Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize


DarrellsMyHero28

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, it has been a joke for longer than you think:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/13/pruden-obamas-ignoble-prize/

Look, I have said several times in this thread that I do not think that they should have given this thing to Obama.

But you guys are not convincing me of anything more by posting editorials from known partisans like Wesley Pruden, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, pyjamasmedia, etc. Reading those pieces, you get the sense that these guys are just angry, period, at Obama, at Euros, at the concept of peace in general.

They spend their lives telling the rest of the world to eff-off, go out of their way to strut about like pea****s talking about American exceptionalism, then they don't understand why the world likes Obama more than their guys. It's not very compelling to read their whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I have said several times in this thread that I do not think that they should have given this thing to Obama.

But you guys are not convincing me of anything more by posting editorials from known partisans like Wesley Pruden, Liz Cheney, Peggy Noonan, pyjamasmedia, etc. Reading those pieces, you get the sense that these guys are just angry, period, at Obama, at Euros, at the concept of peace in general.

They spend their lives telling the rest of the world to eff-off, go out of their way to strut about like pea****s talking about American exceptionalism, then they don't understand why the world likes Obama more than their guys. It's not very compelling to read their whining.

First of all, I didn't blame Obama - he was just the guy who was given the award. The folks who awarded it to him (and even those who nominated him) are the ones who I think are at fault.

Second, I didn't include any of the 'opinion' stuff in my quote. I simply relayed the story of Irena Seldler and how she was ignored - when in fact she had done more than most of us to promote 'Peace'. If it makes you feel better, I can look it up in Wiki - it wasn't the writer but the message.

I'd appreciate it if you'd read what I posted and didn't seem to stop at 'Pruden' before you replied. I don't care what you think of those writers just as I'm sure you don't care what I think of lots of writers just like them on the 'other side'. My post was about the ridiculous nomination and award of a prize to Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I didn't blame Obama - he was just the guy who was given the award. The folks who awarded it to him (and even those who nominated him) are the ones who I think are at fault.

Second, I didn't include any of the 'opinion' stuff in my quote. I simply relayed the story of Irena Seldler and how she was ignored - when in fact she had done more than most of us to promote 'Peace'. If it makes you feel better, I can look it up in Wiki - it wasn't the writer but the message.

I'd appreciate it if you'd read what I posted and didn't seem to stop at 'Pruden' before you replied. I don't care what you think of those writers just as I'm sure you don't care what I think of lots of writers just like them on the 'other side'. My post was about the ridiculous nomination and award of a prize to Obama.

Fair enough.

My mistake is that I tend to follow people's links and try to read the articles that they have chosen to link before I respond. In this case, I read the whole editorial, and responded accordingly. Don't view it as an attack on you, but on Mr. Pruden.

You (and Mr. Pruden) are correct that Ms. Seldler would have been a better choice this year. But I suspect, from reading a bit of Wesley Pruden's work, that he would ***** just the same if Obama was given a compliment for anything, by anyone, under any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

...... Don't view it as an attack on you, but on Mr. Pruden.

This is why I will read all of your posts in a political thread, even though you and I don't see "eye to eye" on most issues. You are always fair and reasoned. You show me different perspectives on most issues. A friend of mine told me long ago that in order to really believe in something, you should seek out challenges to that belief as much as possible, then see if your belief holds up.

By the way, I didn't view it as an attack on me, and if I said/implied that, I apoligize.

You (and Mr. Pruden) are correct that Ms. Seldler would have been a better choice this year. But I suspect, from reading a bit of Wesley Pruden's work, that he would ***** just the same if Obama was given a compliment for anything, by anyone, under any circumstances.

I agree 100% with this assessment. I only saw this particular piece from another web-site's comments, and didn't think the posting rules would allow me to link to that post. I also agree that Mr. Pruden is very similar to someone like, Mr. Olbermann, in that they see only one side to most issues and will take any chance to bash opponents.

Lastly, I did see that you were very consistent in this thread in that you didn't feel President Obama should have been given the award now and I wouldn't imply otherwise.

Thanks for the good discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I will read all of your posts in a political thread, even though you and I don't see "eye to eye" on most issues. You are always fair and reasoned. You show me different perspectives on most issues. A friend of mine told me long ago that in order to really believe in something, you should seek out challenges to that belief as much as possible, then see if your belief holds up.

By the way, I didn't view it as an attack on me, and if I said/implied that, I apoligize.

