(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beadesigngroup.com%2Fobama.jpg&hash=4260b415b0a476da24f3c8435e1b3d935d329d97)
QuoteObama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
There were a record 205 nominations for this year's prize.
The laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm
:huh:
L.
Wait what??
WTF?
Norwegians :rolleyes:
Maybe it's a ploy to arrest him for war crimes or something. Sorta like Polanski reversed. :P
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 04:13:54 AM
WTF?
LOL yeah, the dude hasn't even been a President for a year, and he has not really accomplished anything significant in this time (hell, he even hasn't closed down Gitmo). In terms of actions, not gestures, in the international arena America is pretty much exactly in the same spot it was under Bush.
:lmfao:
This must be the most laughable choice yet; he's done nothing to deserve the Prize, he hasn't had time to!
WTF? :huh:
This is really going too far.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 04:19:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 04:13:54 AM
WTF?
LOL yeah, the dude hasn't even been a President for a year, and he has not really accomplished anything significant in this time (hell, he even hasn't closed down Gitmo). In terms of actions, not gestures, in the international arena America is pretty much exactly in the same spot it was under Bush.
He hasn't actually changed ANYTHING! (yet). What Obama has done for the past year is A) Deal with the Credit Crunch and B) Try to pass Obamacare. B) has failed so far and the credit for A) more justifiably belongs to Brown and Darling than it does any other humans on this planet. Now these two things were vital and necessary but nothing that George W Bush wasn't already doing before leaving office.
Look, Obama is great and I'd be proud to carry his babies but he has not done anything worthy of this Prize. This will further devalue the peace prize and it shows the continuing irrationality of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. This is more a prize for what he is, being president as a black second generation america, and who he isn't, George W Bush.
Maybe they want to give it now before he is assassinated?
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 04:26:29 AM
Maybe they want to give it now before he is assassinated?
They can do what they did for Gandhi, decline to hand out the prize after he had been assassinated, since the rules don't allow posthumous awards.
The award has always been political but at least it had some style. They wanted to protest against the Birmanese dictatorship, they elected some peace activist and handed him the award. They wanted to celebrate the ending of a war, they gave the award to the heads of state that made it possible. But Obama receiving it after doing absolutely nothing... it's a new low for the Comitee.... "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" is not a good reason. Not at all.
he he
This foolishness wouldn't have happened if Slag was still in the country.
April fools?
.
.
.
Hopefully...? :unsure:
I am: WTF?
:yeah:
That's my president!
I want to vomit
:lmfao:
I predict he'll win it every year he's in office.
I wonder what other Nobel Prizes he will win?
The most disturbing thing is this one:
"nominations closed 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office" :lmfao:
:huh: :lmfao: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bash: :uffda:
To set a new low for this Prize is quite an achievement.
He was installed as president jan 20, last day for nomination was feb 1. I guess he managed to save World peace in 12 days in the spare time between scoring 17 hole-in-ones on his first golf round, composing three symphonies and inventing the cure for cancer. (He really should've gotten the prize in medicine too, I blame it on racist Swedes)
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
The Nobel Peace Prize jumped the shark like 10 years ago when YASSER ARAFAT won it, but still.... nice reminder that the Nobel committee has a collective IQ of 68.
Next year's winner: Hugo Chavez! :)
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:57:20 AM
:yeah:
That's my president!
:yeah:
Is there anything that man
can't do?
:yeah:
Quote from: Gambrinus on October 09, 2009, 05:10:22 AMin the spare time between scoring 17 hole-in-ones on his first golf round
I think you win the prize automatically if you score more hole-in-ones than Kim Jong-il
I find solace in the fact that if he really is the Antichrist, the Catholic Church will be fucked up by the time he is finished.
Wow. :huh: Just wow. :huh:
Agree that this is worse than Arafat. The prize committee lost little creditability with this choice, for they had little to lose. But they lost all that they had.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2009, 05:16:09 AM
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:57:20 AM
:yeah:
That's my president!
:yeah:
Is there anything that man can't do?
:yeah:
There is nothing he cannot do, and nothing he can do. Obama is the poster boy for the triumph of style over substance.
Next year the Peace Nobel Prize should be decided by televoting.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 05:20:53 AM
There is nothing he cannot do, and nothing he can do. Obama is the poster boy for the triumph of style over substance.
