Obama wins Nobel Peace Price (in Off-topic)
Thought this was a joke thread at first glance....
[But the prize is meant to help "strengthen his role and his policy," he said.]
Now I get the joke. Ha ha ha
Please accept my facepalm Nobel committee.
Oh, great. Thousands of people doing *actual* thing to help the world, and they give to Obama. Why?
"The committee attached special importance to Obama's vision and work for a world without nuclear weapons in the prize citation, which was read in Oslo on Friday."
Yes. A _vision_. Nothing's actually happened due to his... vision... but we're still going to give him a Nobel Peace Prize!
The NPP has become such a joke, and merely a platform for partisan shout-outs.
October 9 2009 8:57 AM EDT
Didn't Jimmy Carter with one of these bogus rewards? And we all know how he turned out.
October 9 2009 9:04 AM EDT
Have to say, not sure I understand that at all... It's like they awarded it based on popularity and potential -- neither of which have anything to do with anything. It would be like giving it to Brad Pitt just because a lot of people know his name and he drives a hybrid car.
There must not have been a clear front-runner actually having COMPLETED any sort of peace process, so they went with Obama... Unanimous vote, though.
October 9 2009 9:11 AM EDT
I suspect this was basically the world saying we hated Bush so much, we are giving it to the first idiot to take his place and try to chat some peace stuff.
He is a great orator, but what has he really done so far?
There is some real truth to that skit.
"Didn't Jimmy Carter with one of these bogus rewards? And we all know how he turned out."
are you under the impression that carter won his while he was president?
"They're like the Grammys now" - RVT
Hmm, I think I'll stay away from this topic. seems like alot of ignorant people are posting.
October 9 2009 10:50 AM EDT
October 9 2009 10:52 AM EDT
Really? People posting their opinions is "ignorance"?
Yeah. Better to post a non-post.
By the way, "alot" is two words.
October 9 2009 10:53 AM EDT
and lol is three!
well said, sut.
October 9 2009 11:03 AM EDT
"They're like the Grammys now" - RVT
Or VMAs? I actually read most of that anticipating Kanye West stepping in at some point...
Seriously, this is such a political pat on the butt it's not even funny. This coming so soon after the Olympic lost bid, pfft.
I wonder how someone wins the Nobel Peace Prize when he has no clue with what he is doing to try and help establish peace elsewhere. Tick tock, still no answer to McCrystal's request for more troops...
The only thing that makes sense is Norway is a socialistic country.
October 9 2009 11:08 AM EDT
"The only thing that makes sense is Norway is a socialistic country. "
would that explain why they have the second highest GDP per capita in the world?
Actually, the cut-off date for nominations was Feb. 1. So that meant he had exactly 10 days of time in the White House, in which he, nor any other president, could have possibly accomplished anything.
October 9 2009 11:18 AM EDT
Jimmy "won" his after he was gone from the presidency. But almost all scholars do agree his presidency was one of the worst, if not the worst of the 20th century.
And his post presidency activism is quite shocking to say the least.
But I guess all one needs to do is to state great ideas and have charisma to win this peace prize. I guess doing things matters little in this category anymore.
Actually, one also needs to have some influence too. Power doesn't hurt either. :)
October 9 2009 11:27 AM EDT
Given the fact Obama was actually President for 12 whole days, I do not suspect this award was given for any actual accomplishments.
But more of a rebuke of W and the "hope" he is giving the rest of the world.
The hope of a nuclear Iran and N. Korea. The hope that the US becomes irrelevant in the world and becomes a pacifist nation. The hope that the US bows down to any country that calls us a bully. The hope we let militants survive to once again threaten democracy.
When I saw the headline, I figured it was a joke. Then, I remembered that the Peace Prize is already a joke, and that this is simply more of the same.
I'd say this was a side effect of him managing to get elected period.
October 9 2009 1:26 PM EDT
"The hope of a nuclear Iran and N. Korea."
How on earth is that a point against Obama? I seem to remember worrying about the same thing throughout the previous administration.
Oh, and about the US becoming "irrelevant" you should remember the recession occurred on your guy's watch. Just like 9/11, and Katrina, and Iraq.
You're so quick to jump on Obama for anything at all, no matter how ludicrous, that you either completely forget or completely ignore recent history.
Meanwhile, threads like this (http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002tWg)
get absolutely no commentary from the right wingers around here who would would rather walk on by and pretend it didn't happen.
October 9 2009 1:32 PM EDT
And on the award, it's most likely due to his willingness to reach out to the middle east and work with those we have differences with, both domestic and abroad, rather than just using the "lets bomb em' and take their oil" or "just call em' un-American!" strategies for every conceivable conflict.
Every bloody right winger I've heard so far has used the "they probably just hate Bush" excuse.
October 9 2009 1:33 PM EDT
"Meanwhile, threads like this .."
