He is donating his winnings ($1.4M) to charity. That is pretty cool. If it was me, I would have been tempted to fire another missile at the moon.

Sometimes you just have to go preemptive. Who knows what those moonmen are planning up there.

At least there's still one grown up in the GOP.

McCain:


Too bad most in the GOP favor this guy.

Limbaugh:

That would be pretty sweet, to be president. Every time you're really pumped about something shoot a nuclear missile into orbit. BOOM. And the bonus is you're reducing nuclear stockpiles and probably get yourself another prize.

If nothing else comes out of it this is a good thing.

Classy (and appropriate) response by McCain. I think it's a bit crazy too that he won, but people acting as if he was lobbying the Nobel committee for the award is a bit crazy and well..I dunno. I just think the response is obviously Obama-fatigue, but it's also a bit too much rancor and I'm hardly of fan of him or his party on much of anything politically.

That is funny in that I'm sure if a liberal had something like that a few years ago they would have had them swinging on the gallows for treason. You'd think Rush would be a little more careful with his words, but I've never listened to him, maybe that's just what he does.

You do have to wonder what was going through the minds of the Nobel committee. They must have the biggest man crush / crush in the world.

The way I remember it, Obama identified three overarching concerns for his first term: energy, health care, and education. The economic crisis obviously also became a key issue before the election. I think he's been pretty strategic about attacking those items.

First he directed his efforts at the economic crisis. While many of his supporters may feel he didn't go far enough, he probably did about as well as could.

Next he went after health care and now, three quarters of the way through his first year, we may actually be close to substantive health care reform even if, again, not to the extent that he or many of his supporters may have hoped for.

I'm guessing energy is next on the slate with education to follow in years 3 and 4. I'm not sure how he could have been expected to deal with all four in the first 9 months or really move much faster than he has given the situation.

Hmmmmmm.... obvious question coming up here..... wondering if you know the history or not, or are just being smart.....

Did he promise to? Or in fact, did he promise to keep slavery in the states where it already existed?

I think we are talking of two different types of treatment. Bush did not have to endure comments like "Kill Him", "Terrorist", "Treason" before he was even elected. Bush did not have looming over his head white supremacists plotting to go on a national killing spree, shooting and decapitating Black people. Or what about the Joker image put out.

I think we are referring to different type of "Bad" treatment.

The latter.


It was as reasonable to expect him to seek ending slavery everywhere as it was to expect Obama to be a champion of gay rights.

Well, Obama actually said he would repeal DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell and that doesn't appear to be the case. The analogy to Lincoln is a poor one.

So, what I’ve learned from all this is that I don’t have the mental agility required to follow a thread where both molson and mtolson are posting.

I guess he was a warmonger too.

I believe you are correct!!

So you are saying that the GOP favors a radio personality over a guy that they nominated as their party's presidential candidate? That is just silly.

FWIW, Limbaugh is a loon.

yeah, I came back to the thread to say I found the butt hurt. Apparently every Sean Hannity caller could use some Preparation H today.

I can see laughter and amusement as a reaction to this. Rage and anger? Not so much.

I should have said more rather than most. There was a poll this summer where more republicans said Limbaugh was the leader of the GOP than McCain.

Tell me about it. Sometimes I look at my old posts and I'm like, "Great point molson!" - and it wasn't even me.

I guess where I come down on this issue is that here we are with a President that hasn't done much of anything to garner the award and he wins it because of his "Cult of Personality".

Now, those of us that chuckle about it are being labeled as having our butts hurt. I guess I am used to rewarding people who actually get stuff done rather than make others feel good.

If Bush's grand experiment of introducing democracy to an Arab Middle East nation succeeds, he would be more worthy of the NPP than Obama by far. The problem is, we won't know whether or not it was successful for at least another 10 years.

Obama has talked a good game, but he has produced very little. I will even argue that many of his moves are counter-productive. Even Cash for Clunkers, which is probably his most successful initiative, was counter-productive in the long run. Car sales are slumping again, and the flaws in the program did not substantially improve the average MPG of cars on the road in the US.

