Nobel Peace Prize(stop the world I want to get off)

reply to post by infinite


No doubt there were countless other more worthy candidates. The point was that Obama won the award. Not by his choosing. It is not his fault that they handed an award to him so early in his presidency.

This is not a slight worthy event on Obama's part. It is not his fault he won the award. To blame Obama for winning the Nobel peace prize is like saying that it is gravity's fault for the twin towers falling on 9/11.

It is not his award to hand out. It would be as if an Oscar winner decided that they weren't worthy enough for the award they were given and decided to give it to someone else on stage. It simply is not done.

Blame Norway if you like for giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, it's not Obama's fault. Should he have spat in the face of the Norwegians? Perhaps bombed them in retaliation? What manner of indignation should the Norwegians be subject to for handing out their award to a person you don't feel is worthy?

To the Nobel committee Obama was worthy.

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by fumanchu

 

Besides putting us so far in debt that we'll never get out of it , I have know idea how or why he got it.

You've probably confused him with George W Bush, who demanded unconditional loans for people to buy houses - which was the cornerstone for the whole financial crisis.

reply to post by itstheendoftheworldaswekn


I agreee. This was absolutely inappropriate.

I feel very diappointed of Obama. He has done a lot of good, but for this speach they should deprive him of the nobel peace price. He is not worthy anymore.

Originally posted by Thinkerbelle

You've probably confused him with George W Bush, who demanded unconditional loans for people to buy houses - which was the cornerstone for the whole financial crisis.

AKA: his version was titled 'Ownership Society'

but, GWB could only propose policies...
it took a Congress to enact the Laws required in implement his Ownership Society theme...lets keep the blame on the right people

Another interesting line in the speech I can't get ou of my head is he references the line;

'do unto others as you would have them do onto you'

Really Mr President . Really?
Does he realise what he is saying?

Holy crap.
I am so glad I do not live in the US.






Peace.

I was scratching my brain when Obama started his statements
about 'war' being necessary, even good for the world community.

reply to post by whatukno

This is not a slight worthy event on Obama's part. It is not his fault he won the award. To blame Obama for winning the Nobel peace prize is like saying that it is gravity's fault for the twin towers falling on 9/11.

It is not his award to hand out. It would be as if an Oscar winner decided that they weren't worthy enough for the award they were given and decided to give it to someone else on stage. It simply is not done.

Blame Norway if you like for giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, it's not Obama's fault. Should he have spat in the face of the Norwegians? Perhaps bombed them in retaliation? What manner of indignation should the Norwegians be subject to for handing out their award to a person you don't feel is worthy?

You never seem to get to grips with the reality of any issue. Yes, we know it is not Barry’s award to hand out, whoever said it was? We, who are not blind, are quite aware why the twin towers fell. As Barry, the fool, has done very little of any good, and certainly nothing to attain any award, the honourable thing to do would indeed been to have refused it graciously and declared he was not worthy. For that, even I would have applauded.

However, a malignant narcissist would never refuse such an honour, as in his mind, regardless of the speech written for him, he no doubt truly believes he deserves it. In fact the whole thing may have been arranged to pander to his narcissism in the first place, as it was mooted 2 weeks into his presidency (if not months before). So although you may react with silly suggestions about spitting etc, there is a valid point about what anyone with honour would have done.
Barry Soetoro does not have any honour. He is simply the most dangerous leader to ever have appeared on the world stage…and he should be ushered off as fast as possible…let’s face it he forgets his lines often enough. The bit part, actor with no credentials and no certificate should be shown the door.

As the OP pointed out Barry saying;

'do unto others as you would have them do onto you'

I am sure it may be someone’s pleasure….one day. And no, he cannot know what he is saying. But it doesn’t matter because he will deny having said or done, anything he has ever said or done, that is what narcissists do.

This reminds me of 1998, when man utd where paid out on by the bookies, and the bookies said that they had won the league already. But arsenal came back after the bookies had paid out and arsenal won the league.

So what is the moral in that story?

Who knows.....

reply to post by Thinkerbelle


Sorry, it was President Bush who warned that giving those loans would be trouble but was over ruled by the dems that were in control at the time.

Oh and least we forget it was obama the Destroyer that went on a spending spree in his first sixty days in office on that un-stimulus package that raised unemployment to over 10%

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Chance321]

reply to post by oneclickaway

He is simply the most dangerous leader to ever have appeared on the world stage

And you claim that I don't understand reality?

