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: TimF who wrote (519629)	10/9/2009 7:16:14 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574260

"Turning down the rhetoric from the oval office (even if a good idea, and in some cases that debatable) is not doing something to make the world or part of it more peaceful, neither is being less supportive of Israel." You are wrong, Tim. The rhetoric only gave some leaders, like in Iran, ways to avoid accountability at home. Bush managed to sway an election in Iran that put their present nutcase of a president in power through such ill-advised rhetoric.

To: TimF who wrote (519629)	10/9/2009 8:53:55 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1574260

A Nobel prize should be for an actual achievement (sure some of them where dubious achievements...), not using different words in speeches, or having a different intentions. It should be, but the reality is that Nobel put the power in Oslo's hands to make the decision, and the people making the decision are left-leaning, and getting more so. I don't really care if they give it to Obama, because it is has long since lost any real meaning. Were I a left-leaning sort of guy, I could see why they gave it to him. Peace comes through strength, not weakness and cow-towing. So it is an extremely convoluted thought process that resulted in the award. I would really like to have been a fly on the wall at Bill Clinton's house this morning...