This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why? A baby that is born who has a father that is a rapist makes it have less of a right to live?
My God, man. Do you not stop to think for even a second....
Read my posts before replying. Please.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Its just to argue the point - even if abortion was 40% of the causes of death, voting based solely on a candidate position on abortion is stupid.
Why? We're talking about a cause of death that is 99% preventable (I'm willing to make allowances for rape and incest for the purposes of this discussion).
Seriously, I find relying to you a lot like smashing my head into a wall over and over again. If you want replies, try to think a little bit longer before posting.
Post by
Squishalot
Its just to argue the point - even if abortion was 40% of the causes of death, voting based solely on a candidate position on abortion is stupid.
Why? We're talking about a cause of death that is 99% preventable (I'm willing to make allowances for rape and incest for the purposes of this discussion).
Abortion has other wide-ranging effects too, not just the 'death' rate, though I personally don't believe that an abortion in the first trimester is considered 'killing', any more than cutting off one's finger in the knowledge that it'll grow back.
There are all the racist jokes like "How does a black woman fight crime? Abortion." But if I'm not mistaken, the guys at Freakonomics demonstrated that there's a pretty good lagged correlation between the introduction of legalised abortion and a drop in criminal activity (irrespective of race, just to clarify, though they could probably demonstrate if it impacted on one socioeconomic group more than others). Since it's lagged, you can assume meaningful correlation = abortion causes drop in crime (as opposed to the flip side of 'drop in crime causes abortion').
This implies that crime reduced as a result of legalised abortion. It's theorised that a large portion of crime previously was undertaken by unwanted kids who had been born into unhappy and unwilling families, creating an environment that leads into criminal activity. Legalising abortion reduced the number of kids being born in this environment, resulting in less criminals being developed.
So it's not as black and white as you present it. Making abortion illegal will prevent 40% (current) deaths, using your numbers, but is likely to result in significant criminal activity, including murders and other homicides, 20 years down the track.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Shinshiva
Roland/Jake 2012
tbh...
Also, Abortion in the 1st trimester is like pulling a squashed nail.
3rd Trimester is straight murder.
I love double standards.
ALSO:
during the preceding year shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
I'd say Obama has done a lot of this over the past year. He spent all the last 6 months running around after idiots that don't want to stop fighting.
Post by
MyTie
during the preceding year shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
I'd say Obama has done a lot of this over the past year. He spent all the last 6 months running around after idiots that don't want to stop fighting.
The nomination deadline was 2 weeks after he entered office. Anything he did to recieve the award was before that period of time.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
452972
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
For anyone that was against Obama winning this very prestigious award, who would you have had win this award?
Obama won this award for campaigning on the platform of 'hope' and for 2 weeks (max) of office time. He had accomplished NOTHING for winning this. Thus, anyone on earth, who hasn't had a negative effect on peace, deserves the award just as much as him. However,
here are 7 people that deserve it more
.
Post by
MyTie
As a Kiwi:
Obama deserves the Nobel piece prize just for making the rest of the world have a grain of respect for America again.
What did Obama do that caused so much respect? Name the thing that he did, please.
Edit: The Obama infatuation is as stupid as the Bush defatuation. You ask someone to name what Bush did, and back it up with logical reasoning and cite specific events, and they fail. You ask someone to name what Obama did, and back it up with logical reasoning and cite specific events, and they fail. The whole thing reminds me of professional sports.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
during the preceding year shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
I'd say Obama has done a lot of this over the past year. He spent all the last 6 months running around after idiots that don't want to stop fighting.
The nomination deadline was 2 weeks after he entered office. Anything he did to recieve the award was before that period of time.
Agreed, but it's also fair to say that most of what he did to promote peace / goodness / general nice things that make people respect him was done during the election campaign, rather than after he was made President.
In terms of the criticisms laid on what he's actually done, compare it to someone like Aung San Suu Kyi. She's been the poster child for democracy in recent years, but if you really think about it, she's done not much different than what Obama has done prior to the election. Lots of talk, running in the election in order to make a difference in government. The only difference is that Suu Kyi never made it there.
Edit:
He's not Dubya. That's all that's needed for a lot of people.
Actually, it's that he's not part of the Bush family. Bush Jr and Bush Sr are moreorless cut from the same cloth. If you take polls from people around the world who've 'a newfound respect for America', you'll find that's actually the key difference between pre-Obama and currently.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I'd have to disagree. Sr. is more of a centrist and a pragmatist. Why he wasn't very well liked by many republicans (kinda like McCain). And he was probably the most qualified man (by resume, far from the best president) to hold the job. Unlike his son, who basically became president on his daddy's name (you could argue that yes, he was governor of texas but how do you think he got that job?). Oh, and he had the good sense not to actually invade Iraq.
I agree that he was certainly well qualified for the role, but at the end of the day, I'm just calling it on public perception of the men, from a foreigner's point of view. In Australia, at least, Bush Jr and Bush Sr are both seen as people who got America involved and entangled in conflicts that were really none of its business.
(Would Bush Sr have authorised the commitment of forces in the Iraq War V1 if it weren't for his concern that Saddam would have more control over oil? Probably not.)
Anyway, we're getting side tracked, so let's drop this :) Suffice to say, Obama isn't Bush (either or), and that raises his image, relatively speaking, in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
452972
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It's so populat not to like Bush, especially for no reason. I think I'm going to love Bush for no reason, just to illustrate to you all how stupid you sound to me.
"President Bush did more for this country than anyone! He inspired lots of good feelings in people, and people respected him and stuff. If it weren't for Bush, we wouldn't have the safety and security from the terrorists."
From now on, this is my stance. Any discussion about presidents will follow this cliche of not thinking out a well documented opinion, only I'll take the opposite opinion as everyone else.
Post by
MyTie
You have got to be kidding me MyTie.
GWB Jr was someone consistently made fun of for barely being able to complete a sentence without making a hilarious mistake.
I'm pretty sure there are multiple compilations on the net of absolute /facepalm moments from GWB.
Obama hasn't had to do anything but complete whole sentences to automatically gain more respect from people outside of the USA.
So your saying he won the nobel peace prize for completing sentences? My one year old is getting ready to accept his prize then too!
But I'm not going to argue with a Republican about how good / bad GWB was compared to Obama, it would be like talking to a wall.I'm not a republican. So, I'd love to hear your well thought out arguements, because I'm
SURE
you have it all figured out.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.