From Facebook:
Dave Linsalata Obama given the peace prize cause he is black. What has he really done to deserve it? If Obama had intregrity and believed in peace, he would put an end to all of the wars and U.S. occupations
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
From a civil rights perspective that makes a lot of sense. Somehow I imagine him being black wasn't the only criteria for the selection. You got a link or something?
Dave Linsalata
What has he actually accomplished? According to the story, The Nobel Committee had him voted in by Feb 11TH, shortly after he was inaugurated. They picked him based on the color of his skin, which is exactly contrary to the ideals of Dr. Martin Luther King - who was a true peace prize winner.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
He's a symbol of our country. As a country we overcame a long history of racism that still exists today by voting him into office with a landslide. He's taking a rather selfless and somewhat self-defeating approach to bipartisanship, trying to overhaul health care and making the best of 2 wars left with him in shambles. He's doing pretty good for the country he was put in charge of.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
And somehow I think MLK would be down with the O'
Dave Linsalata
He could have pulled our troops out and ended these wars when he first got into office, he didn't.
He could have ended the patriot act, he didn't.
He could have helped reduce the debt/deficit, he didn't. He increased it 10 fold.
He called afghanistan a war of "necessity." Obama has made afghanistan his war. We still have to get out of Iraq.
Many whites voted for him based on race, and that defeats the purpose of overcoming racism. They voted for him out of a sense of white guilt, with a complete disregard for his policy or his views.
Obama has perpetuated wars and added more debt for our generation to deal with - he has compounded the problems that Bush started - he has done nothing to end middle-east resentment toward us. I am no fan of Bush, but Obama is all talk, no action, no integrity, just another politician in an empty suit.
He could have ended the patriot act, he didn't.
He could have helped reduce the debt/deficit, he didn't. He increased it 10 fold.
He called afghanistan a war of "necessity." Obama has made afghanistan his war. We still have to get out of Iraq.
Many whites voted for him based on race, and that defeats the purpose of overcoming racism. They voted for him out of a sense of white guilt, with a complete disregard for his policy or his views.
Obama has perpetuated wars and added more debt for our generation to deal with - he has compounded the problems that Bush started - he has done nothing to end middle-east resentment toward us. I am no fan of Bush, but Obama is all talk, no action, no integrity, just another politician in an empty suit.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
"Many whites voted for him based on race, and that defeats the purpose of overcoming racism. They voted for him out of a sense of white guilt, with a complete disregard for his policy or his views." Can you back that up with any sort of credible study? He won the election in a 300something to 100something margin, that was because of white guilt?
As far as the wars go, what are we supposed to do? Pull out 100% and leave a power vacuum to be filled with whoever has the most guns? He's making more headway in Afghanistan than we did in the past 8 years. Have you seen the lists of Taliban leaders captured/killed? And, like, what do you think we should do about the debt? Cut all social spending? Cut military funding? Education? As a society we funded our deficit. As a society we have to climb out of it and that's going to take some spending. It's not like theres an on/off switch for debt.
As far as the award goes, from CNN:
"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. ... I will accept this award as a call to action." -Obama
"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," the committee said.
Are a bunch of super smart Norwegians political stooges for USA agendas? Somehow I doubt that. Shit, he hasn't done everything right, but to say his only accomplishment is having a black father isn't fair.
As far as the wars go, what are we supposed to do? Pull out 100% and leave a power vacuum to be filled with whoever has the most guns? He's making more headway in Afghanistan than we did in the past 8 years. Have you seen the lists of Taliban leaders captured/killed? And, like, what do you think we should do about the debt? Cut all social spending? Cut military funding? Education? As a society we funded our deficit. As a society we have to climb out of it and that's going to take some spending. It's not like theres an on/off switch for debt.
As far as the award goes, from CNN:
"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. ... I will accept this award as a call to action." -Obama
"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," the committee said.
Are a bunch of super smart Norwegians political stooges for USA agendas? Somehow I doubt that. Shit, he hasn't done everything right, but to say his only accomplishment is having a black father isn't fair.
