Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Publicus]

Go read Chalmers Johnson, he doesn't mention Obama either.

funny.

my guess is that the list of people that make no mention of Obama is endless. but how can it help to reading them for the clarification in the " Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize"?

If I may say so, you read well and smartly. So do you mean to say you found both Krebs' and Johnson's discussion of the 'aspirational' nature of the Nobel Peace Prize uninteresting or perhaps worse? I wouldn't want to try to put words in your mouth, but I take it you were unimpressed or unaffected by either scribe (and you would 'guess' an endless list of same or similar other writers)?

[animatic]

There were 3 different sites referencing Taliban drug movements,

not JUST the one you cherry picked to salvage your argument.

Also different cases to make the point

Ah, so now misdirection enters the tactics.

Suddenly we are into Abhisit. Old news.

And not particularly accurate from 5 months back.

For the past month or so, up to 100,000 "red shirt" protesters who support Thaksin have rallied against Abhisit

and periodically forced Bangkok to shut down. This month, protesters forced the government to call off a summit

of leaders from the ASEAN trade bloc -- a tremendous embarrassment for Abhisit --

and provoked a military response that left two dead.

The Reds shut down Bangkok one time only and then not close to completely.

We know of course the army was no where near the two deaths, which were done by redshirts.

Obviously written by someone from far off.

Oh wait, off topic.

Really old son you must do better than this...

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[Publicus]

ever doubt that the http://www.militantislammonitor.org would you provide you with an other view or just looking for any reasons to justify their War on some terrorists (Robert Anton Wilson)

for the fun of it, go to http://www.militantislammonitor.org and type 'Obama' into the search mask.

Yes, that's quite the point in referencing sources. It's good to reference sources. However, after you and I (or other forumists) can hit the identical website and return with completely opposing points of view what's to stop certain of us quoting selectively, editing purposefully, or just going to a different source which of course would be a source you or I particulary like because of a mutuality we have with the site/source.

I reiterate sources and references are good and often do contribute to the discourse.

Still......

my guess is that on the http://www.militantislammonitor.org website you will find mostly a biased onesided preselected, narrow minded views on the "muslim problem". that isn't so useful for a discourse in a factual and objective manner.

the Litmus test would be, to check what they say about obama. the result will be a colour none of the both or three of us would put on his flag.

ps. as a reader of the Foreign Policy Mag, you might be interested in their turn on Abhisit, he is on the list of the Five Governments That Deserve to Fail.

the article was published in April 2009. follow this link: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4865 in case you didn't read it yet.

the 'Litmus test" you reference is exactly the point on which you and I agree, ie, the same site can provide the opposite point of view with the variable being whether one is looking for the pro or the con of it.

Yes, did read the FP April blurb about Abhisit which as a certain someone correctly points out is off topic . Reading threads around here one could think his government failed many moons ago but Abhisit keeps on truckin and is much better positioned at present and looking forward.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Publicus

[Rumfoord]

Go read Chalmers Johnson, he doesn't mention Obama either.

funny.

my guess is that the list of people that make no mention of Obama is endless. but how can it help to reading them for the clarification in the " Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize"?

If I may say so, you read well and smartly. So do you mean to say you found both Krebs' and Johnson's discussion of the 'aspirational' nature of the Nobel Peace Prize uninteresting or perhaps worse? I wouldn't want to try to put words in your mouth, but I take it you were unimpressed or unaffected by either scribe (and you would 'guess' an endless list of same or similar other writers)?

ohh, did you read Johnson's comment on the 'aspirational' nature of the Nobel Peace Prize? lacking the reference to a concrete text i don't even bother to search for it where i maybe can read some text that doesn't mention Obama. animatic also failed to explain why i should read Chalmers Johnson, funny attempt on name-dropping.

but when you say it could be relevant i will have a look at it. where i can found it, do you have a link?

Ronald R. Krebs writes about other issues related with the prize and i can see hardly any parallel to fit the Obama case into it, for the sake of clarification.

[sokal]

ever doubt that the http://www.militantislammonitor.org would you provide you with an other view or just looking for any reasons to justify their War on some terrorists (Robert Anton Wilson)

for the fun of it, go to http://www.militantislammonitor.org and type 'Obama' into the search mask.

Yes, that's quite the point in referencing sources. It's good to reference sources. However, after you and I (or other forumists) can hit the identical website and return with completely opposing points of view what's to stop certain of us quoting selectively, editing purposefully, or just going to a different source which of course would be a source you or I particulary like because of a mutuality we have with the site/source.