I heard this when it broke late last nite (for me) and woke up this morning shocked as hell at all the people pissed at Obama for this. LOL its hilarious but there are articles, tweets and all kinds of stuff bashing him. I'm pretty sure he didn't even expect to win, and I doubt he lobbied for it himself. I don't think anyone should be mad at him for winning. Maybe at the Committee who gave it out, but not Obama.

LOL

Who gives a fuck? I mean I can't even name the last few winners.

I do think it's an honor when any American receives the reward, but not sure why there is people blaming him for winning it.

Okay starting right now for the next year or so I am going to continue to throw the words "peace, hope and change" into every thing I say but not actually do anything. Maybe next year at this time I will win the Nobel Peace Prize.

I hope everyone is at peace right now as I am getting ready to go change for work! <- sentence if filled with Nobel Peace WIN ....

+1.

/tk

Dude, Barack Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize after nine months in office, during which the Iran situation has gotten worse, he refused to meet with the Dalai Llama for fear of upsetting the Chinese, gave up missile defense in Europe, which angered Poland and didn't net us any noticable return on diplomatic relations with Russia (and which of those two countries has been the aggressor over the past century?), and has been played like a fool by several tinpot South American dictators.

After all that, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, not when he's 60 years old and has actually (hopefully) accomplished amazing and wonderful things for the world. He won it now. After that, anything's possible, including Bush's experiment in Middle East democracy bearing some fruit.

I blame Oprah......

Didn't Al Gore win this thing a few years ago for inventing carbon credits or something stupid like that?

How has Iran gotten worse? Shouldn't you at least give a little credit to the combined front of UK/France/Germany/US?

Are you talking about the same Russia that has made much more positive statements about Iran sanctions or the Russia that did this:


Are you talking about Poland where this was true,


and this is true,


And who are the several tinpot dictators? We'll disagree on whether Chavez has accomplished anything, but who els are you talking about?


And just to inoculate myself, I'm not really trying to defend the Nobel as I think it was at best a questionable choice, but while I don't think there's a list of Obama accomplishments, I think you're really stretching to create this list of Obama failures.

I didn't call them failures. We don't have a pile of glowing radioactive rubble where a city used to be. I just don't view them as wise moves. I don't know where I even mentioned Chavez's accomplishments, but Obama's move to normalize relations with Bolivia and his support of Zelaya (though certainly not outside the international norm) bothers me quite a bit.

I preferred my state of ignorance...where molson had multiple personalities.

Have you been watching or reading the news the last few months?

This is where I'm at.

My initial thought was that the Nobel voters just couldn't wait to get the President's dick in their mouths.

Then I thought they might have to change the name to the "not a Bush" prize.


Finally I announced to my management team that I was awarding them the "Nobel Oracle Migration Prize". We're about three week's into a planned migration.

The fact that the rest of the world seems to generally approve of Obama, in a strong way as well, is seen as quite negative with some people in this nation. Wanting to act multilaterally is also seen as a huge negative.

If you do not approve of the committee's decision, it can hardly be seen as the fault of the person they chose for the award. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that many of the people outraged today would be hard pressed to name more than 1 or 2 previous recipients. Given that, I find it hard to believe that their rage is driven by anything more than a dislike for Obama.

Everytime someone says something negative about Rush, they have to go on his show and apologize. I don't think McCain has that power in the party.

Define "GOP".

The party apparatchik? I imagine they favor McCain. The people who actually cast votes for McCain? At best he's 50-50 with Rush, and probably not even that close in terms of who we'd have more agreement with.

I wouldn't take 10 McCain's for one Rush, and I don't even listen to him more than a few times a year.

Having read all through this thread, it is my impression that some liberal leaning posters in this thread have tried hard to manufacture the "Obama is under attack by conservatives for winning" argument, when it seems pretty clear to me that most, if not perhaps even all, such conservatives here are attacking the committee's decision, not Obama.

The only negative Obama-isms I have seen have come from responses to posts from those same liberals who are trying to build up Obama's "accomplishments" to justify the committee's decision.

