PDA

View Full Version : Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize



BoulderDawg
10-09-2009, 11:09 AM
Love it!:D

Can't wait to see the various clips from all of the neo shows out there!:eek:

uki
10-09-2009, 12:00 PM
yeah it's all over now... even his wars will be justified.

1bad65
10-09-2009, 12:24 PM
Well, he is in great company. Lets see who else has won one of these prizes: Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore.

So, he is the company of a Communist dictator, a terrorist, an anti-Semite, and a pathological liar.

Hell, if I won one I'd return the stupid thing.

karateguy
10-09-2009, 12:29 PM
I cant express in words how awesome this is for a sitting U.S. president!!!!

xcakid
10-09-2009, 01:34 PM
Nominated 2wks into his office huh?

Lemme see:
If I go around the world apologizing for everything my family has ever done. Claiming my family is mostly a particular religion of a region I am currently in. Then taking off all the locks and security systems in my home. Charged up all my credit cards and give away money. Then I will try and convince people into paying for other peoples debt and medical. Maybe, just maybe I will win one too. :p

uki
10-09-2009, 01:36 PM
I cant express in words how awesome this is for a sitting U.S. president!!!!i am lost for words as to just how dumb your post was...

Mr Punch
10-09-2009, 11:16 PM
OK, I think Obama getting the NPP is as ridiculous as you, but:
...Mikhail Gorbachev... a Communist dictator...???

HISTORY FAIL!

Vajramusti
10-11-2009, 08:46 AM
Hell, if I won one I'd return the stupid thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well- there is no danger of you having to return a Nobel prize!!

joy chaudhuri

1bad65
10-12-2009, 07:09 AM
Well- there is no danger of you having to return a Nobel prize!!

Maybe if I bombed innocent women and children, called for the destruction of Israel, and was the only person to ever address the UN while carrying a firearm I would win one. It worked for Arafat.

1bad65
10-12-2009, 07:11 AM
HISTORY FAIL!

Are you saying Gorbachev was not a Communist dictator?

So, what political party was he a member of? And what year was he elected to office?

Drake
10-12-2009, 08:43 AM
I got it... 1Bad is of a different political affiliation than most folks on here. HOWEVER, it is childish and ignorant to demean him and insult him for his opinions for that reason.

He makes some very good points, and this is coming from someone who supports his Commander in Chief.

Mr Punch
10-12-2009, 05:45 PM
Are you saying Gorbachev was not a Communist dictator?Yes.


So, what political party was he a member of? And what year was he elected to office?He was a member of the Communist Party (though of course they hadn't been communist in anything but name for years if ever), as was anyone in the Soviet Union at that time. He was elected into office (the office of General Secretary IIRC) in 1985 (again IIRC) by the Politburo: the only way for anyone to be able to rise to power in the SU at the time.

As soon as he was in power, and aided by in some ways very helpful support by Reagan and Thatcher, he began dissolving the SU and Communist Party as anyone knew it, by instigating free voting systems. What did he "dictate" to whom? He dictated alcohol price rises to combat the endemic alcoholism throughout the SU; he singlehandedly decided to initiate 'New thinking' (glasnost, perestroika etc) domestically and with regards to foreign policy including halting the deployment of SS20s in Europe within weeks of coming into power against the wishes of his army and possibly many of the people, and many many other radical reforms all aimed at bringing democracy to the SU. So yes, I suppose, technically he was a dictator...! And how else was anyone to achieve democracy without bloodshed?

Drake, who's demeaning and insulting him? I was using a lighthearted attention grabbing way of opening a debate.

1bad65
10-13-2009, 07:12 AM
So yes, I suppose, technically he was a dictator...!

So why did you say "History Fail" when I said that?

Even by your own admission, he was a member of the Communist Party who was never voted into office by the people. Sounds like a communist dictator to me. And even after his reforms, he still never won an election by the people of the USSR/Russia.

calciums
10-13-2009, 08:55 AM
Until he is fashionable, obama might be nominated better actor also, best friend, best dancer, anything.

BoulderDawg
10-13-2009, 09:57 AM
I personally think that he should have pull every soldier out of the middle east the first month he was in office. Then he would earned the prize.

Anyway the Nobel committee can give the prize to whoever they wish but giving it to Peres and Rabin, two men who have bombed civilians, was just crazy.

KC Elbows
10-13-2009, 01:55 PM
A few people on here are old enough to understand why a black man just getting elected president of the U.S. is notable, a few others are worldly enough to understand why it's a good example for much of the world.

1bad65
10-13-2009, 02:15 PM
A few people on here are old enough to understand why a black man just getting elected president of the U.S. is notable, a few others are worldly enough to understand why it's a good example for much of the world.

I'm confused as to your point. :confused:

But it sounds like to me you are saying race was a factor in his winning this award. Did I misunderstand you? If so, can you please tell me what your point was?

KC Elbows
10-13-2009, 02:57 PM
I think it's been well documented that the prize sometimes goes to people who represent trends or potential trends. Considering the racial troubles due to immigration policies in much of Europe, and the split between the middle east and us, it is hardly a stretch to suggest that the "cooperation between people's" portion of the rationale for giving the prize might be in part due to the distinction he holds in being the first black man with even a hope of becoming president (matched with his departure from cold war era thinking that only applied to a world in ruins), a national achievement in a country that previously had similar, if not worse, racial tensions than Europe currently has.

