• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Matt

  1. I think the AP is correct: the Nobel committee does occasionally award the prize to encourage people and organizations who've accomplished little or nothing but whose efforts the committee supports. One outstanding example is Aung San Suu Kyi.

    Guess I'd have to see if the AP phrased it, as I thought when I was reading the article, to describe the original intent of the prize, or, as your example and many others show, how it is being used, regardless of the original intent. If the latter I'll give 'em a break. ;)

    TT's video points out many other examples like that as well.

  2. The links posted in this forum always amuse me :lol:

    Anyway... even I don't think Obama should have won the prize. Maybe in a couple years though, he may have been more deserving. He has great plans, they just haven't happened yet.

    What actually shocked me the most was Bill O'Reilly's reaction. I was expecting him to be much more critical of the situation.

    "Having a US President honored with a peace prize is good for the country."

    "President Obama was honored today, and deserved or not, the world is hearing 'America' and 'peace' in the same sentence. That's good."

  3. The media is giving this administration a free pass on everything.
    I can think of a certain media outlet owned by News Corp that would jump on Obama if he burped in public... and then call him a socialist.
    We bailed out companies so thousands of bankers can keep there six and seven figure salaries
    Wasn't the AIG et al bailout during the former administration?
    And while all this is going on leno and letterman are making Clinton and Bush jokes
    Shucks, I hate it when late night comedians don't cover the important issues!
    the so called news outlets are still going on about tea parties
    Wasn't the whole point of 70,000 people marching on Washington to make news?
    And now we want to tax working people so Gangbangers, skinheads, career criminals, hillbillies, illegal aliens etc. have full health coverage adding 45 million more patients to our health facilities.
    Yeah, those are the only people who would benefit from a public option. Certainly not a young post-graduate girl working two jobs and getting ready for grad school who lived my town who didn't have health insurance--and died. You're right. Obama wants to give a free ride to crack heads. That's his plan.
    And by rushing into a new healthcare plan nothing will change
    You're right it won't change anything. Everything good about the plan is being stripped out.
  4. I think its a dumb argument. When I bashed Bush (which I did a lot) I got a lot of the "love it or leave it" replies. I was told that I was very 'un-American'. I shrugged it off. When people bash Obama, they should also expect opposition.

    Treason? Really? Freedom speech and opinion goes both ways, so everyone is going to face opposition. I don't understand why people feel that they are being persecuted. To those who feel that way I suggest: just shrug it off. If you have opinions, expect people to disagree.

  5. Couldn't really explain this too well myself, so I did a quick Google:

    In regards to Communism on the far left and Fascism on the far right:

    There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite?


    However... this doesn't quite fit the "ring" idea.

  6. WASHINGTON - Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday brought out the much-awaited Finance Committee version of an American health-system remake — a landmark $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts a rough ride through Congress without visible Republican backing.

    The bill by Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring all individuals to purchase health care or pay a fine, and language prohibiting insurance company practices like charging more to people with more serious health problems.

    The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama's aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans.

    Read The Full Bill Here

    Read The Outline Here

  7. Not to belabor the point, but shouldn't a nationwide debate also candidly point out that communism/ socialism is diametrically opposed to nazism/ fascism?

    One cannot be both at the same time.

    True, Hitler and his Nazis did use the world "socialist" in their political party name, but they were NOT socialists by any stretch of the imagination.

    I understand that this fact is probably way too complicated for the Glenn Beck/ Joe Wilson crowd. But shouldn't they at least do a LITTLE reading before labeling the President of the United States as both a socialist AND a fascist? Please! I know that illiteracy is a big problem in some parts of the country, but audiobooks are readily available at most public libraries.

    Just my opinion.

    While that is technically true, many political scientists have abandoned the linear definitions of Communism and Fascism--with one on the far left and the other on the far right. Many have adopted an idea that the spectrum is more like a 'circle' in that if you go far left through Communism, you eventually start hitting ideals of Fascism. By this theory, the same applies for if you go far right.

    Regardless, I agree with you. For the context that any of this is being used, Communism != Fascism. That is, if you are using the Merriam Webster definitions.

  8. I'm a huge supporter of Kucinich. I'd vote for him for president. He was one of the very few to stand up in congress and confront Cheney on his actions. He was one of the very few to vote 'NO' in this situation that was nothing more than a waste of time and resources.

    I don't agree with Wilson on any level, but this reprimand by the House was absolutely pointless right now. Get back to working on our health care reform!

    Even as left-leaning as I am, that article was just ridiculous.

  9. I can deny any KNOWLEDGE of "Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh" "constantly portraying Obama with words like "Marxist", "Hitler", Nazism", "Communist", etc." I don't watch or listen to any of 'em

    Ok, that's fair.

    and frankly, I'm surprised that you watch, read and listen to them with enough regularity to know this to be the case.

