Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did I spell Aun Sang Suu Kyi right? Did she win before?

1991, as if you didn't know.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
I had hoped two things would happen by asking the cons for five Nobel nominations.

Lemme guess? One of then was that reasonable discussion would ensue, and that I could avoid it all and take potshots after everyone (including the drunken, suicidal Sox fans) went to sleep?

One, I hoped to show that they could not name five ideologically pure living individuals whom they would admire for advancing the cause of peace.

I named 7. You've named none.

I accomplished this by Bilmore and Club expressly admitting they couldn't come up with five

They were wavering on the Norwegian flavor of the moment. And perhaps they thought that Nobel would overlook the preposterous slight in 1990 (when they only gave it to Gorbachev) and post-humously award it to Reagan.

, and Slave tacitly admitting so by including Bono.

How is this fucking tacit? The guy is a rich prick who goes out of his way to try to enhance the life of Africans. Not for glory. Not for publicity. Even if misguided, totally altruistic.

However, Nobel doesn't award altruism. It award politics. Typically Anti-US politics. Also recall Carter's initial snub back in 1978 after the Egypti-Israel talks - after the man brokered the entire thing.

Two, I hoped against hope that the con side would tacitly admit that the Nobel has more moral authority than their Coulteresque constant repetition of the Carter/Arafat awards would indicate --- as if these two were the only ones ever to have won the award (in Arafat's case, he wasn't even the only recipient that year).

Yes, this year's recipient, claiming that the CIA created the AIDS virus, refutes this. Are you fucking out of your mind???

I had hoped merely that they would name people who as a categorical matter leant credence to the Nobel committee's equanimity and fundamental even-handedness in awarding the Peace Prize.

I tried to name people dedicated to freedom. As opposed to zealots for a random cause opposite the US.

They surpassed my wildest dreams by repeatedly naming people WHOM THEY HAD FORGOTTEN HAD PREVIOUSLY WON THE AWARD.

Billmore is old and still uses a sliderule. And have you seen Club's spelling? Neither of them have good Google Fu.

By the way, who won the award in 1992? Don't bother - I know you have to look it up yourself

All in all, it looks like calling the Nobel Committee a bunch of dupes and internationalist assholes is thoroughly debunked.

Um...no and hell no.

What, we're going to shit on them now for not naming Reagan before he died?

See 1990 award. Think. Wash. Repeat.

I'm batting 1.000.

In AAA perhaps. But here in the big show, you're off your game. Take some more batting practice before you return with such crap. You sound like GGG on a bad day.

If I can think of other goals accomplished by this exercise, I'll add them.

How about this one:

I'm smarter than Slave. How did I let him school me on this topic?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I named 7. You've named none.

Timing is everything.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch

• Vaclav Havel
• International Committee of the Red Cross (again --- hey, time of war, it's tradition)
• Oswaldo Paya
• Any Chinese dissident chosen at random
• Mordechai Vanunu (dark horse)

How cute. You stole 2 of mine.

Let me shake your hand across the aisle.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The libs can always name billions of potential Nobel recipients because we're the ones who want to give it to some bleeding heart African who got macheted for trying to encourage her village to vote or not sew their vaginas shut,

What about the woman who was willing to stand up to the evils of islam? Willing to speak out against being forced to shroud herself because some misogynistic child-fucker created a religion? Willing to call islam what it is - organized hatred against women. Did you nominate her you motherfucking hypocritical asshole?

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Timing is everything.

Right, like Carter being snubbed in '78 (for peace) but winning in '02 (for being anti-American).

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And perhaps they thought that Nobel would overlook the preposterous slight in 1990 (when they only gave it to Gorbachev) and post-humously award it to Reagan.

If you're coaching your son's baseball team, and he's the best player and everybody knows it, do you give him the All-Around Award, the Spirit Award and "Most Improved"?

This is why you're not on the Committee. The Nobel is what we give people to make them feel better about getting their ass kicked by Team America, and it ceases to work its magic if we give it to Reagan. Carter, not so much.

