106 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

So Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? What a complete farce.

Barack Obama has been more destructive to world peace than any president in the history of the United States. What about presidents who were involved in wars in the past, you ask? Peace is not the absense of conflict, peace is having the ability to defend yourself. Barack Obama has been incredibly destructive to our ability to defend ourself, from cutting defense spending, cutting missile defense programs, pulling missile defense systems out of Eastern Europe, ignoring our top general's troop requests necessary to win the war in Afghanistan, displaying incredibly weak and lax policies against illegal immigration and border security, treating the war against terrorism as a global police operation in various ways like reading miranda rights to enemy combatants, calling the war on terror an "overseas contingency operation", and referring to terrorist attacks as "man-caused disasters", trying to prosecute the CIA for torturing terrorists for information about attacks against us, etc etc etc, appeasing communist dictatorships around the world, appeasing violent, unstable dictatorships around the world including North Korea and Iran, appeasing Iran's desire for nuclear technology, taking every chance he possibly can on the world stage to put down America and apologize for America and generally displaying an incredibly weak and apologetic United States, even going so far as to say America is no longer a super power but merely a nation among nations, resolving to eliminate our nuclear weapons arsenal, and ALL of the other weaknesses that have been talked about from day one that are simply too many to list here, especially his incredibly destructive actions and plans against the United States' economy, and a myriad of very disturbing anti-America, pro-communist "czars" that he has put into positions of power in the federal government.

A Nobel Peace Prize? What a complete farce, the whole thing is a completely worthless joke, a ridiculous sham. Didn't Al Gore recently win a Nobel Peace Prize? For what, perpetrating arguably the greatest fraud ever committed on this planet with his global warming scam, something comparable only with the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States or the tens of trillions of dollars of the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid Ponzi scheme?

Winning a Nobel Peace Prize today is the equivalent of a great dishonor, and really shouldn't even be considered news worthy.

Edited by RighteousReason, 09 October 2009 - 04:16 PM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Winning a Nobel Peace Prize today is the equivalent of a great dishonor, and really shouldn't even be considered news worthy.

I imagine that the Obama administration would have preferred that this didn't happen. I mean, it's really a bit embarrassing. And standing Obama next to the only other two U.S. presidents to win the Nobel peace prize while in office isn't going to work in his favor, I think. After all, Theodore Roosevelt and to a lesser degree Woodrow Wilson -- the last two genuine intellectuals to sit in the White House in my opinion -- actually had real accomplishments.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 09 October 2009 - 06:06 PM.

[david ellis]

Connor and RighteousReason, your lack of grace is surprising. Your speed to demean is telling. President Obama's desire to accept the award as a challenge was graceful. Your sour grapes will get little notice. Republican popularity is dwindling because they are the party with no ideas. Republican ideas failed miserably, Enron at the beginning, and the 2nd Great Depression at the end with a mistaken war on Iraq in the middle. Republican economic policy and alienation politics are rejected, the people have voted.

Why so hateful? The country needs healing, we have to pull together. Don't be sore losers, pull yourselves together and do something positive.

[Connor MacLeod]

Why so hateful?

What did I say that was hateful? I'm not blaming Obama. It's not his fault. But yeah, the Nobel peace prize is largely a joke. The fact that Yassar Arafat was a past recipient is, I think, proof enough.

[Connor MacLeod]

Republican popularity is dwindling because they are the party with no ideas.

I don't really keep a close watch on this sort of thing, but my impression is that Republican party prospects are looking better these days than any time since 2004.

[Mind]

Why so hateful?

What did I say that was hateful? I'm not blaming Obama. It's not his fault. But yeah, the Nobel peace prize is largely a joke. The fact that Yassar Arafat was a past recipient is, I think, proof enough.

TRUE DAT! I forgot about Yassar, who launched an multi-year infatada instead of bargaining for land with a willing and moderate Israeli leader.

I don't want to bang on Obama, people can judge his international speaking tour as good thing for world peace and such, however, there should be a rule against anyone getting a PEACE prize who is currently commanding an army engaged in wars where innocent civilians are getting killed nearly every day. Also, there should be a ban on anyone who orders an execution, such as Obama did with the rebellious Somali youths playing pirate last year. There might be legitimate reasons for wars and ordering hits on thugs, but these things should disqualify anyone for the PEACE prize. Shouldn't this award be for people like Ghandi?

[maxwatt]

The Nobel committee is composed of men, and men are imperfect. Gandhi never won a peace prize, and Arafat's actions after he won the prize obviated whatever accomplishments the Nobel committee may have hopefully expected. But he as not willing to die, and had he signed the peace treaty with Israel when it was offered, he surely would have been assassinated.

Rightous, Connor, you must live in and alternate universe to David.