He gave us hope. He gave the world hope. :D
I bet all the Hansies are missing the shit out of the Clintons now. Be careful what you wish for...
It is a trap. From now on, when Obama considers the military option, he'll think twice because to do so will be somewhat inconsistent with his status as a Nobel peace laureate :lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on October 09, 2009, 08:29:45 AM
It is a trap. From now on, when Obama considers the military option, he'll think twice because to do so will be somewhat inconsistent with his status as a Nobel peace laureate :lol:
Zombie LeMay: President O'Bama it's time to carpet bomb EyeRahn.
Zombie Patton: President O'Bama it's time to blitz North Korea
President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama: Might as well, it's not like they are going to give it to me for second time anyway.
:lol:
I heard this on NPR this morning and I was sure that I had heard it wrong; or it was wishful thinking on the part or NPR or something.
I find it most amusing that Bill Clinton spent his second term campaigning for the prize only to not get it. Barack was awarded it with no effort whatsoever.
I was an effin
prophet on this one! :lol:
My post yesterday:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2476.0
QuoteIt should be awarded to Obama - not for what he's done, but for what he's going to do.
;)
All hail me. :worthy:
How many countries has America invaded since Obama came to power?
NIL
Ergo...Peace Prize.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 08:39:04 AM
I was an effin prophet on this one! :lol:
My post yesterday:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2476.0
QuoteIt should be awarded to Obama - not for what he's done, but for what he's going to do.
;)
All hail me. :worthy:
It doesn't count if it doesn't lead to profit. Now predict at what level the DOW will be next Monday :P
I thought it was a joke when I first saw it this morning, now that I think of it, it is a joke. I'm gonna start buying cracker jacks again, maybe I'll get a nobel prize also.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 08:39:04 AM
I was an effin prophet on this one! :lol:
My post yesterday:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2476.0
QuoteIt should be awarded to Obama - not for what he's done, but for what he's going to do.
;)
All hail me. :worthy:
I smell a conspiracy. :jooos: :tinfoil:
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 08:39:04 AM
I was an effin prophet on this one! :lol:
My post yesterday:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2476.0
QuoteIt should be awarded to Obama - not for what he's done, but for what he's going to do.
;)
All hail me. :worthy:
Doesn't count you were taking the piss.
But, yet again Languish gets it right, we may take over for the Onion.
Israel is handing this to Obamer as a payoff.
Too funny.
Apparently he had 14-1 odds.
http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14588615
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fimages%2Fna%2F2009w41%2FNobel.jpg&hash=1c5fdec2120afdd804be382e19687e4e2b5894d5)
I really can't believe they awarded it to him. Evidently the nobel committee can see into the future, where Obama has brought us all world peace.
I really think if there is no one deserving of the award in any given year, they can just refrain from awarding it. Much better than this.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 08:46:23 AM
Doesn't count you were taking the piss.
But, yet again Languish gets it right, we may take over for the Onion.
More to the point, my amazing skills should be recognized and publicly appreciated.
I hear there may be a Nobel Prize available ... :D
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 09, 2009, 08:57:55 AM
Israel is handing this to Obamer as a payoff.
Nope the former Norwegian PM and Nobel Committee head is paying Obama back for his job as head of The Concil of Europe (http://www.coe.int/)
Also, the first page of this thread (before the prize was awarded) on EUOT is great:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=435520
Everyone, from Eurotard to Amerikkkan, thinks the idea of obama winning is ridiculous.
Whoops. :lol:
That's pretty awesome!
If he wants to really look good and impress people, he should turn it down.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 09:01:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 08:46:23 AM
Doesn't count you were taking the piss.
But, yet again Languish gets it right, we may take over for the Onion.
More to the point, my amazing skills should be recognized and publicly appreciated.
I hear there may be a Nobel Prize available ... :D
The Nobel Memorial Prize for Internet Forum Posting?
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 08:39:04 AM
I was an effin prophet on this one! :lol:
My post yesterday:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2476.0
QuoteIt should be awarded to Obama - not for what he's done, but for what he's going to do.
