Obama wins Peace Prize.

[AlP]

Obama is a powerful man. He knew that before the award. But this is an international acknowledgement. How will it affect him in the future? I think, if it happened to me, being awarded a Nobel peace prize would change my actions. I would (irrationally) try to justify the award.

[Will]

Why? She merely said the same stuff every die-hard Obama maniac has said. Is it a sexual attraction thing or something?

Jimmy Carter is not exactly who I'd use a measuring stick. Hell, these people failed to do anything. E for effort is not how legitimate awards work. You have to do something tangible.

I would love to talk to Obama and find out how it feels to be so arrogant and have a cult of personality.

She's gay and I generally date Asian women, so no it's not a sexual attraction thing. She's right that historically, many Nobel Prize peace winners won not for results, but because of both the intent and the attempt. President Obama hasn't done a lot yet, and he's certainly tripped up on some very, very serious things, but clearly the Nobel committee believes his intent and attempt are worthy of praise.

What I'm hoping is that this will force President Obama to finally admit that Afghanistan is a bullshit war like Iraq. Or maybe he'll kill off domestic spying for good. Or he'll stop rendition. Or he'll take a serious crack at fixing the problems in the market instead of just patchwork. Or a million other things.

As for tangible things, President Obama has already overturned Bush's insane religious policies about not using embryonic stem cells, he nominated Sotomayor instead of picking a bland moderate for the bench, he ordered the closing of Gitmo, and our European allies once again have our back. He lowered taxes for most Americans, he's established a credit card bill of rights, he's expanded loan programs to small businesses, he's created a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, he's signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, he's opened up dialogues with middle eastern leaders (instead of ignoring them like a retard), he's been much better about releasing presidential records, he's funded a major expansion of AmeriCorps, he overturned Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, he's banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees, he's on track to weatherize 1,000,000 homes a year, and he extended unemployment insurance benefits.

And I'm pretty sure he bought his daughters a dog, as promised.

[Big Mac]

Why? She merely said the same stuff every die-hard Obama maniac has said. Is it a sexual attraction thing or something?

Jimmy Carter is not exactly who I'd use a measuring stick. Hell, these people failed to do anything. E for effort is not how legitimate awards work. You have to do something tangible.

I would love to talk to Obama and find out how it feels to be so arrogant and have a cult of personality.

She's gay and I generally date Asian women, so no it's not a sexual attraction thing. She's right that historically, many Nobel Prize peace winners won not for results, but because of both the intent and the attempt. President Obama hasn't done a lot yet, and he's certainly tripped up on some very, very serious things, but clearly the Nobel committee believes his intent and attempt are worthy of praise.

What I'm hoping is that this will force President Obama to finally admit that Afghanistan is a bullshit war like Iraq. Or maybe he'll kill off domestic spying for good. Or he'll stop rendition. Or he'll take a serious crack at fixing the problems in the market instead of just patchwork. Or a million other things.

As for tangible things, President Obama has already overturned Bush's insane religious policies about not using embryonic stem cells, he nominated Sotomayor instead of picking a bland moderate for the bench, he ordered the closing of Gitmo, and our European allies once again have our back. He lowered taxes for most Americans, he's established a credit card bill of rights, he's expanded loan programs to small businesses, he's created a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, he's signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, he's opened up dialogues with middle eastern leaders (instead of ignoring them like a retard), he's been much better about releasing presidential records, he's funded a major expansion of AmeriCorps, he overturned Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, he's banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees, he's on track to weatherize 1,000,000 homes a year, and he extended unemployment insurance benefits.

And I'm pretty sure he bought his daughters a dog, as promised.

And....you think he deserves a Nobel Peace prize?

[Will]

And....you think he deserves a Nobel Peace prize?

Now that I understand the peace prize isn't about results, sure, he can have one. Is he the most deserving? Almost certainly not, but that's not really what it's about. Whatever committee chooses the Nobel award winners feels that he's earned it, probably because President Obama is rebuilding a lot of bridges burned during the last eight to thirty years.

Anyway, when I think of the Nobel Prize, I'm usually thinking of accomplishments in the sciences. I'm thinking of Marie Curie, Francis Crick, James Watson and Albert Einstein, not President Carter or President Obama.

[nikkmichalski]

I just don't understand why!  
Didn't they do the same thing to Al Gore?
At this point, The Nobel Prize is waaay down on the award chain. Now all my idols must have a Tony. Move over Marie Curie, Angela Lansbury is my role model now!

[Big Mac]

And....you think he deserves a Nobel Peace prize?

Now that I understand the peace prize isn't about results, sure, he can have one. Is he the most deserving? Almost certainly not, but that's not really what it's about. Whatever committee chooses the Nobel award winners feels that he's earned it, probably because President Obama is rebuilding a lot of bridges burned during the last eight to thirty years.

Anyway, when I think of the Nobel Prize, I'm usually thinking of accomplishments in the sciences. I'm thinking of Marie Curie, Francis Crick, James Watson and Albert Einstein, not President Carter or President Obama.

