This Just In.......Obama "Tops"! (from 2009)

I'm not qualified to answer that question. Neither are you.

after a bit of researching on the interwebs, I was unable to find a hard and fast list of qualifications needed to be nominated for the peace prize. So obviously it's a very private club who doesn't appear to want the public to really know just what qualifies an individual for their precious award. Based upon the hidden and deceptive process for nominating and selecting peace prize winners, all we can really do is read why the organization awarded Barack Obama the peace prize.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

I'm coming up short on what the efforts were that Obama employed to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. Was it the continuation of the war in Iraq? the decision to continue imprisoning foreign peoples in gitmo? Maybe it was the drone attacks on Pakistani villages rumored to harbor Bin Laden? Or I guess it could even have been the intentional violations of the Arms Export Act by allowing massive amounts of US bought weapons to be delivered in to the hands of mexican drug cartels. Hey, at least it wasn't nuclear weapons, so that must be his qualifying factor here.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

See the above statement by me for this one also.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

Given this statement above, I can only assume that the majority of our population in this country stand behind and approve of Obamas job as president........hmmm, maybe we need to re-evaluate that. I guess we should look to the outside world and see how their attitude is towards the US and our president.......hmmm, maybe we need to re-evaluate that as well.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Is it a nobel peace prize qualification that one should continue to bankrupt the world causing more poverty and hardship for the majority of the population????? If it is, then I think we may have found the one qualification he possesses for the peace prize. what say you?
 
We all see what we want to see.

does anyone here find it amusingly hypocritical that poet is a man who deplores violence and violence oriented 'militias, also wants all guns banned, but has a sig picture of two black cloaked figures pointing guns at you with a caption that says 'keep fucking with me'?????
 
Since you put it like that.....yes, he is deserving of the award. But that is not to say that the Nobel committee is not uniquely qualified, which makes my opinion, null and void.

1) The Nobel committee is not uniquely qualified.

2) I would be interested in what you see that he has done that is deserving of the Peace Prize.
 
1) The Nobel committee is not uniquely qualified.

2) I would be interested in what you see that he has done that is deserving of the Peace Prize.


Really? I didn't want to go into it....but you forced my hand. I'm sure the occupants of hell would be interested in acquiring ice water....my guess is they're still waiting.
The Nobel committee is the judicial body that determines who wins the prize, based on their criteria....not yours, not mine. End of story.
 
Really? I didn't want to go into it....but you forced my hand. I'm sure the occupants of hell would be interested in acquiring ice water....my guess is they're still waiting.

So he has done nothing. Exactly. Glad you have come to grips with it.

The Nobel committee is the judicial body that determines who wins the prize, based on their criteria....not yours, not mine. End of story.

I understand they award the prize based on their criteria. That doesn't make them any more qualified to hand out an award based on a SUBJECTIVE basis. There is no science to it. They have proven that by awarding Obama and Gore. It also doesn't mean that others cannot judge their 'award' winner based on merit. YOU may certainly choose to follow along like a lemming, nodding your head and saying 'well, they gave it to him, so he must deserve it'. That is your right. Some of us prefer to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.
 
So he has done nothing. Exactly. Glad you have come to grips with it.



I understand they award the prize based on their criteria. That doesn't make them any more qualified to hand out an award based on a SUBJECTIVE basis. There is no science to it. They have proven that by awarding Obama and Gore. It also doesn't mean that others cannot judge their 'award' winner based on merit. YOU may certainly choose to follow along like a lemming, nodding your head and saying 'well, they gave it to him, so he must deserve it'. That is your right. Some of us prefer to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

Don't twist my words. Though somewhat disillusioned, I'm still a staunch Obama supporter. Who are you to discredit the award, based on whom you think should be the recipient?
Nobody. So, get over it. It's a done deal. As is Obama's place in history. As if your conclusions matter, in the long run. Sour grapes, indeed.
 
Don't twist my words. Though somewhat disillusioned, I'm still a staunch Obama supporter. Who are you to discredit the award, based on whom you think should be the recipient?
Nobody. So, get over it. It's a done deal. As is Obama's place in history. As if your conclusions matter, in the long run. Sour grapes, indeed.

I did not discredit the award. The current committee members did that all on their own. To give the peace prize to someone for what they MIGHT do? That discredits the award by itself.

