User Tag List

View Poll Results: Nobel Peace prize is it more "politically expedient" to accept?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 42.22%
  • No

    17 37.78%
  • undecided

    9 20.00%
First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 170

  1. #81
    Member Pristinegirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    62

    Default

    I mean the Committee are frankly straight up idiots. YOU don't award someone with the Nobel peace prize for wondrous VISIONS... As much as I love them visions and dreams, the whole goddam thing about the Nobel prize is accomplishment!!!

  2. #82
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    The Nobel committee was elected by the Norwegian parliament. Of course they're political.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  3. #83
    Member Pristinegirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    62

    Default

    It is not political at all. And besides Norwegian Socialism is FAR MORE red/left than that of 'American Socialism' which even looks dark blue/conservative to scandinavians..

    So in political terms his views are no hoorray to the norweigan party!!

  4. #84
    Senior Member Kangol's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    In fact, just spare me the trouble...
    Will do. If one side is not willing to listen, there is no debate. This also spares me a lot of trouble, since I don't have any reason to explain anything to you. Thankfully, onemoretime already responded to your post with some things I would've said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus
    What effort? He was nominated when he had been in office for just two weeks. Surely there was someone more deserving.
    Obama didn't begin his political career from 2008, but he did make a huge impact on the world since then. Did they award him the prize for doing a great job as President? I don't think they meant that; I think they awarded him for his advocacy for peace as a primary leader in the world.

    I'm still not sure where the controversy really lies in giving him the award. Is it because he's not a scientist, economist or philosopher? Is it because he isn't satisfying every demand of the American people? Is it because people think the award has become an Oscar? Would those people say that the guy who invented dynamite does not deserve to be called a man who worked towards peace, the man named Alfred Nobel? It's not a red herring; it's a questioning of peoples' understanding of the prize.

  5. #85
    Senior Member kathara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    Obama didn't begin his political career from 2008, but he did make a huge impact on the world since then.
    Like what? We still hate the US. Other than that, you are a bit of the laughing stock in my slightly racialist country , but nothing else.

  6. #86
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    Obama didn't begin his political career from 2008, but he did make a huge impact on the world since then. Did they award him the prize for doing a great job as President? I don't think they meant that; I think they awarded him for his advocacy for peace as a primary leader in the world.
    I was questioning your use of the word "effort". He was given the award because of his potential, not his effort.

    I'm still not sure where the controversy really lies in giving him the award. Is it because he's not a scientist, economist or philosopher? Is it because he isn't satisfying every demand of the American people? Is it because people think the award has become an Oscar? Would those people say that the guy who invented dynamite does not deserve to be called a man who worked towards peace, the man named Alfred Nobel? It's not a red herring; it's a questioning of peoples' understanding of the prize.
    Scientists sometimes receive awards decades after their breakthroughs. Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel prize for physics for a paper he wrote in 1905.

    Just don't claim Obama earned this prize. He hasn't. He won because some people think he'll eventually earn it. What annoys me about this is that it's the same as giving the Yankees the World Series Championship trophy before the season even starts. Bullshit. Play the games first. What if Obama turns out to be another Ryan Leaf?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #87
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    I'm still not sure where the controversy really lies in giving him the award. Is it because he's not a scientist, economist or philosopher? Is it because he isn't satisfying every demand of the American people? Is it because people think the award has become an Oscar? Would those people say that the guy who invented dynamite does not deserve to be called a man who worked towards peace, the man named Alfred Nobel? It's not a red herring; it's a questioning of peoples' understanding of the prize.
    I think it's because people would like to think that there are others more deserving of the NPP, people who have shown visible progress rather than just a 'peace advocate'. If there really, honestly isn't anyone more deserving in the world today, well, that's just sad...
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  8. #88
    meat popsicle r.a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    STFU
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    I'm still not sure where the controversy really lies in giving him the award. Is it because he's not a scientist, economist or philosopher?
    no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    Is it because he isn't satisfying every demand of the American people?
    no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    Is it because people think the award has become an Oscar?
    considering last year it went to Al Gore, its been proven that an Oscar carries more weight than a Nobel prize these days. shit, a Cable Ace award is more legit at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    Would those people say that the guy who invented dynamite does not deserve to be called a man who worked towards peace, the man named Alfred Nobel? It's not a red herring; it's a questioning of peoples' understanding of the prize.
    at least the guy who invented dynamite actually DID something.
    "All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is destructive and evil. Leaders destroy the followers and the followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."
    -
    J.Krishnamurti

  9. #89
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    I think dynamite has probably saved more lives than it has destroyed.

    The benefit of dynamite is dispersed, hard to measure, and invisible to the media.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    So much bullsh*t to slog my way through...

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    You are an agressive, unintelligent and unusually pathetic asshole with an irrational and laughable point of view - therefore, mocking you is perfectly enough to satisfy me
    First of all, your responses are like that of a child. You have yet to present a valid point, and you have just conceded how weak your mind is by retreating to petty mockery.

