Friday, October 9, 2009

Obama's Nobel Prize

Just a quick rant. While I think Obama has promoted peace ever since he's been president, has he done enough to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? I have my doubts. Oh, well. They gave Yasser Arafat one. So, why not Obama. At least Obama hasn't funded terrorism.

Congratualations Mr. President. It's a great honor and it doesn't really matter what a Southwest Missouri boy like me thinks about it. Also, it's an honor for our country.

45 comments:

Tracy said...

I think you're in the company of many when you mention that he's not had time yet to accomplish anything. It doesn't seem quite appropriate that he receive the same prize that someone like Archbishop Tutu who won the Nobel prize in 1984 for his long battle for a non-violent end to South Africa's apartheid system of racial segregation.

Anonymous said...

To me, this, along with Arafat's "win" just discredits the award altogether. If winning it put me on a list with Obama and Arafat, I'd turn it down.

ethinethin said...

Don't worry, Anonymous. There's no chance you'll ever have to worry about getting on that list.

Anonymous said...

Praise the Lord!

real estate Vancouver BC said...

Well, I'm afraid the committee is taking a really sure step towards discrediting the Nobel Prize. Obama hasn't had any accomplishments so far, maybe some nice visions and very impressive eloquence, but if that wins this prize, they should make space for more annual winners. Jay

Temaskian said...

They probably figured Obama deserved the Nobel Prize the minute he won the election, preventing access to the nu-cu-lar buttons by a hockey mum cum religious fanatic and a gentleman bordering on senility, thus averting a nuclear holocaust.

Lorena said...

Don't worry, Anonymous. There's no chance you'll ever have to worry about getting on that list.

LOL!

Chris McGinnis said...

Hi guys.

Our president seems to be a slave to his own ego. He should have politely said, "I'm sorry, but I have more pressing matters."

I'm very disappointed in many of his decisions. Still I pray for him daily, that he might seek God in his future choices.

Lorena said...

Our president seems to be a slave to his own ego.

Even accepting awards is wrong for the poor man. What's next? He shouldn't eat and give his food to the poor?

Stop praying, use your brain instead!

Anonymous said...

If I were a 24 hour care nurse for your loved one, and somebody called and said, "You won the Year's Best Urgent Care Nurse award," would you want me to leave your ailing loved one in their hour of need, and ask YOU for the transportation and expense money to go accept the award?

For someone who had the right heart about that kind of job, they'd say, "The job is it's own reward, and if I were to take the time off to go accept it, I wouldn't be deserving of it."

I will also be praying for O(s)bama.

Savonarola said...

Obama is your 24-hour servant? Really?
And you were equally upset when Dubya took a day off at his ranch?
And you were doubly upset the second day he took off?
And the nearly 1000 days more Dubya spent on vacation, you just lost your mind with rage, right?

And the fact that he made you pay for the transportation so that he could pile brush... well, you were just screaming for impeachment, weren't you?

Not that any of this really matters. (I just like pointing out the flaming hypocrisy.) Neither Dubya nor Obama is your bitch. Leaving for a one-day personal matter isn't an issue. No president owes you 24-hour robotic compliance to your every whim, so your analogy fails. No president is your last chance at survival, so your analogy fails doubly.
You suck at this, "anonymous."

Anonymous said...

More proof that atheists are immoral.

Anonymous said...

Actually yes, the president is responsible for our nation's survival. In the analogy, our nation is the patient, not me alone personally. You missed it. You apparently suck and comprehending what you read.

And this was not a "personal matter" such as a family illness, or doctor's appointment. This was so he could collect undeserved accolades.

And, as an independent, I did complain (even in the local paper) about Dubya's antics. Were it not for Obama, I'm certain he would have gone down in history as the worst president ever. He should send Obama a thank you letter every day!

Savonarola said...

ANON
More proof that atheists are immoral.

SAV
Exposing the idiocy of your argument is immoral? I guess exposing the idiocy of you deserves stoning?

ANON
the president is responsible for our nation's survival.

