Obama!!!

Who says that? And who are these Governments who aren't chastised as much as the US? I'm not trying to be a smartarse or anything, I'm genuinely confused by this bit.

You don't listen to American radio. It's amazing how the "two sides" (liberals and conservatives) say the exact same things about each other but somehow come from it from the opposite ends. I'm not advocating that Iran, N. Korea or any other such country are somehow looked upon by the world as somehow "safer" or "easier" to control than the U.S., but there are many people in the U.S. who say such things. There are an enormous amount of people in the U.S. who believe that Obama is weak and will cause the downfall of the World. There are an enormous amount of people who believe that he's a boon for mankind. The truth which is starting to set in about now is that we need to create jobs and get the economy back on track, but things keep seeming to get off-track because of all the things going on in the U.S. Congress right now where bills are trying to be passed without any discussion going on. It's really rancourous and certainly not conducive to anything positive happening here right now. If you do something good, you still are seen to fail in dozens of other areas. It's unusual that people don't think that it sends mixed messages when they badmouth their own leaders, let alone other countries', but it's part of what has made America strong and free in the past. I just worry about the present and the future.

I've already babbled too long now, so I've probably only made things more confusing. Personally I think we could use another revolution, but I don't think mine coincides with others who believe the same thing.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Here is another fine piece, IMO.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/co...y/1281795.html

__________________
Bleacheddecay

So, you're just going to link to articles you agree with (which is apparently enough to make them a "fine piece" or "interesting"), all of which take shots at fringe elements, and none of which address the issues being discussed in this thread or in the general discourse. Awesome.

If you want to defend your ideals, you're not going to be able to do it by just copying links, particularly links to articles that aim at straw men and fail to address any of the criticisms being leveled.

I threatened to do this, so why not? It'll get a lot more mileage here and may explain some things to our friends from outside the U.S., if only to show how embarrassing "freedom of speech" can become. Here is a post I made at another thread. Please forgive me.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make marky. If the point is that unhelpful partisan divides and 'cartoon positions' are rampant, then sure. If the argument is that this only happens in America, then it's slightly ironic that your first link leads to a guy living in the UK. Has he fled to our shores for greater freedom of expression? (Or maybe coz of his brand of humour - i do like the footer to his site: "The First Amendment does not authorize the fourth estate to be a fifth column." )

There are unique aspects to partisanship in every nation where it exists, but lets face it, it exists nigh-on everywhere in one form or another.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I was really surprised when I heard that Obama was to receive the prize. As much as I like the guy, because I really do, I can't say that he's really achieved anything great globally. At least, not yet.

Here, in Sweden, there has been some puzzlement, some criticism and some praise over the committee electing Obama. Those who are puzzled reacted the way I did. The critics say that the choice of Obama is a disgrace since he's the president of a country that's involved in two wars. On the other hand though, Hans Blix (you know, the guy who didn't find any WMD:s in Iraq before the US didn't find any WMD:s in Iraq...), say that it was a great choice. He believes that Obama has achieved a lot of things allready. According to him, the fact that Iran and America are talking to each other again is one thing, another being Obama's eagerness to stop a new nuclear arms race gaining speed. A third thing, according to Blix, was the change in tone generally over the world. After a very hateful and wounded up climate Obama is supposedly the reason for a more civilized dialoge between various countries. Blix graded the Bush administration as an extremist administration that threw the world a couple of decades back in time. Diplomacy was not only poor, it was non-existent during the Bush era. Now, active diplomacy is back in full force - and for that, the world has Obama to thank, according to Blix.

The choice of Obama is obviously a political choice. It's more an encouragement than an award for things achieved. I believe the committee is worried - and not without good reasons - that talks about climate change, peace talks, talks about solving global economic crises is about to lead to nothing. I think this is a very concious attempt by the committee to prolong the Obama success saga, the feeling of a wave lifting Obama forward and over all obstacles in the beginning of his presidency which made him look unstoppable. It's a "cheer up - you can do it".