I'm sick to death of having to explain realpolitik to you.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They should probably just award it to the 15th Dalai Lama as a preemptive matter in case the world blows up before he's reincarnated.

Or just to any person brave enough to speak out against that religion started by the child-fucker muhammand. With all the jihads and other evils that these people have perpetrated on the world, that is a person deserving of a prize.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If you're coaching your son's baseball team, and he's the best player and everybody knows it, do you give him the All-Around Award, the Spirit Award and "Most Improved"?

This is why you're not on the Committee. The Nobel is what we give people to make them feel better about getting their ass kicked by Team America, and it ceases to work its magic if we give it to Reagan. Carter, not so much.

I'm sick to death of having to explain realpolitik to you.

HI, when you sue people on "behalf" of your client, how much does the client get to keep? TIA!!!!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
sgtclub: [loaded rhetorical question indicating obviously desired result]

sucker: [observation that obviously desired result leads to a logical absurdity]

sgtclub: Who said [obviously desired result] or [logical absurdity]? I didn't. I haven't posted on how I come down on that issue.

sucker: [patient explanation of how obviously desired result leads to logical absurdity]

sgtclub: Whatever. You're mischaracterizing what I said. All I asked was [loaded rhetorical question indicating obviously desired result]. I haven't expressed an opinion as to the answer, and I never meant [logical absurdity].

[dead silence]

[repeat]

See what happens when I try to have a real discussion on this board. Serves me right.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How cute. You stole 2 of mine.

Let me shake your hand across the aisle.

Regards! Sorry about missing the thing about 7 nominees. I didn't realize you were being serious with Thatcher and "Sir Bob Geldorf."

And I appreciate the resonance between Dr. Charles Lee and "Any Chinese dissident chosen at random," but let's get real. I seriously doubt they're going to give the award to a domestic religious movement. Mother Teresa was an outlier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub You seem to want to only look at one side of the equation (i.e., a woman's rights. I am uncomfortable not looking at both sides simultaneously. So while you believe I discount the woman's rights, I'll throw that back at you and say you discount the fetus' rights.

Not exactly. I'm not sure that a small speck of human tissue has rights. I think one can recognize that abortion involves the taking of human life, while not thinking that rights are implicated.

Although I freely admit that this model has inherent problems, I don't think it is inconsistent with libertarianism. My rights, as a libertarian, are not unlimited. Their border is when they infringe upon the rights of another. This is clearly the case in the abortion context.

Most libertarians want to construe individual rights broadly, and I took your earlier posts re the woman's rights -- if less so this one -- as striking altogether a different tone.

Libertarians often don't have a problem with infringement on the rights of others. This is, after all, what all of environmental law is about, and it's pretty clear where the libertarians side there.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
See what happens when I try to have a real discussion on this board. Serves me right.

No, Club, don't even pay AG any attention. He is human shit. This is a man who bemoans the treatment of African women but supports islam's oppression of women because they do it under the pretense of a divine right. Don't sweat this moron. He epitomizes what is wrong with the looney left - they are hypocrites who lack the ability to think critically. This is why this guy is a contingency fee plaintiffs lawyer. It is all he is qualified to do. Nuff said.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Regards! Sorry about missing the thing about 7 nominees. I didn't realize you were being serious with Thatcher and "Sir Bob Geldorf."

Whatever.

And I appreciate the resonance between Dr. Charles Lee and "Any Chinese dissident chosen at random," but let's get real. I seriously doubt they're going to give the award to a domestic religious movement.

15th Dalai Lama sound familiar? No?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not exactly. I'm not sure that a small speck of human tissue has rights. I think one can recognize that abortion involves the taking of human life, while not thinking that rights are implicated.

In other words, a great big discount.

Most libertarians want to construe individual rights broadly, and I took your earlier posts re the woman's rights -- if less so this one -- as striking altogether a different tone.

Libertarians often don't have a problem with infringement on the rights of others. This is, after all, what all of environmental law is about, and it's pretty clear where the libertarians side there.

I would posit that it they are not true libertarians.

eft