Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (519391)	10/9/2009 11:43:22 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574509

Want to bet they will be joining with the terrorists over criticizing this? Do you think he deserves it? If so, why?

To: combjelly who wrote (519391)	10/9/2009 11:50:59 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1574509

Want to bet they will be joining with the terrorists over criticizing this? You bet they will. It's a perfect example... to them party comes before country. It's a great win for the US but it's not Republican so it's all bad.

To: combjelly who wrote (519391)	10/9/2009 12:03:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574509

"Oh boy, the wingnuts are going to go bonkers!!!!!!!!!!" Want to bet they will be joining with the terrorists over criticizing this? They already have......they need to look up the word, churlish: REVERSE CHEERLEADING.... Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele isn't pleased about President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, and released this churlish statement this morning. "The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain -- President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action." RedState's Erick Erickson argued that the Nobel Peace Prize must have "an affirmative action quota." Fox News is being, well, Fox News. This hasn't been an especially good week for the right. When the United States suffered a setback last Friday, with the Olympic decision, a few too many conservatives were thrilled to the point of giddiness. When the United States wins a great honor today, a few too many conservatives are furious. Bad news for the country is cause for exuberance, and good news for the country is grounds for bitter disappointment. Has the right really thought this strategy through?

To: combjelly who wrote (519391)	10/9/2009 12:06:33 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574509

Surprisingly, the DNC is responding forcefully: DNC TAKES OFF THE GLOVES.... There were certain similarities between the Taliban's reaction to President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and the Republican National Committee's reaction. When one GOP congressional leader said earlier this year that he'd like to see the Republican Party emulate the Taliban, this probably isn't what he meant. Nevertheless, the Democratic National Committee is taking off the gloves this morning. "The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party. "The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore -- it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said. As DNC statements go, it doesn't get much harder hitting than this. Greg Sargent noted, "Dems intend to go on the offensive today by holding up Republican criticism of Obama's Nobel as the latest example of Republicans desperately hoping for America's failure, placing it alongside GOP cheer at America's loss of the Olympics as evidence of an unmistakable pattern." Greg added that Republicans run the risk of "feeding the GOP-wants-America-to-fail meme." The Republican strategy here makes a certain degree of strategic sense. The president was just honored with one of the world's most prestigious accolades, and the GOP has an interest in undermining any potential benefits the White House might receive as a result. But coming on the heels of last week's delight over the U.S. losing the Olympics, Republicans have set themselves up as the party that roots against the country, and this morning, echoes the rhetoric of the Taliban. Steele & Co. are making things easy for the DNC, and the party isn't going to waste the opportunity. For the GOP, this isn't even tricky: try giving graciousness a try. The public will respect you for it.

To: combjelly who wrote (519391)	10/9/2009 2:28:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574509

Even a broken clock, or a terrorist is occasionally correct, although in this case I suspect their reasons to be opposed aren't very solid ones. The main reason to be opposed isn't that he has done some great harm to the idea of peace or peaceful relations across the world (which is what I suspect terrorists would allege, as if fighting against them should be some disbarment to the peace prize), but that he hasn't (at least yet) actually achieved anything to make the world or some part of it more peaceful. If stating that is joining the terrorists, then I also join the terrorists in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I join them in wearing clothes for the majority of the day. To legitimately say someone was joining the terrorists here it would have to be for the same reason, and even then it might be argued that the phrase was more inflammatory than reasonable. A peace activist might have the effect of helping a terrorist group or a brutal aggressive dictator, but even when that's the case I would think many of them do not agree with the people they wind up helping, and would not consider themselves to have joined the cause.