# The recipient for the Nobel peace price...is Barack Obama



## Meshugger (Oct 9, 2009)

BBC NEWS | Europe | Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Silly norwegians, didn't they listen to Glen Beck and his followers had to say? The guy is a racist and possibly the next Hitler with his 'death panels'! 







(for the record, i do not know what exactly he has done to promote world peace, except for being a nice guy)


----------



## Varcolac (Oct 9, 2009)

This surprised me. Were I a US citizen I'd have voted for the guy, but he's only been in office eight months.

This is, on the other hand, disturbing proof that Norway is not as brutal as I'd previously thought.


----------



## McKay (Oct 9, 2009)

What a fucking joke.


----------



## Lucky Seven (Oct 9, 2009)

One of my friends said:


> The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
> 
> Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1 -- only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September -- two months before Obama was elected president.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## orb451 (Oct 9, 2009)

Proof once again that Obama is the 2nd coming of Christ. He's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's going to cure Cancer, AIDS, world hunger and balance our budget, in addition to that, he's also going to personally come and give each and every one of us a great big hug, mow our lawns and pay our bills each month.

W.T.F.????????????????????????


----------



## Tiger (Oct 9, 2009)

This makes no sense.


----------



## Cancer (Oct 9, 2009)

:I voted for Obama, and generally dig the guy, but yeah I don't get this either.


After reading the article:
"Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said."

Ok, ok , I get it now, a bit "pre-emptive", but yeah I get it.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

I see this both ways.

It makes me scratch my head, because:

"Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1 -- only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September -- two months before Obama was elected president." (from CNN article)

But then again, this is HARDLY the first time they've issued a 'forward thinking' peace prize. Al Gore, anyone? Mikhail Gorbachev, anyone? The Nobel foundation (or group, or whatever the fuck it is) has repeatedly issued the Peace prize (but not their other awards, for whatever reason) as a political statement rather than a reward for merits already achieved. In that sense, this year's award makes perfect sense.

So yeah, I'm of 2 minds about it. On one hand, I'm thinking "Really? REALLY?!" but then on the other hand I'm thinking "Word up. Maybe this will help him get more support for his diplomatic efforts."


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

^
What he said.

The committee acknowledged themselves that his efforts might 'bear no fruit', so it was pretty much decided based on platform, rather than anything concrete. Not really anything new, as far as the Nobel Peace Prize is concerned, but definitely something that makes you  a little.

I do agree with them, though, when they say he's helped to change a lot of the climate/conversation going on; and it's been something he's been advocating since the campaign... so that might explain why he was nominated so early in his actual term.


----------



## halsinden (Oct 9, 2009)

i am prepared to speculate, almost to the point of total certainty, that barack obama's award of the nobel peace prize will improve his tone, and very possibly make his vibrato more even. this is a good thing, since his clean tone is shoddy and his 'united nations divebomb' is quite frankly piss-poor.

now, we just need to get him to pick up a 7. _surely_ that can't be too difficult now?

H


----------



## phaeded0ut (Oct 9, 2009)

I have to agree with Carl! on this one, it seems a bit premature, but then again, there is the off-chance that this may help our foreign service crowd a bit more. 

Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize - CNN.com

Praise and skepticism greet Obama's Nobel Peace Prize - CNN.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html?_r=1&hp

Just to add a few more sources for the same story.


----------



## McKay (Oct 9, 2009)

> There is a man sitting in a Chinese Prison right now, who is risking his life to stand up for freedom of expression in the most populated nation on planet Earth at the moment and he lost this award so your Milk Chocolate Jesus can get his politically motivated leftist hand job.





> To top it off there's a woman who is an incredibly active Afghani woman's rights proponent, someone whose very life is in danger from extremists in the Taliban and whatnot in Afghanistan because she is fighting for womens' rights in the nation. She was passed up too for this prize.
> 
> For what?
> 
> For Obama's "potential to maybe get rid of nuke bombs and make the world love America again, maybe. Something in a decade or three."



Pretty much sums up my feelings.


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## ellengtrgrl (Oct 9, 2009)

McKay said:


> Pretty much sums up my feelings.


 

Yuppers! Me too! Besides, politically motivated stuff makes me want to barf! Politicians are the biggest morons in the world at anything outside of politics.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

ellengtrgrl said:


> Yuppers! Me too! Besides, politically motivated stuff makes me want to barf! Politicians are the biggest morons in the world at anything outside of politics.



You do know he's a former professor of Constitutional Law, right?


----------



## phaeded0ut (Oct 9, 2009)

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Again, I don't agree with the "hope that 'good' things will occur..." aspect of his being given the Nobel Peace Prize.

Good speech, though... At least this President can be allowed out in front of a camera.

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Obama Address Just to add a bit of humor to this.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Oct 9, 2009)

It´s way to early IMO. He haven´t even had the chance to do anything yet, lol.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Oct 9, 2009)

It's even crazier when you realize that he was nominated after roughtly 2 WEEKS in office


----------



## ellengtrgrl (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> You do know he's a former professor of Constitutional Law, right?


 
Yeah, I know. But considering his unremarkable record as a state sentor, US Senator, editor of the Harvard Law review (a VERY presitgious position for law students, that requires you to at least do an editorial ot two [none were done by him]), and even as a community organizer in Chicago, you wonder if he didn't continue the trend as an erstwhile law proffessor. As a college grad, I know that for most profs, it's "publish or perish."