;)
All hail me. :worthy:
To predict what
should happen isn't a prophecy. Prophets predict what
will happen.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 09, 2009, 09:03:22 AM
Also, the first page of this thread (before the prize was awarded) on EUOT is great:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=435520
Everyone, from Eurotard to Amerikkkan, thinks the idea of obama winning is ridiculous.
Whoops. :lol:
Yet again, Obama is a uniter.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 09:04:01 AM
The Nobel Memorial Prize for Internet Forum Posting?
Naw, I stole Lusti's box of cracker jacks. The one with the Peace Prize at the bottom.
Hu Jia should have received it.
Also I don't understand why Michael Jackson is on that nomination list. He wouldn't have had any chances since he is dead.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 09:04:07 AM
To predict what should happen isn't a prophecy. Prophets predict what will happen.
The really funny part is that I had no idea he was actually nominated - I just wanted to play off of Berkut. ;)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 09, 2009, 09:00:33 AM
Apparently he had 14-1 odds.
Pete Seeger?
Michael Jackson ??!?!?!?
Morgan Tsvangirai would have been a good choice but I guess the Committee lacks the cohones to slap Mugabe in the face.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 09, 2009, 09:06:30 AM
Also I don't understand why Michael Jackson is on that nomination list.
Perhaps Mitterand nominated him. ;)
Auyn San Suu Chi spent twelve years in prison or under house arrest in the name of peace and democracy before the committee decided she was worthy. Obama spent twelve days simply not being George Bush and the committee decided he was worthy.
I'd say that Dubya should take this as the ultimate compliment.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 09, 2009, 09:03:34 AM
If he wants to really look good and impress people, he should turn it down.
Then try to collect the prize money secretly. He'd be the next Jean Paul Sartre. :frog:
I predict that this is ultimately going to hurt Obama in the long run.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2009, 09:07:47 AM
Michael Jackson ??!?!?!?
Haven't you ever listened to Heal the World? :mad:
Also, this is the perfect time for Obama to order a military strike on Iran. If he actually did, I'd love him forever. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 09:07:46 AM
The really funny part is that I had no idea he was actually nominated - I just wanted to play off of Berkut. ;)
Nor did I. When I heard the news on the radio this morning, I honestly thought it was a joke.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 09:09:19 AM
Auyn San Suu Chi spent twelve years in prison or under house arrest in the name of peace and democracy before the committee decided she was worthy. Obama spent twelve days simply not being George Bush
Hadn't thought about it quite that way, but now you've convinced me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2009, 05:16:09 AM
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:57:20 AM
:yeah:
That's my president!
:yeah:
Is there anything that man can't do?
:yeah:
Balance the budget, close Gitmo, protect habeas corpus, repeal DOMA.... I could keep going.
Quote from: Scipio on October 09, 2009, 09:13:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2009, 05:16:09 AM
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:57:20 AM
:yeah:
That's my president!
:yeah:
Is there anything that man can't do?
:yeah:
Balance the budget, close Gitmo, protect habeas corpus, repeal DOMA.... I could keep going.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Honorary POTM!
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 09:10:35 AM
I predict that this is ultimately going to hurt Obama in the long run.
I predict this will have no influence or relevance whatsoever.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:17:22 AM
I predict this will have no influence or relevance whatsoever.
You predict wrongly IMHO. I think it's going to infuriate the large portion of the middle class who are already frustrated with Obama's performance so far.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 09, 2009, 05:06:48 AM
The most disturbing thing is this one:
"nominations closed 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office" :lmfao:
Yeah, apparently nominations closed Feb 1, 2009. Pres Obama had been in office for 11 days. :huh:
It's for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,'; though he hadn't really, actually done anything?
We Americans should be so proud!
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 09:19:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:17:22 AM
I predict this will have no influence or relevance whatsoever.
You predict wrongly IMHO. I think it's going to infuriate the large portion of the middle class who are already frustrated with Obama's performance so far.
Nah, people will go through the usual ritual of bitching and moaning about the Nobel Peace Prize being ridiculous and then everyone will forget it.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 09:05:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 09:04:01 AM
The Nobel Memorial Prize for Internet Forum Posting?
Naw, I stole Lusti's box of cracker jacks. The one with the Peace Prize at the bottom.
Hey! No wonder I could not find it! Give it back!