    I actually do try to cycle through MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. While I have my opinions, I do like to watch the other side and listen to what they're saying (though CNN really annoys me since all they talk about these days is their Twitter updates <_< ). I don't agree with most things said on Fox News, but I have it on at least once a day. And, like you, I try to turn to local sources as well... but its rather hard to watch/read/listen that much in a day--it doesn't always happen.

    Bush was depicted as Hitler, burned in effigy, derided, demeaned, the list of lies and hate directed at him is practically endless. Why weren't you defending the literal definition of Nazi and why it does not apply to Bush?

    You're right, Bush suffered the same thing. As much as I didn't like him, though, I never called him a Nazi. Why didn't I defend him in that sense? Well, we didn't have a "World and Politics" forum then and it wasn't the topic of this thread.

  10. This type of semantic nit-picking works on both sides of the political aisle.

    It's also comparible to a tech argument that goes around occasionally concering what, exactly, defines a "hacker." Oh, there are all the dictionary definitions, there are several definitions held by various people or groups, and then there's the common useage of the word. I fall into the camp that accepts the common useage of a word, as opposed to some high-falutin', extremely narrow and highly restrictive definition.

    Almost any expert in almost any speciality will argue why their definition is the only one. It's a doomed argument, you can't stop words from eventually being co-opted by common useage. You. Can't. Stop. It.

    The problem then is, if conservatives believe that Obama fits under the much more moderate definition of Socialism... then how is comparing him to Marx or Hitler applicable, let alone logical? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    If you believe Socialism == Social Democracy == Obama

    then Obama != Marx != Hitler


    After posting the above, I realize that my statement generalizing the beliefs and attitudes of conservatives is unfair. Let me apologize for that and attempt to reiterate what I'm trying to say.

    The problem that I have--and perhaps its a problem with the media--is that many conservatives on TV, the internet, and in newspapers, are constantly portraying Obama with words like "Marxist", "Hitler", Nazism", "Communist", etc. You cannot deny that this is the frequent topic and delivery from high-profile names like Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. They clearly are equating Obama to such extreme concepts as cold-war communism, or Nazi-German fascism. Then, I see stories of people at town hall meetings with signs defacing Obama to look like Hitler. Shortly after, I see the Student Conservatives at my University doing the same things!

    So, I then believe that conservatives really do equate Obama to the far-narrow definition of Socialism. After all, if one is comparing him to Hitler or Marx, then they obviously(?) are using the Merriam-Webster definition.

    So, JDoors--and anyone else who'd like to be in this conversation, my questions for you are:

    What is your definition of Socialism?

    Is Obama one, and why do you believe that?

    Do you equate Obama to Marx, Hitler, etc, and why?

    Hopefully this will steer the conversation in a better direction than what my original comments may have done.

  11. He doesn't fit one man's definition of Socialist. Got it.

    He doesn't fit one Socialist's definition of Socialist.


    1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

    I've never heard anything like this come out out Obama's mouth. I have heard it come out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth, and Glenn Beck's mouth, and Sean Hannity's mouth... but not from Obama.

    2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

    a. Hmmm... I'm pretty sure we have private property and that the Obama administration has no intention of seizing it.

    b. Again... am I seeing different speeches and news conferences?

    3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    The only unequal distribution of goods and pay in this country is done by capitalism... not by any socialism...


    Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America, the country's largest socialist organization, said Obama is most definitely not one of them.


    It's silly, surreal, uninformed, and it certainly doesn't reflect what modern socialists think, and it doesn't reflect what Obama thinks. Obama's a market guy! Obama believes in markets. He probably spoke more about the role of the markets in the primary than Clinton did. So, there's no question that the Republicans are doing the same thing they did when Roosevelt was president -- confusing somebody who is trying to save capitalism from itself with somebody who is trying to destroy it. He's not trying to destroy capitalism.
    Q. Is Obama a socialist?

    A. No.

    Q. Is he a secret socialist?

    A. He's not a secret socialist. He's not any kind of socialist at all. He's not challenging the power of the corporations. The banking reforms that have been suggested are not particularly far reaching. He says we must have room for innovation. But we had innovation -- look where it got us. So I just...I can't...I mean laugh out loud, really.

    I was on Glenn Beck recently and he said Canada is a socialist country. Well, there is a party in Canada that's called "socialist" within the Democratic party, that's won some provincial elections, never won a federal election. It would be news to them that Canada is socialist. So it's just unserious.

    They always use socialism to try to defeat moderate reforms...just because something is government run doesn't mean it's socialist. I've never heard anybody say we have a socialist army.