I'm just going to go on my political soapbox once, and that's it. Nobody likes it when people rant and rave. I'm fed up with politicians in general. I used to be a legacy Democrat (my parents still are bigtime Democrats), but the Democratic Party hasn't been the party of JFK in a looong time, it's gone decidedly left wing for my tastes (I like to consider myself a poltical moderate). I'm not even that wild about the Republicans. Over the past couple of decades, common sense seems to have been seriously abandoned by politicians, and replaced by good old fashined political expediency. Don't tell me the left is any better than the right with regards to this. IMO, many politicos are hypocrites. I attended one of the most left wing universities in the world - The University of Wisconsin. It used to frustrate me to no end how some of my left-wing student union co-workers would just rip on anybody who didn't hold their view points. How dare you disagree with them!! Not everybody is the same. So, not everybody is going to think the same way as you do. 

Sorry if I was on my soapbox for too long.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> You do know he's a former professor of Constitutional Law, right?


If his voting record reflects in any way reflects his understanding of the Constitution, then moron would not be an inaccurate term.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

ellengtrgrl said:


> Yeah, I know. But considering his unremarkable record as a state sentor, US Senator, editor of the Harvard Law review (a VERY presitgious position for law students, that requires you to at least do an editorial ot two [none were done by him]), and even as a community organizer in Chicago, you wonder if he didn't continue the trend as an erstwhile law proffessor. As a college grad, I know that for most profs, it's "publish or perish."
> 
> I'm just going to go on my political soapbox once, and that's it. Nobody likes it when people rant and rave. I'm fed up with politicians in general. I used to be a legacy Democrat (my parents still are bigtime Democrats), but the Democratic Party hasn't been the party of JFK in a looong time, it's gone decidedly left wing for my tastes (I like to consider myself a poltical moderate). I'm not even that wild about the Republicans. Over the past couple of decades, common sense seems to have been seriously abandoned by politicians, and replaced by good old fashined political expediency. Don't tell me the left is any better than the right with regards to this. IMO, many politicos are hypocrites. I attended one of the most left wing universities in the world - The University of Wisconsin. It used to frustrate me to no end how some of my left-wing student union co-workers would just rip on anybody who didn't hold their view points. How dare you disagree with them!! Not everybody is the same. So, not everybody is going to think the same way as you do.
> 
> Sorry if I was on my soapbox for too long.



I completely agree with all of this. I just think that calling the man one of the 'biggest morons on the planet' is way off base. Especially if you've ever watched a 'reality' TV show.


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

ellengtrgrl said:


> it's gone decidedly left wing for my tastes (I like to consider myself a poltical moderate).



I think the biggest reason it seemed to go that direction is because both parties allowed moral issues to reign, and on policy issues, they villainized each other to no end _(Republicans: OMG! They're going to take ALL your guns away; Democrats; OMG! They're not going to let you buy birth control anymore and you're going to be FORCED to make babies!)_.

This "if you elect that guy, we're all going to perish in flames!" attitude just hardened the base of both parties, and pushed all the moderates out into the middle. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a registered Democrat but I disagree with people in my party constantly, but that's all man-made/perverted things; I picked the party I did because the fundamental basis and core interpretation of it matched my beliefs and I refuse to let a few (or even several) bad apples ruin it. 

/offtopic


----------



## Zoltta (Oct 9, 2009)

*So apparently ive been doing it all WRONG. All you need to do to win the nobel peace prize is bow to the Saudi king, manhandle the queen of England, give DVDs that don't work to the British Prime Minister, and bend over so Iran and North Korea can fuck you in the ass.*


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> If his voting record reflects in any way reflects his understanding of the Constitution, then moron would not be an inaccurate term.



I can only begin to imagine where you're pulling that from. I studied his legislative voting record pretty extensively when he was running for office. It looked pretty solid to me at the time...

Please understand -- I'm no Obama fanatic. Sure, I voted for the guy and even volunteered for the campaign locally (mostly just to do my part to make sure we wouldn't now be under McCain/Palin, which terrified me to my core), but since he's taken office he's done plenty of things leaving me to ....

But, it goes without saying that his voting record is from before he took office. What exactly are you referencing here?


----------



## ellengtrgrl (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I completely agree with all of this. I just think that calling the man one of the 'biggest morons on the planet' is way off base. Especially if you've ever watched a 'reality' TV show.


 
Ummm, I did not say he was the biggest moron on the planet (you are putting words in my mouth), I just said that politicians are basically a bunch of the biggest morons, with regards to non-political subjects (consititutional law does sort of mesh with politics). But, I will admit, that I can't help but wonder what he's been smoking, when he makes some of his statements.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> *So apparently ive been doing it all WRONG. All you need to do to win the nobel peace prize is bow to the Saudi king, manhandle the queen of England, give DVDs that don't work to the British Prime Minister, and bend over so Iran and North Korea can fuck you in the ass.*



Are you Rupert Murdoch?


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

Tells us how you really feel, Brian. 

Seriously though, that kinda diatribe is vile and that's the kinda crap that makes everyone else who disagrees with the President look as whacko as you do.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

ellengtrgrl said:


> Ummm, I did not say he was the biggest moron on the planet (you are putting words in my mouth), I just said that politicians are basically a bunch of teh biggest morons outside of politics (consititutional law does sort of mesh with politics). But, I will admit, that I can't help but wonder what he's been smoking, when he makes some of his statements.



Context is everything. In a thread *about Barak Obama* you said, and I quote:

"Politicians are the biggest morons in the world at anything outside of politics."

