Skeptic Overlord Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 The first part was a few speeches and the second part was a proposal. Whatever, though, if they are stupid enough to give it to him and he is stupid enough to accept it, than more power to em! Stupid enough to accept it? He's going to donate the money to charity. He's not going to flaunt his award around like an eleven year old who just won the spelling bee. What more do you want from him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Stupid enough to accept it?He's going to donate the money to charity. He's not going to flaunt his award around like an eleven year old who just won the spelling bee. What more do you want from him? turn it down until it's warranted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic Overlord Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 turn it down until it's warranted? I don't know. I'm not an Obama supporter by any means but I really think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. My qualm with 81artmonk's post was where he said Obama was "stupid enough to accept it". Disagree with his policies all you want but we all know Obama isn't "stupid" in any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I don't know. I'm not an Obama supporter by any means but I really think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.My qualm with 81artmonk's post was where he said Obama was "stupid enough to accept it". Disagree with his policies all you want but we all know Obama isn't "stupid" in any sense. Yeah, I wouldnt peg him with the stupid tag either. Though, I do think a better term would have been "unwise" to accept an award he didnt earn. It just paints him in a light that isnt needed nor helpful this early in his term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic Overlord Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Yeah, I wouldnt peg him with the stupid tag either. Though, I do think a better term would have been "unwise" to accept an award he didnt earn. It just paints him in a light that isnt needed nor helpful this early in his term. Maybe. But his strongest opponents are going to dog him no matter what he decides to do. Politics of the 21st century. Obama can't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Maybe. But his strongest opponents are going to dog him no matter what he decides to do. Politics of the 21st century.Obama can't win. But this even had some of his strongest supporters scratching their heads too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeptic Overlord Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 But this even had some of his strongest supporters scratching their heads too. Maybe he's the antichrist after all...:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Maybe he's the antichrist after all...:evilg: nah, no more than any other spend happy pol:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 My qualm with 81artmonk's post was where he said Obama was "stupid enough to accept it". Disagree with his policies all you want but we all know Obama isn't "stupid" in any sense. Ummm, to accept an award that he knows deep down he did nothing to deserve and probably shouldn't is a stupid act. So in this instance he would be stupid to accept it. You might want to rethink your comment. Just because I say he is doing something stupid isn't by any means a commentary on him being stupid on everything. I can do something stupid, and not be stupid. One needs to make that distinction! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I'm sure some proclaim it, but it doesnt make it true.I wouldnt mind so much if there was an actual end goal there, but we all know there isnt one at this point. Obama = Bush in foreign policy. But isn't there an end-goal? Isn't it just that you don't like the lengthy schedule? It's a generational and expensive job. I understand why you don't agree with it. But there is an end goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 But isn't there an end-goal? Isn't it just that you don't like the lengthy schedule? It's a generational and expensive job. I understand why you don't agree with it. But there is an end goal. what is it? Is it attainable? Is it attainable while the economy is crashing and the costs increase annually? I honestly coul;dnt say what the end goal is because we have never really been told what the measure of success is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 560 posts....really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 560 posts....really? 562 now! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeping Wizard Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I think the Nobel Committee lost all credibility after awarding Al Gore the same prize for his nifty powerpoint presentation on his school science project. The annoncement of Obama confirms my thoughts on the Nobel Committee. I'm sure in their minds he has created world peace simply by replacing George Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Ummm, to accept an award that he knows deep down he did nothing to deserve and probably shouldn't is a stupid act. So in this instance he would be stupid to accept it. You might want to rethink your comment. Just because I say he is doing something stupid isn't by any means a commentary on him being stupid on everything. I can do something stupid, and not be stupid. One needs to make that