Or more specifically, for those drinking the Obama kool-aid, it isn't hard for them to see where they are coming from.
So in other words, he won it because he isn't Bush, which was his only real accomplishment.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're welcome to your opinion, and when you found the Loki Peace Prize, it may actually matter. Until then, for those who can see past the knee-jerk anti-Obama propaganda, it's really not that hard to understand where the Nobel committee is coming from.Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I think the Nobel committee gave Mr Obama the Peace Prize out of relief of not having the US Neocons pretty running the world.
that's a pretty bad reason.
The rest of the world had been on edge for years. nervously watching the shoot-first cowboy with his finger on the big red button, dreading who he might decide to bully next. Then Obama takes over -- intelligent, temperate, understanding the power of diplomacy and the great responsibility of the world's only remaining superpower -- and in a few short months turns this around dramatically, reaching out to the other countries of the world to make it clear that the United States was once again a force for peace. That may not seem like enough to you, but it was obviously a huge relief to civilized people across the globe.
Given that you're one of the more devout Obama-bashers here, I'll give your comments all the consideration they deserve ... none. It's exactly as much consideration as you gave mine before your knee-jerk retort.Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're welcome to your opinion, and when you found the Loki Peace Prize, it may actually matter. Until then, for those who can see past the knee-jerk anti-Obama propaganda, it's really not that hard to understand where the Nobel committee is coming from.
Or more specifically, for those drinking the Obama kool-aid, it isn't hard for them to see where they are coming from.
So in other words, he won it because he isn't Bush, which was his only real accomplishment.The rest of the world had been on edge for years. nervously watching the shoot-first cowboy with his finger on the big red button, dreading who he might decide to bully next. Then Obama takes over -- intelligent, temperate, understanding the power of diplomacy and the great responsibility of the world's only remaining superpower -- and in a few short months turns this around dramatically, reaching out to the other countries of the world to make it clear that the United States was once again a force for peace. That may not seem like enough to you, but it was obviously a huge relief to civilized people across the globe.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're welcome to your opinion, and when you found the Loki Peace Prize, it may actually matter. Until then, for those who can see past the knee-jerk anti-Obama propaganda, it's really not that hard to understand where the Nobel committee is coming from. The rest of the world had been on edge for years. nervously watching the shoot-first cowboy with his finger on the big red button, dreading who he might decide to bully next. Then Obama takes over -- intelligent, temperate, understanding the power of diplomacy and the great responsibility of the world's only remaining superpower -- and in a few short months turns this around dramatically, reaching out to the other countries of the world to make it clear that the United States was once again a force for peace. That may not seem like enough to you, but it was obviously a huge relief to civilized people across the globe.Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I think the Nobel committee gave Mr Obama the Peace Prize out of relief of not having the US Neocons pretty running the world.
that's a pretty bad reason.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Given that you're one of the more devout Obama-bashers here, I'll give your comments all the consideration they deserve ... none. It's exactly as much consideration as you gave mine before your knee-jerk retort.Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're welcome to your opinion, and when you found the Loki Peace Prize, it may actually matter. Until then, for those who can see past the knee-jerk anti-Obama propaganda, it's really not that hard to understand where the Nobel committee is coming from.
Or more specifically, for those drinking the Obama kool-aid, it isn't hard for them to see where they are coming from.
So in other words, he won it because he isn't Bush, which was his only real accomplishment.The rest of the world had been on edge for years. nervously watching the shoot-first cowboy with his finger on the big red button, dreading who he might decide to bully next. Then Obama takes over -- intelligent, temperate, understanding the power of diplomacy and the great responsibility of the world's only remaining superpower -- and in a few short months turns this around dramatically, reaching out to the other countries of the world to make it clear that the United States was once again a force for peace. That may not seem like enough to you, but it was obviously a huge relief to civilized people across the globe.
I agree, Obama doesn't have that level of tangible accomplishments. What he has done, however, is work to set a dramatically different tone and reduce international tensions. Those are quite critical to peace, in some ways even more so than treaties and organizations since both are regularly ignored by those who want war. As I said earlier, while I agree that not-Bush is a great foundation for changing the tone, Obama didn't rest there. He actively reached out and engaged the world. Is that setting the bar too low? Perhaps so, but much of the world seems to think it's more than enough.Originally posted by: loki8481
just to repost my own post...Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're welcome to your opinion, and when you found the Loki Peace Prize, it may actually matter. Until then, for those who can see past the knee-jerk anti-Obama propaganda, it's really not that hard to understand where the Nobel committee is coming from. The rest of the world had been on edge for years. nervously watching the shoot-first cowboy with his finger on the big red button, dreading who he might decide to bully next. Then Obama takes over -- intelligent, temperate, understanding the power of diplomacy and the great responsibility of the world's only remaining superpower -- and in a few short months turns this around dramatically, reaching out to the other countries of the world to make it clear that the United States was once again a force for peace. That may not seem like enough to you, but it was obviously a huge relief to civilized people across the globe.
I don't really see how this benefits the US. they hated GW and I was right there with them, but it's not like there was any functional differences between our relationship with the European nations now and then. they hated GW, but it's not like they were cutting off trade, and Obama hasn't been able to use his popularity to achieve any real progress like getting the EU to send more troops to Afghanistan.
when Obama's temperate understanding of the power of diplomacy leads to Iran or North Korea disarming, then you might be on to something. other than troop reduction in Iraq, I don't see the world stage as being any different fundamentally today than it was on January 19th. Roosevelt brokered the end of a war, Wilson created the league of nations, and Carter has devoted decades of his life towards peace in the middle east (in addition to his domestic efforts like habitat for humanity)... all due respect to Obama, but he's not in their league yet and he certainly wasn't 2 weeks into his presidency.
at the core, I think the Nobel Peace Prize should require more than not being Bush.
