President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

[NickCole]

Again, this was more of an encouragement prize ...

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

A Nobel Peace Prize awarded for encouragement.

As if this is Little League or a kindergarten class play.

 

[NickCole]

“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,” Jagland [chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway] said. “We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.”

Sounds like the award isn't for "encouragement" but for what Obama has done.

Problem is he hasn’t done anything except make some speeches.

 

[jackoroe]

You're exactly right Pumpkin. That's just what it reminded me of. Everybody gets a trophy, and nobody is a loser.

We've long since stopped rewarding actual accomplishments and now we reward intent.

It's not a reflection on Obama, but on the Nobel committee. It's really pretty embarrassing for them.

 

[Lostlover]

He's promised an end to a war, reduction on nuclear weapons and is actually trying diplomacy. This is also, the leader of the superpower in the world.

Pretty good start Mr. President.

 

[chance1]

Too bad he didn't win 2 weeks ago

Going to Copenhagen with that trophy woulda ...................

never mind

so silly that he won

just so silly

perhaps a little scary as well

 

[Apollo]

Too bad he didn't win 2 weeks ago

Going to Copenhagen with that trophy woulda ...................

never mind

so silly that he won

just so silly

perhaps a little scary as well

I just hope he lives up to the award. So far he has on a lot of his policies. But of course he is the president in the real world, and he seems to recognize that not all policies can be peaceful.

I just like that he tries the peaceful way first and truly means it before he has to get tougher.

 

[JB3]

Right wingers and the Taliban are in agreement that he doesn't deserve it. Limbaugh and Beck support the Taliban. Always thought so.

Aren't the Taliban terrorists?

Taliban = terrorism

Rush and Glenn = agree with Taliban = terrorism

Rush & Glenn = terrorists

Yuppers, it adds up.

Weren't these guys wailing about Chicago not getting the Olympics just a few days ago?

AMERICA..... LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

So I see you're channeling your inner Alfie and reading the DNC talking points now? Weren't people like you up in arms when Republicans compared Democrats to terrorists or said they were making us vulnerable to attacks?

 

[Zingerific]

Well, the Peace Prize has been political, and controversial, for a long time. Teddy Roosevelt won one, of all people; he's probably the most aggressive, jingoistic, pro-war figure in American history, who had a hand in provoking the Spanish American war because he thought a war would be good for "American manhood" or somesuch nonsense.

Roosevelt won it in 1906 for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese war. I don't know anything about the details, but my gut suspicion is that he was instrumental in preserving what was left of Russian dignity after they got their asses handed to them by Japan; that is to say, in the parlance of the time, he was protecting "(white) civilization" against the "yellow menace."

I know 1906 was a long time ago, but my point is that this award is, by its very nature, extremely subjective, so all this talk about qualifications is really beside the point. A couple people decided to give Obama the prize because they liked him, and cooked up a sufficiently vague justification after the fact.

Someone, I don't remember who, said today that this prize could unwittingly be used for hawkish purposes, ala "even nobel prize winner Obama says we need to use force...."

The right has made a cottage industry out of being outraged by the nobel prize, so they are acting true to form. (I don't know how they reacted to Kissinger's win. It's mind-blowing to recall that Kissinger was disliked by the right back in the day -- my how times have changed.)

 

[Red Storm]

I first heard this on the car radio driving to get a burger at Wendy's. My first thought was "OMG..... will there be howls of sarcasm & protest coming from JUBBERS about this".

Now, three pages later of comments from the self appointed experts about why he shouldn't have received it I found I was correct. For someone who people are calling the "worst president ever", "undeserving" and everything else in the book, he's doing alright for himself, isn't he!

The Obama haters will have a field day with this, and I'm going to sit back and watch the fun of them making even bigger fools of themselves.

President Barack Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!

God I love it! Congratulations Mr. President!

The worst president ever is George W. Bush. he won that one straight up.

 

[JB3]

Well, the Peace Prize has been political, and controversial, for a long time. Teddy Roosevelt won one, of all people; he's probably the most aggressive, jingoistic, pro-war figure in American history, who had a hand in provoking the Spanish American war because he thought a war would be good for "American manhood" or somesuch nonsense.

