasons Obama was given the award? How do you know that in their hearts the voters don't honestly believe he is worthy and that it's not all politics?

            BTW, Doctors without Borders is a great organization. However, they are an organization. The Noble Prizes are for individuals.

            Instead of assuming Obama was the wrong choice, who (individual) was better? Any one have any specific names of individuals? IMO, it's more of a weak class of nominees than politics.
            Signature
            Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
            Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261718].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post


              Instead of assuming Obama was the wrong choice, who (individual) was better? Any one have any specific names of individuals? IMO, it's more of a weak class of nominees than politics.
              I think you hit the nail on the head right here.
              Signature

              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261767].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                I think you hit the nail on the head right here.
                NO, he DIDN'T! If NOBODY was deserving of an award, NOBODY should have gotten it! And I don't spend my life looking over everyone's life to determine who should get an award. Even the NPP is SUPPOSED to be by a vote. But the reasoning behind who gets to vote is just DUMB! A good number of the past winners that are still alive may well have nominated him, SIMPLY because he is SO far left, etc.... And what REALLY makes them better judges? HOW are they impartial, etc.... The idea of a vote is generally supposed to be that they have an INTEREST to do what's right and/or KNOWLEDGE to do what's right and/or NUMBER to avoid conspiracies, etc... If you have a small group that has no interest in doing what is right, they may simply vote friends or associates in, or be bribed.

                There should be SOME sort of accomplishment though. That doesn't mean idea, sympathy, or even TALK! It means SUCCESS!!!!! The idea that you can sit two people down, that are not REALLY leaders, and get them to talk, when their people BOTH demand the SAME exclusive thing, and be called a PEACEMAKER is LUDICROUS! Yet that happened. EVEN if both "sides" "compromised", the PEOPLE would STILL be at war. To this DAY they are at war! I predicted something like 9/11 WEEKS before 9/11, because THEIR war was escalating.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261972].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  NO, he DIDN'T! If NOBODY was deserving of an award, NOBODY should have gotten it! And I don't spend my life looking over everyone's life to determine who should get an award. Even the NPP is SUPPOSED to be by a vote. But the reasoning behind who gets to vote is just DUMB! A good number of the past winners that are still alive may well have nominated him, SIMPLY because he is SO far left, etc.... And what REALLY makes them better judges? HOW are they impartial, etc.... The idea of a vote is generally supposed to be that they have an INTEREST to do what's right and/or KNOWLEDGE to do what's right and/or NUMBER to avoid conspiracies, etc... If you have a small group that has no interest in doing what is right, they may simply vote friends or associates in, or be bribed.
                  Steve,

                  It's THEIR award, then can set any criteria they want, and give it to any person they want. They don't have to be "imparial".

                  If this disturbs you so badly, start your own awards and name whoever you want.
                  Signature
                  Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                  Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262277].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Though I don't know his name, I would of gave the award to the gut who is smuggling people out of North Korea into China.
                    At least he is doing something other then smiling and spending money we don't have.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262441].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                      At least he is doing something other then smiling and spending money we don't have.
                      Could someone please explain to me how Mr Obama's domestic finance plans have anything to do with his qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize?


                      Paul
                      Signature
                      .
                      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262577].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                        Sal,
                        Nope - don't wanna take a shot at you. It's not discussion of politics that bothers me - it's the people with that attitudes that what they feel is okay to post but anyone in disagreement is okay to censor.
                        That may sometimes be the situation, and I agree with you when it is. However, it's often the case that one side is being sufficiently more nasty than the other that it only seems that way.

                        In forum discussions, there's also the problem of judging what will lead to the nastiness.

                        The fact that someone disagrees with you on those calls does not make them a fascist. I personally have seen a LOT of one-sidedness to the nasty here.


                        Paul
                        Signature
                        .
                        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262598].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post


                          The fact that someone disagrees with you on those calls does not make them a fascist. I personally have seen a LOT of one-sidedness to the nasty here.


                          Paul
                          You misunderstood - Speaking one's mind while censoring someone else's divergent point of view is what I called fascist - not the divergent opinion itself.

                          I might have more correctly called it "Nietzscheian" however, I didn't think from the tone of the arguments that most would have understood that one.
                          Signature

                          Sal
                          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                          Beyond the Path

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262648].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                            Sal,
                            You misunderstood - Speaking one's mind while censoring someone else's divergent point of view is what I called fascist - not the divergent opinion itself.
                            I got that. I was talking about disagreeing on the reasons for reporting or deleting a specific post.


                            Paul
                            Signature
                            .
                            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262741].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                        Could someone please explain to me how Mr Obama's domestic finance plans have anything to do with his qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize?


                        Paul
                        I didn't mean it to qualify him, but to disqualify him.
                        All he has done to warrant this award is replace two crazies.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262853].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                          I didn't mean it to qualify him, but to disqualify him.
                          Okay. Let me simplify the question: How does his budget have anything to do with the Peace Prize? In any way, shape or form?

                          Hint: It doesn't. That's an excuse to bring unrelated political topics into the question of whether he should have gotten the award. Period.

                          This is getting ridiculous.


                          Paul

                          Edit: The same is true of health care. Nothing to do with the issue.
                          Signature
                          .
                          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263072].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                            Okay. Let me simplify the question: How does his budget have anything to do with the Peace Prize? In any way, shape or form?



                            Paul

                            Edit: The same is true of health care. Nothing to do with the issue.
                            Paul you can read anything you want into my statement, I really don't care.
                            What I gave was my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
                            Hint: It doesn't. That's an excuse to bring unrelated political topics into the question of whether he should have gotten the award. Period.

                            This is getting ridiculous.
                            As for that I commented on him not his politics.
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263176].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                            Okay. Let me simplify the question: How does his budget have anything to do with the Peace Prize? In any way, shape or form?

                            Hint: It doesn't. That's an excuse to bring unrelated political topics into the question of whether he should have gotten the award. Period.

                            This is getting ridiculous.


                            Paul

                            Edit: The same is true of health care. Nothing to do with the issue.
                            WE are simply trying to understand HOW OBAMA did ANYTHING to win this, in 10 days no less!!!!!!! It is a standard PLEA for a REAL answer in such a case to state what the person has actually DONE. I DOUBT they wanted to bring it into the discussion, and your "question" sounded more like AGREEMENT than a question!

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264438].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Instead of assuming Obama was the wrong choice, who (individual) was better? Any one have any specific names of individuals? IMO, it's more of a weak class of nominees than politics.
              Kurt,

              We had a weak class of nominees for President so Barack got the nod. Now there was a weak class of nominees for the Nobel Prize and again Barack gets the nod.

              I get the feeling if he was just sitting in the audience on Dancing With the Stars he would get the nod.

              How desparate have we become?

              KJ
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261816].message }}
              • Does anyone here "not like" President Obama? Seems everyone is saying, I like Obama but......

                It is OK to not like a President. But we should always respect the President regardless how much we may disagree with their policies or who we think they are.

                I say Kudos to you President Obama. But please stop the spending, cut the budget, lower taxes and get this country back on financial secure ground.

                Then lets look at all those other expensive things you want to do after that.


                Thomas Prendergast
                Signature

                I have been on the Internet since 1988 and entered the WWW in 1992. I have pretty much seen it all. I built the first automated marketing system in 1994 and it ran for 20 years. Today, after $500,000 invested and 4 years in development, I have opened the doors to the first Inbound Marketing platform integrated into a powerful social network. It is called Markethive. More information found @ http://markethive.com/marketing

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261844].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by Killer Joe View Post

                Kurt,

                We had a weak class of nominees for President so Barak got the nod. Now there was a weak class of nominees for the Nobel Prize and again Barak gets the nod.

                I get the feeling if he was just sitting in the audience on Dancing With the Stars he would get the nod.

                How desparate have we become?

                KJ
                Joe,

                It's your opinion that we had a "weak class" of nominees. As a whole, I liked both sides more than I have at any other time in recent memory.

                BTW, you do you support for the Peace Prize?
                Signature
                Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261850].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                  BTW, you do you support for the Peace Prize?
                  It' sort of ironic that Bill Clinton has spent a lot of his post prez years working for peace and BO can simply smile while he talks about peace and people go "Let's give him the prize".

                  No solid accomplishments, no longevity in the endeavor, just words written by his speach writers and that is cause enough.

                  Who's kidding who here...if this award is so pathetic that they can't find anyone on the planet who actually has accomplished something concrete in this area than what they are really saying with this award is that it has no useful purpose anymore other than to try to influence people's behavior.

                  Given that Obama has done nothing of what he said he would do during his campaign regarding Iraq, or Afghanistan, Gitmo and the like, perhaps he got the reward as a push to remind him of all those promises he hasn't fulfilled.

                  KJ
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261940].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    The US is leaving Iraq. Obama said he wanted to focus on Afghanistan. He never said he would end that war. Gitmo? He made a mistake to give it only one year, but also the fearmongers on the right have something to do with Gitmo not being closed within a year. He has disappointed those on the left on some issues but that really was to be expected because he ran center left.

                    Originally Posted by Killer Joe View Post

                    Given that Obama has done nothing of what he said he would do during his campaign regarding Iraq, or Afghanistan, Gitmo and the like, perhaps he got the reward as a push to remind him of all those promises he hasn't fulfilled.

                    KJ
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261974].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by Killer Joe View Post

                    It' sort of ironic that Bill Clinton has spent a lot of his post prez years working for peace and BO can simply smile while he talks about peace and people go "Let's give him the prize".

                    No solid accomplishments, no longevity in the endeavor, just words written by his speach writers and that is cause enough.

                    Who's kidding who here...if this award is so pathetic that they can't find anyone on the planet who actually has accomplished something concrete in this area than what they are really saying with this award is that it has no useful purpose anymore other than to try to influence people's behavior.

                    Given that Obama has done nothing of what he said he would do during his campaign regarding Iraq, or Afghanistan, Gitmo and the like, perhaps he got the reward as a push to remind him of all those promises he hasn't fulfilled.

                    KJ



                    Bottom line, you don't believe that changing the tone of the U.S. towards the world means anything to us as a nation and to the conditions on the planet?


                    No way no how right?


                    Also...

                    Your historic lack of patience is illuminating... ( and I'm forced to add frighting )


                    Let's see...

                    ..we're talking 9-10 months max at the helm and he's supposed to get us out of Irag, fix Afghanistan and close Gitmo.

                    ( he said 1 year for Gitmo but looks like he's going to have trouble meeting that goal )


                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263705].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Bottom line, you don't believe that changing the tone of the U.S. towards the world means anything to us as a nation and to the conditions on the planet?


                      No way no how right?


                      Also...

                      Your historic lack of patience is illuminating... ( and I'm forced to add frighting )


                      Let's see...

                      ..we're talking 9-10 months max at the helm and he's supposed to get us out of Irag, fix Afghanistan and close Gitmo.

                      ( he said 1 year for Gitmo but looks like he's going to have trouble meeting that goal )


                      TL

                      Ok, so let me try to understand...

                      9 -10 months is not enough time for the new president to accomplish much of anything of significance and we should be patient...

                      But the same 9 - 10 months is more than enough time to justify getting the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he has accomplished nothing of significance?

                      I realize that a black man getting elected was a major accomplishment - especially in this country. But that alone should not be consideration for this prize - either that or it should be given to everyone that voted for him. THEY are the reason he is President.

                      If Hillary had won, do you think she would have gotten it simply because she broke the gender barrier?

                      And talking about peace? Every President talks about peace and nuclear (or as Bush would say - Nuklar) reduction.

                      Changing the tone of the U.S. towards the world is most definitely important. But it's like anything new. Once the shine is off (which happens over time) the tone towards the U.S. will suffer because eventually even Obama will do SOMEthing that will be looked upon as U.S. arrogance by the same nations patting him on the back right now. It happens. It always cycles. I don't care if it's a Bush admin or a Clinton admin or anyone elses.

                      I would say that no one HERE will ever know the REAL reason he was given the award. We can all speculate in an Off Topic forum on the Warrior forum until the cows come home.

                      So why argue about it at all?
                      Signature

                      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264404].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                        Ok, so let me try to understand...

                        9 -10 months is not enough time for the new president to accomplish much of anything of significance and we should be patient...

                        But the same 9 - 10 months is more than enough time to justify getting the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he has accomplished nothing of significance?

                        I realize that a black man getting elected was a major accomplishment - especially in this country. But that alone should not be consideration for this prize - either that or it should be given to everyone that voted for him. THEY are the reason he is President.

                        If Hillary had won, do you think she would have gotten it simply because she broke the gender barrier?

                        And talking about peace? Every President talks about peace and nuclear (or as Bush would say - Nuklar) reduction.

                        Changing the tone of the U.S. towards the world is most definitely important. But it's like anything new. Once the shine is off (which happens over time) the tone towards the U.S. will suffer because eventually even Obama will do SOMEthing that will be looked upon as U.S. arrogance by the same nations patting him on the back right now. It happens. It always cycles. I don't care if it's a Bush admin or a Clinton admin or anyone elses.

                        I would say that no one HERE will ever know the REAL reason he was given the award. We can all speculate in an Off Topic forum on the Warrior forum until the cows come home.

                        So why argue about it at all?

                        Mike, I don't know anything about him getting the award cause he's a black guy stuff.

                        It would be a very stupid reason as far as I'm concerned.

                        He was nominated in 10 or 12 days and the selection was made recently.


                        It may cycle, ( even allies can have big disputes right? )...

                        ... as you say...

                        ... but the overriding direction of US policy towards the world has changed dramatically and will continue while Obama is president and will remain changed from the previous admin.


                        "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate,"

                        Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

                        But that's simply just not enough for many people in this thread who apparently are master students of world history, US history, government, policies and politics.

                        I'm about through with this thread.

                        All The best!!

                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265546].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                          I'm about through with this thread.
                          Yeah, I hear you. I was just thinking the same thing.

                          I enjoy these threads for a while, then they start to bore me.

                          I've hit the boredom stage The point where every word in every post starts to get dissected into "what I meant" and "what you really meant", and so on...

                          Years ago I was taught that there comes a point where you simply have to agree that you disagree on a topic and move on. This is that point for me with a few contributors.

                          See you in the next debate!
                          Signature

                          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265608].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Bottom line, you don't believe that changing the tone of the U.S. towards the world means anything to us as a nation and to the conditions on the planet?

                      No way no how right?
                      Well, I'm sure that changing the tone of the U.S. towards the world means something.

                      It sure meant something when we decided as a country to give our manufacturing jobs to other nations so we could focus almost exclusively on the financial windfalls we would garner through letting Wall Street drive our GDP.

                      That sure bombed as it has historically happened throughout history when other 'powerful' nations went down that road to ruin.

                      Am I glad that the saber rattlers who held power here for too long and are replaced by someone who feels the need to go around appologizing for our past actions and may just as easily go down to the road toward capitulation at a time that may prove to be against our better interests?

                      Well, we got past Jimmy Carter. I'm sure we'll get past another limp president if BO turns out to be that in the long run.

                      Also...
                      Your historic lack of patience is illuminating... ( and I'm forced to add frighting )

                      Let's see...

                      ..we're talking 9-10 months max at the helm and he's supposed to get us out of Irag, fix Afghanistan and close Gitmo.

                      ( he said 1 year for Gitmo but looks like he's going to have trouble meeting that goal )
                      No, actually I was referring to the waffling on all those issues once he came into office.

                      "...but looks like he's going to have trouble meeting that goal". That goal and all the other goals that are driven and supported by rhetoric as opposed to deep convictions.

                      Bottom line for me...the old administration was fatally flawed. Both in charactor and idealism. The new administration is showng signs of being just as flawed, or worse.