I have to question anyone's rationality who seriously considers this award to be anywhere near justifiable. It's basically stripped this once lauded prize of just about any prestige and value it once had, IMO.

Members of the committee have until the first official meeting to register their nominations, so that deadline is not a hard deadline. When the committee meets, they narrow down the list, which is later considered by another group. They compile reports over several months that are then given to the Nobel Committee to make the decision.

It is also relevant to point out that the nomination process and selection process are not tied together. It is not a situation where the nominator has to make the case for his nominee to win. Nominations are accepted and the selection process goes on its own path and does not have to limit their consideration of each nominee according to what they accomplished by February 1 of the year. It is a living process that can be influenced by events happening that very day or week that they are working through the selection process.

I don't proclaim to follow and study the Nobel Peace Prize nearly as well as some of you here do, based on the claims that it devalues the award. I can only presume that you know enough about each and every winner in the past to know how Obama truly stacks up against them all. As far as I know, only one person has ever refused the award (Lê Ðức Thọ) and he was from communist Vietnam. If that is the case, the mere suggestion that he refuse the award (put forward by supposed Nobel Peace Prize scholars) would almost seem like a trojan horse so that ads can be ran next election with him alongside a Vietnamese communist as the only two people that ever refused it.

If Obama's peaceful accomplishments do indeed warrant the award in comparison to past winners, then this award did not become a sham today, but has been one apparently since it was first awarded, and we're just figuring it out now.

You don't need a Master's in Nobel Peace prize history to determine that this award today either devalues the award or the award has always been crap. Frankly, the fact most of us with this conclusion went with the first speaks to the fact we actually optimistically assumed it was in the past awarded to meaningful recipients.

Are you saying it has not been?

Has Hitler weighed in on this award decision yet?

Is it true that Nobel Peace Prize nominations had to be submitted by 10 Jan 2009?

I strongly suspect that many of the people agreeing with this decision would be hard pressed to name more than 1 or 2 previous recipients. Stating that he deserves the award because of the perception he has something to deserve it in less than 9 months is silly. This is especially true when using the "look at the past winners, this validates Obama winning the award" argument. As Chief Rum mentioned, was the award always a sham and we are just realizing it now? Or, is Obama just the first that really does not deserve it? I see no possible way to justify this decision.


While this may be true for a small minority, most of us believe this is an absurd choice regardless of our dislike for Obama. I would also point out that it is not rage we feel, but disbelief. I have not seen anyone attack Obama for this decision, rather, the comments have been directed towards the committee's decision.

Not at all. I am saying I don't know enough about all the previous winners to draw that conclusion. Those that have, presumably, have much more information about it than I do. Is this your admission that you don't know much about most of the winners?

Not according to anything official that I have seen.

That would not be the case for me, although I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the award. It is not my position to care who they give their award too. That's their business, not mine. There is a reason they've never ran their selections by me first. They don't particularly care what I think, and I am fine with that.


I don't know, as I clearly stated. I am leaving that up to those of you that spend far more time studying Nobel Peace Prize history. Some of you have formed pretty strong opinions about it, so I would hope those are informed opinions.


You may not have looked hard enough...

Yeah, my wife just mentioned it to me...probably saw it on TV, figured I'd ask.


That's from Wiki...but nothing official there obviously...

Wiki also had this neat tidbit just below that date, that I'll bet was added in the last couple of days...


Awwww, looking forward to it! :)

You continue to assume that knowledge of past Nobel Peace prize history is necessary for us to come to the conclusions we have. You are wrong. All the information we need is presented right here in the present. The only thing in doubt is whether the award is just now become a sham, or if it has always been and because we didn't pay attention before, we never noticed. So stop going with that argument; it is a logical fallacy, and if something annoys me even more than blind partisanship, it is illogical argumentation.

Both of your examples are criticisms on the decision to give Obama this award, based on their opinions of what he has done (Barrett's long list; Limbaugh's speech reference). They do not represent the small minority RomaGoth mentioned. Look harder.

Here is a fictitious example of something that would make your case better: "Obama is a piece of crud for making himself eligible for this award."