# If he leaves just ONE legacy - Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BBC NEWS | Europe | Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

:clap:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I guess the decision was made before he snubbed the Dalai Lama in favour of the oppressive Chinese government.

Obama is starting to disappoint many people.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

kps said:


> I guess the decision was made before he snubbed the Dalai Lama in favour of the oppressive Chinese government.
> 
> Obama is starting to disappoint many people.


I think that Obama is wothy of the Nobel Peace Prize, but I too was dismayed over his postponement of a meeting with the Dalai Lama. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While the award is good news, the action is just bad for the image.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

You win the prize because of this???:



> Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "*It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve*"


Not awarded for any works completed, but for works the _committee_ would like to see done.

The OP capitalized wrong word in his title, should have been: "If *He* leaves just one legacy."


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

chasMac said:


> Not awarded for any works completed, but for works the _committee_ would like to see done.
> 
> The OP capitalized wrong word in his title, should have been: "If *He* leaves just one legacy."


Exactly. This is purely political. It is way too premature to give anything to Obama because he has yet to accomplish much. 

The Nobel Peace Prize jumped the shark when they gave it to Yasser Arafat.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

It is absolutely crazy that he should win the award now. Let's see if he actually accomplishes anything first.  It is just plain nuts, Al Gore all over again! Looks like the Noble Peace prize has been downgraded to the People's Choice Awards.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The usual lap puppies out in force yapping...nothing new there.

••

He got because he is out there talking to the issues directly with the parties



> PRESIDENT OBAMA WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. ... *[T]he committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama's diplomatic efforts so far .*.. An intellectually honest approach suggests the latter's concerns are not unreasonable. ..


 and in particular for his taking away the very provocative missile shield.



> Obama new missile defense policy to shield Russia too?
> 
> 02 October, 2009, 12:57
> 
> *The US administration's recent decision to scrap plans for an anti-missile defense shield in Europe has warmed relations with Russia,* but replacing it with a new shield is now on the agenda.


Obama new missile defense policy to shield Russia too? - RT Top Stories

but for those still reliving the 50s this is not likely good news...

summary



> OSLO – U.S. president Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world *and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism*.


Praise, shock greet Obama's Nobel win - thestar.com

Pretty clear reasons....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Pretty clear reasons....


That's like saying Roberto Luongo should get the Vezna once he gets his first shutout of the season.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> and in particular for his taking away the very provocative missile shield.


I doubt Obama had much to do with that. More likely a deal was struck for the Russians to back off on some other issues (e.g. Iran).

If he had a choice, I think Obama would have said no to the prize because this is probably going to hurt him more politically than help him. The media will have a field day with this one.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> The usual lap puppies out in force yapping...nothing new there.


God Doc, get over yourself!! No one of us if any more a lap puppy than you; whose views are always predictable... 

The "lap puppy" s**t is getting old and tiresome.

Give it a rest... not everyone has to agree with you and your particular penchants and shouldn't have to suffer your trite little self important quips just because they don't.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The usual lap puppies out in force yapping...nothing new there.


Why must you call those whose opinions differ from yours "lap puppies" at every turn?

Their opinions are just as valid as yours, so suck it up and stop it already with the name calling.

Or, to use another of your favourite shots . . . grow up.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Why must you call those whose opinions differ from yours "lap puppies" at every turn?


Because he has a penchant for the nanny state and organizations like the UN, the Nobel Prize committee and the federal Liberal Party well represent that agenda. Questioning the validity of these organizations is seen as a threat.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The usual lap puppies out in force yapping...nothing new there.


So, what's the thrust here?

Anyone who disagrees with any post you make for any reason is automatically fair game for name calling?

Is that it?

A "lap puppy"? What is that anyways? I'm not sure but I'll bet it beats the hell out of being a sheep, hiding in a flock, afraid of its shadow, but always willing to add to the din and the fertilizer stock.

