Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[The Rabbi]

And for every person killed there have been about 10,000 who have benefitted from construction and mining, the two major uses for the product.

I'm sure that would make all the parents of dead soldiers who died because of Dynamite feel so much better.

Probably did.
Because dynamite didnt kill those soldiers. Guns didnt kill those soldiers. Other solders killed those soldiers.
btw, I never saw a protest against dynamite by parents of soldiers killed in combat. I guess the connection is obvious only to you.

 

[elvis]

Do you know anything about Alfred Nobel? Look up what he created. You think he created peaceful things?

What was the "reason" they gave for awarding Obama? being half black?

"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

Peace 2009

he did a lot as president in those 12 days prior to his nomination .....

Yeah what had he done in regard to international diplomacy? vote "present" on the Iranian terrorist bill?

 

[elvis]

Dynamite wasn't created with the intention to kill either. That's the whole point of the prizes.

Except it wasn't. The whole point of the prizes was to save his legacy. Did you not read the link I just posted earlier? It worked too. People like you remember him for the prizes he has given out instead of the destruction his invention has caused.

I remember him for inventing dynamite.

 

[Modbert]

Probably did.
Because dynamite didnt kill those soldiers. Guns didnt kill those soldiers. Other solders killed those soldiers.
btw, I never saw a protest against dynamite by parents of soldiers killed in combat. I guess the connection is obvious only to you.

Dynamite made that easier. You fail to see that point. I just wanted to point out the irony of bitching about a Peace Prize by a man who's invention has killed many people.

 

[Ravi]

I agree that it seems silly to give it to him, except if it actually does further world peace in the end.

And saving the banks from melting down and the economy from collapsing actually does have a lot to do with world peace.

Still, if it is so meaningless, why all the tears?

 

[Modbert]

I remember him for inventing dynamite.

You're one of the few then. I was asking people today if they knew what Nobel invented. They didn't know. Oh America.

 

[elvis]

Probably did.
Because dynamite didnt kill those soldiers. Guns didnt kill those soldiers. Other solders killed those soldiers.
btw, I never saw a protest against dynamite by parents of soldiers killed in combat. I guess the connection is obvious only to you.

Dynamite made that easier. You fail to see that point. I just wanted to point out the irony of bitching about a Peace Prize by a man who's invention has killed many people.

Regardless, it USED to mean something.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dynamite wasn't created with the intention to kill either. That's the whole point of the prizes.

Except it wasn't. The whole point of the prizes was to save his legacy. Did you not read the link I just posted earlier? It worked too. People like you remember him for the prizes he has given out instead of the destruction his invention has caused.

Fortunately I dont rely on links handed out by nitwits. Try this

Dynamite was invented by Alfred Nobel and was the first safely manageable explosive stronger than black powder. Nobel obtained patents for his invention: in England on 7 May 1867 and in Sweden on 19 October 1867.[2] He originally sold dynamite as "Nobel's Blasting Powder". After its introduction, dynamite rapidly gained popularity as a safe alternative to gunpowder and nitroglycerin. Nobel tightly controlled the patent, and unlicensed duplicators were quickly shut down. However, a few American businessmen got around the patent by using a slightly different formula

Note that its purpose was blasting, for construction and mining.

 

[Modbert]

I agree that it seems silly to give it to him, except if it actually does further world peace in the end.

And saving the banks from melting down and the economy from collapsing actually does have a lot to do with world peace.

Still, if it is so meaningless, why all the tears?

Because Bush didn't get one. And he was the great Crusader!

Oh, and because it's Barack Obama. He can't do anything right. They're blaming Obama for this.

1.) He didn't nominate himself.

2.) Nobody is going to turn down a Nobel Prize, not sure why people would expect Obama to. Though I would like to see him dedicate it to our men and women serving overseas, not the Teabaggers like Beck wants to see happen.

Obama could personally find the cure of cancer and personally kill Osama Bin Laden bare handed and people would still find a problem with him doing that.

 

[frazzledgear]

Then why the fuck are Republicans bawwing more than chickens in the morning over it?

I've seen the standard screed both on and off this board today. "Gore, Carter, Yasser Arafat, and now Obama have received it!" "Obama has done nothing to deserve this reward." Same thing over and over in various threads.

