Obama And The Nobel Peace Prize

[CreepersWiener]

Couldn't be bothered to read the thread, but what did Obama actually do to receive this prize?

He hoped for peace and imagines a world free of nuclear weapons and war and disease...JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER FUCKING PRESIDENT!

BTW, you guys should really pay attention to the poll that goes along with this thread.

[pimpdave]

BTW, all this poll suggests is that the people responding to the poll aren't on the Nobel Prize awarding committee.

Shocking, I know.

And the truth is, Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize because the committee decided he does. That's all there is to it. This isn't something that's put out to a vote. This isn't voting for the All-Star game. Flipping out like this just means the jokes on you. And that you're stupid.

So, Creepers, I'm counting on you to make similar I AM OUTRAGED threads about every single top ten list about both 2009 and the decade. Consistency matters.

[BigBallinStalin]

BTW, all this poll suggests is that the people responding to the poll aren't on the Nobel Prize awarding committee.

Shocking, I know.

And the truth is, Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize because the committee decided he does. That's all there is to it. This isn't something that's put out to a vote. This isn't voting for the All-Star game. Flipping out like this just means the jokes on you. And that you're stupid.

So, Creepers, I'm counting on you to make similar I AM OUTRAGED threads about every single top ten list about both 2009 and the decade. Consistency matters.

[Snorri1234]

And that you're stupid.

This is important. The nobel peace prize isn't exactly something you should care about. The Nobel Prizes all have been subject to politics, the Peace Prize has just been more subject to it because it's obviously one that is about politics. They didn't award it to Gandhi but did give it to Yasser Arafat.

I mean, think about that and you'll realize that while usually they give it to people who reasonably deserve it they also hand it to people for political reasons instead of actual real contributions.

[CreepersWiener]

BTW, all this poll suggests is that the people responding to the poll aren't on the Nobel Prize awarding committee.

The poll reflects the general opinion of the majority of people who usually answer such forum polls. Never claimed that anyone was on the Nobel Prize awarding committee...but if you would like, I could ask that question to satisfy curiosity (as it is quite evident that this poll leans towards the opinion that they believe Obama has done nothing to deserve such an honor).

And the truth is, Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize because the committee decided he does. That's all there is to it. This isn't something that's put out to a vote. This isn't voting for the All-Star game. Flipping out like this just means the jokes on you. And that you're stupid.

Well, with the flame inciting rhetoric aside, you make a point. Yes, the NPP committee could care less about my or millions of others' opinions. Which brings to question...to what agenda do the committee members of such awarding committees serve? They consistently choose socialists over conservative as their global ideal. My flipping out seems to be a fanciful delusion, by a fanciful little trollish author who is proud to sport signatures of people that he had pissed off in the past. Of course, I am sure you would love to respond to this, but I would rather you just leave my thread alone.

So, Creepers, I'm counting on you to make similar I AM OUTRAGED threads about every single top ten list about both 2009 and the decade. Consistency matters.

I expect you to remain a forum troll with no respect for people's threads.

[pimpdave]

...you make a point. Yes, the NPP committee could care less about my or millions of others' opinions.

So wait, are you saying that you're not on the NPP committee? Fascinating. Maybe you should join it. Then your opinion would count regarding the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. Until then, um...

As for the rest of your response and this thread, this is all I've seen from you:

[porkenbeans]

I believe that most people here are just missing the point. After the fall of the USSR, the USA has become the "big kid on the block". We are the biggest and strongest still standing.

Since our beginning, most of the world has looked up to us. We have been the torch barrier for freedom, justice, and good will for all human beings throughout the world. And we always had the USSR and its friends to stand up to.

Well, once that school yard bully was defeated, the rest of the world waited to see if the US would ramp up its efforts to make the world a better place for all to live and be free, or, if the US would start to flex its muscles in a more domineering manner.

It did not take long for our first test on this matter. I am sad, as many others around the world are, that we failed miserably.

Immediately after 911, the wide support for the United States was astounding. Just about everyone was on our side. Even some of our enemies spoke out in support. Like Kadaphi, and many others.

At that particular moment in time the USA had more support around the world than it has ever had, before or since.

I was a Bush supporter at the time, and I often argued with people, that he was not really as dumb as some made him out to be. I applauded his strong backbone when he said "you are with us, or you are against us".

He started out doing everything right. He launched an attack against those that attacked us. And, the rest of the world was still on board with us.

Then he started to change. His swagger got a bit more swaggery, and his chest got a bit more puffy. He started to exhibit through his demeanor and actions, characteristics of a bully. He thought that he would take advantage of the opportunity to seek revenge against his fathers foe, Sadam.