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 09, 2009, 05:06:48 AM
The most disturbing thing is this one:
"nominations closed 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office" :lmfao:
Yeah, apparently nominations closed Feb 1, 2009. Pres Obama had been in office for 11 days. :huh:
It's for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,'; though he hadn't really, actually done anything?
We Americans should be so proud!
That's the problem with you, Americans - you are just never happy.
During Bush's reign you were hated no matter what you did. Now you are loved no matter what you do. :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:20:43 AM
Nah, people will go through the usual ritual of bitching and moaning about the Nobel Peace Prize being ridiculous and then everyone will forget it.
The Repubs will find a way of making it into a campaign issue in 2012.
OTOH, the Republican Party as of late couldn't find its way out a men's bathroom stall, so maybe I'm wrong.
It will tip the birthers and tea party crowd into total insanity. World government, black helicopters and all that.
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 09:19:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:17:22 AM
I predict this will have no influence or relevance whatsoever.
You predict wrongly IMHO. I think it's going to infuriate the large portion of the middle class who are already frustrated with Obama's performance so far.
I see this as maybe making a bit of a mockery of the prize and possibly of Pres Obama. I don't like how this looks so cheaply given since Pres Obama has his work cut out in foreign policy and I fail to see how this adds prestige, more like faux prestige that could fail or backfire. Not happy about it, and no reflection on Obama, but on the prize givers.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 09, 2009, 05:06:48 AM
The most disturbing thing is this one:
"nominations closed 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office" :lmfao:
Yeah, apparently nominations closed Feb 1, 2009. Pres Obama had been in office for 11 days. :huh:
It's for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,'; though he hadn't really, actually done anything?
We Americans should be so proud!
That's the problem with you, Americans - you are just never happy.
During Bush's reign you were hated no matter what you did. Now you are loved no matter what you do. :P
It is better to be feared than loved. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 09:23:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:20:43 AM
Nah, people will go through the usual ritual of bitching and moaning about the Nobel Peace Prize being ridiculous and then everyone will forget it.
OTOH, the Republican Party as of late couldn't find its way out a men's bathroom stall, so maybe I'm wrong.
Because they keep stopping to solicit for gay sex?
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 09, 2009, 05:06:48 AM
The most disturbing thing is this one:
"nominations closed 2 weeks after Obama was sworn into office" :lmfao:
Yeah, apparently nominations closed Feb 1, 2009. Pres Obama had been in office for 11 days. :huh:
It's for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,'; though he hadn't really, actually done anything?
We Americans should be so proud!
That's the problem with you, Americans - you are just never happy.
During Bush's reign you were hated no matter what you did. Now you are loved no matter what you do. :P
I guess then Pres Bush at least deserves a peace prize for bringing democracy to Iraq, removing a dictator and brutal conditions people suffered under.
The guy who really must feel bad is John Kerry. He was a Democrat in the Senate, he ran against George Bush. What else does have to do to get the Nobel?
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 09:26:53 AM
I guess then Pres Bush at least deserves a peace prize for bringing democracy to Iraq, removing a dictator and brutal conditions people suffered under.
Him and Colin Powell for the South Sudan Peace Agreement.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2009, 09:29:03 AM
The guy who really must feel bad is John Kerry. He was a Democrat in the Senate, he ran against George Bush. What else does have to do to get the Nobel?
Win?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 09, 2009, 04:22:37 AM
WTF? :huh:
This is really going too far.
My thoughts exactly.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 09, 2009, 09:26:25 AM
Because they keep stopping to solicit for gay sex?
Congrats, you got the reference. :)
Stupid stuff. What has he done?
The Nobel commitee seem to have finally caught the hype now its left America....
It's embarrassing :Embarrass:
Couldn't they have had the decency to at least wait and see what the man is going to do?
Hmmm... Perhaps the Nobel comitee thought they could somehow shield Obama? By adding to his already considerable aura with such a title it might dissuade some from attempting violence against a him?
Or it could infuriate the same people enough to remove the last restraints they have?
I'm preplexed.
G.
If this means we can annex Scandinavia and enslave some hott Nordic chicks, I'll be happier about it. :)
My current working theory is that the norweigians are jealous we got to give out all the good prizes and is trying to tarnish the worthwhile prizes by association. :(
The worse thing is that this award seems to have landed in Obama's lap simply because of the Bush factor. And it's disgusting to use it in order to show the European liberal bias. Bush wasn't great, but we judged him after what he actually did during his presidency. Obama seems to have gotten all this free "great" publicity even before his first action as POTUS.
