Comments on: The First Draft: What was the Nobel committee thinking?

By: brian lee

brian lee — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:07:37 +0000

scarecrow you are endorsing my point,you did not mention Obama you just said some one like him should have got the award after the bush regime,so Bush was really the big influence.So anyone in the 200 hundred applicants should have been considered as long as they were opposite to Bush.Does this smell as much about politics as peace?But you bring up another interesting theory that really the American people got the award for kicking out conservatives well at least 52%of them,all politics my friend the peace aspect only incidental.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:03:04 +0000

“So there’s some logic in awarding the Peace Prize not just to someone who rhetorically suggests there are other ways to get your way besides invading countries, but implicitly to American voters for kicking the worst warmongers out of office.”

Yes. But none of this logic addresses the fact that Obama hasn’t actually done anything.

Simple rhetoric and rewarding Americans for making the “right” choice at an election has never been relevent to the Nobel Peace Prize.

Nor is claiming an intention to reduce nuclear weapons. Most presidents say so at some point in their careers. And most don’t get a peace prize out of it.

And if my memory serves me correctly, Bush wasn’t kicked out of anywhere. He served his two terms. And left on his own terms.

So can anyone mention what Obama DID do to deserve the award, aside from being popular?

By: Scarecrow

Scarecrow — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:47:22 +0000

So brian thinks it was America’s exceptional militarism, and not some guy who’d rather talk than fight, that deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Hmmmm. OK, but when you combine this enormous military capability with the notion of “American Exceptionalism,” an immature frat boy for President and Dick Cheney as his handler, it’s also not a surprise that the rest of the world viewed this as a dangerous threat to their peace and security.

It’s perfectly understandable that the much of the world was very relieved to get rid of the Cheney/neoconservative crowd. So there’s some logic in awarding the Peace Prize not just to someone who rhetorically suggests there are other ways to get your way besides invading countries, but implicitly to American voters for kicking the worst warmongers out of office.

By: Joe Blogs

Joe Blogs — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:15:35 +0000

The award is totally fitting for Obama. Notice how the little he’s “done” aligns quite well with the previous Bush policies in Iraq (no change there) and Afghanistan (dither, dither, whatever happened to the “good war?”) He took Bush’s financial idiocy and quadrupled it (all the time sounding like a 5 year old telling mommy, ‘he started it!’) and hasn’t followed through on anything else. Gitmo rolls on (easy to critize but tough to change) and Gays still can’t come out in the military. Yes, the quality of this award fits the receipient.

By: Dho

Dho — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:30:36 +0000

He won because he makes people feel a lot better. You’re joking right? But if that’s the criteria then perhaps marijuana farmers, or massage therapists, should get the award.

By: brian lee

brian lee — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:42:44 +0000

thats a valid point getplaning he is getting the award for making people feel better.There is a lot at present going on that people need to feel better about, and complaining about being out of work or foreclosing on their homes is spiteful and foolish,but there again not his fault it is Bushes fault.But by same token he is getting this award because it IS bushes fault according to you.He is only getting the award not for what he has done which is nothing, but because of what Bush has done.So in that case if you liberals are so pleased that Obama has received this award then at least give George some of the credit.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:18:51 +0000

“Why would we have to prove anything to you?”

Ah, touché. Well, just for sh*ts and giggles, I suppose.

“First off, did you create the Nobel Peace Prize?”

Not relevent.

“Did you complain about all the other wins you disagreed with?”

Not relevent. But what the hell. I’ll bite.

I complained about some. But at least their awards were for real action. This award was the first time it was given for NO real action. Amirite?

“Since Republicans apparently either have their content filters set too high, or have simply never learned about search engines, allow me to provide you with some insight”

Another ad hominem attack. A sign that you can’t answer the question.

(Checks links)

Yep. Speeches. Political image. No actual action. Just as I mentioned. But thanks for confirming what I already said!

“If you need any additional web assistance, be sure and post your additional confusion/frustrations here.”

Sure. I have a question. I’ll cut and paste it from my previous post, as you probably missed it.

-How about you actually tell us what Obama actually DID to deserve the award?-

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:44:05 +0000

Why would we have to prove anything to you? First off, did you create the Nobel Peace Prize? Did you complain about all the other wins you disagreed with? (Oh I’m sure you’ve personally labored over every Nobel Peace Prize victor just like you’d scrutinize Obama, amirite?)

Since Republicans apparently either have their content filters set too high, or have simply never learned about search engines, allow me to provide you with some insight (which I am sure you will believe is unworthy of such an award).

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandida teFeed1/idUSL9535468

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace /laureates/2009/press.html

If you need any additional web assistance, be sure and post your additional confusion/frustrations here.

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:37:07 +0000

To the pro-obama supporters. I make you a challange.

Rather then accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being racist, conservative or bitter…

How about you actually tell us what Obama actually DID to deserve the award?

And why the award shouldn’t have gone to one of the other much more qualified nominees (of which there were over 200)?

The nobel peace prize is supposed to be recognising ACTUAL sacrifice and PRACTICAL work towards the establishment of peace.

Not pretty speeches or popularity. Not for increasing the ability of a person to bring peace. Not for causing subjective things such as ‘hope for peace’ or ‘hope for change’. But ACTUAL and REAL work.

So if you think Obama should get the award for nothing, WHY do you think this should be the case?

And stop with the ad hominem attacks, please. You all know better then that.

By: drg

drg — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:57:17 +0000

I see all of these comments lauding obama’s so called acheievements. Yet they fail to consider the timing. Nominations closed a mere 11 days after obama took office.

bottom line? He in no way deserves this award.

If he has any personal integrity he would decline this award. It won’t happen though, his ego wouldn’t allow it.