                      But what the new administration has that the old one didn't is a charismatic leader that can minipulate through charm as opposed to brute force.

                      Either way we lose. It's a case of settling for bad over worse without asking ourselves if want to pay the price for good better best. We already know the answer to that question...we're too comfortable to risk short term pain for long term prosperity.

                      I'm glad you're happy with the way things are...

                      KJ
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264679].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Actually, organizations have won quite few Noble Peace prizes including Doctors Without Borders in 1999. The most recent was the IPCC in 2007. Some others have been IAEA in 2005, The United Nations, The Red Cross, Amnesty International and the ILO.

              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              BTW, Doctors without Borders is a great organization. However, they are an organization. The Noble Prizes are for individuals.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262414].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Michael,

              Aren't you assuming the reasons Obama was given the award? How do you know that in their hearts the voters don't honestly believe he is worthy and that it's not all politics?

              BTW, Doctors without Borders is a great organization. However, they are an organization. The Noble Prizes are for individuals.

              Instead of assuming Obama was the wrong choice, who (individual) was better? Any one have any specific names of individuals? IMO, it's more of a weak class of nominees than politics.
              Fine.

              Of course it's politics.

              Anyway, you get my point. There ARE people more worthy. If you want to nit pick, cool.

              I said Doctors Without Borders. You said organizations can't win. No problem.

              Give the award to the current HEAD of Doctors Without Borders, or the FOUNDER. See? Simple.

              And, if they really thought he was the best one to get the award, then I have serious doubts about their selection criteria.

              Tons of people have said what he has said, should they win, too?

              It should be based on RESULTS.

              All the best,
              Michael

              p.s It could be the leader, or founder, of an endless number of charity groups. There aren't just hundreds that would have been a better choice, IMHO, but THOUSANDS.
              Signature

              "Ich bin en fuego!"
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262960].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

                Fine.

                Of course it's politics.

                Anyway, you get my point. There ARE people more worthy. If you want to nit pick, cool.

                I said Doctors Without Borders. You said organizations can't win. No problem.

                Give the award to the current HEAD of Doctors Without Borders, or the FOUNDER. See? Simple.

                And, if they really thought he was the best one to get the award, then I have serious doubts about their selection criteria.

                Tons of people have said what he has said, should they win, too?

                It should be based on RESULTS.

                All the best,
                Michael

                p.s It could be the leader, or founder, of an endless number of charity groups. There aren't just hundreds that would have been a better choice, IMHO, but THOUSANDS.
                AS Tim pointed out, I was wrong about organizations not winning. However, DWB already won in 1999, according to Tim.

                If there are truly 1,000s who you believe made a bigger impact, it should be "simple" for you to mention a few and asking you to say who think is more deserving is far from knit-picking.

                Since it is THEIR award, it should be based on who they THINK is the most deserving. I'm glad you know what is in the heart of a private Norweigan organization and their motivations, I wasn't aware you were in on the discussion...

                And even if it is "political", so what, it's their choice. Like I said above, I scratched my head at their selection, but it's THEIR money and their choice.
                Signature
                Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263012].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                  AS Tim pointed out, I was wrong about organizations not winning. However, DWB already won in 1999, according to Tim.

                  If there are truly 1,000s who you believe made a bigger impact, it should be "simple" for you to mention a few and asking you to say who think is more deserving is far from knit-picking.

                  Since it is THEIR award, it should be based on who they THINK is the most deserving. I'm glad you know what is in the heart of a private Norweigan organization and their motivations, I wasn't aware you were in on the discussion...

                  And even if it is "political", so what, it's their choice. Like I said above, I scratched my head at their selection, but it's THEIR money and their choice.
                  One host here mentioned OTHERS ON THE LIST with OBAMA that were FAR more deserving. One RISKED HER LIFE to teach girls past the age of 8 in a country where it was ILLEGAL to do so. Another saved people and rescued them from harm. I wish I bothered to remember all the details, but they ALL successfully did worthwhile things to save/help people. At least 2 RISKED THEIR LIVES to do so.

                  I'm sure NOBEL made it clear who HE wanted. HE bequeathed it! It is HIS money!

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263032].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    One host here mentioned OTHERS ON THE LIST with OBAMA that were FAR more deserving. One RISKED HER LIFE to teach girls past the age of 8 in a country where it was ILLEGAL to do so. Another saved people and rescued them from harm. I wish I bothered to remember all the details, but they ALL successfully did worthwhile things to save/help people. At least 2 RISKED THEIR LIVES to do so.

                    I'm sure NOBEL made it clear who HE wanted. HE bequeathed it! It is HIS money!

                    Steve
                    Newsflash Steve, Nobel is dead. It isn't his money any longer. As a matter of fact, he died about 140 years ago, so I sincerely doubt he made it that clear who he wanted...Unless, have you been talking to the dead again?

                    Like the old expression goes, "You can't take it with you".

                    Not to mention, even if Obama doesn't deserve it, it's still likely good for America, even Bill O'Reilly agrees with this, (I'm listening to him as I type) although O'Reilly disagrees with the decision. And I agree with O'Reilly..If it doesn't help, it sure doesn't hurt a single American.
                    Signature
                    Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                    Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263056].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                      Newsflash Steve, Nobel is dead. It isn't his money any longer. As a matter of fact, he died about 140 years ago, so I sincerely doubt he made it that clear who he wanted...Unless, have you been talking to the dead again?

                      Like the old expression goes, "You can't take it with you".

                      Not to mention, even if Obama doesn't deserve it, it's still likely good for America, even Bill O'Reilly agrees with this, (I'm listening to him as I type) although O'Reilly disagrees with the decision. And I agree with O'Reilly..If it doesn't help, it sure doesn't hurt a single American.
                      I DID say BEQUEATHED! And he DID start the organization and I am sure he laid down laws. If they don't feel he had a right, maybe they should FLUSH it, because what right would THEY have?

                      HEY, maybe the person REALLY deserving would have HELPED the US or the WORLD! Who's to say it didn't hurt?

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263310].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
                Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

                Tons of people have said what he has said, should they win, too?
                Even his speach writers have said what he has said.

                They just said it first.

                Perhaps out of fairness he should share the prize with them.

                KJ
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Quite often, the peace prize is awarded for a process that had just been started as an encouragement rather than something that had already finished. Therefore they are encouraging Obama to pursue the path that he had set out.

    This is clear political interference on U.S. foreign policy by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. I don't think any US citizen, even avid supporters of Obama, should be happy about this.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261186].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

      Quite often, the peace prize is awarded for a process that had just been started as an encouragement rather than something that had already finished. Therefore they are encouraging Obama to pursue the path that he had set out.

      This is clear political interference on U.S. foreign policy by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. I don't think any US citizen, even avid supporters of Obama, should be happy about this.
      Big deal.


      You're reaching my friend.

      But it is great speculation.

      I wouldn't be surprised if some right-wing radio and TV folks throw that up against the wall to see if it sticks with independents.

      It will certainly stick for folks that don't like the admin.

      Note: I'm not saying you're with them but when I think about it, this line of thinking could be used as a potential bludgeon by the right.

      All The Best!!

      TL

      Ps. Update...

      Mr. Lim has just confirmed my thoughts and is saying almost exactly the same thing you said.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261529].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Anyone else notice that 5 posts in this thread mysteriously "disappeared"?

    I didn't mine were any more political than anyone else's.

    If it was an Admin of some sort, then no problem. If it was someone who disagreed with me, then all I ask is...what are you so afraid of a dissenting opinion? Feel free to send me a PM.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261412].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I posted an article telling how this only counts 12 days of his term, and he did NOTHING, but that vanished. Come on, many things in this thread are MORE political. Besides, politics SHOULDN'T enter into this, outside of whatever had to be done to better the world and bring peace. SO, in this case, NO politics should enter in. If a republican got it, I would be just as outraged. HECK, if a FRIEND got it for doing nothing I would be outraged.

    Nobel created this prize for a REASON! Oh well, if he were alive today, he would probably die in shock. At least he doesn't have to see it.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261416].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Mohamed ElBaradei was another controversial win, no wonder why he has to defend Obama's win.

    Ronald Reagan was the first to propose getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether. But no one would think of him as a "peaceful" president although there were fewer conflicts during Reagan's time.

    Gandhi was never awarded the Peace Prize but almost every civil or human rights campaigner takes inspiration from him.

    This is just becoming a big farce like the Time Man of the Year. Remember in 2001, they choose to nominate Guiliani instead of Bin Laden who was obviously the most influential person of the year.

    Why don't they give a retrospective award to Neville Chamberlain for his "Peace in our time" mission.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261478].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Most awards are silly at best.

    Look at the entertainment industry for example... they pat themselves on the back more than any other industry I have ever seen.

    The Nobel has been a borderline joke to me for years.
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261488].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wirelessgeek
    I saw this on Yahoo News earlier today. I lost lots of respect for the Nobel Peace Prize when I found out Al Gore won the prize for a slide show over a lady who helped smuggle children out of Germany during the World War II era, got caught, and was badly beaten for it. I mean, what's a stupid slide show? Any trained monkey with a computer can create one.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1261911].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Okay - my post seems to have been edited so let me make a more mild statement and then tell you who my choice would have been.

    I think that it severely hypocritical to give a peace award to a leader in ANY country which is at war or has facilities open that have been proven to use torture. ONCE that leader succeeds at pulling his/her own people OUT of war and closes down the torture chambers - then they can be considered, but the award should never be given on "intent" to do so.

    the fearmongers on the right
    Um...I am on the right and have NEVER done or thought anything that would hold up the closure of this facility - as have many of us "fear mongers" on the right with whom I associate have also NOT done. So listen up: This is for whoever had my post deleted:
    As far as discussing BO on a political level which veers from this "award" -
    Would those of you who make political statements in support of our leaders please stop editing those who make political statements that do not agree with your position. Positive/negative - political statements are political and none of us should feel privileged as to post our own then censor someone else for disagreement. That is a fascist act -- I don't care who's responsible.

    Now MY choice for the award:
    Greg Mitchell of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Californa San Diego (UCSD) who has been working in the field of using algae as a bio-fuel for 10 years. He was ignored until the recent gas crisis but was able at that time to create whole teams of scientists to work on algae projects.

    Algae can produce renewable petroleum, will not put any C2O2 into the air that it does not suck out of the air in the first place, can be mass produced on desertificated land that has been rendered useless for crop production, etc. will use salt water and will not touch clean water supplies that are growing scarce, can feed on and purify some toxins and pollutants, and also can be harvested to be used for more nutritiously correct food for livestock than grain.

    Because of the production environment necessary, it can be grown by countries where populations are hunger stricken due to desertification and will save the necessity of that population of stripping their forests for fuel when prices on crude are elevated.

    As you see, his work can go far in creating a more livable environment for everyone and a long way also in dropping the levels of starvation, pollution, and deforestation of the planet as well as rendering oil wars a thing of the past. I would think he would deserve a peace award for such work.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262096].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Okay - my post seems to have been edited so let me make a more mild statement and then tell you who my choice would have been.

      I think that it severely hypocritical to give a peace award to a leader in ANY country which is at war or has facilities open that have been proven to use torture. ONCE that leader succeeds at pulling his/her own people OUT of war and closes down the torture chambers - then they can be considered, but the award should never be given on "intent" to do so.

      Um...I am on the right and have NEVER done or thought anything that would hold up the closure of this facility - as have many of us "fear mongers" on the right with whom I associate have also NOT done. So listen up: This is for whoever had my post deleted:
      As far as discussing BO on a political level which veers from this "award" -
      Would those of you who make political statements in support of our leaders please stop editing those who make political statements that do not agree with your position. Positive/negative - political statements are political and none of us should feel privileged as to post our own then censor someone else for disagreement. That is a fascist act -- I don't care who's responsible.

      Now MY choice for the award:
      Greg Mitchell of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Californa San Diego (UCSD) who has been working in the field of using algae as a bio-fuel for 10 years. He was ignored until the recent gas crisis but was able at that time to create whole teams of scientists to work on algae projects.

      Algae can produce renewable petroleum, will not put any C2O2 into the air that it does not suck out of the air in the first place, can be mass produced on desertificated land that has been rendered useless for crop production, etc. will use salt water and will not touch clean water supplies that are growing scarce, can feed on and purify some toxins and pollutants, and also can be harvested to be used for more nutritiously correct food for livestock than grain.

      Because of the production environment necessary, it can be grown by countries where populations are hunger stricken due to desertification and will save the necessity of that population of stripping their forests for fuel when prices on crude are elevated.

      As you see, his work can go far in creating a more livable environment for everyone and a long way also in dropping the levels of starvation, pollution, and deforestation of the planet as well as rendering oil wars a thing of the past. I would think he would deserve a peace award for such work.
      Hi Sal,

      The "thanks" is for actually giving an alternative. One of my pet peeves is people that bitch about others' choices, but never mention another choice.

      IMO, if someone can 't come up with another legit suggestion, they probably aren't educated enough to judge in the first place. I sort of scratched my head with the selection of Obama, but I couldn't come up with a single name myself...So due to my own ignorance, I accepted the nomination as it was.
      Signature
      Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
      Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262255].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Sal,

      Whether or not you think he should have gotten the award, and why, is appropriate to the topic - as long as it avoids politics. (Yes, that's tough.) Suggesting people you believe deserved it more is appropriate.

      Topic drift is normal, and usually ignored. In threads that even touch on political issues, it's a guaranteed sled ride downhill into the same old nastiness that's plagued this section of the forum for years.

      This has been especially true of threads in which President Bush or President Obama have been mentioned.

      If the nastiness continues, I'm going to start lobbying Allen for a policy of immediate removal of any post that mentions an elected or appointed government official, discusses government policy in any way, talks about "left or "right" in any political sense, or touches on anything that anyone could consider "conspiracy theory." (CT's are, by nature, political.)

      The rule exists, and senior people continue to flout and test it. If leaving a little room for discretion becomes the basis for a need for continual monitoring, fine. There are thousands of forums online for that type of discussion.

      I recently watched another forum, of which I've been a member longer than this one, self-destruct. Exactly this kind of persistent low-level crap exploded into a full-blown virtual war. I am quite thoroughly tired of the partisan nonsense from alleged adults.

      If you or anyone else wishes to take shots at me over this, go for it. Knock yourself out. I'm past caring.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262268].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Sal,

        If you or anyone else wishes to take shots at me over this, go for it. Knock yourself out. I'm past caring.
        Paul
        Nope - don't wanna take a shot at you. It's not discussion of politics that bothers me - it's the people with that attitudes that what they feel is okay to post but anyone in disagreement is okay to censor.

        If that's the way it goes, then yes, I feel it is more appropriate to censor both sides of an argument than to let people act like fascists and censor only one side of it. I don't like debate that turns into propaganda campaigns. I also feel that there are some points at which the politics of a situation really can't be avoided and I also agree that most people, apparently don't have the abilities of objective thought processes to handle that.

        Whatever. I'm probably not going to say anything in here that is going to change anyone's mind to any functional extent - and nobody else is going to say anything that will change anyone else's mind to any functional extent, so my take on the whole damned situation is:
        It's a long walk back to Eden, so don't sweat the small stuff.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262548].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Sal,

        Whether or not you think he should have gotten the award, and why, is appropriate to the topic - as long as it avoids politics. (Yes, that's tough.) Suggesting people you believe deserved it more is appropriate.

        Topic drift is normal, and usually ignored. In threads that even touch on political issues, it's a guaranteed sled ride downhill into the same old nastiness that's plagued this section of the forum for years.