I agree 100% with this assessment. I only saw this particular piece from another web-site's comments, and didn't think the posting rules would allow me to link to that post. I also agree that Mr. Pruden is very similar to someone like, Mr. Olbermann, in that they see only one side to most issues and will take any chance to bash opponents.

Lastly, I did see that you were very consistent in this thread in that you didn't feel President Obama should have been given the award now and I wouldn't imply otherwise.

Thanks for the good discussion.

Why thank you. The feeling is mutual.

And Olbermann is a good analogy. Or Michael Moore. Opinions from guys like that mean nothing, because you can predict exactly what their take on almost any subject is going to be before you even read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Well, I agree with her take on Obama's selection. It was embarrassing. He hasn't done anything to deserve it. I generally like Peggy Noonan's stuff.

That said, I always have to snicker when she starts talking about Reagan. I can almost see her staring off whistfully into space, talking just above a whisper to no one ... a tear welling up in her eye and slowly rolling down her quivering cheek ...

Reagan had his strong points, but the Nobel Peace Prize? Uh ... not exactly the first name that pops into my head. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Unconstitutional Nobel

By Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham

Friday, October 16, 2009

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Unconstitutional Nobel

By Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham

Friday, October 16, 2009

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

Click on the link for the full article

Now thats one I hadnt even thought of! interesting.

I bet it gets argued that somehow the items in the preamble will allow for it. heck, to most in power thats the fallback position most of the time anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now thats one I hadnt even thought of! interesting.

I bet it gets argued that somehow the items in the preamble will allow for it. heck, to most in power thats the fallback position most of the time anyway.

Naw. You hadn't thought of it because it is a stupid constitutional argument.

First, the Nobel Committee isn't a "king, prince or foreign state."

Second, kings, princes and foreign states have been giving presents to our Presidents for the last 200 years. The President just isn't allowed to accept them personally. So they go to the Archives, or to charity. (My friend used to be in charge of that office at the White House). Obama is donating the prize money to charity, so there is not even a hint of a problem.

The two guys who wrote this article should know better, but it appears that they have an axe to grind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw. You hadn't thought of it because it is a stupid constitutional argument.

First, the Nobel Committee isn't a "king, prince or foreign state."

Second, kings, princes and foreign states have been giving presents to our Presidents for the last 200 years. The President just isn't allowed to accept them personally. So they go to the Archives, or to charity. (My friend used to be in charge of that office at the White House). Obama is donating the prize money to charity, so there is not even a hint of a problem.

The two guys who wrote this article should know better, but it appears that they have an axe to grind.

Not only the Prise money, but also the actual award trophy. Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson the only other two sitting Presidents to win the award, their Nobel Prises trophies are still the property of the White House and convey with each new office holder.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only the Prise money, but also the actual award trophy. Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson the only other two sitting Presidents to win the award, their Nobel Prises trophies are still the property of the White House and convey with each new office holder.....

Exactly. It's not a genuine problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw. You hadn't thought of it because it is a stupid constitutional argument.

First, the Nobel Committee isn't a "king, prince or foreign state."

Second, kings, princes and foreign states have been giving presents to our Presidents for the last 200 years. The President just isn't allowed to accept them personally. So they go to the Archives, or to charity. (My friend used to be in charge of that office at the White House). Obama is donating the prize money to charity, so there is not even a hint of a problem.

The two guys who wrote this article should know better, but it appears that they have an axe to grind.

Isnt the prize sponsored by the Norwegian Storting (part of the Norwegian parliament)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt the prize sponsored by the Norwegian Storting (part of the Norwegian parliament)?

Alfred Nobel made his fortune as the inventor of Dynomite.... Which was the most powerful explosive in his day. He bequeethed his fortune to honor those who moved humanity forward in different disiplines. Medicine, Chemisty, Physiscs, Economics, Literature and Peace.....

For the Peace Prize, he asked the Norwegian Parlement to decide upon the winner. However, the Award, the associated banquet, and 1.4 million dollar prize are all financed from Alfred Nobel's foundation and is made up of what is left of his private estate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfred Nobel made his fortune as the inventor of Dynomite.... Which was the most powerful explosive in his day. He bequeethed his fortune to honor those who moved humanity forward in different disiplines. Medicine, Chemisty, Physiscs, Economics, Literature and Peace.....

For the Peace Prize, he asked the Norwegian Parlement to decide upon the winner. However, the Award, the associated banquet, and 1.4 million dollar prize are all financed from Alfred Nobel's foundation and is made up of what is left of his private estate.

but is still technically awarded (regardless of where the money in the pot came from) by a foreign state.