I'm sure there are people who to this date have done more for making the world a better place for our children and for their children, but I can live with the Obama choice. Hell, Kissinger got it!

There's a risk in this and that is that the prize loses some of it's prestige. If this "encouragement" succeedes will be impossible to measure in the future, of course. But hopefully it does the trick.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I've never listened to Limbaugh. Recognized from the start he'd found an entertainment gimmick that would make him rich and the idea of all the "ditto-heads" sitting at his feet, taking his "wisdom" during their lunch breaks on workdays always seemed rather silly.

Never cared for George W. going back to when he was governor down here. I'd met his daddy a few times when he was first running for president and then later was Reagan's VP and was extremely disappointed by the guy--and he was the "smart" male in the family.

Didn't have anything against Obama when he came along. Didn't vote for him but didn't vote against him either. Was ready to give him a chance to strut his stuff in office.

Even so, a blind man can see that giving him the Nobel Peace prize was just damn silly.

I think you're right. Unfortunately, they misjudged the effect, because it makes them and him look silly by focusing attention on how little he's actually done and how far he is from such an accomplishment. Even some of his former supporters are saying it's a farce.

I've never much cared for Dobson but reading this article gave me a new appreciation. To go against all of those fearful conservatives and support Obama was gutsy. Of course attempting to live a year like Jesus is quite a challenge.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...sus-year_N.htm

I agree with you on everything in your post except about the Nobel Peace Prize. That's up to the committee. I'm sure they've made many choices that others wouldn't agree on.

I've never felt a need to question or make fun of any of thier choices. I don't now. To do so would never occur to me. As I said before, I think it's all about Obama being a symbol of hope after very dark times.

I am constantly surprised at the level of hate thrown at Obama. People can say Bush was hated. He certainly was. Even so, he was hated for what he did, not for what he might do. He generally wasn't hated from the get go for what he embodied.

The rabid conservatives seem to not care about anything but winning. Tearing the country apart seems to be okay with them as long as they can continue to ( in their own minds),undermine the other party and spew venom. No matter how dirty they get or how senseless their attacks are, they are always "right."

Perhaps, this is part of why the committee wanted to give the prize to Obama. Sadly, all of America may not be able to get behind their elected President, but the world sees this as progress, not just for our country, but the world.

Many people hated Bush from the "get-go" due to the way the 2000 election played out, but I don't want to relive that unfortunate event again. However, I think Bush took the Presidency with more ill will than any other President I've lived through with the possible exception of Obama. As I've mentioned before, I was afraid that every President would get impeached after Clinton, and I'm still pretty shocked that Bush didn't. My latest fear is that every President who gets elected from now on will always be the "Worst" President we've ever had.

Whatever happened to worrying about yourself and your family and being a good person? Then, when you have the spare time to decide that the Prez has had the time to try to implement their policies, try to do something to correct his/her deficiencies. I know... now when a Prez or an official opens their mouths, it seems as if they ARE threatening you and your family. I don't think the United States is set up for such things to happen all that easily. So, yes, be perserverant and do what you think is right, but a few deep breaths might work. The U.S. has survived quite awhile now, so we may even survive the Internet Age, at least if we're "supposed to".

Sounds kind of like spoiled kids on Christmas morning, "Is that all we get?"

We are in such a wonderful country. We should all count our blessings. Of course, nothing is perfect but still.

Nobody's disputing that it's up to the committee, they're taking issue with the choice. It does not follow that this somehow excludes any of us from having an opinion on it.

Sounds like you're agreeing with most of the criticism of the award, then: he's not being awarded the Nobel for an actual accomplishment, but speculatively.

I guess that depends on how you define "generally." It happened, and it wasn't rare.

