Jump to content

Obama awarded Nobel Peace prize


TypeO

Recommended Posts

I honestly think McCain would have dug us deeper in the hole Bush already made.

Doubtful he would have come anywhere near the pit Obama has strip-mined.

But then, McCain didn't receive over $600 million in campaign contributions.

Surely you don't honestly believe all that was "no strings attached"?

barack_obama_nwo_puppet_stooge.jpg

edit: Million, NOT Billion - d'oh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Obama did what all United States Presidents have done when they have been awarded a Nobel Prize for Peace. He graciously accepted it.

It makes no difference if there were strings attached. People have the right to contribute to presidential campaigns.

Unless you can offer more than innuendo to substantiate that claim, Obama cannot legitimately be considered to be a puppet.

Unfounded fears, groundless personal suspicions and hysterical paranoia are not sufficient reasons to determine that a president is a puppet.

No person has the right to use any United States President as a puppet. Obama has the right to think for himself and to do what he believes he should either way.

It has never been cheap to run for that office. All the candidates spend money because that is part of what it takes to win the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubtful he would have come anywhere near the pit Obama has strip-mined.

But then, McCain didn't receive over $600 million in campaign contributions.

Surely you don't honestly believe all that was "no strings attached"?

barack_obama_nwo_puppet_stooge.jpg

edit: Million, NOT Billion - d'oh!

:rolleyes:

Strongly disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes no difference if there were strings attached. People have the right to contribute to presidential campaigns.

It makes no difference?

Just a few posts ago you said no one should be able to influence the President.

Now you say it makes no difference if he is politically obligated (strings attached) by campaign contributions?

No person has the right to use any United States President as a puppet. Obama has the right to think for himself and to do what he believes he should either way.

It has never been cheap to run for that office. All the candidates spend money because that is part of what it takes to win the election.

Of course it takes money, and generally the most money wins office.

I was noting the fact that Obama ended up with over 2 times what McCain raised, not to mention 2 times more than ANY candidate has EVER raised.

And anyone who thinks such massive amounts of money are without obligation is naive.

Unfounded fears, groundless personal suspicions and hysterical paranoia

Kinda extreme reaction to a picture of Obama as a puppet, isn't it?

Unless you can offer more than innuendo to substantiate that claim, Obama cannot legitimately be considered to be a puppet.

Unfounded fears, groundless personal suspicions and hysterical paranoia are not sufficient reasons to determine that a president is a puppet.

No person has the right to use any United States President as a puppet. Obama has the right to think for himself and to do what he believes he should either way.

It's my opinion, I didn't "claim" it as fact.

However, Obama's own behavior tells us all we need to know as to the extent of his puppethood and financial obligations.

Stimulus, anyone?

The stimulus HAD to be passed immediately or we were going to plunge into an economic apocalypse.

Yet 9 months later only 10% of the money has actually been spent.

Much of the stimulus proceeds were obvious repayments (with substantial interest).

Over $5 billion in CDBG funds (funds, BTW, that ACORN has been exposed as being masters at acquiring).

See for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read all 5 pages, but I don't intend on responding to everybody here. The arguments have been absolutely hilarious, so at least as far as that, I'll say thanks to TypeO for yet another hilarious thread.

As far as Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize... I actually hope Obama fails his presidency. It would teach the idiots on that panel to have a little more discretion and not, as TypeO brilliantly put it, award the prize on credit.

The prize should be about creating peace, not talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never wish any United States President to fail his presidency, regardless of what the Nobel panel does or does not do.

I was being facetious to prove a point. If his presidency fails, it will look horrible for the committee. I don't necessarily want Obama to fail, but I do want these idiots on the committee to have their eyes forced open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read all 5 pages, but I don't intend on responding to everybody here. The arguments have been absolutely hilarious, so at least as far as that, I'll say thanks to TypeO for yet another hilarious thread.

As far as Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize... I actually hope Obama fails his presidency. It would teach the idiots on that panel to have a little more discretion and not, as TypeO brilliantly put it, award the prize on credit.

The prize should be about creating peace, not talking about it.

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't a reward for results achieved, but intended to encourage and stimulate actions toward achieving peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I find it disturbingly funny that a sitting President is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and the first reaction people have, whether they're on the left or the right, is to say it's a bad thing. Only in America, I tell you. The GOP was excited the US lost the Olympics, even though Obama wasn't the first President who pushed for the US to be awarded the 2016 Games, and now the President is given a Nobel Peace Prize and rather than at least say that it's an honor [which it is, even if it has been dubiously awarded in the past], the first instinct is to shit on it.

American Politics - Degrassi Jr. High for the middle age set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't a reward for results achieved, but intended to encourage and stimulate actions toward achieving peace.

From Alfred Nobel's will:

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

http://nobelprize.or...testamente.html

Obama is no Bush. I will grant that. Obama has talked a great deal about ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and making America more popular in the eyes of the world.

But he hasn't actually done the work, yet. He's talked the talk, but he has yet to walk the walk. I have yet to see any evidence that Obama has "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

If, by the end of this term, we see a significant step in that direction, then yes, Obama deserves the prize... but not until then.