    Who is the irrational one, and who is the "unintelligent" one? Are you really an INTJ? You come off like an INFP or ENTP.

    Like I've already stated:

    Either put up, or shut the f*ck up.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Or as a spur to further action. Just as the committee stated. Can't you read (translated) English?
    You see, this is why I debate with you only to quell the nonsense propagated by the left. It's akin to cleaning out the sewage pipes so that they don't contaminate the entire water supply - a nasty job, but somebody has to do it.

    What kind of defense is that for giving an incompetent puppet president the Nobel Peace Prize?

    Spur action? What kind of action are they 'spurring'?

    Such a bald assertion - let's see some evidence.
    Evidence that Obama does not want peace? Alright, although I feel that I'm wasting my time by finding you information a child could easily obtain.

    How about the fact that he's deploying more troops to Afghanistan to stop the "deteriorating situation"?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/wa...eb-troops.html

    Obama approves Afghanistan troop increase - CNN.com

    Then there's the fact that he's needlessly pressing Iran into a possible confrontation with the United States. What is Iran doing to warrant this? Refusing to accept the ludicrous double standard propositions of the U.S. and U.N.?

    BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama renews US sanctions on Iran

    Obama Renews Iran Sanctions; Ahmadinejad Calls Them "Childish"

    Then there's the fact that he's only increasing troops in Iraq:

    Historic deployment begins on Aug. 16 | ThisWeek Community Newspapers

    Ft. Gordon leaders discuss "historic" deployment

    US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq | World news | The Guardian

    His 16 month withdrawal promise is useless if he doesn't follow through with it. It doesn't look like he will:

    Is Obama's 16-month withdrawal timetable slipping? | McClatchy

    Obama adjusts timing on Iraq withdrawal | csmonitor.com

    Frankly, I think it's completely unfeasible for him, and will most likely be pushed back until it's far past the mark, making it worthless.

    No, we "whine" (so funny, how the modern GOP is the master projection) when obstructionist assholes get in the way of our country being improved simply because of a whole host of reprehensible objectives and influences (corporate oligarchy, racism, etc)
    No. You whine because your entire world philosophy is built on a delusion that has systematically corroded all standards and values in the West, but due to the extreme severity of the mental illness that is liberalism, you refuse to accept it and dislike being called out on your nonsense.

    What does the GOP have to do with the corporate oligarchies? Corporate oligopolies/monopolies (I assume that this is what you actually mean) cannot exist without government support - which at worst puts blame on both Republicans and Democrats who were in power. I'm by no means a Libertarian, but in a true free-market system, this wouldn't happen (not so easily, at least.)

    On that note, what makes you think I support the pathetic, weak-kneed party that is the "center-right" Conservative? It simply fawns to the liberal garbage, choosing to fight amongst themselves or take useless political positions.

    Then you go on to throw out your massive arsenal of leftist/Marxist buzzwords. I cower in fear before you!

    No, he just managed to spend a ton of cash on the military. Likewise, Germany never was a superpower - superpowers don't have to fight wars to maintain their hegemony.
    No. He managed to restore Germany to the best conditions in three decades, from one of the worst depressions in history. Learn history before making such stupid claims. The fact that Hitler restored Germany's economy through a variety of brilliant interventionist and free-market means, as well as being able to rebuild the Wehrmacht into a respectable military organization is a fact, not privy to your drivel.

    Typical leftist. You omit the facts which you dislike and interpret the facts that you do like in order to support your petty, crumbling political stance.

    And the Republican corporatocracy has raped the shit out of rural America, and they still vote for them and rail against Obama's policies that might actually make life better for them.
    You see, once more you bring up Republicans. So what? What's your point? Even if all the baseless twaddle about Republicans were true, it wouldn't mean anything; they aren't in power. Bush's "Neocons" can hardly be described as Conservatives. Just about everything Bush did helped mitigate U.S. sovereignty.

    I'm not a Republican, therefore address my points and stop coming up with Red herrings.

    Rational self-interest is a complete load of bullshit that assumes humans are robots. They're not.
    I must appreciate the irony of seeing a leftist clown moaning about aesthetic values on human behavior.

    Was it not the great idols of the left - Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and the like - who believed in human materialism which could be channeled through social engineering? I'll answer the question for you: yes it was.

    If anything, rational self interest serves to promote individual ambition and happiness, which through the very nature of human interaction, benefits all of society. If economics is not your strong suit (which I suspect it isn't), please refrain from making these moronic remarks.

    Point 2 is the only factual statement you've made thus far. You should work for Fox News.
    Everything I've asserted was factual. However, nobody is going to do your homework for you.

    Bald assertions, no evidence. Please, make this more difficult, will you?
    Bald assertions with no evidence? There is a massive amount of evidence out there, all of it pointing to the logical conclusion that what is promoted by our modern governments is not as it seems.