Anyway, there are three things I would say to the paragraph above:

1) It's not entirely true. There were protests at the inauguration itself; quite a few of them, really. They didn't let up much until 9/11, and even then we had crazy people claiming he was responsible. Many people hated Bush from the get-go. It is simply revisionist to suggest otherwise.

2) Why do these things have to become law before people can oppose them? People are upset about things Obama has promised to do. I'm not sure why he should have to actually do these things for people to be upset. That's completely backwards: it doesn't do much good to stand up to unwise policies after they've already become law. I'm also skeptical that this is a standard that's applied consistently; were you outraged with people who protested the Iraq war before we actually invaded, too?

3) The idea that Obama hasn't done anything worth getting upset over is also false. We're looking at a $1.5 trillion deficit, the majority of which he did not inherit. Standard contracts have been voided, the bankruptcy system has been selectively discarded, and bailouts have been handed out. People have plenty to protest even if they restrict themselves to things that have already happened.

The people who only care about "winning" are the ones who went after Bush for certain policies, yet remain silent when Obama continues them (or even expands on them). If these people cared about policy, and not merely winning, they'd criticize Obama the same way they did Bush, rather than look the other way or focus only on the points of agreement.

Again, the Nobel Peace Prize, though certainly having some kind of geopolitical cachet, is award by five people appointed by the Norwegian legislature. It does not follow that it signals worldwide approval.

As a matter of fact, Obama's had a fairly lukewarm reaction on the international stage. Though verbal praise has flown plentifully, actual policy agreements are scant. France and Germany both flatly rejected his calls for a "global new deal," and his international efforts in regards to the war and climate change (and other scattered issues) have been unproductive at best.

That said, I certainly agree with your last post; we are incredibly blessed, and it's amazing to me just how comfortable and incredible life can be even when times are tough. But I think you may have glossed over Mark's point a bit, which was that, as virulent as some of Obama's detractors have been, they're really not any worse than they were for the last guy. This is par for the course now; it's just the first time in awhile Democrats have been on the receiving end of it, and I think they're forgetting that it was exactly the same way with Bush.

That depends on which year you pick.

LOL. Okay, so which year would you think to be an easy one?

I'd say the first few are pretty much a global experience. OK, I had better toys (I mean, who the hell gives those presents? I thought they were supposed to be 'wise men' and yet not one teddy bear or Fisher Price toy between them. ) but then, I had to endure harsher winters. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.

Good answer!

I am an Indian with great respect for the people of the USA. I have shared with millions of the world, agony, I should say, observing what President George Bush has done even ten months before. It appears to us as if he has been possessed by insanity. Then the campaign speeches of the present President Obama have begun to assure us and we have expected changes. He has been severely attacked by a section of the people of America from day one in his chair spreading an impression that he has been more sinned against than sinning.
I still hold the view that he should be allowed to function in peace for some time. The USA, accept it or not, has been faced with varieties of problems to the utter disadvantages of her own. Some of the problems have been the result of the short-sighted decisions of the earlier reign. The burden of being the single super power in the globe demands more patience and wisdom. Next, the nation has been pounded by the serious economic recession. Thus injuries in the job market, health care and in many other spheres have sprouted. Anyone in the hot chair, in this crucial junction, needs assistance of the people. People of the USA have tradition to overcome challenges. President Obama is, to my view, is the right choice for this situation. He has not done anything which may cost the dignity of the nation and its people. I should request everyone to wait and watch and I have confidence on the democratic spirit of the people of America.

Yep, it's as I suspected: bleached is going with the ol' silent treatment. Well, sort of: she's still posting (and responding to) things she agrees with, but ignoring all disagreement. Maybe you should start a blog, because what you're doing do doesn't really qualify as discussion.

Fair warning, though: I'm going to keep pointing out when you say things that don't make sense, or ignore arguments. For example, right now you're doing both. You can think whatever terrible things you want about me, but the fact is you ignore these things from others, too, and I'm beginning to suspect there isn't always a whole lot behind the flat assertions.