President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[alan1]

Additional awards for Mr Obama.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nqvyBTWis&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Barack Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize and...[/ame]

 

[driveby]

All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.

It's going to be a great eight years.

The Nobel Prize has become the "Special Olympics" for the far left kooks, pun intended .....

 

[Qball]

Republicans can't see this for what it is. This is a stunning rebuke by the international community over what Bush and the Republicans did for the last eight years.

Uh, that's pretty much the way I see it, and that's pretty much the reason why I think it's bullshit.

 

[Theorist]

EAT YOUR DARK HEARTS OUT

Beck, Hannity, Dobbs, Malkin, O’Reilly and all of the other right wing-nuts and village idiots. Especially FOX-IDIOTS.
lol
Obama just won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize as the first setting president, since Woodrow Wilson, after 9 months in office.
lol
Michael Vicks doing a reality show and being paid. With a blond as his side?
lol
Seals on his 4th baby with Hiedi Klum in 4 years. Talk about a big bang
lol

what exactly is your point anyway?

 

[Care4all]

Maybe Obama was set up by the PEACENIKS? They gave it to Obama, right now, as he is making the decision on what to do in Afghanistan, send more troops for 10 more years of WARRING or bring the troops home? The Peaceniks thought that if they gave him the Peace Prize it might be embarrassing for him to continue to commit to WAR?

How's THAT, for a conspiracy?

 

[Yurt]

All this whinning by the pussies on the right is wonderful.

It's going to be a great eight years.

nah....giving him the prize actually hurts him and america....people are tired of his messiah status....

he should have turned the prize down

 

[JimH52]

Obama himself said he has done nothing to deserve the award, but what is he supposed to do, give it back? As many have said in this thread, this is more a slap to Bush than anything.

At least now FOX news has something to whine about this weekend.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.

The only difference is how rabid one side or other becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama.

 

[Vast LWC]

I think we all agree here, including Mr Obama, that the Nobel Prize people are wrong.

I mean, you can't really tell them to take the Peace Prize back, I guess, and as President you'd be creating some bad relations by doing that.

But Obama has made it clear that he for one thinks he hasn't done enough to deserve it.

He could've said that he wasn't Worthy, and to Grade him a couple of Years...

Would have been... Statesmen like...

But then again...



peace...

That's what he did say...

 

[RadiomanATL]

You know, for how dumb it is, I can give you one even more bizarre. Some member of the Swedish parliament nominated Hitler in 1939.

Did Hitler win? Thats the only way that it would be dumber than this.

I was making a point about the nomination process.

As for previous winner, you could make similar arguments against Hjalmar Branting's win in 1921. He had only been in office six months when he won.

So? Does the fact that a previous winner was inexperienced make it any more correct that Obama has won?

 

[Qball]

Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.

The only difference is how rabid one side or other becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama.

...or rather, how rabid one side claims the other side becomes whenever it's confirmed that people really like Obama.

 

[Chris]

Obama deserved to win.

He has completely changed the world's political climate.

 

[Ame®icano]

Obama wins dancing with the stars!

Why not, he didn't do that either.

Actually, he did. That prestigious award is not widely publicized because it's was accomplished together with Sarah Palin.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TvlanYslAQ]YouTube - Obama gets a Nobel Prize[/ame]

 

[tigerbob]

Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.

The only difference is how rabid one side or other becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama.

If everyone agrees he didn't deserve this, I wouldn't be surprised to see global opinion of him decline a few points as a result of it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

sorry jillian, but the king david hotel bombing was a terrorist attack. a textbook example even.

In your opinion...

but attacking a military targets isn't a terrorist attack.

And THAT is textbook.

ah,ah. nice qualifiers there. attack military target = no terrorist attack.

also, warnings before attack = no terrorist attack.

anymore qualifiers, because those two will blow up in your face?

my textbook for the definition of a terrorist attack does not allow qualifiers, especially not if i agree with the ones carrying out the attack. call them terrorists, partisans, insurgents, freedom fighters, i don't care, the method and tactic is the same.

there may be shades of more "terroristy" attacks than others, like with torture, still TERRORIST ATTACKS, killing hotel employees, canteen workers and so on. they were not aware of a warning, were they?

btw, we in the western world have all been warned. don't go near any building with something military-like associated with it. you might become a victim of a non-terrorist attack.

 

[Si modo]

sorry jillian, but the king david hotel bombing was a terrorist attack. a textbook example even.

In your opinion...

but attacking a military targets isn't a terrorist attack.

And THAT is textbook.

ah,ah. nice qualifiers there. attack military target = no terrorist attack.

also, warnings before attack = no terrorist attack.

anymore qualifiers, because those two will blow up in your face?

my textbook for the definition of a terrorist attack does not allow qualifiers, especially not if i agree with the ones carrying out the attack. call them terrorists, partisans, insurgents, freedom fighters, i don't care, the method and tactic is the same.

there may be shades of more "terroristy" attacks than others, like with torture, still TERRORIST ATTACKS, killing hotel employees, canteen workers and so on. they were not aware of a warning, were they?

btw, we in the western world have all been warned. don't go near any building with something military-like associated with it. you might become a victim of a non-terrorist attack.

Qualifiers are necessary, for those interested in accuracy, that is.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, including Obama.

The only difference is how rabid one side or other becomes because the world apparently really likes Obama.

So much for the rightwingnut argument that he's pissed off all our allies and the international community...

 

[L.K.Eder]

In your opinion...

but attacking a military targets isn't a terrorist attack.

And THAT is textbook.

ah,ah. nice qualifiers there. attack military target = no terrorist attack.

also, warnings before attack = no terrorist attack.

anymore qualifiers, because those two will blow up in your face?

my textbook for the definition of a terrorist attack does not allow qualifiers, especially not if i agree with the ones carrying out the attack. call them terrorists, partisans, insurgents, freedom fighters, i don't care, the method and tactic is the same.

there may be shades of more "terroristy" attacks than others, like with torture, still TERRORIST ATTACKS, killing hotel employees, canteen workers and so on. they were not aware of a warning, were they?

btw, we in the western world have all been warned. don't go near any building with something military-like associated with it. you might become a victim of a non-terrorist attack.

Qualifiers are necessary, for those interested in accuracy, that is.

qualifiers are necessary for rationalization. and those interested in promoting their double standards. don't go near the pentagon. bill ayers was a freedom fighter.

 

[Coyote]

In your opinion...

but attacking a military targets isn't a terrorist attack.

And THAT is textbook.

ah,ah. nice qualifiers there. attack military target = no terrorist attack.

also, warnings before attack = no terrorist attack.

anymore qualifiers, because those two will blow up in your face?

my textbook for the definition of a terrorist attack does not allow qualifiers, especially not if i agree with the ones carrying out the attack. call them terrorists, partisans, insurgents, freedom fighters, i don't care, the method and tactic is the same.

there may be shades of more "terroristy" attacks than others, like with torture, still TERRORIST ATTACKS, killing hotel employees, canteen workers and so on. they were not aware of a warning, were they?

btw, we in the western world have all been warned. don't go near any building with something military-like associated with it. you might become a victim of a non-terrorist attack.

Qualifiers are necessary, for those interested in accuracy, that is.

In this case, let me add a "qualifiar": they weren't all military targets.