EPTObama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
| ||
|
endGame
United States394 Posts
On October 11 2009 13:46 HowitZer wrote: Pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let the free market cleanse the imbalances in the economy by letting the banksters fail. Do you have a grasp on the war or economics in general? Pulling our troops out of countries that are only safe to the degree that they are because we maintain a military presence is far from deserving of a "Peace Prize". And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy. | ||
|
Sky
Jordan812 Posts
Medicine + Show Spoiler + Elizabeth H. Blackburn Carol W. Greider Jack W. Szostak "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by sexy telomeres and the enzyme telomerase" Chemistry + Show Spoiler + Venkatraman Ramakrishnan Thomas A. Steitz Ada E. Yonath "for giving the world enough information about ribosomes to make us all hot and bothered Physics + Show Spoiler + Charles K. Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication" Willard S. Boyle George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit – the CCD sensor" George E. Smith also gets a personal acknowledgement from me for having a very creepy picture on the nobel site. Literature + Show Spoiler + Herta Müller "she saw some stuff, and some things and then wrote about them." [source] | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 12 2009 05:50 endGame wrote: And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy. Do you realize how common it was for huge banks to fail before 1930. Just in the US, there were the Panic of 1907, the Panic of 1893, and the Panic of 1837. Earlier Panics include 1837, 1857, 1819. Funny how they just about happen every 20 years. 20 years is just about long enough for another generation of foolish bankers to over extend themselves with bad loans and another generation of foolish money savers to trust them. A panic wouldn't be so bad as what happened during the Great Depression. That required further coordinated foolishness including but not limited to bailing out failing companies, coordinated wage floors, trade wars, destroying crops, seizing gold, and getting companies to collude with one another. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 12 2009 02:58 Mortality wrote: Sigh. I hate having to repeat myself. I should also mention a key point: the South was greatly afraid that as new states came into the union, they would be free states and vote with the free states accordingly. The South was steadily losing it's position of power and they were scared that with enough states choosing to be free, the union would force them into submission through legislation. That's why saying that a vote for state's rights would have been a vote for Stephen Douglas is badly misguided. Edit: the southern states were interested in protecting their rights as states. This is the point you seem to be missing. They wanted to continue preserving their way of life meanwhile the North was steadily getting bigger and importing immigrants by the truckloads to get bigger still. The fire-eaters may have used language about "rights", but they seceded because they no longer possessed a stranglehold on the federal government with which they could force their will on the northern states who, except for a very small minority, had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery as it existed in the south. It was not about their rights, and certainly not about the concept of "states' rights." it was about their continued power and control. In the run up to the civil war, southerners were responsible for the worst expansions of federal power, namely the fugitive slave law of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision. but if you want to argue that the fugitive slave law of 1850 was a victory for "states' rights", then go ahead. As a side note, I fucking hate the term "states' rights". Individuals have rights; states do not. As government entities, states have duties and powers that have been delegated to them, not rights. | ||
|
wodesanchoon
25 Posts
On October 12 2009 05:50 endGame wrote: Do you have a grasp on the war or economics in general? Pulling our troops out of countries that are only safe to the degree that they are because we maintain a military presence is far from deserving of a "Peace Prize". And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy. There are more external factors than just that... | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
Russian nuclear industry insiders told the BBC the process proposed would involve Iran sending its uranium to the IAEA, which would forward it to Russia for enriching. The enriched uranium would then be returned to the IAEA and sent to France, which has the technology to add the "cell elements" needed for Iran's reactor, they said. This process would enable Iran to obtain enough enriched uranium for its research reactor, but not enough to produce a weapon. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
As a side note, I fucking hate the term "states' rights". Individuals have rights; states do not. As government entities, states have duties and powers that have been delegated to them, not rights. Wrong. Please go back and look up the definition of a legal right. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
It's a issue with both Sweden and Norway, people are too damn politically correct here and it would actually probably even be seen as rude in Norway if Obama didn't get the peace price. Denmark are different and more outspoken about many issues in general and finns have their own agenda. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 22 2009 01:39 L wrote: Wrong. Please go back and look up the definition of a legal right. Please go back and read the Constitution of the United States. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Under the arrangement of the Constitution, citizens were to report directly to their respective states for almost all matters. Their connection with the federal government should have been extremely minimal. The big exception was the collection of excise taxes on things like whiskey (whiskey rebellion) and import tariffs for merchants. Under that model, states had powers reserved to them and the right to exercise them overriding federal statutes. The ability to dissolve the union and for a state to secede from the union was part of the states' rights package. Anyways "having powers" is a property of the governing body or figure and "having rights" is a property of the governed people or politic. Since Constitution creates a relationship of governance by the federal government over the states, the states can be safely consider to have rights in such an arrangement. Not going to argue with you about southern states not respecting the limits of federalism. I think the world would be a much better place had New England seceded in the 1820's. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
