Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 04:19pm PT
|
Again, there is no sadder spectacle than hypocritical and beligerent white males playing the victim card en masse. My god! Never have patriotic white males been so besieged and put upon - I'm guessing we can only be months away from internment camps for the white male fringe-right guarded by illegal immigrants and administered by homosexuals. What the f#ck are the god-fearing white men who built this country with their bare hands supposed to do? How else are we supposed to respond other than with infantile logic and whines?
Post by post the pathetic-index on this thread is almost leaving the audible range...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 04:36pm PT
|
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
I tried to find the origin of the quote, but couldn't. Anyone?
|
|
gonzo chemist
climber
the Orange Curtain
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 04:54pm PT
|
I've read Atlas Shrugged. It is intellectual and literary garbage. I'd rather sharpen a pencil and shove it in my eye before reading The Fountainhead.
That's a fantastic quote, Mighty Hiker!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 05:18pm PT
|
from today's wapo:
"Announcing Friday that he would accept the award, Mr. Obama graciously offered to share it with "the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets." But the mere fact that he avoided mentioning either Neda's name or her country, presumably out of consideration for the Iranian regime with which he is attempting to negotiate, showed the tension that sometimes exists between "diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" on the one hand, and advocacy of human rights on the other. The Nobel Committee could have spared Mr. Obama this dilemma if it had given Neda the award instead of him."
they almost got it right but should have replaced "tension...between diplomacy and cooperation...and advocacy of human rights" with COWARDICE.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009 - 06:17pm PT
|
Bookworm, that was a marvelous job of taking a quote out of context, and changing it's meaning. Here is the full quote, which very clearly did not refer to the woman you were citing:
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity -- for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 10:53am PT
|
thanks, ken, for proving my point..even wapo (you know, that right-wing rag) criticized barry for NOT mentioning neda by name...if he really cared about that "young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets" he would have called her by name and called out the iranian regime for their murderous response to protest, which would have been a legitimate action for world peace (not enough to deserve a nobel, but still legitimate)
actually, i think i finally understand why barry, perhaps, deserves the prize...what is the ultimate "peace"? silence, of course
barry on iran's complete disrespect for human rights, including women, homosexuals, religious freedom, and "inalienable" rights? SILENCE
barry no iran's secret uranium plant and test firing of long range missiles, both in violation of un resolutions? SILENCE
barry on noko's provocative test firing of long range missiles? SILENCE
barry on chavez's takeover of all media, thereby eliminating any opposition? SILENCE
barry on continued palestinian attacks against israel? SILENCE
barry to our allies facing new threats? SILENCE
yeah, soon enough it will be a completely peaceful world
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 11:01am PT
|
^^^
Silence is a terrible position and a worse defense.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 04:23pm PT
|
let's see...what sacrifice has barry made for world peace? well, according to his wife, he "sacrificed" by flying all the way to copenhagen to beg the ioc to give the games to that den of corrupt chicago
too bad the nobel committee has so much foresight into what barry has the "potential" to accomplish; if only their foresight had been a little more shortsighted, they might have chosen these guys:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704429304574467491888455498.html
|
|
FeelioBabar
climber
Just leaving your mom's house...what a gal.
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 06:39pm PT
|
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 06:42pm PT
|
And. If you think appointing a Czar is a chip at the constitution then Obama's just a chip off the old block. Got any other "arguements" Ron? Next.
From Wiki...
In the United States, the informal political term "czar" is employed in media and popular usage to refer to certain executive branch officials. There have never been any U.S. government offices with the title "czar",[citation needed] but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title. The "czars" have various official titles such as adviser, director, administrator, or diplomatic envoy, but such titles are often quite long or awkward sounding.
The earliest known use of the term for a U.S. government official was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945), during which twelve positions were so described. The term was revived, mostly by the press, to describe officials in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Subsequently, until the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009), the term was little used.
|
|
Rob_James
Ice climber
Aoraki/Mt. Cook Village, New Zealand
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 07:17pm PT
|
The prize was awarded by 5 Norwegian politicans.
The Norwegians like Obama - they believe he's the willingness to leave Europe in comfort. That he won't ask for too much. That he can resolve Iranian and Russian concerns without resorting to war.
Of course fantasy is oft better than the reality. Afghanistan may 'bout to build bigger. Iran is in trouble.
Though Bush oft discussed his interests with Europe, many didn't like him because he'd not follow their answers. His approach had implications for Europe - whether they entered the fray or stood by/aside.
Obama is very popular amongst the greater masses. We like 'social' healthcare - because we enjoy it. It's central to meaningful values.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 - 07:30pm PT
|
In other news today, the Associated Press announced that Obama used 12 sheets
of toilet paper to wipe his ass yesterday.
Fox News immediately reported that he should have used only 9 sheets, and
that this was just further evidence of his straining government resources,
adding to the deficit (think of the children), and, well, just pure socialism.
Ann Coulter added that this action of Obama's was definitive proof that
the President is "anti-military". Rush Limbaugh took two more oxycodones.
Glenn Beck openly wept on his show that his America was irreparably harmed.
Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly called for a Congressional Investigation.
But please, let's not forget my standing offer of $5000 that Barry goes 8 years.
|
|
Delhi Dog
Trad climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 05:39am PT
|
'this ain't no weenie roast'
this is a b-i-t-c-h session.
Nobody in our little 'little neck of the woods' (ie the Taco Stand) is changing anyone's minds about much here.
Seems most everyone is set in their (thinking)ways.