FWIW, the British government has looked at climate forecasts based on scientific assessments of global warming, and concluded the climate of the British Isles will be similar to Italy's before the end of this century. They have charged their agriculture department with introducing suitable crops that will need much less rain than what they grow now. They expect to be producing olive oil and decent Scottish wine. The Maldive Island's government is looking to buy land elsewhere to move it's soon to be displaced citizens to. The state of Hawaii is already planing for the rise in sea-level. But Republican-governed Georgia can't even get it together to build another reservoir (government interferences and taxes!) despite LAne Laneer already going dry, and scientists' forecasts are for a much drier future in the Southeast. This summer commercial freighters took the northwest passage which was ice free this summer. The oi companies are planing to exploit oil reserves in the Arctic Ocean as they become accessible. The Bush administration refused to support any kind of treaty with the other Arctic nations, to divvy the resources up, so Russia went and laid claim to everything past the north pole toward Canada, by sending a geoligical survey so they could claim it was part of their continental shelf.

For others, global warming is likely to go through two stages: too soon to be certain it is happening, and then to late to do anything about it.

As for Obama's prize: I do wonder if it was awarded so the Europeans could watch the American Right twist and squirm at another slap in the face.

Edited by maxwatt, 09 October 2009 - 07:54 PM.

[Mind]

As for Obama's prize: I do wonder if it was awarded so the Europeans could watch the American Right twist and squirm at another slap in the face.

Maybe, but that would be very poor reason for awarding the prize.

[maxwatt]

As for Obama's prize: I do wonder if it was awarded so the Europeans could watch the American Right twist and squirm at another slap in the face.

Maybe, but that would be very poor reason for awarding the prize.

It's just that I am just an incorrigible cynic and curmudgeon.

[Connor MacLeod]

There might be legitimate reasons for wars and ordering hits on thugs, but these things should disqualify anyone for the PEACE prize. Shouldn't this award be for people like Ghandi?

I don't really agree with that -- sometimes hard-nosed diplomacy, and even open conflict is necessary to bring about the conditions for lasting peace. The problem I have is the emphasis of style over substance. This has been a criticism of Obama since the presidential campaign, and his being awarded the nobel peace prize without having any real accomplishments, seems to confirm that that aspect of his appeal still carries considerable currency. That is a concern, especially if he can't couple his eloquent oratory and soaring words with real accomplishments.

[rwac]

I don't know why they gave the Nobel to Obama.

But I do predict that this will hurt Obama, as he becomes the butt of the late night comedy shows ...
Possibly undeserved, but that's how it goes.

[RighteousReason]

Why so hateful?

What did I say that was hateful? I'm not blaming Obama. It's not his fault. But yeah, the Nobel peace prize is largely a joke. The fact that Yassar Arafat was a past recipient is, I think, proof enough.

And Jimmy Carter, too.

[RighteousReason]

despite LAne Laneer already going dry

Lake Lanier is not going dry. I literally work in an office that overlooks the lake, the levels are literally like a foot below max (as opposed to the like 10-20 feet below max that was the norm). If you hadn't noticed, we had massive flooding here in Atlanta and the drought is long, long gone. Besides, it was only low because of insane governmental policies sending our water to other states.

[RighteousReason]

As for Obama's prize: I do wonder if it was awarded so the Europeans could watch the American Right twist and squirm at another slap in the face.

I don't know what you are seeing, but we are watching these guys slap themselves in the face. Again.

Edited by RighteousReason, 09 October 2009 - 08:27 PM.

[RighteousReason]

So Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? What a complete farce.

Barack Obama has been more destructive to world peace than any president in the history of the United States. What about presidents who were involved in wars in the past, you ask? Peace is not the absense of conflict, peace is having the ability to defend yourself. Barack Obama has been incredibly destructive to our ability to defend ourself, from cutting defense spending, cutting missile defense programs, pulling missile defense systems out of Eastern Europe, ignoring our top general's troop requests necessary to win the war in Afghanistan, displaying incredibly weak and lax policies against illegal immigration and border security, treating the war against terrorism as a global police operation in various ways like reading miranda rights to enemy combatants, calling the war on terror an "overseas contingency operation", and referring to terrorist attacks as "man-caused disasters", trying to prosecute the CIA for torturing terrorists for information about attacks against us, etc etc etc, appeasing communist dictatorships around the world, appeasing violent, unstable dictatorships around the world including North Korea and Iran, appeasing Iran's desire for nuclear technology, taking every chance he possibly can on the world stage to put down America and apologize for America and generally displaying an incredibly weak and apologetic United States, even going so far as to say America is no longer a super power but merely a nation among nations, resolving to eliminate our nuclear weapons arsenal, and ALL of the other weaknesses that have been talked about from day one that are simply too many to list here, especially his incredibly destructive actions and plans against the United States' economy, and a myriad of very disturbing anti-America, pro-communist "czars" that he has put into positions of power in the federal government.