So it's a really expensive e for effort then. Hell, I could use the money they give the recipients. Obama owes it to tax-payers like me after wasting money on a stimulus package that is myopic entirely. Make it out to the next generation as a "Sorry I put a huge amount of debt on you, I'll blame Bush later as usual..."

[Will]

So you're one of these people that thinks the bailouts happened in 2009? Or maybe you think Barack Obama was president in October of 2008? The bailouts were authorized by President Bush. President Obama was inaugurated after the bailouts. He had nothing to do with them.

[Big Mac]

So you're one of these people that thinks the bailouts happened in 2009? Or maybe you think Barack Obama was president in October of 2008? The bailouts were authorized by President Bush. President Obama was inaugurated after the bailouts. He had nothing to do with them.

Except that he pushed for nearly a trillion in stimulus money. I know the bailouts were Bush, Obama did the stimulus package nonsense.

Both are failure presidents. We're going to look back at this chapter of our country and think, "Wow, we had some dumbass presidents. Clinton, Bush, Obama.....good thing we passed that law where you had to pass a stringent voter's test. Now pass me the Tylenol Cold/Flu/Aids pill!"

I'm glad Obama's hits keep rolling. He is the Democrats answer to Dubya. Less than a year in office and he's put a hardcore leftist on the supreme court, he's got an Attorney General who wants to persecute Bush (won't happen because they're continuing Bush's policy of "interrogation" offshore) and ban guns (Holder has many many quotes), he has suggested making school days longer (nonsense, just reform how much crap is taught instead, more critical thinking assignments and less test taking skills), his healthcare reform will fail even if it passes because it's too far reaching and will cost too much, Hilary Clinton is his Sec of State, calls police stupid in a case that he isn't involved in other than knowing the guy then invites them over for beers like some kind of neighborhood issue when we have wars, recession, crime, etc. to deal with, and he's probably one of the most polarizing people in this country.

I honestly hope Obama keeps it up, he's failing miserably. First we replace Congress 2010, then him in 2012. I hope the dems enjoy the ride while they can, we're sharpening up our axes and getting our war paint on.

[Will]

Stimulus and bailout are two different concepts. Bailouts are an injection of liquidity directly from the government's checkbook. For example, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 featured the government spending $700 billion to purchase bad assets. That was direct spending into an area which economically speaking was absolutely deadly. TARP payments since then have been shitty at best. Stimulus, on the other hand, is a set of tax rebates and business incentives. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is nominally worth about $787 billion, but this includes a great deal of tax cuts, increasing unemployment benefits, and investments in education, healthcare and infrastructure. In other words, it's not just the government buying a bunch of bad assets that should have died, it's the government investing in things which actually might turn out to be a boon in the long run.

I'm not saying I support ARRA, but it's certainly a much better investment than the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. This isn't worshipping Obama, it's just government economics.

[Ultima22689]

Stimulus and bailout are two different concepts. Bailouts are an injection of liquidity directly from the government's checkbook. For example, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 featured the government spending $700 billion to purchase bad assets. That was direct spending into an area which economically speaking was absolutely deadly. TARP payments since then have been shitty at best. Stimulus, on the other hand, is a set of tax rebates and business incentives. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is nominally worth about $787 billion, but this includes a great deal of tax cuts, increasing unemployment benefits, and investments in education, healthcare and infrastructure. In other words, it's not just the government buying a bunch of bad assets that should have died, it's the government investing in things which actually might turn out to be a boon in the long run.

I'm not saying I support ARRA, but it's certainly a much better investment than the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. This isn't worshipping Obama, it's just government economics.

^ This, the country has needed some major investment into infrastructure, education and other things for a very long time, hopefully the stimulus does indeed produce major results in the coming years. On the other hand it's silly to call the stimulus a failure before it has even began to have effect on anything. It's not supposed to yield any results till sometime in 2010 if I remember correctly, like most investments things don't just start going awesome the moment you made the investment.

[Big Mac]

I'm not saying I support ARRA, but it's certainly a much better investment than the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. This isn't worshipping Obama, it's just government economics.

Sorry Will, I guess I'm getting a little too caught up in the debate.  I don't mean to come off as attacking you. I don't think this ARRA is going to really be beneficial.

I am in no way a fan of the Republicans myself. I tend to align myself with them because they seem to be the least ambitious when it comes to messing with my personal life as much as the Democrats. Both are bad sides of the same coin to me.

I think our country is still on its collision course with disaster, just knocked down a few knots.

[Will]

Sorry Will, I guess I'm getting a little too caught up in the debate.  I don't mean to come off as attacking you. I don't think this ARRA is going to really be beneficial.

It already has to a point.

I am in no way a fan of the Republicans myself. I tend to align myself with them because they seem to be the least ambitious when it comes to messing with my personal life as much as the Democrats. Both are bad sides of the same coin to me.

If I may, at least the Democrats are up front about being statists and in love with the federal government and welfare. The Republicans pretend to be, as I suspect you are genuinely, for small government. When their turn inevitably comes around, the deficit explodes. They cut taxes and increase spending, every time they've been in power in my lifetime. If anything, the Republicans should earn more of your scorn because they pretend to be what you actually are, then turn on you once they've got your vote.