If you don't want anyone to comment on or disagree with your posts/threads, then don't bother putting them up in the first place. Do you really think that 6.7 billion people the world over are going to follow your views lockstep? Get a grip.

There are other viewpoints on this planet. Get used to it.

Geesh...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

This was way out of line given that OB is still pounding the war drums in Iraq, Afghanistan and is continuing let's bomb Iran propaganda campaign.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Actually, President Obama summed it up well when he first got the text on his Blackberry informing him he had won. He remarked that he thought it was a joke.The cutoff for 2009 nominations was, I believe, February 1st. At that point Obama had been President for only two weeks. The Peace Prize used to be awarded for a tangible contribution to world peace over a period of time. Now, it seems, merely being a celebrity qualifies one for what used to be one of the world's most prestigious awards.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

What was the point in that? 

There is no way he should have one any award when he has done nothing to warrant it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Not to diminish the importance of the things Obama appears to be trying to do... but I can't help but think that part of this award is due to the fact that Obama isn't Bush, and he's talking to the rest of the world like an educated adult, rather than a loaded-for-bear Texan evangelical wingnut... The Bush / Cheney administration was outright dangerous. Obama at least gives people some hope that the US is becoming a "nicer" world neighbour.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

chasMac said:


> You win the prize because of this???:
> 
> Not awarded for any works completed, but for works the _committee_ would like to see done.


Apparently you do. According to the Associated Press' article "Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize":



> _ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
> 
> More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm beginning to think that the Nobel selection committee consists of the editorial staff at The Onion.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc, please explain the 'legacy' part of Obama winning the prize. How would this be a legacy?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BO *talks* a good game. So far his actions either fall far short of or even veer in the opposite direction of his speeches. Which is why the Peace Prize is every bit as inappropriate as say giving it to Kissinger would have been.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

sarah11918 said:


> Apparently you do. According to the Associated Press' article "Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize":
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's just dumb. Award someone something, and hope they can pull it off.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Friday, Oct. 9, 2009 11:45 EDT
> *Obama: "I will accept this award as a call to action"*
> 
> On Friday morning, more than a few people were asking how President Obama would handle having won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. With people on the left and the right, not to mention in between, wondering whether he really deserved the win, there was some speculation that he could hurt himself politically if he responded the wrong way.
> ...


Obama: "I will accept this award as a call to action" - War Room - Salon.com


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Great speeh. He said what needed to be said, under the circumstances. Even Mike Huckabee is urging Republicans not to shoot themselves in the foot again with coming out against Obama's Nobel. He felt that they were seen as anti-American when they cheered that Chicago did not get the Olympics, and now, with Obama calling this a prize for all Americans, Huckabee contends that Republicans can sound like "whiners" if they start complaining about Obama and the Peace Prize. We shall see.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Great speeh. He said what needed to be said, under the circumstances. Even Mike Huckabee is urging Republicans not to shoot themselves in the foot again with coming out against Obama's Nobel. He felt that they were seen as anti-American when they cheered that Chicago did not get the Olympics, and now, with Obama calling this a prize for all Americans, Huckabee contends that Republicans can sound like "whiners" if they start complaining about Obama and the Peace Prize. We shall see.


The Republicans are definitely a bunch of whiners and simply oppose anything Obama says or supports. I guess there are lots of hard feelings about their recent electoral losses.


----------



## HAL 9000 (Jun 30, 2008)

Thank goodness the world has obama, what would we do with out him.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vandave said:


> The Republicans are definitely a bunch of whiners and simply oppose anything Obama says or supports. I guess there are lots of hard feelings about their recent electoral losses.


True. Republicans are not doing themselves any good by coming out against America on things like the Olympics. It was not Obama's Olympic bit, even though he supported Chicago's bid for the games. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

If Obama had even a shred of integrity, he would decline the award.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bsenka said:


> If Obama had even a shred of integrity, he would decline the award.


