Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[toptuan]

I an an absolute pacifist because I am a conservative Christian. Reagan and Bush 2 showed they were neither. Moral strength comes with religious pacifism: Jesus as a peaceful Jew....

Yeah, take that good example of screaming at the moneychangers, flipping over their tables and creating general havoc in the temple. Or name-calling at the religious leaders of the day, "You bunch of snakes!" Or visionary descriptions of him in Revelation (breathing fire, ruling with a rod of iron) by his best friend, John. Real peaceful.

But we digress...

The point: I would safely wager that 95% of real conservative Christians would not consider you in their camp because of your pacifism and openly gay orientation. (Most of all, the pony tail ) Not a criticism, just an observation. Therefore (here comes the constructive criticism), I believe your views of Reagan & Bush are skewed.

Edited October 10, 2009 by toptuan

[webfact]

If you want your posts to live and the topic to stay open please stay on track and discuss the topic!

No more Boland. The topic is "Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize"

Thanks for your cooperation

[Rumfoord]

Sweden made the goat to a gardener in the greenhouse. Obama has to do, what Bilderberger want him to do.

OMG, another Bircher.

anyway. its Norway that hands out the nobel peace prize.

not that you have to care about that, i really like the birchers when it comes to US of A isolationism and the stay at home approach. so norway or sweden doesn't have to bother you. cheers.

[baht&sold]

TIME OUT... and now for the lighter side:

More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/04/s...a_n_308979.html

This week's Saturday Night Live (and The Daily Show, Bill Maher, etc) should also be enlightening...

So, left, right, lighten up already!

signed: the middleman

Edited October 10, 2009 by baht&sold

[Rumfoord]

If you want your posts to live and the topic to stay open please stay on track and discuss the topic!

No more Boland. The topic is "Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize"

Thanks for your cooperation

sorry, i fully aware that it is off topic. but there was an inaccurate nonfactual statement that had to be corrected. sometimes i just let it go, sometimes i hard to resist to say something.

a reminder to the board members to come up with informations that can be verified and substantiate would be also helpful.

[Rumfoord]

It's a wonder anyone can talk with bile riding this high.

Must sound like a bunch of vocal chordectomy patients,

are you flaming yourself now or at what or who is your comment aimed?

obviously more directed at a person, or a group of persons, patients - so you rant ad hominem.

[cdnvic]

Enough with the silly fighting already. There will be no further warnings.

[Publicus]

If you want your posts to live and the topic to stay open please stay on track and discuss the topic!

No more Boland. The topic is "Us President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize"

Thanks for your cooperation

sorry, i fully aware that it is off topic. but there was an inaccurate nonfactual statement that had to be corrected. sometimes i just let it go, sometimes i hard to resist to say something.

a reminder to the board members to come up with informations that can be verified and substantiate would be also helpful.

good .

Edited October 10, 2009 by Publicus

[brahmburgers]

It's a wonder anyone can talk with bile riding this high.

Must sound like a bunch of vocal chordectomy patients,

are you flaming yourself now or at what or who is your comment aimed?

obviously more directed at a person, or a group of persons, patients - so you rant ad hominem.

funniest comment all day!

[bangkokrick]

Seems to be quite fitting when you look at what Alfred produced. I guess used as a weapon of war on many occasions.

In 1863, Alfred Nobel invented the Nobel patent detonator or blasting cap for detonating nitroglycerin.

Then he organises a peace prize. interesting!

Cheers, Rick

[OriginalPoster]

Seems to be quite fitting when you look at what Alfred produced. I guess used as a weapon of war on many occasions.

In 1863, Alfred Nobel invented the Nobel patent detonator or blasting cap for detonating nitroglycerin.

Then he organises a peace prize. interesting!

