Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Wow...Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for literature. Hard to argue with this selection.
Soy Bomb
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I love Bob Dylan and have seen him a couple of times, but greatest living poet that's specious bullshit. As for his books, have you read Tarantula? Now if there were a Nobel Prize for Music he'd win that without question.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yea I know that there's a whole lot of unknown writers suffering in the weeds who are jealous that a lyricist would win. Particularly one that is already famous with tons of accolades.
I still think it was an excellent choice. Far to many writers they have selected are little known niche artistic writers without much of an audience. Besides the same sort of criticisms were leveled when Marquez and Hemingway were selected.
What it boils down to is other writers being jealous of his success. To which I say....go read Dylan's lyrics and see how they stand alone without the accompanying music. This certainly makes far more sense than Churchill wining the Nobel Prize in literature. Though there have been worse picks than Churchill. Fo for example.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yeh well Churchill was a bloody good writer so there is that. Seamus Heaney won the prize in 1995, now there was a poet that richly deserved to win. I just can't help thinking the Nobel Prize committee has been taken over by aging ex-hippies. Anyway, they have done worse like awarding the Nobel Peace prize to Obama, Arafat and Kissinger.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I'll take exception to that. How the hell can any rational person compare Obama to Kissinger and Arafat? That is not only extremely partisan it simply defies the facts.
You may not like the basis for which Obama was awarded the Nobel prize but please tell me the last time a racial minority seceded to the head of State in a western Eurocentric nation without a rebellion, revolution, radicalization or the use of violence? You can't because it has never happened in our history. Obama, as a racial and ethnic minority, ascending to head of State of the most powerful nation in the history of Western Civilization via peaceful means was an extraordinary historical event and, whether you like it or not, damned worthy of the highest recognition.
As for Churchill...I don't get it. I tried reading the history of the English speaking peoples and by the 15th time he referenced the Duke of Marlborough (which was probably around page 6) I gave up on it.
Last edited:
evince
Truthmatters
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
There wasn't a basis, and Obama is easily comparable to Kissinger. Also, the Brits had a Jewish PM back in the 19th Century, although, he did have to pretend to be a Christian to get by.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yes, Disraeli who was a secular Jew. And there aint no fucking way in the world Obama is even remotely comparable to that scum bag Kissinger.
The basis for Obama's prize was "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Which compared to his predecessor, Dumbya, who made the world an extremely dangerous place for Americans abroad with his military adventurism and his diplomatic unilateralism and the threat that represented to world peace Obama was unquestionably deserving of the prize. Then again any American head of State who rejected the insanity that was neoconservatism would have been qualified for that honor.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He wasn't awarded the Peace Prize for becoming President, but I'm sure there is a gong for that somewhere. He was awarded it for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples", not my words but those of the Nobel committee. I mean for fuck's sake he'd only been in power for 5 minutes and they awarded it to him. Should they have taken it away when he allowed Daesh to take over vast swathes of Iraq and Syria? I don't recall them being very peaceful. We don't feel very well disposed to him for causing the massive migrant crisis for which the US and Obama should take responsibility.
As for Churchill, he deserved the Peace Prize for standing up to the Nazis when the whole of Europe has fallen to Hitler. Without us the invasion of Europe and Operation Overlord would have been impossible.
I am not comparing Obama to Kissinger ffs, I am saying that neither deserved the Peace Prize, Obama because he hadn't done anything and Kissinger because he was a monster.
Oh and I seem to recall to recall that Disraeli was Jewish at a time when to be so was universally reviled both here and in the US.
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well as I said in my previous post. Any U.S. President would have been qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize who rejected Dumbya's neoconservative policies. Which Obama did immediately upon assuming office.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So what about Daesh, the migrant crisis and the hundreds of thousands who died due to Obama's blunders?
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Arafat wanted peace, the Israeli's don't. That's why there's still war.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You don't give someone a peace prize for helping to fight a war.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The Nobel prize should've been given to Arafat exclusively. Peres and Rabin, as leaders of a warmongering imperialist racial supremacist state that would later go on to spit on the treaty it signed, should've been excluded by definition.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I guess that depends on how benign Obama's drone program has been in the ME.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I seem to recall that Nazi Germany started the war by invading Poland!!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Well that's not what Billy Bob said at the time, but of course you know better even though you were hardly out of nappies at the time!
Nearly a year after he failed to achieve a deal at Camp David, former president Bill Clinton gave vent to his frustrations this week over the collapse of peace in the Mideast. And Clinton directed his ire at one man: Yasir Arafat. On Tuesday night, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and his wife, writer Kati Marton, that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."
Clinton said he told Arafat that by turning down the best peace deal he was ever going to get-the one proffered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and brokered by Clinton last July-the Palestinian leader was only guaranteeing the election of the hawkish Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli leader. But Arafat didn't listen. Sharon was elected in a landslide Feb. 6 and has gradually escalated his crackdown on the Palestinians despite a shaky ceasefire negotiated two weeks ago by CIA chief George Tenet.
Clinton has refused most interview requests since he left office Jan. 20. But at the party-which was held jointly by Holbrooke and the International Crisis Group to celebrate a new book, "Waging Modern War," by former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark-Clinton captivated guests for nearly an hour with an insider's tale of the Camp David talks. Among the listeners, who gathered around the former president as he cheerfully downed Diet Cokes and hors d'oeuvres, were Holbrooke, Clark and John Negroponte, who has been nominated by President Bush to replace Holbrooke as U.N. ambassador.
Clinton said, somewhat surprisingly, that he never expected to close the deal at Camp David. But he made it clear that the breakdown of the peace process and the nine months of deadly intifada since then were very much on his mind. He described Arafat as an aging leader who relishes his own sense of victimhood and seems incapable of making a final peace deal. "He could only get to step five, and he needed to get to step 10," the former president said. But Clinton expressed hope in the younger generation of Palestinian officials, suggesting that a post-Arafat Palestinian leader might be able to make peace, perhaps in as little as several years. "I'm just sorry I blew this Middle East" thing, Clinton said shortly before leaving. "But I don't know what else I could have done."
Clinton also revealed that, contrary to most conventional wisdom after Camp David ended on July 25, 2000, the key issue that torpedoed the talks in their final stages was not the division of East Jerusalem between Palestinians and Israelis, but the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" of refugees to Israel. On Jerusalem, he said, the two sides were down to dickering over final language on who would get sovereignty over which part of the Western Wall. But Arafat continued to demand that large numbers of Palestinian refugees, mainly from the 1967 and 1948 wars, be allowed to return-numbers that Clinton said both of them knew were unacceptable to the Israelis.
Clinton said he bluntly contradicted Arafat when, in one of their final conversations, the Palestinian leader expressed doubts that the ancient Jewish temple actually lay beneath the Islamic-run compound in Jerusalem containing the holy Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. This was a critical point of dispute, since the Western Wall, a remnant of the temple's retaining wall, is the holiest site in Judaism and one the Israelis were intent on maintaining sovereignty over. "I know it's there," Clinton said he told Arafat. The so-called Al Aqsa intifada began after Ariel Sharon made a controversial visit to the disputed compound on Sept. 28, 2000.
http://europe.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-your-fault-153779?rm=eu
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Thanks Mott for providing an opportunity for a good laugh; because your defense of Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize is the funniest thing you've posted in a long while.