I'm registered Green, btw. And I voted for Obama to keep McCain out of the oval office.

[Big Mac]

Sorry Will, I guess I'm getting a little too caught up in the debate.  I don't mean to come off as attacking you. I don't think this ARRA is going to really be beneficial.

It already has to a point.

I am in no way a fan of the Republicans myself. I tend to align myself with them because they seem to be the least ambitious when it comes to messing with my personal life as much as the Democrats. Both are bad sides of the same coin to me.

If I may, at least the Democrats are up front about being statists and in love with the federal government and welfare. The Republicans pretend to be, as I suspect you are genuinely, for small government. When their turn inevitably comes around, the deficit explodes. They cut taxes and increase spending, every time they've been in power in my lifetime. If anything, the Republicans should earn more of your scorn because they pretend to be what you actually are, then turn on you once they've got your vote.

I'm registered Green, btw. And I voted for Obama to keep McCain out of the oval office.

Oh and they do, but they're more useful than democrats to me. What did the Soviets call them....Useful Idiots. I have scorn for both parties but right now we have Dems in power and I'm rather unhappy about that fact. Now if we had a more even playing field where they (either side) couldn't do anything really useful to any end.

I would love to see a libertarian congress in the works.

Out of the two I'd rather have McCain in office. I always liked him and feel he tried to get the kooky vote out of desperation. I think Obama is just a celeb president and has no real substance to him. Lot of pretty speeches and no real action.

[Will]

A libertarian congress would be about as useful as a vegan head of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Mac. I know libertarianism sounds niceâ€"wouldn't it be great if the useless government would finally just butt outâ€"but nearly abolishing the federal government would mean that most red states would go down in flames. One of the jobs of the federal government in it's current incarnation is to redistribute wealth among states. States like North Dakota, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, and Arkansas get a great deal more from the federal government than they pay in. Blue states like Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and my home state of California pay a lot more to the federal government than they get back. Play this out. Libertarians take the House, then the Senate. President Paul starts pushing for legislation to severely reduce the role of the federal government. States like California and New York, which are having serious budget troubles now, will suddenly find ourselves able to pay for our social programs again. Many red states, on the other hand, will have to drastically cut things like unemployment, food stamps, etc. Since a libertarian congress would undoubtedly privatize social security and would further deregulate Wall Street, many people would find themselves unable to retire and would have to work. Those in states with welfare in place would probably be okay. The red states, though, would look a lot like the US before the new deal. life expectancy would drop off, poverty among the elderly would skyrocket, putting massive stress on the rest of the economy. Keep playing this out. Eventually people would figure out what's going on. Blue states, no longer burdened by the red states, would house more small businesses and would likely be creating more wealth despite still having moderate tax rates. Eventually something would finally cause a snap and the US would shift to a socialist republic not unlike some of our European allies.

You've seen it. You can't un-see it.

[Big Mac]

A libertarian congress would be about as useful as a vegan head of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Mac. I know libertarianism sounds niceâ€"wouldn't it be great if the useless government would finally just butt outâ€"but nearly abolishing the federal government would mean that most red states would go down in flames. One of the jobs of the federal government in it's current incarnation is to redistribute wealth among states. States like North Dakota, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, and Arkansas get a great deal more from the federal government than they pay in. Blue states like Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and my home state of California pay a lot more to the federal government than they get back. Play this out. Libertarians take the House, then the Senate. President Paul starts pushing for legislation to severely reduce the role of the federal government. States like California and New York, which are having serious budget troubles now, will suddenly find ourselves able to pay for our social programs again. Many red states, on the other hand, will have to drastically cut things like unemployment, food stamps, etc. Since a libertarian congress would undoubtedly privatize social security and would further deregulate Wall Street, many people would find themselves unable to retire and would have to work. Those in states with welfare in place would probably be okay. The red states, though, would look a lot like the US before the new deal. life expectancy would drop off, poverty among the elderly would skyrocket, putting massive stress on the rest of the economy. Keep playing this out. Eventually people would figure out what's going on. Blue states, no longer burdened by the red states, would house more small businesses and would likely be creating more wealth despite still having moderate tax rates. Eventually something would finally cause a snap and the US would shift to a socialist republic not unlike some of our European allies.

You've seen it. You can't un-see it.

Uh huh....because a statist nearly facist government really works out well. How you enjoying your tax rates, buddy? Or how about the fact if you read certain books you are suddenly a blip on their bloated radar screen. Or how about the idea that the PATRIOT act is not going away because it is an effective tool to silence critics.

To say Blue states would somehow prosper is laughable. Blue states also tend to create massive deficit to pay for their welfare programs. I'd welcome a drop in life expectancy, personally, because most people I see on the street tend to be wasting resources. Harsh? Perhaps, but I feel that nature tends to be the best leader in the matters of population control.

I think your scenario is highly unlikely. Then again, I'd also prefer a pretty anarchist way of life. I tend to also be quite self-sufficient and fiercely independent. Most people tend to be conditioned to rely on authority, I tend to want to subvert/question it.

Red/Blue, you're still screwed. It's like being eyed by two wolves who gun for various parts to kill you. One wants to go for your neck, the other your stomach. You're fucked either way.