Inspector · Alsip, IL · Member since 2008 · 361 posts · 75 votes
16y
Yes, we are at war. Not the way it used to be fought though. It's more subtle.
Yes, by virtue of being somehow elected to the office of president of the United States, he is in fact Commander and Chief.
As far as the Nobel peace prize, no, I don't feel that he earned it. He wasn't in office 10 days when he qualified. All for what, for some apologist speeches that he made, denegrating America to a lot of people that wanted just that sign of weakness from the leader of the free world? I'm sorry, but screw that. In the end, I think that it will lead to more bloodshed than we've already seen. Some of it on this soil. Time will tell on this one, and I hope that I'm wrong.
Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Yes, he earned it! The qualification for receiving a Nobel Peace Prize is to be a card carrying socialist and to do great damage to the United States of America. Yep, he earned it!
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by MikeOH:
The qualification for receiving a Nobel Peace Prize is to be a card carrying socialist and to do great damage to the United States of America.
Really? I didn't know that...
Mother Teresa won the Peace Prize back in the 70's...I guess she wasn't all that great, huh?
I mean, I knew that she caused mass suffering and death in the hopes that God would be appeased...and I knew that she padded her pockets by extorting money from rich people in order for them to receive her help...but I didn't realize that she was a socialist and did great damage to America.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Christian Malesic:
Do they share anything in common? I say yes.... all 3 are very liberal progressives.
Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt were also publicly known as eugenicists until the activities of a little liberal progressive socialist party in Germany made the final solution of eugenics less than popular and the third in this list found the need to employ covert eugenicists.
Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Why do people go to auto races? To see WRECKS. Very Peaceful.
Why do people LOVE football? They want to see HARD hits. Very Peaceful.
Let's go to a High School Campus. At one end, let's have two guys playing chess on a Card table. At the other end of the campus, let's have two guys start a fight. Which one will draw a crowd?
Let's face the FACTS. Man is a VIOLENT, SELFISH, GREEDY and MEAN animal!
When I say PEACE is overrated, I mean that man is incapable of obtaining it. A few men, here and there, can be peaceful, but as a whole, PEACE IS UNOBTAINABLE for man in general. Therefore, we create systems that try to contain the violence as much as possible. Laws, governments, societies are instituted so that some semblance of civility can be obtained. But man is basically EVIL and therefore, PEACE is not possible.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Mike M:
But man is basically EVIL and therefore, PEACE is not possible.
Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how much first level thinking people do in these political forums...no wonder most real estate investors fail miserably...
You say peace is not possible, yet 99.9% of my life is spent dealing with peaceful situations. But wait, that's impossible according to you! But I'm willing to bet that most (certainly not all, but most) Americans feel the same way. Likewise in most of the world.
Certainly there are pockets of the world where peace doesn't exist at all (war-torn area, places of civil unrest, etc), but for the most part, much of the world lives in either peace or near-peace on a daily basis.
When view from a more philosophical perspective (perhaps what you were doing above), certainly there are potential extremes. There's the nirvana where no-one fights, everyone loves one another and we all get along. On the other side, there's outright chaos, mass extinction through WMD and the destruction of civilization.
Neither of those is likely to come to pass anytime soon. So to say "PEACE IS POSSIBLE" or "PEACE IS NOT POSSIBLE" just doesn't make sense from a critical thinking standpoint.
For the most part, ridiculous generalizations aside, the world exists somewhere between those extremes.
We can strive to move towards one side or the other, and if we strive hard enough, we can actually make a difference in the lives of those people who don't experience peace 99.9% of the time.
Come on folks, just like peace, THINKING is not overrated. It's an integral part of success, and if you do it often enough, you will find yourselves more successful than you ever thought possible...
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
16y
Originally posted by Mike M:
Why do people go to auto races? To see WRECKS. Very Peaceful.
Why do people LOVE football? They want to see HARD hits. Very Peaceful.
Let's go to a High School Campus. At one end, let's have two guys playing chess on a Card table. At the other end of the campus, let's have two guys start a fight. Which one will draw a crowd?