Cheers, Rick

Alfred Nobel was paranoid about that being his legacy, he didn't want to be known throughout history as a person who's life's work was dedicated to inventing things that kill people. According to folklore, that's what motivated him to stipulate that his fortune be used to fund Nobel Prizes upon his death, it was basically an attempt to posthumously change his reputation.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Tywais

[jayboy]

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

For just a moment I would ask you to contemplate whether such a statement reflects much more about you than it does about Reagan.Do you have that level of self awareness I wonder?...........Sometimes wickedness has to be addressed, and sometimes that means showing one's military and moral strength.

I an an absolute pacifist because I am a conservative Christian. Reagan and Bush 2 showed they were neither. Moral strength comes with religious pacifism: Jesus as a peaceful Jew; Gandhi, King, Oscar Romero, etc.

So do you think for example taking up arms against the Nazis was wrong?

By the way what does "conservative Christian" actually mean? I suspect both Reagan and Bush 2 would have described themselves as "conservative christians" but it seems a contradiction in terms to me.

Edited October 10, 2009 by jayboy

[chuckd]

Keep in mind, Obama did not ask for nor did he expect this prize. Politically, it is a mixed blessing. He is already massively popular internationally so he needs no help there, but he is struggling to keep his majority together at home. Nativist Americans treat European praise with much suspicion. I don't think Obama deserves brickbats for winning a surprising prize which he himself knows and in fact explicitly SAID he does not deserve.

As you said, he admits he does not deserve the award.

Why, then, doesn't he take the honorable position of declining the award to give to somebody more deserving?

__________________________________

As an aside, I have heard today Obama was being considered for the Nobel Prize for Medicine, pending approval of his health care bill.

Also the Nobel Prize for science was under consideration but nobody has actually SEEN him walk on water just yet.

Turn it down? That would be arrogant. One thing Europeans love about Obama is that he represents a significant moderation of American hubris. If you bothered to watch Obama's acceptance speech, you will see that he handled it with both humility and brilliance. There is still plenty of hope that he will really deserve the prize some day.

Ah, but you see, arrogance is a trait which Obama touts with a great degreee of satisfaction. In my humble opinion, if he turned it down, it would be a sign of humility by admitting he is not worthy of the award, which is NOT something the man seems to possess. I do believe turning the award down would do him more good than accepting it at this stage in his political career.

The thing Europeans love about Obama is his oratorical skills as well as his Socialistic beliefs. Europeans have proven over the past century how susceptible they are to the spoken word, regardless of the message behind the words. Socialism has always been at the forefront of European politics. Obama is a great orator, with an even greater speech writer, and will always do well on the european front.

My point has been that the man has accomplished absolutely nothing to deserve the award and, frankly, the Nobel Committee should be ashamed they have demeaned the award in this manner.

Alas, the deal is done and there is nothing we can do about it. I don't have to approve of it, though.

[OriginalPoster]

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

For just a moment I would ask you to contemplate whether such a statement reflects much more about you than it does about Reagan.Do you have that level of self awareness I wonder?...........Sometimes wickedness has to be addressed, and sometimes that means showing one's military and moral strength.

I an an absolute pacifist because I am a conservative Christian. Reagan and Bush 2 showed they were neither. Moral strength comes with religious pacifism: Jesus as a peaceful Jew; Gandhi, King, Oscar Romero, etc.

But Reagan (unlike Bush 2) did not flaunt his religion. In 1980 the Fundamentalist nutjobs did hitch their wagon to Reagan but it seemed more like Reagan was manipulating them than the other way around. Reagan, for instance (and again unlike Bush) did not want Creationism to be taught in science classes and did not think that Jesus walked the earth with dinosaurs. By the time Bush came in though the cart had gotten ahead of the horse, the Republican party was no longer manipulating the religious right, the religious right was manipulating the Republican party.

Reagan did appear to become much more religious after he was shot (and it also appeared that his Alzheimers accelerated), but even after he was shot, you'll recall that his first statement to the press was not to thank God for allowing him to live, but to say "All In All, I Rather Be In Philadelphia".