He and his cronies fabricated a case for war against Iraq. He did not care that this action would cause the US to loose all the good will that 911 had brought.

Drunk with power, all he cared about was making his father proud, that he had gotten the son of a bitch that put a bounty on his fathers head.

Well thanks to junior, we summarily lost most of the overwhelming support that we had. And ever since then the rest of the world has realized that, ...we had failed the test.

Torture of prisoners did NOT help.


Obama has brought a ray of hope. Its like we are being given a second chance to retake the test. That is why Obama was given the Peace prize. The world is hoping and doing what it can to help us pass the test.

[king sam]

aright boys & girls keep it on topic and somewhat civil, as civil as a political thread can be.
play nice

[Skittles!]

It is my understanding that Obama got the NPP because of his negotiations and warnings with the Arab-Israeli Conflict, which has been going on for a long, long time. Yasser Arafat probably got it for the same reason (after he became president of Palestine governed lands), and he being one of the first Arab leaders which accepted the state of Israel its right to exist.

Obama also probably got it for his discussions with the Russians and the nuclear thingy thing. Yeah, I forgot about the proper wording, stfu.

[porkenbeans]

aright boys & girls keep it on topic and somewhat civil, as civil as a political thread can be.
play nice

Hey whats up with that avi ?

[pimpdave]

[Woodruff]

Then he started to change. His swagger got a bit more swaggery, and his chest got a bit more puffy. He started to exhibit through his demeanor and actions, characteristics of a bully. He thought that he would take advantage of the opportunity to seek revenge against his fathers foe, Sadam.
He and his cronies fabricated a case for war against Iraq. He did not care that this action would cause the US to loose all the good will that 911 had brought.
Drunk with power, all he cared about was making his father proud, that he had gotten the son of a bitch that put a bounty on his fathers head.

Your view of W is far different than mine (though we end up in basically the same place). I see him far more as someone who was so thoroughly in over his head that he was a ready tool for those who would use him, rather than as anyone who was drunk with power. I do tend to agree with you regarding his intent against Saddam, though.

[porkenbeans]

Then he started to change. His swagger got a bit more swaggery, and his chest got a bit more puffy. He started to exhibit through his demeanor and actions, characteristics of a bully. He thought that he would take advantage of the opportunity to seek revenge against his fathers foe, Sadam.
He and his cronies fabricated a case for war against Iraq. He did not care that this action would cause the US to loose all the good will that 911 had brought.
Drunk with power, all he cared about was making his father proud, that he had gotten the son of a bitch that put a bounty on his fathers head.

Your view of W is far different than mine (though we end up in basically the same place). I see him far more as someone who was so thoroughly in over his head that he was a ready tool for those who would use him, rather than as anyone who was drunk with power. I do tend to agree with you regarding his intent against Saddam, though.

Cheeny and co. was friends with senior, from way back in his CIA days, and through his administration. That whole group behind getting junior elected, knew that he was not the sharpest tool in the shed. So did a large part of the public. The idea was too surround him with his pops cronies so as to basically use him as a puppet. Cheeny and Rummy were the puppeteers. It was somewhere around the time of his 2nd. term that his chest seemed to grow about about 8 inches, and his gait turned to that of a banty rooster. That is the moment that he really started to exhibit the signs of the classic "Power Tripper". He pretty much cut the strings at that time. Rummy got run off, and Cheeny pretty much resigned himself to hunting and shooting people in he face. Junior was way in over his head. The "decider" tried his best, and the whole world would have been laughing, if it wasn't just so damn frightening.

That is why Obama got the prize. People around the world are just so relieved that Junior has no longer got his finger on the button, and this new guy actually has a brain. He Talks about working with others to peacefully solve problems, and his oratory skills are in the same class as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagen. I believe that he will be remembered in tomorrows history books, as our greatest President to date.

I am constantly impressed with how he is capable of analyzing things, and he comes up with the very same conclusions that I do. He was very lucky to be raised for a time, by his grandparents. They were from the greatest generation, and I recognize that thoughtful, loving, strong, wise and honorable attributes that, that generation had. I too was raised for a time by my grandparents and they were from the same generation. Every time I hear him speak, I hear my grandparents words.

I think that the world hears these words, and remembers back to a time, when we had a few strong and intelligent leaders. I am with them in hoping that Obama can help to bring peace, prosperity and a little saneness, back into, this crazy out of control world.

[BigBallinStalin]

[TeletubbyPrince]

Since our beginning, most of the world has looked up to us. We have been the torch barrier for freedom, justice, and good will for all human beings throughout the world. And we always had the USSR and its friends to stand up to.