        This has been especially true of threads in which President Bush or President Obama have been mentioned.

        If the nastiness continues, I'm going to start lobbying Allen for a policy of immediate removal of any post that mentions an elected or appointed government official, discusses government policy in any way, talks about "left or "right" in any political sense, or touches on anything that anyone could consider "conspiracy theory." (CT's are, by nature, political.)

        The rule exists, and senior people continue to flout and test it. If leaving a little room for discretion becomes the basis for a need for continual monitoring, fine. There are thousands of forums online for that type of discussion.

        I recently watched another forum, of which I've been a member longer than this one, self-destruct. Exactly this kind of persistent low-level crap exploded into a full-blown virtual war. I am quite thoroughly tired of the partisan nonsense from alleged adults.

        If you or anyone else wishes to take shots at me over this, go for it. Knock yourself out. I'm past caring.


        Paul
        I agree and truly understand where you're coming from but...

        ... as long as no more than 100 or so folks are participating at any one time,
        ( I think ) and it does not spill over to the other forums at the WF let us have at it.

        - No name calling ( not necessary )

        For example, instead of calling someone a fascist, we'll remember to say something like that line of thinking is fascist.

        - Can we adopt U.S. congressional rules of addressing each other.

        - I'm sure most everyone's just having good ruff fun and actually learning a lot and it won't hurt this forum.

        But, that's not my call.

        Can I start a thread named Pledge Of Civility?

        Sincerely, All The Best!!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263738].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      I think that it severely hypocritical to give a peace award to a leader in ANY country which is at war or has facilities open that have been proven to use torture.
      Well, the "torture" is VERY limited! It wasn't meant to PUNISH, but to get information. There is a BIG difference! TORTURE wouldn't really have a limit, skin could be peeled off creating infections, treatment denied, VERY hot/cold water, etc... ***I*** have been subjected to worse! And pregnant women are subjected to worse! And war is sometimes not avoidable. Of course, that doesn't argue for BO, it just says that those arguments are not valid ones AGAINST!

      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Greg Mitchell of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Californa San Diego (UCSD) who has been working in the field of using algae as a bio-fuel for 10 years. He was ignored until the recent gas crisis but was able at that time to create whole teams of scientists to work on algae projects.
      Hey yeah, what about "red tide"! Take a DISASTER and use it to solve a problem! NEAT!(serious)

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262275].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Well, the "torture" is VERY limited! It wasn't meant to PUNISH, but to get information. There is a BIG difference! TORTURE wouldn't really have a limit, skin could be peeled off creating infections, treatment denied, VERY hot/cold water, etc... ***I*** have been subjected to worse! And pregnant women are subjected to worse! And war is sometimes not avoidable. Of course, that doesn't argue for BO, it just says that those arguments are not valid ones AGAINST!

        Steve
        Sorry Steve. I don't care what the reasons or the extents are. I don't think anyone presiding over ANY level of harm to another life form deserves a peace prize. I gave my alternatives and my reasons. I'm not going to be induced into an argument about what extent of harm we can inflict on another and what reasons we can find to support such actions. Allowing harm at any level for any reason is in contradiction to the idea of "peace". I don't feel intent is a good enough reason for the award - completion of cessation of harm is. Perhaps the award would be warranted later if that intent is carried through - but until it is, I feel it was premature in issuance.
        You saw my vote and why. In my estimation it is an exceptionally deserving nomination of an award in the name of peace.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262582].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    I think sometime this year, we will award obama the Golden Crown of Thorns award.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262423].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    I don't get how extending the "war on terror" into Pakistan, bringing more death and destruction to innocents can be classed as "peace". As others have pointed out, there are other candidates more worthy of this prize.

    Newspeak reigns. War=Peace.

    Still, he's now been officially endorsed as a Man Of Peace, so go Obama! *cackles*
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gareth
    Obama definitely does not deserve a nobel peace prize.

    He should also not accept the prize. As a US president or leader of any nation you can not guarantee any form of peace and must be prepared to engage in and initiate military activities. Thats part of the job.

    Also Obama has not actually done anything to deserve such a prize anyway - dismantling nuclear deterance is the most treacherous and dangerous threat to western security I can imagine.

    Iraq had to end anyway and he will no doubt become embroiled in afghanistan or elsewhere.

    Its just like getting a knighthood - the whole thing is BS
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1262975].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by gareth View Post

      Obama definitely does not deserve a nobel peace prize.

      He should also not accept the prize. As a US president or leader of any nation you can not guarantee any form of peace and must be prepared to engage in and initiate military activities. Thats part of the job.

      Also Obama has not actually done anything to deserve such a prize anyway - dismantling nuclear deterance is the most treacherous and dangerous threat to western security I can imagine.

      Iraq had to end anyway and he will no doubt become embroiled in afghanistan or elsewhere.

      Its just like getting a knighthood - the whole thing is BS
      That's ANOTHER thing! There are STRICT laws against a company recieving a kickback or some equivalent in the course of business. Didn't they ALSO extend that to congress? How would an award received by the president be viewed? AND, as I said, receiving it THERE would cost SO much that WE would spend far more than he would get. Should we spend a PENNY!?!?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263018].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    See Kurt, you learn something new every day.

    Yep, I was in Norway, and I am part of the Nobel selection commitee. I told them it was the wrong choice but they wouldn't listen.

    It went to a vote, and Obama won. I didn't vote for him.

    Why don't you go ahead and give me the names of people that head charities around the world?

    I'm sure you get my POINT.

    If it's really necessary to find out what their freaking names are, then look 'em up. The point is that there ARE charities out there. That are DOING something.

    But if you want to play little games and try to look like a smarmy tough guy, then give some time and I will come back with a list.

    Fair enough?

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263038].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      See Kurt, you learn something new every day.

      Yep, I was in Norway, and I am part of the Nobel selection commitee. I told them it was the wrong choice but they wouldn't listen.

      It went to a vote, and Obama won. I didn't vote for him.

      Why don't you go ahead and give me the names of people that head charities around the world?

      I'm sure you get my POINT.

      If it's really necessary to find out what their freaking names are, then look 'em up. The point is that there ARE charities out there. That are DOING something.

      But if you want to play little games and try to look like a smarmy tough guy, then give some time and I will come back with a list.

      Fair enough?

      All the best,
      Michael
      Way to go with the name calling. You talk alot about behavior on this forum and how it's "your responsibilty" to be a moderator. But your actions are just the opposite. I'd rather be "swarmy tough guy" in your eyes than a hypocrite.

      It's actually "debate 101". If you don't like someone/something, offer an alternative. If you are too lazy too, fine, but don't expect me to respect your opinion without backing it up.

      It's easy to be negative, but post your alternative and be prepared to defend it...I may actually agree, like I did with Sal. See, it's simple.

      And while you're at it, re: my recent post: How EXACTLY does this hurt a single American?
      Signature
      Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
      Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263089].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Way to go with the name calling. You talk alot about behavior on this forum and how it's "your responsibilty" to be a moderator. But your actions are just the opposite. I'd rather be "swarmy tough guy" in your eyes than a hypocrite.

        It's actually "debate 101". If you don't like someone/something, offer an alternative. If you are too lazy too, fine, but don't expect me to respect your opinion without backing it up.

        It's easy to be negative, but post your alternative and be prepared to defend it...I may actually agree, like I did with Sal. See, it's simple.

        And while you're at it, re: my recent post: How EXACTLY does this hurt a single American?
        Good point. All apologies for the name calling. That's not cool.

        I offered an alternative. I made a point. It wasn't necessary to actually NAME NAMES to get the point across. However, to satisfy you, I did just that.

        Now, you do bring up a good point. Having Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't any Americans from what I can tell, but THAT'S another common debate tactic - changing the subject.

        Nobody is talking about whether or not it affects America, WE are talking about whether or not he's the best choice. And it's a fair subject for debate.

        I'm not a hypocrite, but I am human. I try my best to not call people names, but every now and then something slips. I'm also big enough to say sorry, and mean it.

        All the best,
        Michael
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263116].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    To be fair, here is a very short list that I put together while doing other things...

    John Cairns
    William D. Zabel
    Jane Olson
    Marie Belew Wheatley
    John Walsh
    John P. Kelly, Jr.
    Robert Hawkins
    Andrea Collins
    Betty P. Rauch
    Robin Dunster

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263090].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 4thstreet
    What got to me about this award is that Obama was nominated only 10 days into his presidency. 10 days

    He had not yet made most of the speeches that people are using as a basis for his award. Every example that I have seen so far where it states that he should have received the award, brings up a speech or a point that he has made in the last few months - these has not been stated yet when he was nominated.

    Who could have won the award? ... Bono, Mahatma Gandhi, Bill Clinton & possibly even (don't laugh) George Clooney for his work in Darfur among others.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263234].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      They obviously took into consideration the presidential campaign, but also the Cairo speech and the speech to Muslim nations just a few days after Jan 20th. Plus the nuclear talks with Russia. Plus many other speeches breaking the USA away from the previous 8 years. That's the big difference. The world is happy there are not people like Cheney in power.

      People dismissing his speeches don't understand how they have made a difference among people worldwide. If someone doesn't consider how others in the world view us is important you are a fool. It's that simple really.

      BTW, I would like to see Mahatma Gandhi get a posthumous award.

      Tim


      Originally Posted by 4thstreet View Post

      What got to me about this award is that Obama was nominated only 10 days into his presidency. 10 days

      He had not yet made most of the speeches that people are using as a basis for his award. Every example that I have seen so far where it states that he should have received the award, brings up a speech or a point that he has made in the last few months - these has not been stated yet when he was nominated.

      Who could have won the award? ... Bono, Mahatma Gandhi, Bill Clinton & possibly even (don't laugh) George Clooney for his work in Darfur among others.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263313].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by 4thstreet View Post

      What got to me about this award is that Obama was nominated only 10 days into his presidency. 10 days ...
      The timing of Obama's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize is significant because his election continues even now to deliver an idealized message of post-racial bias and the embodiment of the "I Have a Dream" speech by Martin Luther King. It really is a great achievement for an African-American to take up the challenge to forge this nation into a "more perfect union" by overcoming prejudice and uniting racial divide.

      This election and subsequent nominations sent a powerful message around the world that we are moving closer to our founding ideals and the epitome of "judging others by the content of their character not by the color of their skin". His election to the highest office in the world was truly an historic event, and notwithstanding his political polarizing and other divisive policies, Obama has opened the doors of hope that now will never be closed to minorities.
      Signature
      “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263338].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        I like your post Paul, but I think you are mentioning only a small part of the reasoning behind the choice. I really don't think the Noble choice has to do with the race of Obama, but rather the fact that the Bush admin is over with and they like the new leader's direction.

        Originally Posted by myob View Post

        The timing of Obama's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize is significant because it delivers a hope of post-racial basis and the embodiment of the "I Have a Dream" speech by Martin Luther King. It is a great achievement for an African-American to take up the challenge to forge this nation into a "more perfect union" by overcoming prejudice and uniting racial divide.

        This election and subsequent nominations sent a powerful message around the world of hope that we are moving closer to our founding ideals and the epitome of "judging others by the content of their character not by the color of their skin". His election to the highest office in the world was truly an historic event, and notwithstanding his political polarizing and other divisive policies, Obama has opened doors that now will never be closed for minorities.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263362].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          I like your post Paul, but I think you are mentioning only a small part of the reasoning behind the choice. I really don't think the Noble choice has to do with the race of Obama, but rather the fact that the Bush admin is over with and they like the new leader's direction.
          Those five wise men in Oslo who decide who wins the Nobel Peace Prize were undoubtedly singing joy to the world when the Bush admin ended. But there will be no peace on earth with Obama in power. The election was not so much a political victory as much as it was historic and idealistic, and Obama's greatest and perhaps only major achievement will prove to have been to break through the racial barrier.
          Signature
          “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263415].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            This election was a historic political victory against a failed, disgraced administration. To make it a racial victory alone is beneath you Paul.

            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            Those five wise men in Oslo who decide who wins the Nobel Peace Prize were undoubtedly singing joy to the world when the Bush admin ended. But there will be no peace with Obama in power. This election was not so much a political victory as much as it was historic and idealistic, and Obama's greatest and perhaps only major achievement will prove to have been to break through the racial barrier.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263442].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              This election was a historic political victory against a failed, disgraced administration. To make it a racial victory alone is beneath you Paul.
              Being a rascist is beneath me, Tim. But this election was an historic racial victory to the credit of an imperfect Union on the road to becoming a more perfect Union. A political victory against a failed, disgraced administration is not at all historically unique if you study your history. To say that race played no significant part in the election is to deny not only our history but also the power of the human spirit.

              What is uniquely historic and symbolic in the American experience is for the son of a black man and a white woman who started with nothing to rise above personal and cultural roadblocks to be elected President of the United States by both blacks and whites. A black first family in the White House was a cultural shock heard around the world, and it does send a very powerful message of hope to all racial minorities.

              There is yet much more to be done before the dawn of the equality of mankind becomes a true reality, but our darkest period in history has in Obama another shining star of a new generation proclaiming the full measure of our founders' creed of inalienable human rights for all.

              As Martin Luther King said,
              "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."

              Whether or not the Nobel Peace Prize judges intended this award to be political reprobation against the Bush administration is a mute point, considering its wider symbolic recognition and inspiration for others of any background towards high achievement.

              "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King
              Signature
              “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263639].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by myob View Post

                Being a rascist is beneath me, Tim. But this election was an historic racial victory to the credit of an imperfect Union on the road to becoming a more perfect Union. A political victory against a failed, disgraced administration is not at all historically unique if you study your history. To say that race played no significant part in the election is to deny not only our history but also the power of the human spirit.

                What is uniquely historic and symbolic in the American experience is for the son of a black man and a white woman who started with nothing to rise above personal and cultural roadblocks to be elected President of the United States by both blacks and whites. A black first family in the White House was a cultural shock heard around the world, and it does send a very powerful message of hope to all racial minorities.

                There is yet much more to be done before the dawn of the equality of mankind becomes a true reality, but our darkest period in history has in Obama another shining star of a new generation proclaiming the full measure of our founders' creed of inalienable human rights for all.

                As Martin Luther King said,
                "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."

                Whether or not the Nobel Peace Prize judges intended this award to be political reprobation against the Bush administration is a mute point, considering its wider symbolic recognition and inspiration for others of any background towards high achievement.

                "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King
                All of that idealism and hope........just to find out that a politician is a politician no matter what color they are. Tsk.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263700].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Excellent post Paul. I know you aren't a racist and wasn't calling you one. Sure race played a part in the US election, but IMO it wasn't significant. Last year, the US almost also had it's first woman President, which would have been just as an important milestone for the US as Obama being elected. If Hillary was elected would that have meant sex played a significant part in the election? I just don't think so.

                Originally Posted by myob View Post

                Being a rascist is beneath me, Tim. But this election was an historic racial victory to the credit of an imperfect Union on the road to becoming a more perfect Union. A political victory against a failed, disgraced administration is not at all historically unique if you study your history. To say that race played no significant part in the election is to deny not only our history but also the power of the human spirit.

                What is uniquely historic and symbolic in the American experience is for the son of a black man and a white woman who started with nothing to rise above personal and cultural roadblocks to be elected President of the United States by both blacks and whites. A black first family in the White House was a cultural shock heard around the world, and it does send a very powerful message of hope to all racial minorities.

                There is yet much more to be done before the dawn of the equality of mankind becomes a true reality, but our darkest period in history has in Obama another shining star of a new generation proclaiming the full measure of our founders' creed of inalienable human rights for all.

                As Martin Luther King said,
                "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."

