http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-snub
QuoteBarack Obama has turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty
Barack Obama's trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.
Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.
The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.
He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.
According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.
"Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. "This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy," she told VG.
The Norwegian Nobel committee, which awards the peace prize, dismissed the criticism. "We always knew that there were too many events in the programme. Obama has to govern the US and we were told early on that he could not commit to all of them," said Geir Lundestad, secretary of the committee.
Although Obama will not lunch with King Harald, he will see him on a visit to the royal palace.
Peace activists opposed to the Afghanistan war are planning a 5,000-strong protest in Oslo.
The visit will test Obama's rhetorical skills as he seeks to reconcile acceptance of the Nobel peace prize with sending an extra 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan.
White House officials said that Obama, who was planning to work on the final draft of his speech on his flight from Washington to Oslo, would directly address the issue of the irony of being awarded the peace prize while escalating the war.
The Nobel peace committee has been criticised for awarding Obama the prize before he has any major accomplishments in international relations.
A White House official said that it was not necessarily an award that Obama would have given himself.
I'm torn. Yea, he's a busy man, as president, but for an award he didn't deserve, the least he could do is respect the people giving it to him. Does seem like a bit of a slap in the face to Norwegians.
George Will had a nice line in his weekly Newsweek article (I paraphrase some). President Obama will be called on to deliver a fine speech on receipt of the Nobel Prize he won for all the fine speeches he has delivered.
Maybe he was afraid of somebody getting a picture of him bowing to the Norwegian King.
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
I love how all the pinheads are blaming the blunder of awarding the NPP to the wrong man on the recipient! :lol:
He isn't the fake in this situation. The award is the fake. that he doesn't respect the award any more than absolutely required earns him kudos from me, and if the Norwegians don't like it, they should address their anger to the people who trashed the credibility of their prize over the last few decades (but never more than this year).
If you come to Norway you have to be nice to the King. Obama also turned down an invitation to stay at the Royal Palace, preferring to stay at the Grand Royal Hotel with his staff. Usually handing out the prize is a 3 day bonanza of meetings, press conferances, interviews, state dinners and conferances. Effectively the Laureate is treated like a visiting head of state.
But Obama needs a decent reason not to go to Copenhagen if the climate conferance is a bust (remember the last time he went there?). He can't use the argument that he doesn't have time when he is being wined and dined and fawned over in Oslo, just 1 hour by Air Force 1 away.
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
I love how all the pinheads are blaming the blunder of awarding the NPP to the wrong man on the recipient! :lol:
He isn't the fake in this situation. The award is the fake. that he doesn't respect the award any more than absolutely required earns him kudos from me, and if the Norwegians don't like it, they should address their anger to the people who trashed the credibility of their prize over the last few decades (but never more than this year).
I blame this man. Thorbjørn Jagland.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fnyheter%2F2000%2F07%2F09%2FDI_5sl26kchSvaboSak2.JPG&hash=c5bc92237e58a24fbb16fe68f4181a97282f8689)
(the guy holding the mini-caligas)
Present leader of the Council of Europe and the Norwegian Nobel Comittee and former President of the Norwegian Parliament and former Prime Minister of Norway.
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2009, 09:31:49 AM
Effectively the Laureate is treated like a visiting head of state.
In this case, he is a visiting head of state.
At any rate, the Norwegians shouldn't get worked up. The sold themselves cheap, why would anyone treat them with respect?
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
I love how all the pinheads are blaming the blunder of awarding the NPP to the wrong man on the recipient! :lol:
He isn't the fake in this situation. The award is the fake. that he doesn't respect the award any more than absolutely required earns him kudos from me, and if the Norwegians don't like it, they should address their anger to the people who trashed the credibility of their prize over the last few decades (but never more than this year).
:blink:
You've got issues.
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
I love how all the pinheads are blaming the blunder of awarding the NPP to the wrong man on the recipient! :lol:
He isn't the fake in this situation. The award is the fake. that he doesn't respect the award any more than absolutely required earns him kudos from me, and if the Norwegians don't like it, they should address their anger to the people who trashed the credibility of their prize over the last few decades (but never more than this year).
Agreed. I've said before that this isn't Obama's doing, but that he stands to suffer criticism for it. This more reflects on the manner of award giving, and those doing the awards, and how that process is viewed.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:39:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
I love how all the pinheads are blaming the blunder of awarding the NPP to the wrong man on the recipient! :lol:
He isn't the fake in this situation. The award is the fake. that he doesn't respect the award any more than absolutely required earns him kudos from me, and if the Norwegians don't like it, they should address their anger to the people who trashed the credibility of their prize over the last few decades (but never more than this year).
:blink:
You've got issues.
What grumbler said is not outrageous at all. :mellow:
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:39:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
I love how all the pinheads are blaming the blunder of awarding the NPP to the wrong man on the recipient! :lol:
He isn't the fake in this situation. The award is the fake. that he doesn't respect the award any more than absolutely required earns him kudos from me, and if the Norwegians don't like it, they should address their anger to the people who trashed the credibility of their prize over the last few decades (but never more than this year).
:blink:
You've got issues.
Actually, that's one of grumbler's better posts.
A solid 40% of his posts are something to the effect of how someone's point is invalidated because they didn't hypenate correctly, or used a paragraph break in the wrong place, or used 'ran' instead of 'fled'. But this was great wisdom on his part, and you would do well to learn from him and to make sacrifices at my altar.
Quote from: Neil on December 10, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
Actually, that's one of grumbler's better posts.
A solid 40% of his posts are something to the effect of how someone's point is invalidated because they didn't hypenate correctly, or used a paragraph break in the wrong place, or used 'ran' instead of 'fled'. But this was great wisdom on his part, and you would do well to learn from him and to make sacrifices at my altar.
I agree there, this is the first grumbler post I've replied to in about two or three years now.
forgive my ignorance, but..
how many other winners of the nobel peace prize who participated in these events were the acting head of government at the time of their acceptance? i suppose the real question might be, how long would it take to get through the traditional events? there are some heated topics going on in the united states right now, and i'm not sure the president would want the possible backlash from being shown running around in norway with his peace prize while the issue of health care is still on the floor. his administration might feel that it would just add more criticism
Quote from: The Larch on December 10, 2009, 09:44:26 AM
What grumbler said is not outrageous at all. :mellow:
It was an incredibly stupid post.
How could anyone short of a conspiracy theorist possibly say it was Obama's fault for winning the nobel peace prize? There's just no way that could possibly be the case.
BTW, I'd recommend you guys to read Obama's acceptance speech. He makes some points that you may find interesting. I quote some parts:
QuoteI receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
QuoteBut perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
QuoteWe must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
QuoteBut as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
QuoteI believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:49:12 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 10, 2009, 09:44:26 AM
What grumbler said is not outrageous at all. :mellow:
It was an incredibly stupid post.
How could anyone short of a conspiracy theorist possibly say it was Obama's fault for winning the nobel peace prize? There's just no way that could possibly be the case.
He doesn't say it was Obama's fault, read it again.
Quote from: Lacroix on December 10, 2009, 09:47:27 AM
forgive my ignorance, but..
how many other winners of the nobel peace prize who participated in these events were the acting head of government at the time of their acceptance? i suppose the real question might be, how long would it take to get through the traditional events? there are some heated topics going on in the united states right now, and i'm not sure the president would want the possible backlash from being shown running around in norway with his peace prize while the issue of health care is still on the floor. his administration might feel that it would just add more criticism
Woodrow Wilson, FW de Klerk, Anwar Sadat, Oscar Arias Sanchez, Mikhail Gorbachev, Kim Dae-Jung and Barack Obama.
Edit: Teddy Roosevelt refused to accept the prize while president.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:49:12 AM
How could anyone short of a conspiracy theorist possibly say it was Obama's fault for winning the nobel peace prize? There's just no way that could possibly be the case.
:huh: At comprehending grumbler's post you get an EPIC FAIL. It was perfectly reasonable and, like virtually everyone else, I agree with it completely.