I.e., look, the U.S., a country that, in it's region, was one of the last to abolish slavery, who, regarding race relations between blacks and whites, has, until very recent history, been infamous more than famous, has achieved this, and here is an individual that, despite these very recent historical realities, is the benchmark for progress made by any man, much less a minority member in his own country.

In the U.S., the possibility for equality and equity was likely a motivator for seeking reform over seeking outright rebellion. Symbols of possibility, especially in the form of famous individuals, provided the hope for this possibility, even when, in truth, most received little or no constitutional rights in their daily life. The sort of prize Obama received tends to provide this kind of motivation to people, let's get along now so that we can solve these problems in the future, except this one is aimed more broadly at different targets.

This is not to suggest that the prize might not also be support for measures that might be more politically European. However, it seems unlikely that the world really cares about our medical system, and European ideas about a post cold war world hardly require U.S. agreement, nor is it likely that those awarding the prize are so naive as to believe that statements regarding peace create any hope of U.S. removal from the economic interests that define our current struggles.

It might also be a backhanded slap at U.S. provincialism, at world policing to supposedly spread democracy in the middle east while endorsing fake elections and trying to make a middle eastern name like Hussein something to be ashamed of in public in the U.S.

Historically, anyone who comes to be the leader of a people the majority of whom recently sought his own people's subjugation or turned a blind eye to their subjugation, who becomes leader without pandering to those people or demeaning them, is not just interesting, but by definition, remarkable.

Now, explain how spitting on Gorby doesn't equate to spitting on Reagan, citing worldnet daily at least once.:D;):p

1bad65
10-14-2009, 07:31 AM
Now, explain how spitting on Gorby doesn't equate to spitting on Reagan, citing worldnet daily at least once.:D;):p

I have no idea what you mean by this. Gorbachev and Reagan were ideologically quite different. One was a Communist dictator; the other was the leader of the free world, who won two national elections by landslides.

And fyi, the last time someone was awarded one of these stupid things for 'Hope' and 'Change' was Woodrow Wilson. And he failed to achieve what the socialist panel who gave him the prize were 'hoping' he would achieve. The US never joined the League of Nations.

So far the only 'Change' we've seen under Obama is higher debt and higher unemployment.

KC Elbows
10-14-2009, 12:39 PM
I have no idea what you mean by this. Gorbachev and Reagan were ideologically quite different. One was a Communist dictator; the other was the leader of the free world, who won two national elections by landslides.

Reagan's legacy is entirely dependent on the idea that Gorbachev was not merely a communist dictator. Especially now that deregulation has proven the need for regulation.

And you failed to cite worldnet news daily.

If you cannot put forth the effort, I'm afraid I cannot justify further discussion.;):D

1bad65
10-14-2009, 01:38 PM
Reagan's legacy is entirely dependent on the idea that Gorbachev was not merely a communist dictator. Especially now that deregulation has proven the need for regulation.

Actually it was Reagan's decision to deploy the Pershing II Missiles and his pursuit of the 'Star Wars' missile shield that forced the USSR to vastly increase their military spending and thus made their economy implode just as Reagan had predicted years before that it would. Gorbachev should only get credit for not sending in the tanks to squash the protests that sprang up as a result of their economy imploding.

And if Gorbachev was such a great guy, why did he not tear down the Berlin Wall until years after Reagan called for him to do so?


And you failed to cite worldnet news daily.

If you cannot put forth the effort, I'm afraid I cannot justify further discussion.;):D

Smartass ;)

BoulderDawg
10-22-2009, 09:42 AM
Those conservatives in Washington are just so funny!

I loved it when Obama went to Europe to plead the case for the Olympics. The GOP just absolutely jumped all over the man for not spending time here on serious matters like health care.

However now Obama is back in the White House and what are the Neos concerned about?

Sen McCain is just all up in arms about the injustice done to Jack Johnson and want Obama to look into the matter and give him a pardon. All well and good. However Johnson died about 80-90 years ago.:D A pardon is not going to do Jack a whole hell of a lot of good.

Also, Sen Hatch is concerned about how the NCAA football champion is chosen every year and wants Obama to investigate that matter.

I guess these two issues are much more important in the eyes of the GOP.:D

ittokaos
10-22-2009, 09:49 PM
It was his fault for being an idiot and giving them the opportunity to judge him once again. About a week before, he was saying that he was not going to go BECAUSE he had to focus on health care. Then, Oprah was all ready to go and now all of a sudden health care isn't that big of a deal. Granted, politicians are always going to try to focus on matters that frankly, don't matter but Obama really should have done what he said that he was going to do. He is giving his opposition perfect examples that they can use to sway the country away from him. Based on current polls, they have. He really needs a "keep me on task" czar.

David Jamieson
10-27-2009, 08:35 AM
He didn't deserve it and he should have refused it and used the opportunity to make a point about it.

He didn't. My view of his rhetoric/image has diminished considerably in regards to this.

Everyone wants to end nuclear proliferation. He hasn't enacted anything that merits a peace prize.

It clarifies what a useless prize the peace prize is. I mean, If Arafat getting it didn't clarify that, then this is a refresher.

Personally, I also think they may have given it to him in the hopes it would stop him from bombing Iran.

His acceptance of it pretty much sews it up that he won't do that in the immediate future.

ultimately, there is no way the guy deserved it though.

Lokhopkuen
11-02-2009, 09:32 PM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q69/lokhopkuen/13735_169638107722_503742722_327712.jpg