                Whether or not the Nobel Peace Prize judges intended this award to be political reprobation against the Bush administration is a mute point, considering its wider symbolic recognition and inspiration for others of any background towards high achievement.

                "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264370].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            Those five wise men in Oslo who decide who wins the Nobel Peace Prize were undoubtedly singing joy to the world when the Bush admin ended. But there will be no peace on earth with Obama in power. The election was not so much a political victory as much as it was historic and idealistic, and Obama's greatest and perhaps only major achievement will prove to have been to break through the racial barrier.

            Maybe those 5 guys aught to come over here and see how divided we are becoming since he "broke through the racial barrier". I haven't heard so many screaming about racism - from ALL races - since he's been in since the early 80's.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263621].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            Those five wise men in Oslo who decide who wins the Nobel Peace Prize were undoubtedly singing joy to the world when the Bush admin ended. But there will be no peace on earth with Obama in power. The election was not so much a political victory as much as it was historic and idealistic, and Obama's greatest and perhaps only major achievement will prove to have been to break through the racial barrier.


            If your observation turns out to be true even though...


            - we are at the end of a political cycle in U.S. history

            - by any honest historic account & measurement it was not a good cycle for the nation ( to say the least )

            So, what's going to happen to the good ole USA?

            The nation wastes 4 years?

            The nation wastes 8 years?

            The tide ( or should I say slide ) will not be turned?

            Even after 8 years?

            You mean this won't be a trans-formative ( for the better ) time in our nation's history?

            A Black guy gets to be president, minorities feel good about themselves and that's all she wrote???

            Will the nation ever return to greatness?

            I'd love to hear your thoughts and predictions...

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263622].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              ...
              I'd love to hear your thoughts and predictions...
              Obama I'm afraid will turn out politically to be just about as useless as that white boy Jimmy Carter. And, yes I believe we are in for some major transformations that will be very agonizing short term over the next few years, but for the long term I am very optimistic.

              Minorities, feeling good about themselves, will become emboldened, mobilized and perhaps become a source of future political leadership, business owners, inventors and investors. I live in a racially mixed neighborhood, and I really do see a bright future in the vitalizing drive of goal-oriented young adults who are planning and forging their own destinies.

              It's just like what the Warrior Forum used to be.
              Signature
              “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263764].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            Those five wise men in Oslo who decide who wins the Nobel Peace Prize were undoubtedly singing joy to the world when the Bush admin ended. But there will be no peace on earth with Obama in power. The election was not so much a political victory as much as it was historic and idealistic, and Obama's greatest and perhaps only major achievement will prove to have been to break through the racial barrier.
            You might THINK so. The FACT is that Obama, and MANY of his supporters, have said ALL of obamas problems are due to racism!!!! SO, to say what you did is tantamount to calling Obama, and many others, LIARS!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264454].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Huh? This so called FACT is not one. Are you hearing voices in your head?

              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              You might THINK so. The FACT is that Obama, and MANY of his supporters, have said ALL of obamas problems are due to racism!!!! SO, to say what you did is tantamount to calling Obama, and many others, LIARS!

              Steve
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264500].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Huh? This so called FACT is not one. Are you hearing voices in your head?
                To be sure, racism is not ALL of the problem. But one only has to listen to Carters speech given recently where he said that those who oppose the current administration are largely racist (paraphrasing). He's not the only one who has made such comments either - other Dems have as well.

                To the current administrations credit, they have distanced themselves nicely from those comments and that viewpoint.
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264655].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                Gary,
                For one - my deleted comment was no where near racist.
                Not that I recall, no. Not ever, in fact. I was very specific that I was referring to Gareth's post with that warning.

                In case it's not obvious, I have very strong feelings on that issue.
                And if you're deleting "hyper-partisan" posts, then you just happened to leave up several "hyper partisan" posts on the opposite side. So I hate to call you out on it, but if YOU go back and look you'll see that you've left up several posts that are very critical of the previous administration.
                Criticism and partisanship are often hard to differentiate, as they're both related to the existence of fundamental differences in philosophy. Hyper-partisanship is a different thing. It involves, among other characteristics, the tendency to demonize people who disagree with one's perspectives.

                This is not limited to politics.

                As far as the previous administration, the only relevant comment that can be made about them in this context is that the Committee may have taken the contrast between then and now into consideration.
                So if you're being a "fair" censor, then you'd have deleted those posts as well.
                Fairness is a matter of maintaining the same standard of treatment. It does not mean everyone agrees with the result. One tries to do the former, and recognizes that the latter is impossible in many cases.

                Some posts were deleted that I agreed with, and some that I did not. My political philosophies have no bearing on the issue, other than how they relate to civic discussion. It's one judgment call after another. They can all be debated, and there will always be the potential for mistakes. The only way to be perfect is to delete everything.

                As far as the word "censor," yep. That's part of the moderating process. By definition. I have no objection to the word in this context.


                Paul
                Signature
                .
                Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264765].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              You might THINK so. The FACT is that Obama, and MANY of his supporters, have said ALL of obamas problems are due to racism!!!! SO, to say what you did is tantamount to calling Obama, and many others, LIARS!

              Steve
              The FACT is that ALL of the problems minorities have is historically due to racism. What Obama has done is transcended racism, and achieved a signiificant but symbolic step towards equality, giving hope to minorities that the day is dawning when the United States will live up to its creed of liberty and justice for all.

              The eerily prophetic words of Martin Luther King are still true today; "A good many observers have remarked that if equality could come at once the [blacks] would not be ready for it. I submit that the white American is even more unprepared."

              The scars of racism remain within Obama and of white America despite the denials. Jimmy Carter's remarks certainly prove that point. But neither Obama nor Americans have been truly prepared for the outcome of this election, and the problems Obama has now as president has actually very little to do with racism itself.

              It is the roots of racism that has set in motion a radical agenda which will mark Obama's presidency as a political failure, but in the long term will show to be a major turning point away from the darkest history of a nation that was conceived to be a beacon of hope for basic equal human rights.

              "Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at [blacks] in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them." - Martin Luther King

              We are witnessing an historical revolution as a clashing of justice long denied attempting to forge an identity against an idealism that has turned to stone. Both will be changed in the aftermath.
              Signature
              “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264733].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by 4thstreet View Post

      What got to me about this award is that Obama was nominated only 10 days into his presidency. 10 days

      He had not yet made most of the speeches that people are using as a basis for his award. Every example that I have seen so far where it states that he should have received the award, brings up a speech or a point that he has made in the last few months - these has not been stated yet when he was nominated.

      Who could have won the award? ... Bono, Mahatma Gandhi, Bill Clinton & possibly even (don't laugh) George Clooney for his work in Darfur among others.
      I heard something about 12 days but the selection was made quite recently.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263587].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I heard something about 12 days but the selection was made quite recently.

        TL
        The NOMINATION happened 10 days into Obama's presidency. The DEADLINE for the NOMINATION was 12 days into obama's presidency. So if he "won" the prize in 3000AD, having not been nominated again, people would STILL be talking about 12 days. Still, TO THIS DATE, has he done ANYTHING worthy of the prize? The 10 days just makes it more ludicrous.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264465].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FlipGuru
    I thought it was a joke. Shocking!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263391].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gareth
    If there is nobody that deserves a peace prize or a knighthood etc - they should not give them.

    Down with quota's

    What we need at WF is a "peashooter" or "horn honker" prize.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263543].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Why even bother with this thread - you might as well delete the whole thing, because it is majorly one sided thanks to the censoring. I can see why political threads are deleted around here, because there are too many thin skinned babies in here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263570].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Why even bother with this thread - you might as well delete the whole thing, because it is majorly one sided thanks to the censoring. I can see why political threads are deleted around here, because there are too many thin skinned babies in here.


      Wait a minute, let me get this right?


      Are you saying that more people in this thread think that this is a good thing rather than a bad thing in this thread?????



      And the comments are running more positive than negative??????

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263649].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Hey, way to go!

    You don't want to miss any chance to continue your Bush-bashing, eh?

    And, yet, at the same time, you claim it's not politically motivated?

    Any FOOL can clearly see that it is - simply by reading the responses of those who agree with the choice.

    And, the censorship of dissenting opinions shows a deep-seated fear that Obama WAS the wrong choice. Otherwise there would be no need to "conveniently" report ONLY those threads that disagree with your side - CLASSY.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263572].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I'm not a hypocrite, but I am human. I try my best to not call people names, but every now and then something slips. I'm also big enough to say sorry, and mean it.
    Wow - I have no idea how that feels. LOL - you're forgiven......but I'm tucking that post away for the next time you call me out for my resources:p

    I had no idea that the IPCC was a recipient. Well that kills the Nobels for me for good between that farce and this one. And I believe Gore got one for that darned scam he ran, too -and then later was found to have all the stats jacked to heck and back - must have been too much light in his drawing room making a glare on what he was thinking he was writing. It's a shame that they don't retract their awards when something like that happens.

    Kurt........I'm not sure if OBs win will be harmless or not. It seems that it can't be harmful....but somehow, I've got a bad feel about it. Nothing specific, just a bad feel.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    How can you say that the selection process is not flawed, when the same prize was given to the man responsible for the kidnapping and killing of Israeli athletes from the Munich Olympic games? Especially when you could have given it to the man responsible for the downing of the Berlin Wall.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263605].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    I'm saying that the censorship in here is leaning heavy on one side.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263656].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      I'm saying that the censorship in here is leaning heavy on one side.
      Which one IYHO???

      You can say it.

      I'm super curious.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263707].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Which one IYHO???

        You can say it.

        I'm super curious.


        TL
        Well it's quite obvious - The only posts I've seen disappear so far (including my own) have been posts that are critical to this decision.

        I don't mind being a part of a discussion. And I don't even mind being proven wrong once in a while. But what I can't stand is being part of a discussion where one side thinks they're so right that they can mute the other side of the discussion.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263737].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Well it's quite obvious - The only posts I've seen disappear so far (including my own) have been posts that are critical to this decision.

          I don't mind being a part of a discussion. And I don't even mind being proven wrong once in a while. But what I can't stand is being part of a discussion where one side thinks they're so right that they can mute the other side of the discussion.
          One of mine disappeared also but as far as I can tell...

          ... it's only me, Tim and a very few others ( 3 or 4 ) for the affirmative...

          ... and everyone else is out for blood and gives absolutely no value for the 180 degree change in the US attitude towards the world.


          Oh well, perception is nine tenths of the mind.

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263748].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            One of mine disappeared also but as far as I can tell...

            ... it's only me, Tim and a very few others ( 3 or 4 ) for the affirmative...

            ... and everyone else is out for blood and gives absolutely no value for the 180 degree change in the US attitude towards the world.


            Oh well, perception is nine tenths of the mind.

            TL
            I can't stand to have any of it disappear - from either side. It ruins a good debate.

            And I'm not out for blood - I just think the decision process is majorly flawed, and has been for quite some time. Any process that could somehow give a "peace" prize to Yasir Arafat is definitely flawed. To give one to a terrorist after skipping the president that brought down the Berlin wall just shows that there is a definite slant in the mindset. And it's a slant in the wrong direction.

            If Obama brings peace to the Middle East, then give it to him then. But the way things are going, his passiveness is going to cause a nuclear disaster for israel in the near future, and that will mean another WW on his watch.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263777].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Well it's quite obvious - The only posts I've seen disappear so far (including my own) have been posts that are critical to this decision.

          I don't mind being a part of a discussion. And I don't even mind being proven wrong once in a while. But what I can't stand is being part of a discussion where one side thinks they're so right that they can mute the other side of the discussion.
          It's not just this forum - look around a bit. It's not the first time a faction of people have been duped into censorship of dissenters. It would only be a first if they do not come to regret their actions later.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263819].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Gary,
            Well it's quite obvious - The only posts I've seen disappear so far (including my own) have been posts that are critical to this decision.
            Then you need to pay closer attention. And you might also consider the number of posts critical of the decision that are still here.

            Go count them, Gary. Then count the posts that are solidly in favor of it. After you've looked at those, if you still think you have a point, feel free to spell it out more clearly.

            You, too, Sal. Go count them.

            Adopting the generic "you"...

            In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, I'm the one responsible for a lot of these posts going away. Go ahead and tell me what my politics are. (Hint: As they relate to this forum, I vote the Warrior Party.)

            Anyone who's been paying attention knows that I have no problem with disagreement, even when it gets hostile. That's fine when it affects the individuals involved. The hyper-partisan crap affects entire swaths of the group. Usually those who are on the other side of the abuse, PLUS anyone who's genuinely independent but might not feel as strongly on that one issue.

            If you folks want to beat each other up over music, or art, or taste in clothes, or communication styles, or hair styles, or emacs versus vi, or pretty much anything else... Go for it. It can even be fun.

            If you wish to discuss public policy, or anything related to it, you will do it in a civil fashion or you will go elsewhere to do it.

            I do not care a great deal which option you choose, but it will be one of those two.

            Oh yeah... This probably only applies to a very small percentage of this group, so please ignore it if it doesn't fit you: If anyone else starts to feel like they want to make racist "baboon" comments like gareth's, I have a suggestion for you: Think twice before yielding to the temptation.

            If you want to be a racist in the privacy of your own mind, or in a bar where it's welcome, or in some other forum, that's your business. If you choose to insult whole categories of members by displaying your ignorance, that's our business.

            Think very carefully about the value you place on your participation in this group before you cross that line.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263891].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author gareththomasnz
              Banned
              Hey who the hell are you calling a racist ?

              I dont know who is the mod here but - I often post pix of baboons when people here argue and behave like - well, baboons.



              So you have made an incorrect and derogatory assumption.





              I wonder if you are baboon enough to admit that.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263920].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                Gareth,

                I'm calling you a racist. I read that comment. And I have sent a note to woosh.com's abuse desk about your creating a new account to push the issue. If you like, I can also send a friendly email to CallPlus about the first one.

                Keep pushing. You would not be the first person to have to find a new ISP (or three) for that kind of thing.


                Paul
                Signature
                .
                Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263941].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                  @GarethThomasNZ has chosen to take the argument to Twitter. And he told on me to @KevinRiley! Oh me, oh my. Whatever shall I do?

                  For those who saw his Tweet about the "argument thread," here's the thing he left out: I don't know if he regularly posts pictures of baboons or not when he's making a point. I rather seriously doubt that he includes, as he did in reference to Mr Obama, a comment like, "getting people off your back... err... black," just prior to wondering aloud where he's put his "folder of baboon pix."

                  I don't care if he thinks that's funny or not. That sort of comment is very officially not welcome here.


                  Paul
                  Signature
                  .
                  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264020].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author garyv
              For one - my deleted comment was no where near racist. And if you're deleting "hyper-partisan" posts, then you just happened to leave up several "hyper partisan" posts on the opposite side. So I hate to call you out on it, but if YOU go back and look you'll see that you've left up several posts that are very critical of the previous administration. So if you're being a "fair" censor, then you'd have deleted those posts as well.

              And the reason I said that the censorship was leaning one sided, is because I was looking at the posts that were being deleted, not the ones staying up. And it's a fact that a majority of the deleted posts were from one side of the argument.

              And of course one side of the argument or the other is going to cover entire swaths of the group. The United States is split in 2 at the moment on where they stand on the issues.

              All I'm saying is be fair w/ the censorship - (which is kind of an oxymoron). But it's best just not to censor. If someone is being a fool - it's best to let them expose themselves. But don't squash one side of the argument. Either leave it alone, or squash the whole thing. JMHO

              ps - the heat of this debate would probably be a few degrees lower if posts weren't disappearing. I was ready to say my piece and move on. censoring me is like stoking a flame. I should probably move on anyway before I get myself banned.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264304].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gareth
    stupid humans - what will it matter in 20 yrs when robots rule the universe

    Ha ha ha ha haaa
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263706].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    You will notice one of my earlier posts mentions the disappearance of 5 posts.

