Criminal award desecrates prize

Bfgrn said:
I don't agree. I am not as cynical as you are.


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Click to expand...

No. You're just more idiotic than i am.

Democrats are also corporatist sellouts. Obama recieves just as much from banks and corporations as republicans do.

Sorry to wake you from your idiot slumber.
 
Bfgrn said:
There is no alternative. The GOP has been taken over by authoritarians, theocrats and war hawking neocons and is completely owned by corporations, polluters and lobbyists. They don't even try to hide it anymore.

The Democratic Party needs MORE progressives and fewer blue dogs. But unfortunate for America, it's not likely to happen in the near future and the Citizens United ruling will make that a chronic uphill climb. In this upcoming election, Republicans are receiving 8 times more funding than the Democrats. And some of it probably from foreign interests (Chamber of Commerce)

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...

So we just off the Blue Dogs?
 
leaningright said:
So we just off the Blue Dogs?
Click to expand...

No, you can't just off the blue dogs. It's not that simple. Blue dogs were recruited by Rahm Emanuel to run in conservative districts and states. So it would be difficult to run a progressive in those areas.

IMO, it will take some kind of epiphany in this country. But unfortunately an epiphany requires events so extreme that it creates a mass movement.

If Republicans ever gain power again, they will create that extreme, but I am skeptical enough Americans will see it or understand it. The Republicans should be banished from Washington for ruining this country, but now they could gain seats...


The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy
 
In China, the cause of human rights continues to progress.

This is widely acknowledged by the world and yet the Nobel Committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a prisoner who is serving his sentence in jail.

Some are using this opportunity to make irresponsible remarks.

This is disrespectful to China's legal system. It's not only disrespectful to China's legal system; we also suspect their true motives are that some people want to use this method to change China's political system or to slow down Chinese people's progress.

Obviously, they're wrong if they think this will work.
 
yellow_peril said:
In China, the cause of human rights continues to progress.

This is widely acknowledged by the world and yet the Nobel Committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a prisoner who is serving his sentence in jail.

Some are using this opportunity to make irresponsible remarks.

This is disrespectful to China's legal system. It's not only disrespectful to China's legal system; we also suspect their true motives are that some people want to use this method to change China's political system or to slow down Chinese people's progress.

Obviously, they're wrong if they think this will work.
Click to expand...

I am thinking most people still remember China's government using tanks against students at Tianamen Square.

The main reason Liu Xiaobo is in jail is because of his participation in Charter 08. Look at some of the things they are trying to get for all the people of China

"Specific demands are:

1.Amending the Constitution.
2.Separation of powers.
3.Legislative democracy.
4.An independent judiciary.
5.Public control of public servants.
6.Guarantee of human rights.
7.Election of public officials.
8.Rural–urban equality.
9.Freedom of association.
10.Freedom of assembly.
11.Freedom of expression.
12.Freedom of religion.
13.Civic education.
14.Protection of private property.
15.Financial and tax reform.
16.Social security.
17.Protection of the environment.
18.A federated republic.
19.Truth in reconciliation." (from Wikipedia)

Yeah, that is some seriously dangerous stuff there. How dare he want rights for all the people of China.


The opening paragraph of the Charter is:

"This year is the 100th year of China's Constitution, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 30th anniversary of the birth of the Democracy Wall, and the 10th year since China signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. After experiencing a prolonged period of human rights disasters and a tortuous struggle and resistance, the awakening Chinese citizens are increasingly and more clearly recognizing that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal common values shared by all humankind, and that democracy, a republic, and constitutionalism constitute the basic structural framework of modern governance. A "modernization" bereft of these universal values and this basic political framework is a disastrous process that deprives humans of their rights, corrodes human nature, and destroys human dignity. Where will China head in the 21st century? Continue a "modernization" under this kind of authoritarian rule? Or recognize universal values, assimilate into the mainstream civilization, and build a democratic political system? This is a major decision that cannot be avoided."



You will have a hard time finding opposition for these ideals in a free society. Only those dictatorships and regimes which oppose equality will refuse to support them.
 
Last edited:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, by giving the Peace Prize to a convicted person in China, shows no respect for the judicial system of China.

This is not only disrespect for China's judicial system but also puts a big question mark on their true intention.

If some people try to change China's political system in this way and try to stop the Chinese people from moving forward, they are obviously making a mistake.
 
yellow_peril said:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, by giving the Peace Prize to a convicted person in China, shows no respect for the judicial system of China.

This is not only disrespect for China's judicial system but also puts a big question mark on their true intention.

If some people try to change China's political system in this way and try to stop the Chinese people from moving forward, they are obviously making a mistake.
Click to expand...

Fuck you and your totalitarian system. Your judicial system is a mockery of justice.
 
t is a big mistake to grant this year's Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo as the receiver made no contribution to peace or conflict reduction.