Obama did nothing prior to winning the award and has done nothing since that would merit the award. My opinion on the matter is every bit as valid as the ones of the five committee members who made a mockery of the Peace prize.
 
I did not discredit the award. The current committee members did that all on their own. To give the peace prize to someone for what they MIGHT do? That discredits the award by itself.

Obama did nothing prior to winning the award and has done nothing since that would merit the award. My opinion on the matter is every bit as valid as the ones of the five committee members who made a mockery of the Peace prize.

Oh, give me a friggin break. They did not. The award is just as prestigious as it always was. Your opinion is opinion, and not truth, which you confuse it for.
And the committee members are a select group. They don't let just anybody in...so your opinion is worthless, compared to theirs. Geez.
 
I did not discredit the award. The current committee members did that all on their own. To give the peace prize to someone for what they MIGHT do? That discredits the award by itself.

Obama did nothing prior to winning the award and has done nothing since that would merit the award. My opinion on the matter is every bit as valid as the ones of the five committee members who made a mockery of the Peace prize.

That's a strange thing to say. Going on that criteria Jesus wouldn't deserve the Peace Prize.
 
Oh, give me a friggin break. They did not. The award is just as prestigious as it always was. Your opinion is opinion, and not truth, which you confuse it for.
And the committee members are a select group. They don't let just anybody in...so your opinion is worthless, compared to theirs. Geez.

Really? Then DO tell us what it is that Obama, as a Senator or community organizer did to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Surely he had some accomplishment that you can point to? No? Didn't think so.

LMAO... the committee is not that select a group. It is a bunch of political wanks. Their opinions are no more valid than mine. I can go to a business that makes awards and stamp 'super duper special person' on it and award it just in the same manner that these idiots did. They absolutely disgraced the award when giving it to Obama prior to his having done ANYTHING. He wasn't even President when he was 'nominated'. His only accomplishment (they thought) was that he wasn't Bush. Turns out he is Bush III.
 
Really? Then DO tell us what it is that Obama, as a Senator or community organizer did to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Surely he had some accomplishment that you can point to? No? Didn't think so.

LMAO... the committee is not that select a group. It is a bunch of political wanks. Their opinions are no more valid than mine. I can go to a business that makes awards and stamp 'super duper special person' on it and award it just in the same manner that these idiots did. They absolutely disgraced the award when giving it to Obama prior to his having done ANYTHING. He wasn't even President when he was 'nominated'. His only accomplishment (they thought) was that he wasn't Bush. Turns out he is Bush III.

Your hatred and resentment for him has clouded your ability to reason and think. Seek help. Therapy is indicated. It's not your decision to make, obviously. A moot point, to a done deal. LOL
 
What the fuck are you rambling about now?

OK. You can grasp this. I'll take it slow.

You wrote, "To give the peace prize to someone for what they MIGHT do? That discredits the award by itself." to which I replied, "Going on that criteria Jesus wouldn't deserve the Peace Prize."

Jesus TALKED about peace. He didn't stop any wars.

Get it now or do you need further breakdown?
 
OK. You can grasp this. I'll take it slow.

You wrote, "To give the peace prize to someone for what they MIGHT do? That discredits the award by itself." to which I replied, "Going on that criteria Jesus wouldn't deserve the Peace Prize."

Jesus TALKED about peace. He didn't stop any wars.

Get it now or do you need further breakdown?

In fact, many were started, in his name...almost certainly, without his consent.
 
I have been laughing... for three years. It just highlights how pathetic 'winning' the Nobel Peace prize has become.

It was somewhat discredited when they gave the Peace Prize to Kissinger. I still don't understand why Obama was given the prize when he had hardly been president for more than five minutes, it was probably saying a thank you to the US electorate for getting rid of Bush and not replacing him with Cain.
 
It was somewhat discredited when they gave the Peace Prize to Kissinger. I still don't understand why Obama was given the prize when he had hardly been president for more than five minutes, it was probably saying a thank you to the US electorate for getting rid of Bush and not replacing him with Cain.

Someone wrote that satire died the day they gave the nobel peace prize to Kissinger.

I agree about Obama. It was a thank you, as well as a sign of hope for a new age. An age with less war. That hasn't worked out.
 
Back
Top