    Where exactly is the "bald" assertion? Obama is judged by what he does now, as much as any affiliation of the past. The only one making it more difficult is yourself, but since you're a liberal clown ready to denounce anyone who criticizes his beloved leader, I suppose that I can understand.

    Not Obama's fault, as you know. Have you ever thought that the West possibly doesn't want the Middle East to be all that stable? Perhaps so they don't collude and force another oil embargo?
    As I know what? What do I know about "not Obama's fault"? It may not be Obama's fault that we're in the war (although his handlers are to blame, half of whom were on the Bush side during the last campaign), but he is certainly exacerbating it.

    As for the bold, this is a great example of why I dislike arguing with liberals. What collusion to force another oil embargo? What happened in 1973 and 1967 is completely unrelated to today and was entirely because of our support of Israel. We were able to buy oil from the Arabs before the first Gulf War, after it, and during this one. Our companies have billions invested in foreign oil, and the Arabs are pretty much futile to refuse. Opening up the oil reserves would only hurt American and European oil companies in the long run, as it would undermine their own oil investments, most of which are in the United States and Russia.

    Had we offered Saddam to end the war and lift the sanctions in exchange for lower oil prices for the next decade, he would have taken it. It would have been completely foolish not to. Therefore, don't make this out to be an oil problem when it is clearly not, and is contradicted by common economic sense. We are in the Middle East for one reason only: political control. Which nation needs the Middle East stabilized more than any other? Israel. Funny coincidence.

    Don't give yourself too much credit; your arguments are blindingly predictable
    My arguments are predictable? Look, you liberal sheep: everything you've responded with is so pathetically cliche and unoriginal.

    Let's see who is more deluded; you who is scrambling furiously to defend the honor of some fraud in office, or the rest of us poor souls who have the gall to criticize the almighty?

    1. You haven't proven fraud
    I believe I did. Obama was and is working under pretense. Everything about him has been either fabricated or exaggerated to suit his political image. He has a notable Marxist past.

    2. You have no real policy suggestions
    Pure assumption. I have many policy suggestions, but they aren't for this thread, nor forum for that matter.

    3. Even if you did have policy suggestions, you haven't acted in a way that indicates you would want to help out in promoting these suggestions
    Because I haven't proclaimed my suggestions on this thread, it means I don't have any? What's it to you?

    It's a much more complicated issue than your liberal brain can comprehend. It isn't just about "policy suggestions." Don't be ridiculous.

    4. Your mouthpieces are raging buffoons.
    Who are my "mouthpieces"? For the last time: I don't support the Republicans.

    5. You have no clue about how the media works - it's reactive, not proactive
    I know exactly how the media works. It's worked the same throughout history. The media has always been a tool used to disseminate information which is always biased in some way. This alone isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it prompts one to do his own research - unless you're a liberal, of course.

    With the advent of the mass media, what was once a special trade became an easily broadcast phenomenon. The mass media is not reactive, and it is not fully proactive. The major media conglomerates are fully centralized and are under no obligation to spread the truth or the full story on an issue.

    6. Fox News voters score consistently lowest in understanding the global situation. Nice projection there again.
    1) I'm not an avid supporter of FOX News, and I tune into liberal CNN as often as FOX. That is, if I ever bother to watch the mainstream news.

    2) Prove this. Don't you see the hypocrisy in asking me to prove myself (with readily available information) while you state this kind of irrelevant tripe?

    If there's anything Obama's not, that would be a neoliberal. Jeez, pick up a textbook or something.
    He's not a neo-liberal; he's a socialist Marxist. Jeez, read about current events or something.

    And plenty of Republicans are supported by the freakin' Klan. Your point?
    How many Republicans openly accept endorsement by the "freakin' Klan"?

    This is still besides the point, however.

    People like you are the reason why something as positive as the universal franchise still has a downside.
    What!? Are you truly this dense? Universal franchise is full force and swinging as far as I can see.

    Just to add to the question of universal franchise; what makes you think it's a good thing?

    And, having no argument whatsoever, you retreat to claims of conspiracy (of a vaguely anti-Semitic nature). How utterly typical.
    And there we have it. When the lowly liberal cannot support itself, and after needlessly exerting itself to (dis)prove the validity of its arguments, it turns to political buzzwords to shut down debate.

    You were professing myths about big oil "oligarchies" who incited the war. Give me a break...

    This was a complete waste of time, but as I've already stated, it's a job we cleaners have to do.
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 01:11 AM
  2. [NT] Why is it so hard for Me to stop focusing on Myself?
    By The Ü™ in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-15-2011, 06:06 AM
  3. [NF] NFs, What Is The Most Polite Way for me to Address my Teachers (Middle Eastern Case)?
    By BMEF in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-21-2010, 08:37 AM
  4. [ENTJ] ENTJs: How easy is it for you to give the cold shoulder?
    By MoneyTick in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-05-2010, 02:24 PM
  5. Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize
    By Ethereal in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 12-16-2009, 12:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO