The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Bring it, cable and talk radio demagogues: Obama crowned god-emperor of Illuminati.

145791067

Posts

  • SabreMauSabreMau ネトゲしよう 판다리아Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    sarukun wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So some folks are now calling on Obama to decline

    No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.

    Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
    Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?

    However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.

    SabreMau on
  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    nrig.png
    Stay classy, Georgia.

    Aneurhythmia on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    SabreMau wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So some folks are now calling on Obama to decline

    No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.

    Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
    Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?

    However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.

    That's simply a rationalization of how he can turn it down without it blowing up in his face. It says nothing about why turning it down is the preferable option.

    Javen on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    SabreMau wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So some folks are now calling on Obama to decline

    No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.

    Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
    Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?

    However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.

    I read that, it sounded pretty dumb both times.

    Giving the Novel Committee a big Fuck You can really only be negative, and the up-swing of declining is that it's what his critics consider to be the" right thing"; chances are good declining the award isn't going to earn significant points with those people in the first place.

    sarukun on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I bet that college that denied him an honorary degree because it was too early in his presidency to deserve it feels straight up silly

    Javen on
  • mnollmnoll Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    172 individuals and 33 organizations nominated, apparently?

    that award show would take forever

    mnoll on
  • Captain UltraCaptain Ultra low resolution pictures of birds Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Well, shit, if a guy wants to blow up part of the moon, I'd give him a nobel peace prize too, assuming it was part of his demands.

    Captain Ultra on
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    sarukun wrote: »
    SabreMau wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So some folks are now calling on Obama to decline

    No good can come from declining the award, and it is kind of a dick move.

    Well, there are some arguments towards that that do make sense.
    Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech. ... And the downside is ... what? That the Nobel Committee feels dissed?

    However, a bit late now, considering he's already declared he'll accept it.

    I read that, it sounded pretty dumb both times.

    Giving the Novel Committee a big Fuck You can really only be negative, and the up-swing of declining is that it's what his critics consider to be the" right thing"; chances are good declining the award isn't going to earn significant points with those people in the first place.
    yeah, it makes no sense to pander to the people that will hate him no matter what he does

    Druhim on
    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • SabreMauSabreMau ネトゲしよう 판다리아Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    "Politely declining" would be received that way by the Committee? Didn't know they were that sensitive.

    Anyway, those arguments are mainly centered about how it will look to Average American Swing Voter. Not his supporters, not his critics, but those people who are swayed easily between Approve and Disapprove on polls.

    SabreMau on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    nrig.png
    Stay classy, Georgia.

    I will have to show this to some people.

    I think they will be disappointed with Georgia.

    (They are from Georgia.)

    sarukun on
  • Drew-BDrew-B Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ha, holy shit. If I saw that I'd call the police.

    Drew-B on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    SabreMau wrote: »
    "Politely declining" would be received that way by the Committee? Didn't know they were that sensitive.

    Anyway, those arguments are mainly centered about how it will look to Average American Swing Voter. Not his supporters, not his critics, but those people who are swayed easily between Approve and Disapprove on polls.

    I'm pretty sure if you lick these peoples' assholes the wrong way, they are going to be upset with you.

    You don't turn down the Nobel Peace Prize. Best you can hope for is donating the money to something you think is worthwhile.

    And focusing on the American Swing Voter, while certainly important for a variety of reasons, isn't exactly what I would describe as "looking at the bigger picture, which is something that I figure Obama's sort of got down-pat by this point.

    You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that you're going to earn a significant number of those swing votes by turning down the Nobel Peace Prize.

    sarukun on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Drew-B wrote: »
    Ha, holy shit. If I saw that I'd call the police.

    .... Why would you do that?

    sarukun on
  • SabreMauSabreMau ネトゲしよう 판다리아Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...

    SabreMau on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    SabreMau wrote: »
    No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...

    Isn't Obama's approval like 70% right now?

    I'm telling you, there is little to be gained from declining the award.

    sarukun on
  • SabreMauSabreMau ネトゲしよう 판다리아Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    49%, last I checked.

    And personally, I don't care whether or not he does. I was merely forwarding one of the arguments in favor of declination.