(I only find this interesting as a constitutional question and really dont believe he should lose the award for it or anything)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt the prize sponsored by the Norwegian Storting (part of the Norwegian parliament)?

Sponsored by.

But even if that were the same thing, it doesn't matter. It didn't matter when Teddy R. and Woodrow W. got the award either. My friend in the White House dealt with hundreds of gifts from foreign governments to President Clinton every year.

The meaning of this constitutional provision has been well understood for over a century. The people who are trying to create this controversy are doing it because they want to nail Obama for something, anything, not because they think the argument has any merit.

I should point out that the guy who wrote that article is a Professor of Constitutional Law as Chapman University. You know who else is a professor of Constitutional Law at Chapman? Hugh Hewitt, the ultra conservative radio talk show host. The other guy is from a neo-con think tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sponsored by.

But even if that were the same thing, it doesn't matter. It didn't matter when Teddy R. and Woodrow W. got the award either. My friend in the White House dealt with hundreds of gifts from foreign governments to President Clinton every year.

The meaning of this constitutional provision has been well understood for over a century. The people who are trying to create this controversy are doing it because they want to nail Obama for something, anything, not because they think the argument has any merit.

I should point out that the guy who wrote that article is a Professor of Constitutional Law as Chapman University. You know who else is a professor of Constitutional Law at Chapman? Hugh Hewitt, the ultra conservative radio talk show host. The other guy is from a neo-con think tank.

again, I'm definitely not supporting nor against what the article said, it is more a matter of interest to me since it is regarding the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but is still technically awarded (regardless of where the money in the pot came from) by a foreign state.

Well Technically, It isn't. Technically it's the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Norweign Peace Prize. It's also Practically funded by the Nobel trust and not the Norweign Government.......

(I only find this interesting as a constitutional question and really dont believe he should lose the award for it or anything)

Well then you shouldn't care..... Cause sitting Presidents can't accept gifts from public or private groups...... The technicality you should concern yourself with is the word accept.....

Obama is free to go and "accept" the honor, the money, the dinner, and the trophy..... as long as he doesn't keep the money or the trophy; I believe he even has to re-emberse them for the dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Technically, It isn't. Technically it's the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Norweign Peace Prize. It's also Practically funded by the Nobel trust and not the Norweign Government.......

Well then you shouldn't care..... Cause sitting Presidents can't accept gifts from public or private groups...... The technicality you should concern yourself with is the word accept.....

Obama is free to go and "accept" the honor, the money, the dinner, and the trophy..... as long as he doesn't keep the money or the trophy; I believe he even has to re-emberse them for the dinner.

relax and read one post above yours poopie!

sheesh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahhh, I just read up on it. It's seen as proper still because the Nobel committee members are not "active parliment members".

I guess this issue did actually come up for both Wilson and Roosevelt too.

Yep. And the two guys who wrote that article and are stirring this pot knew that already. Yet for some reason, they didn't seem to think it relevant to mention it when they wrote their article.

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because 99.9 percent of their audience isn't like SnyderShrugged, and won't go look it up? Instead, they will just get madder at that evil Kenyan usurper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. And the two guys who wrote that article and are stirring this pot knew that already. Yet for some reason, they didn't seem to think it relevant to mention it when they wrote their article.

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because 99.9 percent of their audience isn't like SnyderShrugged, and won't go look it up? Instead, they will just get madder at that evil Kenyan usurper.

good point. damn this media driven world!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this issue did actually come up for both Wilson and Roosevelt too.

No it didn't..... It never was a concern for either Roosevelt or Wilson to accept the award, although neither traveled to Norway to do so....

What was similar was the controversy. Teddy Roosevelt got the award for negotiating peace between the Russians and the Japanese. The controversy was the Japanese had sneaked attacked the Russian fleet and sank it, and then ambushed their North Sea fleat and sank it. Teddy Negotiated Peace only after Japan had all the chips.. Some accomplishment.... 30 years latter Japan used the same tactic on us at Pearl Harbor.

Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize in an equally controversial fashion. He created the League of Nations. A precursor to the United Nations. Only after he became the toast of the world for creating the beurocracy the United States declined to participate in it. Also the weekness of the Legue is often cited as one of the reasons for WWII occurring... Again some achievement.

Teddy, Woodrow, and Obama all recieved controversial Awards... but none of those awards was ever deemed to be unconstitutional or illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...