Obama Awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut said:
Obama Nobel peace prize = "Mission Accomplished"

9 months in?

:laugh2::laugh2:
Click to expand...

That's the basic idea, yes. It's out of this world.

Oh well... it doesn't reflect on everyone's views. It only reflects on the views of the people who put up the $1.4 million.
 
Beowulf said:
Yep. This is a conspiracy to tick off right-wingers. :lol:
Click to expand...

Damn the liberal left wing prize committee!:giggle:

But seriously, nice to see they are able to think outside the box and recognize brilliance in the making.
 
kokonut said:
Obama's Nobel peace prize = "Mission Accomplished"

9 months in?

:laugh2::laugh2:
Click to expand...

Read agqain. Perhaps you missed the part where it said the committee's intent was to award potential. I know it's a hard pill for you to swallow, but :nana:
 
I disagree with the idea of awarding "potential". It's like giving a kid 100% on a test because he has been meaning to put forth that effort.

Another thing to add: I just watched a news show, where one of the hosts stated that very seldomly do leaders who are currently running/supporting a war wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Another host on the show argued that it was not a war that he started, which is true, but he supports the War in Afghanistan.
 
Loghead said:
I disagree with the idea of awarding "potential". It's like giving a kid 100% on a test because he has been meaning to put forth that effort.

Another thing to add: I just watched a news show, where one of the hosts stated that very seldomly do leaders who are currently running/supporting a war wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Another host on the show argued that it was not a war that he started, which is true, but he supports the War in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't the same thing at all. It means that one is being awarded for a philosophy that has been shown to have the potential to evoke change. Even more than the potential to do well on a test, the effort has already been put forth in formulating the philosophy that has probability. A child who just doesn't study and flunks a test is not showing potential for anything but to be a slacker. There has to be something substantial behind the potential.

The question is not support in and of itself, but the logic and philosophy behind the support.
 
Bill Clinton would have actually been a better candidate for the prize (re: North Korean negotiations).

I personally believe that even Stephen Harper (the Canadian Prime Minister), although not well liked, has done more to promote peace in our time and deserves it far more than Obama. I would still definitely object it if Harper won it (I'm not a fan... but I prefer him over every other Canadian politician), but I'm just using him as a comparison.
 
Loghead said:
Bill Clinton would have actually been a better candidate for the prize (re: North Korean negotiations).

I personally believe that even Stephen Harper (the Canadian Prime Minister), although not well liked, has done more to promote peace in our time and deserves it far more than Obama. I would still definitely object it if Harper won it (I'm not a fan... but I prefer him over every other Canadian politician), but I'm just using him as a comparison.
Click to expand...

Your opinion. But the committee sees it otherwise. And, as I recall, neither one of them were even nominated, much less awarded. So I guess it would be more than the committee that sees it their way.
 
inspirabull said:
I am proud as an American that I have a President that thinking people believe in enough to encourage with such an honor. While many people here in America are completely and totally oblivious to what it means to launch a diplomatic and economic disaster like George W. on the rest of the world believe me the rest of the world is not. In a way the Nobel committee is trying to educate us with the giving of this honor. So mixed with my pride is sadness that my country should need this kind of education by encouragement.
Click to expand...

And that there are many that will refuse to learn the lesson being proffered based on personal bias.
 
sallylou said:
The committee may have considered that Obama has undertaken this work without regard to his personal safety. The Secret Service is busy with death threats to the President. If my husband wanted to take a position that might get him assassinated, I don't think I would be brave enough to support him. Both Obama and Michelle acknowledged the risk but decided to move forward anyway. Even if you don't like him, he is brave.
Click to expand...
All presidents and national leaders face that same risk. That's not anything to make one stand out above the others.
 
Reba said:
All presidents and national leaders face that same risk. That's not anything to make one stand out above the others.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the risk has not been greater for Obama? How do you account for the number of direct and indirect public death threats and calls for his death that have been evident since taking office?
 
jillio said:
Are you saying that the risk has not been greater for Obama? How do you account for the number of direct and indirect public death threats and calls for his death that have been evident since taking office?
Click to expand...

Someone tried to blow up Bush with a Russian grenade...

and another one threw a shoe at him...
 
souggy said:
Someone tried to blow up Bush with a Russian grenade...

and another one threw a shoe at him...
Click to expand...

:laugh2: Well there's 2 incidents in 8 years.:giggle: Compare that with the number of incidents in 9 months of Obama's presidency.

And, you know, given the effect that Bush had on the country, you'd think, if the objection was to policy alone, he would have been receiving death threats at the rate of about 1 per week.:giggle:
 
souggy said:
Someone tried to blow up Bush with a Russian grenade...

and another one threw a shoe at him...
Click to expand...
President Ford was attacked twice, and Reagan was shot. Plots were made against President G.H.W. Bush.
 
Internationally, what about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto? The poisoning of Ukrainian Viktor Yushchenko? The attempt to kill Pope John Paul II?
 
Before this thread gets derailed into another "Obama ain't so speshul!" thread through the injection of irrelevent comparisons, here is an excellent article.

Obama's win unique among presidents - CNN.com

Apparently, risk of assasination had virtually nothing to do with the committee's decision. However, many other relevent and logical factors were considered.
 
Reba said:
All presidents and national leaders face that same risk. That's not anything to make one stand out above the others.
Click to expand...

Right. I really hope Obama don't get hurt or killed as long as he is president. Hmm... If there is anything happen to him, I think I know what two impacts are on country ... I'd rather to not say why or how so... :|
 
What does everyone think of the logic the committee applied to the award as outlined in the article linked?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top