distinction! Actually, to refuse the award would be an unwarranted affront. A stupid, unwarranted affront. He needs to accept the award gracefully, perhaps on behalf of all those around the globe who have worked so hard at promoting peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Actually, to refuse the award would be an unwarranted affront. A stupid, unwarranted affront. He needs to accept the award gracefully, perhaps on behalf of all those around the globe who have worked so hard at promoting peace. Yea I dont see how he could not accept the award. That would be stupid IMO. I do not fault him one bit for getting the award. I fault the ignorant people who gave it to him for doing NOTHING. How deserving is he going to look when Iran and/or North Korea blow up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Actually, to refuse the award would be an unwarranted affront. A stupid, unwarranted affront. He needs to accept the award gracefully, perhaps on behalf of all those around the globe who have worked so hard at promoting peace. You actually make a good point. However, if it were me, I would give it back and graciously decline the honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Peggy Noonan's take, FWIW. Yes, she was a former Reagan speechwriter but she nails it. "It is absurd and it is embarrassing. It would even be infuriating if it were not such a declaration of emptiness. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has embarrassed itself and cheapened a great award that had real meaning. It was a good thing, the Nobel Peace Prize. Every year the giving of it was a matter of note throughout the world, almost a matter of state. It was serious. It mattered that it was given to a woman like Mother Teresa in 1979. ... Her life was heroic, epic, and when she was given the Nobel Peace Prize, it was as if the world were saying, 'You are the best we have. You are living a life that should be emulated.' ... Some Peace Prizes have been more roughly political, or had a political edge, and were of course debatable. ... It was always absurd that Ronald Reagan, whose political project led to the end of the gulag and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and who gambled his personal standing in the world for a system that would protect the common man from annihilation in a nuclear missile attack, could not win it. But nobody wept over it, and for one reason: because everyone, every sentient adult who cared to know about such things, knew that the Nobel Peace Prize is, when awarded to a political figure, a great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA -- no conservatives need apply. This is the way of the world, and so what? Life isn't for prizes. Yet even within that context, the giving of the peace prize to President Obama is absurd. He doesn't have a body of work; he's a young man; he's been president less than nine months. He hopes to accomplish much, and so far -- nine months! -- has accomplished little. Is this a life of heroic self-denial, of the sacrifice of self for something greater, of huge and historic consequence, of sustained vision? No it's not. Is this a life marked by a vivid and calculable contribution to the peace of the world? No, it's not. This is an award for not being George W. Bush. This is an award for not making the world nervous. This is an award for sharing the basic political sentiments and assumptions of the members of the committee. It is for what Barack Obama may do, not what he has done. He hasn't done anything. In one mindless stroke, the committee has rendered the Nobel Peace Prize a laughingstock." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 what is it? Is it attainable? Is it attainable while the economy is crashing and the costs increase annually? I honestly coul;dnt say what the end goal is because we have never really been told what the measure of success is. I think we've been told. By examples in Germany, Italy and Japan, from the GOP candidates own mouth. Is it advisable to say publically that "hey, we're just going to stay there until the hate dies down. Build some schools, give them some grain." Eventually the culture will be to have Americans around and maybe that's not such a bad thing. "Look at me, I took a hot shower today" - Mullah circa 2081. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Peggy Noonan's take, FWIW. Yes, she was a former Reagan speechwriter but she nails it. "It is absurd and it is embarrassing. It would even be infuriating if it were not such a declaration of emptiness. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has embarrassed itself and cheapened a great award that had real meaning. It was a good thing, the Nobel Peace Prize. Every year the giving of it was a matter of note throughout the world, almost a matter of state. It was serious. It mattered that it was given to a woman like Mother Teresa in 1979. ... Her life was heroic, epic, and when she was given the Nobel Peace Prize, it was as if the world were saying, 'You are the best we have. You are living a life that should be emulated.' ... Some Peace Prizes have been more roughly political, or had a political edge, and were of course debatable. ... It was always absurd that Ronald Reagan, whose political project led to the end of the gulag and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and who gambled his personal standing in the world for a system that would protect the