I reiterate sources and references are good and often do contribute to the discourse.

Still......

my guess is that on the http://www.militantislammonitor.org website you will find mostly a biased onesided preselected, narrow minded views on the "muslim problem". that isn't so useful for a discourse in a factual and objective manner.

the Litmus test would be, to check what they say about obama. the result will be a colour none of the both or three of us would put on his flag.

ps. as a reader of the Foreign Policy Mag, you might be interested in their turn on Abhisit, he is on the list of the Five Governments That Deserve to Fail.

the article was published in April 2009. follow this link: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4865 in case you didn't read it yet.

This is the best, most unbiased Islam information site on the internet. www.Thereligionofpeace.com

Edited October 10, 2009 by sokal

[Rumfoord]

my guess is that on the http://www.militantislammonitor.org website you will find mostly a biased onesided preselected, narrow minded views on the "muslim problem". that isn't so useful for a discourse in a factual and objective manner.

the Litmus test would be, to check what they say about obama. the result will be a colour none of the both or three of us would put on his flag.

the 'Litmus test" you reference is exactly the point on which you and I agree, ie, the same site can provide the opposite point of view with the variable being whether one is looking for the pro or the con of it.

as long conservative bitching about muslims far away from Us america it is okay for you to quote them, but in the moment they call Obamas policy socialist, they are are bunch of racist because socialist is their code word for "nigger"? or what you wanna tell me.

that you have a pretty chaivinistic view towards muslims as well, but because you love Obama you are a good boy?

ahhrrg. i forget. you are the one who doesn't get his facts right and have some fictional dreams about his adventures in D.C.

[Rumfoord]

There were 3 different sites referencing Taliban drug movements,

not JUST the one you cherry picked to salvage your argument.

yes, you should forward the articles per e-mail to your beloved Nobel Peace Prize darling and demand that he nuke those stone age foreigners before they sell more drugs to brave non-muslim us-american patriots.

[Publicus]

as long conservative bitching about muslims far away from Us america it is okay for you to quote them, but in the moment they call Obamas policy socialist, they are are bunch of racist because socialist is their code word for "nigger"? or what you wanna tell me.

that you have a pretty chaivinistic view towards muslims as well, but because you love Obama you are a good boy?

ahhrrg. i forget. you are the one who doesn't get his facts right and have some fictional dreams about his adventures in D.C.

Conservative, Muslims, racist, chauvanistic, socialist, bitching, nigger.......those are your words, not mine, so you can provide your own response to your own sensationalized verbiage.......

Edited October 10, 2009 by Publicus

[Rumfoord]

Yes, there are a few that disagree with him on purely ideological grounds such as John McCain. But former President Carter called out the others correctly as just good old fashioned Southern style racists.

Jimmy Carter has gone from one of the worst American Presidents in history to a deluded, anti-Semitic nutcase. Unlike him, the right's disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with race.

I will me back in CNX next month I will let you know what I have to listen to everyday. If you think that the right's disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with race then that is simply a naive conclusion resulting from your being distant from the reality. The bottom line is that the far right extemists, AKA the Republican base, use the word "socialist" as the code word for "nigger" and they imbue that word with all the venom and hated they would normally use with the older word. Ask them what is " socialism" and they haven't a clue. As Carter, despite his flaws, pointed out, it is not those who disagree with Obama on political grounds that are the racists, just those who demonstrate this incredible personal animosity.

Hear, Hear!!

Exactly, thx.

what about that bunch of board members that accused Thaksin of being socialist? is that code speech as well? at least some of them seems to have attitudes towards chinese. some of them are also obama fan boys, but without showing much abilities of deep political thoughts.

edit: error in quote edit

Edited October 10, 2009 by Rumfoord

[DickFarang]

They better had given the Prize posthumously to Father Damian (or: Damien), from today Saint-Damian.

The money had been well spent to the societies and centres named after him, who care not only for people with leprosy, but also for people with HIV/AIDS.

[animatic]

Thaksin was accused of being populist, this is faux socialist.

He was a capitalist pretending to be socialist to win votes.

Disingenuous and morally suspect at best,

Having lived in a Eurpean country for 10 years with a real

functional socialist government, that provided good services to most people,

and didn't raise my tax rate a half point, I have never found viable this

conservative, knee jerk, anti-socialist line of myopic thought.

