« DALTON FURY. WHY WE SHOULD HAVE HAD MORE TROOPS IN TORA BORA | Main | Palin and Shatner - Sure To Be Classic TV! »

Thursday, 10 December 2009

Comments

 cjdj

Shame on you, your article does not make any sense.

Tyrunn

"...my 12-year-old asked me if he could receive an A on his math test not because he passed it, but because he aspired to pass it. "

Wow, you must have a fairly retarded child, I could have sworn it said EXACTLY the same thing upon hearing Obama was due to receive the award some months ago!

So, let me understand the, *cough*mind*cough* of the right wing American...

If you say nasty things about a republican president, you're anti-American, but it's fair game to say something about an American president who has been given one of the greatest awards a person can recieve?

Shouldn't you be proud that the world views your leaders this way?

Shouldn't you be proud that since your current administration took over the rest of the Western world has begun treating you like equals again, rather than inbred morons?

Shouldn't you be proud that since Obama took office, countried who previously refused to talk to you, such as N Korea, are now open to discussion and diplomacy?

Seriously, please answer these points, as I can't understand the hatred towards having a leader who wishes to engage with the rest of the world rather than invade it.

Chris

Tyrunn,

You need to look at your post and think about this...

"an American president [sic] who has been GIVEN one of the greatest awards a person can recieve [sic]" (emphasis added)

Given is correct, the Nobels are customarily awarded for a long history of exceptional work, President (notice the capital P in this word) Obama was GIVEN this award for no other reason than he isn't President Bush. He didn't receive (i before e except after c)it for anything he has done personally.

So while you have clearly demonstrated that you are 1. a liberal and 2. a product of "feel good" education in our public schools, I am going to suggest, hoping against hope, that before you go slamming a 12 year-old
in the future that you learn to spell, and learn some sense. Like paying attention to the spell checker in the comments box...

Tyrunn

Chris, firstly, brush up on your Latin, you look stupid when you use things you don't understand.

Secondly - I vote Conservative, (not that it's any of your business), nor am I American hence the need not to capitiliSe (notice the s rather than a Z), the P in president, since he's not mine and I feel no reason to do so.

I would have thought the fact I'm not American would have been self-evident from my spelling and the use of 'you', rather than, 'we'. (I noticed I mistyped 'countries' and 'receive' after posting, sadly there is no edit function on this site and the company I work for blocks the script that allows the spell checker to run).

Also, since this seems to be the trend in left wing America, (going after someones point of view based on their spelling or grammar rather than the points they make), could you explain why, in a country with no official language, you should attack someone whose first language may not be the same as yours? Last time I checked, American had a proud heritage of multi-ethnic relations.

Also, regarding the 12 year old - you understand that there is no 12 child in this story don't you?

I realise, (there's that s again), that the author has a child, but the one in this article is a metaphor, not an actual child. The author used exactly the same 'joke' in a previous post and is so bereft of ideas he feels the need to repeat it like a sniggering school child.

I notice you took the normal right wing stance of, "I'll ignore his points as I can't come up with a counter argument, let's attack instead!", which saddens me as I was expecting a reply from an educated person, capable of discussing the points.

Oh well, maybe I aimed to high with the readership of this blog?

Tyrunn

In an effort to try and get you to respond to my points - yes I wrote 12 child, rather than 12 year old child.

Tommy De Seno

Not an American? I knew there had to be a reason why I didn't care what you think. Go be something other than American - you're good at it.

Tyrunn

That quote Tommy, "Not an American? I knew there had to be a reason why I didn't care what you think.", sums up your previous administration's foreign policy and look where it's gotten you.

You have to understand, I really love the American dream - my generation was brought up on the idea that America was this magical place where dreams came true - my best friend at school was a forces brat from Virginia, a nicer, more honest and polite family I have never met.

People like yourself Tommy, xenophobic people, who refuse to speak nor care about people outside of your own lot are not what Americans should be like; it's not what America was founded on.

Luckily, the world view on America is slowly starting to change.

I'm not saying this is due to Obama, it's due to a social shift that we in the West can see is happening, yet broad strokes of your population seem to be against.