SAV
Not in the same way that a 24-hour nurse is responsible for a patient's suvival. As I said before: analogy fail.

ANON
In the analogy, our nation is the patient, not me alone personally.

SAV
No no, I knew what you meant, and it's an asinine analogy for the reason previously stated. All I did was focus on your bitching to expose the hypocrisy.

ANON
And this was not a "personal matter" such as a family illness, or doctor's appointment.

SAV
You know, I think I almost agree with you for a change. It's a honor that the leader of our country has been recognized for some of the things he has done in that position. But that certainly doesn't help your argument that the POTUS shouldn't go overseas on our dime. You're arguing as if his travel would risk the nation's well-being, which is absurd, or as if his being away from the country for a day is dangerous for the country, which is equally absurd.
But wait! It gets better when we parse your statements. You think that Obama is a disaster for the country, but you think that his extremely short-term overseas trip will lead to the demise of the country. You don't see the problem with such a position?

ANON
This was so he could collect undeserved accolades.

SAV
Wrong. The Nobel committee determines who deserves a Nobel prize. Your -- or my -- personal opinion doesn't change that.

ANON
Were it not for Obama, I'm certain [Dubya] would have gone down in history as the worst president ever.

SAV
Are you nuts? Dubya had that title locked up before he even left office.

Anonymous said...

I thought so too, till Barack took over. This guy wrecked the country so fast it made America's head spin.

Savonarola said...

ANON
I thought so too, till Barack took over. This guy wrecked the country so fast it made America's head spin.

SAV
Maybe it made your head spin, but that's probably because it wasn't screwed on straight in the first place.

Anonymous said...

George W. isn't black. George W. had an Arab killing policy. Obama "Hussain" is indefinitely worse on those two important domestic issues.

Robert Madewell said...

Hey Anon? Are you one of those guys who think that Obama is the anti-christ? Just curious. My whole family is convinced that Obama will set himself up as king of the world in a new temple built in Jerusalem. I kid you not!

Anonymous said...

Well THIS anon says no he doesn't qualify as the anti-christ simply because he is married. The anti-christ is supposed to have no desire of women. Not that he'll be gay necessarily, but just won't be interested at all I would assume. Many fundamental pharisees think he is the antichrist. These are usually the legalist fundamentalists who also have problems with women wearing pants.

GCT said...

"I thought so too, till Barack took over. This guy wrecked the country so fast it made America's head spin."

Meaning what? What has he done that has wrecked the country? Did he start an ill-advised war on false pretenses? Did he perpetuate and feed bigotry against American citizens (other than by being black, which we can't really fault him for)? Did he push for deregulations that lead to the country going into an economic crisis? What horrible things has Obama done that have doomed us all? Please tell us.

Anonymous said...

He says a muslim prayer at every state dinner. God will punish us all for this transgression.

Anonymous said...

How about making America a laughing stock by apologizing for everything we've ever done?

How about putting us further in debt than before he was elected?

How about by being more concerned about Fox News than the under-equipped troops in Afghanistan?

How about by taking time for photo-ops, but refusing to visit the beaches of Normandy or a gathering of Vietnam Vets?

How about by visiting troops in the hospital and getting photos just before slipping out as quick as possible?

How about by worrying about whether Chicago got the Olympics instead of whether our Social Security system will be in place by the time you or I need it?

Anything else?

Savonarola said...

ANON
How about making America a laughing stock by apologizing for everything we've ever done?

SAV
How about your show that his "apologies" made us a laughingstock in the view of a few other countries?

ANON
How about putting us further in debt than before he was elected?

SAV
But he did what the vast majority of economists suggested. Still, this is a lot like a guy blaming his wife for buying groceries and thereby overdrafting an account after he has bought a yacht for kicks... in Colorado.

ANON
How about by being more concerned about Fox News than the under-equipped troops in Afghanistan?

SAV
Sure, I'd consider that a problem if it were true. Care to count news cycles that the White House has discussed Afghanistan and compare the number to the number of news cycles spent on FAUX News? You don't, do you? Even you aren't that stupid. Instead, you're just a squawking loudmouth.