How am I putting words in your mouth?


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

As an aside, this thread's drifting a little off-topic; which is probably not a huge deal since it's all relevant, but fighting over minutia like reading between the lines of what somebody said (whether accurate or not) is a useless derail. 

Back on topic, Carl was 100% right... they picked Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev... the committee barely has what I would consider a record of "concrete evidence" to support their nominees/winners. Think of it as the world's "Presidential Medal of Freedom".


----------



## ellengtrgrl (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Context is everything. In a thread *about Barak Obama* you said, and I quote:
> 
> "Politicians are the biggest morons in the world at anything outside of politics."
> 
> How am I putting words in your mouth?


 
OK, one last thing, then can we just agree to disagree? I said politicians (of which Barack Obama is one) are some of the biggest morons (not just Barack, but politicians in general), when it comes to non-political subject matter. If you you want to beat me up on pure semantics, fine. I'm kind of busy at the moment (I'm at work, and I'm taking short breaks on the fly), and really don't have time to split hairs. If it makes you feel better you win. You got me. I normally don't even comment on political forums because of stuff like this (you know the old saw, about not discussing religion and politics if you want a civil discussion) . I guess I suffered an attack of stupidity, when I found it wrong that other people far more deserving didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize, and decided to comment for a change on something political.  Oh well, you win.


----------



## Groff (Oct 9, 2009)

Randy said:


> ^
> What he said.
> 
> The committee acknowledged themselves that his efforts might 'bear no fruit', so it was pretty much decided based on platform, rather than anything concrete. Not really anything new, as far as the Nobel Peace Prize is concerned, but definitely something that makes you  a little.



Yeah, they're not as selective as they used to be. Not to say that Nobel Prize's aren't deserved in some cases... But they just don't seem to be that important or relevant anymore. In my opinion anyway. I read this and was kinda meh about it.


----------



## Zoltta (Oct 9, 2009)

Randy said:


> Tells us how you really feel, Brian.
> 
> Seriously though, that kinda diatribe is vile and that's the kinda crap that makes everyone else who disagrees with the President look as whacko as you do.



My point being, i couldnt figure out what he did that was so amazing for him to win this award. 

Please tell me so i can feel better.


----------



## Zoltta (Oct 9, 2009)

Groff said:


> Yeah, they're not as selective as they used to be. Not to say that Nobel Prize's aren't deserved in some cases... But they just don't seem to be that important or relevant anymore. In my opinion anyway. I read this and was kinda meh about it.



This^ and i also feel this way about the Medal of Honor. Not to say i dont think anyone who sacrificed their lives doesnt deserve the MoH but comparing to what the past winners have done it seems the standards have lowered. God bless anyone who has received one either way.


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Please tell me so i can feel better.



TBH, I can't. They feel like he's "changed the climate for peace and negotiation around the world" or something like that, but even as a supporter of his, I know there's not a lot of evidence of that.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

Randy said:


> TBH, I can't. They feel like he's "changed the climate for peace and negotiation around the world" or something like that, but even as a supporter of his, I know there's not a lot of evidence of that.



I think it was an opinion column from a FOX affilliate, but I did find it funny reading somebody say "For the past several years, the only qualification is to not be/speak out against George W. Bush". (they sited Gore, Carter, and a couple other recent recipients..)

Hilarious, and also pretty accurate.

The Nobel Prize for Not Being George W Bush.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Oct 9, 2009)

Realistically, he's making an effort to improve relations with the rest of the world, I think. he's basically a figurehead for not making America the retarded cousin internationally anymore.


----------



## metallatem (Oct 9, 2009)

Nobel Prize = Crackerjack Box Toy


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

metallatem said:


> Nobel Prize = Crackerjack Box Toy



No, no. That's the Schwartz.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

What I don't get is why everyone's expecting him to be Superman. He has the most important the job in the world *bar none* and there is pressure on him from all directions, each decision he makes potentially has rippled effects throughout the ENTIRE WORLD. 

I think because Bush was such a hopeless fucking idiot, now Obama is in power people want him to clean up Bush's mess NOW NOW NOW and I just don't think it's realistic. Out of all the millions of people he has to answer to, he can't keep EVERYONE happy. I personally think the guy needs some slack.

My opinion may be misinformed, I don't know, but that's how I see it.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

In regards to that Dave, I think one of the reasons he is so well received is that he states very clearly and plainly that most of the goals he's working toward are goals he doesn't expect to be reached in his term, or even his lifetime, but feels they are worth working toward all the same. That's a fresh type of perspective to be coming from a politician, especially an American politician. In a world full of leaders who promise their constituents the world but never deliver, here's this guy who basically says "We *can* do this, but it's going to take a lot of hard work, and *everybody* is going to have to chip in. I can't do it by my self, and our country can't do it alone, either."

I mean, that's part of what I find attractive, anyway. And I live here, for whatever extra clout that gives my opinion.


----------



## metallatem (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> In regards to that Dave, I think one of the reasons he is so well received is that he states very clearly and plainly that most of the goals he's working toward are goals he doesn't expect to be reached in his term, or even his lifetime, but feels they are worth working toward all the same. That's a fresh type of perspective to be coming from a politician, especially an American politician. In a world full of leaders who promise their constituents the world but never deliver, here's this guy who basically says "We *can* do this, but it's going to take a lot of hard work, and *everybody* is going to have to chip in. I can't do it by my self, and our country can't do it alone, either."
> 
> I mean, that's part of what I find attractive, anyway. And I live here, for whatever extra clout that gives my opinion.