Why do you find it so hard to understand the rest of the world neither fears nor hates you, just becusae our opinions may differ on certain issues - you have a great histry of diplomats, people such as Henry Kissinger, who belived in talking things through with the rest of the world, not just saying childish things like you just did.

Chris

Tyrunn,

[sic] means "not my error" when used in the context of a direct quote with grammatical or spelling errors. It is usually italicized but I am not able to do so in this text box. Check YOUR Latin.

Secondly, if you vote Conservative does that mean you are British? If so then as a speaker of the Queen's English, you should know that capitalizing the title of a head of state is also customary, for example HRH Queen Elizabeth II, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I am quite aware of the "z/s" interchange between American and British English and that bothers me not in the least, nor does the "er / re" reversal done by the respective countries. So the issue isn't really about does the US of A have an official language, but rather, why you can't speak yours?

Thirdly, if you had read my post correctly you will see that I did not say "12 children" but rather "a 12 year-old child". Which coincidentally you did as well in your original post.

Lastly, in the history of the Nobel Prizes, no one has ever been awarded a prize for as little work as done by President Obama. Yassir Arafat, a committed terrorist, has done more for world peace than has President Obama, if for no other reason than Mr Arafat did in fact work towards a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Being that I am not a liberal, I am well aware of what the Leftist in America do to those they disagree with, being one of those Americans who are not in lock-step with the Leftist Democrats.

The point I was making is that instead of challenging the author, an adult with whom you can have a debate, you chose to mock a 12 year-old child.

Tommy De Seno

I would be Xenophobic if I had an unreasonable contempt for foreigners, which I don't have.

I do have a contempt for non-Americans who believe they can tell Americans how our country can be better - as in folks like you.

Disagreeing with a foreigner does not make me prejudice. You screaming Xenophobia means you have no real arguments on policy so you resort to personal attacks.

Tyrunn

Tommy, you're right - I have no views on your country's polices - I'm far more concerned with my own.

I've not made any attempt to "...tell Americans how our country can be better", if you have perceived it that way, it was not my intent - I merely asked for your opinion on certain points.

However, I have a right to an opinion on any subject I wish, (I believe your country has some sort of peice of paper which safe gaurds this, something you should be truely proud of) - and in a civilised world a person would respond to points raised rather than attack a person's ethnicity or typing mistakes as you did in your previous post.

I'm sure you understand the word Xenophoiba, so you realise contempt doesn't come in to it netier does being foreign, (in the literal sense of the word - it may mean something else in American English, I apologise if it does), but it was a nice try at a veiled insult. (Also, phobia's are not "unreasonable", they are irrational - see I didn't need to correct you, but you seem happy to do so, so why not?).

I raised many points in my previous posts, yet again, as a right wing person, you've attacked me rather then what I've said - why do you continue to do this?

I made valid points in my first post, again, none of your readership seems inclined to answer them, I wonder why?

Also, I know that you are a smart man, your use of language suggests this, so why do you try to paint yourself as some sort of angry republican, using silly words like 'Dummycrat' - it's not becoming someone with the ability to form sentences in the way you do and sells you points short.

I hope I get to see your reply before I have to go out for the evening, (sadly, I'm on a different timezone to yourself).

I would like to re-iterate I bare no mallice towards you, I merely wish to understand your point of view - few of the people I know in a social sense hold right wing views, so I rarely get to delve into the mind of one who does.

Tyrunn

Chris, I have to leave work so I'mm make this quick, you're right captilising titles is customary, not a rule.

I was correcting myself, not you, in an effort to get you to address my points, something you haven't done so, as you are too busy correcting my typing skills, (nerve damage in my right hand from an operation causing most of the mistakes).

Also, as you know, I mistypes left when I should have written right (wing), you knew this but went with it - bravo!

Again, the 12 year old child is a METAPHOR - (and a poor one at that, every right wing news station has used that joke), I would never insult Tommy's child, she has done great work for charity recently and I think what she has done is a good example of what is possible in America.

Please address my points, I'll check in later in the evening. (Your afternoon).

Bruno the Italian Dog, Brown University Medical School or c/o Dolomite Social Club, Providence RI

Goombah Tommy,

You're putting we Italian Americans in a bad light again with your gangster attitude and vulgar high handedness. You brush aside people from other cultures -- why you sound like Lucky Luciano talking about Joe Bonnano's guys. You don't have to discuss, you just disdain. No wonder the mob sided with Hitler and Mussolini. I can see their tendencies in your politics.


