That's cool. President Obama said as much as well. I'm still enjoying the rightwing heads exploding over this issue.
Like I said, these off-the-rails rightwing exploding head sound bites will make great fodder in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Keep shooting yourselves in the crotch. How about advocating an armed coup taking over the government? I bet you can get your guys to support that. Go for it.
Well, Jim, it appears that both the right and left say Obama doesn't deserve the prioze--and Obama even said it himself.
So you are a unique whatever.
=================================
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
But, then, what is your problem with President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
Jim.
*****************
his recieving this years prize for their reasions stated
renders it less valuable
it cheapens the value of the award for those who spent lifetimes (remember this word....it means something) ....EARNING .....the honor
when it is given as a political trophy it cheapens its rarity and thus its intrinsic value for thiose truly deserving people who EARNED it
now...in the view of many...
it no longer means that a person was dedicated to peace...it now means he was dedicated to liberalism
thus...the trophy is as worthless as a tee ball trophy awarded to the team of the trophy shop-owner's son....when they were not the best team....they merely were favored by the giver......
Hey, he's a war monger in Afghanistan? No, he says the enemy ins in Pakistan. Gee, maybe we have no enemies.
That's why I asked the question of his fighting or being overcome by his new reputation of Prince of Peace.
=================================
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
it cheapens the value of the award for those who spent lifetimes (remember this word....it means something) ....EARNING .....the honor
when it is given as a political trophy it cheapens its rarity and thus its intrinsic value for thiose truly deserving people who EARNED it
*************************************
You have no clue as to the distinction of "earned".. For more detail, see my words above.
******************************************
now...in the view of many... it no longer means that a person was dedicated to peace...it now means he was dedicated to liberalism
************************************
According to whom? You?
Please. You are the arbiter of nothing.
**************************************
thus...the trophy is as worthless as a tee ball trophy awarded to the team of the trophy shop-owner's son....when they were not the best team....they merely were favored by the giver......
worthless
******************************
Although it has become a bit of a trite phrase lately, I would call that a bit of "projection".
You understand "worthless" because you are probably living it.
Jim, your opinion, like everyone else's, is precisely that, your opinion. You may be better read than many of us ... or not. You may have a better education than many of us ... or not. You may be many things that the rest of us are not ... or not. So, I have the following to say to you:
As to your opinion, "I could give a shit less. I do not care what is valuable to you. I consider you beneath contempt. Next?" I say to you, "I could give a shit less. I do not care what is valuable to you. I consider you beneath contempt. Next?"
As to Obama having "earned" the Nobel Prize, you wrote: "You have no clue as to the distinction of "earned".. For more detail, see my words above." As you did not address the issue of the President, or anyone else, having "earned" the Nobel Peace Prize, I find this to be a self-serving and somewhat ignorant response to what was said. Perhaps more substance and less denigration might be called for?
You then wrote: "According to whom? You? Please. You are the arbiter of nothing." And you are the abiter of what? I've often wondered what you felt you were the abiter of ... if anything.
And, finally, you wrote: "Although it has become a bit of a trite phrase lately, I would call that a bit of "projection". You understand "worthless" because you are probably living it." That is simply cruel and uncalled for on your part, Jim. Having no knowledge of Gillis' background and/or life you are again setting yourself up as "arbiter" of who and/or what he is given his life experiences.
I have one question for you, Jim, who died and left you god? (I'd put the word "god" in caps, but you are not God, not even in your wildest dreams!)
Take care.
Blessed Be.
Alice
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed frequently and for the same reason." From the movie, "Man of the Year"
Obama was awarded the Nobel, whether you like it or not, whether you think he earned it or not, no matter what anyone says it does not change that fact. The Nobel committee does not answer to any of you so give it up folks, be happy for America because the award gives the nation a boost in prestige, and with all the problems that we have we can stand a boost in prestige and pride.
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
Obama was awarded the Nobel, whether you like it or not, whether you think he earned it or not, no matter what anyone says it does not change that fact. The Nobel committee does not answer to any of you so give it up folks, be happy for America because the award gives the nation a boost in prestige, and with all the problems that we have we can stand a boost in prestige and pride.
*****************
that's the entire issue with his having not EARNED IT
there is no prestige
they removed the prestige by bypassing those who really worked for a lifetime earning the honor and giving it to a political bed-fellow to promote his "prestige"
without actually earning the honor (having it given to him for political Verisimilitude)
The Affirmative Action Nobel
Pat Buchanan
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
All my life, said Voltaire, I have had but one prayer: "O Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous. And God granted it."
In awarding the Nobel Prize for Peace to Barack Obama, the Nobel committee has just made itself look ridiculous.
Consider. Though they had lead roles in ending a Cold War lasting half a century, between a nuclear-armed Soviet Empire and the West, neither Ronald Reagan nor John Paul II ever got a Nobel Prize.
In 1987, Reagan negotiated the greatest arms reduction treaty in modern time, the INF agreement removing all Soviet SS-20s and all U.S. Pershing and cruise missiles from Europe.