Dave Linsalata
"As a society we have to climb out of it and that's going to take some spending."
No, it'll take saving, not spending. It'll require we cut social programs. It's time for people to quit being dependent on the government, Sam. Our country was built on individual responsibility, not government dependence.
The same people who say we can not leave Iraq and Afghan immediately, are the same people who said the wars would be a cakewalk - so I do not believe the fearmongering. If we leave, we increase our respect, because as we continue to fight - we draw more resentment from the region. We cause more hatred from muslims. Innocent people continue to be killed - I don't see how any human rights activists can support this war.
It's time to leave now, it's time to get out. The more they delay, the more difficult it will be to get out - that is my point. But Obama will perpetuate the wars and spending - which got us into trouble in the 1st place.
No, it'll take saving, not spending. It'll require we cut social programs. It's time for people to quit being dependent on the government, Sam. Our country was built on individual responsibility, not government dependence.
The same people who say we can not leave Iraq and Afghan immediately, are the same people who said the wars would be a cakewalk - so I do not believe the fearmongering. If we leave, we increase our respect, because as we continue to fight - we draw more resentment from the region. We cause more hatred from muslims. Innocent people continue to be killed - I don't see how any human rights activists can support this war.
It's time to leave now, it's time to get out. The more they delay, the more difficult it will be to get out - that is my point. But Obama will perpetuate the wars and spending - which got us into trouble in the 1st place.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
So...you're plan is to quit the wars and cut government spending? You think that everyone hurt by the economic depression, or by disease, is a mooch? The reason we have a government is because a society left to its own devices will collapse. The strong will exploit the weak and blame them. We're only as strong as the weakest of us. What's so bad about asking for help? Like maybe we should stop government spending on road maintenance, or schools, or the fire department, or our military, or our police force, or our medicare, or our social security, or our defense of the right to happiness. A sustainable economy isn't formed by dropping pennies in a piggy bank. You build a healthy, educated population and down the road it pays off.
Dave Linsalata
I am saying that we are perpetuating our problems Sam - continuing to print money and inflate the currency is going to hurt poor people in the long run even more. We are borrowing trillions from China to finance our debt, we are printing money, which has led to the devaluation of our dollar - which means prices on all goods and services will continue to go up . Monetary policies must be fixed (the federal reserve must be audited) but Obama has given these central banks more power and more authority.
I never said everyone who has been hurt by this recession is a mooch. You are just putting words in my mouth.
You have no evidence that a society collapses without a government. I am not promoting elimination of government, but the federal govt. is supposed to be very limited. It isn't their duty to coddle with other nations, form alliances, bully other nations, etc. We need to worry about our own nation and we must remove the troops to save money and lives.
Private enterprise has done way more then government can ever do. Roads and Bridges can and are usually built by PRIVATE COMPANIES. You seem to think that it is the government's responsibility to hold society together, instead of the hard working ethic of the individual. Our country is based on SELF-GOVERNMENT and independence and liberty. The constitution clearly states that no federal money should be used for the arts or for education. The department of education is an unconstitutional department, like many other things.
There is poor people in all nations. There is poverty in all nations and you can't stop that. But our country used to be the most well informed, well read, most healthy, until we started to ask the government to bail us out.
I never said everyone who has been hurt by this recession is a mooch. You are just putting words in my mouth.
You have no evidence that a society collapses without a government. I am not promoting elimination of government, but the federal govt. is supposed to be very limited. It isn't their duty to coddle with other nations, form alliances, bully other nations, etc. We need to worry about our own nation and we must remove the troops to save money and lives.
Private enterprise has done way more then government can ever do. Roads and Bridges can and are usually built by PRIVATE COMPANIES. You seem to think that it is the government's responsibility to hold society together, instead of the hard working ethic of the individual. Our country is based on SELF-GOVERNMENT and independence and liberty. The constitution clearly states that no federal money should be used for the arts or for education. The department of education is an unconstitutional department, like many other things.