    SabreMau on
  • DragonicityDragonicity Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm confused as to why anyone would even consider ever giving Reagan a Nobel Peace Prize...

    Dragonicity on
  • Kuribo's ShoeKuribo's Shoe Kuribo's Stocking North PoleRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm confused as to why anyone would even consider ever giving Reagan a Nobel Peace Prize...

    berlin wall, maybe

    that's it though

    Kuribo's Shoe on
    xmassig2.gif
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    SabreMau wrote: »
    49%, last I checked.

    And personally, I don't care whether or not he does. I was merely forwarding one of the arguments in favor of declination.

    I should probably look at some actual approval numbers.

    sarukun on
  • SabreMauSabreMau ネトゲしよう 판다리아Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm confused as to why anyone would even consider ever giving Reagan a Nobel Peace Prize...

    berlin wall, maybe

    that's it though

    Poland would probably have given him their vote, if they were on that panel to vote.

    SabreMau on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm confused as to why anyone would even consider ever giving Reagan a Nobel Peace Prize...

    berlin wall, maybe

    that's it though

    I think you're forgetting about "winning one for the Gipper".

    sarukun on
  • CrashmoCrashmo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    There is a little shop in my city that has a sign like that

    JUST SAY NO
    TO OBAMA

    It is a Hallmark greeting card shop or something

    Crashmo on
    polar-bearsig.jpg
  • Drew-BDrew-B Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    sarukun wrote: »
    Drew-B wrote: »
    Ha, holy shit. If I saw that I'd call the police.

    .... Why would you do that?

    I'm sure that could be considered fighting words...or at least it could be argued enough to the point where it could probably be taken down in lieu of a decision.

    Drew-B on
  • MysstMysst King Monkey of Hedonism IslandRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Drew-B wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    Drew-B wrote: »
    Ha, holy shit. If I saw that I'd call the police.

    .... Why would you do that?

    I'm sure that could be considered fighting words.

    I'd just firebomb them

    I am a true american revolutionary

    Mysst on
    ikbUJdU.jpg
  • DragonicityDragonicity Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Fight Hate Crimes with Hate... and Fire.

    Dragonicity on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Drew-B wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    Drew-B wrote: »
    Ha, holy shit. If I saw that I'd call the police.

    .... Why would you do that?

    I'm sure that could be considered fighting words.

    Ah, yes, the "Fighting Words" Act, banning the use of words that might hurt people's feelings.

    Seriously, I certainly don't know the particulars about use of the N-word in public, certainly not in the State of Georgia, but I think you might be a little fuzzy on how Laws work.

    sarukun on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    SabreMau wrote: »
    No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...

    Ok, but.


    who are the people that think he should turn it down?

    How many of them will ever like him? He could resign, somehow restructure the government so Beck, Palin, and Bush all served as co-presidents, and they would say that a million monkeys would pound out shakespeare eventually.

    I mean what population of the people who are saying that he should refuse the prize would actually ever conceivably like him, while he remains a democrat? Versus how dickish would it look on the global stage if he was all "Fuck your Nobel Peace Prize!" The only pro of declining it would be that people who will never like him would have to find something else to complain about.

    Khavall on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    sarukun wrote: »
    Drew-B wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    Drew-B wrote: »
    Ha, holy shit. If I saw that I'd call the police.

    .... Why would you do that?

    I'm sure that could be considered fighting words.

    Ah, yes, the "Fighting Words" Act, banning the use of words that might hurt people's feelings.

    Seriously, I certainly don't know the particulars about use of the N-word in public, certainly not in the State of Georgia, but I think you might be a little fuzzy on how Laws work.

    No, it's the "fighting words" doctrine
    The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

    There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

    Khavall on
  • Kuribo's ShoeKuribo's Shoe Kuribo's Stocking North PoleRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    snap

    Kuribo's Shoe on
    xmassig2.gif
  • Drew-BDrew-B Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    My concern has little to do with the legal aspect of this so much as it has to do with my disgust at the tought of a Black youth having to see a publicly displayed sign like that in 2009.

    And yes, fighting words is a precedent, not an act, but I'm sure that was just a semantic slip up, so...

    Drew-B on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    No, it's the "fighting words" doctrine
    The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

    There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

    Wow, this is fantastic.