A Nobel Peace Prize? What a complete farce, the whole thing is a completely worthless joke, a ridiculous sham. Didn't Al Gore recently win a Nobel Peace Prize? For what, perpetrating arguably the greatest fraud ever committed on this planet with his global warming scam, something comparable only with the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States or the tens of trillions of dollars of the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid Ponzi scheme?

Winning a Nobel Peace Prize today is the equivalent of a great dishonor, and really shouldn't even be considered news worthy.

Truly, Ronald Reagen deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Even George Bush was far more deserving than Barack Obama.

[Oliver_R]

I don't have any strong views about this, but feel a bit bemused by it. He's only been in power 5 minutes and what exactly is he meant to have done to get this honour? Maybe the Nobel committee think just by being black and getting to be president he has contributed to world peace and tolerance?

[Cyberbrain]

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.

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.

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.

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."

http://nobelprize.or...2009/press.html

Obama was basically awarded for his efforts to engage in international diplomacy and for his work on nuclear non-proliferation. But in reality he was more or less awarded the Nobel prize primarily as a political incentive to continue a path of diplomacy and peace such as trying to convince him not to send more troops to Afghanistan. It's way too early to determine if Obama has actually done any good in the world and there are the ethical implications of whether to award a men who is in command of the worlds largest standing army especially at a time when we're engaged in two wars. I admit I like some of the things Obama has done and he's doing an okay job as president, but it could be better plus like I said it's too early to tell if he has actually done much to really have an impact. Obama is in a good direction but so far all I've seen are speeches, I've yet to see significant changes in the world or even here in the US. In my opinion this award was redundant; he's still got a long way to go.

[RighteousReason]

I don't have any strong views about this, but feel a bit bemused by it. He's only been in power 5 minutes and what exactly is he meant to have done to get this honour? Maybe the Nobel committee think just by being black and getting to be president he has contributed to world peace and tolerance?

He was nominated 12 days after taking office.

[Oliver_R]

Thanks for the info. So we can expect Obama to lead the way to a nuclear-free future by unlilaterally disarming any time now can we?

[RighteousReason]

Yet another ironic little story for you global warming kool-aid drinkers:


Snow on Sunday! 'Would be earliest measurable in Chicago'...

Snow could be coming to town as early as this weekend. That’s right, snow. Flurries and flakes.

The forecast says that Saturday night rain will turn into the white stuff early Sunday morning.

If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago. The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.

Some other classic ones:

"Snow blankets London for global warming debate" from 2008,

Parts of south-east England had more than an inch of snow last night while London experienced its first October snowfall in more than 70 years as winter conditions arrived early.

Snow settled on the ground in parts of the capital last night as temperatures dipped below zero. A Met Office spokeswoman said it was London’s first October snow since 1934.

And also from January of this year,

"GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE"

Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming.

But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.

A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations.

Edited by RighteousReason, 09 October 2009 - 11:14 PM.

[forever freedom]

It is indeed a joke. Everyone is kissing Obama's ass but i still haven't figured out why. Why is it so hip to be pro-Obama?

[forever freedom]

Yet another ironic little story for you global warming kool-aid drinkers:


Snow on Sunday! 'Would be earliest measurable in Chicago'...

Snow could be coming to town as early as this weekend. That’s right, snow. Flurries and flakes.

The forecast says that Saturday night rain will turn into the white stuff early Sunday morning.

If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago. The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.

Some other classic ones:

"Snow blankets London for global warming debate" from 2008,

Parts of south-east England had more than an inch of snow last night while London experienced its first October snowfall in more than 70 years as winter conditions arrived early.

Snow settled on the ground in parts of the capital last night as temperatures dipped below zero. A Met Office spokeswoman said it was London’s first October snow since 1934.

And also from January of this year,

"GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE"

Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming.

But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.

A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations.

If it keeps on this pace, soon we will start to see more champions for the halt of the global cooling effect. Unfortunately, whatever the case, there will always be whiners trying to gain attention and power through whatever means necessary.

[kismet]

I don't really agree with that -- sometimes hard-nosed diplomacy, and even open conflict is necessary to bring about the conditions for lasting peace.

If open conflict is your euphemistic way of saying war, I'd like to challange you on that one. What kind of war in this day and age is more benefical than harmful and enables lasting peace (you can come up with a hypothetical and realistic scenario or choose from the wide range of "open conflicts" you have had in the recent past)?

forever freedom, because he is better than the maniac who was in charge before him. The one who watend to stomp progress. Anyone's better.