There is poor people in all nations. There is poverty in all nations and you can't stop that. But our country used to be the most well informed, well read, most healthy, until we started to ask the government to bail us out.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
Um...in international terms, it is our government's responsibility to deal with other countries. Our we supposed to fly to China individually to discuss commerce? Should I have gone to Afghanistan and punched Bin Laden in the face?
And I do have evidence that a country collapses without government because there is no international presence founded on anarchy.
And you're right, you didn't call anyone a mooch, but who do you think needs to stop depending on government then? And why? And what is the alternative?
And private companies execute public works through government funding. If we wanted a road...the people who benefitted from it would have to finance it without government intervention. So it would be self taxing. So what's the difference?
Yeah, there are poor people and there always will be as long as money exists. That doesn't give the rich an excuse to exploit them, though. The president of Bank of America just got fired and ended up getting over 100 million dollars in severance and compensation. He benefitted from a system run by the rich to keep the rich rich. I think that needs to change, and it changes by funding the poor with money and faith (faith in humanity, not religious faith)
And I do have evidence that a country collapses without government because there is no international presence founded on anarchy.
And you're right, you didn't call anyone a mooch, but who do you think needs to stop depending on government then? And why? And what is the alternative?
And private companies execute public works through government funding. If we wanted a road...the people who benefitted from it would have to finance it without government intervention. So it would be self taxing. So what's the difference?
Yeah, there are poor people and there always will be as long as money exists. That doesn't give the rich an excuse to exploit them, though. The president of Bank of America just got fired and ended up getting over 100 million dollars in severance and compensation. He benefitted from a system run by the rich to keep the rich rich. I think that needs to change, and it changes by funding the poor with money and faith (faith in humanity, not religious faith)
Dave Linsalata
It isn't our responsibility to deal with any countries Sam. The founders were clearly against forming alliances. Jefferson once said.. "Commerce with all nations, have alliances with none." Forming Alliances is actually a bad idea contrary to conventional wisdom. When you form alliances, you put your country in harm's way. Other nations can see that as antagonistic. Our country has become very antagonistic toward other nations, like Iran, telling them what they can and can't have.
Some private companies do execute through public funding, sure, but many do not, they do so because private companies and business build America - it's called initiative and responsibility. You can't just tax everything and throw money at every problem and expect that things will be taken care of.
You think the poor should be given handouts? Do you think hard working people should have their money stolen, and given to poor people? You are basically promoting wealth redistribution.
Much of the problems you are discussing have to deal with monetary policy and the weakening of the dollar. In the 60's and 70's, the dollar could buy even the lowest classes a lot more then it can buy them now. People were much better off overall 30 years ago then they are now. The dollar has lost 96% of it's value since 1913. While there is a lot of corruption in big business, you are only examining one part of the problem.
Some private companies do execute through public funding, sure, but many do not, they do so because private companies and business build America - it's called initiative and responsibility. You can't just tax everything and throw money at every problem and expect that things will be taken care of.
You think the poor should be given handouts? Do you think hard working people should have their money stolen, and given to poor people? You are basically promoting wealth redistribution.
Much of the problems you are discussing have to deal with monetary policy and the weakening of the dollar. In the 60's and 70's, the dollar could buy even the lowest classes a lot more then it can buy them now. People were much better off overall 30 years ago then they are now. The dollar has lost 96% of it's value since 1913. While there is a lot of corruption in big business, you are only examining one part of the problem.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
Ok, that's fair, the problem is bigger than the rich exploiting the weak. But...let me get this straight, your proposed international policy is to stop political and commercial partnerships with other countries? If I'm wrong please tell me what you are actually proposing.