What's next, carving away Jefferson and placing Obama's face onto Mount Rushmore?
This cheapens Arafat's 1994 prize :angry:
It would have been more intellectually honest for them to have awared Bush the unpeace price. Giving Obama a peace price without his having done anything more than apologizing for America is both premature and patronizing.
The Dixie chicks must feel gipped.
They must have assumed that Obama would have accomplished something by the time the award was given out. That's what they get for assuming.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2009, 09:43:28 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 09, 2009, 09:33:17 AM
Win?
They didn't require Gore to do that.
But his election was stolen by the left leaning liberal american court system, or something like that.
I think it is funny, I don't get the outrage, tbh.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
I think it is funny, I don't get the outrage, tbh.
I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not "outraged", just "shocked and dismayed". I have not looked at the list of other nominees but I'm quite certain there are plenty of people listed who have achieved far more.
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 09:57:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
I think it is funny, I don't get the outrage, tbh.
I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not "outraged", just "shocked and dismayed". I have not looked at the list of other nominees but I'm quite certain there are plenty of people listed who have achieved far more.
I'm not even that. I'm mellow.
I join the chorus saying this award is way way premature.
I remember something like this happened when Al Gore won the prize, in that another nominee had saved a ton of Jews from the Holocaust, and while Gore is really, really concerned about the environment, he hasn't really had an opportunity to broker peace, not having been elected POTUS and all that.
The peace prize is a total joke anyway. Even the legitimate recipient actually haven't really done anything for peace.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
I think it is funny, I don't get the outrage, tbh.
It isn't "outrage" so much as a sort of saddened bemusement.
The way it will hurt Obama (other than with the batshit insane crowd who already think he's the antichrist) is that it will feed into the growing perception that the man's basicially a pretty face with charisma by the ton - who is sadly incapable of living up to any of the hype.
The greater the hype, the greater the expectations, the greater the gap between expectation and performance. The man's been elected as POTUS, he's won the Nobel Peace Prize, his whole platform is based on "hope" for "change" - expectations could not be higher. If he turns out to be a 'mere' competent caretaker president, it would be a dissapointment.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 09, 2009, 10:16:20 AM
The peace prize is a total joke anyway. Even the legitimate recipient actually haven't really done anything for peace.
Yeah, it's weird to have a prize related to your ability to *prevent* shit. I mean, they don't give the Nobel Prize for Medicine out to people who prevent AIDS from being cured. :)
We should probably have a Nobel War Prize. I mean, Arafat would have actually been a good candidate for that particular award. :cool: Get on this, Slargos.
What an utterly ridiculous choice.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 09, 2009, 08:29:45 AM
It is a trap. From now on, when Obama considers the military option, he'll think twice because to do so will be somewhat inconsistent with his status as a Nobel peace laureate :lol:
Too late, he just declared war on the moon. :(
Also, WTF?
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 10:17:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
I think it is funny, I don't get the outrage, tbh.
It isn't "outrage" so much as a sort of saddened bemusement.
The way it will hurt Obama (other than with the batshit insane crowd who already think he's the antichrist) is that it will feed into the growing perception that the man's basicially a pretty face with charisma by the ton - who is sadly incapable of living up to any of the hype.
The greater the hype, the greater the expectations, the greater the gap between expectation and performance. The man's been elected as POTUS, he's won the Nobel Peace Prize, his whole platform is based on "hope" for "change" - expectations could not be higher. If he turns out to be a 'mere' competent caretaker president, it would be a dissapointment.
That's my hope. :) *nazi youth school kids chanting Obama*
BTW, I'm waiting on my Cracker Jacks! :mad:
If no one was worthy of the prize this year, they should not have presented any award. If someone was worthy they should have given it to that person.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2009, 10:30:22 AM
If no one was worthy of the prize this year, they should not have presented any award. If someone was worthy they should have given it to that person.
Sorry but this procedure is completely contrary to the rules of the award.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 09, 2009, 09:53:06 AM
What's next, carving away Jefferson and placing Obama's face onto Mount Rushmore?
