Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 152
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    When you look at the list of previous winners. There are a few names that come up, that no one in their right mind can possibly disagree with, such as, Mother Teresa. Who could possible disagree with her winning it?
    Christopher Hitchens.....

    Hitchens v. Mother Teresa


    Mommie Dearest
    The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
    By Christopher Hitchens
    Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Christopher Hitchens.....

    Hitchens v. Mother Teresa
    I guess there is always going to be a few.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Right. After WW2, let's hear you name one, other than making a med school safe in Grenada.

    We certainly fixed things in Korea. We brought peace in Viet Nam only when we left. We did some stuff in Bosnia only with the help of the UN. We destabilized Iraq and killed thousands of their innocent civilians for daddy's honor.

    Our military judgement has been questionable since the 1940's, with adventures in nation-building, the antithesis of true conservatism. And if Obama doesn't wake up, Afghanistan will join the list of mistakes.
    Why gloss over WWII? Do you realize how many more lives would have been lost if we hadn't entered?

    Ok, so aside from WWII, and aside from military conflicts in general, the US military runs hundreds of relief missions, trains local agencies in emergency response, digs wells, builds bridges, delivers food and medical supplies, and clears the ground for international aid workers in developing countries around the globe, every year.

    Whether or not one believes that's the best use of our military, it is good work and worthy of recognition. And its done at a capacity the majority of the world can't. Should that count? Or should it be ignored because of the mistakes our military has also made? Because, if that's the case, there are several past recipients who should give up their prizes.
    Last edited by groovy; 10/12/2009 at 05:45 PM.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Why gloss over WWII? Do you realize how many more lives would have been lost if we hadn't entered?

    Ok, so aside from WWII, and aside from military conflicts in general, the US military runs hundreds of relief missions, trains local agencies in emergency response, digs wells, builds bridges, delivers food and medical supplies, and clears the ground for international aid workers in developing countries around the globe, every year.

    Whether or not one believes that's the best use of our military, it is good work and worthy of recognition. And its done at a capacity the majority of the world can't. Should that count? Or should it be ignored because of the mistakes our military has also made? Because, if that's the case, there are several past recipients who should give up their prizes.
    I agree with what you wrote, so I'm thinking there's something wrong with me. Now the question is do we need to spend all the money on the military that we do to do all the support and development work, and do we have the right personnel to do that? Oh, and by the way....could parts of our country use the same support? Like delivering medical aid? Like Remote Area Medical?

    Embarassing Health Care needs in this country

    There are a number of past recipients that should give up their prizes, most notably Kissinger.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214 View Post
    This is how you know the groups determining prize winners are RAGING liberals. This is an absolute farce. It essentially reduces the award and the entire institution to a meaningless charade driven by leftist political persuasions. Obama peace prize my a**.


    Please, had a republican president done EXACTLY the same things, no such recognition by this group would have come forth.

    Absurd.

    I would hate to break these liberals in here so i will leave it at a thumb's up
  6. #86  
    This is a "don't look over here" moment "hey look at that". Reference noagenga podcast
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #87  
    Congrats to the president on the fine acceptance speech.

    He still didn't deserve it but I have to give credit where credit is due.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The GOP mocks this awarding, well, because the GOP mocks Obama for whatever he does...solely for political reasons.
    Actually, people mostly mocked the Nobel committee for this one. I kind of felt bad for Obama because I knew what he knew: this was only awarded to him...solely for political reasons.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    In a very real sense, the US military has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize for the type work you cite. Nobel Peace Prize - 1953: George C. Marshall. Feel better now?
    Should add that Obama plainly stated upon receiving the award today the he deserved it less than Marshall, along with a few other folks he mentioned.

    I just want to be clear: is all this agitation about the prize committee awarding the prize to Obama, or about him accepting it? Obama basically has agreed with you that the former is problematic, and, as a matter of precedent and all sorts of other issues, the latter presents a few difficulties as well.

    Interesting how there's been zero discussion here about the substance of Obama's acceptance speech--in other words, *how* Obama accepted a prize he didn't ask for, and which he couldn't realistically refuse. It was pretty damn interesting--basically a presentation of just-war theory.

    Edit: Sorry, groovy, you hadn't posted yet when I posted the above. I agree that it was an interesting speech, and quite an unusual tack for a Peace Prize recipient to take.
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Interesting how there's been zero discussion here about the substance of Obama's acceptance speech--in other words, *how* Obama accepted a prize he didn't ask for, and which he couldn't realistically refuse. It was pretty damn interesting--basically a presentation of just-war theory.

