Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The Architect]

Well, to sum it up: I don't have a damn clue why this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize. I had never heard you could get it for good intentions. Some of my political opinions will be included in this first post, but that's not the intent of the topic. I want to know if anyone really understands why he got it?

I think that putting him up for nomination mere days after his election and pushing him through has greatly discredited the Nobel Peace Prize as a modern institution. The guy had done nothing except talk a big game. He still has done nothing, except push his party's agenda and fail to keep promises, like every other modern politician. I don't hear him being ridiculed yet like GWB (let's face it, I liked some of the big game he talked for a while too, but in the end he didn't have the power to do any of it). But I can't help thinking it might be coming to a lesser extent. He may end up deserving it as much as GWB, but if you don't want to be ridiculed for supposed ignorance you have to support his ideas (at least as a member of the media), and you can't make fun of related steriotypes without political and social consequences as you could with GWB.

Frankly, the man's politics scare me. First there are his very questionable moral standpoints, which change depending on who he's talking to. It's a politician's trait which is very strong with the Democratic Party. The Republican Party has its own problems, but we don't need to go there because Obama isn't in it. For the record, I don't like either. Anyway... as far as economics, he wants to socialize the country, and before someone cries "scared conservative!" let's not mix terms. Don't throw ignorant cliches or classifications at me, I'm an American citizen who believes in a free market with government regulation to keep it free. Don't jump on me if you don't know the difference between capitalism and free market. Unmitigated pursuit of profit is just as harmful as "big government" in a market. I also have a Christian "set of moral values", though I'd consider it much more than that. Some of the things our President supports clearly violate morality as I understand it, and combined with his socialistic approach to economics his policies are disturbing.

The bottom line, quite literally in this case, is: what did the guy do to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? All he's trying to do is flip America upside down, albeit in a way that he claims (read: can't trust any politician's motivations) will be good for us, the people.

[Cthulhu]

It's being used as a middle finger directed at George Bush.

[Neonivek]

It's being used as a middle finger directed at George Bush.

Oddly enough this actually sounds plausable.

[The Architect]

It's being used as a middle finger directed at George Bush.

Oddly enough this actually sounds plausable.

It also sounds incredibly petty. At least you know big Mr. O is going to get any credit for any success in the Middle East. Anyway, is there more marketable reason (even if it makes less sense)?

[Aqizzar]

Here's my response.



Honestly, the man recognizes himself that he shouldn't have gotten it.  Don't blame him for the personal leanings of a bunch of snooty Europeans.  Besides that, how do your non-specific fears about the guvmint stealing money from your pocket have anything to do with the Peace prize?

Before people go firing off about what Obama's intentions, I urge everyone to actually read his speech.  It's sobering enough that I was going to make a thread myself, but I don't have time.  (Gotta go take a test on international peacekeeping, by extraordinary coincidence.)

[Eidalac]

I honestly don't get this myself, and I voted for the guy.

I mean, maybe, if some of the current stuff pans out... but nothing has happened yet... and even if everything works great, it'll be decades before we see fruition...

Makes no sense to me, in any reasonable terms.

[The Architect]

Well at least I'm not the only one confused out of my noggin. I do find this a convenient place to vent, especially as I apparently have at least one ignorante "liberal"* to sling mud back at. My "fears" (a lovely term, fast becoming cliche, which is constantly flung around by "liberals") are actually simply a logical argument that Obama stands to do more harm than good. So, awarding a prize to him over his seemingly misguided intentions seems even more of a stretch than awarding a prize to someone with the very best intentions you can have. Neither warrants a prize, but if anything I thought his stance was one in the history of our Presidents least warranting commendation and a reward of praise and recognition. He's a celebrity more than a President at this point, much as JFK appeared to be early in his presidency. President G. W. Bush had wonderful intentions, though they were impractical, and he wasn't awarded a prize. I'm not suggesting he should have been. But this seems doubly backwards just because of Obama's position on many things, and his lack of a real opinion except whatever the current crowd wants to hear (in many cases).

fairly unrelated rant:
George W. Bush may have been ridiculed as an idiot, and in fact turned out to be impotent and rather useless, except for a shining moment when our country was under attack and any man in that position would have stepped up with bave words. But at least he had backbone and his story didn't change at every interview. I'd rather have a man with backbone than someone who just says whatever people want to hear. Hell, I guess I just hate politicians. But after Clinton, Gore, and Obama's examples, I dislike Democratic presidential candidates more than I hate my own two-faced Republican senator, and that's saying a lot.

* "Liberal", a misused and abused term, for instance: socialism is the farthest thing from liberal. Call it "progressive" if you want, but it's not even that if you know your history. It's actually regressive and restrictive, the opposites of progresive and liberal. Want to go there? Want to throw the word "fear" at anything you don't agree with to make the other person sound ignorant and timid? I'd prefer to skip the obviously cliche political lies of the "liberal" side just as I'd prefer to skip the same tactics when used by the "conservative" side.

For the record: I don't have money for the government to take. I'm a student. But when I move on to a profession, I expect to be rewarded for whatever work I do and have the right to do as I damn well please with what I earn. Of course I want to support the infrastructure that protects and serves the people as well. And of course I don't want other people to suffer. If I were actually afraid of any political or economic turmoil in the way some people are, what I would fear is the devastation wrought on societies trying to live with a socialistic economy. I like prosperity, personally. I don't see how turning our economy into a common socialistic wreck is going to help feed the poor; I think we would have a better chance of doing it with a healthy free market. Of course a free market must be tempered with morality, and that is what the government is supposed to step in and enforce. Including putting a stop to corrupt corporate practices and unions wringing $25/hour wages with benefits for assembly-line workers in American car factories.

