Thread: Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize

Originally Posted by numpty

You cant blame him for receiving the award, as I'm sure he didn't actually ask for it. I totally agree that it is too early, as he himself said when interviewed about it.

It is my understanding from something I read a while ago that it s standard practice for the US President to be nominated every year. I am not sure who does it though. I imagine Obama could have stopped it but he probably had something better to worry about.

Originally Posted by ohleaky1

maybe its what i dont class as being free... e.g the whole monarchy thing is the biggest for me , how can Australia say its a free country when we still have the british rule thingy(apologies for my crappy way of writing things). my view anyway ! whats feedom to you dullbird? sure it would be quite different for any1 u ask?

The monarchy has no practical effect on Australian's freedom. I haven't been to the US but it doesn't seem all that free to me. Lots of places you cannot go day or night, social peer pressure seems to be enormous (just ask the Dixie Chicks), democracy a bit of a joke where you have the choice of two right wing parties. Seems like lobby groups control what you see, hear. Everyone is accountable for everyone else's injuries. Living in fear of terrorists and mainly because the government wants you in fear . But you can be a Nazi if you want (I saw that on Blues Brothers).

Ignoring the Nazi bit, sounds like where Australia is heading.

Scandanvia seems to be a bit freer but I ain't been there either.

In the words of Devo, "Freedom of Choice is what you have, Freedom from choice is what you want." You go spud boys!!

To me Freedom must include the immutable right to take accountability for your own actions.

Originally Posted by Offender90

Billions are pumped into the military-industrial complex while basic education, health care and social security are crumbling at the seams. For a country of their resources, that's shameful.

In the U.S. at least, the federal government enjoys (or is supposed to enjoy) only limited power, as specifically spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. While I look to the military-industrial complex with the same wary eye as you do, Offender, at least national defense is within the purview of what the federal government is supposed to be doing.

Control of education and health care are simply NOT powers the federal government have in our country. Social security is an unlawful power they have assumed and look what they've done with that! It is near bankrupt because it is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. They've done the exact same thing with Medicare, which is essentially federal health care. It is absolutely rife with corruption and fraud and near bankruptcy. Since the federal government created the Dept. of Education with the good intentions of helping the education of American children, the test levels drop as the billions of dollars go down the ever-widening DOE hole. (Wish. Dream. Hope.)

The way the American government was established, the federal gov't is supposed to be much more limited than the state governments. The designed intent was for the individual states to come up with their own, more locally-controlled, ways of handling such things as education, health care or such. If we had 50 different approaches to these issues, just IMAGINE what would happen! One or two system designs would soon stand out as being the most successful and the other states would adopt them. The principle of competition at play.

Originally Posted by Offender90

The US foreign policy is even worse.

You won't get much argument from me on that point! I did not join the service specifically because the U.S. has become the self-appointed world's policeman! Defense is one thing. Meddling is quite another. I sincerely wish America would be more like Australia or New Zealand in that regard.

I will say, though, that Afghanistan was in response to 9-11 and most of the world agrees it is a just response. Iraq, on the other hand, should have been handled by the UN, since it was the over a dozen or so UN mandates that were being violated following the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War. The UN, however, wouldn't act. It was their responsibility, though, not the US's. The United Nations is another of those Grand Ideas that simply does not, and cannot, work. (Wish. Dream. Hope.)

The interesting thing is what to do about Iran. They clearly are working toward becoming a nuclear power. There is no doubt they are the primary sponsor of terrorism throughout the world. Should we all just sit back and let them acquire such a deadly weapon? If not, what should be done?

Talks? That won't work with them. We can hope and wish our way through this all we want, but in the end, it is only the use of force, or the threat of it, that will make any difference. It's no different than if a nutty next-door neighbor, who has very seriously repeatedly threatened to burn your house down and kill you, starts building a giant flame-thrower in his back yard. "Oh that?" he says. "It's just intended to be a source of heat for home in the winter." What will you have the police do? (Talk.) And what do the police have to back up what they say? (The promise that he will be taken into custody, with force backed up by firearms, if he persists.)