    Edit: Sorry, groovy, you hadn't posted yet when I posted the above. I agree that it was an interesting speech, and quite an unusual tack for a Peace Prize recipient to take.
    Yes, very true. I think it was mostly well done and interestingly only Obama could have gotten away with it.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Congrats to the president on the fine acceptance speech.

    He still didn't deserve it but I have to give credit where credit is due.
    I thought his speech was full of distortions and half truths. For example: Reagan never embrassed perestroika. That was Gorbie's goal, and it failed. And there were many factors that brought down the USSR, but pushing the Star Wars program, whether it was a myth or not, was a big piece of what sent their economy into the refuse bucket. They could not afford to keep up. There was no effort to "improve relations" through arms controls, on the part of Reagan. He did just the opposite.

    Obama is rewriting history, and Reagan's probably rolling over in his grave.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Obama's actions (or attitude, at least) has given much of Europe hope, particularly after how dismally Bush did. So, they gave it to him.
    So this should be renamed "Hell, he ain't Bush!" award.

    And as for Obama's actions, that's impossible. He was elected just weeks into office. He hadn't done anything yet.... come to think of it, he's not done much since then either, except lose a used car salesman's pitch for Chicago to get the Olympics. (my apologies go out to the used car salesmen out there whose image's I've just tarnished)
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Oh, give me a break. Do you always have to be such a hater?
    How does pointing out obvious flaws in his speech make me a hater?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Oh, give me a break. Do you always have to be such a hater?
    And let's think back to some of the post's and comments you've shared regarding Bush, shall we?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I thought his speech was full of distortions and half truths. For example: Reagan never embrassed perestroika. That was Gorbie's goal, and it failed. And there were many factors that brought down the USSR, but pushing the Star Wars program, whether it was a myth or not, was a big piece of what sent their economy into the refuse bucket. They could not afford to keep up. There was no effort to "improve relations" through arms controls, on the part of Reagan. He did just the opposite.

    Obama is rewriting history, and Reagan's probably rolling over in his grave.
    I think it's you who's rewriting history here. There were huge efforts under President Reagan to support glasnost and perestroika, to arrive at arms controls agreements with the Soviets, and they have all been richly documented by historians. Also, the emergence of Gorbachev, and President Reagan's relationship with, and approach toward Gorbachev, were essential to the more-or-less orderly (relatively speaking) dissolution of the Soviet Union. Why would you want to deny Reagan that legacy?
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    I think it's you who's rewriting history here. There were huge efforts under President Reagan to support glasnost and perestroika, to arrive at arms controls agreements with the Soviets, and they have all been richly documented by historians. Also, the emergence of Gorbachev, and President Reagan's relationship with, and approach toward Gorbachev, were essential to the more-or-less orderly (relatively speaking) dissolution of the Soviet Union. Why would you want to deny Reagan that legacy?
    Great. Another "have you stopped beating your wife?" post. You intertwine glasnost with perestroika and come at me. I never said anything about glasnost, so don't put words in my mouth. Perestroika was what Obama mentioned, and that's what I was refering to, and that was SOLELY Gorb's plan, term, and the title of his book. Reagan "embrassed" no such thing. If anyone is denying Reagan his legacy, its people like you and Obama.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I invite you to locate them.
    Too funny. How about the post RIGHT before this one? Are that blind to yourself? Apparently so. I rest my case.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I thought his speech was full of distortions and half truths. For example: Reagan never embrassed perestroika. That was Gorbie's goal, and it failed. And there were many factors that brought down the USSR, but pushing the Star Wars program, whether it was a myth or not, was a big piece of what sent their economy into the refuse bucket. They could not afford to keep up. There was no effort to "improve relations" through arms controls, on the part of Reagan. He did just the opposite.

    Obama is rewriting history, and Reagan's probably rolling over in his grave.
    Yes, we won the cold war because we out-spent the Russians. Another fine example of conservative economic practices...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  19. #99  
    Back to the thread main thought -
    Yep - I still have a headache
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Yes, we won the cold war because we out-spent the Russians. Another fine example of conservative economic practices...
    Not exactly. We implied a technology would be developed that was never to be, and impossible (financially) for them to address. Also, this wasn't what won the cold war, but one of many many things that helped to push them towards their demise. You could argue that the VHS tape played a bigger part, in fact.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions