President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Originally posted by Sharrow
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

And why do you not agree? Because they offered this award to someone who was in office for 11 days when the nominations are closed? What he did between January 20 and February 1? Nothing at all.

The nominations of this Nobel Prize was closed in February 1, when Obama was in office for 11 days. How anyone was able to nominate him for nothing?

Yes... because the prize is to encourage attitudes, behaviors etc. Not for any particular achievement.

I think it recognizes the power of diplomacy and leadership which those of us who voted for him also recognized long before he was ever even elected by the majority of Americans.

Let me clear a few things up. They are obvious, so I didnt think I would have to do this:

He won the award for 3 reasons:

- First black president.

- The Nobel committee all have man crushes on him.

- He's the antichrist and has fooled them into believing his crap.

Its that simple.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
First of all... Having inherited the wars, he's doing what he can to get us out. Have you noticed the HUGE gap between the generals who want to have more troops in Afghanistan and what Obama thinks should actually happen?

Yeah, because the Generals should listen to Obama. I mean, he has just tons of military experience.

I wonder if Kanye West is going to interrupt his speech in Norway when he accepts the award? "Hey, Barack, I'ma let you finish, but Arafat was the most peaceful Muslim of all time."

reply to post by HunkaHunka
Yes, people get this after loooooooooooooooooong years, not after 11 days in office.

Second line.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Sharrow]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by nunya13

 

There is nothing wrong with the committee. They awarded it to him for his work toward international diplomacy. It is what they want to see more of, and thus they gave their award.

Rather on point if you ask me!

Uh, they voted for him 11 days into his term. What in the hell had he done?

Originally posted by Sharrow
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Yes, people get this after loooooooooooooooooong years, not after 11 days in office.

Second line.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Sharrow]

Well today makes your statement false



U S A! U S A! U S A!

GoooooooooooOBAMA!

Originally posted by brainwreck
Let me clear a few things up. They are obvious, so I didnt think I would have to do this:

He won the award for 3 reasons:

- First black president.

- The Nobel committee all have man crushes on him.

- He's the antichrist and has fooled them into believing his crap.

Its that simple.

If I was anywhere else on the internet I would understand that you are being comical in mocking the loons who actually think that. However, since I seem to be on FreeRepublic 2.0 I have no clue whether you are serious or not.

When did ATS stop being about Conspiracy Theories and start being a place for spiteful Conservative ideology?

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by nunya13

 

There is nothing wrong with the committee. They awarded it to him for his work toward international diplomacy. It is what they want to see more of, and thus they gave their award.

Rather on point if you ask me!

Uh, they voted for him 11 days into his term. What in the hell had he done?

Represented an attitude toward international affairs that was in line with the committees world view.

Whats wrong with that?

Just an interesting article I found,

Seventeen times it has gone to organizations (four times alone to the Red Cross - 1901, 1917, 1944, 1963 - despite Nobel's express wish that it should not go to organizations, but to committed individuals. A whopping 20 times it was not awarded at all, most recently in 1966-7 and 1972, due to war and committee discord. Only 43 times was it awarded to one individual, 21 times jointly, nine times to women. Once the award was refused (by Le Duc Tho), once awarded posthumously (to Dag Hammarskjold in 1961) and once awarded to a previous Nobel laureate (Linus Pauling-chemistry prize, 1954, and peace prize, 1963). The greatest peacenik of the 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi, was nominated and passed over four times.

Sometimes the judges balanced a pacifist like Jane Addams (1931) with a strident critic of pacifism (Nicholas Butler); sometimes it threw the prize money at wealthy public figures with little to recommend them, as in 1925 (Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles Gates Dawes). It has generally been the kiss of death for politicians, as Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), and Shimon Peres (1994) have discovered. Our own dear Lester Pearson was the only Canadian to win (1957), and it can be argued it did him little good politically.

archive.peacemagazine.org...