RighteousReason, ridiculous statement. I think you need to be verbally slapped in your face for such BS. How can Bush be more worthy of the Nobel? (hint: it's related to wars, war c rimes and such). The only answer is: you can't compare a president who was just elected and even less can you compare a war-mongering maniac like Bush to Obama. Think before posting or at least back your damn inflammatory statements with some arguments or evidence... spitting in the face of millions of war victims, eh?
I'm not even sure which G. Bush you mean, but IIRC both are guilty of wagging aggressive wars (although, I'm not so hot when it comes to world history. Scientists and ivory towers and all that...)

The award going to Obama is indeed kind of ridiculous, though.

Edited by kismet, 10 October 2009 - 07:16 PM.

[RighteousReason]

back your damn inflammatory statements with some arguments or evidence

I'm sorry if you can't read what I say or have a response that is thoughtful on what I said then I can't really do much for ya can I?

To reiterate, here is the key point:

Peace is not the absense of conflict, peace is having the ability to defend yourself.

From this definition I explained how Obama has been the most destructive American president ever for world peace. Logically, any president would be more worthy, including George Bush.

At least under Bush, anyone who wanted to attack the United States KNEW to have a very healthy fear and respect for us. Under Obama, we are more afraid of offending the peaceful religion of Islam than the radical islamists are afraid of our response to an attack on us.

Edited by RighteousReason, 10 October 2009 - 07:32 PM.

[forever freedom]

forever freedom, because he is better than the maniac who was in charge before him. The one who watend to stomp progress. Anyone's better.

Is this enough justification to give a man this award? I agree with you about Bush, but so what? It's not like Obama masterminded a coup to take Bush out before his term expired; he was to leave anyways, regardless of who came after.

This justification to give Obama the Nobel is as idiotic as Bush.

[RighteousReason]

back your damn inflammatory statements with some arguments or evidence

I'm sorry if you can't read what I say or have a response that is thoughtful on what I said then I can't really do much for ya can I?

To reiterate, here is the key point:

Peace is not the absense of conflict, peace is having the ability to defend yourself.

From this definition I explained how Obama has been the most destructive American president ever for world peace. Logically, any president would be more worthy, including George Bush.

At least under Bush, anyone who wanted to attack the United States KNEW to have a very healthy fear and respect for us. Under Obama, we are more afraid of offending the peaceful religion of Islam than the radical islamists are afraid of our response to an attack on us.

And to follow up on this, I believe in "Peace through strength" and "Taking the fight to the enemy before they bring it here". Bush was at least in the ballpark of doing the right strategy. Not saying the whole Iraq thing was right from the start, and especially was done wrong as things went on, but yeah he was actually a positive force of peace in the world, in dramatic opposition to the hugely negative force of peace in the world that Obama has been in just the first few months

[maxwatt]

Orwell, in 1984; the words at the entrance to the Ministry of Truth read: :War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength."

[forever freedom]

forever freedom, because he is better than the maniac who was in charge before him. The one who watend to stomp progress. Anyone's better.

Is this enough justification to give a man this award? I agree with you about Bush, but so what? It's not like Obama masterminded a coup to take Bush out before his term expired; he was to leave anyways, regardless of who came after.

This justification to give Obama the Nobel is as idiotic as Bush.

I realize your answer weren't about the Nobel but about why everyone loves Obama. Sorry about that, i had forgotten my previous question.

[nowayout]

Awarding the prize to Obama is an embarrassment. I don't know what the Nobel committee must have been smoking, but there is no better gift they could have given to the right. If Obama had any sense, he would refuse it in favor of someone worthy. However, experience has shown he is more into winning popularity contests than doing the right thing.

By the way, I am a liberal, but I don't support Obama. I think he is turning out to be a traitor to various liberal causes.

Edited by viveutvivas, 10 October 2009 - 10:52 PM.

[Sandman]

So many of you say that awarding the prize to Obama is an embarrassment and a joke and that he doesn't deserve it. But none of you justify your opinions.

Who would be better deserving, based on Alfred Nobels will?

...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Obama certainly has done all of the above during the last year. He has from, the top of my head:
-Improved US relations with Europe, Russia, Cuba, Burma, Iran, North Korea and much of the middle east.
-Has worked on reducing nuclear weapons and scrapped the silly missile shield.
-Promoted dialague rather than confrontation
-Put pressure on Israel to stop the building of settlements. As well as made an honest attempt to cool the situation down, the results of which can't be expected after just 9 months.
-Increased US support (and indirectly Russian) for the UN.

That the US was at war in Afghanistan when he took office can't be blamed on him.

Personally I think awarding him the peace prize was a bad idea, as reactions such as above would be expected. But he deserved it.

Edited by Sandman, 11 October 2009 - 09:11 AM.