Oh and it had a REALLY good national health care system where

NO ONE fell through the cracks...

Being anti-Taliban or even not liking ultra-strict Wahabeism doesn't make one anti-Muslim.

I just don't want to be forced to live in their version of life on earth.

And both of those sects freely admit that they want to convert all others to

their strained reading of the Koran. I live next to a Muslim village,

and have no issues at all with my neighbors.

On the other hand.

Being against insurgents financing their battles to gain control of a people who

really don't want them in their lives, and doing it through selling heroin to ANYONE else,

is not even vaguely racist. Those DOING that are racists in the extreme.

Since you only seem to be able to search when you want to here's a reading list.

by the way they are BOOKS.

Chalmers Johnson :

Peasent Nationalism and Communist Power

Revolutionary Change

Revolution and the Social System

Autopsy On Peoples War

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire

Sorrow Of Empires

And John Roosa's

Pretext For Mass Murder:

The September 30th Movement

and Suahrto's Coup d'Etat in Indonesia.

Puts into a better perspective the mechanisms Obama has inherited,

and relevant because Obama was raised partly in the Post Sept. 30 Indonesia of Suharto.

As well as how relatively benign the 2006 coup really was.

Let's not leave out :

The Black Swan. Probability studies.

Just because you have never seen a black swan,

doesn't mean you can assume there are none.

And try to find some back copies of

The Development Digest.

Maybe add ;

Man and Superman w/

"The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion,"

nah, not enough time.

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[Publicus]

Yes, there are a few that disagree with him on purely ideological grounds such as John McCain. But former President Carter called out the others correctly as just good old fashioned Southern style racists.

I will me back in CNX next month I will let you know what I have to listen to everyday. If you think that the right's disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with race then that is simply a naive conclusion resulting from your being distant from the reality. The bottom line is that the far right extemists, AKA the Republican base, use the word "socialist" as the code word for "nigger" and they imbue that word with all the venom and hated they would normally use with the older word. Ask them what is " socialism" and they haven't a clue. As Carter, despite his flaws, pointed out, it is not those who disagree with Obama on political grounds that are the racists, just those who demonstrate this incredible personal animosity.

Hear, Hear!!

Exactly, thx.

what about that bunch of board members that accused Thaksin of being socialist? is that code speech as well? at least some of them seems to have attitudes towards chinese. some of them are also obama fan boys, but without showing much abilities of deep political thoughts.

edit: error in quote edit

With each post, post after post, you keep wading in deeper and deeper.

Keep going until your hat floats

[LawnGnome]

Obama is good for America, and good for the world in general. He didn't ask for the award, but it was a nice honor, and he will do a lot of good for people, in spite of the wacko religious jesus/allah freak gun nuts of the world

[Spee]

Shame on him for deliberately misleading the American people.

I'll go along with that statement.

Everything except one thing about this guy is a joke. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

- His first two election victories were won not by Obama's experience and qualifications, but by the Chicago political machine's campaign of personal destruction against his opponents.

- The only election Obama lost was to Bobby Rush, a complete nutcase who went AWOL from the Army, founded the Black Panthers, and participated in felonious acts for which he was convicted and served prison time. And in the general election, Rush absolutely crushed Obama by a 2-1 margin.

- He voted present more than 130 times in 6 years as a state senator, yet made a conscious effort to vote in favor of late term partial birth abortions.

- He only voted in approximately 60% of his Senate votes, and most if not all of those were straight down party lines. So much for independent thought and being his own man.

- Obama says that we should all be our brother's keeper. Yet while he and his wife are wealthy millionaires many times over, much of his extended family lives in squalor. In other words, do what I say, not what I do.

- The history books show him as the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review. But there is no acknowledgement of the first Black editor, Charles Hamilton Houston, or other previous Black editors. It's all about the ego. It's all about Barry.

- He pretends to promote and defend the African-American culture, yet all he really does is promote himself and his ego.

- He bends over backwards to accommodate despots and dictators, while at the same time turning a cold shoulder to long term American allies.

The only thing that is not a joke, and frankly deadly serious about this guy, is his very clear intention to promote a very large central government, eliminate any remaining state powers, and then use that central authority to redistribute wealth, AKA use the force of government to steal money from those who have earned it and distribute it to those who haven't, all the while building the power and influence of the government.

Everything in these intentions is so contrary to the premise of the US Constitution and the formation of a Federal Democratic Republic of Independent States, that it is treasonous by its very definition.