Good speech. :)
At what point did the committee walk out? :D
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2009, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 10, 2009, 09:47:27 AM
forgive my ignorance, but..
how many other winners of the nobel peace prize who participated in these events were the acting head of government at the time of their acceptance? i suppose the real question might be, how long would it take to get through the traditional events? there are some heated topics going on in the united states right now, and i'm not sure the president would want the possible backlash from being shown running around in norway with his peace prize while the issue of health care is still on the floor. his administration might feel that it would just add more criticism
Woodrow Wilson, FW de Klerk, Anwar Sadat, Oscar Arias Sanchez, Mikhail Gorbachev, Kim Dae-Jung and Barack Obama.
thank you. :)
QuoteYet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 09:55:11 AM
:huh: At comprehending grumbler's post you get an EPIC FAIL. It was perfectly reasonable and, like virtually everyone else, I agree with it completely.
:rolleyes:
He was accusing me of believing that. Which as I said is just nutty.
Obama as a NPP winner is a fake -no where did I say this was his fault.
Just imagine if you wake up tomorrow to a phone call saying you've won the nobel peace prize.
My first reaction would be 'wtf' and through all the hoopla would see myself as a fake, in a position I don't belong. I'd be thinking 'any minute now they'll realise they've made a mistake somewhere' and would not be comfortable with anything to do with the NPP.
Of course Obama is in a less fake position than I would be (due to already being on the world stage) but still. Perhaps he does see his victory as unjustified.
I suppose he does feel it is unjustified. Then again, I also suppose he is a narcissist--so who knows exactly what he thinks when he gets yet another undeserved accolade. ^_^
I also agree with Grumbler. Personally I think it would have been better not to accept the damn thing at all. Still it is like a million bucks. I'd take it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 10, 2009, 10:09:57 AM
I also agree with Grumbler. Personally I think it would have been better not to accept the damn thing at all. Still it is like a million bucks. I'd take it.
QuotePeter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man: two chicks at the same time, man.
Like he needs the money. :D He's gotten rich off his book sales and, like Clinton, will be able to turn his post-presidency into an extremely lucrative career.
I agree it would have been better to not accept it, but it would have caused the Nobel idiots extreme embarassment for him to do that. He was put in an extremely awkward position by those fools.
I TAKE A STAND with poor Joe Squeeze. "Obama is a fake" obviously referred to the validity of the prize, not to Obama's authenticity as a person.
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 10:12:05 AM
Like he needs the money. :D He's gotten rich off his book sales and, like Clinton, will be able to turn his post-presidency into an extremely lucrative career.
I agree it would have been better to not accept it, but it would have caused the Nobel idiots extreme embarassment for him to do that. He was put in an extremely awkward position by those fools.
I would have taken the cash. I've done alot for world peace. I mean, I did save those planets from the Zerg a while back. Well some of them anyway.
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 10:12:05 AM
I agree it would have been better to not accept it, but it would have caused the Nobel idiots extreme embarassment for him to do that. He was put in an extremely awkward position by those fools.
Agreed. He was put in a lose-lose situation. Not sure if he took the best of the bad options, but there were only bad options.
I'm sorry did Norway think they mattered?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 10, 2009, 10:43:33 AM
I'm sorry did Norway think they mattered?
I think it's funny that it's a big deal he skipped out on a lunch with the King. Does Norway's King have any actual political power (not a rhetorical question... I really don't know for sure)? Assuming 'no', then materially how is he different from any other rich dude? Shouldn't Obama be spending his time trying to, you know, get shit done? I don't think he has time to waste having tea and cupcakes with random rich people, especially if they're foreign random rich people who probably can't bribe Congressmen to do what Obama wants them to do.
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
I understand that, but the guy (Obama) is really busy. If snubbing the King of Norway would result in Norway ending oil or sardine exports, or perhaps withdrawing from NATO, then that's one thing. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :)
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 11:02:23 AMI understand that, but the guy (Obama) is really busy. If snubbing the King of Norway would result in Norway ending oil or sardine exports, or perhaps withdrawing from NATO, then that's one thing. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :)
You're not polite to someone to stop them from hitting you, if you don't say 'thank you'. You're polite because politeness and courtesy are the right way to behave.
A lunch wouldn't have taken up much time and would have been courteous and indicate a bit of respect.
I'm sure he had some valid reason or another for not attending. -_-
I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama. :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
I understand that, but the guy (Obama) is really busy. If snubbing the King of Norway would result in Norway ending oil or sardine exports, or perhaps withdrawing from NATO, then that's one thing. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :)
Well in practical terms the Norwegians have the usual six options:
One: do nothing.
Two: issue a statement deploring Obama's snub.
Three: lodge an official protest.
Four: cut off aid.
Five: break off diplomatic relations.
And six: declare war.
Unfortunately
If they do nothing, they implicitly agree with the snub.
If they issue a statement, they'll just look foolish.
If they lodge a protest, it'll be ignored.
they can't cut off aid, because they don't give us any.
If they break off diplomatic relations, they can't sell us oil.
And if they declare war, it might just look as though they were over-reacting.
Don't think Obama has not done the calculus here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 11:04:33 AM
You're not polite to someone to stop them from hitting you, if you don't say 'thank you'. You're polite because politeness and courtesy are the right way to behave.
A lunch wouldn't have taken up much time and would have been courteous and indicate a bit of respect.
Lunch would have been nice. Maybe a quick trip to the drive through window at Sardine-in-the-Box if he was really that pressed for time.
Can't fault the dude for skipping the children's stuff and the concert. :zzz
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
I understand that, but the guy (Obama) is really busy. If snubbing the King of Norway would result in Norway ending oil or sardine exports, or perhaps withdrawing from NATO, then that's one thing. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :)
Well in practical terms the Norwegians have the usual six options:
One: do nothing.
Two: issue a statement deploring Obama's snub.
Three: lodge an official protest.
Four: cut off aid.
Five: break off diplomatic relations.
And six: declare war.
Unfortunately
If they do nothing, they implicitly agree with the snub.
If they issue a statement, they'll just look foolish.
If they lodge a protest, it'll be ignored.
they can't cut off aid, because they don't give us any.
If they break off diplomatic relations, they can't sell us oil.
And if they declare war, it might just look as though they were over-reacting.
Don't think Obama has not done the calculus here.
This documentary explains the relevant dynamics:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
I understand that, but the guy (Obama) is really busy. If snubbing the King of Norway would result in Norway ending oil or sardine exports, or perhaps withdrawing from NATO, then that's one thing. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :)
Pulling out of Afghanistan :contract:
Unlikely to happen, but it doesn't help. The junior party in the government (socialist left) want's out of Afghanistan and NATO.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
It helps Euro nations avoid the problems with Bush. You can slander and abuse Norwegian PM Stoltenberg but you go and make nice with the king and nobody will confuse your hate of Stoltenberg's policies with hatred of Norway.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Four: cut off aid.
Unfortunately
they can't cut off aid, because they don't give us any.
Norway has 700 men in Afghanistan. They can be recalled.
So what's the word on the Norwegian street Viking?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 11:56:05 AM
So what's the word on the Norwegian street Viking?
:wub: Obama
so, norway is not going to do anything about it.... right now there is a torchlight demonstration in front of the parliament by the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament along with other groups (including iranian exile groups) protesting FOR the US President.
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 10:58:10 AM
I think it's funny that it's a big deal he skipped out on a lunch with the King.
Fits nicely into my theory that Obama will gladly bow to non-white monarchs/heads of state, but disrespects European ones. As always, I blame the skirts (in this case, Michelle) :D
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 11:05:56 AM
I'm sure he had some valid reason or another for not attending. -_-
I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama. :huh:
One of Obama's daughters might have had a school recital that he wanted to get back in time for??
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 10, 2009, 10:43:33 AM
I'm sorry did Norway think they mattered?
Assuming 'no', then materially how is he different from any other rich dude? Shouldn't Obama be spending his time trying to, you know, get shit done?
assuming 'no,' then he has nothing better to do than eat lunch with kings! :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 11:56:05 AM
So what's the word on the Norwegian street Viking?
Probably a variant on " Meg God! Denne øl er latterlig dyr!", it usually is :huh:
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
Fits nicely into my theory that Obama will gladly bow to non-white monarchs/heads of state, but disrespects European ones. As always, I blame the skirts (in this case, Michelle) :D
Is Obama racist against the white man? :(
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2009, 11:55:40 AM
Norway has 700 men in Afghanistan. They can be recalled.
meh, they're just there to loot monasteries and carry off wimmins anyway :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
I love how all the pinheads are blaming the blunder of awarding the NPP to the wrong man on the recipient! :lol:
He isn't the fake in this situation. The award is the fake. that he doesn't respect the award any more than absolutely required earns him kudos from me, and if the Norwegians don't like it, they should address their anger to the people who trashed the credibility of their prize over the last few decades (but never more than this year).
