Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Ulysses G.]

Carter, especially in his timing of the racism allegation, was pretty far off base as he offered it as an explanation as to why healthcare reform was being so fiercely opposed. That's pretty ridicuculous given that repbublicans have been opposing government involvement in the healthare system since the FDR adminsitration. It's predictable though that some will try to make everything abut race - fortuntely Obama himself does not do that.

Mr Peanut should stick to building free houses and keep mum about anything and everything else!

Edited October 11, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[cyberia]

That's really scary as far as what's going on in the World.

Are we near the World's end? Is Nibiru, the Planex X getting closer to the Earth?

Well, Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for getting calluses on his lips rather then on his hands I guess.

The committee discredited itself big time. What a bunch of old dopes.

By the way those old farts are selected by the Norwegian Parliament.

What does it tell you?

Well, it tells me that the parliament guys may suffer from a mental or drinking problem, or both, for there is not much to do in Norge (I lived there for a while) on the long winter nights.

Obama as cocky and self-centered as he is - It's all about ME kinda guy - has actually nothing to do with it.

I bet he fell off the bed when he heard the news .

But hey, a million bucks, why not? Michelle can go on a shopping spree now; judging by her outfits, that's what she does best .

A good honest man would donate all this money to charity or put it to some good use for he has done absolutely nothing to earn it.

Build schools for the poor in your beloved Africa, they need it badly.

I have been in Uganda a few years ago, boy, they are in dire need of schools down there. Well for many other things as well.

I'm glad he is at least humbled

What a clown!

I just wonder what happens next in his circus. That's even better then circ du soleil.

P.S. my post reflects my subjective opinion which I am entitled to

Edited October 11, 2009 by cyberia

[dannyman]

bramburgers well said !

[grantbkk]

It's a joke. Same guys that picked Suvarnabhumi as one of the top five world airports. MTV Video Music Awards has more credibility now than the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

[Jingthing]

A good honest man would donate all this money to charity or put it to some good use for he has done absolutely nothing to earn it.

That is EXACTLY what President Obama is doing with the money, so its seems that we both agree, Obama is a good, honest man!

[webfact]

A good honest man would donate all this money to charity or put it to some good use for he has done absolutely nothing to earn it.

That is EXACTLY what President Obama is doing with the money, so its seems that we both agree, Obama is a good, honest man!

Obama is a good, honest man!

Most people worldwide seem to agree to it

[DocHolliday]

Yeah give Prez Obama a chance and don't push him down before he even has started...

Lot of people here seem to have forgotten already the last 8y... Want him back? Thanks to the Lord the constitution does not allow it.

Edited October 11, 2009 by DocHolliday

[JR Texas]

A good honest man would donate all this money to charity or put it to some good use for he has done absolutely nothing to earn it.

That is EXACTLY what President Obama is doing with the money, so its seems that we both agree, Obama is a good, honest man!

If that is the reason Pres. Obama got the award, the award itself is in big trouble of losing its credibility.

About one month ago, I think, Prof. Norman Borlaug (Father of the Green Revolution) passed away. He devoted his entire life (decades) to improving the quality of lives of vast numbers of people worldwide via agricultural developments and change.

Because of what he did, millions of people were provided food...............and that reduced worldwide tensions and stopped untold numbers of wars and ethnic conflicts over scarce food resources.........in other words.........he fostered PEACE.

The Committee recognized this and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize back in 1970.

You would be hard pressed to find a person who thinks Prof. Borlaug did not deserve the Award.

Contrast his achievements with Obama's. I still don't understand this one...............

Gore, yes, I fully understand why he got it..........good decision. He alerted the global community to the dangers of climate change......something that if we do nothing about will remove peace from the planet.

Obama? Why? A speech in the Middle East?

[animatic]

Limbaugh lower now,

How Low Can You Go.

Edited October 11, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

I see mostly a one sided, very biased slagging of Obama for the decisions of others.

His one decision is to not turn down the reward.

Best to accept regardless of critiques from the right or left.

That would also mean he can't do anything good with the award cash,

and that would be a shame. It will be interesting to see where he applies that largess too.

A sudden and dramatic world wide shift in perceptions of the USA happening in a matter of months,

is no small feat and hasn't happened in many, many years. Usually for the WORSE, not the inverse.

