+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: Twitter forums (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Twitter abbreviations (/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: Michael Moore wants Obama to return the Nobel Peace Price. Do you agree? Why or why not? (/thread-7517.html)
- geoz - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
It is taken seriously around the world. But, I'll bet that conservative America doesn't take it seriously.
I think though, that navel-gazing has to have an end at some point. We have to connect with the rest of the world.
- apeman605 - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
Whatever Moore is for, I take the opposite side. It saves the need for a lot of research and makes me usually right.
- highGenius862 - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
I agree he should. But then in today's world he may get another peace prize for the actions in Libya.
After all he hasn't demanded that Qaddafi pay the cost of the cruise missiles used to subdue him.
Although I admit that could still happen.
- Jo Momma - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
For probably the only gime in my entire life I will agree with him, but he is right on this one.
- turnip - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
Is Michael and Barney still an item in the Gay crowd?
- Paul Grass™℠- 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
Yes Fat Mikey finally said something correct
- YB Logical - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
Everything would be fine if they would just change the name from "Nobel Peace Prize" to "Nobel Stupidity Prize".
- tribeca_belle - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
No. Moore also criticized President Obama for escalating the Afghanistan war, although Obama specifically stated during his campaign that he would concentrate on the war in Afghanistan.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee stated their reasons for awarding the prize to President Obama. Those reasons were the basis. Your viewpoint concerning the Nobel Peace Prize is interesting but irrelevant. I think it was appropriately awarded. I don't see that there is any conflict with his current actions but if the committee wishes to rescind the prize then I suppose they could do so.
I don't agree with Moore's viewpoint, or yours, in the least.
- Peter Purcell - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
President Obama told the Nobel Committee, that his first duty as Commander in Chief is to keep America safe, which means that he will use force when it is necessary.
Obama is protecting innocent Civilians in a humanitarian effort in Libya, because Gadhafi stated that he will kill the Rebels mercilessly.
Obama did not want to let innocent people die like Clinton did when he failed to act on the situation in Rwanda.
- Infernal Disaster - 10-12-2012 06:13 PM
Obama gone to war with a sovereign country that in no way threatened our national security and worse, he has violated the UN Security Council resolution by expanding the no-fly-zone in bombing cities and towns. Something he told the UN and the Arab League he would not do.
Not only are members of the UN Security Council turning against this against this war, now the Arab is turning against this war.
This is the shortest coalition in US history, it didn't even take 72 ours for it to collapse. Now four countries support this war.