Story Comments
Posted by: buckncindykill 2 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
25%
buckncindykill2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My point is not left vs. right, or conservative vs. democrat progressive.
Reply
Start recognizing that MOST of Washington are doing as they please, and making excuses for them because "republicans did it too" or vice versa is perpetuating the disease of Washington politics.
Do you understand that?-
-
100%
buckncindykill2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
e.g., Nancy Pelosi?
Reply
Or even Obama himself. He promised a new era of unity, and can't even get his majority party to agree. If the Democrats claim to be the standard bearer for bipartisanship, then they need to get rid of the most partisan people in Congress right now; Pelosi and Reid.-
-
50%
Progressive2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not being a Democrat myself, I nonetheless agree that Pelosi and Reid are clearly Democrats...and the majority of your comments on this thread are clearly anti-liberal as well as pro-conservative.
Reply
As for Obama, I'd say being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after only nine months in office indicates the rest of the world disagrees with the American right-wing.-
50%
buckncindykill2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Winning the nobel peace prize after only 9 months in office indicates a desperate attempt by the laureate to decorate someone who is clearly as progressive and liberal as they are; who wants what is best for the rest of the world, not what is in the best interests of America.
Reply
Nobel's prescription for awarding the prize is 'for a specific action performed in the previous year, or for service to peace over an extended period." Since he was nominated for the prize BEFORE the presidential election, the prize has nothing to do with what he has accomplished over the last 9 months. It's simply a power play, trying to tap in to his overseas popularity while ignoring what the prize is truly meant for.-
50%
Progressive2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Since he was nominated for the prize BEFORE the presidential election, the prize has nothing to do with what he has accomplished over the last 9 months."
Reply
From my link below:
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.
http://fe28.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/story/m... -
100%
Beau78902 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Winning the nobel peace prize after only 9 months in office indicates a desperate attempt by the laureate to decorate someone...who wants what is best for the rest of the world, not what is in the best interests of America."
Reply
When will you realize that what is best for the entire world IS in fact in the best interests of America?
You cannot cite a single instance in world history where a nation that tries to oppress other nations in order to further its own interests has succeeded for any significant length of time.
I suspect the Nobel committee knows this, and recognizes what policies truly promote peace.-
100%
buckncindykill2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When will you realize that what is best for the entire world IS in fact in the best interests of America?"
Reply
No, I don't accept that premise ad hoc. It is only in our best interests if it serves positively the US. For example, it is in the best interests of China not to accept Kyoto, because it will curb economic growth allowing its citizenry to climb out of poverty.
But does China's best interest serve the rest of the world? Does the continuation of third world pollution serve the rest of the world, when they continue to do it because to clean it up is cost prohibitive?-
100%
Beau78902 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's a short-term view. You will not be able to sustain oppression of the interests of most of the world for any length of time. Eventually, exploiting a majority of the world's population to advance our own interests will fail, and probably cause the downfall of the U.S.
Reply
Regarding this argument, it's irrelevant whether serving China's best interest serves the rest of the world. We're not talking about supporting what's best for China--we're talking about what's best for the world.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
corl64
gamahuche
juvel
Progressive
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.