Integrity? He may be Obama, but he is still a politician. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

vandave said:


> the republicans are definitely a bunch of whiners and simply oppose anything obama says or supports. I guess there are lots of hard feelings about their recent electoral losses.


+1


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HAL 9000 said:


> Thank goodness the world has obama, what would we do with out him.


:lmao: I think the sun would still rise in the east and set in west.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bsenka said:


> If Obama had even a shred of integrity, he would decline the award.


I don't agree. I think it would be rude to turn it down. 

This could hurt Obama because his opponents will jump on it. His best bet is to downplay it and act surprised.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

If there is one thing that is difficult to dispute (though I am sure there are many who would find a way to dispute it) it si that Obama is one hell of an orator. 

Great speech, and just the right tone given the circumstances.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Come on.

Even the most cynical detractors have to believe that

(1) the Nobel committee knew what it was doing with this decision;

and

(2) Obama, if he accepts, will try to keep doing the things he was planning on doing, and had already started doing: finding ways out of wars, not starting wars, starting dialogues, promoting peace; he may even try harder, if that's possible, as a result of this award.

This isn't the first time the Nobel committee has encouraged good behaviour rather than rewarded it. This is in keeping with how the award works.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Come on.
> 
> Even the most cynical detractors have to believe that
> 
> (1) the Nobel committee knew what it was doing with this decision;


Ya cause Al Gore sure deserved his.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Best thing I've heard all day.

Now what is the Nobel Peace Prize and why did Obama win it? 

If it's relevant I'm sure Tom Cruise, Margret Thatcher, Oprah and/or Elvis must have won it previously. Right?


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree. I think it would be rude to turn it down.
> 
> This could hurt Obama because his opponents will jump on it. His best bet is to downplay it and *act surprised*.


Who knows, it might even be genuine surprise.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

screature said:


> That's just dumb. Award someone something, and hope they can pull it off.


I agree. It sets a very bad example. Obama hasn't done anything yet to deserve such a prize. 

I especially like the comment on the CTV news site that Obama was only in office for 2 weeks before the nomination deadline of Feb. 1. 

Let's reward him once he's accomplished something and not before.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> Exactly. This is purely political. It is way too premature to give anything to Obama because he has yet to accomplish much.


He bailed GM out! Woot Woot!

Next to that, he has accomplished nothing; though perhaps the Middle East is a little more peaceful simply because they would rather that Hillary Clinton doesn't return. Perhaps they are awarding it because it is entirely probable that Afghanistan will once again become a peaceful place, once the Taliban are back in power and executing people for listening to cassette tapes.



> The Nobel Peace Prize jumped the shark when they gave it to Yasser Arafat.


Just like the Academy Awards, where the shark was jumped when they gave Sissy Spacek a ton of awards. "Best Picture", yeah, best picture to miss...

Next year they will give the Nobel to Robert Mugabe - seeing that he outlawed some major diseases, like HIV, AIDS and Cholera. He is a miracle worker!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> He got because he is out there talking to the issues directly with the parties


Since when? The only stuff that happened is he sent Hillary Clinton over - where she probably looted all of the furniture, and opened her mouth... After that, even the most hard core Taliban would lay low for a few years, until Obama and his Administration (or should I say Jimmy Carter's Administration) are out huckestering for jobs when they get turfed in the next election.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> Because he has a penchant for the nanny state and organizations like the UN, the Nobel Prize committee and the federal Liberal Party well represent that agenda. Questioning the validity of these organizations is seen as a threat.


It's nothing personal - it's just some pap he read in The Star.

I think The Star is so far to the left that Pravda would have denounced it...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Kosh said:


> I agree. It sets a very bad example. Obama hasn't done anything yet to deserve such a prize.


