Conquer Club

Is there anything that Obama has done that has warranted the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSgpDNHjW-g&feature=sub

If having positive/hopeful thoughts about the future of America and the World warrants the winning of a Nobel Peace Prize, then shouldn't every president get one?

I'm happy for the guy, and it is great that an American president is getting it; but it just seems very odd to me that Obama really hasn't done anything yet that would make me say,"Yeah, he really deserves it."

Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize was preconceived by the Pre-Planning Department of McGill University in "Before the Big Bang."

There is no way he deserved to win it but these things are relative, consider that Kissinger also once got the prize which is truly astonishing

Just finished reading his acceptance speech.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.co ... hp?ref=fpa

I say it´s a good one. Not to be unexpected, but humble and pragmatic.

CreepersWiener wrote:Is there anything that Obama has done that has warranted the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSgpDNHjW-g&feature=sub

If having positive/hopeful thoughts about the future of America and the World warrants the winning of a Nobel Peace Prize, then shouldn't every president get one?

I'm happy for the guy, and it is great that an American president is getting it; but it just seems very odd to me that Obama really hasn't done anything yet that would make me say,"Yeah, he really deserves it."

Ermm...what?

We've already had this thread and didn't really get anywhere. People who don't want him to have one will attack the committee, Norway, Europe, liberals, the award etc... People who agree will quote his speech.

Titanic wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:Is there anything that Obama has done that has warranted the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSgpDNHjW-g&feature=sub

If having positive/hopeful thoughts about the future of America and the World warrants the winning of a Nobel Peace Prize, then shouldn't every president get one?

I'm happy for the guy, and it is great that an American president is getting it; but it just seems very odd to me that Obama really hasn't done anything yet that would make me say,"Yeah, he really deserves it."

Ermm...what?

We've already had this thread and didn't really get anywhere. People who don't want him to have one will attack the committee, Norway, Europe, liberals, the award etc... People who agree will quote his speech.

I am sure that you have already had this thread when Obama was first announced to be the recipient of the NPP, but now it is coming up in the media because of Obama's acceptance, so that warrants another thread to be spawned.

And your first question seems to be aimed at my statement that "every president" should get a NPP. Quite simple really, Obama hasn't done anything, other than have a vision of hope and prosperity for America and the World community. How does that make his vision any different from any other president in the USA? I am sure Bush's vision of the future embraced hope and global peace. What really makes Obama's vision NPP worthy but not GWB's?

Nah. It's pretty clear the last one didn't deserve it.

Neoteny wrote:Nah. It's pretty clear the last one didn't deserve it.

Did President Bush deserve it within 6 months of being elected? I would say he deserved it as much as President Obama does.

On a related note, do they strip the prize because President Obama has issued a statement to continue to prosecute a war?

Bush was not quite as good with the rhetoric, plus it didn't really help that his campaign was based on the same old conservative talking points. They don't usually give out prizes for upholding the status quo. If he wanted to be seen as someone advancing progress and leading by example, he did not do a good job of transmitting that. Obama was "change," (of some sort) and he got that message out clearly. Of course, that message is one that might appeal to some bias in the committee, but it's not like that's really surprising.

Neoteny wrote:Bush was not quite as good with the rhetoric, plus it didn't really help that his campaign was based on the same old conservative talking points. They don't usually give out prizes for upholding the status quo. If he wanted to be seen as someone advancing progress and leading by example, he did not do a good job of transmitting that. Obama was "change," (of some sort) and he got that message out clearly. Of course, that message is one that might appeal to some bias in the committee, but it's not like that's really surprising.

I didn't think the Nobel Peace Prize had anything to do with US domestic policy.

I would say President Obama's 2009 foreign policy has much less to do with peace than President Bush's 2001 foreign policy.

thegreekdog wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Bush was not quite as good with the rhetoric, plus it didn't really help that his campaign was based on the same old conservative talking points. They don't usually give out prizes for upholding the status quo. If he wanted to be seen as someone advancing progress and leading by example, he did not do a good job of transmitting that. Obama was "change," (of some sort) and he got that message out clearly. Of course, that message is one that might appeal to some bias in the committee, but it's not like that's really surprising.

I didn't think the Nobel Peace Prize had anything to do with US domestic policy.

I would say President Obama's 2009 foreign policy has much less to do with peace than President Bush's 2001 foreign policy.

I would disagree.

Neoteny wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Bush was not quite as good with the rhetoric, plus it didn't really help that his campaign was based on the same old conservative talking points. They don't usually give out prizes for upholding the status quo. If he wanted to be seen as someone advancing progress and leading by example, he did not do a good job of transmitting that. Obama was "change," (of some sort) and he got that message out clearly. Of course, that message is one that might appeal to some bias in the committee, but it's not like that's really surprising.

I didn't think the Nobel Peace Prize had anything to do with US domestic policy.

I would say President Obama's 2009 foreign policy has much less to do with peace than President Bush's 2001 foreign policy.

I would disagree.

Okay.

US conflicts prosecuted in 2001 - Afghanistan (subsequent to September 11, 2001 obviously)
US conflicts prosecuted in 2009 - Afghanistan, Iraq

Did President Bush start two wars that President Obama is currently prosecuting? Yes. He didn't do it within 6 months of being in office. President Obama, within 6 months of being in office, is prosecuting two wars. He has not indicated that he will stop prosecuting those wars. Erego, I would argue that President Bush would have been more justified receiving the Nobel Peace Prize than President Obama.