ANON
How about by taking time for photo-ops, but refusing to visit the beaches of Normandy or a gathering of Vietnam Vets?

SAV
This is rich coming from someone who insists that his going on an overseas trip will kill the country. But you once again show your selective amnesia: Obama did visit sites in the Middle East.

ANON
How about by visiting troops in the hospital and getting photos just before slipping out as quick as possible?

SAV
So he makes the visit, but he doesn't stay long enough for you to be happy, so you condemn him? I was wrong. You are that stupid.

ANON
How about by worrying about whether Chicago got the Olympics instead of whether our Social Security system will be in place by the time you or I need it?

SAV
How dare he try bringing a HUGE revenue boost and job stimulus to the country in this suboptimal economic period? The gall! Who does he think he is, the President?! Yeesh.

ANON
Anything else?

SAV
"Else"? Your best attempts were pathetic, you dipstick. As today's kids would put it: Every one of them was a complete FAIL.

Anonymous said...

So you're one of THOSE people. One of the mindless drones who continue to claim Obama is making a positive change. At least most of those dumb enough to elect him have realized their mistake. It truly takes a set of blind eyes to continue defending him..

ethinethin said...

I think Sav was just asking for evidence that Obama was ruining the country as you originally posited.

I think it's funny, however, that when Sav pointed out how contradictory your objections were (Was that really the best you could come up with as anti-Obama bullet points? Color me disappointed!), you come back with insults.

Can't win an argument with facts? Throw in some insults!

Savonarola said...

ANON
So you're one of THOSE people.

SAV
Yes, I'm one of THOSE people... you know, the kind with a functional brain and a grasp on reality. I know how you hate us so and would never allow yourself to be one.

ETH
I think Sav was just asking for evidence that Obama was ruining the country as you originally posited.

SAV
No, I was not just asking for -- you know -- any shred of evidence (in lieu of dittohead talking points). I was also refuting the slew of other dumbass arguments while showing just how incredibly stupid "Anonymous" must be.

GCT said...

In addition to what Sav said, let's see if Obama's supposed faults measure up to Dubya's.

Dubya started a war on false pretenses leading people to die. Obama...nothing on that list come close to that.

Dubya helped contribute to getting us into the financial mess we find. Obama...acting on the advice of people trying to get us out and seeing some gain as the market seems to be improving.

Dubya, slashing benefits for veterans...Obama allegedly not spending enough time with them.

I'm surprised that his health care plan didn't come up. I mean, how dare he want people to have health care.

Oh, and the attacks on Fox News really refers to one comment by one aide who didn't really go far enough. Big deal.

Yeah, I can see how Obama is much worse. I mean, how dare he be black and liberal.

Anonymous said...

African American, jerkwad.

Anonymous said...

Obama is also a pagan Musulman. Our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves (if they weren't too busy presiding over the different realms of heaven).

Anonymous said...

I still can't believe our country elected someone with a first name so similar to Osama bin Laden's and the middle name "Hussein." It's like Ashton Kutcher was trying to punk the whole nation, and we fell for it. Any minute, he'll turn up on C-span and yell, "Gotcha suckas!"

Anonymous said...

I agree, it's weird how all those brown people have such similar brown-person names and they are all Islamic terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Totally d00d

Leo said...

Read this article if you have questions about his achievements...

http://www.qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/charles-krauthammer/article_0f4d6856-bc43-11de-b68b-001cc4c03286.html

Of course, his acceptance of the "prize" was unconstitutional anyway considering Article I Sec. 9 of the Constitution, the emolument clause clearly states, "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."

But that's just the constitution, right? Why should the president pay any attention to that silly old document?

ethinethin said...

from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Which King, Prince, or foreign State then gives the Nobel Peace Prize?

Before you say "Sweden", perhaps you should recognize that it is a committee that is the Swedish Academy (and not the Swedish Government) that bestows the prize.

Reading comprehension fail, from Leo? It's more likely than you think.

GCT said...