For the Nobel committee to reward such an individual in the name of peace is an anathema to the definition of that word. At the very least, it is a clear demonstration that the desires and intents of the Nobel Peace Prize committee are completely contrary to those of America and those of a utopian world at peace. For that, the Nobel Prize committee can go <deleted> themselves for all I care.

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to decide which is the bigger farce, Obama, the UN or the Nobel Prize.

Now if you will excuse me, this topic has again caused me to have a need to puke.

[Rumfoord]

News flash!

SARAH PALIN WINS NOBEL PRIZE FOR LITERATURE!!!

At the same time, and amazingly enough, the Pulitzer Prize for Literature went to Sarah Palin for her stated intention “to read a book someday.” The former Alaska governor was described as “floored” by the award, announced in Stockholm by nud_e Swedes beating themselves with birch branches, and insisted that while she was very busy right now, someday she would make good on her vow to read a book. “You’ll see,” she said from her winter home in San Diego.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...itz_win_aw.html

the Pulitzer Prize isn't the Nobel prize for literature.

Obama got the Nobel Prize, a lot of peole thought: what aprils fool?

Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize, Obama got an international award, its lame to play now a joke on us american domestic politics. but okay Sarah Palin is not in the same political Party as the winner Obama. and Sarah Palin is a woman, a woman that is in politics and a woman that has a book deal. so let's play some misogynic sexist jokes on her. easiest victim.

as Obama fan boy, wanna stand on the moral high ground, you should try something better, some self-mockery. crack some jokes on Obama, you can still laugh about, before the others telling the kind of jokes you will find offending in your fan boy honour and you will rebut in an unfunny PC manner.

[animatic]

Uh, that last was sarcasm masquerading as irony.

I was wondering when this would show up.

Bought the party line hook, line and stinker.

It's like having a FoxNews Transplant intravenously.

Treasonous, LOL, you forgot to add the Birther arguments too.

Nobel ideas are contrary to a small but loud minority in America.

But a dyspeptic minority none the less.

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

sssnnnnzzzz

Edited October 10, 2009 by animatic

[venturalaw]

Shame on him for deliberately misleading the American people.

I'll go along with that statement.

Everything except one thing about this guy is a joke. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

- His first two election victories were won not by Obama's experience and qualifications, but by the Chicago political machine's campaign of personal destruction against his opponents.

- The only election Obama lost was to Bobby Rush, a complete nutcase who went AWOL from the Army, founded the Black Panthers, and participated in felonious acts for which he was convicted and served prison time. And in the general election, Rush absolutely crushed Obama by a 2-1 margin.

- He voted present more than 130 times in 6 years as a state senator, yet made a conscious effort to vote in favor of late term partial birth abortions.

- He only voted in approximately 60% of his Senate votes, and most if not all of those were straight down party lines. So much for independent thought and being his own man.

- Obama says that we should all be our brother's keeper. Yet while he and his wife are wealthy millionaires many times over, much of his extended family lives in squalor. In other words, do what I say, not what I do.

- The history books show him as the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review. But there is no acknowledgement of the first Black editor, Charles Hamilton Houston, or other previous Black editors. It's all about the ego. It's all about Barry.

- He pretends to promote and defend the African-American culture, yet all he really does is promote himself and his ego.

- He bends over backwards to accommodate despots and dictators, while at the same time turning a cold shoulder to long term American allies.

The only thing that is not a joke, and frankly deadly serious about this guy, is his very clear intention to promote a very large central government, eliminate any remaining state powers, and then use that central authority to redistribute wealth, AKA use the force of government to steal money from those who have earned it and distribute it to those who haven't, all the while building the power and influence of the government.

Everything in these intentions is so contrary to the premise of the US Constitution and the formation of a Federal Democratic Republic of Independent States, that it is treasonous by its very definition.

For the Nobel committee to reward such an individual in the name of peace is an anathema to the definition of that word. At the very least, it is a clear demonstration that the desires and intents of the Nobel Peace Prize committee are completely contrary to those of America and those of a utopian world at peace. For that, the Nobel Prize committee can go <deleted> themselves for all I care.

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to decide which is the bigger farce, Obama, the UN or the Nobel Prize.

Now if you will excuse me, this topic has again caused me to have a need to puke.