Every now and then I completely agree with something you've posted.
This usually causes me anxiety.
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 12:21:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
Fits nicely into my theory that Obama will gladly bow to non-white monarchs/heads of state, but disrespects European ones. As always, I blame the skirts (in this case, Michelle) :D
Is Obama racist against the white man? :(
Dunno. I think Michelle is, at least.
I liked President Obama's speech listed a couple of pages earlier in this thread. Very well said.
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:39:32 AM
:blink:
You've got issues.
:lmfao: Straight to the
ad hominim fallacy without even passing go!
Obama's treatment of the Norwegian king is
surely all about my issues! :rolleyes:
Did he bow to the King of Norway?
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 12:22:25 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2009, 11:55:40 AM
Norway has 700 men in Afghanistan. They can be recalled.
meh, they're just there to loot monasteries and carry off wimmins anyway :rolleyes:
Or to produce an Afghanistan version of the Kosovo song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPGEl-uqvwg
Norway sucks, but so does Obama.
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2009, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 12:21:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
Fits nicely into my theory that Obama will gladly bow to non-white monarchs/heads of state, but disrespects European ones. As always, I blame the skirts (in this case, Michelle) :D
Is Obama racist against the white man? :(
Dunno. I think Michelle is, at least.
She also has a black helicopter she got from the UN.
Sweet speech, I bet the committee was feeling some buyers remorse after that! :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
I understand that, but the guy (Obama) is really busy. If snubbing the King of Norway would result in Norway ending oil or sardine exports, or perhaps withdrawing from NATO, then that's one thing. But we all know that isn't going to happen. :)
Well in practical terms the Norwegians have the usual six options:
One: do nothing.
Two: issue a statement deploring Obama's snub.
Three: lodge an official protest.
Four: cut off aid.
Five: break off diplomatic relations.
And six: declare war.
Unfortunately
If they do nothing, they implicitly agree with the snub.
If they issue a statement, they'll just look foolish.
If they lodge a protest, it'll be ignored.
they can't cut off aid, because they don't give us any.
If they break off diplomatic relations, they can't sell us oil.
And if they declare war, it might just look as though they were over-reacting.
Don't think Obama has not done the calculus here.
Well played. :bowler:
Cal, here's one of the reasons Norwegians are angry:
QuoteKing Harald LIVED in the White House during WW II when he was a kid as guests of his god father - FDR.
I'm all for ignoring royalty, but King Harald is a somewhat different case. He still speaks English with a pronounced Tidewater accent, and calls people 'hon'. He crawled out of his sick bed to accompany his father to President Kennedy's funeral. Like his father before him, he has never invited a Republican President to the royal palace because they hate Republicans.
It's a minor diplomatic gaffe, but it's one in a string of gaffes from this man's presidency.
Maybe Obama met with the Japanese Emperor to make up for the fact that FDR didn't let his family live in the White House too? :(
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 10, 2009, 10:43:33 AM
I'm sorry did Norway think they mattered?
I think it's funny that it's a big deal he skipped out on a lunch with the King. Does Norway's King have any actual political power (not a rhetorical question... I really don't know for sure)? Assuming 'no', then materially how is he different from any other rich dude? Shouldn't Obama be spending his time trying to, you know, get shit done? I don't think he has time to waste having tea and cupcakes with random rich people, especially if they're foreign random rich people who probably can't bribe Congressmen to do what Obama wants them to do.
How is meeting the Norwegian King different from meeting the Japanese Emperor. Both are old rich dudes with no political power, but who are immensely respected by their own people.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2009, 03:28:55 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 10, 2009, 10:43:33 AM
I'm sorry did Norway think they mattered?
I think it's funny that it's a big deal he skipped out on a lunch with the King. Does Norway's King have any actual political power (not a rhetorical question... I really don't know for sure)? Assuming 'no', then materially how is he different from any other rich dude? Shouldn't Obama be spending his time trying to, you know, get shit done? I don't think he has time to waste having tea and cupcakes with random rich people, especially if they're foreign random rich people who probably can't bribe Congressmen to do what Obama wants them to do.
How is meeting the Norwegian King different from meeting the Japanese Emperor. Both are old rich dudes with no political power, but who are immensely respected by their own people.
Norway is colder.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 10, 2009, 12:18:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2009, 11:56:05 AM
So what's the word on the Norwegian street Viking?
Probably a variant on " Meg God! Denne øl er latterlig dyr!", it usually is :huh:
It's like Cato's Cartago Delenda Est. It is said before and after any other statement.
QuoteKing Harald LIVED in the White House during WW II when he was a kid as guests of his god father - FDR.
I'm all for ignoring royalty, but King Harald is a somewhat different case. He still speaks English with a pronounced Tidewater accent, and calls people 'hon'. He crawled out of his sick bed to accompany his father to President Kennedy's funeral. Like his father before him, he has never invited a Republican President to the royal palace because they hate Republicans.
:lol:
Wow, that is one awesome king. Can we have him?
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2009, 01:07:19 PM
:lo: Straight to the ad hominim fallacy without even passing go!
Obama's treatment of the Norwegian king is surely all about my issues! :rolyes:
Wow, at first I thought you were just witch hunting but now it seems you really are dense enough to believe what you wrote. I just don't know what to say. Blimey.
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 06:25:28 AM
Wow, at first I thought you were just witch hunting but now it seems you really are dense enough to believe what you wrote.
Having gone straight to the
ad hominim, why back off? Pile on some more and add a personal insult! At least your arguments are consistent. :cool:
I enjoy seeing people like you engage in them because it merely proves that you have no rational response to my argument, else you would be using it. So, please, pour on the insults and
ad homs, because I enjoy seeing you make them almost as much as you enjoy making them. :hug:
QuoteI just don't know what to say. Blimey.
Sure you know what to say! Make another
ad hom argument (or even just a personal insult)!
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 07:12:54 AM
I enjoy eeing people like you engage in them because it merely proves that you have no rational response to my argument, else you would be using it. So, please, pour on the insults and ad homs, because I enjoy seeing you ae them almost as much as you enjoy making them. :huSure you know what to say! Make another ad hom argument (or even just a personal insult)!
Are you trolling here or what?
I'm just confused.
I've already rationally responded to and refuted your silly argument.
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
:wub: Obama
so, norway is not going to do anything about it.... right now there is a torchlight demonstration in front of the parliament by the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament along with other groups (including iranian exile groups) protesting FOR the US President.
I think Norway should unilaterally disarms its nuclear weapons.
Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 12:21:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
Fits nicely into my theory that Obama will gladly bow to non-white monarchs/heads of state, but disrespects European ones. As always, I blame the skirts (in this case, Michelle) :D
Is Obama racist against the white man? :(
After years of looking down to the black man, whitey is now getting a taste of his own medicine.
Check your facebook Bob.
Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2009, 03:28:55 AM
How is meeting the Norwegian King different from meeting the Japanese Emperor. Both are old rich dudes with no political power, but who are immensely respected by their own people.
CLEARLY it's more important that he meet random fake rich people who crash White House parties than the King of Norway. :)
If he ain't Haakon, he's fakin'.
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 07:21:56 AM
Are you trolling here or what?
I'm just confused.
I've already rationally responded to and refuted your silly argument.
Ah, that's absolutely outstanding! :lol:
You add to the
ad homs and personal insults a pre-emptive declaration of victory! :lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 08:10:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 07:21:56 AM
Are you trolling here or what?
I'm just confused.
I've already rationally responded to and refuted your silly argument.
Ah, that's absolutely outstanding! :lol:
You add to the ad homs and personal insults a pre-emptive declaration of victory! :lmfao:
So...yes?
Good to know.
Just for the record, grumbler, how are you supposed to rationally respond to an argument that's just completely out there? If someone makes an argument that leaves you thinking "Wow, that was just bizarrely idiotic, can that guy even read?", how are you supposed to let that be known without being judged to engage in "ad homs"?
Not everything is a fucking ad homs.
Also, stop using latin.
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 08:20:12 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 08:10:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 07:21:56 AM
Are you trolling here or what?
I'm just confused.