He also seems to have stabilized the utter free-fall of the economy that he inherited and Bush seemed

completely incapable of dealing with. Having the word economy tank completely is not exactly a route to peace.

Only the Samak Somchai governments appeared less capable of dealing with the coming storm; obvious to most observers.

The 2 feats together, regardless if they are completed jobs is still not chump change.

Few presidents ever had to deal with such a catastrophe economically, even before entering office officially.

If you look at the numbers, it is NO WONDER money needed to be spent to shore up the leaking dikes.

Bush and he neocon oil buddies left him this mess.

and it is utterly fallacious to scream socialist against him for using public funds to stop the hemorrhaging,

that could have taken down the whole world not just the cushy seats of Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_meltdown_by_the_numbers

So where do we stand today?

The seven-month rally since March has yet to wipe away all the losses, but few expected that the Dow would be edging back to 10,000 so soon. Unemployment is close to 10 percent, but other parts of the economy are stabilizing. Consumers are still hunkered down, but retail sales showed a slight gain in September. The panic of last fall has been replaced by the resignation that the worst is over but it might be years before the economy booms again.

"The problems that we're dealing with — there's a little bit less urgency," says Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price Associates. "We've stopped what could have been fatal bleeding."

Here's a by-the-numbers look at the stock market and the economy since the eight-day crash one year ago:

• $11.2 trillion: Total losses in the stock market from the Dow's peak in October 2007 to the March 2009 bottom.

• $4.6 trillion: Total gains in the stock market since March 9.

• 6: The number of the 10 worst point drops in the 113-year history of the Dow that occurred in 2008. The 777-point drop on Sept. 29, 2008, ranks No. 1.

• 3: The number of the 10 worst percentage drops that occurred in 2008. The Sept. 29 decline of 9 percent is the third-biggest behind 22.6 percent on Oct. 19, 1987, and 10 percent on April 14, 2000.

• 92 percent: Decrease in Citigroup Inc.'s share price from Oct. 10, 2008, ($13.90) to March 9 ($1.05).

• 341 percent: Increase in Citigroup's share price from March 9 to Friday's close of $4.63.

• 18-20: The historical average for the Volatility Index of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, also known as the VIX, or "Fear Index."

• 89: Where the VIX peaked last October.

• 23: Where the VIX was on Friday.

• 16 percent: The amount by which the Dow's closing level on Friday was higher than its average close the previous 200 days. Earlier this month the number hit 20 percent, the highest since the early 1980s.

• $6.5 trillion: Value of assets in stock mutual funds at end of 2007.

• $3.7 trillion: Value at the end of 2008.

• $4.5 trillion: Value at the end of August.

• -$72 billion: Net cash flow (money put in minus money taken out) for stock mutual funds in October 2008.

• -$25 billion: Net cash flow in March.

• $4 billion: Net cash flow in August.

• $9: The amount, out of every $10 investors put into mutual funds in August, that went into bond funds.

• $855.40: The price of an ounce of gold on Oct. 10, 2008.

• $1,048.60: The price of an ounce of gold on Friday.

• 6.2 percent: Unemployment rate a year ago.

• 9.8 percent: Unemployment rate today.

• 95.2: Consumer confidence two years ago. Reading above 90 means the economy is on solid footing; above 100 signals strong growth.

• 25.3: Consumer confidence in February — record low.

• 53.1: Consumer confidence today.

• 2.8 percent: Decline in retail sales in October and December 2008.

• 2.7 percent: Increase in retail sales in August.

• 4.75 percent: Federal funds rate two years ago.

• 1 percent: Fed funds rate last October.

• 0 - 0.25 percent: Fed funds rate today.

• 4.81 percent: London interbank offered rate (LIBOR), the amount banks charge each other to borrow money for three months, at its peak, on Oct. 10, 2008.

_0.28 percent: Three-month LIBOR rate Friday.

• -0.5 percent: Personal savings rate in 2005 as home prices were soaring.

• 6.9 percent: Personal savings rate in May.

• $975 billion: Credit card debt held by Americans last September.

• $899 billion: Credit card debt held at the end of August, down 8 percent.

• 7 million: Home resales in 2005, a record year.

• 4.5 million: Home resales in January at annual rate.

• 5.1 million: Home resales in August at annual rate.

• $245,000: Median price of homes sold in 2006 — record high.

• $213,000: Median price of homes sold last October.