*sigh* The link likes to include the last parenthesis, which kills the URL.
This should work: http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002tWg
October 9 2009 1:37 PM EDT
I have not read enough of that thread to comment adequately on it.
I do not know the reasons the senators who voted against it did.
I am sure there may have been other things in that bill that they opposed.
As you know, senators like to attack amendments to bills. I just do not know enough of the situation to comment on it.
October 9 2009 1:40 PM EDT
But in reality, LB, do you really think Obama has done anything substancial to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
How about we wait a few years and see if he is not all talk and can actually get things done.
Or see if his pacificity is going to let Iran and N. Korea further their nuclear weapon research.
And see if he can actually get a peace agreement in the Middle Ease.
And see if he can solve the Afghan problem, with or without more troops.
Instead of just listening to ideas from academia which have very little hope in the real world.
This is just a travesty, this awards should have gone to someone who actually did things to deserve it.
October 9 2009 1:45 PM EDT
Not a right-winger here, and I understand where you are coming from, but how much reaching out was Obama able to do (and did do) before prize nominations were closed? For that matter, how much has he done since?
I'm not saying Obama's politics weren't/aren't well known. They were/are.
I'm not saying I don't agree with Obama's style and demeanor. I do.
And I'm not saying he didn't become a powerful man (in position) before nominations were due. He did.
But putting that all together -- where's the actual cause/effect for winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Without results based on a clear effort, this would be no different than ANYONE following the following recipe:
-- Run a very visible, well-oiled campaign, beating out essentially two VERY worthy opponents (Clinton and McCain).
-- During said campaign, be an excellent, inspirational orator who makes clear his willingness to reach out to other nations, push for freedom, fight injustice, and strengthen our ties with allies.
-- Throw in some artistically pleasing "HOPE" graphics while you're at it.
-- Become what is perceived to be the most powerful person in the World.
-- Salt to taste.
Notice there isn't a lot of "peace", per se, in the above, nor is there a lot of action. In fact, in the early days of Obama's administration, partisanship was (and pretty much still is) the norm. I am not saying Obama is to blame for the partisanship, nor am I blaming Republicans. But the whole point of any "peace process" is is to bring people together despite their differences and stubbornness.
In my opinion, this pudding, while very tasty, just doesn't contain a lot of proof. For that reason, this seems more "cult of personality" than "true peace-making prowess."
October 9 2009 1:47 PM EDT
"I have not read enough of that thread to comment adequately on it. "
"I am sure there may have been other things in that bill that they opposed."
It was an amendment to a bill.
"But in reality, LB, do you really think Obama has done anything substancial to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?"
Ah, I have not stated whether I think he deserved it or not. *grin*
I'm simply pointing out that, as usual, the conservative comments on this thread are, bluntly, stupid. I also gave the reason why I, and others, think he got it. It doesn't mean I disagree or agree whether it was premature.
Honestly, I'm still split on the issue, just as I am on his presidency. I'm just not going to stand silent while the right demonizes another liberal.. again.
October 9 2009 1:53 PM EDT
The DNC's response to the RNC:
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," wrote DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim."
Rather brassy for the Dems, who are usually pathetic on the political attack.
Here is what I see...
He unified a majority of Americans without resorting to pandering
to hate, fear, or jingoist nationalist tendencies
He ran on a platform of ending wars that were unpopular, and out of control
His battle cry of change is exactly what the nomination is about, even if he's now forced to operate within the confines of reality.
I think this award really is about good intentions, which is at least a little lame.
October 9 2009 1:54 PM EDT
In fairness, I didn't see any of Ranger's rhetoric as "demonizing", except maybe when it got down to the third or fourth comment about the litany of how Obama is going to run everything into the ground (to which, Ranger, I would ask that you "wait it out" as you have said other should do...)
About that bill... That would appear to be the partisanship I was referring to. I'm know enough to realize that the merits of a bill often don't matter at all (especially where the military industrial complex is concerned). There were probably deals going on, both internal to each party and inter-party. I'm proud Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican hailing form my home state of Iowa, did not vote against the amendment. And saddened that Bond, from Missouri (where I lived for quite a while), did. That Missouri mindset doesn't actually surprise me, though, to end on an even sadder note. :\
October 9 2009 1:57 PM EDT
And while Obama may or may not be trying to reach out to the Republicans, nothing he has done has really shown me he really wants to.
IE, putting the healthcare process in the hands of Pelosi and Reid. Well known liberals who have a very bad taste in their mouth from the time the Republicans held the majority. And they are going for serious payback.
The whole process of healthcare is very partisan. If Obama was truly trying to reach out, he would rein in these liberals and take control himself.
However, I see him as a pacifist who tries to make everyone happy but in the end makes nobody happy. And that is how I see his world policies. Hard decisions have to be made, whether right or wrong. But a stand has to occur. You cannot pacify hardline radicals and expect them to just throw down their arms and be happy again.