I agree with that. I've also noticed he's promised to do some things and actually not done them, but we all know how easy it is to say you'll do something and when you realise how hard it is you lose motivation.

I've respected his team mentality from the start, I always thought that was the right idea.

Obviously I'm just speaking from a Peepshow perspective but yes haha it's probably easier to gauge his worth as a President if he is actually your own 



metallatem said:


>




They just showed that on our TV, I think it's unfair to the guy.


----------



## metallatem (Oct 9, 2009)

Unfair? It's pretty tame compared to the treatment of previous presidents by SNL. I have no major problems personally with Obama, but the bottom line is that he really hasn't accomplished anything. Good intentions are just that.


----------



## orb451 (Oct 9, 2009)

Wow Dave (Scar) your level of understanding is obviously a lot greater than mine with respect to cutting people slack. This is the leader of our country and arguably one of the most important leaders in the free world. I think it's our DUTY to hold him to VERY high standards. People skewered Bush et al (and rightfully so) for all the cockups during his administration. Now it's Obama's turn. 

Maybe you're not intimately aware of it, but a lot of the promises during his campaign have not come about yet. And I'm sorry, I'm NOT one of the people that believes in the "Can" as being as good as the "Will". What "can" we change? A whole shitload. I'm more interested in what we "will" change.

Per Alfred Nobel's will, he wanted the Nobel Peace Prize awarded for someone's actions AFTER the fact. Not what he "might" do, not what he "can" do, not what "kinda sorta might happen". This guy has done nothing since coming into office. The only thing he's done is shown that he can read a teleprompter, give a good speech and make as many diplomatic faux pas as the next guy.

Someone in this thread almost hit the nail on the head, Obama, because of his criminally inept predecessor has had the bar set pretty damned low for him. What we don't need is cutting ANY politicians ANY more slack. We've given them all the slack we can over here and it's gotten us almost nothing but bullshit in return. There hundreds, probably thousands of more deserving candidates for this award. This or any other year. This cheapens the awards meaning and cheapens Obama for accepting it. If he truly were the "chosen one" (ala Neo) he should promptly and humbly decline and/or not accept the award. If it were a year or two after his full 4 year term or 8 year term as president, after having accomplished or tried for that time period to accomplish the things he's set out to do with respect to world peace THEN it might be a good time to give him the award.

Mahatma Ghandi didn't even win the god damned Nobel Peace Prize (and yes I'm aware of how that fuckup happened). But still...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

orb451 said:


> Wow Dave (Scar) your level of understanding is obviously a lot greater than mine with respect to cutting people slack. This is the leader of our country and arguably one of the most important leaders in the free world. I think it's our DUTY to hold him to VERY high standards.



I 100% agree my man, but I think it's also important to remember he's only human. I'm just talking from a speculative point of view as I said before.



orb451 said:


> Maybe you're not intimately aware of it, but a lot of the promises during his campaign have not come about yet. And I'm sorry, I'm NOT one of the people that believes in the "Can" as being as good as the "Will". What "can" we change? A whole shitload. I'm more interested in what we "will" change.



I'm completely unaware of what was in his manifesto. I did pay some attention during the US election process but not enough to comment properly. I'm just saying it as I see it, but obviously you guys over in the US know more about it than I do.



orb451 said:


> If he truly were the "chosen one" (ala Neo) he should promptly and humbly decline and/or not accept the award. If it were a year or two after his full 4 year term or 8 year term as president, after having accomplished or tried for that time period to accomplish the things he's set out to do with respect to world peace THEN it might be a good time to give him the award.



He should've, yes, but he's only just been awarded it so he may do so in the coming days.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> They just showed that on our TV, I think it's unfair to the guy.



From watching the whole thing, I take this back. They only showed 30 seconds of that on our TV and I thought those 30 seconds were really attacking him but I suppose in context it seems less harsh.


----------



## orb451 (Oct 9, 2009)

Dave that's where you're wrong, he's not a man, he's a machine. He's a sophisticated sex robot sent back through time to change the fate of ONE lucky lady.... or wait, was that "The Sherminator" I'm thinking of.

Bad jokes aside, I know he's just a guy but I really wish people would get over the hype and the feel goodliness of it all and get down to what matters.

And I can't see anything about this award (at the moment) that doesn't wreak of political "fuck you's" to the Right wing (McCain/Bush/Palin/etc).


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

orb451 said:


> Mahatma Ghandi didn't even win the god damned Nobel Peace Prize (and yes I'm aware of how that fuckup happened). But still...



Agreed for the most part on those points. That's the half of me that takes issue, really. Obama is certainly no Ghandi, no Dhalai Lama, etc.


----------



## orb451 (Oct 9, 2009)

Exactamundo Syn, if it were later and he'd already done all this wonderful stuff then by all means, give it to him. In the interim there's a lot more deserving individuals out there and I can't see putting him on the same level as some of the saint like folks (though certainly not all) who've been awarded the prize in the past.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

I think that because so many people want him to turn it down, he might actually do just that.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 9, 2009)

I think the committee saw that he wasn't threatening to invade every country that angered him and said "Aw hell, the US has someone with at least some desire for peace. Give him a medal"

At least that is the only coherent sense I can make out of it.