Liu Xiaobo never contributed in any conflict-reducing activity or took part in peace-related activities.

The world cannot see that the peace prize winner fulfills the most important criteria in Nobel's testament. Therefore it is a mistake. There is definitely relationship to the official political system in Norway, and relations may suffer.

The true intention must have been to show disrespect for China's judicial system.

Why do the debtor nations feel able to judge China's internal affairs?

The parliamentary system with more parties is not the only way to give people influence on political decisions and the future of their country.

Western hypocrites must accept that other countries choose political solutions based on their culture.

Is it more democratic to have a system where candidates have to be extremely rich or solicit bribes to stand for election because of costs?

China is a peaceful, not aggressive country. China is a model world citizen compared with most developed countries in the world. China does not take part in wars, it tries to solve international problems with dialogue.

It is not China which oppresses the peoples of the Middle East in order to exploit the oil production.

I therefore think it is unwise to give a Peace Prize to a criminal in China instead of giving it to the president, as in America.
 
yellow_peril said:
t is a big mistake to grant this year's Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo as the receiver made no contribution to peace or conflict reduction.

Liu Xiaobo never contributed in any conflict-reducing activity or took part in peace-related activities.

The world cannot see that the peace prize winner fulfills the most important criteria in Nobel's testament. Therefore it is a mistake. There is definitely relationship to the official political system in Norway, and relations may suffer.

The true intention must have been to show disrespect for China's judicial system.

Why do the debtor nations feel able to judge China's internal affairs?

The parliamentary system with more parties is not the only way to give people influence on political decisions and the future of their country.

Western hypocrites must accept that other countries choose political solutions based on their culture.

Is it more democratic to have a system where candidates have to be extremely rich or solicit bribes to stand for election because of costs?

China is a peaceful, not aggressive country. China is a model world citizen compared with most developed countries in the world. China does not take part in wars, it tries to solve international problems with dialogue.

It is not China which oppresses the peoples of the Middle East in order to exploit the oil production.

I therefore think it is unwise to give a Peace Prize to a criminal in China instead of giving it to the president, as in America.
Click to expand...

They gave the Nobel Peace Prize to an activist who has been trying, for decades, to peacefully reform a totalitarian system.

The intent was not to show disrespect for China's judicial system. The intent was to recognize the efforts of someone trying to help his people. Someone willing to sacrifice his freedom to do so.

But no one respects what China calls a "judicial system" anyway. That has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize. It has to do with the judicial system being used as an arm of the totalitarian regime in China.
 
WinterBorn said:
They gave the Nobel Peace Prize to an activist who has been trying, for decades, to peacefully reform a totalitarian system.

The intent was not to show disrespect for China's judicial system. The intent was to recognize the efforts of someone trying to help his people. Someone willing to sacrifice his freedom to do so.

But no one respects what China calls a "judicial system" anyway. That has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize. It has to do with the judicial system being used as an arm of the totalitarian regime in China.
Click to expand...

Is the purpose of the Nobel Peace prize to criticise the politics of unpopular governments?
What has Lui actually achieved?
Would you award a prize to someone who entered a cookery competition before they had actually cooked anything?
I do not wish to lessen the importance of the man and his work but he is just one of many, most of whom are unsung.
Mandela did not get it as an inmate of Devils Island! At the time there were hundreds of people fighting for the cause. He got it when he had achieved something.
Final point. Unless you have experienced China and visited it and known it over an extensive period your criticisms are based on third party reports, many of whom have their own agenda.
When I first went there were virtually no cars save those black Mercedes that had been stolen from Hong Kong and given to party bosses. Now they have traffic jams!
 
Lowaicue said:
Is the purpose of the Nobel Peace prize to criticise the politics of unpopular governments?
What has Lui actually achieved?
Would you award a prize to someone who entered a cookery competition before they had actually cooked anything?
I do not wish to lessen the importance of the man and his work but he is just one of many, most of whom are unsung.
Mandela did not get it as an inmate of Devils Island! At the time there were hundreds of people fighting for the cause. He got it when he had achieved something.
Final point. Unless you have experienced China and visited it and known it over an extensive period your criticisms are based on third party reports, many of whom have their own agenda.
When I first went there were virtually no cars save those black Mercedes that had been stolen from Hong Kong and given to party bosses. Now they have traffic jams!
Click to expand...

The requirements for the Nobel Peace Prize were spelled out in Alfred Nobel's will.

"...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

The committee obviously thought Lui has done the most or best work. It does not require that they achieve their goals, but that they work for it.


As far as our comments on China, the same could be said for your comments (and the comments of the troll YellowPeril). And yet, you have no problem making comments and judgements about things which you may or may not be familiar with. Yes, much of our information is from 3rd parties. Personally, I always try and get information from several sources when dealing with 3rd parties. That gives me the clearest information.

Traffic jams are a sign of financial prosperity and materialism. It really doesn't address the issues of freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top