    The reason I know is that someone had just made post #36, but when I refreshed the page, that same post had mysteriously changed to post #31 - AND at least one of my posts had been deleted.

    I am not sure what the other 4 were. It's also possible that several more were deleted since then.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1263713].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author john_kennedy
    Congrats to Mr. Obama, now go and do something to earn the award.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264309].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    There's an interesting article over on CounterPunch re the award, and he wonders whether race played a part in the sense of: "Apparently, the Nobel committee is suffering from the delusion that, being a minority, Obama is going to put a stop to Western hegemony over darker-skinned peoples."

    I doubt the Nobel Committee are that naive though.

    http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts10092009.html (scroll down)
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264414].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Hey Paul,

    I was really surprised when I saw one of my posts was chosen for deletion. I didn't think it was partisan, as I truly believe the Nobel committee has an agenda, and that they lean to the left - as evidenced by previous prize winners.

    My thought was imply that they chose Obama, in large part, for those reasons.

    However, I am personally about as independent as they get. In the past three elections I have voted (in no particular order) Democrat, Republican, and 3rd party.

    While my comments make it look like I'm leaning FAR to the right, that simply is not the case. In truth, I am trying my best to look at it objectively.

    BUT, and this is a big BUT...

    Knowing that it was you who reported the missing posts makes a big difference, because partisanship wasn't your reason for reporting. As long as posts were slated from all sides of the issue, so be it.

    Anyway, all I'm trying to figure out is what did Obama actually DO? Actions, NOT words. And if I have to use terms like "agenda" or "left" or "right" to elicit an answer, then I will do so. And if I happen to cross the line, it's not intentional, but understand why the post could disappear.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264815].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    If a British politician had won the Nobel peace prize, admittedly very unlikely, the whole country would a have been overjoyed: Almost as good as winning the Olympics.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264829].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
      Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

      If a British politician had won the Nobel peace prize, admittedly very unlikely, the whole country would a have been overjoyed: Almost as good as winning the Olympics.
      Oh I doubt it, not unless he has actually done something to warrant such a prize.
      Signature
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

      Easy Weight Loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264843].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264873].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Michael,

      It started out as "get rid of the overt politics." When things got heated, it became, "knock that off." The change in focus may contribute to some of the confusion, but probably not much. Everyone tends to think they're reasonable, because, of course, they're right.
      As long as posts were slated from all sides of the issue, so be it.
      Sides are irrelevant. If all the nasty comes from one side, that's where all the nuking will happen, too. (Assuming 'nasty' is the behavior that's being targeted.)


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1264996].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Folks, the topic is Obama and the Nobel. Not Obama's health care or fiscal policies, or the state of American race relations, or what one thinks of the previous administration.

        Those topics are interesting and important, yes, with lots of room for differing perspectives. They are also not directly relevant to the thread's subject, and they're sufficiently political that they're in violation of the rules here.

        Continuing to spend time typing them in will just result in time spent for no purpose.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265049].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    I hate to keep dredging this up, but now you're making it seem as though our deleted posts were full of nastiness. And of course they're gone now so we have no way of defending ourselves. Of course it's nasty to bring up race while using the word baboon, and you pointed out the obvious nastiness there. But many of the posts I saw were not that nasty, they were just partisan. And to say that your own partisanship plays no role in the way you judge these posts can not possibly be true. Your side on this issue (and politics) has been made very clear in your posts here, so your judgement on what is nasty is going to be very biased. In my opinion (and yes I'm biased to the other side) there were many posts left up that were much more nasty.

    This is why it's not fair to have someone weigh in on an argument and then be allowed to mediate that same argument. There's just no way to assure fairness. This is why you don't see judges weigh in w/ their opinion during the jury process.

    Anyhow - no hard feelings, I know that your intentions are always good for this forum. Plus my own biases may not be allowing me to see the bigger forum picture, so I'll just let you do your job.

    But back to the main subject. To me the person that should win a peace award is someone that invokes a sense of peace in just about everyone - Someone like Mother Teresa, or Gandhi. Not only has Obama not really accomplished anything yet, but most of all, he's a very polarizing figure in our country right now - and I don't mean that in a racial way.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265173].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      OK, I'll bite. How is Obama polarizing? Because angry white people don't like him doesn't mean he is polarizing. ;-) It's the Republicans who refuse to work with him in a bipartisan way.
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      , he's a very polarizing figure in our country right now.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265219].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        OK, I'll bite. How is Obama polarizing? Because angry white people don't like him doesn't mean he is polarizing. ;-) It's the Republicans who refuse to work with him in a bipartisan way.
        Not 100% accurate Tim.

        Why do I think you know that though...

        Your party has as much infighting as fighting the Republicans.

        And BTW - I am far from being an "angry white person" yet I too find him polarizing. You shouldn't generalize so much. More often than not, you'd be wrong.

        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265257].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Yeh, I winked. That's how you know it. OK, let me ask you also Mike, why do you think Obama is any more polarizing than any President is? Or do you think he is just as polarizing as any President?

          BTW, I don't think I generalize much. I try to say what I see as being accurate.

          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

          Not 100% accurate Tim.

          Why do I think you know that though...

          Your party has as much infighting as fighting the Republicans.

          And BTW - I am far from being an "angry white person" yet I too find him polarizing. You shouldn't generalize so much. More often than not, you'd be wrong.

          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265396].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Yeh, I winked. That's how you know it. OK, let me ask you also Mike, why do you think Obama is any more polarizing than any President is? Or do you think he is just as polarizing as any President?

            BTW, I don't think I generalize much. I try to say what I see as being accurate.

            Without a doubt, he's as polarizing as ANY president. Which was mostly my point.

            This is what makes politics interesting.

            And one thing I have learned, we may see what WE post as accurate. Doesn't mean it is, or will be seen that way by others. Which is why sweeping dismissals or generalizations don't really help matters.

            Well, that's the way I see it anyway.
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265426].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Yeh, that's why I stay away from sweeping dismissals or generalizations. I'm glad you try to also.

              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              And one thing I have learned, we may see what WE post as accurate. Doesn't mean it is, or will be seen that way by others. Which is why sweeping dismissals or generalizations don't really help matters.

              Well, that's the way I see it anyway.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265491].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Yeh, I made a joke about the angry white people, but it's actually based on truth. It wasn't even close to beeing a racist statement as Paul pointed out. It also wasn't a sweeping generalization. A slight generalization perhaps. Hey, look at these tea baggers and let me know when you see one that isn't a white person. ( BTW, I said white person, not male. Geesh. So you can't accuse me of sexism also. )

                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265516].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author garyv
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Yeh, I made a joke about the angry white people, but it's actually based on truth. It wasn't even close to beeing a racist statement as Paul pointed out. It also wasn't a sweeping generalization. A slight generalization perhaps. Hey, look at these tea baggers and let me know when you see one that isn't a white person. ( BTW, I said white person, not male. Geesh. So you can't accuse me of sexism also. )

                  YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS

                  There was actually a black tea party movement - look it up. Also Check this out - at the St. Louis Tea Party.

                  Your cut and paste liberal blogs wont show this...


                  ps - the fact that you're still using the "tea-bagger" term proves that you're trying to provoke people. That term was made up by the third-grade staff at MSNBC.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265884].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Yeh, that's why I stay away from sweeping dismissals or generalizations. I'm glad you try to also.
                Well, your statement about angry white people would - to me - fall under sweeping generalizations...

                As are your comments about those Republicans.

                But, like I said earlier, you knew that.
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265520].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                  Michael,

                  Racism has to do with races, not ethnic groups or political affiliations. I can count the number of people I've met in my life who were prejudiced against their own racial group on both hands, and have enough digits left unused to give them all the finger.

                  I had a really good example to make the point, but I'm sure someone would twist it around into something it didn't actually resemble...

                  Tim,

                  I have known Steve here for something like 10 years. If he's a racist, he does a damned good job of hiding it. He says things that sound extreme on all sorts of issues, but that's his style, rather than the substance.

                  He does have a tendency to pick inflammatory examples and phrase them in ways that seem like he is. That I'll agree with. When I finally figured out part of the Seasoned Code, I realized it's not at all what it looks like. But yeah. It does sometimes look like that.


                  Paul
                  Signature
                  .
                  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265564].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Paul, I haven't called Steve a racist before but after months of him calling Obama one and then saying I made a racist sexist remark I had to.

                    Here's where it all started between Steve and myself: about four years ago I saw Steve post something in the main forum that was basically a rant against black women. It was pretty shocking to me. He just went on and on with typical stereotypes of black women and how he didn't like them. A couple people called him on it including myself.

                    I made the mistake of reading this rant over the phone to my girlfriend, who later became my fiance, and she started crying. She is black. She said "Stp reading that. Why are you reading that **** to me? I've had to deal with assholes like that my whole life." She is a tough brilliant lady who doesn't fit into any dumbass stereotypes. She doesn't cry very often either so I felt bad reading Steve's racist, sexist rant.

                    Since then I have read many of Steve's posts and I respectably have to disagree with you.




                    Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                    Michael,


                    Tim,

                    I have known Steve here for something like 10 years. If he's a racist, he does a damned good job of hiding it. He says things that sound extreme on all sorts of issues, but that's his style, rather than the substance.

                    He does have a tendency to pick inflammatory examples and phrase them in ways that seem like he is. That I'll agree with. When I finally figured out part of the Seasoned Code, I realized it's not at all what it looks like. But yeah. It does sometimes look like that.


                    Paul
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265593].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Gary,

        A: I did not say they were all nasty. Some of them were simply too political, and too off the topic. That said, there's a lot of nasty that the writers don't perceive as such.

        Take that as you will. I'm not talking about anyone in particular.

        As far as weighing in on the topic... Have I expressed an opinion on Obama getting the Nobel, and whether it was deserved or not?? Or the other, less relevant topics that have been brought up? If so, please point me to the post.
        And to say that your own partisanship plays no role in the way you judge these posts can not possibly be true. Your side on this issue (and politics) has been made very clear in your posts here, so your judgement on what is nasty is going to be very biased. In my opinion (and yes I'm biased to the other side) there were many posts left up that were much more nasty.
        You have no idea what my politics are, Gary. None. You are merely assuming they're different than yours, because the result of my actions is other than you would like.

        One thing about my political views that you're welcome to know is that I've been actively opposed to hyper-partisan rhetoric in discussion of public policy for better than half my life. Another is that I'm more willing to verbally smack people who agree with me for demonizing others than I am those who don't. I have never voted a straight ticket in my life, and rarely voted a full ticket.

        As far as polarizing... Anyone, of any party, who held the office of President of the United States would be the target of polarizing language at this point. Regardless of what they tried to do, or how they viewed the world.

        That is part of the problem of hyper-partisan speech on public issues. It destroys the proper functioning of representative democracy.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265260].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          I did not say they were all nasty. Some of them were simply too political, and too off the topic.
          Paul,

          With all due respect, and understanding that I'm getting off topic here as much as you are, this notion that this should be the one thread on the off-topic forum where we are held to being on topic is a bit confusing.

          I agree with all your comments about how it is undesirable to get nasty or too political or too one sided, I am mearly making the observation that the censorship in this thread has gone overboard.

          Like I said, this is just an observation, and just as off-topic as you are allowing yourself the luxury of getting.

          And your comment, "The rest is just more excuses to sneak in the stuff that's not supposed to be here in the first place" does not allow for the fact that some of us here actually enjoy and are having fun reading the different viewpoints from others and don't consider a lot of them to be justified in getting nuked. We're just looking for a little interaction with folks we know.

          Again, I am not arguing your justification for the censorship, I think you stated it very precisely and I agree with your logic.

          I guess I'm just asking you to consider giving us a little slack. I wrote this for your eyes, so you can delete this after you have read it.

          Bill
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265374].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        OK, I'll bite. How is Obama polarizing? Because angry white people don't like him doesn't mean he is polarizing. ;-) It's the Republicans who refuse to work with him in a bipartisan way.
        Well, MY post spoke of how you would see a cat and I see the skunk, and the difference between hype and reality. I'll let YOU sort out the details since the few words I added seemed too political to paul. But it wasn't angry, and had NOTHING to do with race! I actually tried to answer two of your questions/statements.

        and republicans CAN'T refuse to work in a bipartisan way! Bipartisan means one of TWO things!!!!!!

        1. The conditions are fair enough to be accepted by BOTH on their face.
        2. The ruling party compromises enough to have the minority party accept.

        ANY acceptance outside of that is CAPITULATION, and can't rightly be considered bipartisan. I could say more, but paul might figure THIS is too political, though it DOES merely answer your post.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265312].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Maybe if you could explain why that last post was deleted, I'd have a clearer understanding.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265310].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Maybe if you could explain why that last post was deleted, I'd have a clearer understanding.
      Which one?
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265330].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Steve,

        Yeah. It's too political. This whole thread is, and if people insist on discussing political issues in it beyond the topic of the thread, it's all just going to go away. If that's your goal, you're close to accomplishing it.

        Doesn't bother me. Pretty much everything useful to be said on the actual topic was said a long time ago. The rest is just more excuses to sneak in the stuff that's not supposed to be here in the first place. Well, and discussion of moderation and forum policy, which I rarely treat as inappropriate.

        By the way... Hinting around the topic is more likely to get posts nuked, not less.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265347].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Steve,

          Yeah. It's too political. This whole thread is, and if people insist on discussing political issues in it beyond the topic of the thread, it's all just going to go away. If that's your goal, you're close to accomplishing it.

          Doesn't bother me. Pretty much everything useful to be said on the actual topic was said a long time ago. The rest is just more excuses to sneak in the stuff that's not supposed to be here in the first place. Well, and discussion of moderation and forum policy, which I rarely treat as inappropriate.

          By the way... Hinting around the topic is more likely to get posts nuked, not less.


          Paul
          The very last post that I put up merely wanted to give the flavor of the other. Frankly, I thought the imagery of the one prior was a cute way of illustrating the case. I was merely answering. HECK, this whole thing was DOOMED to be political. ANOTHER thread covers the same stuff from a more comical aspect, and I don't think THAT has gotten political.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265381].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    My last post that was deleted.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      My last post that was deleted.
      What was it about? A lot of them have gone away.

      If it was about race, it's gone because that's not relevant to the topic of the thread, as I already mentioned.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265349].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    It was my response to post #138 which is an obvious racist post (and is still there I might add).

    Again the only reason I'm questioning your tactics, is because you're not living up to your own rhetoric.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265359].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      lol. Ridiculous.
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      It was my response to post #138 which is an obvious racist post (and is still there I might add).
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265379].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        lol. Ridiculous.

        How is that ridiculous? You've made a blanketing statement and pointed it toward one race. Believe me there are many races that do not agree with the choice of Obama for this prize.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        KJ,
        With all due respect, and understanding that I'm getting off topic here as much as you are, this notion that this should be the one thread on the off-topic forum where we are held to being on topic is a bit confusing.
        Understandable.

        This is the "last straw" for me. I've tried to express the idea that toning down the volume would result in more leeway on topics, but that doesn't seem to have been expressed as well as I'd like it to have been. The message is not getting through.

        The thread drift is specifically in the direction of stuff that's not supposed to be here in the first place. That's a bit different than drifting from rock music to blues, or the Saturday morning cartoons.