----------



## orb451 (Oct 9, 2009)

Well Dave, that's a no-go on the whole decline the prize avenue:

Obama says he'll accept Nobel as 'call to action' - Yahoo! News

" _ I think the committee saw that he wasn't threatening to invade every country that angered him *YET* and said "Aw hell, the US has someone with at least some desire for peace. Give him a medal

_There, fixed that for ya


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Well at least he said this:



Obama said:


> Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the "transformative figures" who had won it before him.
> 
> But, he said, "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century."



"wasn't sure he had done enough" doesn't quite cover it, but if he sees the reaction people are having to this he will almost certainly give it back.


----------



## phaeded0ut (Oct 9, 2009)

Folks, try this on for size: washingtonpost.com

Nutshell; there are two type of Nobel Peace Prize awards, one is aspirational (this is what President Obama has received) and the other one is for achievement. This said, and I repeat myself, it was a year or two too soon in my opinion. However, and while this is conjecture on my part, it seems as though this is an endorsement of President Obama's intentions by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Will it byte him or not, who knows? 

<rant>
The real major problem is that folks have forgotten how to have civil (please, read this as "courteous") arguments. Instead of having constructive discussions on position, it is instead more akin to a multitude of religions arguing (and eventually coming to blows) over a topic. Nothing gets accomplished when everyone is shouting and behaving less than kindly. I'd also argue that a lack of Philosophy within the curriculum is due in no small part to this horrific problem. Something about being able to formulate germane questions. Sorry the "thought" thing is a misnomer by folks who really don't understand what they're talking/writing about.
</rant>

I duly apologize to those folks who were upset by this post.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Oct 9, 2009)

Haha, that´s what I call norwegian-english


----------



## Dickicker (Oct 9, 2009)

THis whole ordeal pisses me off.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 9, 2009)

phaeded0ut said:


> Folks, try this on for size: washingtonpost.com
> 
> Nutshell; there are two type of Nobel Peace Prize awards, one is aspirational (this is what President Obama has received) and the other one is for achievement. This said, and I repeat myself, it was a year or two too soon in my opinion. However, and while this is conjecture on my part, it seems as though this is an endorsement of President Obama's intentions by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Will it byte him or not, who knows?
> 
> ...



Ah...it all makes a bit more sense now even though you are right that it is probably too soon. 

 Sadly I think it has already bitten him because that population that you are ranting about just sees it as another reason not to like the guy and think everything he has is undeserved. It is just fanning the flames so to speak. 

Sometimes I wonder if this country can just be happy that a leader of ours gained recognition for something other than being a total idiot.


----------



## orb451 (Oct 9, 2009)

As a non-Obama fan (and Libertarian for those who care), I can be happy with him (or anyone for that matter) as a leader when he actively demonstrates his leadership abilities. Leadership abilities to me, mean following through on what one says they're going to do. If they say they're closing Gitmo, close it. If they say they're leaving Iraq, leave it. And so on and so forth. Yes the rabid Right are going to harp on this more than anything else at the moment. Yes that's wrong to pick on the guy, but it's just as wrong to swallow every nugget out of his mouth as if it were the word of God and I think the Left are especially guilty of this. As a politician, at any level, don't just "tell" us what you're going to do, DO IT. Follow through is everything in life.

So far I hear a whole lot about polish, panache, and the ability to deliver a good speech and basically be "better than the last guy", when we should be looking long and hard at who's at the wheel right now. Rather than focusing on this huge collective sigh of relief that "the last guy" is no longer in control. Especially considering the "last guy" at the wheel was functionally as smart as your average 3rd grader.

As said before, W (Dubya) set the bar sooooooooooo pathetically low that just about ANYONE would look better in comparison.

Nobel Prize Nominations - so easy a caveman could do it!


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 9, 2009)

orb451 said:


> As a non-Obama fan (and Libertarian for those who care), I can be happy with him (or anyone for that matter) as a leader when he actively demonstrates his leadership abilities. Leadership abilities to me, mean following through on what one says they're going to do. If they say they're closing Gitmo, close it. If they say they're leaving Iraq, leave it. And so on and so forth. Yes the rabid Right are going to harp on this more than anything else at the moment. Yes that's wrong to pick on the guy, but it's just as wrong to swallow every nugget out of his mouth as if it were the word of God and I think the Left are especially guilty of this. As a politician, at any level, don't just "tell" us what you're going to do, DO IT. Follow through is everything in life.
> 
> So far I hear a whole lot about polish, panache, and the ability to deliver a good speech and basically be "better than the last guy", when we should be looking long and hard at who's at the wheel right now. Rather than focusing on this huge collective sigh of relief that "the last guy" is no longer in control. Especially considering the "last guy" at the wheel was functionally as smart as your average 3rd grader.
> 
> ...




I understand you and appreciate that you have a coherent opinion. As for me, I voted for the guy but I don't agree with everything that has gone on. Gitmo should be a thing of the past and this whole Afghanistan business is not something that I am overly happy about either. 

I just feel that as a nation, we should be happy that we have a leader getting a recognition of this sort. You don't have to be happy with him, just be proud that your country is moving away from looking like the laughing stock of the world.


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 9, 2009)

Man, its like you can tell who watches fox news by the grade of the comments on here, and people who are actually really considering weather its right or wrong that he won on an intellectual level. 

I think its an aspirational thing, honestly. And regarding the Chinese dude in jail, i was reading that the Nobel group or what-have-you REALLY doesn't want to piss off the government of the largest country in the world. As far as some of the other candidates go, i think they would have made far, far, better picks.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Oct 9, 2009)

See, there's so much double-standards from the right (both here and outside the forum). You say "what we CAN do doesn't matter, only what he's DONE and concrete ACTIONS" in one sentence, then say something like "he hasn't aggressively attacked anyone YET" like his future actions have merit. Do you not see the dichotomy?