(https://donate.barackobama.com/page/smartproxy/www.divineharvest.com/ObamaOnMountRushmore.jpg)
congrats, Americans
Well I'll be damned. If that's not the strangest thing I've heard in a long time.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 09, 2009, 10:23:42 AM
BTW, I'm waiting on my Cracker Jacks! :mad:
It does not comport with the dignity of the great position with which I have been entrusted to squabble in an unseemly manner over this prize. It may have come to me, but it is a greater thing than any one man - it belongs to *all* of us; it is an affirmation of humanity, transcending those things which divide. It is a learning moment, encapsulated. While it may be mine, it is, in the best sense, ours.
Or in other words:
Finders keepers. :nelson:
(Munch, munch)
YO OBAMA, I'M GONNA LET YOU FINISH, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS THE BEST NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OF ALL TIME.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
I think it is funny, I don't get the outrage, tbh.
You don't hate black people then.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
YO OBAMA, I'M GONNA LET YOU FINISH, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS THE BEST NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OF ALL TIME.
The best was Nansen.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
YO OBAMA, I'M GONNA LET YOU FINISH, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS THE BEST NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OF ALL TIME.
:cool:
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I remember something like this happened when Al Gore won the prize, in that another nominee had saved a ton of Jews from the Holocaust, and while Gore is really, really concerned about the environment, he hasn't really had an opportunity to broker peace, not having been elected POTUS and all that.
I heard that story on the radio. A woman in a Nazi occupied nation (Holland/Belgium/France, not sure which) saved a bunch of kids from the Nazis, hid them and got them to Switzerland. Pretty amazing and quite worthy.
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
I heard that story on the radio. A woman in a Nazi occupied nation (Holland/Belgium/France, not sure which) saved a bunch of kids from the Nazis, hid them and got them to Switzerland. Pretty amazing and quite worthy.
She saved a bunch of Jews but she wasn't enough of a celebrity. :(
I daresay that this whole award process is one of those "teachable moments"..... :smarty:
Obama agrees with us.
Quote from: ØbåmaObama said, "I do not feel
that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative
figures that have been honored by this prize."
Well then he should have turned it down. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 09:19:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:17:22 AM
I predict this will have no influence or relevance whatsoever.
You predict wrongly IMHO. I think it's going to infuriate the large portion of the middle class who are already frustrated with Obama's performance so far.
I agree with you, which is why he should turn it down.
Make the statement along the lines, "I am deeply honored that the Nobel Committee felt that I am deserving of such an honor, however, there were many candidates that have both suffered and accomplished more in the cause of peace. At this time, I can not accept this award in good conscious. I hope that one day I am more worthy of this honor."
Message to the middle class: the euros giving this award may be deluded, but I still have a clear head on my shoulders and aren't caught up in the hype.
Don't be ridiculous he should accept the prize and deposit the $$ in the Treasury. Drop in the bucket perhaps but every little bit counts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Don't be ridiculous he should accept the prize and deposit the $$ in the Treasury. Drop in the bucket perhaps but every little bit counts.
The cost of flying him over there to accept the award will probably exceed whatever cash he gets.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
YO OBAMA, I'M GONNA LET YOU FINISH, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS THE BEST NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OF ALL TIME.
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 11:29:10 AM
Well then he should have turned it down. -_-
Would you have?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Don't be ridiculous he should accept the prize and deposit the $$ in the Treasury. Drop in the bucket perhaps but every little bit counts.
Hehe...
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 11:29:10 AM
Well then he should have turned it down. -_-
Would you have?
He would still be officially a recepient, but the act of turning it down would be much, much cooler.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
Would you have?
Yes, but by the same token I'm not the sort of exceptionally over-the-top egomaniac that would ever have been elected President in the first place. :)
Can I get a Peace Prize too?
Soon they may start selling them from vending machines! :w00t:
"Excuse me, folks, I need to go to the breakroom and get a Twix and a Peace Prize." :smoke:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 11:29:10 AM
Well then he should have turned it down. -_-
Would you have?
Not fair. Cal, as great as he is, is not the second coming.