• $195,000: Median price of homes sold in August.

Quite the mess and it is stabilized and slowly rising... not a finished product for sure.

But not the great Satan's minions at work either.

Edited October 11, 2009 by animatic

[cdnvic]

I think this is all a left wing conspiracy to make Rush Limbaugh go crazy(er) and shoot himself in the head.

[Jingthing]

JR Texas

If that is the reason Pres. Obama got the award, the award itself is in big trouble of losing its credibility.

Nobody and I mean nobody has said he got the award because he will give away the money. That is twisted!

[animatic]

I think this is all a left wing conspiracy to make Rush Limbaugh go crazy(er) and shoot himself in the head.

ROTFLOL.

He could shoot himself in the ass and hit an equally effective thinking organ.

Yes the Norwegeans are out to make Rush crazy... Ufft da!

Gotta be a T-shirt and a coffee cup in that one.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Have to say that this just devalues the Nobel Peace Prize.

I've got no beef with the guy at all, but he hasn't really done anything yet to warrant this award.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Nobel would be spinning in his grave. It is time for a clean out of the committees.

[hobanse]

"I just wonder what happens next in his circus"

Not his circus, he ist just the clown and must do, what the circus manager want him to do.

[Jingthing]

"I just wonder what happens next in his circus"

Not his circus, he ist just the clown and must do, what the circus manager want him to do.

Yes, of course, the American voters. That will have to wait until 2012.

[baht&sold]

Meanwhile in the 'larger' picture but in the spirit of Nobel, those who share democratic values are all part of an increasingly inter-connected global concern. This includes all countries who share democratic principles and in this we all have more in common (and at stake) than we have differences.

As we squabble, China is swallowing up trade with developing countries such as in SE Asia, India, Africa etc (along with major funding of US debt). And on that note, regardless whether the GOP were in or the Dems, both would have little choice but to increase debt given recent reality.

Meanwhile, in economic terms in the ASEAN region alone, China's trade increased 20-fold (vs US just 3-fold) over the past 5 years and the 'west' needs to make a move and soon. Personally don't subscribe to toeing party lines, rather support progressive pursuit of a larger democratic vision whether it comes from a Democrat, Republican, Tory or Labour (etc) rep. For example, in the article below, GOP's Lugar is spot-on and it's also worth noting the Dem's Emanuel was one of the key NAFTA negotiators. Like free-trade or not, if 'we' don't make inroads, we, or our kids may be trading in Renminbi backed currency one day (and wondering why the news is so one-sided;)

Hate to see the likes of China gaining at our collective democratic peril while we squabble along making relatively moot points... (still, this will probably just add fuel to the fire here)

-----------------------------------------------------

US eyes free trade pact with ASEAN

By P. Parameswaran (AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — The United States is beginning to lay the initial groundwork for talks to forge a free trade agreement with Southeast Asia, ahead of President Barack Obama's maiden trip to the region.

A senior US senator will propose a resolution on Tuesday encouraging Obama administration officials to initiate the negotiations, warning about competition from China and other powers who have already sealed pacts with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

"The United States should proceed to develop a comprehensive strategy toward engaging ASEAN in serious FTA discussions," said Senator Dick Lugar, the Republican party leader in the powerful Senate foreign relations committee.

Lugar admitted that the free trade endeavor would be "complex and have possible challenges to negotiation given the varying levels of economic development and open markets among ASEAN countries."

But he pointed out that "China, India, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have already finalized FTAs with ASEAN and are sharpening a competitive edge over the US in Southeast Asia."

Ongoing trade sanctions with military-ruled Myanmar, one of 10 ASEAN member states, should not deter US efforts to reach an FTA with the rest of the grouping, which also include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, Lugar said.

Lugar's resolution prodding the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to pursue the free trade agreement is expected to attract support from Democratic party senators, congressional sources said.

Obama will hold his first-ever official summit between a US president and leaders of the 10 ASEAN member states when he is in Singapore for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in mid-November.

The United States has recently reversed policy on contacts with Myanmar, holding the highest-level talks with junta officials in nearly a decade, but has warned it will not lift sanctions until democracy is introduced.

"Obama's possible meeting with ASEAN leaders while in Singapore will reflect the significance of the US-ASEAN relationship," Lugar said.