Gee Leo, I didn't know that the Nobel committee was a "King, Prince, or foreign State." If they don't have taxes, maybe you could live in their country. Is it called "Nobel?"

As for Krauthammer, he's complaining about a lot of stuff that doesn't even rise to the level of what Bush was able to pull off in terms of evil, destruction, stupidity, ineptitude, and crime. Further, Krauthammer is simply against treating Iran as a country to communicate with (actually, he's against it with just about every country) so of course he's going to decry any and all attempts at diplomacy.

Leo said...

You do realize that the panel which bestows the Nobel Prize is made up of elected officials, right?

ethinethin said...

The Nobel Prize organization has no sovereign power.

GCT said...

Leo, swing and a miss!

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is not made up of elected officials, except that the panel is voted on by government officials. The actual members have no affiliation to the government.

"With prominent politicians so heavily represented, it became difficult over time to convince the surrounding world that the Committee was not influenced in its work by Norwegian authorities. In 1936, in the wake of the Peace Prize award to Carl von Ossietzky, the practice was changed so as to bar members of the Government from sitting on the Committee. In 1977, out of regard for the Committee's independence, a further restriction was imposed whereby current members of the Storting can not be elected to the Nobel Committee."

But, I'm sure none of us here are surprised that you're getting this wrong too.

Leo said...

"the panel is voted on by government officials. The actual members have no affiliation to the government."

Except for the fact that they are voted into their spot BY the government. Why would government officials "elect" them if there was no affiliation with the government?

ethinethin said...

They have no sovereign power, which is what the specific article of the constitution you quoted is prohibiting. Obama did not break the law by accepting the Nobel (it's fairly straightforward).

GCT said...

For the same reason that board members of companies are elected or alumni board members at colleges and universities. Are you really going to try that hard to try and make this into something nefarious when it obviously isn't?

Leo said...

Of course, you atheists are just as hypocritical as you hold Christians to be. You hold man's law to be more important than God's law, but when one of your own breaks it, you rush to his defense.

Obama broke both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law by accepting this "prize", while turning around and selling our country down to the Muslims and atheists. I pray, every day, for this material world to end so I can escape this torment and join my Lord and Savior in heaven. Obama is making that more and more likely.

Savonarola said...

So when the POTUS and Prime Minister of Great Britain meet up and exchange token gifts, the POTUS is violating the Constitution?

Not that I disagree with the statements of ethinethin or GCT.

It takes some severely tortured logic to argue that the Nobel committee is a foreign power.

But Obama isn't even violating the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to prevent bribery and conflict of interest. In any other aspect, this sort of guideline functions as a distinction between what is available only to the person in question as opposed to something that is available to the citizenry, of whom the POTUS surely is a member. A college football player doesn't have to turn down a raffle win to maintain his NCAA eligibility because his status as a football player did not give him an opportunity he otherwise wouldn't have had. It is neither a bribe or a prize for being President.

Of course, now I just have to ask, based on the wording of the clause: If Congress were to approve his acceptance of the prize, would you find his acceptance acceptable? But then, I don't think you're willing to answer that honestly here. Your objections run much deeper than a Constitutional clause that you can't read.

You want for "this material world to end," but I like it here, partly because it's so much fun to make fun of idiots like you. But I know of a way that you can make this material world end for you. I don't recommend it, of course, but if people like you wanted it that badly, why does it so rarely occur for this reason?

ethinethin said...

You hold man's law to be more important than God's law, but when one of your own breaks it, you rush to his defense.

Well besides the fact that ALL laws are man's laws, this is absurd. Obama isn't breaking any laws by accepting the Nobel.

I pray, every day, for this material world to end so I can escape this torment and join my Lord and Savior in heaven. Obama is making that more and more likely.

He's not working as hard as George Bush was when it comes to ending the world. Fundamentalist Christians, who believe the world is going to end due to the writings of a madman, with the power to launch nuclear weapons -- now that was a scary thing.

Leo said...

Just for the record, I have made every post here but the last one. Somebody was deciding to be cute.