Why is it that the United States has been the only country to be at war constantly proceeding WWII? Anyone noticing that we are constantly at war? War is only necessary for self defense and nothing else. Obama was saying we have a moral obligation in some cases to go to war. If that was the case then why didn't we go to war in Rwanda to prevent those 800,000 people from being slaughtered (genocide)?

reply to post by whatukno


First, it is an international committee - not Norway biases.

Second, the Nobel Peace Prize was loosing its value and funding was becoming limited. The committee needed a high profile candidate in order to attract attention.

Gore received the award, it was political and designed to frustrate the Americans. Especially President Bush. Politics and money are, apparently, more worthy than human rights or promoting peace. Obama is just designed reprofile the organisation and gain potential financial funding.

And don't get me started on Obama's lumpen, arduous and facetious speech. Justifying war at a peace conference?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite

First, it is an international committee - not Norway biases.

Fine, the point remains the same.

Second, the Nobel Peace Prize was loosing its value and funding was becoming limited. The committee needed a high profile candidate in order to attract attention.

So let's get this straight, it's an award that is loosing it's value, and they chose to give it to our president, but somehow in that transition, it still becomes Obama's fault?

It's like blaming the victim of a crime for the crime happening to them.

Gore received the award, it was political and designed to frustrate the Americans. Especially President Bush. Politics and money are, apparently, more worthy than human rights or promoting peace. Obama is just designed reprofile the organisation and gain potential financial funding.

It's their award, they can give it to whomever they choose right? Or are they now required to check in with someone you would agree with about their choice first?

And don't get me started on Obama's lumpen, arduous and facetious speech. Justifying war at a peace conference?

Yea, I can't really argue with this here, it was a pretty lame speech.

[edit on 12/11/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by infinite


yeah well giving it to Mugabe would have made as much sense as giving it to that clown Obama. I just can't figure out HOW a person gets a Peace Prize Award, when they are sending troops to fight a war.



Am I missing something here too??

[edit on 11-12-2009 by SpinifexPrincess]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

I can't believe this crap, well actually I can.

Well they gave a Peace Prize to Arafat, they even gave one to the UN and Kofi Annan, and remember the Rwandan Genocide took place while Annan was in charge of UN Peacekeeping Operations

yes, now that you remind me, I do recall this stuff. Maybe the Nobel Peace Prize should be treated with the contempt it deserves, until the criteria is re-assessed?

Originally posted by whatukno
So let's get this straight, it's an award that is loosing it's value, and they chose to give it to our president, but somehow in that transition, it still becomes Obama's fault?

Yes, because he could've refused to accept it. In 1973 Le Duc Tho refused the Nobel Peace Prize as he did not believe peace had been reached in Vietnam. Yet, a President fighting two wars - without peace in sight within Afghanistan - thinks it is OK to accumulate his ego even more by exploiting a peace prize?

President Obama does not have any sympathetic attitudes towards the Nobel Committee. Another excuse to spread his cult of personality.

It's their award, they can give it to whomever they choose right? Or are they now required to check in with someone you would agree with about their choice first?

No, it is not "their award" it is voted on by the following;

+ Members of national assemblies and governments and members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,
+ Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Court of Justice at the Hague,
+ Members of Institut de Droit International,
University professors of history, political science, philosophy, law and theology, university presidents and directors of peace research and international affairs institutes,
+ Former recipients, including board members of organisations that have previously won the prize,
+ Present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and
Former permanent advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by infinite]

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky


Not your anti Christ, but isn't it a coincidence that they sent that spiral of light right over Norway where Obama accepts his prize?

Put the pieces together, one two three...

I couldnt believe this when i read the new article , this is a slap in the face to the core meaning of the nobel peace prize !

To have the gall to stand in front of other nobel laureates and then justify war to the world

the Hypocrisy is unimaginable!

I've emailed the white house and my message of disgust has been emailed to obama !

Originally posted by infinite
Alfred Nobel is turning in his grave.

The institution was financed by him to recognise those who seek to prevent war and promote peace. Le marchand de la mort est mort was the headline on his death, the man who invented dynamite and Alfred saw to find ways to protect the sanctuary of human life - could not live with his shame.

Dear Alfred, fought, in the end, to stop war.

Justifying war at a Nobel Conference is disgusting.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by infinite]

your right... but i think that the swedes see the trouble europe is having with the muslims that move into the various countries of the EU. maybe they are trying to hedge their bets. also, you really have to understand that people in europe REALLY didn't like george bush....you have to have the perspective that they had, of where the U.S. was headed. remember they saw how cozy the bin laden family was with the bush family, and unlike the majority here in the states, it made them uneasy.