Wrong. Maybe a small handful of Western colonies looked up to the US between the 17-1900's, but Great Britain, France and various regional powers held the spotlights everywhere else (sigh yes even in humanitarian terms). From the 1920's onwards the US has had mixed reception - praised for its roles in WW2, the Korean War and a few others but despised for everything else (why don't you ask the residents of Nicaragua what they think?). The US won't even hold its position of promincence for much longer, so it's chapter in world history is relatively short and it would take a MASSIVELY brainwashed US citizen to come up with the US-centric tripe that you have.

Your view of W is far different than mine (though we end up in basically the same place). I see him far more as someone who was so thoroughly in over his head that he was a ready tool for those who would use him, rather than as anyone who was drunk with power. I do tend to agree with you regarding his intent against Saddam, though.

Oh look it's professor banana's, come to spread his monkey love to those of us who had the forsight to evolve. Tell me, who used George Bush as a tool and why? The military industrial complex has been around for ages and it's never had trouble coaxing the US government out of its funds; George was hardly vital to that, and at the time most people saw his wars as a reasonable responce. I guess what they say is true - this forum really is named after you

[porkenbeans]

Since our beginning, most of the world has looked up to us. We have been the torch barrier for freedom, justice, and good will for all human beings throughout the world. And we always had the USSR and its friends to stand up to.

Wrong. Maybe a small handful of Western colonies looked up to the US between the 17-1900's, but Great Britain, France and various regional powers held the spotlights everywhere else (sigh yes even in humanitarian terms). From the 1920's onwards the US has had mixed reception - praised for its roles in WW2, the Korean War and a few others but despised for everything else (why don't you ask the residents of Nicaragua what they think?). The US won't even hold its position of promincence for much longer, so it's chapter in world history is relatively short and it would take a MASSIVELY brainwashed US citizen to come up with the US-centric tripe that you have.

Your view of W is far different than mine (though we end up in basically the same place). I see him far more as someone who was so thoroughly in over his head that he was a ready tool for those who would use him, rather than as anyone who was drunk with power. I do tend to agree with you regarding his intent against Saddam, though.

Oh look it's professor banana's, come to spread his monkey love to those of us who had the forsight to evolve. Tell me, who used George Bush as a tool and why? The military industrial complex has been around for ages and it's never had trouble coaxing the US government out of its funds; George was hardly vital to that, and at the time most people saw his wars as a reasonable responce. I guess what they say is true - this forum really is named after you

I do not mind conversing and/or debating, with thoughtful individuals, but your views on this are just so far off the mark that I am utterly flabbergasted. I do not even know where to begin with my rebuttal.

First let my tell you that I am NOT a mindless flag waver, and I am the last person that you will ever see, locking step with those that like to shout "we are #1". But, any moron that breaths, knows very well, that in our recent past, the USA has for the most part, been viewed throughout the world as THE defenders of FREEDOM. We have also led every nation in the world when it comes to charity, and sticking up for the oppressed.

This is the reason why so many want to see us live up to our rhetoric, and especialy at this moment in time.

Will we be able to steer clear of becoming the big bully on the block ?

Will be be able to lead in a way that would make our ancestors proud ?

Or will we go the way of the Nazis, and turn our secret "Black Water" killers loose to rid the world of its perceived "undesirables" ?

Will we let the radical religious nuts among us have their way, and allow them to create the Armageddon that they are longing for ?

We are walking a tight rope at this moment in time, and I for one am glad that we have a President with good balance, to lead the way.

[TeletubbyPrince]

Since our beginning, most of the world has looked up to us. We have been the torch barrier for freedom, justice, and good will for all human beings throughout the world. And we always had the USSR and its friends to stand up to.

Wrong. Maybe a small handful of Western colonies looked up to the US between the 17-1900's, but Great Britain, France and various regional powers held the spotlights everywhere else (sigh yes even in humanitarian terms). From the 1920's onwards the US has had mixed reception - praised for its roles in WW2, the Korean War and a few others but despised for everything else (why don't you ask the residents of Nicaragua what they think?). The US won't even hold its position of promincence for much longer, so it's chapter in world history is relatively short and it would take a MASSIVELY brainwashed US citizen to come up with the US-centric tripe that you have.

Your view of W is far different than mine (though we end up in basically the same place). I see him far more as someone who was so thoroughly in over his head that he was a ready tool for those who would use him, rather than as anyone who was drunk with power. I do tend to agree with you regarding his intent against Saddam, though.