Just because Bush wasn't planning any wars (that we know of) does not really give him more credit than seeing to the end two wars that were started previously. Anyhow, isn't there a phrase somewhere that goes along the lines of "great times call for great men?" Something like that anyway. If you don't have the opportunity to demonstrate your peacefulness, that doesn't mean you qualify for a peace prize more than someone who is having that opportunity. If the world is at peace, you won't find many deserving of a peace prize. If the world is at war, there will be individuals standing up for peace who will be rewarded. Even situationally, it's easier to see why Obama is more deserving of the prize than Bush.

thegreekdog wrote:Did President Bush start two wars that President Obama is currently prosecuting? Yes. He didn't do it within 6 months of being in office. President Obama, within 6 months of being in office, is prosecuting two wars. He has not indicated that he will stop prosecuting those wars. Erego, I would argue that President Bush would have been more justified receiving the Nobel Peace Prize than President Obama.

WAT

Neoteny wrote:Just because Bush wasn't planning any wars (that we know of) does not really give him more credit than seeing to the end two wars that were started previously. Anyhow, isn't there a phrase somewhere that goes along the lines of "great times call for great men?" Something like that anyway. If you don't have the opportunity to demonstrate your peacefulness, that doesn't mean you qualify for a peace prize more than someone who is having that opportunity. If the world is at peace, you won't find many deserving of a peace prize. If the world is at war, there will be individuals standing up for peace who will be rewarded. Even situationally, it's easier to see why Obama is more deserving of the prize than Bush.

I disagree. I don't think either are deserving of the prize. However, of the two, President Obama is certainly not more deserving, especially considering he has done nothing to indicate that he will pursue peace in any event.

Maybe not at this point. But he talked the game back then, and, when you're stuck with wars, sometimes your hands are tied.

Okay, look, here's the deal. You know how it's retarded to argue about who deserved what Oscar, because everyone knows the awards are self-congratulatory, arbitrary bullshit?

You know how sometimes people also describe the idiocy of analogous situations to indicate what they think of another one?

Yeah.

pimpdave wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Did President Bush start two wars that President Obama is currently prosecuting? Yes. He didn't do it within 6 months of being in office. President Obama, within 6 months of being in office, is prosecuting two wars. He has not indicated that he will stop prosecuting those wars. Erego, I would argue that President Bush would have been more justified receiving the Nobel Peace Prize than President Obama.

WAT

Okay... it's pretty simple.

When the Peace Prize was announced, let's say sometime in August 2009 (8 months into Obama's presidency), how many fucking wars was the United States involved in? Two. Eight months into Bush's presidency, August 2001, how many fucking wars was the United States involved in? Zero.

Yet, somehow, just because President Obama is not President Bush, he deserved a Nobel Prize FOR MOTHERFUCKING PEACE! Come the f*ck on.

So, yeah, I voted "no."

pimpdave wrote:Okay, look, here's the deal. You know how it's retarded to argue about who deserved what Oscar, because everyone knows the awards are self-congratulatory, arbitrary bullshit?

You know how sometimes people also describe the idiocy of analogous situations to indicate what they think of another one?

Yeah.

IT'S THE MOTHERFUCKING NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!

It's not the Oscar's, it's not the MTV Awards... IT'S THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE! They couldn't find anyone more deserving?

I used to enjoy arguing with people about the nature of sport vs. game vs. performance. All three are in the Olympics, yet people are always saying one thing is a sport while another isn't.

Well, here's the deal, and the best way to define it. Sport is something in which empirical data determines the winner. Who came in first in the marathon? Okay, that's a sport. Football (both the real one and soccer), on the other hand is a game, because games are something that although they involve empirical data to determine the victor can still have the outcome determined by human judgment (referees). Performance is something where the winner is entirely determined by human judgment (gymnastics, diving, etc).

The order in which I have listed these is also the order in which the results of which rank from least debatable to most debatable. See where I'm going with this?


Edited once for grammar, and to mention that of course I know that football isn't in the Olympics, I just wanted to prod our limey friends.

If not GWB (of which we are given the pleasure of hindsight and wasn't even thought of for a NPP within less than a year of his presidency), then why not Ronald Reagan? "Mr. Gorbachev...tear down this wall!"

I suppose the International Community is more prone to nominate individuals that have a more socialistic (and, too, communistic) political agenda than those leaders of a more conservative bent. But, let's face it, Ronald Reagan and GW were not the world's greatest of conservatives. But the Soviet Union became history and under GW, we never experienced another terrorist attack. Maybe the United States should have their own Peace Prizes...

Or maybe you're all morons for caring so much.

Didn't Yasser Arafat get one too? COME ON

pimpdave wrote:Or maybe you're all morons for caring so much.

This man is perhaps the world's most brilliant man, as it is quite evident that he doesn't give a royal shit.

pimpdave wrote:Didn't Yasser Arafat get one too? COME ON

Exactly! It's supposed to be an award that has meaning and prestige. You would expect it to actually go to someone that has really done something for peace in the world. Instead, terrorists and Global Warming Fraud salesmen get the honors, while Jesus Christ gets to die a horrible death and John Lennon gets shot. Hmmm? Maybe that's why no one of real peace-loving merit gets these prizes?

I support giving Lennon a peace prize, but the rules are against giving it posthumously. Jesus can't get one either for that reason.

Neoteny wrote:I support giving Lennon a peace prize, but the rules are against giving it posthumously. Jesus can't get one either for that reason.

Yes, but Jesus didn't really die...in theory. Maybe if someone gave the guy an award he would finally show back up?