Off-topic: Barack Obama - Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

[jemagee]

My favorite pizza place in town had a fire - and when they rebuilt the building it was some sort of young republicans reagan center, so i lost my favorite pizza place AND got a 'monument' to a mediocre actor who conned the country for 8 years.

...and the Taliban is partly responsible for getting the new Babylon 5 show cancelled.  BOMB THEM INTO THE STONE AGE!

All joking aside, bombing anyone back to the stone age has never really worked, if you give them a reason to turn away from their hatred, maybe you got a plan...but all bombing them back to the stone age does is ensure generation after generation of people who will be raised to hate White folks, americans, democracy, whatever.

It's asinine to think that you can get a group of people on your side by destroying the shit out of them.

The Israelis don't bomb the palestinians cause they think it'll change their mind - they believe that it's kill or be killed and live in constant threat the likes of which the normal american citizenry can't even fathom...the American Citizenry wants protection and safety but they don't want to be inconveienced....fly el-al once, just look cross eyed - they'll strip search you for 3 hours - and you know what - everyone who flys el-al knows that will happen...in the US if you gotta wait an extra 30 minutes people are going to complain - we institute asininely crazy rules to make people think somethings being done but the folks working for the TSA aren't exactly experts in their field.

The American people value convenience over safety - and bombing the taliban back to the stone age doesn't inconvenience most Americans - but it doesn't make us any safer - just maintains the status quo of hatred.

"They'll like us when we win" - that's a horrible tenet be it on the west wing or a governmental policy.

[JoMal]

As far as Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize - I have a hard time understanding how a leader of a country engaged in two wars still in progress in which we are fighting on foreign soil can receive an honor for peace, regardless of what he has done up to now to ameliorate the situation. When the war is over, maybe then, but while the fighting is not only going on but escalating??? But perhaps there was some reasoning being this. Somebody out there must have realized the crisis the world currently is facing.

As a lead into that though, the other political issue being discussed here is not so easily resolved, but connected.

We are certainly a fractured country and I believe it has worsened recently because media types made the arguments too black and white for most people to disregard or assimilate rationally. The exploitation of emotions for ratings has essentially blinded people to the bigger issues, such as how much influence did the Military Industrial Complex have in creating the need for and then maintaining the second Iraqi war? How culpable are Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft in orchestrating contracts and eliminating opposition so no roadblocks got in the way? How long will our descendents have to pay for the consequences of their actions to the detriment of our future safety and well-being here at home? How can they claim we are more secure now when our constitutional rights have been reduced while empowering our government to act more like a tyranny then a democracy?

Yes, Obama has so much to answer for. For instance, where does he start to heal this?  

I Do feel these issues were exacerbated back in Reagan's time. I know that certain elements on the right have pushed Ronnie to be considered one of the great modern presidents, but circumstances regarding how he got there and hindsight in how his threatening international big-talk never materialized once he was directly confronted puts him more in the loudmouth category who backed way down once things got dicey. Non- Reaganites out there who witnessed all of this with more understanding of what it all meant went against those who backed what Reagan did without regard for the long-term consequences set up the current animosities we see today.

For instance, how the attack on our military barracks in Beirut in 1983 should be analyzed. Even though almost 300 American military personnel were killed, making it the single most deadly attack against American soldiers since World War II, our response was tepid at best. Though advised NOT to station American soldiers in such a hostile environment and that such an action would NOT generate awe but just another unwelcomed enemy on their soil, Reagan thought the inspiring sight of American GI's would somehow quell the antagonists. Not only was he wrong, the consequences have directly created the scenario we face today.

Hezbollah received a tremendous boost in the Arab world as a direct result of this attack.  More importantly, they became financially viable to Syria and Iran as a supportable entity to fight Israel AND America. America itself was now both considered an easier target of aggression by such organizations and weak in being willing to respond in a serious manner if attacked.

This aspect would have been undermined with time except for the one thing for which Reagan has been most anointed for doing - bringing down the Iron Curtain. This one act - and I personally would argue that his part was much less then for all he has been credited since the USSR was teetering on collapse for some time - eliminated the only other recognized force on the planet that could have counterbalanced these conflicts, leaving the United States as the only target left. It also released unrecovered sources of enriched uranium and uranium-derived plutonium to the highest bidders. I would have to say that the security of those weapons and their fissile material now pose the most egregious concern for public health and safety.

Who still thinks Reagan deserves to supplant Teddy Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore?

[jemagee]

Who still thinks Reagan deserves to supplant Teddy Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore?

My gf would have laid down in front of tractors to prevent that from happening - i think he's #2 on her list of heros after Adams

[Joe Vancil]

There are people who think that my mother SHOULD BE KILLED because she will perform what's declared legal in this country - and they use YOUR BIBLE to justify it.

And there are people on the other side who say that it would have been legal to silence me, provided they got to me early enough - even if I might have been able to survive in the world at the time.  And they don't even HAVE a book guiding them!

What do you want me to say, jem?  That some people interpret the Bible wrongly?  Of course they do.  Some people interpret the laws of our country wrongly, and commit horrible atrocities by interpreting LEGALITY without INTENT.

In fact, I'll go you one better.  I believe in the Bible.  I believe it's God's word, and meant to be obeyed.  Heck, I'm even one of those evangelicals who would call it infallible.  And if I were going to bet money on it, I'd bet that I've interpreted a heck of a lot of the Bible wrongly.

Give me *ANY* document, and I can infer an intent that was *NEVER* posed by its author.  And that's why it's important to understand that if I claim I'm following God, there's only one correct answer - God's - AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER FOR SURE.  That's why we Christians are supposed to FOLLOW...why we're supposed to WAIT ON THE LORD.  Guess what.  I can't even say for certain that the interpretation that I JUST GAVE YOU is the CORRECT ONE.  Christianity is a much questions as it is answers.

I live in a country where it's 'first' amendment talks about how religion is supposed to stay separate and yet it's influence is insidious throughout our nation from the influence on the idiotic 'marriage' issue to caring what church a politician attends - and people making important decisions in terms of leadership based on only one issue that is more influenced than religion than common sense or practicality.

Actually, you live in a country that is supposed to allow you to pursue happiness, that is supposed to protect your right to choose how or if you worship, but *NOT* one that prevents another person from pursuing their happiness - even if theirs is counter to yours - nor is it to protect you from someone else worshipping (or not) as they choose.

On the idea of how a person choose who they vote for:  I pose this position for your consideration:  perhaps the founding fathers left in place the secret ballot and a person's right to vote as their conscience dictated to this end - if the American people are too stupid to make good decisions in how their government is to act, they shouldn't be allowed to prosper - we deserve what happens to us.  

There's one thing I don't think people understand about the founding fathers:  they believed in the rule of the majority.  Telling you HOW to believe is wrong - but once the vote gets conducted and the votes are counted, your two choices are obedience or overthrowing the government for its tyranny.

And I do have to wonder if a woman who voted for Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman would be subjected to the vitriol that a Christian voting for a Christian would be subjected to.  In my eyes, they're both just as wrong.

[JoMal]

And I do have to wonder if a woman who voted for Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman would be subjected to the vitriol that a Christian voting for a Christian would be subjected to.  In my eyes, they're both just as wrong.

They were, and viciously by the Christian Right as they made the very claim you just did.

Never underestimate the failure in our expectations of our fellow man to do the right thing.

[Joe Vancil]

JoMal,

Never underestimate the failure in our expectations of our fellow man to do the right thing.

    A sad-but-true commentary on our society, and the audacity that is required to dream the American dream.

    And, although disappointing, still preferable than believing the logical alternative - that we are, by nature, only what we are, and incapable of change.