Edited October 10, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[baht&sold]

In my humble opinion, if he turned it down, it would be a sign of humility by admitting he is not worthy of the award, which is NOT something the man seems to possess. I do believe turning the award down would do him more good than accepting it at this stage in his political career.

If he DID turn it down, everyone from Hamas to Likud (and possibly even FOX news;) would likely say it's proof he's insincere and doesn't want peace.

Damned if you do, darned if you don't.

Ps: He did say he feels he's not worthy of the award.

Edited October 10, 2009 by baht&sold

[OriginalPoster]

In my humble opinion, if he turned it down, it would be a sign of humility by admitting he is not worthy of the award, which is NOT something the man seems to possess. I do believe turning the award down would do him more good than accepting it at this stage in his political career.

If he DID turn it down, everyone from Hamas to Likud (and possibly even FOX news;) would likely say it's proof he's insincere and doesn't want peace.

Damned if you do, darned if you don't.

Ps: He did say he feels he's not worthy of the award.

That's why he should send Joe Biden to accept the award instead of going himself. That way he's been humble, accepted the award, didn't insult anyone, and at the same time didn't overdo it. And after Biden's acceptance speech runs for 7 hours, there will be no risk that another US president will ever win the award again.

Edited October 10, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[mumbojumbo]

When Gore got it, it convinced me the prize was an absolute farse, now it is confirmed. The Pres of Zimbabway nominated too?? They should go back to making dynamite.

[baht&sold]

In my humble opinion, if he turned it down, it would be a sign of humility by admitting he is not worthy of the award, which is NOT something the man seems to possess. I do believe turning the award down would do him more good than accepting it at this stage in his political career.

If he DID turn it down, everyone from Hamas to Likud (and possibly even FOX news;) would likely say it's proof he's insincere and doesn't want peace.

Damned if you do, darned if you don't.

Ps: He did say he feels he's not worthy of the award.

That's why he should send Joe Biden to accept the award instead of going himself. That way he's been humble, accepted the award, didn't insult anyone, and at the same time didn't overdo it. And after Biden's acceptance speech runs for 7 hours, there will be no risk that another US president will ever win the award again.

LOL!

Not accepting in person would be an insult. However, as you point out sending the Dems version of 'Joe the plumber' (with a massive verbal leak;) may result in worse!

[JR Texas]

Wow...........I really thought this was a joke post...........it is serious.........he actually won. I have no idea why.

[RickBradford]

I predict that this award will turn out to be the greatest positive achievement of the whole Obama presidency.

[baht&sold]

Limbaugh On Obama Nobel Prize: I Agree With Taliban In Bashing The President

Huffington Post/Sam Stein

The conservative lament over Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is quickly becoming a sight to behold. On his radio show just now, Rush Limbaugh went so far as to trumpet the fact that he is basically in agreement with the Taliban and Iran in thinking that the president was a "worldwide" joke.

"I think that everybody is laughing," Limbaugh said, in a segment picked up by Media Matters. "Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something that the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

The remark is almost comical in how deeply cynical and partisan it is. And it reflects the extent to which mockery and hatred of the president has come to dominate much of conservative media.

To express hilarity that you find yourself in agreement with the Taliban and Iran in lamenting your own president is the type of rhetorical dervish that usually damages careers -- though, in this case, Limbaugh's job seems safe.

There are legitimate debates about whether the president should have been given the Nobel Peace Prize. He himself acknowledged feeling undeserving of the award. But, in the end, Obama never asked for the honor and accepted it only behalf of the notion of American greatness. Limbaugh either missed these facts or is just willfully ignoring them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/l...p_n_315661.html

Edited October 10, 2009 by baht&sold

[Rumfoord]

They are getting out of Iran in a measured fashion.

And add that allowing the Taliban to retake Afganistan,

aggressively disseminate the worlds greatest stock of opium,

and get close to taking over Pakistan and it's nuclear arsenal

would in no way be furthering the route to a more peaceful world.

anybody in Iran that is getting out now? NO.