[kuro_suna]

Relative peace is still peace.

[The Architect]

Relative peace is still peace.

Who decided that, what is "relative peace", and what on Earth does it have to do with the Nobel Peace Prize or awarding it to our new President?

[chaoticag]

Face it, many people who have not achieved world peace have been awarded nobel peace prizes, because they made more peace than there was before. Furthering the message of equality certainly counts.

In my opinion, it would have been more appropriate to award it to the nation as a whole, but only three people may accept one nobel prize.

This isn't the first time the board that gives out nobel prizes screwed up royally, Einstein himself wasn't given a prize because of his theory of relativity (which showed the possibility of black wholes and the atom bomb, as well as nuclear energy as a power source) but because he was able to determine a mathematical formula that dealt with the light reflecting off atoms and for another formula which proved the existence of atoms mathematically.

And then, Watson and Crick got a nobel prize for the structure of DNA, while most of their work was practically "stolen" from Rosealin (sp?) Franklin by her lab assistant (he also got the prize), who fired X-ray beams at it while the other two people were messing around with scientific lego blocks and guess work.

What I'm trying to say here is that the nobel prize can be pretty idiotic, and you shouldn't hold it as the ultimate standard of acheivment. That is because it is run by people, and people can be pants on the head retarded.

[Ampersand]

Obviously because he's a reptilian and so are they.

[Itnetlolor]

There's a good reason I don't vote. Sure, it's a privilege to vote in America and all, but when you have politics as screwy as it is, exaggeration alert, I don't want to be one of millions of people that sign off the next world war because of hiring a new leader with schizophrenic policies and hollow promises.

Unless there is absolute definitive proof to back up one's loyalty to their nation, and is willing to fight for the lower class, retain balance within the middle class, keep the upper class from being assholes, and still make the country progress despite any adversity that comes our way (war, finance, etc.); my mind would be willing to change, and I would register myself to vote.

Also a secondary reason would also be for true neutrality in any statements. Simply, I take no sides, and I'm just speaking as a bystander. Sorta a way to defend myself from other people; more or less. Basically, I would be ignored for not being registered; but I'm still vulnerable due to the opinion itself.


Now that that's said, I'm rather puzzled why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize so damn early myself. During the election campaign, I've noticed that he's been treated like a messiah, and McCain and Palin, along with every Republican, were demonized like it was already the Apocalypse. Until I see Obama turn water into wine, and make more than enough food to feed starving nations and such, maybe my mind will change about him; but even before the election season, the guy popping out of nowhere, I had this nervous feeling not to trust him no matter what. And before accusations are made; it has nothing to do with race, politics, or anything. And I'm not exactly the kind of person that's easily startled either. I'm not marking him as evil; just, I hope the nation takes him with a grain of salt, is all I suggest.

If anything, It's more the nation's judgment that worries me more than our current leader. We're too mailable. And if it pretty much takes a 'Yo Mamma' battle during an election season to win votes; I fear our fate in the future. We need more/better education so we can get competent leaders in office again.

[Leafsnail]

Well, just him toning down the rhetoric has significantly reduced anti-American sentiment all around the world.  Perhaps that's worth something .

On the other hand, he doesn't really deserve the prize all that much, but it isn't his fault.  It's not even good for his publicity...

[eerr]

Obama is earning a peace prize for brilliant oration.

Not that he actually says anything controversial, new, or with world-wide effect.

Sending 30,000 troops to Afganistan seems to run against the idea of earning a peace prize, but whatever, I'm sure there's precedent for that. Becoming the first black president may or may not have had something to do with it.

He describes opinions that couldn't ingrain himself against any but the most cold blooded terrorist. Then he earns the prize for speaking with such vigor and awe and "peacyness." 

[olemars]

Formally the reasoning behind awarding him the award is for progress in the work towards nuclear disarmament and for generally reestablishing a positive international dialog. And it fulfills the intent and spirit of Alfred Nobel's testament well enough.

One common misconception by the way, is that the Nobel peace prize is meant to be some sort of lifetime achievement award, when the intent is to support and recognize ongoing efforts. The testament actually specifies that it should go to the person who has done the most in the last year, so when the committee has given it to people for long and true service they've really only played it safe. Giving it to someone who's worked all their life for their cause is well and nice, but the best would have been to give them the award when they were actually doing the work and could have benefitted from the attention properly. In short, a nobel peace prize award that isn't controversial isn't done right.

However, I agree that awarding it to Obama was done far too soon and makes justifying the award a real stretch.

What's happened is basically as follows (my hypothesis anyway) : This year there was a brand new committee chair, Thorbjørn Jagland. This guy is a career politician known for risk-taking, good intentions and some rather spectacular failures. So he's read the will and testament of Alfred Nobel, especially the part about "in the last year", and decided he wanted to make a big, attention-grabbing splash right away. Timed right, this could have netted him international clout and had a positive effect on Obama.

Unfortunately Jagland has always been piss poor at timing and rushed it. Next year or the year after, there would (presumably) be some more tangible progress to point to, it could instigate even further progress and Obama would be in his midterm years and could have benefitted from a pick-me-up. Now it just ended up leaving a bad taste in the mouth, give Obama a headache and make Jagland look like an awkward fool (helped by his nasty english accent).

Worst case this could have the opposite effect of what Jagland intended.