I don't agree that he hasn't done "anything" to deserve the prize -- that powerful and effective speech he gave in Egypt really moved "hearts and minds," the containment of North Korea, the decision to close Guantanamo, leading the G8 into merging with the G20, renewing relations with both their traditional allies and some of their enemies, the decision to slowly withdraw from Iraq, the lessening of the drumbeat for war with Iran and a lot of other smaller efforts all count for something. After eight years of a US president who frankly didn't give a rat's ass about diplomacy, having one so engaged with the world beyond US borders is mightily refreshing to many.

Having said all that, I actually AGREE that this should have been awarded to another candidate, particularly (IMO) Dr. Sima Samar. Or even Hillary Clinton, who has proven very surprisingly good at her peacemaking efforts.

I understand the committee's wish to encourage one of the few people on Earth with enough power to reshape the world, but I think they should have considered Obama NEXT year, when more of his efforts will have borne fruit (or not).

At the moment, it seems very odd to say that a fellow running two (inherited, but still ongoing) invasions/occupations should be the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

If one looks at the other nominees, one might come to the conclusion that there were others more worthy.

Perhaps it's european pandering, a slap against Bush, but realistically Obama hasn't done anything yet to win over the other nominees.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

After hollering in celebration over O's not bring home the Olympic bacon to Chicago, the GOP is keeping their traps shut about this bizarre turn of events. It's become apparent even to them that celebrating the country's failure to win an Olympic bid, and dissing a president who wins a Nobel, makes them look like traitors. 

The Nobel could have gone to the leaders of Iran's green movement, which I think was deserved. Obama is probably a bit embarrassed by his "not Bush" award.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Actually last time I checked Gitmo was still going strong with no concrete plans in place to actually close it down. Iraq troop strength is pretty close to pre-surge levels with zero bases actually being scheduled for closure. Iran is still next in line for total demolition their major crime being that they want to eliminate the US dollar as exchange currency for oil.

As I said earlier he delivers great speeches but it's what he actually does that does or does not impress. In that regard he is certainly no more deserving of a peace prize than say Dick Cheney.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

chas_m said:


> I don't agree that he hasn't done "anything" to deserve the prize -- that powerful and effective speech he gave in Egypt really moved "hearts and minds," the containment of North Korea, the decision to close Guantanamo, leading the G8 into merging with the G20, renewing relations with both their traditional allies and some of their enemies, the decision to slowly withdraw from Iraq, the lessening of the drumbeat for war with Iran and a lot of other smaller efforts all count for something. After eight years of a US president who frankly didn't give a rat's ass about diplomacy, having one so engaged with the world beyond US borders is mightily refreshing to many.


North Korea is hardly contained, and if anyone should be rewarded, it's probably Clinton, for North Korea.

Guatanamo still exists and has prisoners.

The Iraq withdrawal isn't his decision, it's the decision of the US people. Any president would have had to get out of there.

I agree he's eased alot of tensions. But he's got a long and bumpy road ahead of him. 

But then I think somebody's going to be reviewing the people making the decision on the award, because they really don't have any idea what they are doing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's a private foundation....butt out 

They gave their reasons - they are exerting their influence...it's their privilege to do so.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> It's a private foundation....butt out
> 
> They gave their reasons - they are exerting their influence...it's their privilege to do so.


Lap puppy opinions not welcome here??

Yikes-and double yikes. So much for tolerance and a "liberal" attitude towards dissenting opinions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Too predictable. Tiresome.....why just like yapping puppies - much noise - no content.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Too predictable. Tiresome.....why just like yapping puppies - much noise - no content.


You said legacy. How so? Show us your content, big dog.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

What, one cannot have an opinion on the Nobel committee's decision without being told they are a lap puppy?

I like Obama very much. I understand the committee's reasoning, and their choice is entirely their disgression. But it's a very surprising decision nonetheless. My honest first reaction was "This is a joke, right?" My second was "It's not a joke? Obama? Really? What has he done to deserve this?"

Then I read about the reasoning and thought "Okay, I can see why they did it" but I have not made up my mind yet on whether or not I agree with their reasoning.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Too predictable. Tiresome.....why just like yapping puppies - much noise - no content.