I've already rationally responded to and refuted your silly argument.
Ah, that's absolutely outstanding! :lol:
You add to the ad homs and personal insults a pre-emptive declaration of victory! :lmfao:
So...yes?
Good to know.
You didn't do anything to refute his argument, you just laughed at it.
Why, I'm not sure, it's a reasonable position. Surely the committee should be faulted for nominating Obama, not Obama himself.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
You didn't do anything to refute his argument, you just laughed at it.
Why, I'm not sure, it's a reasonable position. Surely the committee should be faulted for nominating Obama, not Obama himself.
See my 3rd and 4th posts. What he said was so silly I didn't realise he was being serious at first.
The very idea that Obama could be the one at fault here is just silly. The only way I could possibly see to make a argument there is from a conspiracy theorist angle 'the American influence is everywhere and all controlling ' or 'Obama is the antichrist'. Which of course is just dumb.
Quote from: Neil on December 11, 2009, 07:22:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
:wub: Obama
so, norway is not going to do anything about it.... right now there is a torchlight demonstration in front of the parliament by the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament along with other groups (including iranian exile groups) protesting FOR the US President.
I think Norway should unilaterally disarms its nuclear weapons.
Our Nukes are your Nukes.
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2009, 08:30:44 AM
Just for the record, grumbler, how are you supposed to rationally respond to an argument that's just completely out there? If someone makes an argument that leaves you thinking "Wow, that was just bizarrely idiotic, can that guy even read?", how are you supposed to let that be known without being judged to engage in "ad homs"?
Just for the record, I have no problem responding rationally to arguments, even wacko ones. Just for the record, though, I am not going to say how I make it so easy for myself, because I don't want to discourage the flamers from flaming me (or each other). Seeing people get so worked up is the chief form of entertainment that this forum offers.
Except I'm not worked up.
I'm the cat outside looking at the crazy yappy dog in the window and casually wondering 'err..wtf?' :P
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 08:50:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
You didn't do anything to refute his argument, you just laughed at it.
Why, I'm not sure, it's a reasonable position. Surely the committee should be faulted for nominating Obama, not Obama himself.
See my 3rd and 4th posts. What he said was so silly I didn't realise he was being serious at first.
The very idea that Obama could be the one at fault here is just silly. The only way I could possibly see to make a argument there is from a conspiracy theorist angle 'the American influence is everywhere and all controlling ' or 'Obama is the antichrist'. Which of course is just dumb.
See your first post:
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
"Remember that "he" in this statement refers to Obama. The claim made in this absurd statement, as I noted, that obama is somehow at fault and that he is "the fake he was." Of course, all of us know (and Tyr has subsequently admitted) that Obama is not the fake. He is the genuine recipient of the award.
The very idea that Obama could be the one at fault here is just silly. The only way I could possibly see to make a argument there is from a conspiracy theorist angle 'the American influence is everywhere and all controlling ' or 'Obama is the antichrist'. Which of course is just dumb. Nevertheless, that is the tack Tyr took with "Hopefully he felt like the fake he was" and the argument that he wasn't "a real nobel peace prize winner."
I am glad to see that you have abandoned such an "dumb" (to use your phrase) position, but am even more glad you didn't just man up and admit that you were either wrong, or else had expressed your sentiments in a way that clearly led every reader to believe that they were the opposite of what you now claim. I much prefer that, rather than admitting you were wrong, you claim you never said what you said and personally attack those who point out the truth. For the latter is the Languish Way(tm) and the harbinger of the much-hoped-for This Thread Delivers posts. :cool:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eixb.com%2Fimages%2Fdelivers_thread.jpg&hash=7f2e91351d4ca2bd17b59d7f4f515d11cf491427)
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 09:15:05 AM
Except I'm not worked up.
I'm the cat outside looking at the crazy yappy dog in the window and casually wondering 'err..wtf?' :P
:lmfao: You are continuing to deliver the personal insults, while
claiming you are the calm and collected one! I have delivered no controversial statements and no insults, and yet you think that someone will buy the "yappy dog" label? Good luck with that.
QuoteGrumbler is the one saying out there things.
Love this one! I am only pointing out that you have abandoned rational arguments for insults and
ad homs (sprinkled with unilateral declarations of victory). These are hardly "out there things." :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on December 11, 2009, 09:26:06 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eixb.com%2Fimages%2Fdelivers_thread.jpg&hash=7f2e91351d4ca2bd17b59d7f4f515d11cf491427)
Yes!
Hey! Wait a minute!
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 09:21:20 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 08:50:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 08:38:13 AM
You didn't do anything to refute his argument, you just laughed at it.
Why, I'm not sure, it's a reasonable position. Surely the committee should be faulted for nominating Obama, not Obama himself.
See my 3rd and 4th posts. What he said was so silly I didn't realise he was being serious at first.
The very idea that Obama could be the one at fault here is just silly. The only way I could possibly see to make a argument there is from a conspiracy theorist angle 'the American influence is everywhere and all controlling ' or 'Obama is the antichrist'. Which of course is just dumb.
See your first post:
Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 09:20:22 AM
Hopefully he felt like the fake he was and hence it wouldn't be right for him to act like a real nobel peace prize winner.
"Remember that "he" in this statement refers to Obama. The claim made in this absurd statement, as I noted, that obama is somehow at fault and that he is "the fake he was." Of course, all of us know (and Tyr has subsequently admitted) that Obama is not the fake. He is the genuine recipient of the award.
The very idea that Obama could be the one at fault here is just silly. The only way I could possibly see to make a argument there is from a conspiracy theorist angle 'the American influence is everywhere and all controlling ' or 'Obama is the antichrist'. Which of course is just dumb. Nevertheless, that is the tack Tyr took with "Hopefully he felt like the fake he was" and the argument that he wasn't "a real nobel peace prize winner."
I am glad to see that you have abandoned such an "dumb" (to use your phrase) position, but am even more glad you didn't just man up and admit that you were either wrong, or else had expressed your sentiments in a way that clearly led every reader to believe that they were the opposite of what you now claim. I much prefer that, rather than admitting you were wrong, you claim you never said what you said and personally attack those who point out the truth. For the latter is the Languish Way(tm) and the harbinger of the much-hoped-for This Thread Delivers posts. :cool:
How could Obama possibly be at fault though?
How on earth would you suggest he 'made' the nobel prize commitee vote for him?
As I said its just crazy. No one could possibly believe that.
What you did was you saw my post and you thought 'I know a fun way to totally misinterprate this to fit a easy argument I want to set myself against and thus make myself look good!'
That I said I think Obama to be a bit of a fake NPP winner and not at all deserving says nothing at all about whose fault it is that he is in that position, merely that he is.
YOU are the only one who suggested it was Obama's fault.
I felt it to be pretty damn 'well fucking duh' that it was the NPC's doing.
QuoteLove this one! I am only pointing out that you have abandoned rational arguments for insults and ad homs (sprinkled with unilateral declarations of victory). These are hardly "out there things." :c
Yep.
That pretty much proves you aren't trying to be rational but just looking for some sort of easy 'contest'.
He probably didn't express himself very well. He's from northern England. He's lucky to be literate.
Maybe you meant to be sarcastic with that first post Jos, but it just didn't translate on screen.
What is going on here anyway? Aren't Grumbler and Tyr arguing with each other, but each has the same view? Tyr, I think you misread Grumbler's first post. That is, unless I missed something in the jumble of posts and trolls made by people along the way. :unsure:
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2009, 09:41:00 AM
What is going on here anyway? Aren't Grumbler and Tyr arguing with each other, but each has the same view?
Pretty much.
QuoteTyr, I think you misread Grumbler's first post. That is, unless I missed something in the jumble of posts and trolls made by people along the way. :unsure:
Nah, he misread my first post but he continues to insist he knows better than I what I believe.
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 09:29:30 AM
How on earth would you suggest he 'made' the nobel prize commitee vote for him?
As I said its just crazy. No one could possibly believe that.
:huh: I certainly never said he made the committee vote for him. Making up a quote is a rather blatantly dishonest maneuver. Not sure why you are doing it, or thinking you can get away with it.
QuoteWhat you did was you saw my post and you thought 'I know a fun way to totally misinterprate this to fit a easy argument I want to set myself against and thus make myself look good!'
Ah, is that what I did and thought? Thanks for telling me. I am sure you would know better than I.