Alright, so you think Obama didn't deserve it and therefore the prize is worthless. Why bother commenting on it then? Why bother making arguments over it,etc? Wouldn't the best solution to just go it's not worth anything instead of acting like Obama has pissed in your drinking water?

Just like my two cents.

Maybe it irks them because the trinket comes with a check for $1.5 million. It used to be the prize was awarded for an actual ACCOMPLISHMENT. The award is SUPPOSED to be given in accordance with the guidelines laid out in Alfred Nobel's will -it is supposed to go to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". See that part about "done the most" -as in already did it? I fail to find where Obama actually DID any of those things -and no one else can either. Including the committee itself. The committee stopped following Nobel's guidelines for several years now and now awards it for one of two reasons only. Either to whoever they think has the correct political views -i.e. those of the committee itself. Or they give it to someone for the purpose of slapping someone else in the face with it -which is why the committee admitted they gave it to Gore and said Bush should consider it a "kick in the leg". Because it has become fashionable to be openly anti-Semitic in Europe again -is why they decided to slap Israel in the face with their award to the slaughterer of Israeli civilians terrorist Arafat.

The committee said Obama was given this award for something he SAID, not for anything he actually did or for any accomplishment that contributed to peace. Because even they can't come up with a single accomplishment that contributed to peace. But nothing he said has contributed to peace either. I heard someone on TV say it was given in the hopes it would motivate Obama to follow through on his own words. If so, THAT is a complete bastardization of the purpose of the award - which was not intended to MOTIVATE someone to accomplish something -but reward them for what they already DID accomplish.

Talk is cheap. And Obama was nominated just two weeks after his inauguration. Which means whatever he said the committee liked so much they want to give him $1.5 million for it -then it was for something he said while running for office. In other words, for a campaign speech -which is the cheapest talk there is. It only further cheapens the Nobel Peace prize -if that were actually possible since awarding it to the murderer Arafat.

 

[Si modo]

Personally, I think research chemists and physicists are in a unique position to know intimately the ramifications on the world of their discoveries.

 

[Modbert]

Fortunately I dont rely on links handed out by nitwits. Try this
Note that its purpose was blasting, for construction and mining.

So you say you don't rely on any actual links handed out by me. Instead, you turn to wikipedia. Classic!

Several weapons were created in history to further better society. However, the inventors did not have the intelligence so it seems to look at the effects of what they creating. Again, there's a reason why Nobel was called "The Merchant of Death."

Get over it.

 

[manu1959]

Fortunately I dont rely on links handed out by nitwits. Try this
Note that its purpose was blasting, for construction and mining.

So you say you don't rely on any actual links handed out by me. Instead, you turn to wikipedia. Classic!

Several weapons were created in history to further better society. However, the inventors did not have the intelligence so it seems to look at the effects of what they creating. Again, there's a reason why Nobel was called "The Merchant of Death."

Get over it.

so the merchant of death's spokes people gave an award to a man that is waging two wars and about to escalate one of them all in the name of peace.....

it all makes sense now.....thanks....

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree that it seems silly to give it to him, except if it actually does further world peace in the end.

And saving the banks from melting down and the economy from collapsing actually does have a lot to do with world peace.

Still, if it is so meaningless, why all the tears?

Because Bush didn't get one. And he was the great Crusader!

Oh, and because it's Barack Obama. He can't do anything right. They're blaming Obama for this.

1.) He didn't nominate himself.

2.) Nobody is going to turn down a Nobel Prize, not sure why people would expect Obama to. Though I would like to see him dedicate it to our men and women serving overseas, not the Teabaggers like Beck wants to see happen.

Obama could personally find the cure of cancer and personally kill Osama Bin Laden bare handed and people would still find a problem with him doing that.

More ignorance. It knows no bounds.

This year the Nobel Prize in Literature has been granted by the Swedish Academy to the French writer Jean-Paul Sartre for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age.

It will be recalled that the laureate has made it known that he did not wish to accept the prize. The fact that he has declined this distinction does not in the least modify the validity of the award. Under the circumstances, however, the Academy can only state that the presentation of the prize cannot take place.

