Like many folks a couple weeks ago, I was stunned that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I thought it was some sort of joke but alas, it was legit. But I did manage to get couple tweets in there including this one:
Re: Obama: all he did was say to the world, "Hello," "We're sorry," & "Let's Talk"
One big reason why I think this is the way that he, or maybe I should just say democrats in congress, has opposed putting up the health care bills online for people to read after he campaign on a promise to be more transparent.
However, I understand this. As I mentioned before, the conservative movement raised a stink in 1994 when Bill Clinton first made a health care insurance reform program for no other reason than it would cause political problems for the Republican Party, and no doubt would be the case today.
Now you're just being irrational. In your mind AIDS relief for Africa apparently doesn't count in Bush's list of non-warmonger behavior because he didn't tout it enough to your satisfaction. You're irrational dislike of Bush is bordering on delusional.
(By the way, have you read Michal Gerson lately or does he not count as one of Bush's people? He talks and writes a lot about the AIDS relief.)
Your non-answer about how a cooperator would have handled N. Korea says a lot too.
No, I get the point you're trying to make. It's just a bad point and the comparison to Ortega is faulty as well.. The idea that Bush pulls China's strings in negotiations with N. Korea is complete nonsense. Do you actually believe that?
As for passive voice, I wasn't asking you to poll everyone to get their opinion, I was asking you to identify which group of people you were talking about. N Koreans? Americans? Europeans? It matters.
One big reason why I think this is the way that he, or maybe I should just say democrats in congress, has opposed putting up the health care bills online for people to read after he campaign on a promise to be more transparent.
However, I understand this. As I mentioned before, the conservative movement raised a stink in 1994 when Bill Clinton first made a health care insurance reform program for no other reason than it would cause political problems for the Republican Party, and no doubt would be the case today.
One big reason why I think this is the way that he, or maybe I should just say democrats in congress, has opposed putting up the health care bills online for people to read after he campaign on a promise to be more transparent.
However, I understand this. As I mentioned before, the conservative movement raised a stink in 1994 when Bill Clinton first made a health care insurance reform program for no other reason than it would cause political problems for the Republican Party, and no doubt would be the case today.
I greatly disagree that Obama is a consensus-builder by nature. I understand all the politics surrounding health care and Afghanistan, but I think it is a stretch to say he has even tried to reach consensus. One big reason why I think this is the way that he, or maybe I should just say democrats in congress, has opposed putting up the health care bills online for people to read after he campaign on a promise to be more transparent. If it is the best thing for America then it should win on its merits and not need to be hidden or hurried through. And he did try to push health care through back in July when he mandated to Congress that they need to pass health care reform before their recess.
OK.
"We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS - all by 2015." President of the United States G Bush
"Reband, reboot, restart."
The thing I like about Obama is he said it in 36 words instead of 42.
Very appropriate. The thing is, people see what they want to see. If someone wants to see America as an evil global hegemonic power bent on warfare, exploitation and selfishness then he'll find plenty of things to back of that view. If someone wants to see America as a country that can do no wrong solely bent on preserving peace, justice and liberty for all, he'll find plenty of things to back up that view.
People who want to see G.W. Bush as a warmonger who disdained international institutions and diplomatic means of solving problems will focus on Iraq and ignore the dozens of countries with which the U.S. has a disagreement but didn't go to war and statements about the MDG.
People who want to see Obama as a global peacemaker who has humanity's needs at heart rather than America's will focus on his public statements and neglect to mention that Obama's beliefs about the use of U.S. military force are identical to G.W. Bush's. As he said, he's not anti-war, he's just against stupid wars.
Reality is a lot messier than our hopes and dreams.
As for the peace prize, here's a humorous bit from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:
Given how amazingly super President Obama is, there is a temptation to give him every award for everything. Example: It's hard to imagine that anyone will end up deserving the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama will, but if the Norwegian Nobel Committee gives Obama the prize every year, no one else will have any incentive to work for peace. Solution: create two separate prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Non-Obama Peace Prize. Problem solved!
The separation of Obama awards from others would allow him to get his due, while making it possible for people besides Obama to get some recognition once in a while. Other people, after all, sometimes are worthy too--just not worthy of Obama.