Oh look it's professor banana's, come to spread his monkey love to those of us who had the forsight to evolve. Tell me, who used George Bush as a tool and why? The military industrial complex has been around for ages and it's never had trouble coaxing the US government out of its funds; George was hardly vital to that, and at the time most people saw his wars as a reasonable responce. I guess what they say is true - this forum really is named after you

I do not mind conversing and/or debating, with thoughtful individuals, but your views on this are just so far off the mark that I am utterly flabbergasted. I do not even know where to begin with my rebuttal.

First let my tell you that I am NOT a mindless flag waver, and I am the last person that you will ever see, locking step with those that like to shout "we are #1". But, any moron that breaths, knows very well, that in our recent past, the USA has for the most part, been viewed throughout the world as THE defenders of FREEDOM. We have also led every nation in the world when it comes to charity, and sticking up for the oppressed.

This is the reason why so many want to see us live up to our rhetoric, and especialy at this moment in time.

Will we be able to steer clear of becoming the big bully on the block ?

Will be be able to lead in a way that would make our ancestors proud ?

Or will we go the way of the Nazis, and turn our secret "Black Water" killers loose to rid the world of its perceived "undesirables" ?

Will we let the radical religious nuts among us have their way, and allow them to create the Armageddon that they are longing for ?

We are walking a tight rope at this moment in time, and I for one am glad that we have a President with good balance, to lead the way.

I'm not suggesting that you're patriotic, merely that you overestimate the US's importance (especially its past importance). Have you ever heard of "The Empire of Good Intentions"? How about Ghandi or Cromwell? At the times of their relevance, most non-Americans would consider those the leading defenders of freedom/charity/whatever. The US was merely a small foreshadowing of the French Revolution and a dissapointing consequence of the English civil war. The US practiced slavery well into the 1800's and segregation well into the 1900's. The US is responsible for much strife in South America and the Middle East. Sure the US gives a lot of aid, however they're the richest country of all time so that hardly makes up for their actions. You're simply an uneducated American if you think the US is anything more than an evil (poorly run) empire...

[Snorri1234]

But, any moron that breaths, knows very well, that in our recent past, the USA has for the most part, been viewed throughout the world as THE defenders of FREEDOM.

Not really. Aside from few Europeans and the Americans themselves. A large part of the world doesn't really like you

We have also led every nation in the world when it comes to charity,

*numbers as a percentage of Gross National Income.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html
Rather a nice look at how the USA is probably the worst charity-giver in the world.

[porkenbeans]

Since our beginning, most of the world has looked up to us. We have been the torch barrier for freedom, justice, and good will for all human beings throughout the world. And we always had the USSR and its friends to stand up to.

Wrong. Maybe a small handful of Western colonies looked up to the US between the 17-1900's, but Great Britain, France and various regional powers held the spotlights everywhere else (sigh yes even in humanitarian terms). From the 1920's onwards the US has had mixed reception - praised for its roles in WW2, the Korean War and a few others but despised for everything else (why don't you ask the residents of Nicaragua what they think?). The US won't even hold its position of promincence for much longer, so it's chapter in world history is relatively short and it would take a MASSIVELY brainwashed US citizen to come up with the US-centric tripe that you have.

Your view of W is far different than mine (though we end up in basically the same place). I see him far more as someone who was so thoroughly in over his head that he was a ready tool for those who would use him, rather than as anyone who was drunk with power. I do tend to agree with you regarding his intent against Saddam, though.

Oh look it's professor banana's, come to spread his monkey love to those of us who had the forsight to evolve. Tell me, who used George Bush as a tool and why? The military industrial complex has been around for ages and it's never had trouble coaxing the US government out of its funds; George was hardly vital to that, and at the time most people saw his wars as a reasonable responce. I guess what they say is true - this forum really is named after you

I do not mind conversing and/or debating, with thoughtful individuals, but your views on this are just so far off the mark that I am utterly flabbergasted. I do not even know where to begin with my rebuttal.

First let my tell you that I am NOT a mindless flag waver, and I am the last person that you will ever see, locking step with those that like to shout "we are #1". But, any moron that breaths, knows very well, that in our recent past, the USA has for the most part, been viewed throughout the world as THE defenders of FREEDOM. We have also led every nation in the world when it comes to charity, and sticking up for the oppressed.

This is the reason why so many want to see us live up to our rhetoric, and especialy at this moment in time.

Will we be able to steer clear of becoming the big bully on the block ?

Will be be able to lead in a way that would make our ancestors proud ?

Or will we go the way of the Nazis, and turn our secret "Black Water" killers loose to rid the world of its perceived "undesirables" ?