When will you realize that an overwhelming majority of this board thinks you are out of line with your name calling?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc thinks he's scored a brilliant coup by changing the term "lap dog" to "lap puppy." No doubt he considers it more witheringly effective. Ignore, if you can, his stock put-downs and instead consider how unfortunate it is for him to be feeling so insecure that he can only deal with dissent in this manner.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I consider myself a small "l" liberal and I am very proud of the acceptance and tolerance that most Canadians show to different lifestyles and opinions. It saddens me when I see someone who supposedly holds "liberal" views being intolerant and dismissive. One of the things that I really admire about ehMac is that we have liberals, conservatives, even libertarians mixing it up in healthy and frank ways with each other. It's a good thing.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

mc3251 said:


> I consider myself a small "l" liberal and I am very proud of the acceptance and tolerance that most Canadians show to different lifestyles and opinions. It saddens me when I see someone who supposedly holds "liberal" views being intolerant and dismissive. One of the things that I really admire about ehMac is that we have liberals, conservatives, even libertarians mixing it up in healthy and frank ways with each other. It's a good thing.


 I am in complete agreement. Actually I abhor the concept that if I agree with Harpo or Ignats on one point I have to buy their entire dumpster load of associated crap. Truth is I am far more fiscally conservative than most MPs but in many other areas find the conservative platform repulsive. 

As to the liberals, their inability to see the extreme damage that a carbon tax or carbon trading could do to Canadians, particularly seniors, is not only revolting but dangerous.

EDIT: Talk about wandering off topic. Still I believe we have to judge BO and others not on their speeches or implied intent but on what they actually do.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> I consider myself a small "l" liberal and I am very proud of the acceptance and tolerance that most Canadians show to different lifestyles and opinions. It saddens me when I see someone who supposedly holds "liberal" views being intolerant and dismissive. One of the things that I really admire about ehMac is that we have liberals, conservatives, even libertarians mixing it up in healthy and frank ways with each other. It's a good thing.





eMacMan said:


> I am in complete agreement. Actually I abhor the concept that if I agree with Harpo or Ignats on one point I have to buy their entire dumpster load of associated crap. Truth is I am far more fiscally conservative than most MPs but in many other areas find the conservative platform repulsive.
> 
> As to the liberals, their inability to see the extreme damage that a carbon tax or carbon trading could do to Canadians, particularly seniors, is not only revolting but dangerous.
> 
> EDIT: Talk about wandering off topic. Still I believe we have to judge BO and others not on their speeches or implied intent but on what they actually do.


 +1

Earlier on in this thread I started the asking MacDoc to knock it off (well actually I was kind of ticked, so it wasn't so much asking as demanding ). I don't why he feels that he has to be rude when he disagrees with someone. His demeanour in this regard belies an innate arrogance and very high regard for his own opinions and intellect while being demeaning and dismissive of others who don't ascribe to his own very entrenched and rather narrow minded views.

It astounds me that someone who conducts business through the connections made on this forum would be so confrontational and condescending. It sure doesn't make for very good PR.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Too predictable. Tiresome.....why just like yapping puppies - much noise - no content.


Much like the more taste - less filling Obama Administration...

This just cheapens the Nobel Peace Prize, but it jumped the shark when they doled it out to Arafat. Other winners actually had some involvement in a peace process, but then again, didn't Kissenger win it? I guess it is a prize that jumps the shark pretty much every year.

Maybe it would have been better to award it to whoever was in charge of ending the long civil war in Sri Lanka?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> When will you realize that an overwhelming majority of this board thinks you are out of line with your name calling?


Only when the editors of The Toronto Star point it out! beejacon


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I am a HUGE fan of Obama. I think just by his words so far, he has done a tremendous amount of good in creating a climate or stage for the US to be more diplomatically engaged and credible to other nations. 

