That is so much bull [cabbage].

This is stupid. There was many other good candidates and Obama was chosen. Nice way to kiss Obama's [wagon]...

 

I like Obama, even though slightly. But he have not accomplished much.

My thoughts, channeled through conservative commentator, Andrew Sullivan:

 

I've had some coffee now. Reading through all the reactions, compiled by Chris and Patrick, there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved.

 

Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere.

 

This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face.

 

I like Shimon Peres' statement, reprinted in a useful compendium of world reaction at the Lede:

 

Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth. Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.

 

Right now, we do not know where that direction will ultimately lead. We do know that we were facing a spiral of conflict that, unchecked, could have taken the world to the abyss. I see this prize as an endorsement of his extraordinary reorientation of world politics, and as an encouragement to see it through. In the midst of our domestic battles, and their ill-temper (from which I have not been immune lately), this is an attempt to tell us: look up for a moment, see how far we've come in pivoting away from global conflict, and give this man a break for his efforts and the massive burden he now bears.

 

And, in the darkness that still threatens, know hope.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/all-over-the-world.html#more

as much as I like the man this makes a total mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize.

This.

 

Unbelievable.

 

I'm in agreement.

 

I really don't see how he won it over everyone else. Or at least too soon.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a good president.

 

Obama is black. He spouted a vague campaign slogan. He also made empty promises to America, and has ideas that will slowly kill us or turn us into a socialist country.

 

This is how he got the award. He was a 'first' and everyone wants to appear politically correct. I'm sure if McCain or Bush did this, no one would care at all.

Okay, you went a little bit overboard there.

I didn't know it was April 1st.

 

 

I need a new calendar.

What? Besides a few talks here and there. But c'mon he hasn't lived up to what I believe a Nobel Peace Prize winner should be doing. Not to mention he's YET TO TAKE OUT the darn troops, when he said he would.

Just means that the Nobel Prize means even less to me now than it did last year, when Al Gore (who has absolutely no proof that global warming exists, or that it's even our fault if it does, which it doesn't, and the Earth is actually cooling right now, which makes him seem even more like an idiot) beat out a woman who saved hundreds of Jewish children in WWII.

 

Also, sorry if this has already been brought up, but the nominations are due FEBRUARY 1ST. Which means he had not been in office for more than two weeks when he was nominated. Which is total BS.

(who has absolutely no proof that global warming exists, or that it's even our fault if it does, which it doesn't, and the Earth is actually cooling right now, which makes him seem even more like an idiot)

 

Lol. I mean, it's one thing to just deny that humans are the cause, it's one thing to say there's "no evidence for this," but it's like...completely laughable for someone to say that there's "no proof that it exists." It's laughable to say the former, but it's just so horrible that people can't read trend lines.

 

I think a more sobering comparison would be Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger, Woodrow Wilson, Lech Welesa, Bishop Desmond Tutu, etc. Obama received the prize (didn't win it; it is not won) because he changed the tone of international dialog, he restarted discussions on dealing with climate change, he successfully negotiated a stronger non-proliferation framework through the UN Security Council and then used that to open dialog with Russia, Iran, and North Korea on reduction of nuclear weapons.

 

It’s Not The Achievements Themselves. It’s The Destination.

~Alfred Nobel

 

Oh, and I'm not necessarily saying he was more deserving than other people, nor that I believe he should have received it. I am saying it's not a surprise for the NPP to make a decision on the prospect of peace versus actual accomplishments.

(who has absolutely no proof that global warming exists, or that it's even our fault if it does, which it doesn't, and the Earth is actually cooling right now, which makes him seem even more like an idiot)

 

Lol. Every scientific organization in the world agrees that global warming exists and is attributed to human factors (or they are non-committal, NONE have dissented).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5Kl38fSVY

 

nuff said

So does anyone actually think that Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

(who has absolutely no proof that global warming exists, or that it's even our fault if it does, which it doesn't, and the Earth is actually cooling right now, which makes him seem even more like an idiot)

 

Lol. Every scientific organization in the world agrees that global warming exists and is attributed to human factors (or they are non-committal, NONE have dissented).

Not actually. There are many scientists who disagree, but scientific journals won't publish their papers. Global warming is a "popular belief", one that, when strayed from, isn't taken well.

I'm from Norway, where we give out the Nobel Peace Prize every year, and I have to say I am DEEPLY disappointed and shameful of the rulings of my country right now. This is nothing but a publicity stunt and an excuse to get Obama to Norway. When this decicion was made he had been President for 12 days, making it even worse. Sure, if he deserves it in 4 years time, it might have been a good choice. But if I was to go out now and promise change I would not deserve a peace price, would I?

:blink:

So, it wasn't my friend being stupid....

