So...Obama won one why exactly? I appreciate and respect the guy but what exactly has he done other than win an election? The nomination was due not even 2 weeks after the inauguration.

I guess I need to understand how one can be nominated. It isn't an exclusive US run award is it? I don't jack about it.

Well, Alfred Nobel was Swedish and it was in his will to give out the 5 prizes each year. The Peace one is for the person who in 2008 did the most for world peace - at least that is what I thought anyway. Its an international award.

So...Obama won one why exactly? I appreciate and respect the guy but what exactly has he done other than win an election? The nomination was due not even 2 weeks after the inauguration.

the robot shield stupidness? advocating diplomacy? not being george w bush?

the peace prize is norwegian btw.

Perhaps he promoted World Peace by becoming the President of the planet's quickest declining Democratic Republic? Captain going down with the ship, and all. :rolleyes:

This kind of goes back to my other posts about Obama. People are very quick to give him merit on the words coming out of his mouth. Let's judge him on his actions.

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B4070f88a-b769-428b-9835-53b0063f66f8%7D.gif

by the way, i am in no way saying i think its a good choice, but its not like its the first retarded choice for peace prize (see: kissinger)

not being george w bush?



Along those lines, there are 7 billion people that are eligible then. Talk about not being able to let the past go, jeesh!

Along those lines, there are 7 billion people that are eligible then. Talk about not being able to let the past go, jeesh!

Clearly, you are just a racist!

Maybe they did it to see if they could cause 75M republicans' heads to explode at the same time (on the same side of the planet!), causing a slight shift in the Earths orbit, helping to reduce global warming?

Maybe they were bored... you never know.


But yeah, this prize has been a joke for a while now, emphasized moreso when they gave it to Arafat. Hell, for all we know, they just do it so that the Nobel Prizes continue to get good press coverage and keep it 'relevent', or something. Stranger stuff has happened.

Along those lines, there are 7 billion people that are eligible then. Talk about not being able to let the past go, jeesh!

i knew i should have included "and is currently the president" damn me for assuming people would be able to, you know, think.

At least Kissinger negotiated the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam and opened the channels of diplomacy with communist China.

Obama has done squat. This was a popularity award from the left leaning elite for a man because he isn't George W. Bush.

This is the biggest fucking joke on planet earth right now... It has made winning the Nobel Peace Prize akin to winning a decoder ring in Cracker Jack Box... I am laughing at each and every one of you...

the peace prize is norwegian btw.

The award is Norwegian, but Alfred Nobel was Swedish (he was born in Stockholm) and he invented his dynamite in Germany and passed away in Italy. Go figure.

We are laughing right back at your hill billy prison guard joke of life.....Osg.

The funniest part is even Obama is like "what the hell??"

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/8463/kanye.jpg

We are laughing right back at your hill billy prison guard joke of life.....Osg.
Nice try Captain Fail...

The committee has become a group with their own agenda. Which , in truth , negates the value of said prize.

Fandros ... what? LOL
They've ALWAYS have been a committee with an agenda, that's the fucking point. LOL

There have been much more questionable Nobels for peace in the past. The awards have always been political and frequently inexplicable; For me it's funny watching the heads of the Obama-must-fail crowd exploding.

I did hear an interesting take that in certain cases the award is given less for accomplishments than it is as incentive. I.E. handcuffing you to the table of peace. which is a nobel agenda indeed.

Ha, true Malse. It probably is not surprising that there is no mention of his award on Fox News's website today despite it being a top story on other news sites.

http://ayonae.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=437

I did hear an interesting take that in certain cases the award is given less for accomplishments than it is as incentive. I.E. handcuffing you to the table of peace. which is a nobel agenda indeed.

example: 1994.

Meanwhile, Obama is meeting with The National Security Council today, discussing continued military action in Afghanistan. Yay, peace.

meanwhile, glenn beck has a suggestion for another candidate...

Glenn Beck says Obama doesn't deserve the prize, but the Tea Party protesters do. He credited an "extraordinarily powerful" global progressive network for bagging Obama the win.

ahahahahha, ahahAHAHAHahah, hahahaha.

Well.. Nobel DID invent dynamite!

Well.. Nobel DID invent dynamite!