I don't agree that he should have accepted the award, but Congratulations to Obama nonetheless.

reply to post by HunkaHunka
I rather calling it cheating. It's a fraud and everyone knows... with the exception of some brainwashed guy. No offense.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Exemplar
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

So you're all for giving the PEACE prize to the man currently running TWO ILLEGAL WARS, who is about to up the number of troops in Afghanistan and contemplating involvement in a third war? War is Peace, huh?

First of all... Having inherited the wars, he's doing what he can to get us out. Have you noticed the HUGE gap between the generals who want to have more troops in Afghanistan and what Obama thinks should actually happen?

Second of all... I believe his tact toward diplomacy is what this world needs more of. So yes, on that alone, I believe he deserves it.

He didn't start the wars, but he damn sure hasn't done anything to finish them. Which was what he campaigned on. Day 1, he's going to start pulling the troops out of Iraq, remember. Wait, that was a lie.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


About the same time FEMA death camps were linked to Weather Underground and Rahm said that teenagers will be taking 'train rides'.

Originally posted by Exemplar
The point is, he had done absolutely nothing at the time that he was nominated. Are you even reading?

Yes, I am reading. I have read on the Nobel peace prize site that the award isn't given for accomplishments. It's given for vision, courage and determination, which are not accomplishments, but attributes. Obama has these attributes, regardless what he has accomplished.

The vast majority of people who are upset that he earned this award don't even know what the award is about!

reply to post by guidanceofthe third kind


Thanks for the reply, quite honestly those that regularly praise/defend Obama have been pretty silent on this thread. Sorry you feel that asking for a response from them is "baiting". You are entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The weaker people of the world need a hero. Grant them their hero for goodness sake. What is it with you people???

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Skyfloating]

The problem is:

Even though the masses cheer him, the truth is....

"The emperor has no clothes"


(I am from Chicago and remember when BO was in the state senate...and he has never accomplished ANYTHING from state senate, to us senate to now..he is all hype and no substance)

[edit on 10/9/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]

There is only one reason for this, the CIA decided after a few beers to re-activate MK-Ultra and use it on the Nobel Prize Committee. So much for the Nobel Prize, why didn't they just award it to ACORN.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Sharrow
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

And why do you not agree? Because they offered this award to someone who was in office for 11 days when the nominations are closed? What he did between January 20 and February 1? Nothing at all.

The nominations of this Nobel Prize was closed in February 1, when Obama was in office for 11 days. How anyone was able to nominate him for nothing?

Yes... because the prize is to encourage attitudes, behaviors etc. Not for any particular achievement.

I think it recognizes the power of diplomacy and leadership which those of us who voted for him also recognized long before he was ever even elected by the majority of Americans.

Using that logic, Hollywood should hand out Oscars with the hope that Hollywood will actually produce something worth watching and actually worth paying good money to see.

Unfortunately, the majority of the world never thought that the award was bestowed with hopes that someone will live up to their promises.

Giving Obama the booby prize certainly belittles the same award that was bestowed on a woman like Mother Theresa who dedicated her life to helping others. She didn't win before she began her work.

I guess the dedicated ones are willing to change the rules mid game just to give Obama a little edge.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


a) I am only a fiscal conservative, not a political one.

b) Take a look at the history of the Nobel committee and tell me which way you think they lean. Heres some help, lets take a look at past winners:

Al Gore
Jimmy Carter
Kofi Annan
Yassir Arafat


Should I keep going?

My post had nothing to do with political ideaology, but since you brought it up, care to debate how it seems the Nobel committee seems enamored with leftists?

reply to post by HunkaHunka



So it's not about "peace" it's about agreeing with the committee.

-snort-

nice

This would be like awarding Lyndon B. Johnson the PEACE prize 9 months after JFK was assassinated. Just as he begins troop escalation in VIETNAM.

Wouldn't have that been a huge mistake?

Well, Obama better be peaceful now, since he has accepted the award.