    I honestly had no idea about this. Many thanks.

    sarukun on
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    SabreMau wrote: »
    No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...

    Ok, but.


    who are the people that think he should turn it down?

    How many of them will ever like him? He could resign, somehow restructure the government so Beck, Palin, and Bush all served as co-presidents, and they would say that a million monkeys would pound out shakespeare eventually.

    I mean what population of the people who are saying that he should refuse the prize would actually ever conceivably like him, while he remains a democrat? Versus how dickish would it look on the global stage if he was all "Fuck your Nobel Peace Prize!" The only pro of declining it would be that people who will never like him would have to find something else to complain about.

    I'm willing to bet many of the people who are suggesting he turn it down are the same people who heavily criticized him for even talking to international leaders because they felt Obama "made America seem weak"

    Javen on
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Drew-B wrote: »
    My concern has little to do with the legal aspect of this so much as it has to do with my disgust at the tought of a Black youth having to see a publicly displayed sign like that in 2009.

    And yes, fighting words is a precedent, not an act, but I'm sure that was just a semantic slip up, so...

    No no, it turns out you were very right.

    And don't go singling out Blacks, that sign is pretty offensive to basically anybody.

    sarukun on
  • MeissnerdMeissnerd Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    socialist parliament gives socialist prize

    Meissnerd on
  • Drew-BDrew-B Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It's too bad our obscenity test is so specific (well, maybe not, but you know what I mean when it comes to incredibly hateful and bigoted speech), because this would otherwise appear to fit the bill.

    Drew-B on
  • SabreMauSabreMau ネトゲしよう 판다리아Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    SabreMau wrote: »
    No, but it could signal a shift in approach that they could like over time. A shift he'll never undertake, but still...

    Ok, but.


    who are the people that think he should turn it down?

    How many of them will ever like him? He could resign, somehow restructure the government so Beck, Palin, and Bush all served as co-presidents, and they would say that a million monkeys would pound out shakespeare eventually.

    I mean what population of the people who are saying that he should refuse the prize would actually ever conceivably like him, while he remains a democrat? Versus how dickish would it look on the global stage if he was all "Fuck your Nobel Peace Prize!" The only pro of declining it would be that people who will never like him would have to find something else to complain about.
    Again, this isn't my position so I'm not up-to-date on the full reasoning behind it, but nobody suggested he go to Oslo, recieve his award, then urinate on it and fling it back at the presenter. They're thinking instead of, "Thank you, I'm honored, but I haven't yet accomplished what I've set out to do, and hope that you give it to some other deserving candidate." Unaffiliated Voter out there isn't clamoring for him to do this, but they could look at it with, "Well, that was nice of him."

    SabreMau on
  • CrossBusterCrossBuster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    Drew-B wrote: »
    sarukun wrote: »
    Drew-B wrote: »
    Ha, holy shit. If I saw that I'd call the police.

    .... Why would you do that?

    I'm sure that could be considered fighting words.

    Ah, yes, the "Fighting Words" Act, banning the use of words that might hurt people's feelings.

    Seriously, I certainly don't know the particulars about use of the N-word in public, certainly not in the State of Georgia, but I think you might be a little fuzzy on how Laws work.

    No, it's the "fighting words" doctrine
    The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

    There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

    Yeah, but the Supreme Court has also said that you can say pretty much whatever the hell you want about public officials and public figures, laws concerning defamation (New York Times v. Sullivan) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell) notwithstanding.

    CrossBuster on
    penguins.png
  • DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm confused as to why anyone would even consider ever giving Reagan a Nobel Peace Prize...

    Uh - since he peacefully navigated a very tense historical period?

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Kuribo's ShoeKuribo's Shoe Kuribo's Stocking North PoleRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm confused as to why anyone would even consider ever giving Reagan a Nobel Peace Prize...

    Uh - since he peacefully navigated a very tense historical period?

    pretty impressive given all the things he did to try to fuck it up, too

    Kuribo's Shoe on
    xmassig2.gif
  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Well, if I'm reading that correctly they basically created an exception to the First Amendment.

    I'm sure they wanted to be careful with setting that kind of precedent.

    sarukun on
This discussion has been closed.