Again, I have never supported the meddling my government does throughout the world and that is why I avoided military service. (I was ready to sign with the U.S. Coast Guard, however, but they don't offer flight training that I was seeking.) National defense is appropriate, but our military goes far, far beyond that legitimate purpose, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Offender90

As far as I can tell, Obama appears to be trying to reverse the process (at least the overt militaristic part), by promoting multilateral negotiations over direct military action.

Much to the dismay of the liberals who voted him into office, I don't think what Obama is doing is any different than what Bush was doing. (What else could he do, really....?) Obama is just better at public relations is all.....

Originally Posted by Offender90

His domestic policies directed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels and improving the health care system to benefit people, rather than pharmaceutical and insurance industries are steps in the right direction too.

What's wrong with fossil fuels, really? It would be sweet if a viable alternative could be developed and we could say adios to the middle east! But its private industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that is going to bring us out of the dependence on fossil fuels, certainly not anything the government will be able to do.

In energy, health care, pharmaceuticals, insurance, and everything else, what we need is LESS government meddling. Get out of the way and let the private sector continue to blow the socks off these industries, just as it has with the personal computer for example! They've become cheaper, smaller and amazingly more powerful, all amazingly without the help of gubmint! Gubmint meddling doesn't work in international affairs, right? Why should it work any better in business affairs? There are always unintended consequences at play when force is used to alter things.

Originally Posted by Offender90

a.) Individuals / corporations / industries with a lot of power & influence stand to lose from his proposed policies

And gubmint bureaucracies don't?!

Originally Posted by Offender90

b.) The majority of US citizens are oblivious to what goes on outside of the US and their opinion is easily swayed by the media (which often represent the interests of the elite which stand to lose from Obama's politics)

Ehhhh.... The media in this country overwhelmingly tend to support Obama and his policies. And I do mean overwhelmingly!

Originally Posted by Offender90

Yours truly, (expecting to get flamed based on some previous posts)

Well, I certainly have not meant any of my response to be taken as a flame. I hope it was not taken so.

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

It is my understanding from something I read a while ago that it s standard practice for the US President to be nominated every year.

The parties hold primary elections in each state where the members of each party (citizens) elect whom they want to be their party's candidate in the general election. This happens every four years a few months before the general election.

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

I haven't been to the US but it doesn't seem all that free to me. Lots of places you cannot go day or night...

Like where? You mean for safety's sake? I remember an evening I walked around Sydney and ended up in a part of town filling fast with biker gangs and police. The taxi driver bringing me back to the hotel was rather surprised I was there! I think the U.S. is no different. There are places one would want to avoid. If that's what you meant.

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

social peer pressure seems to be enormous (just ask the Dixie Chicks)...

You're just joking around, right? If not, then I have no clue what you're talking about!

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

democracy a bit of a joke where you have the choice of two right wing parties....

Right-wing? Here in the States you mean?! Both parties are leaning toward more and more of a socialist, big-gubmint agenda. The parties differ a bit in their philosophical ideals of things such as the use of military power, but differ little in the actual application of it.

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

Everyone is accountable for everyone else's injuries. Living in fear of terrorists and mainly because the government wants you in fear . But you can be a Nazi if you want (I saw that on Blues Brothers).

America's a funny place, to be sure! Our problem with accountability for others' injuries stems from our lack of a "loser-pays" civil legal system. If you spilled hot coffee from McDonald's on your lap and want to sue them, are you going to do so if you run the risk of having to pay court costs and McDonald's defense fees if you lose? Hardly.... I think we're the only nation screwed up enough to have it the way we do! And all gubmints want citizens to live in fear. It gives them more power. And as long as you don't harm anyone, in America you are free to be a skinhead ("nazi") or whatever other twisted group that floats your boat!