Roosevelt won it in 1906 for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese war. I don't know anything about the details, but my gut suspicion is that he was instrumental in preserving what was left of Russian dignity after they got their asses handed to them by Japan; that is to say, in the parlance of the time, he was protecting "(white) civilization" against the "yellow menace."

I know 1906 was a long time ago, but my point is that this award is, by its very nature, extremely subjective, so all this talk about qualifications is really beside the point. A couple people decided to give Obama the prize because they liked him, and cooked up a sufficiently vague justification after the fact.

Someone, I don't remember who, said today that this prize could unwittingly be used for hawkish purposes, ala "even nobel prize winner Obama says we need to use force...."

The right has made a cottage industry out of being outraged by the nobel prize, so they are acting true to form. (I don't know how they reacted to Kissinger's win. It's mind-blowing to recall that Kissinger was disliked by the right back in the day -- my how times have changed.)

The reason why there's been outrage is because the award has been increasingly given based on purely political reasons. Four of the last eight winners were direct rebukes to President Bush, Obama included. The committee that chooses the winners has a distinctly leftward stance, and it has become more apparent since Bush was elected.

Awards like this should not be given based on politics; it cheapens the award, and cheapens the meaning for past recipients.

 

[Zingerific]

Awards like this should not be given based on politics

I don't think it's even possible to give a "peace prize" without political implications; what else could it possibly be based on?

The very notion of a prize for peace requires a certain ideological stance -- a stance that a great many conservatives (and others) in the US take exception to. It is usually articulated as a critique of appeasement, or an appeal to higher values, but make no mistake, there are those for whom "peace" is not a motivating force. Remember "better dead than Red?" I suspect that anyone voicing that sentiment doesn't think to highly of "peace" as an ultimate end.

 

[JB3]

I don't think it's even possible to give a "peace prize" without political implications; what else could it possibly be based on?

The very notion of a prize for peace requires a certain ideological stance -- a stance that a great many conservatives (and others) in the US take exception to. It is usually articulated as a critique of appeasement, or an appeal to higher values, but make no mistake, there are those for whom "peace" is not a motivating force. Remember "better dead than Red?" I suspect that anyone voicing that sentiment doesn't think to highly of "peace" as an ultimate end.

It doesn't have to be ideological. Look at some of the past winners; many were working to make life better for their fellow citizens and not pursuing any ideological agenda. Although it is named the 'peace' prize, many of the recipients were not pursuing 'peace'.

 

[DiamondSkin]

Obama won WHAT?

Politics aside, he doesn't deserve it.

God, the Nobel Prize has fallen so low. It used to be about people who made a real difference in the world. Like the Dali Lama.

 

[JB3]

The International Red Cross has gotten the award several times, Mother Teresa, the Dali Lama if I am not mistaken, Archbishop Tutu, and few scores of others...

Exactly. Until recently, the award was not political. It was given to people that did genuine good in the world. Obama was given the award based on his agenda and some 'good' that he may or may not do in the future. But even then, the 'good' he seeks is nothing on the scale of those that have come before him.

 

[Zingerific]

Until recently, the award was not political.

Wilson won way back in 1919 partially for his work in establishing the League of Nations. Wilson winning the 1919 prize amounts to an endorsement by the Nobel committee of the League; regardless of one's views on the League, such an endorsement is hardly ideologically neutral. It suggests a definite political point of view taken by the committee.

This is basically a manifestation of the "good old days" meme; to suggest that the prize has only recently become political is sheer nonsense.

 

[seven2go]

I voted for AND support Obama........but I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK he got if for EITHER.......

 

[palemale]

So, the deadline was in Feb. he had been in office two weeks, so the process must have started during the election. So, I guess they are giving him the peace prize for his campaign. Wow, that is a first giving a Peace Prize for how a person runs a political campaign.

Actually, that is pretty much the reason Aung San Suu Kyi won. That and then she was arrested. You see, I asked Nik2 what her accomplishments were and why she was more deserving then Obama. He said I wasn't well informed. But you will notice he could never answer my question. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the Nobel committee for giving her the award, she deserved it. That doesn't make her more accomplished then Prez. Obama.