Can I get some points for killing this thing?
Just don't respond and I'll take that as a "you got 'em DD"
Cheers,
DD
|
|
Delhi Dog
Trad climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 06:51am PT
|
Ha ha...that's pretty funny.
'...incinerated the paper without even reading it...'
Gotta love the Onion
NOW can I get some points?
DD
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 12:22pm PT
|
what would be worse than being proved wrong twice in one day...before noon?
not be able to admit it:
A Perfect Nobel Pick
The committee didn't recognize Truman, after all.
By BRET STEPHENS
Pop quiz: What do Bertha von Suttner, Henri La Fontaine, Ludwig Quidde, Norman Angell, Arthur Henderson, Eisaku Sato, Alva Myrdal and Joseph Rotblat have in common?
Answer: Barack Obama.
If you're drawing blanks on most of these names, don't be hard on yourself: They're just some of the worthies of yesteryear who were favored with a Nobel Peace Prize before disappearing into the footnotes of history.
On the other hand, if you're among those who think Mr. Obama's Nobel was misjudged and premature, not to say absurd, then you really know nothing about the values and thinking that have informed a century of prize giving. Far from being an aberrant choice, President Obama was the ideal one, Scandinavianally speaking.
The peace Nobel is a much misunderstood prize. With the exception of a few really grotesque picks (Le Duc Tho, Rigoberta Menchú, Yasser Arafat), a few inspired ones (Carl von Ossietzky, Norman Borlaug, Andrei Sakharov, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Aung San Suu Kyi) and some worthy if obvious ones (Martin Luther King, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk), most of the prize winners draw from the obscure ranks of the sorts of people the late Oriana Fallaci liked to call "the Goodists."
Who are the Goodists? They are the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technologies, systems, complexes (as in "military-industrial") and everything else except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own moral intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution, whatever the problem. Above all, the Goodists are the people who like to be seen to be good.
View Full Image
Corbis
Japan agrees to outlaw war in 1929, shortly before invading Manchuria.
Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler, who won the Peace Prize in 1931, was a Goodist. In 1910 he wrote that "to suppose that men and women into whose intellectual and moral instruction and upbuilding have gone the glories of the world's philosophy and art and poetry and religion . . . are to fly at each others' throats to ravage, to kill, in the hope of somehow establishing thereby truth and right and justice is to suppose the universe to be stood upon its apex."
The First World War, which began four years later, rendered a less charitable judgment on the benefits of moral and intellectual instruction. Yet Butler later became a leading campaigner for the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war as "an instrument of national policy." This monument to hope, which won U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg a Nobel in 1929 (France's Aristide Briand had already won it in 1926 for the equally feckless Locarno Pact), was immediately ratified by dozens of countries, including Japan—which invaded Manchuria in 1931; and Italy—which invaded Abyssinia in 1935; and Germany—which invaded Poland in 1939.
Characteristically, the Nobel Committee awarded no Peace Prizes for most of the Second World War: not to Franklin Roosevelt for turning America into an arsenal for democracy; not to Winston Churchill for rallying Britain against the Nazi onslaught; not to Charles de Gaulle for keeping the flame of a free France alive; not to the U.S. Army Rangers for scaling the heights of Pointe du Hoc on a June morning in 1944; not to Douglas MacArthur for turning Japan into a country at peace with itself and its neighbors.
These were the soldiers and statesmen who did more than anyone else to assure the survival of freedom in the 20th century. Being Goodists, however, the Nobel Committee chose instead to lavish its honors on people like the wan New England pacifist Emily Greene Balch (in 1946), the tedious British disarmament obsessive Philip Noel-Baker (1959) and the Irish antinuclear campaigner and Lenin Prize Winner Seán MacBride (1974).
These names don't exactly spring to mind as having made a lasting and genuine contribution to world peace. Nor, one suspects, will history lavish its highest honors on Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Wangari Maathai, Mohamed ElBaradei, Al Gore or Martti Ahtisaari, to name some of this decade's winners. They are merely the Frank Kelloggs and Seán MacBrides of the future.
Which brings us, at last, to this year's prize winner.
Typical of the laments about Mr. Obama's Nobel is that he's done nothing yet to deserve it. But what, really, did most of the other Goodists do before they won their prizes? Mr. Obama, at least, got himself elected president, the first man to do so on explicitly Goodist terms: hope, change, diplomacy, disarmament, internationalism. He is, so to speak, the son Alfred Nobel never had (minus the dynamite fortune), the best and most significant spokesman for everything the Peace Prize has stood for these 108 years.
So let there be no doubt that the Nobel Committee did well in choosing Mr. Obama. What this portends for the kind of peace and security that has been bequeathed to us by the exertions of such non-Nobelists as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is another question.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2009 - 03:40pm PT
|
If Ron's being troubled by the fact that Obama wants nothing to do with having his health care plan apply to Obama or Obama's family proves Ron's an idiot, I guess I am one too.
Wes seems to think it's obvious that the US President (and his family?) should get better health care than everyone else.
If that's true, than I suppose it's equally obvious that the president of big corporations, high-level scientists and engineers, and lots of other people should also get better health care than say, willfully unemployed drug addicts.
So once we accept that there will be many different levels of health care depending on one's circumstances in society, I guess the next thing to ask is how that health care will be allocated.
I don't have the perfect answer to that question, but I seem to recall learning something about free markets being a good way to allocate scarce resources. But I learned that a long time ago; perhaps they don't teach that anymore and instead teach that people who believe that are "idiots"?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!