QuoteThat I said I think Obama to be a bit of a fake NPP winner and not at all deserving says nothing at all about whose fault it is that he is in that position, merely that he is.
And this is where you are "out there." You didn't say he was "a bit of a fake," you said "the fake he was."
QuoteYOU are the only one who suggested it was Obama's fault.
Calling someone a "fake"
is blaming them. You can try to weasel out of this truth, but good luck getting anyone to buy into your weasel.
QuoteYep.
That pretty much proves you aren't trying to be rational but just looking for some sort of easy 'contest'.
Ah, so you are adding the strawman (telling me what my argument really is) to the list of yuor fallacies! :lmfao:
Well done! There are still some fallacies you have not used, though, so keep trying.
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2009, 09:41:00 AM
What is going on here anyway? Aren't Grumbler and Tyr arguing with each other, but each has the same view?
I am not arguing with him at all. I am simply pointing out that his "arguments" are just a mishmash of ad hioms, personal attacks, unilateral declarations of victory, and (now) strawmen.
None of this is really debatable, but rather than responding to what i am saying, he is just repeating the fallacies over and over. I am enjoying it, so I keep responding.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 09:59:28 AM
:huh: I certainly never said he made the committee vote for him. Making up a quote is a rather blatantly dishonest maneuver. Not sure why you are doing it, or thinking you can get away with it.
Making up a quote? Now that is just patent bollocks.
QuoteAh, is that what I did and thought? Thanks for telling me. I am sure you would know better than I.
Which is the basis of your entire argument....
Quote
And this is where you are "out there." You didn't say he was "a bit of a fake," you said "the fake he was."
Fair enough, leave the harsher language intact, it changes nothing and and the point stands.
QuoteCalling someone a "fake" is blaming them. You can try to weasel out of this truth, but good luck getting anyone to buy into your weasel.
No its not. Not in any way.
You have a fake $10 in your wallet. OMG you forged it. :rolleyes:
Quote
Ah, so you are adding the strawman (telling me what my argument really is) to the list of yuor fallacies! :lfao:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
QuoteI am not arguing with him at all. I am simply pointing out that his "arguments" are just a mishmash of ad hioms, personal attacks, unilateral declarations of victory, and (now) strawmen.
None of this is really debatable, but rather than responding to what i am saying, he is just repeating the fallacies over and over. I am enjoying it, so I keep responding.
And you claim you're not arguing :lmfao:
Never having joined (or much liked the idea of ) debate club myself it is interesting to see that mentality at work.
Ok, I understand a bit better. Carry on!
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
Making up a quote? Now that is just patent bollocks.
Your statement was
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 09:29:30 AM
How on earth would you suggest he 'made' the nobel prize commitee vote for him?
See the quotation marks? Those were added by you, and since quotation marks indicate a quote, and since i never said Obama [ quote]made[unquote] rthe prize committeee..., is is a quote you
make up.
I fully expect you to weasel around arguing that quotation marks don't surround quotes, or whatever, and I look forward to that... because the alternative is confession that you made a dishonest statement.
QuoteQuoteAh, is that what I did and thought? Thanks for telling me. I am sure you would know better than I.
Which is the basis of your entire argument....
The basis of my entire argument is that you know what I did and thought better than I do? :lmfao: Okay, dance some more on your crank!
QuoteFair enough, leave the harsher language intact, it changes nothing and and the point stands.
It changes everything, of course.
QuoteQuoteCalling someone a "fake" is blaming them. You can try to weasel out of this truth, but good luck getting anyone to buy into your weasel.
No its not. Not in any way.
You have a fake $10 in your wallet. OMG you forged it. :rolleyes:
Even for you, this is a feeble weasel. I am just gonna let it sit there so people can point at it and laugh.
QuoteQuoteAh, so you are adding the strawman (telling me what my argument really is) to the list of yuor fallacies! :lfao:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Ah, you hadn't used the childish "I am rubber, you are glue" argument so far in this exchange, so that is new. I am just gonna let this sit here also.
QuoteAnd you claim you're not arguing :lmfao:
I am not making any arguments, just pointing out that you are using
ad hominims, personal attacks, strawmen, weasels, and childish arguments. You are not denying (indeed, cannot deny) denying any of my observations. You are simply trying to weasel out of the implications or accusing me of the same thing. That is not "arguing" either.
all this based off a misunderstanding of a poorly worded post :weep:
Quote from: Lacroix on December 11, 2009, 11:17:03 AM
all this based off a misunderstanding of a poorly worded post :weep:
This is madness! No, this is Languish. :D
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2009, 08:30:44 AM
Just for the record, grumbler, how are you supposed to rationally respond to an argument that's just completely out there? If someone makes an argument that leaves you thinking "Wow, that was just bizarrely idiotic, can that guy even read?", how are you supposed to let that be known without being judged to engage in "ad homs"?
Since grumbler doesn't want to touch this, I answer it. I'll assume, for this purpose, that the "you" in your post was used generically, as in "how is one supposed to rationally respond..." instead of being directed to grumbler as an individual, because in that case, it would be presumptuous for me to try to tell you how he would respond.
At any rate, the way to respond without an ad-hom is to NOT say something on the lines of, "Gee, you're an idiot" but rather something such as, "That's so bizarre that I don't even see a way to respond to it". That way, you're not characterizing them as an "idiot"; you're merely referring to their argument in this particular instance as "bizarre".
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 11:01:45 AM
Your statement was
See the quotation marks? Those were added by you, and since quotation marks indicate a quote, and since i never said Obama [ quote]made[unquote] rthe prize committeee..., is is a quote you make up.
I fully expect you to weasel around arguing that quotation marks don't surround quotes, or whatever, and I look forward to that... because the alternative is confession that you made a dishonest statement.
That was not a quote, it was a over simplification.
QuoteThis is a quote
Quote
The basis of my entire argument is that you know what I did and thought better than I do? :lmfao: Okay, dance some more on your crank!
Now you're getting desperate. You know fine well what I mean yet avoid the point.
Quote
It changes everything, of course.
OK, it changes everything. What does it mean then?
Quote
Even for you, this is a feeble weasel. I am just gonna let it sit there so people can point at it and laugh.
:yawn:
What is it with you and small furry ferret-brethren?
That analogy is 100% relevant to the point.
Quote
Ah, you hadn't used the childish "I am rubber, you are glue" argument so far in this exchange, so that is new. I am just gonna let this sit here also.
Keep going, you're breaking new ground in hypocrisy.
QuoteAnd you claim you're not arguing :lmfao:
I am not making any arguments, just pointing out that you are using ad hominims, personal attacks, strawmen, weasels, and childish arguments. You are not denying (indeed, cannot deny) denying any of my observations. You are simply trying to weasel out of the implications or accusing me of the same thing. That is not "arguing" either.
:lol:
Are you for real? What on earth are you even talking about now?
Of course I'm using
ad hominim (look at my big scary italics!). There's no argument to be had yet you insist you have one with me so what else is there. Its pretty fun to watch you over analyse someone calling you dumb without realising quite why what you're saying is dumb.
Quote from: Lacroix on December 11, 2009, 11:17:03 AM
all this based off a misunderstanding of a poorly worded post :weep:
Not really, and I am astonished that you would even notice.
I am just in this for the amusement. I would urge everyone who isn't amused by this kind of thing to avert their eyes.
I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:47:26 AM
I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.
It's already all over the internet, and the reaction is pretty split.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:47:26 AM
I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.
I'm a little disappointed with what I've heard so far :(
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
I'm a little disappointed with what I've heard so far :(
Disappointed how? Not enough gnashing of teeth and rending of garments for your taste?
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:47:26 AM
I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.
I'm a little disappointed with what I've heard so far :(
They guzzled down Obama's hawkish speech as he blasted them in the face again, bukakke style.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 11:41:03 AM
Quote from: Lacroix on December 11, 2009, 11:17:03 AM
all this based off a misunderstanding of a poorly worded post :weep:
Not really, and I am astonished that you would even notice.
I am just in this for the amusement. I would urge everyone who isn't amused by this kind of thing to avert their eyes.
i haven't been following the last few pages of the back-and-forth, i referred to the initial cause. if it's continued for some 7 pages in mostly jest, then there you go
I see Will Smith was in the audience, obviously studying Obama for when he inevitably plays him.