Let's face the FACTS. Man is a VIOLENT, SELFISH, GREEDY and MEAN animal!
When I say PEACE is overrated, I mean that man is incapable of obtaining it. A few men, here and there, can be peaceful, but as a whole, PEACE IS UNOBTAINABLE for man in general. Therefore, we create systems that try to contain the violence as much as possible. Laws, governments, societies are instituted so that some semblance of civility can be obtained. But man is basically EVIL and therefore, PEACE is not possible.
That is an interesting observation, Mike but it only gives an incomplete picture. Yes, Man is a VIOLENT, SELFISH, GREEDY and MEAN animal, but he also COMPASSIONATE, GENEROUS, LOVING, and AFFECTIONATE. We are much more complex creature then just two dimensional species. True, historically, humans killed more of their own in comparison to any other species, but that all due to our complex nature.
Over generations, we developed the sense of right and wrong, and interestingly enough, religion is not the motivator. Otherwise, the world would be a one warfare arena where tyrants and dictators rule the game.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Wow, I'm in agreement with Eddie and J Scott here but from a different perspective. I believe in the good of people. I believe that most people that are raised with principles and see things beyond themselves are good at heart. I believe there's enough of those people in the world to keep a modicum of peace and that it is their responsibility when violence or oppression does break out - to restore peace. Where it is most effectively demonstrated is where peace lovers are allowed to be armed.
I do not believe in maintaining peace at the cost of liberty, however. True, lasting peace without liberty is impossible. It is merely the delayed violence of an impending rebellion.
Real Estate Investor · Tampa, FL · Member since 2008 · 456 posts · 42 votes
16y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Mike M:
PEACE is over rated.
Nice...
Hey Karen - Maybe this mentality is the reason we have so many issues with values in this country...
Sorry J. Scott, I haven't been on in a couple of days. I was out busy being that thing you abhor...a capitalist, making money, not war, like our so called Nobel Peace Prize winner. And I agree, if turning our country over to slime like that is what it takes to have peace, it's way over rated.
BTW, your last reply to the other thread must have been a doosey. I see the entire thing's been deleted lol!
Real Estate Investor · ten mile, TN · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 374 votes
16y
Most of the time, peace is achieved by destroying the capability (or desire) of the unpeaceful to create war (or confilict).
Just as those fighting are pulled apart and kept apart by someone who from a more powerful position can do so.
When a weakness is detected in that power position all blank breaks loose again.
Tim's gun position comes from a power position, while the same can not be said about the other position until they take Tim's gun away from him.
Title Representative · Fort Lauderdale, FL · Member since 2009 · 62 posts · 24 votes
16y
Based on the below reasoning from the Norwegian Nobel Committee, I am on the fence. We all know what Obama says he "wants" to do. And "sure" he is making some efforts. However, my opinion is that the award should be proven by results and not based on a spoken vision. I strongly support our President and feel that eventually, he will prove why he could obtain such an award. But for now, his "visions", still have not had time for the "results" or to become "fact". I hope he proves and lives up to the standards that this award speaks to. Here is the official statement:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
16y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Wow, I'm in agreement with Eddie and J Scott here but from a different perspective.
I'd say it's the exact same perspective, given what you wrote... :)
I should explain further. I come from the perspective of someone who believes what I wrote while legally carrying a gun where I'm able to.
Have I EVER expressed any opposition to gun laws or those carrying guns? I'm a Constitutionalist, and I think the Constitution is pretty clear on the issue...
Don't get me wrong...I think it's poetic justice when a woman flaunts a gun at a child's soccer game and then gets shot in the face by her husband, but I don't argue the right of people to do it.
If I felt I couldn't adequately protect myself without a gun, I'd probably carry one also. That said, I'm fairly certain I can handle any situation likely to arise...
Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y
Yes, I'm sure that spouting your socialist nonsense would be enough to handle a situation with a drug crazed criminal intent on doing you harm. LOL! You could try talking some of that pacifist gibberish. Maybe you could try some Kung Fu, being careful to not hurt the poor, misunderstood criminal who is surely a victim of society! That ought to do the trick against some violent felon with a handgun!