So very well put. For some reason there are many that ignore the obvious about him. If those firm believers would just look at the lowlifes with whom he surrounds himself, and the lies that he has been caught in regarding the extent of said relationships, I would think it would become crystal clear that this man has an agenda that IS NOT good for the US. Why so many can not see this, and instead become extremely angry and insulting for it being pointed out, is beyond me.

[Jingthing]

Hey there children, the election is over, you lost. Save it for later. Being in perpetual election mode is B O R I N G and unproductive. Let the people that won their elections actually govern and try to improve things for a change ...

Thailand isn't a real democracy but I have a tip for them, don't model your government on the US system, look somewhere else for examples, the US is showing signs of being ungovernable.

Congrats again to my President Obama for your undeserved hot potato of a prize.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

I asked everyone to stop fighting and return to a reasonable discussion. To those who did, thank you. To those who continued, see you in a few days.

Now I know the context of how it was used was not meant to be offensive but could we try not to throw the word "nigger" around? I get what you were saying Jolpa, but the word's mere presence can cause us headaches sometimes.

Thanks.

[Bolo]

US President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

By BBC

Oslo - US President Barack Obama on Friday won the Nobel Peace Prize less than a year after he took office with the jury hailing his "extraordinary" diplomatic efforts on the international stage.

The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

There were a record 205 nominations for this year's prize. Zimbabwe's prime minister and a Chinese dissident had been among the favourites.

The laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said as the prize was announced.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

-- The Nation 2009/10/09

Ronald Regan defeated the Soviets without firing a single shot and he got no Nobel prize. Nobel prizes are a joke and are just a fest for clueless academics and Euro trash.

I think Armand Hammer put that little dinner together that brought Regan and Gorbi to an agreement.

[gpdjohn]

You should all have been out getting laid and partying and by now have a massive buzz...

To think that some of you sat here all night arguing with each other on a computer is sad.

"Lighten up Francis"

[Roadman]

Good award. Given to Obama for being the opposite of the war mongering Bush lot. Well deserved to the USA and Obama.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, there are a few that disagree with him on purely ideological grounds such as John McCain. But former President Carter called out the others correctly as just good old fashioned Southern style racists.

Jimmy Carter has gone from one of the worst American Presidents in history to a deluded, anti-Semitic nutcase. Unlike him, the right's disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with race.

I will me back in CNX next month I will let you know what I have to listen to everyday. If you think that the right's disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with race then that is simply a naive conclusion resulting from your being distant from the reality. The bottom line is that the far right extemists, AKA the Republican base, use the word "socialist" as the code word for "nigger" and they imbue that word with all the venom and hated they would normally use with the older word. Ask them what is " socialism" and they haven't a clue.

What does the word "socialist" have to do with African Americans?

The code meaning that you are looking for is actually "communist" which socialism has much in common with and it has nothing at all to do with race.

Republicans feel that Obama's radical allies, his political history and his policies point firmly in that direction and they may have a point

Cracker Jimmy is looking for a Big Lie to discredit his enemies and if it takes the public's eyes off his own bigotry, so much the better.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[OriginalPoster]

I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but that seems a bit taken out of context. That Rush thinks that the Obama is a joke and the Taliban thinks Obama is a joke does not imply that Rush & the Taliban are on the same side, it just means that sometimes enemies have common enemies.

And of course the real danger is that when you have a democracy and the opposition defines the other side as an enemy to be despised and dehumanized in the same manner that war enemies dehumanize the opposing sides, then you are setting yourself up for a return to authoritarian rule or a fascist dictatorship. There is little humor in the far rights disagreements with Obama. They can't hide their animosity as was made perfectly clear when Chicago lost the recent Olympic bid. Yes, there are a few that disagree with him on purely ideological grounds such as John McCain. But former President Carter called out the others correctly as just good old fashioned Southern style racists. Beware that in our modern age the little Bavarian will come from the media. Limbaugh is just the predecessor, but still he and his ilk, Murdock's wayward and moronic children, remain a grave danger to the peace of the planet no less than Al Qaida.

Neither is ther emuch humor in the left's contempt for people on the right. (My "left", I'm referenig to people wo rally around Daily Koz, MediaMatters, and the like). And it's not just people like Limbaugh that get verbally shit upon by the left, it's anyone that they suspect might have ever listened to Limbaugh or might even watch (heaven forbid) Fox News. You need to look in the mirror a litle bit because you start casting stones, just because someone's politics are to the right of yours does not mean that they are evil morons nor that they are racists.