Quote from: Brazen on December 11, 2009, 12:19:50 PM
I see Will Smith was in the audience, obviously studying Obama for when he inevitably plays him.
Hehe...
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2009, 11:39:31 AM
That was not a quote, it was a over simplification.
Your explanation for quoting is that it was not a quote, but was rather was the exact opposite of a quote? You can weasel better than that!
QuoteQuoteThe basis of my entire argument is that you know what I did and thought better than I do? :lmfao: Okay, dance some more on your crank!
Now you're getting desperate. You know fine well what I mean yet avoid the point.
You have lost me again. I am afraid that I don't know what you say I know. You need to tell me what I know you meant, because I don't know.
QuoteOK, it changes everything. What does it mean then?
If one is a fake, one is being dishonest. Since "fake" is the term you use to describe Obama, you are calling him dishonest - in other words, blaming him (which you now claim you never did).
Quote:yawn:
What is it with you and small furry ferret-brethren?
Sorry, I forgot you are not a native Englsih-speaker. There are meanings of the word weasel other than "small furry ferret-brethren." I leave them for you to discover.
QuoteOf course I'm using ad hominim (look at my big scary italics!).
Good man! If you can begin to acknowledge your logical fallacies, you can begin to address them. :hug:
QuoteThere's no argument to be had yet you insist you have one with me so what else is there. Its pretty fun to watch you over analyse someone calling you dumb without realising quite why what you're saying is dumb.
Glad you are enjoying your name-calling exercise, because I am as well.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 12:58:13 PM
Your explanation for quoting is that it was not a quote, but was rather was the exact opposite of a quote? You can weasel better than that!
¿qué?
QuoteIf one is a fake, one is being dishonest. Since "fake" is the term you use to describe Obama, you are calling him dishonest - in other words, blaming him (which you now claim you never did).
No, if one is fake one is not real. In other words he's not a real Nobel prize winner. i.e. he's not deserving.
Fault isn't mentioned at all, to do so would be akin to in the middle of a discussion on the holocaust randomly saying "IT WAS THE NAZIS WHAT DID IT!!!". Yeah. No shit Sherlock.
QuoteSorry, I forgot you are not a native Englsih-speaker. There are meanings of the word weasel other than "small furry ferret-brethren." I leave them for you to discover.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.poz.com%2Fdavid%2FUncle%2520Sam%2520Wants%2520You.jpg&hash=f6e90da78fefb964ac08ddb53bc88509e6ba5274)
Quote
Good man! If you can begin to acknowledge your logical fallacies, you can begin to address them. :hug:
Now, can you be a big boy and do the same?
Oh. And I raise you a puppy. Just because.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.diypuppytraining.com%2Fpuppy.jpg&hash=6bf5208cdc989e23c6fc394133a9745eed7e77b5)
Man. This shit is hillarious.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:47:26 AM
I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.
It wasn't neoconish.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 09:41:00 AM
I am simply pointing out that his "arguments" are just a mishmash of ad hioms, personal attacks, unilateral declarations of victory, and (now) strawmen.
None of this is really debatable, but rather than responding to what i am saying, he is just repeating the fallacies over and over. I am enjoying it, so I keep responding.
It's what grumbler does when he rubs one off. :yes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:56:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
I'm a little disappointed with what I've heard so far :(
Disappointed how? Not enough gnashing of teeth and rending of garments for your taste?
This is what happens when you guys drink to much of your own kool aid. You build up some bizarre picture of your opponents and then are genuinely confused when reality doesn't match up.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
This is what happens when you guys drink to much of your own kool aid. You build up some bizarre picture of your opponents and then are genuinely confused when reality doesn't match up.
I don't think that's really the problem. Reality not matching up is a problem only for people who eventually get in touch with reality.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
This is what happens when you guys drink to much of your own kool aid. You build up some bizarre picture of your opponents and then are genuinely confused when reality doesn't match up.
You may well be right, but wouldn't it make sense to know what my expectations and the reactions are before concluding that?
Shelf: essentially.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
This is what happens when you guys drink to much of your own kool aid. You build up some bizarre picture of your opponents and then are genuinely confused when reality doesn't match up.
You may well be right, but wouldn't it make sense to know what my expectations and the reactions are before concluding that?
Shelf: essentially.
Actually I was refering more to Derspeiss.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:56:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 11, 2009, 11:54:57 AM
I'm a little disappointed with what I've heard so far :(
Disappointed how? Not enough gnashing of teeth and rending of garments for your taste?
This is what happens when you guys drink to much of your own kool aid. You build up some bizarre picture of your opponents and then are genuinely confused when reality doesn't match up.
If Bush had made the exact same speech (not that he'd ever get the Nobel prize) then the left would be baying for blood and you know it. The only reason they're not is because it's Obama who said it, and even then there a quite a few on the left who are upset by it.
Nope I don't know it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 02:14:47 AM
Nope I don't know it.
If you seriously believe that than you're delusional.
That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.
I skimmed though the NYT Week in Review and AFAICS they're ducking it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 03:57:55 AM
I skimmed though the NYT Week in Review and AFAICS they're ducking it.
If you really want to know what lefties think about it go to Huffington Post, The Nation, The New Republic, Salon.com, etc.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 03:01:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 02:14:47 AM
Nope I don't know it.
If you seriously believe that than you're delusional.
That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.
Because Bush got no support from the Democrats in his first two years of office. Take a trip down memory lane and notice the lack of blood baying Bush got.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 03:01:50 AM
That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.
Yes it is. It's Blairite liberal internationalism with that Blairite emphasis on multi-lateralism and on the 'international community'. That stuff didn't matter to the neo-cons. It's different in quite important and fundamental ways. I'd align myself with Blair but I'm not a neo-con.
QuoteBecause Bush got no support from the Democrats in his first two years of office. Take a trip down memory lane and notice the lack of blood baying Bush got.
I'd say 4 years.
Also the New Republic may be lefty on domestic issues but it's fundamentally quite hawkish (especially on the Middle East and anything to do with Israel).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 04:21:31 AM
If you really want to know what lefties think about it go to Huffington Post, The Nation, The New Republic, Salon.com, etc.
My dad gets Mother Jones and The Progressive, I'll check those.
What I was really looking forward to is how the stalwarts of Democratic spin like Frank Rich, Joe Klein et al were going to twist themsleves into rhetorical pretzels.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2009, 10:59:35 AM
Yes it is. It's Blairite liberal internationalism with that Blairite emphasis on multi-lateralism and on the 'international community'. That stuff didn't matter to the neo-cons. It's different in quite important and fundamental ways. I'd align myself with Blair but I'm not a neo-con.
Where does Obama emphasize multilateralism? He talks about the number of countries in Afghanistan, but Bush and Rumsfeld talked all the time about the coalition of the willing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 12:24:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 04:21:31 AM
If you really want to know what lefties think about it go to Huffington Post, The Nation, The New Republic, Salon.com, etc.
My dad gets Mother Jones and The Progressive, I'll check those.
What I was really looking forward to is how the stalwarts of Democratic spin like Frank Rich, Joe Klein et al were going to twist themsleves into rhetorical pretzels.
Did you look forward to how stalwarts of Republican spin twisted themselves into rhetorical pretzels as they jumped from their heavy criticism of Clinton's military actions in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia and Afghanistan to Bush's similar actions. What about the rhetorical pretzels of those who a few years ago bellowed loudly for "up or down votes" against obstructionism and now hold dear those important principles of killing a bill in committee, filibustering and importance of "Giving Obama his Waterloo" over all else?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 03:01:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 02:14:47 AM
Nope I don't know it.
That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.
Incorrect. Neocons couldn't give a foreign policy speech and be taken seriously. Obama can. That in and of itself is sufficient difference.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 03:05:29 PM
Did you look forward to how stalwarts of Republican spin twisted themselves into rhetorical pretzels as they jumped from their heavy criticism of Clinton's military actions in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia and Afghanistan to Bush's similar actions. What about the rhetorical pretzels of those who a few years ago bellowed loudly for "up or down votes" against obstructionism and now hold dear those important principles of killing a bill in committee, filibustering and importance of "Giving Obama his Waterloo" over all else?
I can think of very few stalwarts of Republican spin who are accorded the same status as their Democrat counterparts. Maybe George Will and Charles Krauthammer. If your point is that the Democrat cheerleaders are no worse than Rush and Whatshisname on Fox, then we agree.