The US of A are in Afghanistan on a "War on Drugs" mission, to fight opium trade??? NO. actually not, not officially. not even unofficial.

and like them or not, the Taliban are not part of that drug business. the opposite is true: "U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer." read the full article "Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban". but of course that was in year 2000. thanks enduring freedom Afghanistan is back in business.

but thanks to the miraculous black son of a white mother, a true superhero of the only in usAmerica saga, believing in hope and not yet neglected promises, america is the winner again.

[Kitsch22]

Wow...........I really thought this was a joke post...........it is serious.........he actually won. I have no idea why.

Plainly the Selection Committee has performed its task superbly well, as ever.

It has made news, created a furore, refocused world attention once again.

Decades have passed since the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize ceased to be in accordance with the objects and specification provided by Alfred Nobel.

Latterly, the goal has been to preserve, enhance and grow the Nobel Peace Prize brand and in that their measure of success has been close to complete.

It is not the biggest prize of its kind in terms of cash, nor on any sensible construction can the rationale of its awards over the years stand close scrutiny. But the public perception throughout almost the whole of the developed world is that gaining this prize is the ultimate accolade of merit for any individual.

And all of this without being tainted by any perceived connection with the despicable profit motive. Arguably the best brand in the world. Eat your hearts out, Coke, McDonalds, Gucci, Rolls-Royce ...

[OriginalPoster]

...

Edited October 10, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[hustlehouse]

Way to go "Captain Planet". What's next? The Pasteur Award for Innovations in the art of war? This is a joke just to switch the attention of all constituents from the real problems.

We'll see maybe he'll decline it, hopefully?

[RickBradford]

We'll see maybe he'll decline it, hopefully?

Narcissistic people with egos the size of Uranus do not decline global honours, however meaningless.

[OriginalPoster]

Limbaugh On Obama Nobel Prize: I Agree With Taliban In Bashing The President

Huffington Post/Sam Stein

The conservative lament over Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is quickly becoming a sight to behold. On his radio show just now, Rush Limbaugh went so far as to trumpet the fact that he is basically in agreement with the Taliban and Iran in thinking that the president was a "worldwide" joke.

"I think that everybody is laughing," Limbaugh said, in a segment picked up by Media Matters. "Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something that the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

The remark is almost comical in how deeply cynical and partisan it is. And it reflects the extent to which mockery and hatred of the president has come to dominate much of conservative media.

To express hilarity that you find yourself in agreement with the Taliban and Iran in lamenting your own president is the type of rhetorical dervish that usually damages careers -- though, in this case, Limbaugh's job seems safe.

There are legitimate debates about whether the president should have been given the Nobel Peace Prize. He himself acknowledged feeling undeserving of the award. But, in the end, Obama never asked for the honor and accepted it only behalf of the notion of American greatness. Limbaugh either missed these facts or is just willfully ignoring them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/l...p_n_315661.html

I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but that seems a bit taken out of context. That Rush thinks that the Obama is a joke and the Taliban thinks Obama is a joke does not imply that Rush & the Taliban are on the same side, it just means that sometimes enemies have common enemies.

Edited October 10, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[Rumfoord]

The Times, London

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize

Michael Binyon

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6867711.ece

[321niti123]

So? So did Yasser Arafat.

I'm sorry but Yaser Arafat got the Nobel Prize only after his change of political direction. After he started to make peace treaties, go to conferences, and attempted to stop the decades long conflict between palestine and israel, whereas Obama is still waging wars on iraq and Afghanistan, still sending troops to these two places. Just started his presidency and little or no peace policies have been made with him in the office, only economical reforms.

[Rumfoord]

If BO had any sense he would refuse it. Course we know that will never happen.

He probably expects another one next year

i vote for DP25 comment as the most humorous and witty reply so far in this thread.