Barack wins NPPFollow

and if their drive to do better inspired others to do so as well.

I'm not saying that he necessarily was the best candidate either, I'm kind of "whatever" to the whole thing.

It's impossible for future actions to affect a past tense decision. "Deserved" is past tense. Did he deserve it? The answer is "no".

Will he maybe deserve it in the future? Sure. But that's why perhaps they should have waited until he actually did deserve it before giving him the prize. The whole thing smacks of yet more "cart before the horse" thinking. You give someone the reward first and hope that he'll do the actions to deserve it. More sinisterly, I suspect that they gave him the prize pretty much purely because they know that someone who has a Nobel Peace Prize is viewed in a more positive way than one who doesn't. Of course, that's because they've done things to earn it, but the logic here seems to be that if they give it to him now, his words will carry more weight, and he'll be more likely to accomplish his goals.

Which is somewhat like handing an infant a hand grenade and hoping he'll do the right thing with it. They're starting with an assumption that his goals will cause positive effects on the front of "peace". A whole lot of people don't agree...



That's not surprising, given that he (his handlers really) define them in ways designed to appear to just give everyone what they most want. Who doesn't want world peace, and better health, and better education, and cheaper power, and better lives, etc... The problem is the gap between the actions themselves and the assumed results. Those of us who oppose him don't do so because we don't want those end goals, but because we don't agree that the methods he proposes will actually achieve them.




Yup. Case in point. It's not actually "health care", it's "health insurance". And there's no guarantee that increasing coverage will actually make "health care" as a whole better. There's a separation between the specific policy agenda and the assumed end result. That's where most people get tripped up.



All of these still require an assumption that those actions will produced the desired results and that those results will be positive. Shouldn't our goal be to "succeed" in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Shouldn't our end goal be a world in which there is less terrorism? On what basis do you assume that "getting out" of those conflicts ensures better results? See what I'm talking about now?

Same deal with Iran and N. Korea. On what basis do you assume that a "united world front" (really meaning "have the UN handle it) will produce the desired results? Do you even know what the desired results are? Is an Iran with nuclear bombs a good or bad thing? How about N. Korea? Should our objective be to stop or limit their access to said technology? Or should it be more important that we work through the UN?

And don't get me started on the horrific example the UN (and the Dems) have given us in terms of Israel/Palestine relations.



Only if you assume that the things he's actually doing are going to produce positive results. It's that assumption which I believe is incorrect. Let me present the counter position: I hope fervently that the GOP succeeds in preventing him from enacting as many of his domestic and foreign policies as possible. With a few notable exceptions, I believe that those policies will result in incredible pain and suffering for citizens of the US and the world as a whole. I believe that if he were to succeed at all the things he's said he wants to do, in 5 years we'll be looking at a world that is much poorer, with much more violence, and much less "hope" than it had before he arrived on the scene.


Which is why the whole idea of pro-actively granting him the Peace Prize seems doubly absurd to me...

Yea. I think someone with insurance is more likely to see a doctor/have a surgery/whatnot than someone not covered, given the tremendous cost of care in today's (free-market) medical field.



No, we should get our *** out of wars we had no business starting in the first place. The answer to terrorist problems is increased National Security, not starting wars to preemptively take out "the enemy". If there are nations that sponsor/harbor terrorists, then a multilateral, rather than a unilateral and preemptive, approach is needed.

The UN wants to allow nations to develop nuclear power, but not develop nuclear weapons. I'm not sure really how feasable that is, but I do know that working through the UN and preventing madmen from having nukes are not mutually exclusive goals.

Democrats own both houses and the White House, please explain how the GOP can stop Obama?

Especially when private citizens have constructed pseudo-reactors on the cheap. locking down nuclear weapons tech essentially depends on the incompetence of other nations.

...Which has been working thus far.

Republicans.

I can't believe that you forgot Poland, you heartless monster.

That happens to be really, really @#%^ed up.

I'm starting to warm to Shador. I think I agree with pretty much everything you've said on this page.

Gbaji, on the other hand, has finally and unequivocally come out and said that Obama should fail because almost every significant change he wants is bad for not only the US, but the entire world. I disagree, completely.

Which really just backs up what we've all been saying the entire time. Not that Gbaji is their representative, but the Republican party does NOT want to work with Obama. They want him to fail, because any of his changes would be bad in their minds.



Do tell what your idea of "better" is, Gbaji, as it seems like it means "good health care for the select few who can afford it." Which is ridiculous, as that number is decreasing, and those paying the same amount are losing benefits right now. If better is made up of an increase of either quantity OR quality (which I believe it is), increasing one without decreasing the other is BETTER. If one person in the world could live forever but everyone else would die at 30, that isn't better. Except, apparently, in your mind.

I suppose the problem is with the term "better." Most people in the world would agree making health care affordable to more people without affecting those who already have it is better. You don't. The goal then for you should be to convince people that an expansion of health care is worse because it helps more people without harming anyone. Get to it!

Edited, Oct 10th 2009 2:28am by LockeColeMA

His contention is that any increase in overall health provided by Obama's or any Democrat's plan would be necessarily temporary, and that somehow, someway, eventually we would suffer a greater cost and would be worse off. That there is no factual data to support this belief, and that all empirical evidence points to the contrary--i.e. countries massively succeeding with socialized medicine, providing both better health care at lower total cost--is irrelevant, because he has faith in his economic philosophy.

"Idiotic on the part of the Nobel comittee. Puts Obama in a sh*tty no win situation. Obviously he doesn't deserve it. He also can't refuse it. It also dimishes the status of the award itself. Arafat and Gore, the two most recent questionable winners at least both had reasonably long records of working towards *something*. Obama has great potential, but that shouldn't be what this prize is about." --Smash

!
/falls over in a dead faint

The Apocalypse is truly upon us. Say your prayers, people, because the world is about to end calamatously. For the first time Smash and I are in perfect agreement on an issue.

Totem

Republicans it would seem, given all their crying.

Mr. President even explains how "in the past the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes".

So instead of being awarded for singlehandedly ending nuclear proliferation, mid-eastern violence and global warming, he's being awarded on the strengths of his ongoing efforts towards these goals.

If you get upset about not winning the NPP, you're probably not doing what got you nominated for the right reasons, which means you never should have won anyway.