Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[hortysir]

Originally Posted by DLJStRap

The Audacity of Hope is a book. It's worth reading.

Beyond that, Hope is one of the three principal virtues,
along with Faith and Charity, of which the former is less important,
and the latter vital.

So, what is wrong with Hope, or Aspiration for Peace...
if you are trying to award the person or the organization
which you deem to be most likely to bring Peace in the world?
I didn't know the award was for those that are most likely to bring peace. I thought it was for people that have made the biggest STRIDES toward effecting peace (Mother Theresa)
Obama's rhetoric is nothing if it is not filled with hope,
a hope, perhaps foolish as the world oft judges matters,
that the ways of Peace are those of aspirational words.
Which is it? For it is grammatically impossible for anything to be "rhetoric" and "hope-filled" at the same time.
Example: I will not permit prisoners to be tortured.
Who's definition of toture are we referring? Prison inmates, in the States, would (and have) call no cable TV cruel and unusual punishment.
This is a simple rule.

You can depart from it as the fool Bush did,
at the evil counsel of the Cheney crowd.

Make no mistake about it:
not only is torture (totally) ineffective,
but even if it were "effective",
it is wholly evil, as a practice.

It is a false moral dichotomy, to ask,
but if "torture" were effective, to disclose dire threats,
wouldn't you sanction torture, to save innocent lives?

But, it isn't effective. It's a totally false premise.

And, besides that, it ignores the moral question:
what is the duty you owe your fellow man,
as to how you treat him.

If ethics, morality, is relegated to the role of a critic,
rather than valued as an essential guide,
then its prudential warnings will be ignored.

Cheney and his ilk have shown no respect for man,
for mankind, ah yes our kind -- only ruthlessness.

Now, that kind of thinking is what is evil in the world,
the idea of bureaucrats like Cheney,
who respect no law except the authority of power --
power, which Cheney says, can do whatever it pleases.
I seem to recall Obama making the remark that "those that are against my policies need to shut up and get out of the way". What's the difference?
Peace, my friends, is not possible in a world dominated by Cheney,
by the idea that there is no morality
except that of the interests of the powerful,
to do as they will, whenever it shall please them to do so.
But, yet, with all his promises of hope and change we still have GTMO. We still have troops in Iraq. We still have troops in Afghanistan.
These are the same troops working under the same Colonels and Majors and Generals that have been enlisted all along. Do you really think that the core behavior of individual troops and platoons and divisions and brigades have drastically changed, fundamentally, just because there's a different dude sitting in the White House? Because I haven't heard of any sweeping changes made to the UCMJ.
That latter may be a truth,
as to how evil intentions do, in fact, so often, rule,
but it remains immoral, evil in its seductions to power.

Hope has Faith that the Charity of Man will prevail.

The aspiration of Hope is all that we should desire.

Who, better than Obama, has given us Hope?

Make fun of that, if you will --
pretend that Peace is best honored by deeds,
and you create a world in which wars must be begun
so that a peacemaker can later be honored.

I don't think that was what the blessing was all about,
when it announces
"Blessed are the Peacemakers!"

Those who make Peace increasingly possible are, indeed, Blessed, too --
especially when it comes to the US of A,
and the mightiest military in the history of the world.

All this the Norwegians considered.

They felt Obama best represented the possibility of Peace.

If you wish to fault them, for believing in Hope,
then do so,
announcing, as you do so,
like the Damned in Dante's Inferno,
"Abandon all Hope, ye who enter here, following me."

Just like your post, the Noregians naming Obama this year's recipient was more directed AGAINST Bush, Cheney, and "their ilk", rather than for anything President Obama had done.
Keep in mind, nominations were concluded only 2 weeks into this Presidential term.
At that point in time, all Obama had managed to do was spend $3 trillion of imaginary monies that we can't afford to repay.
I can't wait to see what wonderful ACORN-type charities will receive the lion's share of the $1+ million prize money that came along with the paper Nobel.

[Itsnotgonnaspankitself...]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Starters of Secret Prisions that tortures the Innocent


So you believe everyone in the prisons were innocent? I don't think so.

I don't think he ever said in his post that he believes that *everyone* in prison was innocent...just that the Bush administration believed in torturing innocents...along with Hitler, et al.

haha...you're always trying to throw out extremes to try to justify your hatred of people of other colours and religions than your own...

[anna_hun]

Originally Posted by hortysir

Just like your post, the Noregians naming Obama this year's recipient was more directed AGAINST Bush, Cheney, and "their ilk", rather than for anything President Obama had done.
Keep in mind, nominations were concluded only 2 weeks into this Presidential term.
At that point in time, all Obama had managed to do was spend $3 trillion of imaginary monies that we can't afford to repay.
I can't wait to see what wonderful ACORN-type charities will receive the lion's share of the $1+ million prize money that came along with the paper Nobel.

well i hope the money goes to a good course..

what is bush doing these days.you still hear of carter, clinton and all of them after there retirement...is he still active as political

[hortysir]

George W was last seen strangling newborn babies and using pliers to yank toe-nails from illegal Mexicans

[bbell]

Originally Posted by hortysir

George W was last seen strangling newborn babies and using pliers to yank toe-nails from illegal Mexicans

That is an outright lie. George Bush would never do anything like that. He would order some flunky to do it. Then deny he told them to do it when the flunky gets caught. After the truth comes out he would just claim National Security. Because the illegal Mexicans were training the newborns to infiltrate preschools with terriosts ideology. You know the Republicans, they are all good when in the womb, but once they are out they are fair game for the death penalty.

[hortysir]

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Itsnotgonnaspankitself...

I don't think he ever said in his post that he believes that *everyone* in prison was innocent...just that the Bush administration believed in torturing innocents...along with Hitler, et al.

haha...you're always trying to throw out extremes to try to justify your hatred of people of other colours and religions than your own...

You cannot show me where the Bush administration proposed torturing the innocent. And your last statement sounds like something someone from down under would say..Nothing I have ever posted was against someone for their religion or their color...Get your facts straight..

[Flynn]

Iceman

Do you ever wonder why.......

“ The Canadian “, who is hemispheres apart from the " someone down under ", why they have similar opinions about the brutality of American vengeance ?

[hortysir]

Their 'socialist' type governments?

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Flynn

Iceman

Do you ever wonder why.......

“ The Canadian “, who is hemispheres apart from the " someone down under ", why they have similar opinions about the brutality of American vengeance ?

That doesn't answer why he thinks I am so against anyone of a different religion or color.. Since you feel the same way, you might can answer for him..