According to the resolution, a copy of which was made available to AFP, two-way US-ASEAN annual trade was a whopping 180 billion dollars.

In 2006, Lugar introduced and won approval of legislation establishing the position of US ambassador to ASEAN and Obama's predecessor George Bush appointed the envoy in 2008.

The United States at present has a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with ASEAN, a precursor to a full free-trade pact.

Southeast Asia, with a population of 560 million, is America's fifth-largest trading partner behind only Canada, Mexico, China and the European Union.

American exports to the region have grown steadily to 68.4 billion dollars in 2008, about the same as US exports to China and three-times larger than American exports to India, according to figures from the US-ASEAN Business Council.

In economic terms, China's trade with the region saw a 20-fold increase between 2003 and 2008 to 179 billion dollars, while the US saw just a three-fold rise, according to ASEAN figures.

But the US maintained a slightly larger share of total ASEAN commerce than China.

The United States at present has a free trade agreement with Singapore and has been holding talks with Malaysia for a similar pact.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...NY-tT8ZfZWpEjFw

Edited October 11, 2009 by baht&sold

[JR Texas]

JR Texas

If that is the reason Pres. Obama got the award, the award itself is in big trouble of losing its credibility.

Nobody and I mean nobody has said he got the award because he will give away the money. That is twisted!

Sorry if I twisted something Ignore what both of us said for a moment.........he is a nice guy........he is giving away the money (actually normal pattern I think)........what I really want to know is what he did to deserve the award.

Other people have worked their entire lives for the cause of peace.............those are the people who, I think, deserve the award.

Has Obama worked his entire lifetime for the cause of peace?

Has he created peace anywhere on the planet?

Has he thwarted war and ethnic conflict anywhere?

It just does not make sense to me.

[brahmburgers]

bramburgers well said !

I'll accept that, thanks. It takes genius to recognize genius.

As for Carter. He was one of the most decent men the US has had as president. Walter Cronkite, who interviewed every president since Moses, said Carter was the most articulate of the bunch.

As for Limbaugh, he can fry in his own fat. I used to have a used Levis outlet next to a shop that played Limbaugh every day. I remember Rush ranting on and repeatedly and mockingly calling Pres. candidate Dukakis "THE LOSER" after Dukakis lost to George Bush senior. Of course, hypocrite Limbaugh never called a republican election loser "The Loser". Limbaugh is now writhing like an overstuffed slug, trying to find as much crap on Obama as a jealous loser can. Limbaugh should be put out to pasture with an IV of his favorite uppers/downers in his flabby arm, until he pops like an over-ripe tick.

BTW, Bush Senior won that election by declaring famously, "Read my lips; No new taxes!"

Surprise surprise, Bush Sr. went on to raise taxes after getting elected.

Edited October 11, 2009 by brahmburgers

[Jingthing]

This is old news now. What award can we give him next? His acceptance speeches are so inspiring, I want MORE, MORE, MORE!

OK, I am being flip, but really, what can he look forward to now? Is there a better global award? I don't know it.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[venturalaw]

JR Texas

If that is the reason Pres. Obama got the award, the award itself is in big trouble of losing its credibility.

Nobody and I mean nobody has said he got the award because he will give away the money. That is twisted!

Sorry if I twisted something Ignore what both of us said for a moment.........he is a nice guy........he is giving away the money (actually normal pattern I think)........what I really want to know is what he did to deserve the award.

Other people have worked their entire lives for the cause of peace.............those are the people who, I think, deserve the award.

Has Obama worked his entire lifetime for the cause of peace?

Has he created peace anywhere on the planet?

Has he thwarted war and ethnic conflict anywhere?

It just does not make sense to me.

It makes no sense to anyone. Consider that he was nominated 11 or 12 days into his presidency. What did he accomplish to become a nominee? He had not yet broken the law by ignoring the separation of powers inherent in the document that he swore to the best of his "ability to preserve, protect and defend. . . " The Nobel Peace Prize has now become a joke. I am not blaming BHO for being nominated and receiving the award, although I believe it would have been noble of him to refuse to accept it - but then that would be diametrically opposed to his character.

[Ulysses G.]

As for Carter. He was one of the most decent men the US has had as president. Walter Cronkite, who interviewed every president since Moses, said Carter was the most articulate of the bunch.

