Why is it that we still don't know who nominated Him?

He won the award. He didn't apply for it. It isn't the GOP's award to give.

The sour grapes republicans can go suck an egg. Oh wait.....they're already sucking eggs.
Pay attention. :lol:

I haven't read any of the several threads on this topic. The bottom line: He was awarded the prize. Nothing you can do about it. Well.....you can whine. The cons are getting pretty good at that.
 
Could be.

It's very, very odd that the name of who made the nomination is still not known.
I'm betting it was made after the deadline for nominating...like 12 days after Obama was installed as our chief peacemaker.

I'm betting the award is nothing more that political elbow rubbing. Maybe Arafat wanted a peer on the list of recipients.
See, the deadline for the nomination is February 1st. Many are assuming that the nomination was on the deadline.

That is not necessarily so. It could have come in even before that, even before those monumental first twelve days.

So, we still don't know the name behind the nomination nor do we even know the date of it. This lack of such knowledge is unprecedented, IIRC. For all other Nobel prizes, there is transparency.

No, si modo, it is not unprecedented and it is not unsettling. You are lying again.
 
Why would there be transparency, exactly...this isn't something the US government decides.

I've lost count of how many comments I've read about how meaningless this award is...obviously not to many of the wingers...it's all they can talk about.

:lol:
 
Why would there be transparency, exactly...this isn't something the US government decides.

I've lost count of how many comments I've read about how meaningless this award is...obviously not to many of the wingers...it's all they can talk about.

:lol:
Because there usually is transparency. Most who make nominations have no issues with letting others know they have.
 
I'm betting it was made after the deadline for nominating...like 12 days after Obama was installed as our chief peacemaker.

I'm betting the award is nothing more that political elbow rubbing. Maybe Arafat wanted a peer on the list of recipients.
See, the deadline for the nomination is February 1st. Many are assuming that the nomination was on the deadline.

That is not necessarily so. It could have come in even before that, even before those monumental first twelve days.

So, we still don't know the name behind the nomination nor do we even know the date of it. This lack of such knowledge is unprecedented, IIRC. For all other Nobel prizes, there is transparency.

No, si modo, it is not unprecedented and it is not unsettling. You are lying again.
Link to your claim that Sarkozy nominated Him?
 
Why would there be transparency, exactly...this isn't something the US government decides.

I've lost count of how many comments I've read about how meaningless this award is...obviously not to many of the wingers...it's all they can talk about.

:lol:
Because there usually is transparency. Most who make nominations have no issues with letting others know they have.


The Nobel people owe you exactly what?

Oh....that's your sense of entitlement talking.
 
Why would there be transparency, exactly...this isn't something the US government decides.

I've lost count of how many comments I've read about how meaningless this award is...obviously not to many of the wingers...it's all they can talk about.

:lol:
Because there usually is transparency. Most who make nominations have no issues with letting others know they have.


The Nobel people owe you exactly what?

Oh....that's your sense of entitlement talking.
Irrelevant strawmen. Pay attention.
 
See, the deadline for the nomination is February 1st. Many are assuming that the nomination was on the deadline.

That is not necessarily so. It could have come in even before that, even before those monumental first twelve days.

So, we still don't know the name behind the nomination nor do we even know the date of it. This lack of such knowledge is unprecedented, IIRC. For all other Nobel prizes, there is transparency.

No, si modo, it is not unprecedented and it is not unsettling. You are lying again.
Link to your claim that Sarkozy nominated Him?
It's pretty obvious he was making a joke. Lighten up.
 
Irrelevant strawmen. Pay attention.


It is a direct answer to the question:

The Nobel Committee owes you EXACTLY NOTHING. They don't answer to you.
Clueless moron. You are the only one who said they owe me something. You - your strawman. Moron.

Now pay attention.

Let me be as clear as possible:

The question posed here is why don't we know who nominated Obama for the prize.

The answer is, they do not owe you an explanation. They don't have to tell you. It's none of your business. You can't sue them to find out. Maybe you can write a nice humble letter and see if they feel like they owe you a response.