The right of states was established in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the Articles of Confederation, our original intended form of government in case you have forgotten, there was not enough national unity for these United States to guarantee their sovereignty from Britain, and in fact many believed that the United States would fail and be reclaimed as a colony. The fathers of the Consitution meant for this amendment to be a mildly weakened form of the following clause from the Articles of Confederation: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. Notice the keyword: right. The founding fathers believed in a notion called state's rights. Clearly you believe that the only kind of right is a "natural right." Unfortunately for you, the idea of a natural right is pure bullshit and is nothing more than a legal entitlement. The physical universe is an unthinking, unfeeling thing that does not bestow any entitlements on anyone and can, and does, take away your life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness perfectly well on its own. When the founding fathers spoke of "natural rights," they meant rights bestowed to all people by a higher power -- God. Now you're welcome to believe that there is a God and that he (or she) bestows rights upon you, that's your choice, but I think you should be aware of the argument you are making. From my perspective as an agnostic, the only kind of right is a legal right. The states were expressly given the right of self-jurisdiction under the Bill of Rights and it takes a Constituitional Amendment to deny any state the right to do anything. That is in fact true even today, though with the power of central government today, no state is serious about stepping on toes to practice that right. Furthermore, quit bashing the South so mindlessly. "Fire-breather," "fire-breather," dude, have you never heard of the word fear? Do you have any concept of how scared people can get of their way of life being brought into jeopardy? It's easy for you to tar and feather them, but that's because you can safely rest behind the military and economic might of the United States of America. We're the biggest bullies on the playground today, but we weren't always. Don't take for granted the fact that you've never had to seriously fight for anything in your life and probably never will. I'm sorry that you're so brainwashed by modern propaganda that you cannot realize that the southerner's believed that their livelihood was in jeopardy. I'm sorry that you believe that they did everything they did purely because they were evil. But just because you believe they were evil doesn't make that true; they were no less human than you or I and they grew up into a way of life just as all people do and were afraid of what would happen if that way of life were to disappear, just as all humans are. There was a political and economic war going on between the North and South that was far more than just a product of Southerners wanting to "impose their will" on the North. That war evolved into the most bitter and gruesome blood bath in American history. Don't think for a second that the North was innocent in all of this. They did not have to march into the South. Slavery is an ugly blotch on the fabric of American history, that's for sure, but to the South it was a way of life they could no longer see themselves living without, much in the same way that you would be scared of living in a world with technology taken away from you. The southerners wanted to guarantee that there would not be enough northern power to take away their rights as states. When dealing with people, never make the mistake of getting overly fixated on ideology. In the end, it's all just bullshit anyway. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
But natural rights are only valid insofar the people are willing to assert those rights and demand redress of grievances, and in the case that such measures are insufficient to rebel and if necessary die to overthrow oppression. It's also apparent in the Bill of Rights where the many rights that it protects are consistently implied to preexist. Recognition of natural rights is an accumulation of wisdom from civil society. It is the optimal pattern through which large groups of people can coexist, cooperate, and thrive in concert. Or you can believe that it's endowed by a creator. | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On October 22 2009 07:00 jalstar wrote: The early United States was more like a combination of the European Union and NATO. The states were united by a common currency and military but were decidedly separate. The idea that the United States was a country instead of a collection of states didn't come about until after the civil war. I'd say the United States became a country after the Constitution... Well at the very least compare that to the Articles of Confederation. Wait what? I look at the title. I look at the arguments in the last few posts. Where did this come from? | ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
Gandhi was the man. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10871 Posts
On October 22 2009 19:55 Oxygen wrote: I don't know if I will ever agree with a nobel peace prize winner if they are waging wars. Gandhi was the man. you might doublecheck your knowledge about Ghandi.. He wasn't all goody goody... | ||
|
baal
10673 Posts
On October 12 2009 05:50 endGame wrote: Do you have a grasp on the war or economics in general? Pulling our troops out of countries that are only safe to the degree that they are because we maintain a military presence is far from deserving of a "Peace Prize". And we let the New York Bank of the United States fail in 1930; there was no action from the Federal Reserve, panic ensued and we found ourselves in the midst of the Great Depression. Granted that wasn't the only reason leading to the Great Depression it was one of the most detrimental blows to our economy. yeah Afghanistan is soooo safe only because american soldiers right man god could you be any more brainwashed? Also the Great Depression was orchestrated by the marginal loan recall and the unfounded histeria that the banks had no funds causing mass withdrawal busting the banks. This isnt at all like the 1929 depression, this was the government having their hands in F&F and having a secure bailout so they all profit like crazy... and they did. But back on topic this is actually enraging, how in the fuck do these mother fuckers dare to give Obama the Nobel Prize, Al-Gore was ridiculous enough, but this is just a fucking insult to every single noble prize winner and the whole world. If i were a nobel prize winner, id turn over my prize because this just rendered it totally worthless. | ||
| ||