It probably bothers you that an African American became President before an Italian-American and it's something to think about. But it should not blind you to the fact that the President deserves respect, nor should it make you wallow in defensive anger and easily recognized self-disgust.

And you should leave your children out of your poorly written tirades. If your son has difficulties at school, this should be a private family matter, so as to not embarrass him.

Chris

Tyrunn, OK we'll let our languages disagreements slide, as for your points

First, as an American, one of the President's jobs, and in my opinion the most important, is the security of this country. Diplomacy and force-of-arms are the tools of this objective. Toadying to world opinion is not diplomacy. The giving of the Peace Prize to President Obama is not reflective of ACTUAL work towards the advancement of peace, but rather a congratulatory "you're not GWB" from the Nobel Committee. In effect, as a Washington Times editorial remarked, it was a prize for showing up. In that case, you, I, or the author's 12 year-old son should all have Peace Prizes.

Secondly, while being in the good graces of the international community is a laudable goal, and one that should be aspired to but any sitting President, when the goal of international approval conflicts with the best interests of this country the President is bound by duty to put the interests of the US first. Now clearly the definition of "best interests" varies from administration to administration and from one political viewpoint to another.

With regard to these points, it is my opinion that those on the left here in the United States have forgotten that no amount of international approval makes up for real security, and that the Peace Prize given to President Obama in fact makes the US less secure because of the "international approval" it bestows upon him and his view of our "best interests" without taking into account that real dangers still persist. That lessens our security rather than bolsters it, and is why I view this Peace Prize as not just a danger to the United States, but a slap in the face to persons or organizations that do real work towards a truly peaceful and just world.

tyrunn

Chris,

Thank you for you reply.

Firstly, I don't think that Obama is toadying to world opinion, I think perhaps his opinions differ from your own and that, (as you rightly say), "...the definition of "best interests" varies from administration to administration and from one political viewpoint to another. ", as such he is conversing with world leaders in hiw own way.

Certainly I could not see issues in such things as the way he 'bows' to certain world leaders is prostrating, rather what he see's as manners.

I've not once said I believe he deserves the prize, I hope that he acheives something within his presidency to warrant such an accolade, but for now I think it is more his rhetoric rather than his actions which have gotten him the award.

I don't believe the Nobel committee are so fickle as to give him the prize for not being Bush, I'm sure you don't either, as if this were the case the award would mean nothing as a whole and you would not be as upset about it as you so clearly are.

Believe me when I say, as a non American that over the last year, the West, especially Europe has become much more tollerant of America, public opinion is swaying to your favour again and it's not all becuase of Obama, please remember my country has and is still fighting wars alongside yours and we understand the sacrafice being made by not just one, but many generations. However, the way in which your current administration is engaging with places such as N Korea, China and to a lesser extent Iran is also cuase for celebration within Europe, it show's a shift in polivy which we hope will lead to fewer deaths and better world peace.

This is not all Obama's doing - I keep saying admisistration becuase I do not think that Obama is running the country the same as Bush, in that his advisors are better listened to, and are of different moral ideologies.

But please realise - America has been looked upon, not with hatred - people don'te hate America! But rather with concern for some time now, and that is changing, slowly yes, but even our commedians are not using America anymore - your leaders are embracing us and we are embracing you back.

You have your current Administration to thank for that.

Darren

OK Tyrunn, my 2 cents worth

If you say nasty things about a republican president, you're anti-American, but it's fair game to say something about an American president who has been given one of the greatest awards a person can recieve?

ANSWER: For reasons stated in Tommy's article, the person didn't do anything to deserve the award. I don't know it works in the other parts of the world, but Americans typically expect awards to be a direct result of hard work. To get one for any other reason is cheap and shallow.

Also, for the people whose favored candidate did not make it to power, they have every right to be the voice of dissent. The previous incumbent gave people on the left 8 years worth of dissenting under the premise that it was patriotic. Now that another person/party is in power, the freedom to dissent should still prevail.

