It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama in the running for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Why be surprised this same man did nothing and wrote two books about it,

Then got elected president, never having done anything,

He's the AC.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Right, let the give each other a pat on the back with this 'prize' for destroying our lives and the future of others. That says a whole lot about how they provided 'peace' of mind for their own kinds - the elitists.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Yes... let's all indulge in assumptions, futurology and misconceptions.

Let's blame Obama for being someone the people like or have hope in. If you want to blame someone, blame the past Administration(s) and President(s) for the lousy job they did.

The people didn't vote in Obama because he brainwashed them, or is the Anti-Christ or some other nonsense, they voted for him despite his skin color, his background, and policies because they were sick, tired and angry with the way things were being run in the country.

Is it surprising then that the majority of people would vote for someone who would, in many senses, represent change? No matter how much you disagree with his policies, some really do represent a change from previous Administrations' policies.

If they will have positive results is another matter and something yet to be seen, but to anyone who screams and shouts the policies will result in the end of the country or even the world, I'd like to ask you how well the prediction that George Bush would become a dictator and impose Marshall law went?

Oh and btw, there was some other guy that also tried to ran and portrayed himself as change... I think his name was John McCain.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
they voted for him... because they were sick, tired and angry with the way things were being run in the country.

And yet here Obama is .. doing things just like they always have been. Liberal tax and spend on a massive scale is NOT change. Lies are NOT change. Campaign rhetoric and broken campaign promises are NOT change.

I once said he'd be Jimmy Carter II. I was wrong. He's worse.

Whoever nominated Obama needs his or her head examined. Literally.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 



Why blame past administrations or Presidents? I believe Bush supporters tried to put a little blame on the Clinton administration and we were quickly shot down.

President Obama has spent more money in the first 30 days then Bush did funding Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina combined. Some are speaking out against him now, because if he keeps going the way he is then we are in a serious amount of trouble.

I'm going to sit back, watch and give him a chance. But, I can see why some are speaking out now.

On topic- I still think he has a better arguement for it then Al Gore.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
And yet here Obama is .. doing things just like they always have been. Liberal tax and spend on a massive scale is NOT change. Lies are NOT change. Campaign rhetoric and broken campaign promises are NOT change.


You mean like the non-interventionist policies George W. Bush ran on and then waged 2 wars, one of them an unilateral invasion of another country?

I completely agree but how is that Obama's fault? That's the people's fault. Don't blame politicians, people get the politicians they deserve.

We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth. — Sydney Schanberg



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
You mean like the non-interventionist policies George W. Bush ran on and then waged 2 wars, one of them an unilateral invasion of another country?

Yep.


Don't blame politicians, people get the politicians they deserve.

I half agree with you on this. Blame the people who wanted these politicians. But also blame the corrupt opportunist politicians.

The American people are still victims. Even if they are stupid and practically begged the criminal politicians to clobber 'em. I understand it makes it harder to feel back for the Americans who have been bamboozled. But that doesn't change the fact that they were .. and still are being .. bamboozled.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The American people are still victims. Even if they are stupid and practically begged the criminal politicians to clobber 'em. I understand it makes it harder to feel back for the Americans who have been bamboozled. But that doesn't change the fact that they were .. and still are being .. bamboozled.


Too bad some of you don't seem to oppose the 'bamboozlers' when they're of a certain political affiliation.

No wonder the country is divided, everyone agrees politicians are crooks and liars... unless their guy is the President, then there's a "patriotic duty" to follow him.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Is the peace prize even relevant anymore after they gave it to Gore? Personally, I dont care who wins it anymore, or who is nominated. The Nobel committee has strayed a long ways from their roots and has made this once great award nothing more than a political message.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
According to Wikipedia, the award goes:



en.wikipedia.org...

"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."


"Fraternity between nation."
That makes Obama eligible to be considered by the Vikings: He already went to Canada and smiled there.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I'm somewhat dismayed by the comments of anti-intellectualism put forth by some. The nobel prizes are elitist in nature... so what? They acknowledge some of the brightest minds and fiercest researchers in the entire world.

I cannot state just how much I dislike anyone who hates the Nobel prizes and calls them elitist. Its just an extension of jelousy... because you cannot possible hope to win something, you call it elitist.

Almost all the Nobel prizes are awarded to extremely worthy recipients, such as Watson and Crick, Amartya Sen or Montagnier (discovered and characterised HIV).

The only exception is the Nobel peace prize. The peace prize has the worst record ever, and its standing in my eyes has been further deteriorated by this Obama nomination. The peace prize is a farce and should be stopped immediately. In fact, it should have been stopped 60 years ago when Gandhi wasn't nominated once, yet Hitler was 10 years previously.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by solidshot
 


What do you mean, "managed"? Do you think he had something to do with the nomination?


presumably Obama knows about this nomination, and presumably he would ask to be removed from the nomination if he felt it was unwarranted.................



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Might i add that this could be no coincidence wth all these reports of clinton and "peace" talks



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


I think Tony Blair would have got the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on Northern Ireland; and it would have been deserved in my opinion.

He messed it up with the Iraq war.

But at least Blair did something. I was irked by people nominating Obama when he hasn't even done anything yet.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by converge
 


I understand what you are saying, but it is even easier to win it.

Look at the past winners, Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. So it really isn't that far out there to think that Obama has a chance at winning it.


You forgot Paul Krugman winning the Economic Nobel prize, the man is far from a good economist, if an economist at all. Funny thing is, that they gave him, a stark Keynesian, the prize before people started proposing new "new deals."...fishy? You decide. People see like more reliable sources when they have Nobel on their resume...what ever happened to giving the prize to people who deserve it? Like Mother Teresa or Milton Friedman? The prize has turned into a political joke.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
The peace prize is a farce and should be stopped immediately. In fact, it should have been stopped 60 years ago when Gandhi wasn't nominated once, yet Hitler was 10 years previously.

Absolutely not. Keep it going. Nobel Peace Prize is a wealth of information about the future. When two former terrorists Mandela and Arafat were awarded the medal back in 1993, the decision coincided with the bombing of World Trade Center, which happens not to be there anymore. There were some one hundred Jews who left Germany upon finding out that Hitler was nominated for the award. Unrestricted mind can save your butt.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I didn't realize bombing Pakistan his first week in office would be deemed as
'peaceful'



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I'm an Obama supporter, and even I think the idea is a bit dopey.

Obama just took office, he has not done anything yet to earn such an honor.

Let's see what he does first before turning him into some kind of icon.

What's the rationale? I don't get it



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

What's the rationale? I don't get it

Looking for rationale?
Try some other planet . . .



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

What's the rationale? I don't get it


Now you know how we feel when we watch Obama supporters on televisioin



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join