That said, I hope you don't think you're getting a serious picture of America from what the Dixie Chicks have to say and from old Blues Brothers movies!

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

Scandanvia seems to be a bit freer but I ain't been there either.

Check their tax rates before you move there!

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

To me Freedom must include the immutable right to take accountability for your own actions.

Boy! You have sure hit it spot on there!

I've enjoyed the discussion! Cheers.....

this decision simply undermines Nobel credibility and in essence rewards politicians for talking a lot and doing nothing....something all politicians can now take heart from.

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

It is my understanding from something I read a while ago that it s standard practice for the US President to be nominated every year. I am not sure who does it though. I imagine Obama could have stopped it but he probably had something better to worry about.
..........

I doubt it is standard procedure, but given the list of people (basically any member of any government or legislature plus a bunch of other people!) who can make nominations, it would be surprising if any missed out. Since publication of nominations is never done by the Nobel committee (although they have released a historical list to 1955) and they discourage nominators from revealing who they nominated, it is likely that your "understanding" is based on rumour.

John

I understand the nominations for the Nobel award have to be submitted by February.....he'd only been in office about 11 days - hardly enough time to unpack his bags let alone save the world

What a Joke !

Originally Posted by mudmouse

I understand the nominations for the Nobel award have to be submitted by February.....he'd only been in office about 11 days - hardly enough time to unpack his bags let alone save the world

What a Joke !

agree! posted something earlier in the thread along ths same lines , wonder which charity will recieve the million odd dollars in prize money.. everyone has had there thoughts on whether obama should or should'nt have recieved the award . If not obama than who do people think should of or was more deserving of it?

Originally Posted by DiscoStew

It is my understanding from something I read a while ago that it s standard practice for the US President to be nominated every year. I am not sure who does it though. I imagine Obama could have stopped it but he probably had something better to worry about.

Originally Posted by Binford

The parties hold primary elections in each state where the members of each party (citizens) elect whom they want to be their party's candidate in the general election. This happens every four years a few months before the general election.

Oh wait.... DiscoStew meant nominated every year for the Nobel prize!! Doooh!

Well that should teach me to post up before having my morning cup of coffee!

I dont give a hoot in hell who wins a peace prize.

I dont want us to become a Republic, I dont want to change the flag.
As far as I can tell it's only young people and socialists that do ?
My concerns over our ( my ) freedom are personal and petty. In the good ol days, I could travel pretty much where I wanted to, without restriction
or requiring a permit ( except in some of the early Aboriginal areas ).
I could pretty much roll out my swag anywhere in rural areas without being molested by young hoons or dickheads employed by some Government or council office. I no longer have that freedom. If they havent already, they will soon prevent me from choosing to venture into the desert in the middle of summer and its my favourite time of the year
out there, been there done that many times. You have to have a permit
to do just about anything these days and I cant help thinking that the day is not far off, when we will require a permit from the comrades, to
travel anywhere !!
Of course I realise that todays soft, molly coddled fool has to be protected from himself and controlled from birth to death as they are in many parts of Europe.
In a country this large and with so few people, I feel that we are over governed to blazes. I dont like it and have great difficulty accepting it.

Now to comment on the world at large, I think our biggest concern is
globalisation. In its present form it is not working. We are not globalised
people !!! It has led to greed and corruption on an international scale
and its a dog eat dog, every man for himself situation.

The greenback is still the benchmark for the world economy, yet Wall Street and banking greed and irresponsibility are resposible for the current
recession. Lessons are being learnt.
The benchmark should now be based on the Euro. The USA is seemingly
in decline and self destructing, they have lost the plot, I dont know how else to view it and it seems many other people feel the same way. Sad.
Anyway the real emerging power and those that offer any form of stability, is India, China and Europe, which has got to be a good thing
because it shifts the responsibilty from those that have messed up.
Food for thought.