But... I'm not so sure his accomplishments thus far warrant the prize. If he uses the prize as momentum and follows through, great. I would like to see the prize for actual accomplishments and for a body of work over a longer period.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I am a HUGE fan of Obama. I think just by his words so far, he has done a tremendous amount of good in creating a climate or stage for the US to be more diplomatically engaged and credible to other nations.
> 
> But... I'm not so sure his accomplishments thus far warrant the prize. If he uses the prize as momentum and follows through, great. I would like to see the prize for actual accomplishments and for a body of work over a longer period.


Agreed. Everyone I have spoken to who are fans of his ( I am personally ambivalent, although I have nothing against him per say) feel the same way. They say he is great and all but that the prize is premature.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize -- Now Please Earn it!*

And for another perspective...



> Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize -- Now Please Earn it!
> 
> Friday, October 9th, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, MM the consummate media mouth. Yep, I sure do respect his views.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> What, one cannot have an opinion on the Nobel committee's decision without being told they are a lap puppy?...


Wouldn't it be nice if MacDoc just once actually apologized for insulting other members... just ONCE out the countless times he has done so... I guess that is expecting too much as one has to have one tiny ounce of humility to do so...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if MacDoc just once actually apologized for insulting other members... just ONCE out the countless times he has done so... I guess that is expecting too much as one has to have one tiny ounce of humility to do so...


I keep wondering why he's never, ever been given a vacation for constantly doing this? Anyone have any idea why that might be?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I assume when any one resorts to trying to out shout or putting down those they disagree with, it is because they know their arguments hold no water. 

Makes it fun to argue with red necks as we both walk away thinking we won.beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if MacDoc just once actually apologized for insulting other members... just ONCE out the countless times he has done so... I guess that is expecting too much as one has to have one tiny ounce of humility to do so...


He will apologize soon as they print the apology in The Star.

It seems to me the whole issue of Obama winning the prize is unwinnable: because half the people adore him as the Messiah that has come to provide Salvation, and do so without him even performing a single miracle (or even getting a single bill passed through Congress); while the other half are doubters because he has surrounded himself with a pack of sinners, and talks a big talk but has yet to provide any fish or bread for the people (though he did provide billions of fish and loaves of bread to failed capitalist enterprises that did not deserve that salvation).


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> I keep wondering why he's never, ever been given a vacation for constantly doing this? Anyone have any idea why that might be?


Easy - The Star didn't tell the Mayor to do so in an editorial... beejacon


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Whoa. This is a serious spankin' we just gave the man.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> Whoa. This is a serious spankin' we just gave the man.


Ya,well you reap what you sow.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

chasMac said:


> You win the prize because of this???:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The road to hell is paved with good intentions, eh?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

1009obamanobelboxufscolor.jpg (image)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good cartoon, bsenka.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(The Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Well, here is my 2 cents, the Nobel Peace prize has lost all credibility. I am not saying that Obama will not be in a position to win the prize, but not yet. Also, looking at the past winners, it is clear to me that the committee is going more for shock value substance. Perhaps, they are more into pop culture than propping those that deserve the praise. I suppose that showing that the average person can do alot of great things is secondary to star power of certain politicians, who have not. 

I may be a lap puppy, but I am not the puppy in the corner with its head firmly up its arse. I suppose everyone needs a hobby.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SNL gets it right. Funny too.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
No wonder why Stokholm won't allow them to dish out the Nobel Peace Prize in their city - they don't want to sully their reputation. Better to blame Norwegians for such a mess...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A very interesting article relating Woodrow Wilson, who was the last sitting US president to be awarded the Nobel Peace prize, and Barack Obama.