Perhaps Goober was "decent" and "articulate", but he was also one of the worst Presidents of all time - and that is what really counts. Ringo was a "decent" person too, but the Beatles could have easily done without him!

[Jingthing]

BS. There are so many better reasons to accept the award even if not deserved, and it was not, even he said so. The President of the USA is a symbol of American patriotism and it is a matter of pride for any American to receive such a coveted award. If he had turned it down, he would have given fuel to his snipers who think he isn't American enough. You can criticize the Nobel people for this, but Obama has done nothing at all to invite criticism about this. Watch his acceptance speech, if that isn't good enough for you, well, nothing would be.

[venturalaw]

BS. There are so many better reasons to accept the award even if not deserved, and it was not, even he said so. The President of the USA is a symbol of American patriotism and it is a matter of pride for any American to receive such a coveted award. If he had turned it down, he would have given fuel to his snipers who think he isn't American enough. You can criticize the Nobel people for this, but Obama has done nothing at all to invite criticism about this. Watch his acceptance speech, if that isn't good enough for you, well, nothing would be.

Personally, I would not accept an award that I did not deserve. Perhaps you can come up with 'so many better (?) reasons to accept . .", but I can not come up with one.

George Will put it quite succinctly in his column entitled 'An Olympic Ego Trip', which was written before it was announced that BHO was to receive the award:

"In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas' trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will.html

Edited October 11, 2009 by venturalaw

[Jingthing]

George Will, just a right wing enemy that will never like Obama. Another great reason to ACCEPT the award, it would be very UNDIPLOMATIC to turn it down. Obama does want to be more open to the entire world and put the kabosh on American arrogance. Turning it down would be quite rude and I believe most of the world would have seen that as more of a drama queen grandstand (I know better than Nobel prize people) than accepting. Get this straight folks: HE DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS!

Its the same old same old from the teabagger "Obama is a socialist" crowd. He can do nothing right. You lot are quite loud, but guess what, you lost.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[brahmburgers]

Personally, I would not accept an award that I did not deserve. Perhaps you can come up with 'so many better (?) reasons to accept . .", but I can not come up with one.

George Will put it quite succinctly in his column entitled 'An Olympic Ego Trip', which was written before it was announced that BHO was to receive the award:

"In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas' trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will.html

It's a tough call between you and Ulysses, but I think you get the Nobel Award for Nitpickiness (a.k.a. finding fault in the smallest things, fueled by a need to put something/someone down any way possible).

Whomever says they would turn down such an award as the Nobel Peace prize, for feelings of unworthiness, is full of kee wua (excrement of bovine).

[venturalaw]

George Will, just a right wing enemy that will never like Obama. Another great reason to ACCEPT the award, it would be very UNDIPLOMATIC to turn it down. Obama does want to be more open to the entire world and put the kabosh on American arrogance. Turning it down would be quite rude and I believe most of the world would have seen that as more of a drama queen grandstand (I know better than Nobel prize people) than accepting. Get this straight folks: HE DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS!

Its the same old same old from the teabagger "Obama is a socialist" crowd. He can do nothing right. You lot are quite loud, but guess what, you lost.

Actually we all lost. I did not refer to him as a socialist, although clearly his programs are so designed, nor did I claim that he 'ASKED FOR' it. I actually implied the opposite when I said that I did not blame him for being nominated or receiving the award. Did you miss that? I DO NOT BLAME HIM regarding the award - ok????

Let's agree to disagree regarding whether he should have backed up his statement that he does not deserve the award (which you mentioned I believe) by actually putting his money where his mouth is and refuse to accept it. Not only would it show character (a true challenge for him), but it would be consistent with his rhetoric.

Regarding George Will's like or dislike for BHO, I believe that Mr. Will had BHO over for dinner, and during BHO's campaign, praised him Then of course, BHO started his agenda - and the rest is history. So, you are absolutely wrong about Mr. Will 'never' liking BHO.

Edited October 11, 2009 by venturalaw

[Ulysses G.]

It's a tough call between you and Ulysses, but I think you get the Nobel Award for Nitpickiness (a.k.a. finding fault in the smallest things, fueled by a need to put something/someone down any way possible).

Being considered the worst President in American history does not really fit the definition of "nitpicking".

[JUDAS]

So, if I've got this right, after reading around a 100 posts or so, it seems he's got the award because he shows potential. Is that it then?