Will we let the radical religious nuts among us have their way, and allow them to create the Armageddon that they are longing for ?

We are walking a tight rope at this moment in time, and I for one am glad that we have a President with good balance, to lead the way.

I'm not suggesting that you're patriotic, merely that you overestimate the US's importance (especially its past importance). Have you ever heard of "The Empire of Good Intentions"? How about Ghandi or Cromwell? At the times of their relevance, most non-Americans would consider those the leading defenders of freedom/charity/whatever. The US was merely a small foreshadowing of the French Revolution and a dissapointing consequence of the English civil war. The US practiced slavery well into the 1800's and segregation well into the 1900's. The US is responsible for much strife in South America and the Middle East. Sure the US gives a lot of aid, however they're the richest country of all time so that hardly makes up for their actions. You're simply an uneducated American if you think the US is anything more than an evil (poorly run) empire...

I am NOT disagreeing with you about the US as not being all that it should. Ghandi was indeed an inspiration to all that believe in love and understanding, and good will towards all. Which also includes your enemies. Jesus tried to teach this way of thinking and acting as well. It is just so sad, that even the people yelling the loudest about the righteousness of Christianity do not actually think or act that way. They just somehow do not fully understand that the only way to rid yourself of an enemy, is to make him your friend. It is either That, or kill him and all of his family and friends. Its one or the other.

Today's religious extremist from Christians to Muslims, are all trying their best to bring on the judgment day. Instead of choosing to let love dwell in their hearts, they make war against each other, like its all some sort of sporting event. and they act like rabid fans in the stands that cheer for one side or the other. They think that by destroying the other, they will win the game.

It just amazes and saddens me to no end, to see that the human race has evolved so little since our cave dwelling days. Its almost like we are two different species in the human race. One that has advanced intelligence, over the rest, that are no different than cave men.

[porkenbeans]

But, any moron that breaths, knows very well, that in our recent past, the USA has for the most part, been viewed throughout the world as THE defenders of FREEDOM.

Not really. Aside from few Europeans and the Americans themselves. A large part of the world doesn't really like you

We have also led every nation in the world when it comes to charity,

*numbers as a percentage of Gross National Income.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html
Rather a nice look at how the USA is probably the worst charity-giver in the world.

Sorry snori, Your little chart is a FAIL. The simple and plane fact is the US has contributed more than all of those others on that list, COMBINED.

[Woodruff]

We have also led every nation in the world when it comes to charity,

*numbers as a percentage of Gross National Income.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html
Rather a nice look at how the USA is probably the worst charity-giver in the world.

Sorry snori, Your little chart is a FAIL. The simple and plane fact is the US has contributed more than all of those others on that list, COMBINED.

I'm a bit confused by your response here, to be honest. You don't believe that "percentage of income" shows more about a giving heart than "total amount given"? So Bill Gates is almost automatically the most charitable person in the world (since he does do a lot of charity giving)? That doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I would say those who can't really afford to give much BUT WHO STILL DO are far more charitable.

[the.killing.44]

Well it depends if you're talking about morally or statistically. A billionaire donating $500,000 is more helpful to the charity than a poor family donating $100, but the latter is much more commendable.

[porkenbeans]

Well it depends if you're talking about morally or statistically. A billionaire donating $500,000 is more helpful to the charity than a poor family donating $100, but the latter is much more commendable.

A rare occurrence, I agree with 44.

[Woodruff]

Well it depends if you're talking about morally or statistically. A billionaire donating $500,000 is more helpful to the charity than a poor family donating $100, but the latter is much more commendable.

It seems to me that the intent being discussed here is which is more commendable, given that porkenbeans was holding up the US as a beacon for doing so.

[porkenbeans]

We have also led every nation in the world when it comes to charity,

*numbers as a percentage of Gross National Income.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html
Rather a nice look at how the USA is probably the worst charity-giver in the world.

Sorry snori, Your little chart is a FAIL. The simple and plane fact is the US has contributed more than all of those others on that list, COMBINED.

I'm a bit confused by your response here, to be honest. You don't believe that "percentage of income" shows more about a giving heart than "total amount given"? So Bill Gates is almost automatically the most charitable person in the world (since he does do a lot of charity giving)? That doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I would say those who can't really afford to give much BUT WHO STILL DO are far more charitable.

Icould be wrong, but, I think this chart shows the amount of "Government" charity, NOT charity among individuals. The countries at the top of this list are naturally going to be those that are more, er, shall I say "Socialists".

My guess is that, of individuals giving to charities around the world, The people of the US would top the list.