[cherdanno]

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2009, 09:34 PM, said:

It is not the case that "socialism is bad" means "fascism is good". Nor, I think, are Nigel's comments about European socialists and Obama far off the mark.

LOL

[cherdanno]

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 09:43 PM, said:

On further review, I agree I should not have used fascism to make this point.

LOL

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2009, 09:09 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 11 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Nigel K wrote that,

Quote

2. Don't forget the people who vote for this thing are European socialists and Obama's view on foreign policy is a european socialist's wet dream.

At least you are consistent in your ideology - fascism good/socialism bad.

So Obama is a fascist? NigelK? Me? Anyone who disagrees with you?

Don't get your shorts in a knot - you missed the joke. With Nigel, it was socialism, socialism, socialism, so I elected to use a word that sounded contrary to socialism and elected to use fascism.

I guess I could have used Palinism - her beliefs seem to mirror those of Nigel. But the point was to show that anything Nigel objected to was labeled socialism.

Granted this is really off topic.

First off I still have no idea what a socialist's or European Socialist's war policy is. When I hear the word Socialist I think Economic policy.

Now if Winston feels a socialist economic policy is the opposite of a facist economic policy...I am not sure....at the very least I think it is an interesting discussion if they are opposites or the same.


Friedman talks about socialism and the President.



http://www.youtube.c...h?v=76frHHpoNFs

[Al_U_Card]

Fascism = the welfare of the common individual is not as important as the welfare of the state.

Socialism = the welfare of the state is not as important as the welfare of the common individual.

The US is (for now, but getting less and less) individualistic fascism. (Also called nationalism or patriotism or jingoism.)

[cherdanno]

See Winston? That's what you get for using the f-word.

[kenberg]

Individualist fascism? The mind boggles at the concept.

Various republicans (McCain, Pawlenty) have contented themselves with offering Obama congratulations. Which I, perhaps again cynically, take as shorthand for "The whole ting defies reasonable comment so the hell with it. Congratulations, dude."

I have a question, just for interest, not important. Can the president keep the money? I don't mean should he, I mean as a matter of law can he? It's cash, provided by a foreign organization, and the purpose is openly stated to be to influence international policy. As a practical matter it is not a big issue. The Obamas are not strapped for cash, they have bright futures, etc etc. I suppose they will give it away. Someone suggested ACORN could now use some money. A joke, I trust. Wilson and TR received the prize while in office, but that was long ago and laws were different. I don't know what they did and I don't know what current law permits/requires.

I realize this is off the theme of whether he should have been awarded the prize at all, but I am curious.

[Al_U_Card]

Has to be against the principles and ethics of the job (what is left of them) if it is not specifically set out that accepting "gifts" from sources foreign or domestic, while in office, is a no-go.

[kenberg]

In practical terms (my favorite terms) this would seem to be another reason to defer making the award until a person is out of office.

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed. For other Nobel laureats, it means $ in the bank (publishing both literature and scientific papers, research etc.). The PP is mostly prestige (aside from the 10 mm Kroner) but there does seem to have been an agenda in the nomination (February).

New Nobel for Committee wishful thinking????

[jdonn]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 12 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

Indeed. For other Nobel laureats, it means $ in the bank (publishing both literature and scientific papers, research etc.).

He claims he is donating it to charity. Pending which one(s) that turns out to be, that seems to me a perfectly good place for the money to end up.

[PassedOut]

Don't know about TR, but Wilson was very sick and needed the $40,000 (I think that was the prize in those days). There were no pensions for presidents when Wilson was president.

[luke warm]

i didn't read every post, so this might already be in here somewhere but - brother hugo agrees with the naysayers

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's socialist leader Hugo Chavez said on Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama had done nothing beyond wishful thinking to earn the Nobel Peace Prize.

Chavez, who has mixed praise for Obama personally with criticism of his government's "imperialist" policies, said he thought it was a mistake when he read the U.S. leader had won.

"What has Obama done to deserve this prize? The jury put store on his hope for a nuclear arms-free world, forgetting his role in perpetuating his battalions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his decision to install new military bases in Colombia," Chavez wrote in a column.