I agree, Obama doesn't have that level of tangible accomplishments. What he has done, however, is work to set a dramatically different tone and reduce international tensions. Those are quite critical to peace, in some ways even more so than treaties and organizations since both are regularly ignored by those who want war. As I said earlier, while I agree that not-Bush is a great foundation for changing the tone, Obama didn't rest there. He actively reached out and engaged the world. Is that setting the bar too low? Perhaps so, but much of the world seems to think it's more than enough.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
at the core, I think the Nobel Peace Prize should require more than not being Bush.
Meh. I think "Peace" is nebulous enough that the criteria can be pretty subjective. Nonetheless, I understand your point of view. I agree the challenge for Obama will be taking this good will, sustaining it, and turning it into more tangible results over his tenure.Originally posted by: loki8481
I guess I can't help thinking that we shouldn't celebrate changes in policy without actually seeing the results of the change. I mean, real results like the EU agreeing to send troops to Afghanistan or hostile leaders being willing to negotiate, not just a parade for Obama in Germany.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I agree, Obama doesn't have that level of tangible accomplishments. What he has done, however, is work to set a dramatically different tone and reduce international tensions. Those are quite critical to peace, in some ways even more so than treaties and organizations since both are regularly ignored by those who want war. As I said earlier, while I agree that not-Bush is a great foundation for changing the tone, Obama didn't rest there. He actively reached out and engaged the world. Is that setting the bar too low? Perhaps so, but much of the world seems to think it's more than enough.Originally posted by: loki8481
at the core, I think the Nobel Peace Prize should require more than not being Bush.
I do recognize one reason the wing-nuts are so apoplectic about this, aside from being sore losers who hate everything about Obama, is they see it as the world's big "Fuck you" to Bush, the neo-con ideology, and everything they hold dear. I'm good with that. They earned it.
Originally posted by: blanghorst
I am bashing the Nobel committee for awarding a prize to him for no discernible reason, not Obama. There is a big difference.
I didn't answer the rest of your post because, well, it is ridiculous. Nothing concrete -- it is basically "he took over, people like him better than Bush and think he is a swell guy, and they're relieved." What type of ridiculous criteria is that?
I'll ask again: What was the basis of his nomination in the first place?
Do we know who #2 is? If so, what has he/she/they done? Serious question.Originally posted by: alchemize
I think a better question would be (and I'll bet my left nut nobody will answer it honestly), is to compare Obama to the #2 contender, and explain how Obama was the better pick.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blanghorst
I am bashing the Nobel committee for awarding a prize to him for no discernible reason, not Obama. There is a big difference.
I didn't answer the rest of your post because, well, it is ridiculous. Nothing concrete -- it is basically "he took over, people like him better than Bush and think he is a swell guy, and they're relieved." What type of ridiculous criteria is that?
I'll ask again: What was the basis of his nomination in the first place?
A big fuck you to Bush, Republicans and those that support them like you.
Certainly by the posts in here was a huge "Mission Accomplished" :laugh:
It always amazes me how much everyone here actually does agree on the underlying details, it's but the mere presentation of the details that gets everyones feathers ruffled.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blanghorst
I'll ask again: What was the basis of his nomination in the first place?
A big fuck you to Bush, Republicans and those that support them like you.
Certainly by the posts in here was a huge "Mission Accomplished" :laugh:
Alas..."tis a secret", most of us will be dead before we know...Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Do we know who #2 is? If so, what has he/she/they done? Serious question.Originally posted by: alchemize
I think a better question would be (and I'll bet my left nut nobody will answer it honestly), is to compare Obama to the #2 contender, and explain how Obama was the better pick.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: cubeless
from cnbc...
U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future"
Wow, can imagine what they will award me for what I have actually given the world.
What's higher than the Peace Prize?
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Link
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
For the first time a sitting American President, elected by a majority of the people, received a great international honor. You would think most Americans would be happy. The world certainly seems to be. It's just a few losers and sour puses who seem to be whining. Seems like there is no pleasing them.
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Originally posted by: Painman
Soak the right wing in buffalo sauce already.
Personally, I think he won by default. Who the hell else was there this year? Obama may not have swung and hit, but he stepped up to the plate.
Sima Samar
Hu Jia
Morgan Tsvangirai
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Wait... what? There were other people nominated who have actually accomplished something? :shocked:
Originally posted by: Patranus
Ronald Reagan did more for peace by helping cause the economic collapse of the USSR, which freed millions from Communist totalitarianism. No peace prize for that...
"for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community"
Originally posted by: Patranus
Why did he get the prize in the first place? Maybe because he's a socialist? It certainly isn't because he did anything. Or maybe because the Nobel committee is hopelessly politicized to the point they will only award the prize to American Presidents when they bash their own country, like Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan did more for peace by helping cause the economic collapse of the USSR, which freed millions from Communist totalitarianism. No peace prize for that, but Yasser Arafat gets one for calling for the death of Jews. Yea that "peace" prize really means something. It means you are a devoted leftist or one of their pet dictators.
You really shouldn't sit around thinking about old, bald, overweight men fapping.Originally posted by: peonyu
I picture the Nobel committee being composed of old, bald and overweight men who fapfapfap at mental images im sure they all have, of Obama saving baby seals in the Arctic Ocean. Surely that committee knows what its doing.
Originally posted by: alchemize
You really shouldn't sit around thinking about old, bald, overweight men fapping.Originally posted by: peonyu
I picture the Nobel committee being composed of old, bald and overweight men who fapfapfap at mental images im sure they all have, of Obama saving baby seals in the Arctic Ocean. Surely that committee knows what its doing.