Commentary: When Nobel Prize rewarded failure - CNN.com


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Norwegians are determined to poke some holes in the anti-regulation crowd - what a pair of picks for the Economics Prize



> The academy did not specifically cite the global financial crisis, but many of the problems at the heart of the current upheaval -- bonuses, executive compensation, risky and poorly understood securities -- involve a perceived lack of regulatory oversight by government officials or by corporate boards. *The Nobel awards on Monday were clearly a nod to the role of rules, institutions and regulations in making markets work*



*Ostrom*


> To explain her ideas, the academy cited an example about dams in Nepal that Ostrom used in her 1990 book *"Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.*"


*Williamson*


> Williamson found it is better *to regulate such behavior directly* rather than with policies that restrict the size of corporations, the academy said.


CTV News | American is first woman to win Nobel in economics

Gone **** the right wingdings off even more ..... :clap:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Got to thinking. If the Peace Prize is simply to reward good intentions, how about Pete Seeger. While he has not actually accomplished anything either he has devoted at least 75 years to promoting peace, around the world and often at his own expense.:clap: Far more than BO will ever accomplish even if his intentions are honest.beejacon


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Man, that SNL video is sooo true. :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*The Norwegian selection committee scoff at your objections. With bemusement.

Too soon? They knew exactly what they were doing.*

Nobel jury defends bestowing prize on Obama - thestar.com




> One judge noted with surprise that President Barack Obama "didn't look particularly happy" at being named the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Another marvelled at how critics could be so patronizing.
> 
> In a rare public defence of a process normally shrouded in secrecy, four of the Nobel jury's five judges spoke out Tuesday about a selection they said was both merited and unanimous.
> 
> ...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Some of the commentators have gotten really unhinged over this. I mean, it isn't that bad giving O the Nobel. It's not like they're giving it to RuPaul or something.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> Some of the commentators have gotten really unhinged over this. I mean, it isn't that bad giving O the Nobel. It's not like they're giving it to RuPaul or something.


I'd rather give the Nobel Peace Prize to RuPaul, because really, RuPaul has scored a lot of accomplishments as a role model who has made alternative lifestyles far more acceptable within society. Now we have entire communities of people that can live a life without fear of authoritarian crack downs or being forced into barbaric treatments (like chemical castration). All kinds of people now live proper lives of liberty, without the fear of being censured for their sexual orientation. Not that the work is complete - but it has been pushed forward and much progress has been made, and people like RuPaul are front and center in that change.

Basically, homosexuals are no longer broadly persecuted, and official, legal persecution has been entirely ended - which is a substantial advance when compared to the diddly-doo that Obama has accomplished, which has been nothing more than sending dirty old Hillary Clinton over to steal furnishings from Israel and Palestine...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thie is just five Norwegians wanking off in a closed room and bestowing their prize on whomever matches the tiny aspirations of the tiny country. Sure they're happy to see the U.S. cut down to size by the politician who seems most bent on diminishing its stature. That's a European wet dream and a slam dunk for this honour. Obama actually managed to achieve some of that in his first 12 days in office and may yet achieve the full vision of knocking his country down to European Economy Size.

Does anybody take this prize seriously any longer?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You must be doing something wrong when posting videos from YouTube MCB. Every one you have posted lately is blank. Or is it just my 'puter?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I seem unable to get the youtube to post correctly so I always add a direct link to the video under it just in case. I seem to be running a perfect score on them.


This might help you. Under every YouTube video there is an option called "Share". Click on it and a link will appear in a window below the word share with a URL.

Then copy and paste only the part of the URL that follows the (=) equal sign into the YouTube code provided by ehMac when you click the YouTube button.

Good luck with it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

If we didn't take it seriously, why would we/you be posting so carefully about it?

By the way, I looked for the qualifications of what you call the Norwegian "wankers" and they so clearly matched ehMac members I could hardly believe it. Really the only difference that I could find was that they had read the parameters for this award, including how Nobel himself wanted it to be an award that encourages and not just rewards efforts. That, and they thought Obama wasn't born this year, but had some positive effects in the several years prior. (I'm also pretty sure they didn't mainly use the "not Bush" factor, but it was on their checklist of accomplishments.)

And now, back to our personal pet projects including world nuclear disarmament. It's amazing we get time to post here at all...



