2009-10-13, 20:37 | Link #4322 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Quote:
It's almost SOP for a family-owned business's owner who wants his company to stay within the family, so it's not a huge surprise. The high-handed approach to appoint his son to the role is a bit much; for a family-owned business, you can't say a lot if the boss puts family in plum roles, but France isn't a family-owned business. Officially anyway. It sets a bad precedent for a democractic type government, IMHO. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-10-13, 21:32 | Link #4323 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
|
Russia Resists U.S. Position on Sanctions for Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/wo...diplo.html?hpw The Russians know Obama is a weak pile of shit and they are going to milk him for everything they can get. Since Obama thought he could gain some Russian cooperation after killing the missile shield deal, he has exposed himself as the weak fool that he is. I expect Obama to give the Russians more concessions in the vein hope that Russia will then back us on Iran. The Russians see him as an idiot and they will play him like the idiot he is. Obama is a disaster worse than Carter. |
2009-10-13, 21:38 | Link #4324 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Age: 39
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-10-13, 21:55 | Link #4325 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-13, 22:01 | Link #4326 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Here's the bloody link to Nature.com --- maybe you need to get some some actual *science* news sources. Free bonus: http://www.sciencenews.org/ for the less technically oriented.
__________________
|
2009-10-13, 22:04 | Link #4327 | |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-13, 22:17 | Link #4328 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Quote:
Barack Obama is no George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, and judging from his actions so far, he's not super decisive. At the same time, I don't see him as being a fool either.
__________________
|
|
2009-10-13, 22:25 | Link #4329 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
Well, Obama didn't have to foster unity in a new and weak country against a colonial master, and he didn't have to preside over a civil war. Different times, different challenges.
__________________
|
2009-10-13, 22:31 | Link #4330 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-10-13, 22:50 | Link #4331 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Quote:
I see the first happening, the second looks a bit iffy, and not much of the third, unfortunately, at the moment. To really know, we might have to wait till his Presidential Library is built so his working papers can be studied. Whether or not history will see Obama as a Great Man - or just as another minor footnote in the list of U.S. presidents as just being the first non-white man elected to the position - is still in the future. He does not deserve that status at this point in time as he has not met and successfully faced the challenges at hand, IMHO; however, he does not deserve to be called a "weak fool" either.
__________________
|
|
2009-10-13, 23:49 | Link #4333 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Quote:
Kashmir glaciers are melting quickly Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-10-14, 00:09 | Link #4334 |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
I was thinking more like, I hope not. Cause, that would make most Americans ignorant of what is really going on. I currently have no idea why there is even a discussion of whether he deserved it or not. He has not. Some clowns in the media (see Fox) putting all the negative aspects on the matter should not be an obstacle for us to see the truth on our own. If the awardee cannot even show in emotion that he deserved it, some, like the MSNBS people, trying to defend the award for the sake of defending it make it even worse. And this kind of things is a big reason why such clowns (see Fox) succeed in reaching more people sharing similar beliefs on issues like these.
|
2009-10-14, 02:25 | Link #4335 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
|
The award sounds like a setup. It creates a conflict of interest for an incumbent President to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. And the awards committee knows that, placing Obama in a tough situation. By accepting the prize, he is under an unwritten obligation to refrain from war. How can a President be Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces and accept a Nobel Peace Prize? How would it influence decision making? Obama had to go on the air the same night he received the award, thus not giving him time to consider matters thoroughly. He said he didn't think he deserved it, but had to appear gracious. That is unfortunate, because this is something he should have known from the start.
By design, that is the whole point behind it. To me, the act of awarding the Nobel to Obama is an overt act of hostility toward the US...an attempt to subvert Presidential duties and an interference with our government. Obama was caught off guard by all this and he should now make it clear that as an incumbent President he appreciates the award, but now must return it because it constitutes a conflict of interest per his duties to the US. So far I don't agree with anything Obama has in mind for our country. However, I also don't like it when foreign entities fool around with our business! |
2009-10-14, 02:35 | Link #4336 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
That being said, not only would Obama (and America) look absolutely foolish for rejecting the award, but he would harm any credibility he has gained on the world stage (the extent of the harm is unknown). And for what? A few brownie points with conservative pundits and comentators (and said pundits and comentators would immedaitly forget the brownie points within a day or two). The real question isn't should he reject the award, but what he should do with the money. A million dollar doanation to the right charity could be a wonderful PR move. |
|
2009-10-14, 02:40 | Link #4337 |
Mizore-chan
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Moe Land
Age: 43
|
from Yahoo Buzz.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93092?fp=1 Bizarre UFO-like halo over Moscow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHOPxVM6oIw
__________________
|
2009-10-14, 02:51 | Link #4338 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
|
Here's a bit history:
Teddy Roosevelt's involvement in an American war was the Spanish-American War in 1898, 2 - 3 years or so before he took office in 1901. TR was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his efforts in negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. A look up of the time line of American involvement in war lists nothing between 1898 and 1914 when WWI broke out. Wilson was elected President in 1912 and did not declare war against Germany until 1917, well into his fifth year in office as a two term President. Wilson was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1919 for his efforts to end WWI and form the League of Nations, after personally taking upon himself armistice talks with Germany. First, these men were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after doing something well into their second terms in office. They got the award for DO and not for TALK. Second, and by extension, there was no BRIBERY or possibility of such foreign involvement to influence their actions due to their receiving the award after their actions had already taken place. There is a third reason with so much money being involved with the award, it is pretty much a given in the real world that if you take money from someone you are beholden to them. This is almost always a bad position to be in. |
2009-10-14, 03:05 | Link #4339 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
^Please actually look into all the past laureates, not just the American presidents. Many of them did not accomplish anything specific by the time they received their awards. Rather, they won solely because they were attempting to advance the cause of peace, not because they had brought peace to any specific land (Roosevelt was actually the first individual to receive the award for actually brokering a peace deal between 2 warring nations; the previous recipients had only set-up potentially helpful organizations, or done basic things to advance the cause of peace).
In the end, Obama's win is surprising, but it is in no way a real deficit to his cause, or America's cause in the world, and it is certainly not bribery. I do not want to divert the thread any further, so I will bow out. |
2009-10-14, 06:33 | Link #4340 | |
Rawrrr!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 40
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|