Huh? Bush always sought domination, while Obama believes in cooperation. Bush said, "Either you're with us or you're with [them]," while Obama wouldn't dream of making that kind of statement. For those reasons alone the rest of the world sees Obama as a breath of fresh air.
Cornel West nailed it: An attempt to manipulate a weak US President by painting him into a corner, rather than recognizing people and organizations who have made real accomplishments. Re-branding? Can you make foreign policy and relations sound more trivial than simply giving it a new slogan?
OK.
"We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS - all by 2015." President of the United States G Bush
"Reband, reboot, restart."
The thing I like about Obama is he said it in 36 words instead of 42.
Very appropriate. The thing is, people see what they want to see. If someone wants to see America as an evil global hegemonic power bent on warfare, exploitation and selfishness then he'll find plenty of things to back of that view. If someone wants to see America as a country that can do no wrong solely bent on preserving peace, justice and liberty for all, he'll find plenty of things to back up that view.
People who want to see G.W. Bush as a warmonger who disdained international institutions and diplomatic means of solving problems will focus on Iraq and ignore the dozens of countries with which the U.S. has a disagreement but didn't go to war and statements about the MDG.
People who want to see Obama as a global peacemaker who has humanity's needs at heart rather than America's will focus on his public statements and neglect to mention that Obama's beliefs about the use of U.S. military force are identical to G.W. Bush's. As he said, he's not anti-war, he's just against stupid wars.
Reality is a lot messier than our hopes and dreams.
As for the peace prize, here's a humorous bit from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:
Given how amazingly super President Obama is, there is a temptation to give him every award for everything. Example: It's hard to imagine that anyone will end up deserving the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama will, but if the Norwegian Nobel Committee gives Obama the prize every year, no one else will have any incentive to work for peace. Solution: create two separate prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Non-Obama Peace Prize. Problem solved!
The separation of Obama awards from others would allow him to get his due, while making it possible for people besides Obama to get some recognition once in a while. Other people, after all, sometimes are worthy too--just not worthy of Obama.
You're right that Obama would never say something like that. I don't think it was helpful when Bush said it. But that doesn't negate my point, which was that there is evidence to support both views of Bush. There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Was it domination or collaboration when Bush sought multilateral talks to deal with North Korea? Was PEPFAR domination or cooperation?
You've proved my point when you say that "Bush always sought domination and Obama believes in cooperation". I can assume there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Bush's focus on domination compromised his attempts to collaborate; it could be seen as domination because of the attempt to get North Korea's neighbors on its side.
I can assure you there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
That happens if, and only if, certain Americans' interests are perceived as trumping those of the rest of the world.
Huh? Bush always sought domination, while Obama believes in cooperation. Bush said, "Either you're with us or you're with [them]," while Obama wouldn't dream of making that kind of statement. For those reasons alone the rest of the world sees Obama as a breath of fresh air.
The Millenium Development goals themselves are merely the empty promise of a dithering, corrupted UN. At best they are a virtuous hope, at worst they are a distraction intended to draw attention away from the UN's failure to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the misdirection of relief funds to plutocrats, and the coddling of dictators with messianic delusions. While I think he ment well in this part of the speech, the bottom line is that Obama aspires to embrace an aspiration. The Peace Prize is a joke.
LV
Cornel West nailed it: An attempt to manipulate a weak US President by painting him into a corner, rather than recognizing people and organizations who have made real accomplishments. Re-branding? Can you make foreign policy and relations sound more trivial than simply giving it a new slogan?
One more thought about "rebranding". The US is not beer or toothpaste or underwear. It is not angling for market share any more than Budweiser and Crest are taking steps to prevent Hanes from acquiring nukes. The US has a history and neither we nor our allies nor our rivals are going to conveniently forget it because we come up with a new ad campaign. "Rebranding" is one of the dumbest political ideas ever. And that's saying something.
LV
Please, stop proving my point for me. In your world in which you want to see Bush in a certain light apparently any attempt, even using a multilateral, collaborative attempt to solve a problem, is evidence of his desire for domination. He can't win in your bizarro world.
