Comments on: A Pre-Emptive Peace Prize?

By: FrancisMonica

FrancisMonica — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:37:01 +0000

I cannot understand why the president would receive a PEACE price! Peace is an absence of dissension, VIOLENCE, or war.

As a Senator the only claim to fame he has is the promotion of abortion, for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy and he worked diligently to defeat the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He is pro-active in promoting VIOLENCE (not peace) towards the unborn and newly born human being.

Since becoming the president, the only tangible things he has done is to overturn the Mexico City Policy making it possible for United States tax dollars to be used for abortion (VIOLENCE)and appointing Ms Sotomayor Supreme Court justice. It remains to be seen what effect Justice Sotomayor's appointment will have on the court but there was much DISSENSION from both sides of the aisle that went along with that appointment. Not to mention the president's WAR on Mr Limbaugh and Fox News! (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/doug-heye/2009/10/2...) It's childish to say the least!

He made promises of peace to his constituents during his campaign, from the withdrawal of troops in Iraq to the closing of Guantanamo, etc, http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/46957 and all he has done on that front is to take our troops who were in Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan. He has not made any meaningful changes to President Bush's withdrawal plan for Iraq and of course Guantanamo remains open, which in my opinion, it should be.

Where is he in the business of promoting peace? It's a ridiculous notion that the president deserves a PEACE prize.

By: FrancisMonica

FrancisMonica — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:37:01 +0000

By: kansasmennonite

kansasmennonite — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:43:54 +0000

Jesus of the new testament for one!

By: ando

ando — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:29:17 +0000

To whom shall I bow down in worship?

By: scat

scat — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:21:54 +0000

If it's the “liberal party line” to describe how warring factions have finally made some progress towards peace by talking more and shooting less, then a lot of us will be very proud to wear an L on our forehead. It seems very peculiar to me that people on a Christian blog would so ferociously try to tear down that concept.
Ando, if you expect Sojourner's to promote a “shoot first, ask later” political solution, you have a long wait.

By: Jesdisciple

Jesdisciple — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:11:31 +0000

Eh, more like what party politics is all about. I wonder if that's what Washington saw coming of it… But I'm not offended by the caveat because “some folk” have shown themselves prone to that. Mind you, I haven't seen any here yet. (I use my own disclaimers, on other sites, that could be interpreted that way.)

This comment system is way better than getting fed a broadcast, though.

By: ando

ando — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:37:43 +0000

'I think it's telling that Gareth Higgins conflates the Nobel Prize Committee with “the outside world.”

You mean it's not?! I thought the Committee spoke on behalf of the poor in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Of course, being the bleeding hearts they are, they know what's best for the rest of the world, and know what'll happen even before it happens! In fact, they're modern day prophets!

By: ando

ando — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:34:07 +0000

I challenge Sojourners to once, just ONCE, provide a different perspective than the liberal party line. Otherwise, it's nothing more than Fox News from the opposite angle.

The caveat that Higgins writes at the end is what it is: total condescension towards anyone who disagrees. Which is what liberalism is all about>

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:28:36 +0000

You prove Gareth's point succinctly. For openers, I challenge you to name one American conservative that has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

By: jesse3

jesse3 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:14:46 +0000

"I think it’s telling that half the country is outraged that their president is well thought of by the outside world"
--Very few are outraged that Obama got the Nobel prize. If anything, the response from conservatives has been laughter and well-deserved mockery of the selection committee (which has been criticized by liberals and conservatives alike, mind you). But I guess it makes your side look better if you malign your opponents this way.

"his opponents, whose complaints seem to be as follows: He hasn’t saved the world in his first ten months in office, he hasn’t ended the wrong-headed war his predecessor started eight years ago, he hasn’t disavowed his blackness (which some people appear to want him to do), he’s too smart, etc."
--I challenge you to come up with any complaint from critics that even comes close to resembling those listed here.

Gareth, here you're coming across as petty and childish. You speak against 'scapegoating' and for the need to speak with civility, yet this column is just normal, scapegoating, name-calling politics as usual. You can do better.

By: SisterMarie

SisterMarie — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:44:35 +0000

On 9/12/2001, the whole world stood with us in the outrage of the unprovoked attacks the day before.
As difficult as it is to envision George W. Bush is responsible for screwing that up. In my opinion, the award was based primarily on the fact that Obama is not Bush. It is a blank check (to borrow the words from MLK), and the world is praying that he will not squander it the way that his predecessor squandered the good will in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.

By: Lord_Voldemort

Lord_Voldemort — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:07:01 +0000

"I think it’s telling that half the country is outraged that their president is well thought of by the outside world."

I think it's telling that Gareth Higgins conflates the Nobel Prize Committee with "the outside world."

LV