Heck, Pres Obama hasn't even brought peace to the US! Our political divisions are worse than ever! :(
I know! I know! They are getting ready to announce they are changing it to the "Nobel Hope and Change Prize" and didn't want to have to re-award the prize mid-stream. :smarty:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2009, 12:12:44 PM
Not fair. Cal, as great as he is, is not the second coming.
I am great in the same sense that The Great Grape Ape is great. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 11:45:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
Would you have?
Yes, but by the same token I'm not the sort of exceptionally over-the-top egomaniac that would ever have been elected President in the first place. :)
You would turn down a million dollar prize?
See, this thing is a Catch-22.
I probably would not turn down a million dollars, but there's no way I'd be elected President... so I'd never be presented with the million dollars to turn down. I think a safe answer for me is "I would never accept the Nobel Peace Prize". :)
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 08:39:04 AM
I was an effin prophet on this one! :lol:
My post yesterday:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2476.0
QuoteIt should be awarded to Obama - not for what he's done, but for what he's going to do.
;)
All hail me. :worthy:
Well, duh, we all knew it the moment we picked him. The rest of us kept our mouth shut, though. The cabal will not be happy.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
YO OBAMA, I'M GONNA LET YOU FINISH, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS THE BEST NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OF ALL TIME.
I knew it had to be up already:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaletyoufinish.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Fbaracknobel.jpg&hash=721042e7b26ad739fadd79ef004146a6cf3b4af3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaletyoufinish.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Fnobel.JPG&hash=318cc57ccf77f1bbc8fb1a4374f297720eea3272)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaletyoufinish.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Fobama_ima_finish.jpg&hash=1495e47e332d6585d3c001f74b5172139a806669)
Me when I learned of this:
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Sometimes you just, you know... oh man.
It will be hard to take Obama seriously from now on. Whenever you think of him you will snicker.
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 09:57:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 09:56:51 AM
I think it is funny, I don't get the outrage, tbh.
I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not "outraged", just "shocked and dismayed". I have not looked at the list of other nominees but I'm quite certain there are plenty of people listed who have achieved far more.
Well some people are using expressions like "disgusting" etc. I think this is an overreaction.
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 10:18:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 09, 2009, 10:16:20 AM
The peace prize is a total joke anyway. Even the legitimate recipient actually haven't really done anything for peace.
Yeah, it's weird to have a prize related to your ability to *prevent* shit. I mean, they don't give the Nobel Prize for Medicine out to people who prevent AIDS from being cured. :)
We should probably have a Nobel War Prize. I mean, Arafat would have actually been a good candidate for that particular award. :cool: Get on this, Slargos.
Actually, there should be like a set of Opposite Nobel Prizes.
Nobel War Prize.
Nobel Plague Prize.
Nobel Famine Prize.
Nobel Illiteracy Prize.
Nobel Reality TV Prize.
etc.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 09, 2009, 12:26:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaletyoufinish.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Fnobel.JPG&hash=318cc57ccf77f1bbc8fb1a4374f297720eea3272)
Hey, don't drag the
real Nobel Prizes into this :mad:
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I remember something like this happened when Al Gore won the prize, in that another nominee had saved a ton of Jews from the Holocaust, and while Gore is really, really concerned about the environment, he hasn't really had an opportunity to broker peace, not having been elected POTUS and all that.
I heard that story on the radio. A woman in a Nazi occupied nation (Holland/Belgium/France, not sure which) saved a bunch of kids from the Nazis, hid them and got them to Switzerland. Pretty amazing and quite worthy.
For Fucks SakeThe woman was
Polish.
She saved Jewish kids in
Poland.
She died last year. I posted a thread on Languish. There was an obituary in the Economist.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:18:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I remember something like this happened when Al Gore won the prize, in that another nominee had saved a ton of Jews from the Holocaust, and while Gore is really, really concerned about the environment, he hasn't really had an opportunity to broker peace, not having been elected POTUS and all that.
I heard that story on the radio. A woman in a Nazi occupied nation (Holland/Belgium/France, not sure which) saved a bunch of kids from the Nazis, hid them and got them to Switzerland. Pretty amazing and quite worthy.
For Fucks Sake
The woman was Polish.
She saved Jewish kids in Poland.
Oh the irony.
I wonder if this will colour his decisions re: Afghanistan. Nobel Peace prize winner, a week later sending in 40,00 farm boys to the poppy fields?