And of course you and the two Nicks (NickCole and Nik2) had your little amen corner for the Dali Lama. Well, what the fuck did the Dali Lama ever accomplish? Man never worked a day in his life, runs around the world spouting bullshit, signed his country over to China, met with the head of the cult that released poison in the Tokyo subways, and is lauded by Hollywood airheads and New Age nudniks as a man of peace. And he won the Nobel Peace Prize. For what? But, the 2 Nicks think he's hot shit, so he must be a very accomplished man. I must be ill informed. Someone, please enlighten me.

 

[JB3]

Wilson won way back in 1919 partially for his work in establishing the League of Nations. Wilson winning the 1919 prize amounts to an endorsement by the Nobel committee of the League; regardless of one's views on the League, such an endorsement is hardly ideologically neutral. It suggests a definite political point of view taken by the committee.

This is basically a manifestation of the "good old days" meme; to suggest that the prize has only recently become political is sheer nonsense.

Are you serious? The league of nations was not political, and his award for it was not either. For you to think so shows a complete lack of understanding of the history regarding the league, Wilson himself, and the reason for him winning the award.

 

[Zingerific]

Are you serious? The league of nations was not political, and his award for it was not either. For you to think so shows a complete lack of understanding of the history regarding the league, Wilson himself, and the reason for him winning the award.

Are you serious? The League is the reason the Senate rejected the Versailles treaty, and indirectly responsible for Harding's landslide victory.

But that's really beside the point. What I was trying to say is that support for the League was a manifestation of a certain viewpoint (multilateral, internationalist, belief in collective security) that is ideological in nature -- a viewpoint that follows from a particular political philosophy. The League was a rejection of both old-school European nationalism and Republican isolationism.

I suspect that I am using the term "political" in a much broader sense than you are, Droid800.

 

[NickCole]

And of course you and the two Nicks (NickCole and Nik2) had your little amen corner for the Dali Lama. Well, what the fuck did the Dali Lama ever accomplish? Man never worked a day in his life, runs around the world spouting bullshit, signed his country over to China, met with the head of the cult that released poison in the Tokyo subways, and is lauded by Hollywood airheads and New Age nudniks as a man of peace. And he won the Nobel Peace Prize. For what? But, the 2 Nicks think he's hot shit, so he must be a very accomplished man. I must be ill informed. Someone, please enlighten me.

First of all, for the record, all I said about the Dalai Lama is that Obama had snubbed him in what would have been his first meeting with the the Dalai Lama earlier this week, then at the end of the week Obama awoke to news he'd received the Nobel Peace Prize and then later in the day met with his war council. That's all I said about the Dalai Lama.

But much more importantly, your wrong and dismissive and disrepsectful characterization of the Dalai Lama is just another example of how a faction of Democrats are changing the Democratic Party since Obama came along. It's a shame because ObamaNation is making over the Democratic Party just like ugly elements did to the Republican Party and the voice of decency and truth is getting swept aside.

Contrary to your characterization that the Dalai Lama has never worked a day in his life, he in truth has been working since he was a boy. At 15 he became the spiritual and political leader of Tibet, which means he'd been working hard up to then to be prepared for that at such a young age. He has spent his life working, spiritually, intellectually and politically, leading Tibetans and Buddhists worldwide and teaching and writing extensively. I won't list his work but the information is available from many sources including the easy to read Wiki page.

It's very sad what some --too many-- Obama supporters are doing to the Democratic Party and to the future of our nation with this kind of ungenerous untruthful and gratuitously mean-spirited characterization of people and accomplishment. It is troubling, and revealing, that some Obama supporters shamelessly and arrogantly claim that the Nobel Peace Prize is not intended to be a prize for achievement. According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize should be awarded: “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.” Having done something is about achievement, accomplishment, not merely delivering teleprompter speeches written by someone else while, in action, continuing policies that allow places like Gitmo to remain open, proof of torture to remain secreted and wars to continue and escalate.

The Dalai Lama has earned the respect and consideration that Barack Obama has merely seduced some into believing he deserves.