Edited October 11, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[brahmburgers]

what about that bunch of board members that accused Thaksin of being socialist?

"...accused T of being a socialist?" ....wow, that's the absolute nicest thing I could think to say about the guy.

Now if you will excuse me, this topic has again caused me to have a need to puke.

Be careful not to spee all over the bathroom floor.

Seriously though, I liken giving the Nobel Peace prize to Obama, as a sort of scholarship award. Obama shows a whole lot of promise, in regards to world-scale peace making possibilities for the future. He's already helped get some dialog going with the thugs who have a stranglehold on Burma. He's got the attention of failed states like North Korea and Pakistan - both jangling their nuclear options like giant rusty swords, toward their 'enemies' - both real and imagined.

Obama sits in the most powerful seat in the world. He has an immense potential for affecting world affairs. He knows it, the Nobel committee knows it, Americans know it, and to some extent the whole world knows. And he's generally admired worldwide.

The Nobel committee knew their choice would be controversial, in terms of what the man has achieved (not much thus far), ...but the potential for Obama to steer the world toward a less insane balance is large.

To some degrees, Obama will have to deal with the major potential flashpoints:

Taiwan/China, Pakistan/India, N.Korea/its neighbors, Iran/Israel, Middle East/everyone (all non-fanatics are targets for Arab terrorism - indeed, half the people blown up on any given day are decent Muslims).

There are also environmental aspects to world peace. A sane environment policy will make the world more habitable. Already, the Middle East is a dust bowl, and that's a major reason why its people are generally miserable and it harbors so many violent fanatics. China is an environmental basket case, and the list could go on and on. Obama looks to be a strong advocate for sane environment policies. Most other leaders put environmental issues down low on their list of priorities. Heck, Thai leaders don't even mention environmental issues in any meaningful ways.

[OriginalPoster]

Yes, there are a few that disagree with him on purely ideological grounds such as John McCain. But former President Carter called out the others correctly as just good old fashioned Southern style racists.

Jimmy Carter has gone from one of the worst American Presidents in history to a deluded, anti-Semitic nutcase. Unlike him, the right's disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with race.

I will me back in CNX next month I will let you know what I have to listen to everyday. If you think that the right's disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with race then that is simply a naive conclusion resulting from your being distant from the reality. The bottom line is that the far right extemists, AKA the Republican base, use the word "socialist" as the code word for "nigger" and they imbue that word with all the venom and hated they would normally use with the older word. Ask them what is " socialism" and they haven't a clue. As Carter, despite his flaws, pointed out, it is not those who disagree with Obama on political grounds that are the racists, just those who demonstrate this incredible personal animosity.

It seems to me that the "far right"'s personal animosity towards Clinton was at least as great as it is now for Obama. Some of them even accused the Clintons of murder but yet (as far as I recall) Clinton was white.

Carter, especially in his timing of the racism allegation, was pretty far off base as he offered it as an explanation as to why healthcare reform was being so fiercely opposed. That's pretty ridicuculous given that repbublicans have been opposing government involvement in the healthare system since the FDR adminsitration. It's predictable though that some will try to make everything abut race - fortuntely Obama himself does not do that.

Edited October 11, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[Spee]

... the election is over ..... Being in perpetual election mode is B O R I N G and unproductive.

I guess on this point we agree. The problem is Barry only knows campaign mode. Has anyone actually seen him do anything else during any elected office he has ever held? He has been in constant campaign mode for most of the last 12-13 years, and it continues up to this very moment.

Let the people that won their elections actually govern and try to improve things for a change ...

Raising taxes, bankrupting future generations and turning America from the land of equal opportunity to the land of equal outcome isn't governing, it is destruction, a cancer from within.

Thailand isn't a real democracy but I have a tip for them, don't model your government on the US system, look somewhere else for examples, the US is showing signs of being ungovernable.

Yeah let's make Thailand like Myanmar, Russia and China. All three are certainly governable, but is that type of government really in the interest of the vast majority of the populations?

To quote Mr. Spock ...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ..... or the one!"

Barry doesn't get it. Neither does the Nobel committee.

If Barry were a real patriot, and at all street savvy and world-wise, he would have rejected the Nobel prize and what it really is, an effort by the organization to further manipulate a very malleable individual.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Spee

[cdnvic]

Back on topic please.

[dkstoney]

^^Back on topic!?!?! This is the Thailand news section. What does this have to do with Thailand? This shouldn't even be posted here. Close the thread.