Dave Linsalata
No, I believe in trade and commerce and friendship with countries, but not this idea of "alliances." By alliance, I mean we shouldn't be mingling with other nation's who have different ideals then us. For instance, our constitution says congress must declare war. We can't just simply go to war on behalf of our people because are "alliance," is calling for our help. We are a sovereign nation and must continue to defend it's sovereignty like the founders intended. I believe that our alliances with other nations serve us wrong - they are antagonistic. We have gotten into this business of trying to police the world and call on other nation's to join us in trying to put sanctions on other countries like Iran. I think it's hypocritical. We bomb other countries and innocents die, and then we have the nerve to tell Iran what they must or must not do, otherwise we will sanction them or bomb them? We have become a country that believes in conquest and nation building. We need to mind our own business and return to true American ideas.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
We were always a country that believed in conquest and empire building. It goes by different names in history, but it started with killing and subjugating native populations, and finished with manifest destiny, as far as our land holding goes. We've always had economic stakes in other places of the globe, or at least since we actually had some sway in the world. What's the difference between friendship and an alliance? Just semantics, if you ask me. Also I'm a little troubled by your thinking we shouldn't mingle with nations with ideals different from ours. Competing ideas and beliefs is how things get better. Intellectual evolution. May the best idea win.
Dave Linsalata
Friendship means you are willing to trade with other nations and commerce with them. Alliance means you are willing to put the expense of your nation on the line for the sake of some other countries wishes.
For instance Sam, many of the Brits supported Bush's war at the start because their sense of "alliance," made them feel obligated - but as time went on, they saw that was a mistake.
When I say alliance, I mean intermingling policies. Commerce and trading can occur without discussing foreign policies. We are our own country and we shouldn't be forced into anything unless we decide as a people to do so.
For instance Sam, many of the Brits supported Bush's war at the start because their sense of "alliance," made them feel obligated - but as time went on, they saw that was a mistake.
When I say alliance, I mean intermingling policies. Commerce and trading can occur without discussing foreign policies. We are our own country and we shouldn't be forced into anything unless we decide as a people to do so.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
I'm personally glad for military alliances. Those alliances support commerce and national security, for ourselves and others. I don't think it is giving up sovereignty but rather acknowledging that we aren't the only country in the world. If the dollar was confined to our country's borders, it would collapse a whole lot faster. If we didn't have military and trade alliances, it would be confined to our country.
A TANGENT FROM THIS CONVO
Dave Linsalata Read my latest entry. http://davelinsalata.com/the-ingredients
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
So...your credible study is your theory that because white people feel guilty about slavery they voted for Obama? I don't think white people really feel that guilty. In fact I think they get off on being on top, since we have been since slavery. There are poor white people, but who runs this country? Rich white men. That institution is beingchallenged, and the powers that be don't like it. So are we talking about some racist plot that only exists in Beck and Limbaugh fear mongering, or why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?
As far as the war in Afghanistan goes, we were attacked. Remember to never forget. Obama is hunting the Taliban, and doing a pretty good job of it considering everything else on his plate.
As far as the war in Afghanistan goes, we were attacked. Remember to never forget. Obama is hunting the Taliban, and doing a pretty good job of it considering everything else on his plate.
Dave Linsalata
"In fact I think they get off on being on top, since we have been since slavery."
Hey Sam, who sold their own people into slavery? Black people handed them over to whites! Do you want to talk about that? And which whites "Get off?" Sure some people enjoy the fame, but some people who own big business actually give jobs to people - it's called capitalism, free enterprise - are you against these evil white men who give hundreds of thousands of jobs? You know, like Bill Gates.
"There are poor white people, but who runs this country? Rich white men."
'As far as the war in Afghanistan goes, we were attacked. Remember to never forget. Obama is hunting the Taliban, and doing a pretty good job of it considering everything else on his plate."
We were attacked by a group of people, not the country or government of Afghanistan. We have no business being there. But like Iraq, the blood of all of these innocent people is on the hands of Bush and Obama. Innocent civilians are dying in afghan just like Iraq, but somehow this is ok or justified because Obama is ordering it? Come on dude, you are just promoting double speak when you say Bush's wars are wrong, but Obama's are ok. They are both unjustified because neither country attacked us.