As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, which would make him a dominater (which, in your bizarre world could make any attempts at collaboration really seem like domination to an ambiguous passive-voiced third party).
You're right that Obama would never say something like that. I don't think it was helpful when Bush said it. But that doesn't negate my point, which was that there is evidence to support both views of Bush. There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Was it domination or collaboration when Bush sought multilateral talks to deal with North Korea? Was PEPFAR domination or cooperation?
You've proved my point when you say that "Bush always sought domination and Obama believes in cooperation". I can assume there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Bush's focus on domination compromised his attempts to collaborate; it could be seen as domination because of the attempt to get North Korea's neighbors on its side.
I can assure you there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
That happens if, and only if, certain Americans' interests are perceived as trumping those of the rest of the world.
Your beef is not with me. Bush had to be seen as unyielding to play to his political base, which was indeed bent on domination.
As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, ...
Didn't say that. The "American interests" I was referring to actually represent the private interests of certain Americans, most notably businesses where policies Obama would possibly enact would compromise their power. Why do you think, for example, they're fighting health insurance reform so hard?
I greatly disagree that Obama is a consensus-builder by nature. I understand all the politics surrounding health care and Afghanistan, but I think it is a stretch to say he has even tried to reach consensus. One big reason why I think this is the way that he, or maybe I should just say democrats in congress, has opposed putting up the health care bills online for people to read after he campaign on a promise to be more transparent. If it is the best thing for America then it should win on its merits and not need to be hidden or hurried through. And he did try to push health care through back in July when he mandated to Congress that they need to pass health care reform before their recess.
The Millenium Development goals themselves are merely the empty promise of a dithering, corrupted UN. At best they are a virtuous hope, at worst they are a distraction intended to draw attention away from the UN's failure to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the misdirection of relief funds to plutocrats, and the coddling of dictators with messianic delusions. While I think he ment well in this part of the speech, the bottom line is that Obama aspires to embrace an aspiration. The Peace Prize is a joke.
LV
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
First thing: If Obama hasn't learned already, he will learn very soon that you just can't negotiate or even deal with conservatives, who in over 30 years have yet to do anything in good faith with those that disagree with them. The LA Times published an op-ed (which I linked to a post on another thread) that likened modern conservatism to a form of religion, which by definition defies the art of politics. That's the basic problem with what we're seeing in Washington today and something that Obama can't do anything about.
Something else: Obama may have had good intentions when he was campaigning; however, every politician ends up having to break promises he may full well have wanted to keep because he just didn't have the whole story. I remember when Bill Clinton chided George H.W. Bush for "coddling the Chinese"; but when he actually got to the presidency he found out that they were pulling the strings.
OK.
"We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS - all by 2015." President of the United States G Bush
"Reband, reboot, restart."
The thing I like about Obama is he said it in 36 words instead of 42.
OK.
"We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS - all by 2015." President of the United States G Bush
"Reband, reboot, restart."
The thing I like about Obama is he said it in 36 words instead of 42.
Very appropriate. The thing is, people see what they want to see. If someone wants to see America as an evil global hegemonic power bent on warfare, exploitation and selfishness then he'll find plenty of things to back of that view. If someone wants to see America as a country that can do no wrong solely bent on preserving peace, justice and liberty for all, he'll find plenty of things to back up that view.
People who want to see G.W. Bush as a warmonger who disdained international institutions and diplomatic means of solving problems will focus on Iraq and ignore the dozens of countries with which the U.S. has a disagreement but didn't go to war and statements about the MDG.
People who want to see Obama as a global peacemaker who has humanity's needs at heart rather than America's will focus on his public statements and neglect to mention that Obama's beliefs about the use of U.S. military force are identical to G.W. Bush's. As he said, he's not anti-war, he's just against stupid wars.
Reality is a lot messier than our hopes and dreams.
Very appropriate. The thing is, people see what they want to see. If someone wants to see America as an evil global hegemonic power bent on warfare, exploitation and selfishness then he'll find plenty of things to back of that view. If someone wants to see America as a country that can do no wrong solely bent on preserving peace, justice and liberty for all, he'll find plenty of things to back up that view.