Shouldn't you be proud that the world views your leaders this way?
ANSWER: No, because all those world leaders who could not deal with Bush had sour grapes. Now they have a new opportunity with the current administration and will only do so much until they too are marginalized.

Shouldn't you be proud that since your current administration took over the rest of the Western world has begun treating you like equals again, rather than inbred morons?
ANSWER: You are too naive to think that the Western world EVER treated the US like equals. The past 200 years of diplomacy has shown that only when armed conflict has threatened their existence; the US then becomes equals with other Western countries.

Shouldn't you be proud that since Obama took office, countried who previously refused to talk to you, such as N Korea, are now open to discussion and diplomacy?
ANSWER: Again, you are showing your naivete here because the North Koreans and Iran still hate everyone and are working to improve their weapons capabilities clandestinely; despite all the sanctions the "Western world" wants to impose. I just hope that OB is not pulling a Chamberlin "peace with honor" exercise at our expense.

faustino

Look who's calling other people cheap and shallow. The "thinkers" that comprise the audience of Fox News. You people are a joke to the rest of humankind.

tyrunn

Darren,

"Again, you are showing your naivete here because the North Koreans and Iran still hate everyone and are working to improve their weapons capabilities clandestinely; despite all the sanctions the "Western world" wants to impose. I just hope that OB is not pulling a Chamberlin "peace with honor" exercise at our expense."

Firstly, I think you're showing your naivete here; just becuase Fox says that these countries wish to have nuclear weapons, doesn't make it so.

Let's remember, the only country to use such a device in anger is the one which seems to have decided it's the only one capable of holding them safely.

Why should some countries have access to safe, clean power and others not?

And surely, it would be worse if Obama was pulling a Nixon "peace with honor" exercise at our expense. (I say our in this instance as it directly effects the world).

"ANSWER: No, because all those world leaders who could not deal with Bush had sour grapes. Now they have a new opportunity with the current administration and will only do so much until they too are marginalized."

I think it's important to note our two countries, (for better or worse), had a very close relationship during the Blair/Bush years, one I hope continues - the reason Bush got other world leaders back's up was not due to not being able to deal with him, but not being able to reason with him - something which is becoming even more clear with my governments Iraq war hearings.

"ANSWER: You are too naive to think that the Western world EVER treated the US like equals. The past 200 years of diplomacy has shown that only when armed conflict has threatened their existence; the US then becomes equals with other Western countries. "

I think that's unfair, we stood toe to toe with you guys in Korea, something a lot of Americans seem to have forgotten - we went in with you, we didn't do something then plead when armed conflict was threatened.

In fact, America, for most of the latter half of the C20th was wrapped up in a cold war and and the Vietnam war and very little else with regards helping the rest of the world - we had our own spat with the Argintines and we went into Korea with you and very little else, (other than the second Gulf War, what you guys call the first).

America was seen as a great middle ground and source of good diplomats up to the turn of the last century, certainly the world did not look down at you - as I've said before, when I was younger America was this fantasy land of riches, equality and limitless potential it was something everyone looked to with amazement.

Something clearly went wrong with international relations and you retreated into yourselves for some reason; but the world never hated America, truely we didn't - some foreign lands will always spill hyberbole your way, such is the burden of a super power - but certainly my country was always very proud of our so-called 'special relationship'.

As for your points regarding favoured candidate and the right voice dissent - you're right in saying you should be allowed to do that, I would be horrified if you through otherwise, however, certainly to an outside observer, especially over the last four years of the previous administration, to voice dissent was met with anger and unpatriotic slurs and insults from certain news outlets, it became wrong to protest in such a way against things like war and tourture. Yet roll on this year and we see 'teabaggers' being louded as true American heroes by the same networks who called war objectors evil, unpatriotic scum.

Surely you can see a slight double standard there?

Finally, I'd like to thank you for you reply. America, certainly in it's politics is renowned for it's debating skills, something the Western world has lost somewhere, (sad, since it came from Greece), and it's nice to discuss such topics without the venom or spite which seems to come from some commentators/posters.

zebern

Wasn´t Obamas speech his analysis of the dilemmas of war, human rights and peace? And how this analysis shapes his politics? When you have dilemmas there are no clear-cut answers and solutions. I don't follow how this is a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde analogy, but English is not my native language… One clear statement though was that he will not accept torture regardless of the circumstances.

