Comments on: Obama’s Nobel citation speaks of shared values – is hope on top?

By: mary willis

mary willis — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:46:59 +0000

Personally I think that he was given this so that we wouldn’t try to impeach him for being the idiot that he is and worse of all for the majority of our nation being bigger idiots. Not sure who is worse him or Hilary, but if we don’t wise up and do something about both of these and his czars, the America that so many thousands have died for, won’t be here for our future generations. And I can in all honestly say, I voted against both of them!!!!

By: brian lee

brian lee — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:25:40 +0000

If Al gore had won the presidency instead of Bush and was leaving office,would Obama have received this award? Probably not!so the conclusion is that this was handed to president Obama not because of what he has achieved which considering it was awarded after only eleven days in office,but as a protest against George Bushes presidency.Any other conclusion can only validate that this was a decision that was political motivated.

By: POST SOMETHING

POST SOMETHING — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 02:02:49 +0000

Do you moderaters do anything at all? Do you actually post comments or just ignore everthing and let it self delete or something–stop being so picky. 5 comments in the last 2 hours?? come on.

By: kalpel888

kalpel888 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:01:00 +0000

The only Nobel Prizes that have any value are the science ones; the literature and peace prizes are complete jokes.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:43:53 +0000

Kissinger was given the award for assisting in the ceasefire with North Vietnam.

Many people (myself included) don’t think he should have gotten the prize. But at least it was given for actual things he did.

Obama has done nothing. He has been given this award simply because of his popularity.

He might be a beacon of hope. Or a sign that Europe loves America now. Or a promise of better times. Or a source of kudos to America.

But these have nothing to do with the peace prize, or the actual peace work this award is supposed to recognise. And Obama’s winning this award has forever destroyed the meaning behind it.

And because the winning of this award is the product of Obama’s cult of personality, which he had a direct hand in creating, he is also personally to blame for this affair.

Whether he accepts or rejects this award, the damage has been done. Both to the nobel peace prize itself, and him being made to look like a over-worshipped fool.

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:50:51 +0000

“As of today, the nobel peace prize is meaningless. It is just given to whoever we like, without actual consideration of what they did to deserve it.” – Anon

Wait, you’re talking about a prize won by Kissinger. How can any ‘peace’ prize won by Kissinger not have died then? Your sour grapes are pathetic. It’s not like the guy awarded it to himself. Be mad at the Nobel committee if you want, but the recipient had nothing to do with it.

By: Atom

Atom — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:39:28 +0000

This is a funny statement… “Shared by the majority of the world’s population”… Are these guys at nobel prize nuts? Do they have some shame left? They reinforce the Charles Darwin message that europeans are descendants of chimps trying to hang to branchless trees.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:59:27 +0000

So essentially Obama got the award for winning the presidency, and for being popular in Europe. Not for anything he has actually done to forward the interests of peace.

As of today, the nobel peace prize is meaningless. It is just given to whoever we like, without actual consideration of what they did to deserve it.

Way to go, Obama. You just killed the nobel peace prize. I hope it was worth it.