        The alternative is enforcing the rule about political discussion completely. That's the next step, and one that seems unavoidable, given the reasoning behind Allen's creating the rule in the first place.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265395].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          I do appreciate what you are trying to do Paul, even if you deleted a few of my posts also. :-)

          Honestly, I do try to stay away from politics here since the rules were added and IMO I only respond after someone else already has made it political. Some may not see it that way, but I am far different from how I was last year when there wasn't any rules. There are some here who don't seem to try very hard at all to follow the rules.

          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          KJ,Understandable.

          This is the "last straw" for me. I've tried to express the idea that toning down the volume would result in more leeway on topics, but that doesn't seem to have been expressed as well as I'd like it to have been. The message is not getting through.

          The thread drift is specifically in the direction of stuff that's not supposed to be here in the first place. That's a bit different than drifting from rock music to blues, or the Saturday morning cartoons.

          The alternative is enforcing the rule about political discussion completely. That's the next step, and one that seems unavoidable, given the reasoning behind Allen's creating the rule in the first place.


          Paul
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265407].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I do appreciate what you are trying to do Paul, even if you deleted a few of my posts also. :-)

            Honestly, I do try to stay away from politics here since the rules were added and IMO I only respond after someone else already has made it political. Some may not see it that way, but I am far different from how I was last year when there wasn't any rules. There are some here who don't seem to try very hard at all to follow the rules.
            To quote an earlier respone...

            lol. Ridiculous.

            Any casual observer can plainly see how funny that statement is.

            ~M~
            Signature

            "Ich bin en fuego!"
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265413].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I do appreciate what you are trying to do Paul, even if you deleted a few of my posts also. :-)

            Honestly, I do try to stay away from politics here since the rules were added and IMO I only respond after someone else already has made it political. Some may not see it that way, but I am far different from how I was last year when there wasn't any rules. There are some here who don't seem to try very hard at all to follow the rules.

            I didn't see the wink there - It was an obvious joke right? You do read what write - no?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265425].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              I didn't see the wink there - It was an obvious joke right? You do read what write - no?
              That happens to be a centrist wink. If you look closely without a left or right bias, you will see clearly.
              Signature
              “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265581].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Gary,
      It was my response to post #138 which is an obvious racist post (and is still there I might add).
      Huh? Ummm... How is a white guy making "angry white men" jokes racist? Even if it wasn't a joke, how is it racist?

      It would take a lot of context that doesn't fit with Tim's past comments to make that look racist to me. Do you really believe that, or are you looking for something to support your argument that I'm not being fair?

      I can be perfectly and inarguably fair, if you like. I can delete every post I see with any content that's even marginally political in appearance. That would be 100% consistent and in keeping with the rules.

      I'm cool with that.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265387].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Gary,Huh? Ummm... How is a white guy making "angry white men" jokes racist? Even if it wasn't a joke, how is it racist?

        It would take a lot of context that doesn't fit with Tim's past comments to make that look racist to me. Do you really believe that, or are you looking for something to support your argument that I'm not being fair?

        I can be perfectly and inarguably fair, if you like. I can delete every post I see with any content that's even marginally political in appearance. That would be 100% consistent and in keeping with the rules.

        I'm cool with that.


        Paul
        When you call the opponents - angry white men - that implies that those angry men are racists - otherwise why bring up their race? Especially when there are many other races angry with him? Like I said before the head of the RNC is black, so you can hardly make an "angry white men" statement.

        And when you do use that statement, it's obvious race baiting, and that was my response. So if he can use a race baiting statement, I should be able to properly respond without being censored. I can't be the only one witnessing this hypocritical behavior?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265402].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Gary,Huh? Ummm... How is a white guy making "angry white men" jokes racist? Even if it wasn't a joke, how is it racist?
        Do you even KNOW he is white? WHAT does it matter though! Does that mean that it is OK for a BLACK to utter BLACK racist comments in an open forum like this? Racism is racism.

        If it is TRULY a joke, like Wozniak did with dumb polish jokes(He PRIDES himself on his polish heritage, and was obviously bright.), or an illustration, like comments I have made that spoke of "poor white trailer trash", that is one thing, but to say that ALL speaking against someone that HAPPENS to be black, etc..., are angry white men, is just RACIST. HECK, it is SEXIST also.

        I bet even the strictest republicans would have been stating the SAME things against reagan given the same circumstances. I would be. I mean 10 DAYS into his FIRST term? COME ON! This isn't a race or party issue. I could say more, but I will stop there.

        steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265408].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Steve, honestly, you are the only person who regularily posts here that I think is a racist. Yep, I do think you are a racist and I'm not the only one BTW. Of course most racists don't see themelves as a racist. You certainly don't recognize this fault in your character, but it's pretty obvious to others.

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Do you even KNOW he is white? WHAT does it matter though! Does that mean that it is OK for a BLACK to utter BLACK racist comments in an open forum like this? Racism is racism.

          If it is TRULY a joke, like Wozniak did with dumb polish jokes(He PRIDES himself on his polish heritage, and was obviously bright.), or an illustration, like comments I have made that spoke of "poor white trailer trash", that is one thing, but to say that ALL speaking against someone that HAPPENS to be black, etc..., are angry white men, is just RACIST. HECK, it is SEXIST also.

          I bet even the strictest republicans would have been stating the SAME things against reagan given the same circumstances. I would be. I mean 10 DAYS into his FIRST term? COME ON! This isn't a race or party issue. I could say more, but I will stop there.

          steve
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265462].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Steve, honestly, you are the only person who regularily posts here that I think is a racist. Yep, I do think you are a racist and I'm not the only one BTW. Of course most racists don't see themelves as a racist. You certainly don't recognize this fault in your character, but it's pretty obvious to others.
            YEP, I know others view me that way. And I know you want to at least push that idea. Frankly, I HAVE seen racist things from you INCLUDING, obviously, on this thread.

            Heck, If I were publically shown as a friend of MJ, formally of the Jackson 5, some might still believe that, even though it isn't true. AND, for the record, I liked a lot of MJs music, and even liked the way he looked earlier. I don't know why he even dared RISK surgery. So NO, I never knew him, went crazy about him or his music or went to a concert. I didn't do that with ANYONE! But I DID buy his records, and liked his music. AND, BTW, there are a LOT of whites that produced records that I NEVER considered even LISTENING to.

            And YEAH, the current head of the RNC IS black! Do I CARE? NOPE! If he is a decent guy, and is serious, that is ALL I care about.

            NOW, if I were to tell you about blacks I DIDN'T like, we would start talking political again, for the most part. It has NOTHING to do with them as a PEOPLE.

            So if you want to say I am ?IST, you'll have to come up with a new term. And, frankly, it would apply to whites as well as anyone else.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265489].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    Just think what a stink being nominated for the Baseball Hall of Fame is going to cause..

    Barack Obama's Childhood Baseball Bat
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Well, the very idea that the ONLY people opposing Obama are WHITE and happen to be MALE IS a racist comment; and as someone who is white, male and doesn't oppose Obama, I take it personally.

    And the very fact that someone could defend that as NOT being racist speaks volumes. It's what some people call "reverse racism", a term which makes no sense.

    But go ahead Tim, discount the way I feel as "ridiculous". I'm guessing certain people in this thread are NOT aware of your standard modus operandi.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Michael,
      Well, the very idea that the ONLY people opposing Obama are WHITE and happen to be MALE IS a racist comment; and as someone who is white, male and doesn't oppose Obama, I take it personally.

      And the very fact that someone could defend that as NOT being racist speaks volumes. It's what some people call "reverse racism", a term which makes no sense.
      I didn't see that in his statement at all. Not anything like "all" or "only." I also don't happen to believe that race has much to do with most of the substantive resistance to Mr Obama's policies.

      You're misusing the phrase "reverse racism," by the way. That has traditionally meant racism from a perceived oppressed group toward their perceived oppressors. (I say perceived because it's not always true, not because it's never true.)


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265415].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    So, someone making a racist comment against black people gets them banned.

    But someone making a racist comment toward white people only gets their post deleted?

    Very odd.

    ~M~
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265409].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      For a writer, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      So, someone making a racist comment against black people gets them banned.

      But someone making a racist comment toward white people only gets their post deleted?

      Very odd.

      ~M~
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265477].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        For a writer, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
        There you go again.

        My comprehension is fine.

        Why don't you just say what you want to say?

        You think anyone that doesn't see politics the EXACT same way as you doesn't "get it".

        Your comment WAS racist, and the little "wink" didn't tell me you were joking, it told me that you KNEW what you were really saying.

        There are a few ways a wink can be taken. To let someone know something is a joke, flirting, you have something in your eye, or that you are letting someone in on the true meaning of something you said.

        You're not funny, I assume you weren't flirting with me, and having something in your eye wouldn't matter for a forum reply. By process of elimination, that shows you were letting others in on the subtext of your message.

        Why the personal insult about my intelligence? Why are you always so quick to switch to the ad hominem arguments?

        To me, there's only one reason why you would do so.

        Because you know I'm right.

        Don't worry, you don't have to admit it was a racist comment. I was able to comprehend it just fine, and you know deep down you intended it as such.

        All the best,
        Michael

        p.s. Really? I still can't believe you said you try not to get political. That honestly made me LOL. You not getting politcal, is like me not being over-sensitive and taking things too personally.
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265538].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Trying to bring it back to the original topic...

    The idea that he was CHOSEN after 10 days in office doesn't necessarily hold up.

    He was NOMINATED 10 (or 12) days after being in office. But what counts is when the VOTING took place.

    Apparently the voting was done more recently. After President Obama has been in office for several months.

    I still don't agree with the decision, but let's try to remember that a NOMINATION and a VOTE are not the same thing.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265420].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    No problem, Paul.

    Just because you didn't see it that way, doesn't mean it WASN'T a racist statement.

    If someone said something against another group of people, and you and several members saw it as racist, but I didn't...would it be racist, or not?

    And that's the issue. It doesn't matter if you (or anyone else) didn't pick up on the OVERT racism; other people did. So, why is it that only the post is deleted in this case, and not the poster?

    I'm not trying to get into an argument. And it may be a matter of semantics. But as someone who feels that a racist comment was made against them, I am curious.

    Also, I freely admit I may be missing some of the finer points. I always appreciate your way of explaining things.

    Looking forward to your response.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265431].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Back to the topic - I find it funny that Hillary actually predicted this prize a year ago...


    I can't beleive I agree with Hillary, but I've lived a little long as well....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265438].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Gary,
      I can't be the only one witnessing this hypocritical behavior?
      You are not the only one interpreting it that way, no. But that's what it is: Interpretation. Here's the exact quote:
      How is Obama polarizing? Because angry white people don't like him doesn't mean he is polarizing. ;-)
      I don't see anything about "only" or "all" or even "most" implied there.

      It also doesn't fit the definition of racist in the sense of suggesting that whites are inferior to some other unspecified group.

      Sorry. No racism there.

      Please note that this is about the word, and that I have avoided the involvement of the issue in politics.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265441].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Gary,
        Back to the topic - I find it funny that Hillary actually predicted this prize a year ago...
        If so, you linked to the wrong video. Nothing in there suggested anything of the kind.

        It's also generally not considered a good idea to repost deleted posts. You are aware of that, I presume?


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265446].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author garyv
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Gary,If so, you linked to the wrong video. Nothing in there suggested anything of the kind.

          It's also generally not considered a good idea to repost deleted posts. You are aware of that, I presume?


          Paul
          That's why I asked above why the post was deleted. You said it was because of my defense to the race baiting. So I took my defense to race baiting out of the comment and posted it. Now you're saying it was deleted because of what? The more I probe, the more your motive comes to light.

          There's a difference between racism - and a racist remark. A racist remark is a remark that discriminates against one race. And since there are people of other races also angry at Obama - to single out one race in that remark would make it a racist remark. Not only that, but it's an obvious race baiting remark. Because he's obviously implying that those angry at Obama are racists. It's quite obvious especially w/ the comments and defense he follows up w/.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265751].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Michael,
            Such as a comment that implies the only anti-Obama people are white?
            There is no such implication in Tim's statement. Even if there were, that's not racism. Please look the word up before you use it again. I don't think it means what you think it means.

            What Tim suggested was that angry white people were the cause of the polarization. That is, whether you like it or not, a fact, If there were a different person in the office right now, it would also be angry white people who would cause the same degree of polarization. Possibly a different group of them, but still.

            Said AWPs are not anything like a majority, and Tim didn't suggest it. Nor did he suggest that whites were, as a group, somehow inferior because of the existence of these AWPs.

            You interpreted something a certain way, commented on it, and now have your ego invested in defending that comment. This is completely normal, but it doesn't make your assertions any more convincing to those of us who took the statement at face value.

            As far as your comments about Tim's past posts: Couldn't say. Haven't seen anything from him that would support that impression, but I haven't read this section as much as others. That said, it's possible that you formed an impression, turned it into a filter, and have been reading his posts through a broken lens ever since.

            I have no idea if that's the case or not, but it's not something that would surprise me. From anyone.
            Not as flawed as saying the responsibility falls on the reader.
            Placing it on either side is equally flawed.

            Gary,
            You said it was because of my defense to the race baiting.
            Go read what I said again, and note the conditional "if."
            Now you're saying it was deleted because of what? The more I probe, the more your motive comes to light.
            Purely the political nature of the thing.

            Feel free to believe you understand my motives, Gary. You don't, and if you keep working on convincing yourself of the validity whatever filter you're constructing, you never will.

            I will survive that without much harmful effect, I suspect.

            As far as the rest of your comments... See my responses to Michael. I don't see any benefit to be gained by retyping them.

            I find it somewhat amusing to consider the implications of your comments, though. Followed to their logical conclusion, they suggest that I am a racist, with a prejudice against white people.

            Sorry to disppoint you, Gary, but some of my best friends are white people.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265797].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author garyv
              Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post


              Gary,Go read what I said again, and note the conditional "if."Purely the political nature of the thing.

              Feel free to believe you understand my motives, Gary. You don't, and if you keep working on convincing yourself of the validity whatever filter you're constructing, you never will.

              I will survive that without much harmful effect, I suspect.

              As far as the rest of your comments... See my responses to Michael. I don't see any benefit to be gained by retyping them.

              I find it somewhat amusing to consider the implications of your comments, though. Followed to their logical conclusion, they suggest that I am a racist, with a prejudice against white people.

              Sorry to disppoint you, Gary, but some of my best friends are white people.


              Paul
              It was the political nature of that post? I don't see how. I used a video of Hillary Clinton, they're of the same party, and speaks directly to what people are thinking even today. Think about the video in the context of the only reason he's receiving this award is predicated on his future events. The video sums it up nicely.

              And again - there's a difference between being a racist/ or racism and making a racist comment. No one said he was a racist, they said that his comment was a racist comment. It was also race baiting, and if you look at the comment in context to his other posts including the video he posted, then you'll know (although probably won't admit) that I'm right.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265831].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Hey Paul, I was just going to use that quote. Gosh darn white people, always stealing my best lines. :-0

              Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

              Sorry to disppoint you, Gary, but some of my best friends are white people.


              Paul
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265949].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    If I could make an observation.

    Yes, this thread is a typical example of how quickly things can get political. And how polarizing politics of any kind can be.

    However, there is something of value going on.

    In this discussion we are all finally hashing something out, that I personally think is VERY worthwhile. And that is, what exactly are politics as they relate to the ban that is in place.

    Some of us are getting worked up, but we are covering a bigger issue, too.

    Bravo!