Some information about the Norwegian Nobel committee and Norwegian politics;

The Nobel Peace Prize is not directly a “Norwegian People’s Choice Award”. The prize is awarded by a 5 member committee. It acts independently though the members are mostly politicians normally retired from active domestic politics. The committee is elected by the Norwegian parliament and a member is elected for a service period of 6 years.

The Norwegian people are split on the choice of Obama at this point in time. It is my understanding that people find it premature. Polls in general show that the majority of Norwegians does not support the committee´s decision. For example this survey published December 1st, the question was “Was it correct to award the peace price to Obama?”:

Germany - Yes (35%), No (43%), Don´t know (22%)
Norway - Yes (27%), No (51%), Don´t know (23%)
Finland - Yes (26%), No (46%), Don´t know (28%)
Denmark - Yes (24%), No (52%), Don´t know (24%)
USA - Yes (21%), No (53%), Don´t know (26%)
Sweden - Yes (17%), No (52%), Don´t know (32%)
Saudi Arabia - Yes (16%), No (60%), Don´t know (24%)
United Arab Emirates - Yes (12%), No (56%), Don´t know (32%)
United Kingdom - Yes (12%), No (60%), Don´t know (28%)
(Source: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/nobels_fredspris/1.6890951 )

My assessment is that a large part of Norwegians, not the majority though, almost look at Obama as Messias. He can say almost anything and many nods their head regardless of what he says, seems they are unconsciously brainwashed. After Obama´s Nobel speech I thought the politicians from the most leftist party would be critical when he used so much time to defend the right, and need, to go to war and not to talk so much about peace. But I was so wrong, no criticism man. The same leftist politicians are strong opponents of the war in Afghanistan and has been so from the very beginning. I wonder what they would have said if Bush in essence said the same as Obama….(well, in fact he has). Hopefully, the speech was a wake-up call, in many ways, for those politicians.

Please note that in general the leftist parties in Norway are far to the left of the entire US politicial scene. Democrats would definitely be on the right and Republicans would extend the scale on the right side. Not uncommon for most European countries I believe.

I would also like to add that Norwegians are strong supporters of NATO and that the military often has surveillance encounters facing the Russian army in the northern territory. Membership in the European Union has been voted down twice by the people, probably because the country wants to maintain it´s independence as much as possible and not be dictated by some central European lawmakers in Brussel. The paradox is that the leftists here do not seem to understand the need to guard and possibly fight to maintain that very same freedom. They seem to take it for granted.

After the prize ceremony the main politician for the rightmost party in Norway maintained she was still opposed that Obama should have been awarded the Peace Prize at this point in time but she endorsed the speech and characterized it as strong.

I am quite confident that this was not the kind of speech the Nobel Committee expected nor the leftists. That is my assessment reading through the lines when they made their comments right after the ceremony, they seemed a bit surprised.

Paula

Read De Swno's piece again, The speech was too complicated for him to understand.

Darren

Hi Tyrunn,
See answers below your comments

Firstly, I think you're showing your naivete here; just because Fox says that these countries wish to have nuclear weapons, doesn't make it so.

[DC: Tyrunn, you can have nuclear power, just have transparency like the rest of the "developed" world to ensure that it stays peaceful. If you are hung up on the concept that a country may not be culpable for dangerous people who just happen to run their country (I.e. Kim Jong II and Ahmadinejad) then, just focus on the dangerous people in power who have used massive force against their own people. The current administration didn't really do much this past summer to admonish any Iran when their civil unrest began. It would have gone to earning him some points for that Nobel.]

Let's remember, the only country to use such a device in anger is the one which seems to have decided it's the only one capable of holding them safely.
[DC: I think your country's previous generation would say that they were glad the west developed (yes, UK scientists were also involved) it first and Germany/Japan did not.]

Why should some countries have access to safe, clean power and others not?
[DC: According to the US Dept of Energy, the last reactor built in March of 1977. That tells you how much the US Government thinks of our current understanding of "safe" nuclear power. When they think they can produce it safely (based on law, safety standards) it will begin again. Again, this goes back to that whole "dangerous person" diatribe I gave you in the previous paragraph.]