Hey Sam, who sold their own people into slavery? Black people handed them over to whites! Do you want to talk about that? And which whites "Get off?" Sure some people enjoy the fame, but some people who own big business actually give jobs to people - it's called capitalism, free enterprise - are you against these evil white men who give hundreds of thousands of jobs? You know, like Bill Gates.
"There are poor white people, but who runs this country? Rich white men."
'As far as the war in Afghanistan goes, we were attacked. Remember to never forget. Obama is hunting the Taliban, and doing a pretty good job of it considering everything else on his plate."
We were attacked by a group of people, not the country or government of Afghanistan. We have no business being there. But like Iraq, the blood of all of these innocent people is on the hands of Bush and Obama. Innocent civilians are dying in afghan just like Iraq, but somehow this is ok or justified because Obama is ordering it? Come on dude, you are just promoting double speak when you say Bush's wars are wrong, but Obama's are ok. They are both unjustified because neither country attacked us.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
I think Afghanistan makes sense as a war. The war in Afghanistan was going poorly cause no one gave a shit about it until Obama came into office. Iraq doesn't make sense so I won't defend it, but if we leave immediately it will make recovery much harder on the country.
So...black people sold their people into slavery and that makes it ok? Why are we even talking about slavery? My point is exploitation of blacks in America created a social platform that elevated our country to a national power, and leading the way were rich white men. Left behind was a sub-social/economic class of people, and the reverberations from that exist today. Obama's election marked a monumental step forward in our country's racial tolerance.
I'm not saying being rich is bad. Good for Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The problem is that very many with money and influence use it to further their own ends more than their employees. Look at the coal mines in Kentucky, or the people hurt routinely by their insurance providers. Be rich, great, but be watched very closely, is my point. Obama is watching them, or at least pretending to, and they don't like it. I think that's where most of the opposition stems from.
So...black people sold their people into slavery and that makes it ok? Why are we even talking about slavery? My point is exploitation of blacks in America created a social platform that elevated our country to a national power, and leading the way were rich white men. Left behind was a sub-social/economic class of people, and the reverberations from that exist today. Obama's election marked a monumental step forward in our country's racial tolerance.
I'm not saying being rich is bad. Good for Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The problem is that very many with money and influence use it to further their own ends more than their employees. Look at the coal mines in Kentucky, or the people hurt routinely by their insurance providers. Be rich, great, but be watched very closely, is my point. Obama is watching them, or at least pretending to, and they don't like it. I think that's where most of the opposition stems from.
Dave Linsalata
The war is going poorly because there is nothing we can DO to STOP THEIR WAY OF LIFE. Sam, they have been fighting for thousands of years - we aren't going to ROOT out terrorism. It is a naive and foolish objective. Iraq was a failure and so is afghanistan. We have no right to invade their country and guess what? Innocent people die as a result of our invasion. It isn't just. Tell me how it is just Sam. Did their people or government ever attack us? No.
Dave Linsalata
The war will continue to cost us lives. You know, it's always other people fighting our wars. Would you go fight this war Sam if you believe it is just? Or should someone else fight it for you? The majority of our country was opposed to Iraq and is opposed to perpetuating this war with Afghan. The government uses our military in a foolish way - making them fight on the other side of the world. They should be home defending the homeland, but instead they are fighting a worthless war and dying for nothing. Afghanistan is not an imminent threat to us, either is Iran, and now our country is trying to bully them around. It just amazes me.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
Well, when we invaded Afghanistan the Taliban was pretty much in charge, and since they were the entity that attacked us, I think it is just retaliation and makes sense from a defense stand point since they don't have any intentions of not hating us any time soon. And...as far as changing their lifestyles, you get its not a cultural war, right? We're not fighting Islam. We're fighting the people that attacked our country, and continue to try to attack us. We aren't attacking the government institutions in Afghanistan or their mosques, we're looking for "terrorists". I support that. And no, I won't fight that war because I think I can help the country just as much through other venues.. We don't have a draft, so everyone fighting signed up voluntarily. If I was drafted, yeah, I would go.
