RedState's Erickson smears Obama's Nobel Peace Prize as "an affirmative action quota"

I'm asking if you think it makes any sense that he won based on things that may potentially happen and not on actual accomplishments.

During 2 weeks in office?

When he was nominated is irrelevant, starkcr. Are you capable of critical thinking at all? I mean SERIOUSLY.

Read the Committee's reasoning for his selection.

And, yes, you hate his guts.

BTW, just because you disagree with the selections doesn't make THEM the joke. Just saying.

You do understand that he was nominated after his election because whoever nominated him thought he might prove himself worthy of the award by the time it came to hand it out, right, starkcr31? He wasn't nominated based on what he had already done, but on his campaign, and on what he pledged to do. That he has followed through, and reached out to the international community, in nuclear arms reduction among many other things, only shows that whoever nominated him was right to do so. The Nobel Committee is hoping to encourage President Obama in his stated goals, and I for one stand with him.

I don't think Obama hates our country as it is now. He most certainly, though, holds our founder's vision of the country in contempt. The federated constitutional republic bestowed to us by the Founders where the federal government is powerful within a very limited sphere has been dead for a long time now. We have a Levaithan State now where the states are no longer sovereign, but, rather, are glorified vassal states to the heavily centralized federal government.
Our Founders also abhorred the thought of 20th and 21st century America's distibutive(collectivist, socialistic)naure. They warned of the citizenry using the treasury to loot their fellow citizens. Whether it be rich stealing from poor or vice versa. This is Obama's vision though. The founders favored private charity, markets, local communities, and civil society as instituions to help those in need. They rejected the coercion of the state in these matters. They were classical liberals as opposed to state- worshipping modern liberals.
The Old Republic has been dead for a long time. We have only the last vestiges of it. Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville and others warned that if the federal government alone( whether it be the executive, legislative, or judicial,) decided what was constituional, that the federal branch would inevitably justify consolidation of power into the federal branch. They warned that the constitution would just be a revered relic that would be, in effect, a blank sheet of paper. That is exactly what has happened.
Leftist intellectuals sometimes like to crow that we live under a shadow constitution in their journals( They would never openly explain this to the rubes though, of course.) They are sadly right. The constitutional law studied and taught today in most classrooms has everything to do with precedent (often precedent of judges hostile to the limitations placed on the federal government by our original constitution), and case law, and has almost nothing to do with the original intent of our founding document.

Not true. We've made mistakes, but constantly insulting our country to appease people is unacceptable. How about, I don't know, maybe reminding people of all the good we've done for a change.

This is such a bogus argument. A good portion of money has already been spent. A lot more money has been committed to being spent, and those commitments have influenced the recovery, even if the money itself hasn't been spent. And much of the money will help keep the economy from backsliding and is being spent to help with the leftover economic problems that happen after a recovery 'officially' ends.

The economic stimulus didn't have unnecessary pork in it for the most part. It was all economic stimulus and only projects that could be justified by people other than the districts in which those projects were going to happen were approved. That's the exact opposite of pork.

Yes, undeniably unemployment is lower than it would have been without the stimulus? Are you slow or something? How can you not know this?

And yeah, the cost to our economy for the stimulus package is much less than the cost to our economy would have been if we had had a depression!!!! We will all save in the future because we didn't have a depression. As I explained elsewhere, if you have a bill that's coming due, and you borrow $100 to pay it, and then pay it back with $110 the next week when you get a paycheck, that's less than waiting to pay it with your next paycheck and having to pay $125 with a late-payment penalty. That's what would have happened if we'd been penny-wise and pound-foolish with regard to economic stimulus spending! We would have had a much greater cost to our economy, in the long run, had the stimulus (and TARP I and II) not been passed.

On top of that, the first Obama budget had much less reckless spending than Bush's last budget, and according to what I've read, actually is lower than Bush's if one adds in the war expenditures tht Bush dishonestly left off the prior budgets he did.

Your argument has been demolished.