Macfury said:


> Thie is just five Norwegians wanking off in a closed room and bestowing their prize on whomever matches the tiny aspirations of the tiny country. Sure they're happy to see the U.S. cut down to size by the politician who seems most bent on diminishing its stature. That's a European wet dream and a slam dunk for this honour. Obama actually managed to achieve some of that in his first 12 days in office and may yet achieve the full vision of knocking his country down to European Economy Size.
> 
> Does anybody take this prize seriously any longer?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> A very interesting article relating Woodrow Wilson, who was the last sitting US president to be awarded the Nobel Peace prize, and Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> Commentary: When Nobel Prize rewarded failure - CNN.com


At least Woodrow Wilson had Fourteen Points - Obama still has none...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> At least Woodrow Wilson had Fourteen Points - Obama still has none...


We shall see, EP. If he can pull off health care for many Americans, it shall be as significant as the enactment of Social Security.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> If the Peace Prize is simply to reward good intentions, how about Pete Seeger. While he has not actually accomplished anything either he has devoted at least 75 years to promoting peace, around the world and often at his own expense.


Sure, but while we are at it, we could give the Nobel Peace Prize to Michael Jackson, since we seem to shovel all kinds of awards in his direction even though he has done even less than Pete Seeger ever did, well, except for child molestation... beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Pulling off Health Care reforms would not make him eligible for the Peace Prize... I think he should have had some connection to some actual Peace somewhere, perhaps by brokering a peace treaty, or getting some beligerent nations together to hack out some kind of truce and meaningful discussions, or to take steps that would lead to peace, or at least to helping people in a charitable manner.

As far as I see, Obama hasn't done very much on this account. The Middle East is still in flames, Iraq is still occupied and without a legitimate government, the Kurds still do not have a nation, they are still firing bullets off on Afghanistan, etc.

I think it is a bad decision, because at least Woodrow Wilson attempted something to stop the slaughter of the Great War, while Obama pledged Hope and Change but little else...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> If we didn't take it seriously, why would we/you be posting so carefully about it?


Always time to poke a big hole in tomfoolery! 



HowEver said:


> By the way, I looked for the qualifications of what you call the Norwegian "wankers" and they so clearly matched ehMac members I could hardly believe it.


And your point is?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Always time to poke a big hole in tomfoolery!


Mencken spent years attempting that, but tomfoolery is entirely large in a Jovian way, and entirely self-healing and self-reproducing - kind of like the Rhinovirus that causes the common cold, or perhaps tooth decay.



> And your point is?


I think However was stunned by the actual lack of qualifications needed to be one of the Norwegian Prize Wankers, and the actual lack of process or guidelines behind the award itself... beejacon


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What qualifications do you think these thinkers need to think?

It's immaterial anyways. They made the decision, followed the rules, and expect whatever it is they expect to happen afterwards. No doubt they anticipated these various reactions, which have the exact result they wanted: draw attention to the prize, and rest easy or hard on the shoulders of the recipient in years to come.

It worked.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The real reason Obama won the Peace Prize:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> It worked.


Sure. Five Norwegians voted to hand a prize to a guy they wanted to hand a prize to. What could conceivably have gone wrong?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Loved that cartoon.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Loved that cartoon.


Yeah, especially the joke where Obama doesn't brag about saving the world to the press immediately.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, come now. Like you wouldn't likewise be sporting a glow, were you in his shoes at that moment. Sour grapes, methinks!

I don't think he deserved the Nobel, for that matter. But he might as well make what hay of it he can. Cat's out of the bag now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Oh, come now. Like you wouldn't likewise be sporting a glow, were you in his shoes at that moment. Sour grapes, methinks!
> 
> I don't think he deserved the Nobel, for that matter. But he might as well make what hay of it he can. Cat's out of the bag now.


Sheesh! I'm talking about the cartoon, not real life!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sheesh! backatcha!

[insert winkie here]


----------