All of that applies to Afghanistan, not Iraq. I wouldn't protest a total withdrawal from Iraq, but I wouldn't advocate it either.
All of that applies to Afghanistan, not Iraq. I wouldn't protest a total withdrawal from Iraq, but I wouldn't advocate it either.
Dave Linsalata
So how do we exactly win the war there? You say it isn't a cultural war, but let me ask you this: Do you think the muslims over there like our invasion? No, they do not. And Bin Laden actually prefers that we are over there on their turf. This war causes more resentment. You can say all you want that the taliban did it, so we must attack their country. But what is your definition of victory?
They have been fighting for thousands of years, Sam. We can't put an end to terrorism - it is naive and foolish to think we can root out terrorism.
They have been fighting for thousands of years, Sam. We can't put an end to terrorism - it is naive and foolish to think we can root out terrorism.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
Right...but they attacked us, that's the historical separation. Victory to me is killing Bin Laden and permanently disbanding the Taliban, or forcing them into some pathetic semblance of a political force like the Aryan Nation. Of course "the Muslims" don't like us invading. But they are glad to be rid of the Taliban, and there are polls to support that.
Dave Linsalata
I think part of our debate hinges upon time. Let's see in a few years how much public support there is for this war. Remember Bush's war had good support at the start, but when reality set in, many people lost faith in the war. I personally never supported his wars, and will not support this war. I think the public will wake up to that but it will take time. You will see Obama's ratings fall if he sends more troops to afghan and this war goes on for a few years and tons of soldiers die, and debt continues to pile up, and Afghan is still the same corrupt country - then the public will see Obama's policies are no better.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
I mean, I think Bush's support fell when it became clear he didn't give a shit about the Taliban and was just looking for a foot hold in the Middle East. That's why I'm supporting Obama because he's refocusing military attention on the only legitimate beef we had over there.
Dave Linsalata
It comes down to this for me Sam - I can never support a war that I will never fight in myself. If they are such a threat and I feel threatened, then I would join and fight. I don't believe they are an imminent threat. Regardless of the fact that our army is voluntary, I believe if an individual feels threatened and wants to protect his country, they will go and fight for it, not wait on another individual or group to do so.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
Ok, that's fair, but I think its a bit impractical. If everyone got up and fought in Afghanistan when the approval rating was through the roof our country's infrastructure would collapse.
Dave Linsalata
My point is this: Many people talk and talk about how we need to be over there. But many of these people who wouldn't send their sons or daughters, and these congressman and our government can talk all they want about how we need to defend our security, but would they go fight or send their loved ones to do so? No - it's always SOMEONE ELSEfighting the war's for them, even though most people are opposed to this war.
Actually, most liberals do not want a troop increase. It'll be interesting to see if Obama caves into the republicans fear mongering on this, or will he draw back? I think he will cave in and send more troops.
Actually, most liberals do not want a troop increase. It'll be interesting to see if Obama caves into the republicans fear mongering on this, or will he draw back? I think he will cave in and send more troops.
Dave Linsalata
Who is "we," - it is not you and Me Sam - it is the military doing the bidding of our government. Regardless of how much someone says this war is noble and that they believe in it, it is hard for them to make such a statement if they are unwilling to put their life on the line. But that is just my view.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
I think that's strictly a military decision that is unfortunately politicized. I don't have the info or knowledge to make a real call there. As a human, I don't want to see a troop increase, but I'll leave that judgement to the full bird colonels and 4 star generals.
Samuel Lumsden Landfried
If the country forced me to, I wouldn't run to Canada, I would go to war. But thankfully we're not in a situation where we have to do that. I honestly believe I can make a more valuable contribution to the country than as a soldier.
Hoooooooooooooo boy I hope no one did the injustice to themselves of actually reading that. If you did though, is it just me, or does every time Dave use my name sound really condescending?
No comments:
Post a Comment