Bush could have killed OBL and people would ahve accused him of torture. Bush could have found a cure for cancer and people would have accused him of putting doctors out of work.
But Bush actually did something. Obama did nothing. When the nomination was made, he had done nothing. The explanation of the award was clearly made up AFTER the nomination was received.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fortunately I dont rely on links handed out by nitwits. Try this
Note that its purpose was blasting, for construction and mining.

So you say you don't rely on any actual links handed out by me. Instead, you turn to wikipedia. Classic!

Several weapons were created in history to further better society. However, the inventors did not have the intelligence so it seems to look at the effects of what they creating. Again, there's a reason why Nobel was called "The Merchant of Death."

Get over it.

I rlealize that argument is futile. He did not invent a weapon. He invented a blasting compound. It was meant for blasting. That isn't a weapon.

 

[Modbert]

so the merchant of death's spokes people gave an award to a man that is waging two wars and about to escalate one of them all in the name of peace.....

it all makes sense now.....thanks....

Stop being a partisan fuck, it's boring. Just a little while ago, you were probably bitching about how this great award was being given to Obama. The faux outrage over this is so ridiculous.

Also, waging wars and starting wars are two different things. I doubt Obama will end up escalating the Afghanistan war to the level that people think. Hopefully he will bring all our troops home.

 

[elvis]

I agree that it seems silly to give it to him, except if it actually does further world peace in the end.

And saving the banks from melting down and the economy from collapsing actually does have a lot to do with world peace.

Still, if it is so meaningless, why all the tears?

except the measures to save the banks were started by Bush and NOTHING will further world peace because we don't have it and never will.

 

[elvis]

I agree that it seems silly to give it to him, except if it actually does further world peace in the end.

And saving the banks from melting down and the economy from collapsing actually does have a lot to do with world peace.

Still, if it is so meaningless, why all the tears?

Because Bush didn't get one. And he was the great Crusader!

Oh, and because it's Barack Obama. He can't do anything right. They're blaming Obama for this.

1.) He didn't nominate himself.

2.) Nobody is going to turn down a Nobel Prize, not sure why people would expect Obama to. Though I would like to see him dedicate it to our men and women serving overseas, not the Teabaggers like Beck wants to see happen.

Obama could personally find the cure of cancer and personally kill Osama Bin Laden bare handed and people would still find a problem with him doing that.

I wouldn't find fault with him IF he actually accomplished anything, which he hasn't. No one has been able to point out what he did to win this.

 

[Modbert]

I rlealize that argument is futile. He did not invent a weapon. He invented a blasting compound. It was meant for blasting. That isn't a weapon.

I realize you don't want to admit the simple truth of this. Nobel made a fortune off this, off the deaths of plenty. He was called "The Merchant of Death" when he was alive. I'm not sure how you think you can be taken seriously by the way with your avatar. Just figure I mention that.

 

[Ravi]

I agree that it seems silly to give it to him, except if it actually does further world peace in the end.

And saving the banks from melting down and the economy from collapsing actually does have a lot to do with world peace.

Still, if it is so meaningless, why all the tears?

Because Bush didn't get one. And he was the great Crusader!

Oh, and because it's Barack Obama. He can't do anything right. They're blaming Obama for this.

1.) He didn't nominate himself.

2.) Nobody is going to turn down a Nobel Prize, not sure why people would expect Obama to. Though I would like to see him dedicate it to our men and women serving overseas, not the Teabaggers like Beck wants to see happen.

Obama could personally find the cure of cancer and personally kill Osama Bin Laden bare handed and people would still find a problem with him doing that.

More ignorance. It knows no bounds.

This year the Nobel Prize in Literature has been granted by the Swedish Academy to the French writer Jean-Paul Sartre for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age.

It will be recalled that the laureate has made it known that he did not wish to accept the prize. The fact that he has declined this distinction does not in the least modify the validity of the award. Under the circumstances, however, the Academy can only state that the presentation of the prize cannot take place.

Bush could have killed OBL and people would ahve accused him of torture. Bush could have found a cure for cancer and people would have accused him of putting doctors out of work.
But Bush actually did something. Obama did nothing. When the nomination was made, he had done nothing. The explanation of the award was clearly made up AFTER the nomination was received.

Who are you kidding? Bush could have impregnated bin laden and you'd be clapping your hands.