Also, I don't recall heavy criticism from anyone really on Clinton's actions in Iraq and Sudan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 04:13:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 03:05:29 PM
Did you look forward to how stalwarts of Republican spin twisted themselves into rhetorical pretzels as they jumped from their heavy criticism of Clinton's military actions in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia and Afghanistan to Bush's similar actions. What about the rhetorical pretzels of those who a few years ago bellowed loudly for "up or down votes" against obstructionism and now hold dear those important principles of killing a bill in committee, filibustering and importance of "Giving Obama his Waterloo" over all else?
I can think of very few stalwarts of Republican spin who are accorded the same status as their Democrat counterparts. Maybe George Will and Charles Krauthammer. If your point is that the Democrat cheerleaders are no worse than Rush and Whatshisname on Fox, then we agree.
Also, I don't recall heavy criticism from anyone really on Clinton's actions in Iraq and Sudan.
What kind of status are we talking about?
You don't recall the heavy criticism? The problem lies with you then.
A quick google finds this.
http://conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
Some of this shit is really funny.
QuoteThere are at least ten reasons why America should not now make war on Iraq, even if it were certain that such an effort would be "successful":
1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.
3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.
4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.
5) Wars of defense are morally appropriate. Foreign wars for purposes other than national defense are not.
6) In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.
7) The Federal government's ability to provide for the common defense (of the United States) is substantially diminished in consequence of resources expended during President Bush's "Operation Desert Storm". Not only have America's arsenal and battle-ready personnel resources not been fully restored, they have, in fact, been radically depleted since Desert Storm, in consequence of massive reductions in Congressionally authorized spending for the defense of the United States (even as expenditures for U.N. intervention operations and other "social policy objective" activities have risen). Defense analyst Peter Schweizer, now at the Hoover Institution, who favors air strikes, nonetheless observes that "[t]hanks to military cutbacks, we don't have anything close to the force that won Desert Storm. In 1991, the U.S. Air Force had 24 fighter wings to draw from. Today it only has 13. That means fewer planes and (even more importantly) pilots. Desert Storm was fought with two Marine divisions, seven active Army divisions, and combat brigades of two additional divisions. Now, that commitment alone would exhaust all of the Army's 10 active divisions." (Source: USA Today, 2/18/98, p. 15A)
8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.
9) If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?
10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?
Ten years is an age in politics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 12:50:01 PM
Where does Obama emphasize multilateralism? He talks about the number of countries in Afghanistan, but Bush and Rumsfeld talked all the time about the coalition of the willing.
Rumsfeld said that it didn't matter if Britain joined the coalition - on the very day Parliament was voting on whether to authorise military action or not. He was right but it was tactless and a snub to your closest ally in that war.
This strikes me as the sort of thing Blair, as opposed to Bush, would say:
QuoteTo begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Remember that after 9/11 Blair talked a lot more about the international community and tried to segue from the issue of terrorism to a larger, wider sort-of moral perspective. The 'Africa is a scar on the conscience of humanity' speech was in 2002.
I think large parts of the speech are Blairite not neo-con:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize
Frank Rich has already written two columns about Obama's Afghanistan politics, he doesn't approve. The MoveOn wing aren't happy either. I think Tony Benn's observation about British politics is true in the US too: the left elect a leader and then start moaning about them and arguing with them straight away while the right elect a leader and it's all applause until the knife's in the back or they're out the door.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 05:19:39 PM
What kind of status are we talking about?
Participants in reasonable discourse.
QuoteYou don't recall the heavy criticism? The problem lies with you then.
A quick google finds this.
http://conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm
Some of this shit is really funny.
I will fully confess that I have not followed the discussion at conservativeusa.org as closely as is warranted. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 05:30:36 PM
I will fully confess that I have not followed the discussion at conservativeusa.org as closely as is warranted. :lol:
Didn't his bombing of Iraq and Sudan in 98 coincide with the impeachment hearings and were criticised as him trying to look Presidential and the whole wag the dog scenario?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2009, 05:35:39 PM
Didn't his bombing of Iraq and Sudan in 98 coincide with the impeachment hearings and were criticised as him trying to look Presidential and the whole wag the dog scenario?
I thought wag the dog was over Serbia/Kosovo.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 05:36:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2009, 05:35:39 PM
Didn't his bombing of Iraq and Sudan in 98 coincide with the impeachment hearings and were criticised as him trying to look Presidential and the whole wag the dog scenario?
I thought wag the dog was over Serbia/Kosovo.
I think it was a bit of both. The bombing of Iraq happened immediately as Clinton was being impeached, Kosovo didn't start till after the impeachment had finished.
No mention in Time either. Wonder if it was too recent for the press deadline.
Quote from: Fate on December 13, 2009, 03:40:18 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 03:01:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 02:14:47 AM
Nope I don't know it.
That speech isn't that different from those that Bush and other neoconservatives have given on foreign policy.
Incorrect. Neocons couldn't give a foreign policy speech and be taken seriously. Obama can. That in and of itself is sufficient difference.
Big difference is just politics. If a Repub gave the speech he'd be a war monger, Hitler,or what ever the current fetish is of the haters of the far left. Since Obama gave it, and is a darling (so far) of the left, he gets away with it. But his speech was right on, no matter who gave it.
Saw this in Time, though it's a conservative response, not liberal.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/
QuoteWhat's A (National Security) Conservative To Do With Barack Obama?
Posted by Michael Scherer
December 13, 2009 at 6:24 pm
14 Comments
As recently as October, the conservative view of Barack Obama's foreign policy had little nuance: The president was seen as weak, apologetic, and deferential, someone who was voluntarily abandoning America's preeminent role as a world power. Charles Krauthammer stated the case in an address, called Decline Is A Choice, at the Manhattan Institute on Oct. 5:
The current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.
Just a few months later, however, we have confusion in the House of Reagan. After Obama's Nobel Speech last week, conservative pundits have begun to sound downright optimistic about Obama's foreign policy approach. "There was a fair amount for Bush Doctrine-supporters, American-exceptionalist patriots, and neocon warmongers to like in Obama's Oslo speech," opined William Kristol, in the Weekly Standard. "I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech," announced Newt Gingrich. "a modest, welcome, and long overdue reaffirmation of American purpose and power as the essential underpinning of a more just and peaceful world order," wrote John Cullinan, on the National Review's blog. "I liked what he said," said Sarah Palin, an influential, though not exactly authoritative foreign policy voice.
More than most areas of governance, words and ideas matter in foreign policy. (For evidence, just compare the global rejection of the muscular rhetoric of George W. Bush, to the embrace of Obama's "shared interests" rhetoric, even as Obama has continued, with some stylistic and minor substantive variations, the essential Bush policies on the major foreign policy problems in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea.)
So what is a committed conservative to do? Now that Obama appears to have embraced the principle of American exceptionalism--"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms"--can we all get along?
The answer, in short, is probably not for long. Electoral pressures require Republicans and conservatives to continue to define themselves against Obama, and the conservative media (like the liberal one during the days of Bush) must produce a steady stream of red meat.
I am also skeptical of the storyline, presented in much conservative analysis, contending that Obama has changed position. Instead, he has done what all great politicians do, catered his message for the moment to the audience in question. The Nobel Speech was addressed, in the context of a premature award, to a liberal European audience. Obama was saying, in effect, I am not the cartoon peacenik savior you want me to be. The world is still a rough one. In the same way, Obama's collectivist rhetoric on the world stage was designed for an audience, meant to reconnect with a world that had felt spurned by the bravado of the Bush years. The underlying policies, and the philosophy of the leader, remained more or less the same. He was presenting two sides of the same coin.
Look again at the way that Obama answered that question about American exceptionalism in Strasbourg. Krauthammer pointed to a single sentence, which he decided was an outrage. Obama's full answer was much more nuanced. Here is the full transcript (emphasis mine):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that's been going on this week -- the G20, here at NATO -- and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.
The seeds of Obama's Nobel Speech were planted long ago.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/13/whats-a-national-security-conservative-to-do-with-barack-obama/#more-19345#ixzz0ZhD1WgF0
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 05:30:36 PM
Participants in reasonable discourse.
Are you suggesting there are less reasonable people on the right?
The op-ed was so good you had to copy the intro timmay?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 10:16:52 PM
Are you suggesting there less reasonable people on the right?