Sure, but it doesn't have to be used to harm others ;P

Kelraz, I was merely trying to point out that it's become much more political. I'm sorry that your inability to think past your party lines blind you to such.

Gore was a much worse pick imho or Arafat than Obama. However 12 days in office makes a mockery of any sort of selection filtering.

Besides, who cares what a bunch of geeks in Oslo think? The International Olympic Committee speaks for the whole world.

The funniest thing in this entire situation for me is that so many people are talking about President Obama, and his worthiness.

I see much less discussion of the nominating process and selection committee, which is where my questions would be directed.


It was always my understanding these awards were given for accomplishment, and so I would be interested in what has been used as evidence in determining the selection. It is almost as bad as if an Oscar or Emmy award was given to Jennifer Love Hewitt, who has not given a performance yet demonstrating acting talent.

LMAO, good one Byl. JLH and Oscar in the same sentence!, thats truly funny stuff.

The other Nobels are for accomplishment but the peace prize has always been a more subjective political statement. sometimes carrot sometimes doggie treat.

and, uh... btw Osg, your wrong (shocker I know)

But THIS was embarrassing.

http://graneyandthepig.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/bushshoe3.jpg

Obama getting the Nobel Prize is more like.. "Yea.. uhh Ok. Whatever.. thanks I guess"

"Critics, however, were stunned at the announcement, given the nomination deadline was Feb.1 -- less than two weeks after Obama's presidency began."

I wonder what he did in those two weeks? He hadn't even decided on a dog yet .....

Actually.... Meme Buster.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/how-they-pick-nobel-laureates.php

That SNL skit made me piss my self... Lets watch it again shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxiNFN7Y0w&feature=related

Kelraz, I was merely trying to point out that it's become much more political. I'm sorry that your inability to think past your party lines blind you to such.

It always was political, that's the fucking point of the award. And Captain Reading Comprehension, I was the one questioning why Obama even won the award.

Nice. Just what our country needs. More polarization.

He deserves to keep it if he gets anything done at all, IMHO. Its not like he has the rest of government supporting him in addition the rest of the world being apprehensive towards US foreign policy and all the mixed signals sent. I have to wonder if he could possibly turn the award down and come out ahead then accept it and further undermine his efforts. He has not gotten much done. The country at this point is not expecting him to get much done, mainly because they don't expect government as a whole to get much done. So yes, he probably DID get this award solely for NOT being G.W. Bush.

So yes, he probably DID get this award solely for NOT being G.W. Bush.

good enough reason for me.

Did he apply for this award? Did he compete for this award? Did he even know he was in the running for this award?

Why the hell are you attacking him then? Dont look now, but your partisanship is showing...

Did he apply for this award? Did he compete for this award? Did he even know he was in the running for this award?

Why the hell are you attacking him then? Dont look now, but your partisanship is showing...

I dunno. Guessing no on all that. Many just are wondering what he has done so far to deserve this award. That's all. It has many all over the world wondering why he got it. Usually though to receive it requires having done something. Is this the first one given out for the sake of reminding him that the stakes are even higher and that even more is expected of him?

Ask most any one who is a non American and they best they can come up with is...."Its a better choice than George W. Bush." The Aussies I am in a guild with had that much to say. Wiggo, it looks like you are far from being alone.

I guess that must mean that there just are not that many who want to work for Peace at the moment. I dunno. One has to ask...who should have gotten this award then?

I guess that must mean that there just are not that many who want to work for Peace at the moment. I dunno. One has to ask...who should have gotten this award then?

President Bill Clinton would have been a much more deserving candidate. His actions as President to bring peace to the Middle East and his activities post-Presidency amount to as good if not better qualifications than those of some former recipients.

I wouldn't have a problem with Bill Clinton being nominated for it. He's more qualified than Obama in my mind. But critics might point out that WTC Part 1, the USS Cole attack, and the planning stages of WTC Part 2 took place during his Presidency, all acts directly opposite to the goal of the Prize. However, anyone that can get a Jewish girl to eat pork in the Oval Office, can probably bring about world peace. :rolleyes:

And this 'At least he's not G.W. Bush' attitude makes me laugh. How about Dick Cheney? He's not G.W. Neither is Condie Rice, nor Colin Powell. How about Roman Polanski? Let's give him a Nobel Peace Prize, based on that!