common man from annihilation in a nuclear missile attack, could not win it. But nobody wept over it, and for one reason: because everyone, every sentient adult who cared to know about such things, knew that the Nobel Peace Prize is, when awarded to a political figure, a great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA -- no conservatives need apply. This is the way of the world, and so what? Life isn't for prizes. Yet even within that context, the giving of the peace prize to President Obama is absurd. He doesn't have a body of work; he's a young man; he's been president less than nine months. He hopes to accomplish much, and so far -- nine months! -- has accomplished little. Is this a life of heroic self-denial, of the sacrifice of self for something greater, of huge and historic consequence, of sustained vision? No it's not. Is this a life marked by a vivid and calculable contribution to the peace of the world? No, it's not. This is an award for not being George W. Bush. This is an award for not making the world nervous. This is an award for sharing the basic political sentiments and assumptions of the members of the committee. It is for what Barack Obama may do, not what he has done. He hasn't done anything. In one mindless stroke, the committee has rendered the Nobel Peace Prize a laughingstock." Eugene Robinson's column was much wiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I think we've been told. By examples in Germany, Italy and Japan, from the GOP candidates own mouth. Is it advisable to say publically that "hey, we're just going to stay there until the hate dies down. Build some schools, give them some grain." Eventually the culture will be to have Americans around and maybe that's not such a bad thing. "Look at me, I took a hot shower today" - Mullah circa 2081. I just cant agree. (But you are still A1 in my book man!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Eugene Robinson's column was much wiser. If you call Robinson's pathetic attempt to defend Obama's undeserved recognition by equating conservatives with the Taliban "wiser", then yes, you're right. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize officially a joke now Unfortunately, it has been a joke for longer than you think: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/13/pruden-obamas-ignoble-prize/ .... The Nobel Peace Prize was once thought to be the ultimate reward for selfless idealism, and if you're still in high school, maybe it is today. A decade ago four high-school girls in Kansas heard the story of Irena Sendler, a Polish social worker who saved 2,500 Jewish babies from the Nazis. They wrote a play about her and sent letters to world figures, and this led to her nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Miss Sendler, who died last year at age 98, smuggled the babies out of the Warsaw Ghetto in an ambulance over several months early in the war, hiding them in crates, burlap sacks and several times in coffins. She kept a barking dog to drown the cries of the frightened babies. The Nazis arrested her and tortured her severely, breaking her legs in a vise. She bribed a guard to escape a firing squad, and after the war retrieved the names of the babies from jars she buried in her garden, and reunited hundreds of them with relatives. The Nobel jury was not impressed. They gave the prize that year to Al Gore for his slide show about global warming. But, hey, at least Obama made lots of folks 'feel good' about themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Unfortunately, it has been a joke for longer than you think:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/13/pruden-obamas-ignoble-prize/ .... The Nobel Peace Prize was once thought to be the ultimate reward for selfless idealism, and if you're still in high school, maybe it is today. A decade ago four high-school girls in Kansas heard the story of Irena Sendler, a Polish social worker who saved 2,500 Jewish babies from the Nazis. They wrote a play about her and sent letters to world figures, and this led to her nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Miss Sendler, who died last year at age 98, smuggled the babies out of the Warsaw Ghetto in an ambulance over several months early in the war, hiding them in crates, burlap sacks and several times in coffins. She kept a barking dog to drown the cries of the frightened babies. The Nazis arrested her and tortured her severely, breaking her legs in a vise. She bribed a guard to escape a firing squad, and after the war retrieved the names of the babies from jars she buried in her garden, and reunited hundreds of them with relatives. The Nobel jury was not impressed. They gave the prize that year to Al Gore for his slide show about global warming. But, hey, at least Obama made lots of folks 'feel good' about themselves. LOL, I was at an awards ceremony a couple of years ago conducted by an organization I used to be affiliated with. They presented the award for having the greatest impact on Quality (ala Deming, Juran, etc) to..... none other than, Al Gore! I dropped my membership immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 If you call Robinson's pathetic attempt to defend Obama's undeserved recognition by equating conservatives with the Taliban "wiser", then yes, you're right. :thumbsup: What is your mad to happy ratio in life? Is it like 100-0? 95-5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.