    I hope this threa doesn't get nuked any time soon. I think we are on the verge of something that will be, ultimately, good for all of us.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265450].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author john_kennedy
    Not ridiculous at all. You assume that because some white people disagree with the direction that our president is taking this country that we are racist and that it is all about of color. It doesn't have anything to do with color. If it was Hillary or Bill Clinton in there we would be just as upset.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265478].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Another complete tangent...

    It seems some of us took a comment Tim made as racist.

    Others, Tim included, see it differently.

    So, what makes it racist? What is said, or how it's received?

    It's no surprise that I choose the latter, but not for the reason you may be thinking.

    Here's why. As a writer, I belive it's the responsibility of the writer to be understood; NOT the responsibility of the reader to decipher what the writer meant.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265572].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrician
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      Another complete tangent...

      It seems some of us took a comment Tim made as racist.

      Others, Tim included, see it differently.

      So, what makes it racist? What is said, or how it's received?

      It's no surprise that I choose the latter, but not for the reason you may be thinking.

      Here's why. As a writer, I belive it's the responsibility of the writer to be understood; NOT the responsibility of the reader to decipher what the writer meant.

      All the best,
      Michael
      hahaha ahaha mikey - this is like the chicken egg dilemma -

      "there is no truth, only perception"

      (i vehemently disagree)

      just wanna see what you say about this...
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265601].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

        hahaha ahaha mikey - this is like the chicken egg dilemma -

        "there is no truth only perception"

        (i vehemently disagree)

        just wanna see what you say about this...
        It's a fair point.

        My take.

        1. It's the writer's (or poster's) responsibility to be understood. Not the reader's to GUESS what the reader meant.

        2. I agree. There is truth. There are things that are open to perception, then there are things that are absolute truths.

        If someone doesn't belive the truth, that doesn't make it a lie - it just makes it a truth they don't belive. But it is STILL the truth.

        As far as Paul goes, I kind of thanked him indirectly for continuing this thread. Because I believe it is serving a higher purpose. We are openly discussing what constitutes "politics" within the context of the ban that is in place in the OT.

        I told him I appreciated his posts, too. So you are not alone.

        All the best,
        Michael
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265626].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Paul Myers- I gotta hand it to you for tolerating this when you could just nuke the whole thing. I hope somebody is giving you credit (well I am if nobody else is) but again I don't see why you are putting up with it. How long have you been a masochist? (just kidding). (passive-aggressive i am not kidding)

    In the horrific OT political battles circa the last presidential election it was the very same people -'party animals' that initiated so many conflicts, were/are antagonistic, intolerant and 'can dish it out but not take it'. Nobody's opinion is valid unless it agrees with theirs. They can call names but do not even give the impression that you are anti-their-guy or you will get insulted.

    I do fine because I can't stand either party. I am just persecuted as the one who let's the wrong guy get in because I don't vote for the right guy (excuse me left or right guy). Everything is my fault therefore.

    ..if anybody ever spots the right guy let me know so I can tell you to have your head examined.

    The only Right One is unmentionable and He is not running for anything, nor is He dependent on public opinion. Maybe that's why He is such a threat...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265590].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Patrician, I agree with you about Paul. I would have given both you and him thanks but once again my button is missing........
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265603].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Michael,
        So, what makes it racist? What is said, or how it's received?
        There are two answers: The thing that makes it racist or not objectively is whether it fits the definition, which this comment did not. Look up the definition and see for yourself.

        The second answer is a bit less clear cut, and has to do with perception. It is easy to misperceive something, even if it's completely clear in terms of expression, if there's some other factor influencing how we look at it.

        In that case, you treat the statement as being racially inflammatory (if there's a racist component), and leave the character of the speaker out, until their intent has been clarified.
        As a writer, I belive it's the responsibility of the writer to be understood; NOT the responsibility of the reader to decipher what the writer meant.
        Speaking writer to writer, I will suggest that this is a deeply flawed precept.

        It is not possible to force understanding. We should strive to be as clear as is reasonable for the circumstance, but we have to accept that, even when we get it perfect, there will be people who miss the message, or derive a different meaning from our words than we intended.

        Communication is always at least a two-way street.

        Patricia,

        It's worth the effort. If even a few people just think about the impact of hyper-partisanship, that's enough. That awareness tends to spread. Besides, the folks in the discussion are all good people. Some I don't know well, the rest I like.

        Eventually, I'll probably have to nuke the thing, along with a bunch of other stuff, but I'd like to see how many people 'get' the 'why' before that. Not agree, necessarily, but 'get' it.

        You should have been around back when Steve and I first encountered each other here. We were not, to put it mildly, on even decent terms. Back in those days, the "running gun fight" was a common conversational occurrence. Believe it or not, that's part of what created the long-term stability and solidarity of the group.

        There was a time when I was, without any doubt at all, the single most hated person in this group. John Kennedy and Mike Ambrosio probably remember that. And Kurt, I'd wager.

        There was only one section to the forum, and half the common and important topics ended up sounding like the political discussions that went on here during the last Presidential campaign. Except maybe not as sensible.

        I'm used to it.

        Tim,

        I can see him saying something that would sound exactly like what you're describing, and still see how his approach to examples could be the problem, rather than any real racist beliefs. I could be wrong, but it would surprise me. And disappoint me, a great deal.

        Still, like political extremism, it has the impact, whether we intend it or not. For many people, that lasts a lot longer than direct, personal attacks based on specific issues or behaviors.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265672].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Michael,There are two answers: The thing that makes it racist or not objectively is whether it fits the definition, which this comment did not. Look up the definition and see for yourself.
          Aren't white people a race?

          The second answer is a bit less clear cut, and has to do with perception. It is easy to misperceive something, even if it's completely clear in terms of expression, if there's some other factor influencing how we look at it.
          True. Such as a comment that implies the only anti-Obama people are white? Yeah, that had an influence on my perception. And it was also due to seeing other posts Tim has made, so there was a contextual framework for perceiving it the way I did.

          In that case, you treat the statement as being racially inflammatory (if there's a racist component), and leave the character of the speaker out, until their intent has been clarified.
          Perhaps. But if you know the wirter, it's very difficult to not take that into account. Each sentence adds to their body of work, and you come to know them through their writing.

          Speaking writer to writer, I will suggest that this is a deeply flawed precept.
          Not as flawed as saying the responsibility falls on the reader.

          It is not possible to force understanding. We should strive to be as clear as is reasonable for the circumstance, but we have to accept that, even when we get it perfect, there will be people who miss the message, or derive a different meaning from our words than we intended.
          Yes, it is the responsibility of the writer to strive to be clear and understandable. That's what I was trying to say. There will always be those who don't get what was meant - no matter how clear it was. Things can be misinterpreted - OR - if the interpretation of the reader points to the writer saying something that is unacceptable, then the wirter can CLAIM they were misunderstood; it becomes a cop out, a way to weasel out of an inflammatory statement.

          Communication is always at least a two-way street.
          It is. But the majority of the responsibility is on the writer to try to be understood, not on the reader to decipher (I chose that word carefully in my earlier post) what the writer is trying to say. In this particular case, it would be very easy for Tim's statement to be taken the wrong way.

          Not that it matters all that much, but I reported Steve quite a while ago for making a racial comment. And I was surprised nothing ever became of it.

          All the best,
          Michael
          Signature

          "Ich bin en fuego!"
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265715].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Wow. You proved your point there Michael. White people are a race and I said something about white people. Therefore I made a racist remark. :-) Paul, there's nothing else we can say now. Michael just ended this discussion with his great logic. Time to take my anti-white racist remarks and head on out of here.

            Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

            Aren't white people a race?
            All the best,
            Michael
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265742].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Wow. You proved your point there Michael. White people are a race and I said something about white people. Therefore I made a racist remark. :-) Paul, there's nothing else we can say now. Michael just ended this discussion with his great logic. Time to take my anti-white racist remarks and head on out of here.
              There you go again.

              You just can't tolerate people disagreeing with you.

              And you not trying to get political? LOL.

              I took it as a racist remark. Like it or not, it could be taken that way.

              If by "out of here" you mean the forum, that would be cool. If you just mean this thread, then I'm sure we'll find other interesting issues to discuss.

              All the best,
              Michael
              Signature

              "Ich bin en fuego!"
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I'm sorry, but I consider myself a semi intelligent individual and I see nothing racist about the comment made in post #138.

    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Good answer, Mr. dBase

    Same thing I say in so many words - there is your opinion, my opinion and the truth. Just because people don't believe it, doesn't make it any less the truth.

    amen.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265634].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Whatever.

    Tim's statements have made it clear he sees it as Paul and Tim against Michael. Thought for sure, you would have said something about that.

    It was a racist comment. I will continue to use that word.

    For the record, I have tried to find the positive several times in this thread. Even trying to find common ground between me and Tim (such as reporting OTHER racist comments). Instead, the legitimate questions I've raised have been continually skirted. And the parts that he disagrees with are the focus.

    Your comments come as quite a shock to me, and make things clear enough.

    Best for me to move on to another thread, as I'd like to stay a memebr of this forum more than I'd like to say what I'm really thinking.

    Have a great day,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265813].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Michael,
      Tim's statements have made it clear he sees it as Paul and Tim against Michael. Thought for sure, you would have said something about that.
      Huh?

      I doubt that, but it wouldn't matter to me if it were true. You know this is a simple disagreement, Michael. You happen to have no logical basis to back up your assertion, but that doesn't mean I've started hating you.
      It was a racist comment. I will continue to use that word.
      You're entitled. You're not going to convince anyone, but you're entitled.
      Your comments come as quite a shock to me, and make things clear enough.

      Best for me to move on to another thread, as I'd like to stay a memebr of this forum more than I'd like to say what I'm really thinking.
      Yeah. Right. You know better, Michael.

      I have not said anything in this thread that was intended to insult you. If you choose to see an insult, that's your business. But planting the idea that I am vindictive enough to get someone booted over simply disagreeing with me is nothing short of bizarre. That has NEVER happened, not in all the time I've been a member and sometimes-moderator here.

      Not once.

      There are things that happen in communication at the unconscious level, as part of recognition skills. They are not only normal, they're necessary to deal with the world. Those things include some of the possibilities I've suggested. There's nothing malicious about them. We ALL have them.

      If those comments are what you're objecting to, you might want to consider if they might be right. Or not.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265849].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Yes, Gary, the political nature of the post. And no, I don't see the race-baiting, for reasons I've already explained multiple times, including an analysis that should demonstrate that I've considered the context.

        This is really interesting stuff, though.

        My best friends, intelligent people whom I've known for years and spent many hours with discussing politics, don't really know my political views in anything like a comprehensive way. They can't even guess with any accuracy who I'll vote for in a given election. But you, with nothing but a desire to see a hidden pattern where none exists, are certain you know my views on the subject.

        Fascinating...


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265874].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author garyv
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          Yes, Gary, the political nature of the post. And no, I don't see the race-baiting, for reasons I've already explained multiple times, including an analysis that should demonstrate that I've considered the context.

          This is really interesting stuff, though.

          My best friends, intelligent people whom I've known for years and spent many hours with discussing politics, don't really know my political views in anything like a comprehensive way. They can't even guess with any accuracy who I'll vote for in a given election. But you, with nothing but a desire to see a hidden pattern where none exists, are certain you know my views on the subject.

          Fascinating...


          Paul
          What makes a man, is the context of his behaviors - no matter how hidden he "thinks" they are.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265891].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            What makes a man, is the context of his behaviors - no matter how hidden he "thinks" they are.
            Wonderfully profound sounding. Doesn't say much, though.

            Suppose you explain what you think my views are, and provide the basis for your conclusions. That should be interesting.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265900].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Michael,
              you can continue to tell people how wrong they are about your political leanings, open up and share your views, or ignore them all together.
              Or I can challenge the basis for the claims. Which is: "He's not doing what I want, therefore he must have different ideas than me."

              My political views have exactly nothing to do with how I should handle things here. Nothing. And, as far as I'm able to do so, I avoid letting them interfere. After 20+ years of this stuff, I'm pretty good at keeping them out of decisions.

              The biggest complication here is that I'm trying to make a point while allowing some breaking of the rule about political discussion. Other than that, the only "political" view one can attribute to me from this thread is that I have a nasty dislike for racism.
              But something tells me you actually enjoy telling people how wrong they are about you.
              That's close to the truth. What I enjoy is knowing that, when challenged, the person making the assertion will be unable to provide any logical basis for it that holds up to scrutiny.

              He may very well have guessed something that's close to correct, at least about some small aspect of my views. Or maybe not. But when he has to "show the work," he's going to fail. And that will serve as a demonstration of the problem with trying to discern patterns where there are none.

              Yes, I enjoy that.

              Mind you, if he does show his reasoning, there will be people who'll buy it, no matter what it is, because it fits their own perspectives. That's a given. It's the logic I'm looking at.

              Like I said: Should be interesting.

              I should get a quick nap before going out, if I can manage it. My cue stick is complaining about cabin fever.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265934].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Michael,

        Huh?
        Here's one of the statements that prompted me to say what I said (emphasis added)
        Paul, there's nothing else we can say now.
        As you did nothing to supress the idea, I believed you didn't have a problem with it.
        I doubt that, but it wouldn't matter to me if it were true. You know this is a simple disagreement, Michael. You happen to have no logical basis to back up your assertion, but that doesn't mean I've started hating you.
        I do have a logical basis, as quoted above. But, if you want to claim I'm being illogical, then you're entitled. I don't think you hate me at all - you just like Tim better.

        You're entitled. You're not going to convince anyone, but you're entitled.
        No need to convince anyone, as plenty ALREADY agree with me, but nice touch of passive condescension there. White people are a race - surely you must agree with that much? Then, having mentioned ONLY white people, Tim made a racist statement. You can claim otherwise, but it is very clear to other people in this thread.

        Yeah. Right. You know better, Michael.
        Know better than what? That you tell ME I'm filtering things when I'VE made attempts to bring this conversation back several times? Are you suggesting that EVERY post should be taken at face value, and NOT through the filter of the author's PREVIOUS comments? Isn't that filtering? If so, you have engaged in plenty of filtering...such as your defense of Steve where you bring up things from 4 years ago. My point is that OF COURSE we filter, but don't think you are somehow immune.

        I have not said anything in this thread that was intended to insult you. If you choose to see an insult, that's your business. But planting the idea that I am vindictive enough to get someone booted over simply disagreeing with me is nothing short of bizarre. That has NEVER happened, not in all the time I've been a member and sometimes-moderator here.

        Not once.
        Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant - guess that's on YOU as a reader, because I tried to make it clear.

        I wasn't worried about you reporting me at all. Trust me, if I spoke what I was really thinking, I WOULD get booted, at least temporarily. HOWEVER, you would be the last person those comments would be directed towards. You haven't insulted me, insulted my intelligence a little bit, but nothing personal.

        I see that Tim continues to try to bait the other side, in the most disgustingly partisan way, but your filtering is not picking that up. That's normal, we all have different filters.

        There are things that happen in communication at the unconscious level, as part of recognition skills. They are not only normal, they're necessary to deal with the world. Those things include some of the possibilities I've suggested. There's nothing malicious about them. We ALL have them.
        Is the insinuation that they DON'T include SOME of the possibilities I've suggested? That I can't be right?

        If those comments are what you're objecting to, you might want to consider if they might be right. Or not.


        Paul
        Nope, those weren't the comments.

        One other thing. You mentioned my ego being in this discussion as a possibility for me taking it personal, for not bending. Is it even REMOTELY possible that YOUR ego is coming into play?

        I would encourage you to step back and see which of us two has been more flexible in our stance.

        As much as I would like to leave this thread behind, I will be happy to continue explaining my position as needed.