Martin Luther King won the prize at age 35. He hadnt done anything really at that point.. just some community organizing and few good speeches. Nothing had actually been accomplished in 1963. Not one civil rights law passed, not one racist law repealed. Can anyone here doubt that he deserved it?

in 1984 its awarded to Desmond Tutu, while Apartheid is still firmly in place.

In 1935 Carl Von Ossietzky won it... a journalist in Germany who opposed Hitler. In 1935... How'd that work out for him in the end?

There are other examples. The point is that this isnt an award given for lifetime achievement, or individual accomplishments. Its a nod or an acknowledgment of a person or group who is moving things in the right direction. Sometimes that's post facto, sometimes it isn't.

So you can say about this award for Obama the same thing you would would have said in 1935, 1963 or 1984....

"Thats nice... but let's see"
__________________

I wouldn't have a problem with Bill Clinton being nominated for it. He's more qualified than Obama in my mind. But critics might point out that WTC Part 1, the USS Cole attack, and the planning stages of WTC Part 2 took place during his Presidency, all acts directly opposite to the goal of the Prize. However, anyone that can get a Jewish girl to eat pork in the Oval Office, can probably bring about world peace. :rolleyes:




Acts by others against the U.S. have nothing to do with what President Clinton was attempting to accomplish; I was saying he was worthy, not those that committed the acts.

Wasn't attacking Obama, not his fault. I'd also agree Clinton would've been a pick I couldn't have argued against.

However Kelraz's usual bs and then failing his teachers by showing he slept through class? Well, speaks volumes really.

Yeah, write that again but have it make sense next time please.

Acts by others against the U.S. have nothing to do with what President Clinton was attempting to accomplish; I was saying he was worthy, not those that committed the acts.


I was just pointing out what his critics might pull out as reasons why he wouldn't be a good choice. Personally, I think he's a better choice based on his record, than Obama.

However L2, beings up a pretty good point. There have been award recipients that had not accomplished much when they were given the award, but later on were very instrumental in what the spirit of the award is designed to celebrate.

Regardless, let's see if his is something that helps or hinders his progress to getting the U.S. back on track. Might be a nice footnote in the history books, if nothing else.

I was just pointing out what his critics might pull out as reasons why he wouldn't be a good choice. Personally, I think he's a better choice based on his record, than Obama.

However L2, beings up a pretty good point. There have been award recipients that had not accomplished much when they were given the award, but later on were very instrumental in what the spirit of the award is designed to celebrate.

Regardless, let's see if his is something that helps or hinders his progress to getting the U.S. back on track. Might be a nice footnote in the history books, if nothing else.

so youre saying his critics are rambling morons? good to know.

maybe he was just being reasonable....

It doesnt always have to be a food fight Wiggo.

so youre saying his critics are rambling morons? good to know.


No, I'm saying Obama might be deserving of the Prize, but only time will tell.

Unless you were referring to the part of my statement regarding Clinton's critics. You might want to quote the parts you are trying to fling poo at Wiggout. It will make it easier for us to understand what you are trying to troll against.

No, I'm saying Obama might be deserving of the Prize, but only time will tell.

Unless you were referring to the part of my statement regarding Clinton's critics.

yes, i was referring to your idiotic statement about clinton, much like i was in my other posts in this thread, which sadly were deleted.

You might want to quote the parts you are trying to fling poo at Wiggout. It will make it easier for us to understand what you are trying to troll against.

ah, the richness of being called a troll from someone suggesting dick cheney should get the peace prize.

yes, i was referring to your idiotic statement about clinton, much like i was in my other posts in this thread, which sadly were deleted.



ah, the richness of being called a troll from someone suggesting dick cheney should get the peace prize.


Come on, even as a troll, you know that wasn't what anyone here said. All he said was, if Obama won because he's not George Bush, that everyone but GW isn't GW. If that's enough to win a nobel peace prize, that list includes Dick Cheney.

Unless he believes they are actually 1 person. Dubya being a hand puppet of Cheney, etc.

Maybe we should give a Nobel Peace Prize to Wiggout, unless somehow he's G.W. too.