Especially that saturday night live thing (which I understand is satire), people expect things done immediately. There is evidence that he put motions into play to shut down Guantanamo, withdraw from Iraq, etc. They haven't gotten done yet, yes. But the same people who argue for small government now want Obama to take the power to do all these things IMMEDIATELY and personally? He's trying NOT to be the executive order whore Bush was, people. But he intends to do these things, and I believe at some point they will get done.


----------



## Koshchei (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm going to side with Obama himself on the matter. 

While it's an incredible honour for Oslo to award this to him, he hasn't yet done enough to place him alongside laureates like Mikhail Gorbachev, who *have* made a difference for the better in the lives of hundreds of millions of people. 

My hope is that his actions in the future will be guided by his words in the present.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

So I got this message through the moveon mailing list, and figured it might be worth posting here. It's certainly relevant.



> This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
> 
> To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
> 
> ...


 
From the Horse's mouth, so to speak.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

How do we manage to pin so many medals on an emperor with no clothes?

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> So I got this message through the moveon mailing list, and figured it might be worth posting here. It's certainly relevant.
> 
> From the Horse's mouth, so to speak.



Clears things up a little, thanks for posting


----------



## Koshchei (Oct 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> How do we manage to pin so many medals on an emperor with no clothes?
> 
> Jeff



Because we're human, and humans have a magpie-like affinity for golden calves?

Plus rep for the clever ad hominem - I respect a well-crafted personal attack. Humour and cleverness aside though, I think that in two years we'll have a better idea of what he is or isn't wearing - Obama isn't even a year into his first term yet.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

Not really a personal attack when you keep in mind the original fable and the poor hype-to-accomplishment ratio we're looking at in his time so far.

Jeff


----------



## phatfil (Oct 9, 2009)

he was 2 weeks into his term when he was nominated. 2 weeks! there was absolutely no reason for nomination at that point. there hasn't even been a reason up to this point.


----------



## Koshchei (Oct 9, 2009)

Nah, it is. Here's why:

In the fable, the Emperor was blindly oblivious to the needs of his citizens, instead choosing to bask in the privileges of his position. Had he been paying greater attention to the 'oblige' part of 'noblesse oblige', he wouldn't have been gulled so easily. 

This caricature does not describe Obama. He would not be speaking publicly on a regular basis or trying (I emphasize trying) to revitalize American society, if he was only interested in self-image. I need not remind you that the steps that he has taken so far have done little to help his popularity.

If anything, George W. prior to 9/11 is a much better fit for Emperor. If you look at the number of days he spent on vacation in his first two years in office, the number of public broadcasts/press statements he made, and the people he chose to surround himself with, you'll see that he was blowing smoke up his own ass, and believing every word of it.

Taking it a step further though, the American people themselves are the best fit. They've sold the greatest country in the history of the world to swindlers promising them moral superiority (only heretic savage foreigners can't see your radiance, oh mighty people of 'Merca), administration after administration, and what do they have to show for it? Trillions of dollars of debt that will take several generations to repay, an economy in shambles, meaningless wars with third world countries that they cannot possibly win (as there are no agreed-upon concrete conditions for victory), and the least advanced infrastructure, education, and health system in the developed world. They have nobody but themselves to blame for this, yet their morbidly obese pride prevents them from ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MOST COLOSSAL FUCK-UP SINCE ROME FELL 1500 YEARS AGO. Swallow it down, bitches, and start fixing your problems, or get crushed by the other advanced nations as they trample you in the decades ahead.


----------



## Azyiu (Oct 9, 2009)

There are at least a couple other well deserving candidates than Obama, like Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao or German Chancellor Angela Merkel.


----------



## kmanick (Oct 9, 2009)

orb451 said:


> Wow Dave (Scar) your level of understanding is obviously a lot greater than mine with respect to cutting people slack. This is the leader of our country and arguably one of the most important leaders in the free world. I think it's our DUTY to hold him to VERY high standards. People skewered Bush et al (and rightfully so) for all the cockups during his administration. Now it's Obama's turn.
> 
> Maybe you're not intimately aware of it, but a lot of the promises during his campaign have not come about yet. And I'm sorry, I'm NOT one of the people that believes in the "Can" as being as good as the "Will". What "can" we change? A whole shitload. I'm more interested in what we "will" change.
> 
> ...


 


^^^^ awesome post . IMO right on the money


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Are people completely ignoring synrgy's post?


----------



## kmanick (Oct 9, 2009)

No, hey once again a nice well written response.
I'd like to be able to go thru the list of the other 204 submissions and cross
them all off because he was the best choice for this, but in reality I doubt anyone that was actually sane could do that.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> Nah, it is. Here's why:
> 
> In the fable, the Emperor was blindly oblivious to the needs of his citizens, instead choosing to bask in the privileges of his position. Had he been paying greater attention to the 'oblige' part of 'noblesse oblige', he wouldn't have been gulled so easily.
> 
> ...



That's not the part I was referring to. Don't get me wrong - you make a solid point elsewhere - but you've misread the part of the fable I was alluding to.

The part of the fable where the people were so willing to overlook obvious shortcomings to try to fit what they saw with the hype they wanted to follow is what I'm aiming at here. The media loves portraying him with halo and wings, and a large part of the country thinks he's the second coming of every messiah in history, but everyone is overlooking that he's for sale just like everyone who came before him. We'd love to pretend that he's really a cut above the rest, but the only thing really setting him apart is that everyone else is pretending he's a cut above the rest.