And in America, you cannot blow up the current way of things and try to enact an entitlement state.
Would it have hurt anyone to have waited 1 year or longer to see if Obama actually did the things people hope he can?
I understand hope is a very strong emotion, however there were certainly others who have done that deserved this award more.
And the million dollars that goes with it. I will be interested to see what he does with this monetary award. I hope he gives it to charity.
I can't really figure out how to respond, so I'm just going to repost what I saw someone else mention on reddit regarding this topic:
He has reached out to the Muslim world.
He has reached out to Russia.
He is willing to talk to his enemies.
He takes responsibility on the climate change front.
He wants to abolish nuclear weapons.
He puts pressure on the Israelis to make peace and stop the settlements.
That's the most ambitious peace agenda of anyone in the last decade.
October 9 2009 2:07 PM EDT
He has reached out to the Muslim world, at the expense of our only real ally in the Mideast-Israel. But this is something positive that he is doing. Nothing Wow enough to deserve a Nobel.
He has reached out to Russia at the expense of our true NATO allies Poland and Czech. And long term security if Iran gets missiles and nuclear capability.
He is willing to talk to his enemies and give them time to stall us more and more while building nuclear weapons. And regroup their terrorist activities.
He takes responsibility on the climate change front at the expense of the middle class who will certainly see their energy bills skyrocket due to this junk science of global warming.
He wants to abolish nuclear weapons but will give N.Korea and Iran time to develop theirs even though they will not let inspectors into their countries.
He puts pressure on the Israelis to make peace and stop the settlements at the expense of Israel's security.
That's the most ambitious peace agenda of anyone in the last decade and the most foolish to believe his charisma is going to get everyone to do his bidding.
Again, why did he get the reward?
"He has reached out to Russia at the expense of our true NATO allies Poland and Czech."
As NATO allies those two countries are really useless. Their standing army is outdated and they don't have the desire of participating in any NATO campaign. They liked the idea of the missile defense system in their country for the cash influx it meant.
"He has reached out to the Muslim world, at the expense of our only real ally in the Mideast-Israel. But this is something positive that he is doing. Nothing Wow enough to deserve a Nobel"
Number of Muslims in the world: 1.6 billion, number of Jews in the world: less then 11 million. Yeah I would close the door to the Muslims too.
and he hasn't started a war as of yet! ; )
Jimmy "won" his after he was gone from the presidency. But almost all scholars do agree his presidency was one of the worst, if not the worst of the 20th century.
And his post presidency activism is quite shocking to say the least."
i am no jimmy carter fan but some of what you are saying strikes me as unfounded ranger. what does his presidency have to do with getting the nobel peace prize exactly?
what activism do you find shocking in relation to his peace efforts, which is what we are discussing here? also, could you please linky the scholars who "agree his presidency was one of the worst"?
"He puts pressure on the Israelis to make peace and stop the settlements at the expense of Israel's security"
I think even ex heads of Israeli intelligence have said that the way to make Israel more secure is to stop the disgraceful and humiliating treatment of palestinians.
Terrorists are not created in a vacuum, many were created by past US foreign policy.
October 9 2009 6:28 PM EDT
"In fairness, I didn't see any of Ranger's rhetoric as "demonizing", "
I didn't say Ranger, I said the Right. Though if you look at Ranger's posts on Obama on other threads, you'll see he's not exempt from criticism here either.
"And while Obama may or may not be trying to reach out to the Republicans, nothing he has done has really shown me he really wants to."
Reaching out to Republicans does not mean caving in to conservative demands and abandoning his liberal principles and base, which is the Republican's definition of "bipartisanship."
"IE, putting the healthcare process in the hands of Pelosi and Reid. --Well known liberals--"
"The whole process of healthcare is very partisan. If Obama was truly trying to reach out, he would rein in these liberals and take control himself."
Seriously Ranger? "Rein in these liberals?" Obama IS a liberal! It's why I and the other liberals in this country voted for him! You're asking him to completely forget why he was elected in the first place and do whatever the Republicans want.
And when did Bush ever "rein in the conservatives" and push for liberal legislation?
"However, I see him as a pacifist who tries to make everyone happy but in the end makes nobody happy."
And this is the problem we on the left are having with him. He's a bit too willing to ignore his base in favor of bipartisanship, sadly even your definition of it sometimes, instead of bringing down the hammer like his predecessor did. And we're tired of him caving.
I have a great Bill Maher clip about this, and I'd post it, but once again the crappy PG rule spoils the fun.
"Would it have hurt anyone to have waited 1 year or longer to see if Obama actually did the things people hope he can?"
I have no problem with this.
October 9 2009 7:21 PM EDT
I seem to remember Obama running on a line of wanting bipartisanship. Unlike as he stated W was.