Most of the people I call reasonable don't fit into right/left categories.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2009, 10:21:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 10:16:52 PM
Are you suggesting there less reasonable people on the right?
Most of the people I call reasonable don't fit into right/left categories.
Okay, that brings be back to my earlier question. What did you mean by Status then?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2009, 10:22:35 PM
Okay, that brings be back to my earlier question. What did you mean by Status then?
QuoteParticipants in reasonable discourse.
Elaborate.
What's the magic word?
Quote from: KRonn on December 13, 2009, 09:20:42 PM
Big difference is just politics. If a Repub gave the speech he'd be a war monger, Hitler,or what ever the current fetish is of the haters of the far left. Since Obama gave it, and is a darling (so far) of the left, he gets away with it. But his speech was right on, no matter who gave it.
That's not true, though. He's been condemned by the MoveOnistas who are unhappy about the speech (and more importantly policy) and at least one of Yi's Democrat cheerleaders haven't wrapped themselves into a pretzel but have also said they're not keen on it.
For what it's worth I think it's important because I think it's the first time we have a hint of foreign policy philosophy, rather than response to specific events. Now, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Bush II's philosophy when campaigning was a 'humble foreign policy' (just imagine the apoplexy on the right if Obama used that phrase) after Clinton's adventures. After 9/11 he was quite aggressively neo-con and so was his second inauguration. Despite that for most of his second term his foreign policy was almost a reprise of Bush I it was so studiedly realist. So it doesn't necessarily mean anything but it's interesting nonetheless.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2009, 11:57:30 PM
at least one of Yi's Democrat cheerleaders haven't wrapped themselves into a pretzel but have also said they're not keen on it.
Which one is that?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2009, 12:03:32 AM
Frank Rich.
I'm pretty sure Frank Rich has not written about the Nobel speech Shelf.
Quote from: katmai on December 13, 2009, 10:18:50 PM
The op-ed was so good you had to copy the intro timmay?
Sorry, don't know how that happened. Fixed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 14, 2009, 12:04:47 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 14, 2009, 12:03:32 AM
Frank Rich.
I'm pretty sure Frank Rich has not written about the Nobel speech Shelf.
No, you're right. He opposes the new Afghan policy :blush:
Quote from: Brazen on December 11, 2009, 12:19:50 PM
I see Will Smith was in the audience, obviously studying Obama for when he inevitably plays him.
Jon Stuart already made that joke on the Daily Show. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2009, 10:19:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:47:26 AM
I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.
It wasn't neoconish.
Indeed. Not every vision of international affairs that does not involve absolute pacifism is neoconish. :lol:
QuoteThe current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.
I started reading the piece Tim posted but stopped on this line. If the guy is capable of drumming up so much bullshit by the second paragraph of his piece, then it must be a bovine shitstorm of apocalyptic proportions by the end.
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2009, 02:42:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2009, 10:19:20 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 11, 2009, 11:47:26 AM
I am eagerly awaiting the reaction from the peacenik left to what was essentially a neocon speech by Obama.
It wasn't neoconish.
Indeed. Not every vision of international affairs that does not involve absolute pacifism is neoconish. :lol:
But the lineage is there. The neocons were hawkish liberals of the Truman and Kennedy mold who were disaffected with the dovish Democrat party. Obama is merely reflecting that branch of liberal thinking.
Quote from: Martinus on December 14, 2009, 02:46:00 AM
QuoteThe current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.
I started reading the piece Tim posted but stopped on this line. If the guy is capable of drumming up so much bullshit by the second paragraph of his piece, then it must be a bovine shitstorm of apocalyptic proportions by the end.
Learn to fucking read. That was a quote from someone the author disagreed with.
Quote from: citizen k on December 14, 2009, 02:49:21 AM
But the lineage is there. The neocons were hawkish liberals of the Truman and Kennedy mold who were disaffected with the dovish Democrat party. Obama is merely reflecting that branch of liberal thinking.
They weren't hawkish liberals. They were originally Trotskyists who became dissatisfied with the self-indulgence of the left in the 1960s. They were a new form of conservative that wasn't entirely opposed to the state. That's why, within, foreign policy they're supremely statist. They believe that the US government through military and non-military means can change the government of a nation and by doing that alone transform the society (whereas I think old school conservatives would argue government comes from society).
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
If Norway decides its head of state is a rock, are you going to think Obama should have lunch with the rock?
Sheilbh, I am enjoying your take on this, though I don't have time to formulate much in the way of response.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 14, 2009, 06:54:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
If Norway decides its head of state is a rock, are you going to think Obama should have lunch with the rock?
The queen of Poland was for a time a painting. It would make a boring lunch I suppose.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2009, 11:57:30 PM
Quote from: KRonn on December 13, 2009, 09:20:42 PM
Big difference is just politics. If a Repub gave the speech he'd be a war monger, Hitler,or what ever the current fetish is of the haters of the far left. Since Obama gave it, and is a darling (so far) of the left, he gets away with it. But his speech was right on, no matter who gave it.
That's not true, though. He's been condemned by the MoveOnistas who are unhappy about the speech (and more importantly policy) and at least one of Yi's Democrat cheerleaders haven't wrapped themselves into a pretzel but have also said they're not keen on it.
For what it's worth I think it's important because I think it's the first time we have a hint of foreign policy philosophy, rather than response to specific events. Now, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Bush II's philosophy when campaigning was a 'humble foreign policy' (just imagine the apoplexy on the right if Obama used that phrase) after Clinton's adventures. After 9/11 he was quite aggressively neo-con and so was his second inauguration. Despite that for most of his second term his foreign policy was almost a reprise of Bush I it was so studiedly realist. So it doesn't necessarily mean anything but it's interesting nonetheless.
Yeah, I'm having to rethink that. There is a lot of "Obama the warmonger, even war criminal" coming out, which I didn't quite expect from the left so quickly or angrily. But they're showing the same viewpoints that they had before. Also probably from some on the right who either disagree with the fighting or just want to oppose Obama.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2009, 08:03:50 AM
The queen of Poland was for a time a painting. It would make a boring lunch I suppose.
:lmfao:
Actually, the queen was the Virgin Mary, which I suppose would make for an even more dull conversation than the painting of her would.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 14, 2009, 06:54:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 10, 2009, 10:59:41 AM
European Monarchs don't have power but they are Heads of State. So it's a way of paying respect to the nation.
If Norway decides its head of state is a rock, are you going to think Obama should have lunch with the rock?
Obviously not, rocks can't eat. But he should at least bow to the rock.
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2009, 09:37:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2009, 08:03:50 AM
The queen of Poland was for a time a painting. It would make a boring lunch I suppose.
:lmfao:
Actually, the queen was the Virgin Mary, which I suppose would make for an even more dull conversation than the painting of her would.
A painting of the Virgin Mary. Though she was black in the painting so they might have somethings in common.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2009, 10:02:09 AM
A painting of the Virgin Mary. Though she was black in the painting so they might have somethings in common.
Yes, the "Black Madonna" is a painting of the Virgin Mary, who at one point was proclaimed the "Queen of Poland." The painting was not itself declared the queen.
Jesus is king.
Quote from: KRonn on December 14, 2009, 08:44:41 AM
Yeah, I'm having to rethink that. There is a lot of "Obama the warmonger, even war criminal" coming out, which I didn't quite expect from the left so quickly or angrily. But they're showing the same viewpoints that they had before. Also probably from some on the right who either disagree with the fighting or just want to oppose Obama.
To be honest I'm hoping to see a return of conservative realism in foreign policy debates. That may, initially, be opportunistic. Figures on the right may attack a surge in Afghanistan and Obama's Nobel speech because it's the Democrat President's policy, but I think any such critique would have to be formulated in a realist way (because neo-cons should quite like it) which would re-introduce the right to realism. I think that would be a positive thing. I think George Will's column calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan is an excellent example.
It seems healthy to me for all parties to have a strong internal argument running through most policy issues rather than a monolithic set of ideas and taboos. So I like that the Democrats have what I'd call a liberal internationalist wing and a side that seems so anti-war to be verging on isolationist; I think it would be healthy for the Republicans to re-engage with their realist heritage as well as the neo-con ideas that ran the show in Bush's first term (after 9/11) and still seem to run it in terms of discourse on the right.