Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?

aircooled wrote: ----------------- Hey?! Where did that post go? It said something about Nader getting nominated... ------------------

You can bash Democrats and Republicans all you want here but don't mess with the Corvair enthusiasts.

But Obama is the one who wanted to close those tax loopholes

Osterkraut wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: </cite because it wasn't that long ago black folks in America couldn't vote.

I wish to subscribe to your revisionist history...

Well. Sure! Post some links where I'm "revising history" and we'll talk.

My main point is that it wasn't long ago that black folks were protesting in the

streets for equal rights. 1960's I believe. Now we have a black president.

aircooled wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: Jimmah's Peace Plan: Hey Isreal, you stop killing Egyptians and we'll give you 3 billion dollars U.S. a year. OK? Hey Egypt, you stop killing Isrealies and we'll give you 3 billion dollars U.S. a year. OK?

More for this. Although what you say is likely true, you are completely ignoring his later efforts (and this did happened while he was in office). As the Nobel committee stated: "...has spent the past two decades traveling around the globe monitoring elections, promoting human rights, and providing health care and food to the world's poor. "

Does that make up for all the innocent children his peanuts killed and sickened?

I wonder if Barack would have gotten the award if they knew he was going to try and blow up the moon

Xceler8x wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: </cite because it wasn't that long ago black folks in America couldn't vote.

I wish to subscribe to your revisionist history...

Well. Sure! Post some links where I'm "revising history" and we'll talk. My main point is that it wasn't long ago that black folks were protesting in the streets for equal rights. 1960's I believe. Now we have a black president.

Your "equal rights" doesn't equal gaining the right to vote. That would be the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870. Now, many southern states pulled some tricks to keep black and Republicans out of the voting booth, but the actual, legal right to vote was granted to all citizens in 1870. 139 years before Obama was elected. Maybe the more impressive feat would have been to say that the traditionally anti-black (1828 to 1963) Democrats fielded a black Presidential candidate.

That's your revisionist history.

Osterkraut wrote:

Xceler8x wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: </cite because it wasn't that long ago black folks in America couldn't vote.

I wish to subscribe to your revisionist history...

Well. Sure! Post some links where I'm "revising history" and we'll talk. My main point is that it wasn't long ago that black folks were protesting in the streets for equal rights. 1960's I believe. Now we have a black president.

Your "equal rights" doesn't equal gaining the right to vote. That would be the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870. Now, many southern states pulled some tricks to keep black and Republicans out of the voting booth, but the actual, legal right to vote was granted to all citizens in 1870. 139 years before Obama was elected. Maybe the more impressive feat would have been to say that the traditionally anti-black (1828 to 1963) Democrats fielded a black Presidential candidate. That's your revisionist history.

Now you done gone and PO'd all the Robert Byrd fanboys.

world hates bush

obama is not bush

= prize.

Osterkraut wrote: Your "equal rights" doesn't equal gaining the right to vote. That would be the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870. Now, many southern states pulled some tricks to keep black and Republicans out of the voting booth, but the actual, legal right to vote was granted to all citizens in 1870. 139 years before Obama was elected. Maybe the more impressive feat would have been to say that the traditionally anti-black (1828 to 1963) Democrats fielded a black Presidential candidate. That's your revisionist history.

Yeah. You got me there. Jim Crow kept most minority voters out of the polls much longer. While the 15th amendment was ratified earlier there was a reason for minorities to march in the 1960's. They sure weren't doing it for the exercise.

I stand by my statement that Obama has done a lot considering he is of a race that was widely discriminated against as recently as the 1960's and 50's.

Xceler8x wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: Your "equal rights" doesn't equal gaining the right to vote. That would be the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870. Now, many southern states pulled some tricks to keep black and Republicans out of the voting booth, but the actual, legal right to vote was granted to all citizens in 1870. 139 years before Obama was elected. Maybe the more impressive feat would have been to say that the traditionally anti-black (1828 to 1963) Democrats fielded a black Presidential candidate. That's your revisionist history.

Yeah. You got me there. Jim Crow kept most minority voters out of the polls much longer. While the 15th amendment was ratified earlier there was a reason for minorities to march in the 1960's. They sure weren't doing it for the exercise. I stand by my statement that Obama has done a lot considering he is of a race that was widely discriminated against as recently as the 1960's and 50's.

I'd rather believe the country itself has done a lot and Obama is a result of decades of productive introspection.

In spite of his rhetorical skills, he didn't gain the Presidency by himself.

oldsaw wrote: I'd rather believe the country itself has done a lot and Obama is a result of decades of productive introspection. In spite of his rhetorical skills, he didn't gain the Presidency by himself.

Absolutely. You're absolutely right. I should've mentioned that. The fact that we recognize that discrimination was/is wrong, and endeavored to change it, makes a big difference.

Without a desire to change on the Nation's part and an ambition to achieve no matter the current obstacles Obama would not be in office.

Another interesting article from the Daily Beast.

This one actually comes out, slightly, in favor of the Obama Nobel. This writer brings up some valid points.

A White House Surprise by Richard Wolffe

Interesting articles. Personally I don't really care who wins the prize. It is a political statement by a foreign group. Having a foreign group love Obama is really irrelevant.

