Sadly, President Obama had only been president for two short weeks when the nomination deadline for the Nobel Prize expired. He was nominated for winning the election and not being George W. Bush.
The international arms reduction negotiations conveniently took place between his nomination and the announcement of the Peace Prize award, but feel certain that head of comittee Torbjørn Jagland would have awarded Pres. Obama the Peace prize anyway, on the grounds of not being George W.Bush.
It is unprecedented that a wartime president involved in two wars where one even failed to get UN security council support uses his lauterate speech to argue for the necessity of overseas warfare. After that he started drone bombing civilians in countries supposedly at peace with the US. An unworthy recipient of Alfred Nobel's noble prize indeed.
You said the s-word! Off to Guantanamo with you, evil freedom-hater! (we'd be glad to have you in Scandinavia, no coal plants here so you can breathe safely.)
For all non-americans, the political drama is strangely amusing and bewildering at the same time. A nation who regularly insist on imposing their system on others, can't even feed their children, care for their sick or pay public employees their salaries. How disfunctional can a system get before those who the system claims to serve cease to forgive it for its shortcomings?
The only thing the land of the free excels at now is reading other people's emails and having your executive branch... executing people, including your own citizens, in other countries without involving your legislative or the judicial branch. And oh, you excel at financial innovativeness too. Wall Street surely knows how to bundle different types of loans into a magic box to make a risk-free investment vehicle called derivates. Good going.
Firstly, I would like to point out that I do not want to be associated with the views of Mourdock and his peers. They are fighting a losing battle, abortion has come to stay. If the GOP teabaggers should outlaw abortions, illegal abortion clinics and abortion holidays abroad will flourish. The 1920's alcohol prohibition did not mean the end of drinking in the US. It did, however make ridiculous much money for a lot of mobsters. Drugs is illegal in the US too, but the legal ban on drugs seems not to have culled the usage of drugs either.
Second, I would like to point out that the sarcasm handed out over people who would like to bestow legal rights to a foetus is uncalled for. This is clearly straw man argumentation, professor. I do not think anyone is arguing for FULL legal rights for a foetus, such as the right to bear arms, hence firearms could be registered under the name of a foetus. Or the right to a decent funeral, as you point out would be impractical for eggs detached three days after conception.
However, arguing for protection for the legal right of a foetus not to have its life development ended by chemical treatment or surgery is not "rationally absurd".
What is rationally absurd is that, at least here in the old world, a mother will for a certain period of the pregnancy be able to require government assistance in terminating the pregnancy, but after crossing some quite random time limit, doing anything that could hurt the foetus is a felony. It is like the magical 120th day in Islamic law: the foetus becomes a unborn child, a small human with legal rights. Arguing to move this magical transformation threshold closer to conception is not rationally absurd.
"It is a slap in the face of the European Union and completely outrageous that sitting members of parliaments of its member states should be attacked in international waters and illegally kidnapped and falsely accused of being illegal immigrants into Israel!"
Not to mention attacking and kidnapping members of parliament in sovereign countries that are not members of the EU, like Norway's MoP Aksel Hagen.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Sadly, President Obama had only been president for two short weeks when the nomination deadline for the Nobel Prize expired. He was nominated for winning the election and not being George W. Bush.
The international arms reduction negotiations conveniently took place between his nomination and the announcement of the Peace Prize award, but feel certain that head of comittee Torbjørn Jagland would have awarded Pres. Obama the Peace prize anyway, on the grounds of not being George W.Bush.
It is unprecedented that a wartime president involved in two wars where one even failed to get UN security council support uses his lauterate speech to argue for the necessity of overseas warfare. After that he started drone bombing civilians in countries supposedly at peace with the US. An unworthy recipient of Alfred Nobel's noble prize indeed.
You said the s-word! Off to Guantanamo with you, evil freedom-hater! (we'd be glad to have you in Scandinavia, no coal plants here so you can breathe safely.)
For all non-americans, the political drama is strangely amusing and bewildering at the same time. A nation who regularly insist on imposing their system on others, can't even feed their children, care for their sick or pay public employees their salaries. How disfunctional can a system get before those who the system claims to serve cease to forgive it for its shortcomings?
The only thing the land of the free excels at now is reading other people's emails and having your executive branch... executing people, including your own citizens, in other countries without involving your legislative or the judicial branch. And oh, you excel at financial innovativeness too. Wall Street surely knows how to bundle different types of loans into a magic box to make a risk-free investment vehicle called derivates. Good going.
Firstly, I would like to point out that I do not want to be associated with the views of Mourdock and his peers. They are fighting a losing battle, abortion has come to stay. If the GOP teabaggers should outlaw abortions, illegal abortion clinics and abortion holidays abroad will flourish. The 1920's alcohol prohibition did not mean the end of drinking in the US. It did, however make ridiculous much money for a lot of mobsters. Drugs is illegal in the US too, but the legal ban on drugs seems not to have culled the usage of drugs either.
Second, I would like to point out that the sarcasm handed out over people who would like to bestow legal rights to a foetus is uncalled for. This is clearly straw man argumentation, professor. I do not think anyone is arguing for FULL legal rights for a foetus, such as the right to bear arms, hence firearms could be registered under the name of a foetus. Or the right to a decent funeral, as you point out would be impractical for eggs detached three days after conception.
However, arguing for protection for the legal right of a foetus not to have its life development ended by chemical treatment or surgery is not "rationally absurd".
What is rationally absurd is that, at least here in the old world, a mother will for a certain period of the pregnancy be able to require government assistance in terminating the pregnancy, but after crossing some quite random time limit, doing anything that could hurt the foetus is a felony. It is like the magical 120th day in Islamic law: the foetus becomes a unborn child, a small human with legal rights. Arguing to move this magical transformation threshold closer to conception is not rationally absurd.
"It is a slap in the face of the European Union and completely outrageous that sitting members of parliaments of its member states should be attacked in international waters and illegally kidnapped and falsely accused of being illegal immigrants into Israel!"
Not to mention attacking and kidnapping members of parliament in sovereign countries that are not members of the EU, like Norway's MoP Aksel Hagen.