People who want to see G.W. Bush as a warmonger who disdained international institutions and diplomatic means of solving problems will focus on Iraq and ignore the dozens of countries with which the U.S. has a disagreement but didn't go to war and statements about the MDG.
People who want to see Obama as a global peacemaker who has humanity's needs at heart rather than America's will focus on his public statements and neglect to mention that Obama's beliefs about the use of U.S. military force are identical to G.W. Bush's. As he said, he's not anti-war, he's just against stupid wars.
Reality is a lot messier than our hopes and dreams.
As for the peace prize, here's a humorous bit from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:
Given how amazingly super President Obama is, there is a temptation to give him every award for everything. Example: It's hard to imagine that anyone will end up deserving the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama will, but if the Norwegian Nobel Committee gives Obama the prize every year, no one else will have any incentive to work for peace. Solution: create two separate prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Non-Obama Peace Prize. Problem solved!
The separation of Obama awards from others would allow him to get his due, while making it possible for people besides Obama to get some recognition once in a while. Other people, after all, sometimes are worthy too--just not worthy of Obama.
As for the peace prize, here's a humorous bit from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:
Given how amazingly super President Obama is, there is a temptation to give him every award for everything. Example: It's hard to imagine that anyone will end up deserving the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize more than Obama will, but if the Norwegian Nobel Committee gives Obama the prize every year, no one else will have any incentive to work for peace. Solution: create two separate prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Non-Obama Peace Prize. Problem solved!
The separation of Obama awards from others would allow him to get his due, while making it possible for people besides Obama to get some recognition once in a while. Other people, after all, sometimes are worthy too--just not worthy of Obama.
Huh? Bush always sought domination, while Obama believes in cooperation. Bush said, "Either you're with us or you're with [them]," while Obama wouldn't dream of making that kind of statement. For those reasons alone the rest of the world sees Obama as a breath of fresh air.
Huh? Bush always sought domination, while Obama believes in cooperation. Bush said, "Either you're with us or you're with [them]," while Obama wouldn't dream of making that kind of statement. For those reasons alone the rest of the world sees Obama as a breath of fresh air.
Cornel West nailed it: An attempt to manipulate a weak US President by painting him into a corner, rather than recognizing people and organizations who have made real accomplishments. Re-branding? Can you make foreign policy and relations sound more trivial than simply giving it a new slogan?
Cornel West nailed it: An attempt to manipulate a weak US President by painting him into a corner, rather than recognizing people and organizations who have made real accomplishments. Re-branding? Can you make foreign policy and relations sound more trivial than simply giving it a new slogan?
You're right that Obama would never say something like that. I don't think it was helpful when Bush said it. But that doesn't negate my point, which was that there is evidence to support both views of Bush. There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Was it domination or collaboration when Bush sought multilateral talks to deal with North Korea? Was PEPFAR domination or cooperation?
You've proved my point when you say that "Bush always sought domination and Obama believes in cooperation". I can assume there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
You're right that Obama would never say something like that. I don't think it was helpful when Bush said it. But that doesn't negate my point, which was that there is evidence to support both views of Bush. There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Was it domination or collaboration when Bush sought multilateral talks to deal with North Korea? Was PEPFAR domination or cooperation?
You've proved my point when you say that "Bush always sought domination and Obama believes in cooperation". I can assume there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Bush's focus on domination compromised his attempts to collaborate; it could be seen as domination because of the attempt to get North Korea's neighbors on its side.
I can assure you there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
That happens if, and only if, certain Americans' interests are perceived as trumping those of the rest of the world.
There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.
Bush's focus on domination compromised his attempts to collaborate; it could be seen as domination because of the attempt to get North Korea's neighbors on its side.
I can assure you there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.
That happens if, and only if, certain Americans' interests are perceived as trumping those of the rest of the world.
The Millenium Development goals themselves are merely the empty promise of a dithering, corrupted UN. At best they are a virtuous hope, at worst they are a distraction intended to draw attention away from the UN's failure to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the misdirection of relief funds to plutocrats, and the coddling of dictators with messianic delusions. While I think he ment well in this part of the speech, the bottom line is that Obama aspires to embrace an aspiration. The Peace Prize is a joke.