With everything else, though, right on.

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 9, 2009)

I can't wait to hear what Glenn Beck says about this. I'm sure he'll be so angry that he'll cry, and it will be hilarious. That's all.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I can't wait to hear what Glenn Beck says about this. I'm sure he'll be so angry that he'll cry, and it will be hilarious. That's all.





Glenn Beck said:


> "Obama has to turn it down. ... It's the only way for him make a win out of this." On his October 9 radio show, Beck said: "Let me give you my rundown on this Obama Nobel Prize. First of all, he has to turn it down -- because it is such a joke -- that he'll turn it down and it's the only way for him make a win out of this. Only his arrogance will stop him from doing it. But I can guarantee you that there are people that are saying right now, you got to turn it down, you got to turn it down, you got to turn it down. ... So I believe that's what he'll do. I mean -- I can't say -- his arrogance is so incredible." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 10/9/09]


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

I would be unspeakably happy if his head exploded severely enough to keep us from ever having to listen to him again.

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 9, 2009)

His response was good, but now that Obama accepted it, he might even piss himself on the air.


----------



## Groff (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> The Nobel Prize for Not Being George W Bush.



Don't forget that Bush won a world peace prize (although not the Nobel)


----------



## phaeded0ut (Oct 9, 2009)

The other issue to discuss since we're about comparisons is that during George W. Bush's presidency for the majority of both tenures, he had a rubber stamp of approval in the House (both Senate and Congress). What grouching appeared from the Democratic Party and Independents tended to be undercut by simply not taking a single position and sticking with that position. Instead there were multiple, smaller positions being presented and this was easier to overcome when things came to a vote or to sway individuals to a different position when it came time for a vote.

President Obama does have a majority (and probably soon to change) within both Houses relative to Party affiliation, but unfortunately, again, it is not a single unified position within the Democratic Party within both Houses. 
The Houses are where the real decisions are made that affect people's lives. While there is a modicum of power within the positions of the President and the Vice President it is limited by not being over-arching to what is done within the Senate and Congress. 

Another oft forgotten portion that is forgotten is that the Houses move slowly irrespective of what is occurring in the outside (of the DC area) world. Just look at how long Senate has sat upon the issue of continuing Unemployment Benefits for all 50 States, relative to the Congressional Bill that only worked to increase Unemployment Benefits for 37 States. Can't remember which of the two was for a longer duration, and I apologize for not presenting that information. Congress took approximately 3 days of deliberation and Senate has yet to discuss this very serious issue and has had the relevant information for over 2 weeks! 

This is not a whine, but an observation mainly for those folks who don't live within the DC Area. Another such observation is that what is available for news is also quite different once you leave the DC Area, too. I also ask that you check up for yourselves on all information presented herein and do not take anything I or others have typed at face value. Please, formulate your own opinions and use multiple, reputable sources. 

Back on the topic. What will be interesting is to see how much the Nobel Peace Prize will impact the Obama Administration's current and future decisions. I'd also posit that his opposition will equally be tempered by this award. 

Lastly, I'd agree with George Stephanopoulos, Riz Khan and the economic news staff of the BBC (there were two on tonight who had the same thing to say) that the Nobel Award that the Obama Administration really wanted to win (again, I'd say that it was far too soon) or be nominated for was that of Economics.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 10, 2009)

I like Obama and all but he doesn't deserve that because the hasn't really done much...


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 10, 2009)

phaeded0ut said:


> The other issue to discuss since we're about comparisons is that during George W. Bush's presidency for the majority of both tenures, he had a rubber stamp of approval in the House (both Senate and Congress). What grouching appeared from the Democratic Party and Independents tended to be undercut by simply not taking a single position and sticking with that position. Instead there were multiple, smaller positions being presented and this was easier to overcome when things came to a vote or to sway individuals to a different position when it came time for a vote.
> 
> President Obama does have a majority (and probably soon to change) within both Houses relative to Party affiliation, but unfortunately, again, it is not a single unified position within the Democratic Party within both Houses.
> The Houses are where the real decisions are made that affect people's lives. While there is a modicum of power within the positions of the President and the Vice President it is limited by not being over-arching to what is done within the Senate and Congress.
> ...



+1  Also I think it is important to note his desire for bipartisanship. Yes it was a very naive desire but I think he really thought that he could make it work. I would also venture to guess that the pressure not to just push something through the legislature like his predecessors did weighs pretty heavy on him. Basically it is a lose/lose situation for him. You try to work with both parties and give them an opportunity to sort their stuff out with little interference; then you aren't getting things done fast enough. If you cram your idea down the pipe and pass it without legitimate discussion; well then you are forcing your morality upon the American people.

Maybe it was too soon. Maybe it was undeserved in some people's eyes but he won it and I would really like to see people letting him enjoy his moment instead of acting like a rabid pack of wolves ready to devour anything that might show progress for the guy.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Oct 11, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I can only begin to imagine where you're pulling that from. I studied his legislative voting record pretty extensively when he was running for office. It looked pretty solid to me at the time...
> 
> Please understand -- I'm no Obama fanatic. Sure, I voted for the guy and even volunteered for the campaign locally (mostly just to do my part to make sure we wouldn't now be under McCain/Palin, which terrified me to my core), but since he's taken office he's done plenty of things leaving me to ....
> 
> But, it goes without saying that his voting record is from before he took office. What exactly are you referencing here?