And surely, it would be worse if Obama was pulling a Nixon "peace with honor" exercise at our expense. (I say our in this instance as it directly effects the world).
[DC: Detente is a good thing since nobody is "supposed" to get hurt. Remember, politicians do what they do for posturing at home. If it pays other dividends, fine. They pick their fights, that is why OB didn't admonish Iran this summer and Bush didn't admonish Israel for the level of intensity when clearing Gaza.]

I think it's important to note our two countries, (for better or worse), had a very close relationship during the Blair/Bush years, one I hope continues - the reason Bush got other world leaders back's up was not due to not being able to deal with him, but not being able to reason with him - something which is becoming even more clear with my governments Iraq war hearings.

[DC: People at the level of presidents and prime ministers should know how to deal with each other. If they need help, they have tests like Myers-Briggs, FIRO-B and executive coaching to help. It still comes down to belief. Bush (and a high percentage of Americans) believes that being able to walk down a street without having planes or buildings maliciously fall on us is a good thing. As far as "hearings" go, the full truth is never gets fully disclosed and the written findings are merely interpretation. Fact: Saddam had a weapons program. Fact: He hurt his own countrymen. The US (and the UK) at the behest of the UN, invaded Iraq. It is time to move on to "Ok, let's get take down Al Qaeda (who the UN also doesn't like); even if it means invading a harboring country".]

I think that's unfair, we stood toe to toe with you guys in Korea, something a lot of Americans seem to have forgotten - we went in with you, we didn't do something then plead when armed conflict was threatened.

[DC: Thank you for your support in Korea :-)]

In fact, America, for most of the latter half of the C20th was wrapped up in a cold war and the Vietnam war and very little else with regards helping the rest of the world - we had our own spat with the Argintines and we went into Korea with you and very little else, (other than the second Gulf War, what you guys call the first).

[DC: I do recall a lot of development $$ was sent to Africa and South America from both of our countries. So some good things happened too. Pity the stupid stuff has to detract us from that reality.]

America was seen as a great middle ground and source of good diplomats up to the turn of the last century, certainly the world did not look down at you - as I've said before, when I was younger America was this fantasy land of riches, equality and limitless potential it was something everyone looked to with amazement.

[DC: I wouldn't live anywhere else and if someone is desperate for change, it is still a great place to be.]

Something clearly went wrong with international relations and you retreated into yourselves for some reason; but the world never hated America, truely we didn't - some foreign lands will always spill hyberbole your way, such is the burden of a super power - but certainly my country was always very proud of our so-called 'special relationship'.

[DC: The relationship is still there. Just like a garden, it will always need work.]

As for your points regarding favoured candidate and the right voice dissent - you're right in saying you should be allowed to do that, I would be horrified if you through otherwise, however, certainly to an outside observer, especially over the last four years of the previous administration, to voice dissent was met with anger and unpatriotic slurs and insults from certain news outlets, it became wrong to protest in such a way against things like war and tourture. Yet roll on this year and we see 'teabaggers' being louded as true American heroes by the same networks who called war objectors evil, unpatriotic scum.

Surely you can see a slight double standard there?

[DC: Tyrunn: The double standard is a fairly recent inclusion due to the media’s involvement with the American RealPolitik. Opposition broadcasting did not really start here until After Vietnam when more than half of the population did not agree with the major news networks message. It was only then when talk radio and places like Fox or Drudge evolved. We are just beginning to make people on the left (I.e. drive-by media) aware of the double standard they perpetrated against the American public all these years.]

Finally, I'd like to thank you for you reply. America, certainly in it's politics is renowned for it's debating skills, something the Western world has lost somewhere, (sad, since it came from Greece), and it's nice to discuss such topics without the venom or spite which seems to come from some commentators/posters.

[DC: Thanks for the kind words. We all just wanna "Get Along"!]

B.M.

Yeah, the guys in the Third Reich, they were understandably sensitive too about people from other countries getting in their affairs. America should only listen to Americans. We're not in the greater family of man. We're above all that. Tell these buttinskis to go fly a kite and we'll fly the nuke tipped rockets.

ferragamo shoes


the information of this post is very relevant
for what i am looking for, thank you so much for sharing this one

The comments to this entry are closed.

RightyBlogs Headlines