"For the first time, we are witnessing an award with the nominee having done nothing to deserve it: rewarding someone for a wish that is very far from becoming reality."

http://www.reuters.c.....59A1MU2009101

oh well... breakups are usually messy

[Al_U_Card]

I heard that they are witholding the economics prize until he becomes "bank-president" Obama...

[cherdanno]

I am ashamed I didn't realize this myself. Of course, he has been awarded the Nobel prize for this.

[Al_U_Card]

cherdanno, on Oct 13 2009, 11:31 PM, said:

I am ashamed I didn't realize this myself. Of course, he has been awarded the Nobel prize for this.

If there is a coin in the bottom of the mug, watch out for the press-gang!

[gwnn]

Hey nobody has linked this to the failed Olympic bid and the hit his image took because he was so openly endorsing it? Of course it would be sort of pointless, and not especially funny, but 134 replies passed, I was sure it would come up.

[Aberlour10]

gwnn, on Oct 14 2009, 08:16 AM, said:

Hey nobody has linked this to the failed Olympic bid and the hit his image took because he was so openly endorsing it? Of course it would be sort of pointless, and not especially funny, but 134 replies passed, I was sure it would come up.

Nec Hercules contra (IOC)plures!

[kenberg]

I'm fine with Rio as the site. I have no objection to Obama making a pitch for Chicago. For me this is pretty much a non-issue.

A somewhat ominous poll is referred to in Gerson's op-ed piece today. The op-ed piece is not so interesting but scrolling down you can get to the poll which turns out to be a somewhat extensive look at American-European relations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9101302654.html


Here is the part cited by Gerson:

A recent transatlantic poll asked whether the use of force can ever be "necessary to obtain justice." Seventy-one percent of Europeans said "no," while 71 percent of American said "yes.

This is a substantial difference of opinion. My own view is that there is still a place in the world for military force in support of worthwhile objectives but unless the Europeans are largely on board there is not a very good chance of success. The poll suggests that the chances of America and Europe seeing things the same way are not good.




It also suggests that the present European enthusiasm for America's new direction will be short lived. Mr. Obama agrees, I think, with the 71 percent of the Americans. Moreover, I don't think he could have been elected if this were not so. Ask Gene McCarthy or George McGovern.



Perhaps, in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama will yet "Pull a DeGaulle". I don't think anyone saw M. DeGaulle as a peace candidate but ha made the courageous and presumably correct decision to pull France out of Algeria (I know, it was technically more complicated than just pulling out). Pulling out of Afghanistan may very well be our best move (I doubt it, but maybe it is, I am no military expert) but I do not think it will be an indicator of future refusal to use American military power.


Here is a somewhat longer excerpt from the document:

Seven-in-ten Americans (71%) and two-in-three (66%)
respondents in the European Union and Turkey thought
the United States and the European Union had enough
common values to be able to cooperate on international
problems. This proportion had not changed much in the
United States in recent years, but it had improved noticeably
in Europe where only 55% thought there were common
transatlantic values in 2008.
But on a key value relating to security, the transatlantic
allies remained mirror opposites. Seven-in-ten Americans
(71%) believed that, under some conditions, war is necessary
to obtain justice. Seven-in-ten Europeans (71%)
disagreed with this statement. Only in the United Kingdom
(55%) did a majority of those surveyed agree with the
American view. But, notably, on both sides of the Atlantic,
support for war had come down somewhat over the last
four years.
This long-standing value difference also manifested itself
in perceptions of the relative importance of economic and
military power. Four-in-five Europeans (78%) thought
economic power was more important than military power
in world affairs. Three-in-five Americans (61%) agreed.

[luke warm]

well seeing as how obama just sent an additional 13,000 (is that figure correct?) to the war, the nobel prize was justified - after all, the additional troops are for peaceful purposes

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

well seeing as how obama just sent an additional 13,000 (is that figure correct?) to the war, the nobel prize was justified - after all, the additional troops are for peaceful purposes

Could you be more specific to what you mean by "Obama sent" in this particular case? The White House claims this increase was ordered by Bush. Not to admit laziness, but other than what they said I know nothing about it, so maybe someone can clarify.