We do not know because they have not said and they do not have to.

Simple really.
 
It is a direct answer to the question:

The Nobel Committee owes you EXACTLY NOTHING. They don't answer to you.
Clueless moron. You are the only one who said they owe me something. You - your strawman. Moron.

Now pay attention.

Let me be as clear as possible:

The question posed here is why don't we know who nominated Obama for the prize.

The answer is, they do not owe you an explanation. They don't have to tell you. It's none of your business. You can't sue them to find out. Maybe you can write a nice humble letter and see if they feel like they owe you a response.

We do not know because they have not said and they do not have to.

Simple really.
Nonsense.

Pay attention.
 
Clueless moron. You are the only one who said they owe me something. You - your strawman. Moron.

Now pay attention.

Let me be as clear as possible:

The question posed here is why don't we know who nominated Obama for the prize.

The answer is, they do not owe you an explanation. They don't have to tell you. It's none of your business. You can't sue them to find out. Maybe you can write a nice humble letter and see if they feel like they owe you a response.

We do not know because they have not said and they do not have to.

Simple really.
Nonsense.

Pay attention.

Title of thread: Why is it that we still don't know who nominated Him?


Answer: The Nobel prize committee has not said. They do not have to.


End of story.
 
Let me be as clear as possible:

The question posed here is why don't we know who nominated Obama for the prize.

The answer is, they do not owe you an explanation. They don't have to tell you. It's none of your business. You can't sue them to find out. Maybe you can write a nice humble letter and see if they feel like they owe you a response.

We do not know because they have not said and they do not have to.

Simple really.
Nonsense.

Pay attention.

Title of thread: Why is it that we still don't know who nominated Him?


Answer: The Nobel prize committee has not said. They do not have to.


End of story.
Are you a moron? No seriously, are you?

Even an imbecile can read. But, for those less gifted than imbeciles, let's put your nonsense strawmen to bed:

The Nobel Committee does not have to say anything (note that tidbit is included in my OP: "... this is either sheer guesswork or information put out by the person or persons behind the nomination. Information in the Nobel Committee's nominations data base is not made public until after fifty years.").


Now that I've repeated the OP to you, we can hope that your nonsense strawmen will stop.




For other Nobel prizes, the nominators are transparent.

For past Peace Prizes, the nominators are transparent. This one is not.
 
Well having thought about this for 1 minute he was nominated on the presumption that countries would prosper through programs such as food for oil in Iraq. The real reason countries hated Bush over Iraq was he brought an end to the oil revenue of nations throughout the world via the United Nations dirty dealings. It is very simple they want a return to where they can scam some type of monetary value from this presidency. A return of a democrat to the white house is sought after because of this. Europe could not give a hoot about Iraq it was a means to get oil for $5-$10 a barrel. So as who nominated him hmmm any member of the UN, Russia, China, France, Spain, Germany, the list goes on and on, on whoever made money. And with the rhetoric of his Campaign that was a showin for this nomination.

Just follow the money, Eurupe would have been pissed at us as well if we had droped Northern and Southern Watch and left Iraqi borders in 2003. If there is money to be made believe me these people will come out of the wood work.
 
Well having thought about this for 1 minute he was nominated on the presumption that countries would prosper through programs such as food for oil in Iraq. The real reason countries hated Bush over Iraq was he brought an end to the oil revenue of nations throughout the world via the United Nations dirty dealings. It is very simple they want a return to where they can scam some type of monetary value from this presidency. A return of a democrat to the white house is sought after because of this. Europe could not give a hoot about Iraq it was a means to get oil for $5-$10 a barrel. So as who nominated him hmmm any member of the UN, Russia, China, France, Spain, Germany, the list goes on and on, on whoever made money. And with the rhetoric of his Campaign that was a showin for this nomination.

Just follow the money, Eurupe would have been pissed at us as well if we had droped Northern and Southern Watch and left Iraqi borders in 2003. If there is money to be made believe me these people will come out of the wood work.

I don't think you think at all. Oil for food? That was under Saddam. WTF are you talking about? Do YOU even know?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top