News & Politics - Barack Obama Thread #2: 100 Days Later & Still Holding Onto the Job! - Page 14

ceilirose · 10-10-2009, 09:33 AM

I don't know if it's political but I know that those who oppose him will make it political. The people who criticized Gore and Carter when they won and said they didn't deserve it are saying the same things about Obama.

It's kind of surprising but maybe some Americans don't realize just how isolated and confrontational we were the last eight years. I wondered many times what was happening to this country. The world just might be acknowledging that times have changed.

**Callace** · 10-10-2009, 11:18 AM

I was shocked when I heard about that. Tought it was a joke, and then came down to "totally ridiculous" I like the guy, I think he has done a lot to help the country, and the world, out of the mess the last government left it in, but this is too much too soon.

About the discussion of hate speech before, couldnt that be based on the same standards as libel? If someone says something that damages another's social standing or esteem, this one should have the right to press charges against the speaker. If the reputation of a whole group is taking a beating, then that is basically the same concept, grand scale, as I can see it.

PncsKate24 · 10-11-2009, 03:14 PM

From my understanding of how the whole nominations process works for the Nobel Peace Price, Obama would have had to be nominated less than a week in office. <--That tells me that his nomination was "He's not Bush."

But winning the award after only giving a few speeches? Really? Did his words change the world THAT much in 9 months?

OR could this be a wake up call for the US and the World and a message of "Peace is possible"?

**TheAngel** · 10-12-2009, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PncsKate24 (View Post)

From my understanding of how the whole nominations process works for the Nobel Peace Price, Obama would have had to be nominated less than a week in office. <--That tells me that his nomination was "He's not Bush."

But winning the award after only giving a few speeches? Really? Did his words change the world THAT much in 9 months?

OR could this be a wake up call for the US and the World and a message of "Peace is possible"?

Eh, I totally think it was an attempt by the international community to give him more authority. It was a political power play. Obama's preaching things like the peace and getting rid of nuclear weapons and shutting down Gitmo and creating a system of universal healthcare in the US, so needless to say, most of the people involved in the Nobel Peace Prize process want him to succeed in these things. This nomination was supposed to give him credibility and validate his attempts. That being said, they failed miserably because the Nobel Prize really has no bearing here in the States. At least not to most people. If Al Gore can get one for doing absolutely nothing, most people really do believe they're mostly political tools and have nothing to do with a person's actions. I'm afraid these guys shot themselves in the foot here because it will just give Obama's opposition more fuel when it comes to speaking out against "Obama worship". Like I said, I think Obama has potential, but he hasn't done anything yet that makes me thing he's deserving of a nobel peace prize.

**sunnykerr** · 10-13-2009, 07:11 PM

I think the Peace Nobel committee were probably showing their relief at the American move away from the war-mongering... which, you know, as far as definitions of "promotion of peace" go... seems accurate.

Even then, though, it must have been a pretty thin year for candidates if Obama was the best qualified among them.

Callace What I learned from our debate is that hate speech is defined differently from one region to the next. In Canada, it seems pretty cut and dry. Libel demands you show an impact. Hate speech requires that you show... well, hate.

You know. Criticism is okay, hate isn't. Which is why the KKK cannot publish their pamphlets up here.

**Callace** · 10-14-2009, 10:36 AM

I see. That makes sense.

**sunnykerr** · 10-14-2009, 07:18 PM

Well, like I said, the definition changes from area to area.

**vc318** · 12-02-2009, 05:14 AM

So, the president spoke last night about the war and stated that he was sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. This surprises me considering that he said he WAS NOT going to do this. *sigh* Well, I guess he doesn't have much of a choice. Imagine what criticism he would receive if he did send all the troops home tomorrow.

**sunnykerr** · 12-02-2009, 08:12 PM

That and he needs to shore up Afghanistan because...

Well, while Bush shifted the focus away from Afghanistan to Iraq, because he got less international support in Iraq so I guess the manpower had to be found somewhere else, a lot of the countries who went into Afghanistan on Bush's vow to hunt down the masterminds of the September 11th attacks have been exhausting their troops manning the war in Afghanistan.

In 2011, it will have been ten years that Canada's in Afghanistan. And, to be blunt, the war is NOT popular at all up here. And 2011 is the deadline for our involvement.

Right now, the only vocal support for our continued involvement in that war seems to come from our Prime Minister. And he's not particularly popular either.

So, while I can't imagine that American military families are particularly thrilled to hear that their men and women will be asked to serve again and longer, this may be what's needed to have continued international support (in the form of troops) in Afghanistan.

I don't know. It may be too late.

**vc318** · 12-02-2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

So, while I can't imagine that American military families are particularly thrilled to hear that their men and women will be asked to serve again and longer, this may be what's needed to have continued international support (in the form of troops) in Afghanistan.

Especially for those who are almost done and might have their time extended.

Quote:

I don't know. It may be too late.

I think so too. With the suicide rate so high amongst soldiers, I don't think they know nor care anymore why they're here or there.

**sunnykerr** · 12-03-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

Especially for those who are almost done and might have their time extended.

Well, that's been everyone with troops in Afghanistan. Everyone's troops have had to extend their times there. The only way that would have been avoided is if there had been the return of the draft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

I think so too. With the suicide rate so high amongst soldiers, I don't think they know nor care anymore why they're here or there.

I would certainly understand why they don't know or care why they're in Iraq.

**sunnykerr** · 12-05-2009, 01:52 PM

It seems to have worked, to some degree. Allies have committed more troops following Obama's speech.

NATO allies commit 7,000 more troops for Afghan war

**vc318** · 12-06-2009, 12:48 PM

Not sure if these things really hold water but:

Obama approval rating below 50 percent - CNN.com

I can't help but think that the numbers are true. I don't know, I guess people are ticked off between job loss, the huge housing market mess and now the clear fact that this war isn't ending any time soon. It's alot of pressure on the president and people need someone to blame.

**sunnykerr** · 12-07-2009, 08:24 PM

I have this book of Top Tens (I'm a trivia junkie). Anyway, the ten most popular presidents since they started calculating these approval percentages are pretty much the same as the ten least popular presidents.

Essentially, you rate high and/or low depending on how much you rate at all. It's a lot more to do with factors the person can't control (global economic crisis, terrorist attack, natural disaster, etc.) than with anything they themselves could possibly hope to accomplish.

I mean, look at it this way. Obama's administration may manage to write the embryonic stages of what will hopefully one day be a health-care policy that makes sense in an industrialized democracy. That's about the biggest possible contribution any government could possibly hope to make. Up here, Tommy Douglas is still considered a national hero for his contributions to universal health-care policies.

**vc318** · Yesterday, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

I mean, look at it this way. Obama's administration may manage to write the embryonic stages of what will hopefully one day be a health-care policy that makes sense in an industrialized democracy. That's about the biggest possible contribution any government could possibly hope to make. Up here, Tommy Douglas is still considered a national hero for his contributions to universal health-care policies.

I think part of the disappoval is maybe that some people don't like change, I guess, which is understandable. I mean, there's a high level of doubt and many questions still left in the air but hey, those are the things you deal with when you're the president.