While his voting record is indeed solid, it does not (to my eyes at least), show any attempt to follow the Constitution, rather his voting record seems to consistently defy the Constitution. Not that this makes him stand out from his peers any, as practically every representative in the House and Senate vote no less than 80% against the Constitution, Conservatives included.


----------



## hairychris (Oct 12, 2009)

My 2 pence (being a Brit):

1) He's not done anything to deserve this yet, unless not obviously being a dick counts.

2) Damn... the right wingers are foaming at the mouth, well, more.

Hey ho. I'm wondering when the first assassination attempt will be. Hm.


----------



## 777timesgod (Oct 12, 2009)

hairychris said:


> My 2 pence (being a Brit):
> 1) He's not done anything to deserve this yet, unless not obviously being a dick counts.
> 2) Damn... the right wingers are foaming at the mouth, well, more.
> Hey ho. I'm wondering when the first assassination attempt will be. Hm.



Hmm well actually obama is holding a pretty neutral stand against the rest of the world. Any time he has acted like a prick (against Russia and Greece), it was due to him wanting to please his allies. A lot of Americans call him weak for this soft-touch way so...
I dont think there will be an assasination attempt, i think the nazis (W.A.R) and the various kkk groups are pleased with the course of obama so far as a lot of people that are angry with him joined their ranks (I know this from researchs that i studied a trimester ago). Also with him holding this position they can accuse the goverment and a black guy at the same time. 
Convinient eh?

Obama doesnt deserve this award but then again neither did Kofi Anan (a known plotist, liar, asshole and U.N pawn 1000 times worst than obama) or some of the other guys that got one. The Nobel prize for peace holds no respect in my eyes for years now. One of the reasons that obama got the award was canceling that Missile Shield thing that Bush was building - i think in Poland dont have the report nearby- against Russias missile positions. The truth is that with the economy plummeting to its doom the usa didnt have the money to complete the plan anymore. Extremely embarrasing but he turned it around and made it look like a peace jesture. Clever PR move i must admit, and i dont even support or like him.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 12, 2009)

phaeded0ut said:


> Folks, try this on for size: washingtonpost.com
> 
> Nutshell; there are two type of Nobel Peace Prize awards, one is aspirational (this is what President Obama has received) and the other one is for achievement.



Quoted for posterity, because I think a lot of people discussing this seem to have missed this all important point.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Oct 12, 2009)

I listened to NPR on the way home on friday to get their input on this issue and (paraphrased) one of the commentators said 

"My initial reaction was why not the Nobel prize for Physics and Economics too, because he's given speeches on them as well" (obviously dripping with sarcasm.)

It cheapens the award in my eyes, and marginalizes those who were nominated for accomplishing something more substantial for furthering the cause of peace other than winning an expensive popularity contest. You should award accomplishments, not aspirations. 

It's like propping up failed companies with tax payer money when they have a failed business model.... oh wait... [note: not attacking Obama or D's w/ that comment, that took everyone's stupidity combined to pass]

As for Obama's desire for bipartisanship, his desire is for R's to back his positions, not to reach across the aisle and find common ground. The most "bipartisan" thing that's happened since he's been in office is changing the senate stimulus bill to buy out 3 R votes, and that was it as far as I recall. He pays great lip service to bipartisanship, but I've seen very little to support his supposed position. He's as partisan as anybody in the past 20 years.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 12, 2009)

Does nobody realize how stupid and close minded it is to speak of partisanship or bipartisanship? What happened to having a set of ideals and aspirations that require no party affiliation?


----------



## Randy (Oct 12, 2009)

That'd be nice, but there's hasn't been true "no party affiliation" ideals since somebody came up with the bright idea that you can't win elections unless you can make it about "us versus them". As far as I'm concerned, a politician's time spent in office is nothing more than an extended campaign season.


----------



## Eric (Oct 12, 2009)

We better start digging out Nobel Peace Prizes for all the Miss America and Miss Universe contestants for the last 50 years... They all had great intentions too...


----------



## JBroll (Oct 12, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Does nobody realize how stupid and close minded it is to speak of partisanship or bipartisanship? What happened to having a set of ideals and aspirations that require no party affiliation?



Butbutbut... bad ideas become good ideas when lots of people like them!

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2009)

Eric said:


> We better start digging out Nobel Peace Prizes for all the Miss America and Miss Universe contestants for the last 50 years... They all had great intentions too...


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 12, 2009)

^ I agree, awesome post


----------



## Randy (Oct 13, 2009)

Nobel jury strongly defends Obama decision - White House- msnbc.com

Apparently they're standing by their decision.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 13, 2009)

Fair play to the guy.


----------



## 777timesgod (Oct 13, 2009)

Eric said:


> We better start digging out Nobel Peace Prizes for all the Miss America and Miss Universe contestants for the last 50 years... They all had great intentions too...



You sir are mean! 

Next stop for obaman is the oscar, just wait until somene copy-pastes his face in a movie.


----------



## Randy (Oct 13, 2009)

I remember him winning a Grammy for best book on tape, also.


----------



## TruthDose (Oct 14, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I see this both ways.
> 
> It makes me scratch my head, because:
> 
> ...




Thinking the same.

"foreign diplomacy"? I wasn't aware that carrying on with two (at the least) wars was diplomatic... 
but then I forgot that Henry Kissinger has one of these awards too...


----------



## JBroll (Oct 15, 2009)

Jeff


----------