Come on, even as a troll, you know that wasn't what anyone here said. All he said was, if Obama won because he's not George Bush, that everyone but GW isn't GW. If that's enough to win a nobel peace prize, that list includes Dick Cheney.

as previously mentioned, and assumed to be obvious to anyone with a brain, obama won because hes not George Bush and simultaneously (i know this may be hard for sixee, but bare with me people!) THE PRESIDENT.

bare with me people

I'd prefer we keep our clothes on.

I'd prefer we keep our clothes on.

youre so uptight.

you are ignoring completely what I said though. No one here said Dick Cheney deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. You want to belittle others, but you are just being a brain dead moron to even imply someone here said that.




(though I could see Osg doing this just to get a rise out of some people).

I can't seem to recall anyone saying nor implying Obama was nominated because he isn't G.W., AND he's the President, just the former. I guess I should start assuming things that aren't implicit in postings around here.

So, Wiggout, since you want us to 'bare' with you, I should assume you are a limp-wristed screaming caricature of a queer? I mean you didn't say you weren't, so I just have to assume, since I seem to only have half a brain....

I can't seem to recall anyone saying nor implying Obama was nominated because he isn't G.W., AND he's the President, just the former. I guess I should start assuming things that aren't implicit in postings around here.


are you saying its unreasonable to assume that people would be able to read between the lines and correctly ascertain that "not being g.w. bush" included being in a position of power i.e being president?

i mean, instead you pretty much went for the weirdest strawman in the history of mankind and pulled off a 'then why isnt my friend billy-joe-bill-bob the semiretard getting the peace prize? HURRRRRRR'?

good job.


you are ignoring completely what I said though. No one here said Dick Cheney deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. You want to belittle others, but you are just being a brain dead moron to even imply someone here said that.

Come on, even as a troll, you know that wasn't what anyone here said. All he said was, if Obama won because he's not George Bush, that everyone but GW isn't GW. If that's enough to win a nobel peace prize, that list includes Dick Cheney.

i was mocking his inability to read and comprehend at a 2nd grade level. are you saying it wasnt obvious what i and lummus meant? seriously?

are you saying its unreasonable to assume that people would be able to read between the lines and correctly ascertain that "not being g.w. bush" included being in a position of power i.e being president?
Yes, it is unreasonable to assume that. You also didn't say G.W. is Caucasion, and Obama has African heritage. Am I to assume, that this is another reason you think he won the Peace Prize over G.W.?


i was mocking his inability to read and comprehend at a 2nd grade level. are you saying it wasnt obvious what i and lummus meant? seriously?

http://sb058.k12.sd.us/Vocabulary/10th_grade_composition_vocabular.htm

Innuendo is taught in 10th grade, not 2nd. I generally follow the rule of thumb that if it isn't written explicitly, then that isn't what was meant.

Here's an American English lesson for you Wiggout. Try comprehending the following phrase: I feel Obama deserves the Peace Prize, because he hasn't made the same mistakes G.W. Bush did. It doesn't mean the same thing as "Not being G.W Bush.".

Yes, it is unreasonable to assume that. You also didn't say G.W. is Caucasion, and Obama has African heritage. Am I to assume, that this is another reason you think he won the Peace Prize over G.W.?


AHAHAHAHAHAhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHaHAHAHAH. man, you sure are a hoot.

The REAL reason:

http://imgur.com/VCSxn.gif

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!:p

Martin Luther King won the prize at age 35. He hadnt done anything really at that point.. just some community organizing and few good speeches. Nothing had actually been accomplished in 1963. Not one civil rights law passed, not one racist law repealed. Can anyone here doubt that he deserved it?

in 1984 its awarded to Desmond Tutu, while Apartheid is still firmly in place.

In 1935 Carl Von Ossietzky won it... a journalist in Germany who opposed Hitler. In 1935... How'd that work out for him in the end?

There are other examples. The point is that this isnt an award given for lifetime achievement, or individual accomplishments. Its a nod or an acknowledgment of a person or group who is moving things in the right direction. Sometimes that's post facto, sometimes it isn't.

So you can say about this award for Obama the same thing you would would have said in 1935, 1963 or 1984....

"Thats nice... but let's see"
__________________

You are contradicting yourself, the people you list had actually DONE something, like speaking out against the lack of civil rights, Hitler and Aparteid. Obama hasn't done ANYTHING, it's been a lot of hot air with zero action. Fail, thanks, tray again.