BTW, I find it disturbingly funny that a sitting President is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and the first reaction people have, whether they're on the left or the right, is to say it's a bad thing. Only in America, I tell you. The GOP was excited the US lost the Olympics, even though Obama wasn't the first President who pushed for the US to be awarded the 2016 Games, and now the President is given a Nobel Peace Prize and rather than at least say that it's an honor [which it is, even if it has been dubiously awarded in the past], the first instinct is to shit on it.

American Politics - Degrassi Jr. High for the middle age set.

Here's why I, personally, "shit on" both issues:

Olympics in Chicago: He had no business pulling that stunt. We have more important issues that need addressing in this country (like the shooting down of the Public Option [and I know steve and TypeO disagree heavily, but as far as I'm concerned, we need it], the continuing, costly, and failing, War on Drugs, our presence in the Middle East, and so on) then whether or not we get the fucking Olympics. It was a pathetic move. And even Jon Stewart thought it was idiotic.

Nobel Peace Prize: He has done nothing to deserve it. What he has proposed is worthy, and if his stated goals actually come to fruition, then, yes he will deserve it. But giving it to him now is premature. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I find it disturbingly funny that a sitting President is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and the first reaction people have, whether they're on the left or the right, is to say it's a bad thing. Only in America, I tell you. The GOP was excited the US lost the Olympics, even though Obama wasn't the first President who pushed for the US to be awarded the 2016 Games, and now the President is given a Nobel Peace Prize and rather than at least say that it's an honor [which it is, even if it has been dubiously awarded in the past], the first instinct is to shit on it.

American Politics - Degrassi Jr. High for the middle age set.

:yourock:

By the way Nathan, I don't know of any president that in less than a year into their term, they've managed to "fix" all the problems our country is facing. Why Obama is expected to be super human is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:yourock:

By the way Nathan, I don't know of any president that in less than a year into their term, they've managed to "fix" all the problems our country is facing. Why Obama is expected to be super human is beyond me.

I never said Obama should have fixed it all by now. I said that the prize was premature. It's too soon. If, by the end of his first term, he has achieved some, most, or all of his well-meaning and worthy plans for peace, then yes, he will deserve that award. I'm not saying he will nevr deserve it, I'm just saying it was extremely premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan you are aware that Bush is who first pushed for Chicago and NYC to host the Olympics, right? In fact, he's the one who initially suggested Chicago in the first place. I fail to see what was wrong with Obama wanting the Olympics in Chicago, why would the Olympics in the United States be a bad thing? Furthermore, I don't really care what Jon Stewart thinks. He's an entertainer, his opinion means no more to me than any other celebrity with an opinion.

Jesus damn Christ, people. It's the OLYMPICS, he wasn't pushing for nuclear warhead silos in every neighborhood. This is what I meant by people will find any reason to crawl up this guy's ass. He's been President since January, and apparently by today's date of October 11th, everything was supposed to be fixed by now, or at least 90% done. He's done things I don't like and I've criticized him quite a bit but even my staunch conservative parents are giving him until at least the mid-terms before they say he's on the right track or the wrong track. My parents! The same people who said the country needs to elect Sarah Palin in 2012. Those people!

He could cure AIDS, some whiny twit will say he didn't do it fast enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan you are aware that Bush is who first pushed for Chicago and NYC to host the Olympics, right? In fact, he's the one who initially suggested Chicago in the first place. I fail to see what was wrong with Obama wanting the Olympics in Chicago, why would the Olympics in the United States be a bad thing? Furthermore, I don't really care what Jon Stewart thinks. He's an entertainer, his opinion means no more to me than any other celebrity with an opinion.

First off, yes, I'm quite aware of it, and I disagreed with Bush when he said it. I personally think Obama had and has more important things to do. Sorry if I criticize the messiah, but I'm not convinced he's the Son of fucking God, yet. When he raises the dead and walks on water I'll consider it.

As far as Jon Stewart...

Nevermind, that's better suited for the Pet Peeves, thread...

Jesus damn Christ, people. It's the OLYMPICS, he wasn't pushing for nuclear warhead silos in every neighborhood. This is what I meant by people will find any reason to crawl up this guy's ass. He's been President since January, and apparently by today's date of October 11th, everything was supposed to be fixed by now, or at least 90% done. He's done things I don't like and I've criticized him quite a bit but even my staunch conservative parents are giving him until at least the mid-terms before they say he's on the right track or the wrong track. My parents! The same people who said the country needs to elect Sarah Palin in 2012. Those people!

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING SHOULD BE FUCKING FIXED BY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said (in case you weren't reading):

"the prize was premature. It's too soon. If, by the end of his first term, he has achieved some, most, or all of his well-meaning and worthy plans for peace, then yes, he will deserve that award. I'm not saying he will never deserve it, I'm just saying it was extremely premature."

He could cure AIDS, some whiny twit will say he didn't do it fast enough.

If Obama managed to cure AIDS, I would never have anything bad to say about him ever again. He would deserve MORE then the Nobel Peace Prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...