LV
The Millenium Development goals themselves are merely the empty promise of a dithering, corrupted UN. At best they are a virtuous hope, at worst they are a distraction intended to draw attention away from the UN's failure to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the misdirection of relief funds to plutocrats, and the coddling of dictators with messianic delusions. While I think he ment well in this part of the speech, the bottom line is that Obama aspires to embrace an aspiration. The Peace Prize is a joke.
LV
One more thought about "rebranding". The US is not beer or toothpaste or underwear. It is not angling for market share any more than Budweiser and Crest are taking steps to prevent Hanes from acquiring nukes. The US has a history and neither we nor our allies nor our rivals are going to conveniently forget it because we come up with a new ad campaign. "Rebranding" is one of the dumbest political ideas ever. And that's saying something.
LV
One more thought about "rebranding". The US is not beer or toothpaste or underwear. It is not angling for market share any more than Budweiser and Crest are taking steps to prevent Hanes from acquiring nukes. The US has a history and neither we nor our allies nor our rivals are going to conveniently forget it because we come up with a new ad campaign. "Rebranding" is one of the dumbest political ideas ever. And that's saying something.
LV
Please, stop proving my point for me. In your world in which you want to see Bush in a certain light apparently any attempt, even using a multilateral, collaborative attempt to solve a problem, is evidence of his desire for domination. He can't win in your bizarro world.
As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, which would make him a dominater (which, in your bizarre world could make any attempts at collaboration really seem like domination to an ambiguous passive-voiced third party).
Please, stop proving my point for me. In your world in which you want to see Bush in a certain light apparently any attempt, even using a multilateral, collaborative attempt to solve a problem, is evidence of his desire for domination. He can't win in your bizarro world.
As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, which would make him a dominater (which, in your bizarre world could make any attempts at collaboration really seem like domination to an ambiguous passive-voiced third party).
Your beef is not with me. Bush had to be seen as unyielding to play to his political base, which was indeed bent on domination.
As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, ...
Didn't say that. The "American interests" I was referring to actually represent the private interests of certain Americans, most notably businesses where policies Obama would possibly enact would compromise their power. Why do you think, for example, they're fighting health insurance reform so hard?
Your beef is not with me. Bush had to be seen as unyielding to play to his political base, which was indeed bent on domination.
As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, ...
Didn't say that. The "American interests" I was referring to actually represent the private interests of certain Americans, most notably businesses where policies Obama would possibly enact would compromise their power. Why do you think, for example, they're fighting health insurance reform so hard?
I imagine your speaking on the international side of things but obama did say " I dont mind cleaning up the mess but they need to get out of the way" not quite exact qoute but close. and he has not listened to repulicans at all or even met with them. as far as the internation side, bush allowed how long for Irag to follow the UN sanctions. he has dealth through the UN for as long as they were actually doing what they said they would do. And his words mean very little but to appease at the moment, never mind his wars, though inherited, he is following the same path as bush. Obama is good at picking his words, just not at following through.
I imagine your speaking on the international side of things but obama did say " I dont mind cleaning up the mess but they need to get out of the way" not quite exact qoute but close. and he has not listened to repulicans at all or even met with them. as far as the internation side, bush allowed how long for Irag to follow the UN sanctions. he has dealth through the UN for as long as they were actually doing what they said they would do. And his words mean very little but to appease at the moment, never mind his wars, though inherited, he is following the same path as bush. Obama is good at picking his words, just not at following through.
First thing: If Obama hasn't learned already, he will learn very soon that you just can't negotiate or even deal with conservatives, who in over 30 years have yet to do anything in good faith with those that disagree with them. The LA Times published an op-ed (which I linked to a post on another thread) that likened modern conservatism to a form of religion, which by definition defies the art of politics. That's the basic problem with what we're seeing in Washington today and something that Obama can't do anything about.
Something else: Obama may have had good intentions when he was campaigning; however, every politician ends up having to break promises he may full well have wanted to keep because he just didn't have the whole story. I remember when Bill Clinton chided George H.W. Bush for "coddling the Chinese"; but when he actually got to the presidency he found out that they were pulling the strings.