        But, yeah, it's very clear to me, and others that some of what's going on here just ain't cool.

        Another thing, I think (and it's only an impression I get) that many people reading this think they know MY politics, too. So that's one thing we agree on. Most people here DO NOT know what they are.

        I never vote a straight party ticket. I vote for each office separately. I also vote for who I want to win, not against who I want to lose. In Wisconsin, you don't have to register with a party. You can actually register to vote at the polling place just before you vote. Though I have been registered for years, I plan on NEVER claiming a party affiliation.

        Apart from party politics, I don't toe a party platform on the issues either. I'm all over the map on all kinds of things. As independent as they get. That means I can ARGUE politics with anyone, OR I can DISCUSS politics with anyone - I prefer the latter.

        All the best,
        Michael
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266075].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

          I never vote a straight party ticket.
          All the best,
          Michael
          So, are you saying you are gay?
          Signature
          “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266099].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            So, are you saying "you are gay"?
            Ok, I don't want to, but you made me. "You are gay".

            There, I said it.



            Thanks, Paul, I really needed a smile in this thread.

            ~M~
            Signature

            "Ich bin en fuego!"
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266106].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

              Ok, I don't want to, but you made me. You are gay.
              There you go again making assumptions for which you have no facts to support. I have not been to Wisconsin in years, so I think you have mistaken me for some other white boy.

              As you said here maybe you should look around:
              Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

              ... I would encourage you to step back and see which of us two has been more flexible in our stance.
              ...

              All the best,
              Michael
              LOL! Just playin'. You need to relax a bit.
              Signature
              “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Actually, no you are not right. But what you are doing at this point is flogging a dead horse.
    Let it go and move on.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265839].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Paul,

    I think it's not so much "knowing" as it is inferring based on the only thing the reader has to go on...your posts.

    Without sitting face to face, words will be interpreted the way the reader sees it, like it or not.

    I have my own thoughts on your political leanings based on your posts I have read - both in the past and in the thread - as well as some of your moderating in this thread. I'm sure I'd be wrong, but they are the thoughts we're left with when there's nothing else to go on.

    But you also choose not to give anything away, which again leave people nothing else to go on.

    So you can continue to tell people how wrong they are about your political leanings, open up and share your views, or ignore them all together.

    But something tells me you actually enjoy telling people how wrong they are about you.
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265895].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Paul, you are showing considerable restraint.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265930].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Kim,
      Paul, you are showing considerable restraint.
      Sort of have to, to make the point, no?

      I really have no opinion on the whole Nobel thing. The President wasn't lobbying for it, didn't expect it, and didn't take credit for it personally when he got it. He's announced that he's giving the money to charity. Okay. He handled that with class.

      The Committee made their choice, and they stated their reasons. That's their business. Literally.

      I can see the validity of most of the comments I've heard on the question. Lots of reasonable people saying lots of reasonable things, many of them disagreeing. It comes down to, "What will happen as a result?" And we won't know that until it happens. So, I see no need to form an opinion on it.

      As for the rest... Old stuff. BTDT, lots-o-times.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265956].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Other than that, the only "political" view one can attribute to me from this thread is that I have a nasty dislike for racism.
    I am sure you believe that. But like it or not, logical or not, people will make assumptions based on some of the things you have posted and some of your moderating. Not caring about that is fine... I typically don't care about what people infer about me either. But don't assume that your viewpoint of yourself is the ONLY viewpoint that others have

    That's close to the truth. What I enjoy is knowing that, when challenged, the person making the assertion will be unable to provide any logical basis for it that holds up to scrutiny.
    If you are referring to when these assertions are about you, that was exactly my point. How CAN they provide any logic about you when you hide you so well...

    You are a consummate wordsmith. There are times you can write a lot without saying all that much, and other times where you can write a single sentence and open eyes.

    I enjoy watching you work Paul. Have for just about 10 years.

    You are good.



    Enjoy the pool.
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265946].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "The Committee made their choice, and they stated their reasons. That's their business. Literally."

    I agree 100%

    I also don't understand why it is such an issue with anyone,no matter what their views.

    The awarding of that prize is not going to put nor take away anything from my table.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265968].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Let me admit, that there's absolutely no way of knowing a person's motivation. However let me also say that you're either biased toward one side, or you're just oblivious to the biased actions you're taking - otherwise there would be half a dozen Tim posts that wouldn't be here.

    All I'm saying is there's either blatant bias going on, or blatant unfairness in your judgement. And I'm not the only one noticing it so you can't just fluff it off and say "prove it". The proof is in your actions. You've deleted posts on one side that are no more political or nasty than posts on the opposite side of the argument that you've allowed to stay. -

    And yes I'm beating a dead horse here - only because my posts are disappearing. How can you be sure the horse is dead if your stick keeps vanishing?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265980].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Let me admit, that there's absolutely no way of knowing a person's motivation. However let me also say that you're either biased toward one side, or you're just oblivious to the biased actions you're taking - otherwise there would be half a dozen Tim posts that wouldn't be here. ...
      You are being too simplistic on a complex issue encompassing myriads of infolding and even conflicting factors. It's really not just all black or all white. There are many shades of gay.

      Besides there being heterosexual blacks and whites, there are also gay blacks and gay whites. Also black male homosexuals, white male homosexuals, black female lesbians, white female lesbians. Then you get into bisexual black males, bisexual black females, bisexual white males, and bisexual white females.

      Add to this other minority racial groups with their own sexual orientations and you can begin to see how much easier it was for those confused Norwegian judges to just give the Nobel Peace Prize to somone who is simply both black and white to avoid any controversy.
      Signature
      “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266065].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert_Rand
    The fact that Obama was nominated for this prize just days after being in office proves that this award is given by a politically biased group.

    Whether or not you agree or disagree with the decision I'm not sure how anyone can dispute that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1265990].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jacktackett
      Originally Posted by Robert_Rand View Post

      The fact that Obama was nominated for this prize just days after being in office proves that this award is given by a politically biased group.

      Whether or not you agree or disagree with the decision I'm not sure how anyone can dispute that.
      In Grad School we called this 'Proof by Intimidation'

      Please enlighten me as to how this proves beyond any reasonable doubt YOUR opinion. This is not a statement of fact - its a statement of opinion.

      The facts - there were over 200 people and institutions nominated last February - and the other fact is we will not know the contents of that list for another 50 years.

      Please PROVE to me how 1/200 of the known list provides indisputable proof to your opinion.

      peace,
      --Jack
      Signature
      Let's get Tim the kidney he needs!HELP Tim
      Mega Monster WSO for KimW http://ow.ly/4JdHm


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266163].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by jacktackett View Post

        In Grad School we called this 'Proof by Intimidation'

        Please enlighten me as to how this proves beyond any reasonable doubt YOUR opinion. This is not a statement of fact - its a statement of opinion.

        The facts - there were over 200 people and institutions nominated last February - and the other fact is we will not know the contents of that list for another 50 years.

        Please PROVE to me how 1/200 of the known list provides indisputable proof to your opinion.

        peace,
        --Jack
        Thanks, Jack.

        That was one technique I was not familiar with.

        I have seen other discussions use Ad Hominem, Tautologies, and Argument to Authority plus a few more.

        It's 10:35pm here, so I got lucky enough to learn something new today.

        Thanks again, and...

        All the best,
        Michael
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266182].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Seriously, the Norwegian Nobel Committee in Oslo released this press release announcing the award to Obama;

          " ....the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

          Full text here:
          The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Press Release
          Signature
          “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266236].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "And yes I'm beating a dead horse here - only because my posts are disappearing. How can you be sure the horse is dead if your stick keeps vanishing? "


    Gary,
    It took 8 years give or take a couple for any of my posts to be deleted. I was shocked and amazed when it happened. Of course I felt it was unfair and unjust.
    Of course now I know that almost everyone at one time or another has had posts go away.
    But I also realized that I couldn't change it and it wasn't my house to make the rules.
    Several people here have given you good advice, now its up to you on what you do with it.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266025].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garyv
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "And yes I'm beating a dead horse here - only because my posts are disappearing. How can you be sure the horse is dead if your stick keeps vanishing? "


      Gary,
      It took 8 years give or take a couple for any of my posts to be deleted. I was shocked and amazed when it happened. Of course I felt it was unfair and unjust.
      Of course now I know that almost everyone at one time or another has had posts go away.
      But I also realized that I couldn't change it and it wasn't my house to make the rules.
      Several people here have given you good advice, now its up to you on what you do with it.
      I'm not trying to change anything, I'm just looking for a bit of fairness. If someone is going to invite me in to "their" house for a debate, I'd like my side of it to be heard. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you're going to allow a political thread to stay up, then why would you even bother censoring it? It's not suppose to be here in the first place. Either let it stay up, and leave it alone, or delete the whole thing.

      And by the way, I have nothing personal against Paul - even I can see that he's pretty much a cool handed person, and you have to admire that no matter which side you're on.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266047].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    A racist comment is one which uses some aspect as being peculiar to one specific group and as non-existent in other groups and to use the aspect in a way that makes it appear to be a negative quality of that particular group.

    Ironically - when people scream about a statement being "racist" when it was not, they show that they themselves are the ones who are racist.

    Such as when Joe W called Obama a liar - many (of several races) screamed "racism". They showed by the very nature of their belief that you are not allowed to feel that a black man can be perceived to be a scounderal, that THEY are racist rather than the person who pointed out the lack of honesty in the man. To protect on the basis of color is just as racist as to denegrate on the basis of color.

    I called Bush a monkey -- yet I am accused of being racist if I call Obama one. The people who would make such an insipid comment must be the ones who see some similarity between blacks and monkeys - it wasn't something that I was linking together.

    Unfortunately - it seems that our left wing supporters of this president want to be able to silence us so badly that they see racism in EVERY statement that a non-supporter makes in order to protect their ideology.

    These people who scream racism at any dissent are going to create race wars if they don't just stop it. We are allowed to dissagree with a president who makes bad decisions no matter WHAT damned color he is. I think he sucks and there's no amount of white that he could turn that would fix that one.

    My sister now lives with a black man. For awhile she seemed to completely deny her own race trying to assimilate a cohesive household. She and her sweetie tried very hard to convince me I was racist for not liking Barry (sorry, but that's the guy's real name and as president I feel he should go back to using an AMERICAN name rather than a Kenyan one). I told her to mark my words that if he was elected we would see the Gov take over our finances and dump off the rest of our rights real fast.

    Since the take over of GM and all the "racism screaming" started - and seeing some of the legislation that will silence any speaker that does not support our government -- BOTH have appoligized to me for not seeing what I was saying and just passing off my dispisal of Barry and his marxist philosophies and policy hopes as being bigotry.

    If you think that only whites are angry - you are mistaken. If you think that dissent is bigotry - you are a fool. If you attempt to silence dissent to protect this man just because he is the first black president.....you are so insecure within your own head that you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266252].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Thanks Floyd,

    Didn't know that about the President's check.

    My brother also did some of the things you mentioned.

    More than happy to be on the team that helps you get nominated.



    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266390].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    Hey fellas, ladies...

    I've seen this thread for a few days, but this is the first time I read
    any of it. I rarely engage in political discussions and the reasons are
    not important.

    There's certainly a diverse mix here in the WF, and many of you like
    to talk about it. So perhaps there could be a political discussion subforum
    of the Off Topic forum. Will probably require extra moderation overtime,
    though.

    It can get confusing for a simple country alien like my self. I'm in the off
    topic forum wondering if I'm being too off topic.

    I know Paul will read this. So maybe give it a think, eh?

    This post is outta left field, so no problemo if deleted. I still love ya, man.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1266467].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Sal,
      I called Bush a monkey -- yet I am accused of being racist if I call Obama one.
      I call my brothers 'boy.' I call a number of my friends that. It's acceptable because I also call myself an 'old guy.' (Yes, they call me 'old man,' too. It's all in fun, and everyone knows it.)

      I do not call my black friends, or black men that I don't know, 'boy.' That would be insulting, and would reasonably be perceived as playing to a term that's got a long history of racial undertones.

      And yes, that's true even if it's an individual who knows that I use that term regularly, and mean nothing by it. Certain words trigger reflexive responses, and there's no value in ignoring that, or pretending that your lack of consideration is covered by the First Amendment. It is, but that doesn't make it any less disrespectful.
      If you think that only whites are angry - you are mistaken.
      No-one said that. Not in this thread. So, what exactly is your point?
      If you think that dissent is bigotry - you are a fool.
      I agree. Has nothing to do with this thread, since no-one said that here, either. But thank you for the implication.

      The vast majority of this post of yours has nothing to do with the topic, or with anything said in it. It serves only to try and get this back on a tangent that is clearly outside the rules.

      Gary,
      Let me admit, that there's absolutely no way of knowing a person's motivation. However let me also say that you're either biased toward one side, or you're just oblivious to the biased actions you're taking - otherwise there would be half a dozen Tim posts that wouldn't be here.
      Still hunting for that pattern, eh?

      First, there are a bunch of your posts, and others', which would be gone if I'd stayed with the original intent. However, the answer to that was already given, earlier in the thread. I started out cleaning out the political crap that's outside the rules. When it started getting heated and nasty, I switched focus. Hence, a change in what got removed.

      The intent became making the point that the hyper-partisanship (see Sal's post downthread from yours for a perfect example) will stop, or everything remotely close to political will stop. I am aware that I'm taking liberties even going that far, as the rules are pretty clear.

      The problem with the horse you're beating isn't that it's dead. It's that the horse never existed.
      How can you be sure the horse is dead if your stick keeps vanishing?
      Poor use of mixed metaphors. The stick is the complaint about which posts are being deleted. I don't recall removing any of your questions about that issue. There are certainly plenty of them left. Er... remaining.

      Moderating is not an exact science, Gary. Constant course corrections are the rule, not the exception. Anyone who wishes can find some way to interpret things in whatever way they like. In the short term.

      Enjoy it. You (generic 'you') are pushing every serious issue that so many folks here like to discuss right out the door.

      I am breaking the rules by allowing this conversation. If you doubt that, go back and read the rule about political discussions. If you count the posts that strongly indicate a preference, you'll notice in this thread that more from the right remain than from the left. So spare me the cant about political bias.

      Robert,
      The fact that Obama was nominated for this prize just days after being in office proves that this award is given by a politically biased group.
      Unless you know who nominated him, that's an illogical comment. It's likely that every President is nominated shortly after their election, by people who believe/hope they'll warrant winning it.

      Discussion of the selection is appropriate. Barring some reason to believe that a member of the Committee nominated him, that part is not.

      Michael,
      As you did nothing to supress the idea, I believed you didn't have a problem with it.
      We were both arguing the same point. The 'we' was appropriate in that sense. Everything else you concluded beyond and based on that was in error.
      White people are a race - surely you must agree with that much? Then, having mentioned ONLY white people, Tim made a racist statement.
      Non-sequitur.

      Repeat request: Look up the definition of racism, and tell me how referencing a small part of a group in a negative way fits that definition. Until you do that, I have no further interest in continuing this conversation.

      I'll give you one counter-example: When reporting on the Black Panthers, one is referring to members of a single race. If you call those individuals militant extremists, you would be making an accurate statement. You would not, however, be calling all blacks militant or extremist.

      You would also not be suggesting that all militant extremists are black.

      And yes, I do have filters. As I said, we ALL have them. I am acutely aware of mine, and try to be careful of how I apply them.
      One other thing. You mentioned my ego being in this discussion as a possibility for me taking it personal, for not bending. Is it even REMOTELY possible that YOUR ego is coming into play?
      Of course. It is not, however, making the decisions.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1267181].message }}

Trending Topics