Is what Obama doing the best for this country? I have my doubts. Who cares if the rest of the world loves us. Negotiating from a position of strength is better than from a position of weakness. A lot of what Obama is doing overseas seems to be weakening us. I'm sure some of you think that is good. Only time will tell. He has at least three more years to get the rabbit out of the hat. I hope he pulls it off. I hope he doesn't break us in the process.

I lost all hope in the Nobel Peace Prize when the runner-up to Al Gore was a lady who smuggled 5,000 Jewish kids out of Nazi Germany. Google Irena Sendler. I hope Kanye West is at the presentation of the prize, that would make it totally worth while...

Toyman01 wrote: I hope he pulls it off. I hope he doesn't break us in the process.

Me too Kemosabe. Me too.

Christopher Buckley, political satirist and writer of "Thanks for Smoking" and "Supreme Courtship", writes Obama's Nobel non-acceptance letter.

A Prize Too Far by Christopher Buckley

Duke wrote: He wasn't perceived as rich, white, and Republican, and his last name wasn't Bush. That's what he did to earn it.

This.

It strikes me as funny how much Bush did behind the scenes to try to ease the suffering in Africa but of course that wasn't a good enough reason to nominate him for a Nobel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

Google the subject, there's plenty more coverage.

Xceler8x wrote: Christopher Buckley, political satirist and writer of "Thanks for Smoking" and "Supreme Courtship", writes Obama's Nobel non-acceptance letter. A Prize Too Far by Christopher Buckley

Here's a similar observation from Peggy Noonan:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574464083239280914.html

Jensenman wrote:

Duke wrote: He wasn't perceived as rich, white, and Republican, and his last name wasn't Bush. That's what he did to earn it.

This. It strikes me as funny how much Bush did behind the scenes to try to ease the suffering in Africa but of course that wasn't a good enough reason to nominate him for a Nobel. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa Google the subject, there's plenty more coverage.

It's apparent some don't care so much about the plight of Africa, as much as they do about their own selfish causes - and their hides, on occasion.

Here's a nice paragraph from the Noonan column:

"For instance: The Peace Prize judges won't see it this way, but America has gone to Europe twice in the past century to fight for peace. This is an old concept, and has to do with killing killers so they can't kill anymore. It cost America a lot to do this, and we kept no territory, as they say, beyond the graves where our soldiers lie. America then taxed itself and gave its wealth not only to its allies but to its former adversaries, to help them rebuild. We didn't actually have to do this. We did it to make the world better. We did it to foster peace. (They should give us a prize.)"

Jensenman wrote: It strikes me as funny how much Bush did behind the scenes to try to ease the suffering in Africa but of course that wasn't a good enough reason to nominate him for a Nobel. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

Good link Jensenman.

That information leads me to believe that the committee mostly had a problem with Bush's "My way or the highway" style of international action. Awarding the Nobel prize to most all of Bush's opponents (Gore, Obama, and to a lesser degree - Carter) seems to be sending a message. Maybe they'll award one to Clinton for peace AND love?

Xceler8x wrote:

Maybe they'll award one to Clinton for peace AND love?

You mean Bill, right? He always has love to share and I'm not certain if Hillary has any.

I thought Xceler8x was talking about the white half.

TJ wrote: So out of all the people on the planet, the one man who is presiding over two wars on foreign soil, neither one legally declared, and is also taking people from all sorts of nations and locking them up in a miltary prison in a 3rd country, not charging them with any crime and ignoring their rights is the one person the Nobel committee rewards for peace?

As much as you were being sarcastic, I think this is actually why he was awarded the prize. Those wars, and the administration that initiated them, were widely unpopular in most of the world, particularly Europe (where the Nobel committee is). It appears they like the fact that Obama stepped up and changed what they perceive as the tone of American foreign policy. He is taking responsibility for someone else's decisions.

There is definitely an aspect of the committee thumbing their noses at the Bush administration.

The Nobel committee is independent and can do whatever the heck they feel like. Besides, this prize is given out every year, and it has to go to someone, and you don't get a new Gandhi every year.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: I stand by my statement that Obama has done a lot considering he is of a race that was widely discriminated against as recently as the 1960's and 50's.

Isn't he 1/2 white? When did he become only black?

Yeah, because racists only hate mixed-race people half as much. I'd argue that people of mixed race have been discriminated against even more strongly.

Xceler8x wrote:

Jensenman wrote: It strikes me as funny how much Bush did behind the scenes to try to ease the suffering in Africa but of course that wasn't a good enough reason to nominate him for a Nobel. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

Good link Jensenman. That information leads me to believe that the committee mostly had a problem with Bush's "My way or the highway" style of international action. Awarding the Nobel prize to most all of Bush's opponents (Gore, Obama, and to a lesser degree - Carter) seems to be sending a message. Maybe they'll award one to Clinton for peace AND love?

Hold on..

Yes bush did good work in Africa. However, He launched all that crap to help save his face internationally. None of it was done with a clear conscience or a kind heart. It was selfishness pure and simple. He realized his legacy, what most would remember, was destruction so he tried something different. He started really playing up his work in africa near the end of his 2nd term when noone, not even his parents, liked him.... It was if he wanted to tell the world... "Look now.. I'm not an evil doer... I'm a good doer-er..."

Salanis wrote: The Nobel committee is independent and can do whatever the heck they feel like. Besides, this prize is given out every year, and it has to go to someone, and you don't get a new Gandhi every year.

I don't think they have to award a prize (IIRC there were several years a prize wasn't awarded in the literature division).

Gandhi never won.