Hasn't he only talked about doing these things?

 

(who has absolutely no proof that global warming exists, or that it's even our fault if it does, which it doesn't, and the Earth is actually cooling right now, which makes him seem even more like an idiot)

 

Lol. Every scientific organization in the world agrees that global warming exists and is attributed to human factors (or they are non-committal, NONE have dissented).

Not actually. There are many scientists who disagree, but scientific journals won't publish their papers. Global warming is a "popular belief", one that, when strayed from, isn't taken well.

This. As soon as I say there is no global warming everyone demands I bring them indisputable scientific evidence, but ignore me when I as them for evidence that global warming exists.

Do I get a peace prize if I put a country in trillions of debt?

Do I get a peace prize if I put a country in trillions of debt?

Only if you speak smoothly about it.

(who has absolutely no proof that global warming exists, or that it's even our fault if it does, which it doesn't, and the Earth is actually cooling right now, which makes him seem even more like an idiot)

 

Lol. Every scientific organization in the world agrees that global warming exists and is attributed to human factors (or they are non-committal, NONE have dissented).

Not actually. There are many scientists who disagree, but scientific journals won't publish their papers. Global warming is a "popular belief", one that, when strayed from, isn't taken well.

 

Um, not really. They haven't brought evidence supporting their claims. Stop denying the evidence all around you, address it, instead of throwing it off as some scheme to enslave the world.

 

The scientific community has looked at the dissenting opinions, and they don't stand to scrutiny.

 

And this decision wasn't made "right when he was inaugurated." The time to make nominations was at that time.

 

Once again, I don't necessarily think he was the most worthy person to win. However, given their track record in the past, it's not surprising, frankly. These decisions have always been about the political possibility of peace, and almost never about actual accomplishments.

Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing to me.

 

 

thats what i was thinking when Obama got it.

Do I get a peace prize if I put a country in trillions of debt?

America was already in trillions of dollars of debt.

I disagree with the prize being given to Obama. Although I have supported him in the election, I really think it is too soon to call anything he has done a world-peace movement. Sure, he's done some great things in his presidency. But isn't he basically fulfilling his duties as the president by doing so? He hasn't done anything extraordinary in my opinion. He beat out over 170 candidates for the prize simply because of star power. But I suppose no one has the right to question the motives of the committee anyway, it's not really an award that represents public opinion nor does it cost the public anything to give it to him.

So if I were to walk around screaming CHANGE, I would win a Nobel Peace award also? Something doesn't seem right.

Do I get a peace prize if I put a country in trillions of debt?

Nope, that's why Bush didn't get one.

Ya know the most annoying part about this? The award nominations were back in February - he had been in office for what, two weeks? So they based his nomination off of promises, and we all know what happens when you base everything off of what someone promises to do (especially someone who lies as much as a politician...(and especially one who promises to reduce government spending and then throws out a trillion-dollar "bailout". So now the government debt is higher than the USA's GDP. Not the money brought in by the IRS, but the GDP as a whole. We owe more than we're worth.))

 

But I don't really care anyways. The Nobel Peace Prize lost its meaning to me back when Al Gore got it for his video that he completely ignored when designing his own house. Basically, they gave it to a hypocrite for being a hypocrite. Way to go, Nobel Council!

 

Edit:

(who has absolutely no proof that global warming exists, or that it's even our fault if it does, which it doesn't, and the Earth is actually cooling right now, which makes him seem even more like an idiot)

 

Lol. Every scientific organization in the world agrees that global warming exists and is attributed to human factors (or they are non-committal, NONE have dissented).

 

You DO know they've changed it to "climate change" because it's getting colder now, right? And that there are multiple scientific organizations who have come up with the theory that Earth's general temperature has a tendency to cycle and/or the organization just didn't give a crap? Get your facts straight before you generalize about scientists.

Edited October 10, 200916 yr by PieisEaten

So now the government debt is higher than the USA's GDP. Not the money brought in by the IRS, but the GDP as a whole. We owe more than we're worth.))

...

You DO know they've changed it to "climate change" because it's getting colder now, right? And that there are multiple scientific organizations who have come up with the theory that Earth's general temperature has a tendency to cycle and/or the organization just didn't give a crap? Get your facts straight before you generalize about scientists.

 

First off, we don't owe more than we are worth. GDP is gross domestic product, that is how much the country produces every year.

 

About the climate change, obviously there are cycles. And through an increasing warming period there can be points where it gets colder, but the general trend is it getting warmer. The report by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm shows this. http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 This link is to a paper that is the joint product from EVERY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE of the major industrialized nations (the ones who have the most to lose).

 

So, do I trust the scientists of every major country of the world who are all experts in climate change, or some kid on a forum?