I am still waiting for it. Especially in healthcare.
Pelosi's liberal state of California is bankrupt, having to pay their employees with IOUs while they have one of the highest state taxes.
Do we really want Pelosi, from a very liberal state, making healthcare policy and bankrupting us all.
October 9 2009 7:42 PM EDT
Is it Cali's health care practices that bankrupt the state? If not the link is rather spurious.
However, on the topic of the thread....
To quote my brother when I mentioned Obama getting the NPP.. "For what?"
Yeah, my take on it too.... ah well, I'm sure some proof by hand waving was strategically employed during deliberations.
October 9 2009 7:46 PM EDT
Ranger, I think you might want to separate the person from the situation. Are you really saying ANYONE who has ever made a mistake is not allowed to work on a different situation?
And yet W, an admitted drinker and cocaine user in the past, was fine for being Commander in Chief?
Don't throw bricks. You're clouding a serious discussion.
October 9 2009 7:56 PM EDT
I am stating that Obama should not have won this "prize" due to his lack of really doing anything more than rhetoric. And I have yet to see this be enacted.
Obama is trying
to please people like Ranger, but like Ranger, the republicans don't appear to be satisfied with any ground he gives them. It reminds me of a quote:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -(George Bernard Shaw)
October 9 2009 8:22 PM EDT
This is a man who has associated with Communists and Socialists all throughout college and law school.
A person who wants to take the US to a Socialistic country. Against everything the US was built upon.
He is one of the best orators I have ever seen, however, I was not fooled by him unlike quite a lot of people.
He would be a perfect president for France or Italy. However for America, he is destroying our Country with is plans for an entitlement state.
One has to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor in order to try. The Democrats want to tax the fruits and leave nothing but the pit.
October 9 2009 8:34 PM EDT
Oops, dude, you're going into "crazy time". I'm done.
i thought the crazy time was in full swing since the first jimmy carter post in this thread! ; )
October 10 2009 12:11 AM EDT
"I seem to remember Obama running on a line of wanting bipartisanship. Unlike as he stated W was."
Obama also ran on a platform of bringing a public option to health care and insuring almost everyone. But I guess he's supposed to abandon that to give the Republicans their own special brand of "bipartisanship."
On to the actual definition of bipartisanship: on his worst day Obama gave your side more of it that we EVER got out of Bush or congressional Republicans when you controlled everything. I've pointed this out to you several, several times, but you just don't seem able to grasp this.
Let me spell it out loud and clear:
BIPARTISANSHIP DOES NOT EQUATE TO ABANDONING LIBERALISM AND ADOPTING A CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM!!! If your side doesn't want to play ball with the majority's plan, YOU'RE the ones having trouble with bipartisanship, not Obama or the liberal Democrats in Congress.
You want bipartisanship? Urge your Republican congressmen to support health care reform and the public option. We shouldn't be caving to the obstructionists on the Right.
"Pelosi's liberal state of California is bankrupt,"
Through what fault of hers?
And which party does the Governator belong to again?
"Do we really want Pelosi, from a very liberal state,..."
"Oops, dude, you're going into "crazy time"."
Ranger, sober up a bit then return to the discussion. That last bit was way too far off the deep end, even for you.
October 10 2009 1:07 AM EDT
Nov, I just nearly aspirated my drink with your link...
October 10 2009 1:11 AM EDT
It was funny. *grin*
October 10 2009 10:08 AM EDT
Not withstanding politics, this award is very bad for the country and perhaps the world.
We have a bunch of pacifist Norweigeans giving a sitting president, in the first year of his term the "peace prize". The other 2 presidents honored were in the 6th or 7th year of their 2 term presidency.
Now, I think everyone can agree that Obama is the head of the US military.
Now if action is needed, swift and decisive action, how does Obama now react? He is now a "peace" prize winner. If we need to attack someone or defend ourselves, how does this play into how he judges the situation.
This scares me very much as we are at war, contrary to what others believe. There are militant radicals and radical countries going after any means to destroy us.
What happens if Iran gets the Bomb? What happens if there is another attack on the US like 9/11? How will our military head respond?
Right now we have a quagmire in the Afghan theater. Regardless of who caused it, Obama ran on the platform of solving it. Now, his top general in the region needs more troops. What does Obama do? Go against his top general in the region now that he is a peace prize winner?
Instead of the Nobel Peace Prize, it should be renamed the Nobel Politics Prize. Which is a travesty to those that actually deserved to win it and those that actually did something to win it in the past.
Now, I do not blame Obama for winning it in the least, but it is a travesty to the Nobel name.
October 10 2009 10:10 AM EDT
Kayne cannot catch a break. Come one everyone and give a drunk brother some lovin. Stop the hatin.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002tYA">Obama wins Nobel Peace Price</a>