Other than hosting the "Beer Summit" between Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police and Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, what has Obama done to compare with what these statesmen did to make ours a more peaceful and better world?
What has Obama accomplished to compare with what the other sitting presidents to receive the Nobel Prize accomplished?
Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 for the Portsmouth Treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson won the 1919 Nobel Prize for getting Germany to accept his 14 Points as the basis for an armistice that ended the bloodiest war in all of European history.
And what about Richard Nixon?
In 1972, he made his historic trip to China, ending a quarter century of hostility, negotiated SALT I with Leonid Brezhnev, limiting ICBMs, and ended U.S. involvement in Vietnam. True, Nixon persuaded Hanoi to sign the Paris Peace Accords only after 13 days of "Christmas bombing."
Yet that did not deter the Nobel committee from giving the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Hanoi 's Le Duc Tho.
Early in the week his award was announced, Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama, the 1989 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who has spent 50 years as a courageous voice for the rights of his Tibetan people, who have endured half a century of Chinese communist repression and cultural genocide. Which of these -- the Dalai Lama or Barack Obama -- seems more deserving of a Nobel Prize for Peace?
Since the news broke, the president has been a national object of mockery and mirth. In fairness, this is not his fault. There is no evidence he lobbied for the prize; no evidence he knew it was coming.
"Is this April Fools' Day?" said one startled aide.
In accepting, Barack was properly humble, saying that he did not belong in the company of previous recipients, that he would try to live up to the expectations his Nobel had created.
It is the members of the Nobel committee who have made fools of themselves and further devalued their prize, if that is still possible.
For how many Americans could, without Google, identify Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Muhammad Yunus and Martti Ahtisaari? Who are they? The 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008 winners of the Nobel Prize for Peace. In that company at least, Barack, for his willingness to talk to America's adversaries and enemies, is not outshone.
Indeed, looking down the list of other recipients in this decade -- Jimmy Carter in 2002, Muhammad ElBaradei in 2005, Al Gore in 2007 and Obama -- the committee should probably rename it the Nobel Prize for Peace ... and Stick-It-to-George Bush Trophy.
By 2002, Carter, who should have been included in the 1978 Nobel that went to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat for the Israeli-Egyptian peace he brokered at Camp David, had become a global pest, bedeviling Bush, as he did Bill Clinton, in violation of the tradition of ex-presidents, all the while accomplishing nothing.
While the International Atomic Energy Agency was right about no atomic weapons or programs in Iraq, ElBaradai himself regretted not having been more courageous in opposing the war. As for Gore, his prize was the committee's way of providing publicity for a campaign against global warming that is a front for the latest scheme to advance world government.
As for Obama, he got the award because he is the quintessential anti-Bush. Yet, the Nobel committee did him no service.
They have brazenly meddled in the internal affairs of the United States. They have reinforced the impression that Obama is someone who is forever being given prizes -- Ivy League scholarships, law review editorships, prime-time speaking slots at national conventions -- he did not earn. They have put him under moral pressure to mollify a pacifist left. They have brought him to the point, dangerous in politics, where a man becomes the butt of reflexive jokes, as did Bill Clinton in the Monica affair.
These Norwegian groupies, acting out of "adolescent adulation," writes the Financial Times, have exposed themselves as "an annex to the left wing of the U.S. Democratic Party" with a "deeply misguided act" that will "embarrass (Obama's) allies and egg on his detractors."
The committee did something else. They ensured that their Nobel Peace Prize will never be taken as seriously again as once it was.
This message has been edited by gillis7 on Oct 13, 2009 9:38 AM
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
Obama was awarded the Nobel, whether you like it or not, whether you think he earned it or not, no matter what anyone says it does not change that fact.
So what are we doing here? We aren't supposed to say anything even if we think it is stupid of them? Is that your point?
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
that's the entire issue with his having not EARNED IT
there is no prestige they removed the prestige by bypassing those who really worked for a lifetime earning the honor and giving it to a political bed-fellow to promote his "prestige"
without actually earning the honor (having it given to him for political Verisimilitude)
the prestige has been replaced
with a political pedistal
************************
Look how Obama is bringing people together. Chavez and most (but not all) of the Obama haters and Obama dislikers. me being politically correct.
other than him just being a member of the elitist self congradulatories who award each other for nothing and call it prestige in order to praise FELLOW SOCIALISTS AND PROMOTE AN IDEOLOGY (OVER ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS) WHICH WERE PASSED OVER FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE POLITICAL PEDESTAL IN QUESTION?
If Obama wants to make gillis, chavez and other Obama haters happy he needs to put contracts out on anyone who has any connection at all to the Nobel Prize committee. If Obama would have all of those involved whacked he will have done one thing they approve of.
FELLOW SOCIALISTS AND PROMOTE AN IDEOLOGY (OVER ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS) WHICH WERE PASSED OVER FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE POLITICAL PEDESTAL IN QUESTION?
************************************
I rest my case gillis. You are off the rails. My guess?
![[linked image]](http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/images/ObamaChavez.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/Mawahka/bagley.jpg)
me being politically correct. 