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:18:09 PM
For Fucks Sake
The woman was Polish.
She saved Jewish kids in Poland.
they forgot poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
Obama is essentially a man of peace, except in his domestic and public life.
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 01:18:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:18:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I remember something like this happened when Al Gore won the prize, in that another nominee had saved a ton of Jews from the Holocaust, and while Gore is really, really concerned about the environment, he hasn't really had an opportunity to broker peace, not having been elected POTUS and all that.
I heard that story on the radio. A woman in a Nazi occupied nation (Holland/Belgium/France, not sure which) saved a bunch of kids from the Nazis, hid them and got them to Switzerland. Pretty amazing and quite worthy.
For Fucks Sake
The woman was Polish.
She saved Jewish kids in Poland.
Oh the irony.
Like the iron you fuckers sold to the nazis? :D
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 01:19:51 PM
Obama is essentially a man of peace, except in his domestic and public life.
That's your second quote from TIOBE within the last few days. What's up with that?
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:20:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 01:18:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:18:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I remember something like this happened when Al Gore won the prize, in that another nominee had saved a ton of Jews from the Holocaust, and while Gore is really, really concerned about the environment, he hasn't really had an opportunity to broker peace, not having been elected POTUS and all that.
I heard that story on the radio. A woman in a Nazi occupied nation (Holland/Belgium/France, not sure which) saved a bunch of kids from the Nazis, hid them and got them to Switzerland. Pretty amazing and quite worthy.
For Fucks Sake
The woman was Polish.
She saved Jewish kids in Poland.
Oh the irony.
Like the iron you fuckers sold to the nazis? :D
You sure you wanna base your WW2 smack talk on a Polish position?
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:21:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 01:19:51 PM
Obama is essentially a man of peace, except in his domestic and public life.
That's your second quote from TIOBE within the last few days. What's up with that?
CHANCE and HOPE.
Umm...wow. How embarrassing.
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 01:21:36 PM
You sure you wanna base your WW2 smack talk on a Polish position?
Well, compared to Sweden, Poland actually has something to be proud of, WW2-wise.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:23:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 01:21:36 PM
You sure you wanna base your WW2 smack talk on a Polish position?
Well, compared to Sweden, Poland actually has something to be proud of, WW2-wise.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:18:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
I remember something like this happened when Al Gore won the prize, in that another nominee had saved a ton of Jews from the Holocaust, and while Gore is really, really concerned about the environment, he hasn't really had an opportunity to broker peace, not having been elected POTUS and all that.
I heard that story on the radio. A woman in a Nazi occupied nation (Holland/Belgium/France, not sure which) saved a bunch of kids from the Nazis, hid them and got them to Switzerland. Pretty amazing and quite worthy.
For Fucks Sake
The woman was Polish.
She saved Jewish kids in Poland.
She died last year. I posted a thread on Languish. There was an obituary in the Economist.
Thanks for the correction.
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 01:25:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 01:18:09 PM
For Fucks Sake
The woman was Polish.
She saved Jewish kids in Poland.
She died last year. I posted a thread on Languish. There was an obituary in the Economist.
Thanks for the correction. If I'd known she was a Polack, I would have kept my damned mouth shut.
Fixed.
Btw, I do find it offensive, Marty. Offensive that prizes are given out because someone manages to be a black president in America. While certainly historic, where's the peace prize in that?
From CNN:
QuoteIn winning the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama joins an elite group of U.S. presidents. He is the fourth to win the prize, the third to win it while in office and the first to receive it during his first year in office.
President Obama delivers remarks at the White House on Friday after winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Unlike his predecessors, Obama was selected not for substantive accomplishments, but for his "vision" and inspiring "hope" at the beginning of his presidency.
"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman," the committee said, explaining its decision.
In comments at the White House on Friday, Obama said he did not view the award "as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. ... I will accept this award as a call to action." Watch Obama react to receiving the prize »
Obama will donate the roughly $1.4 million award to charity, a White House spokesman said Friday.
President Theodore Roosevelt won the prize in 1906, as did President Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Former President Carter had been out of office for more than 20 years when he won in 2002.
Former Vice President Al Gore shared the prize in 2007.
The Nobel committee's Web site describes Roosevelt as president and "collaborator of various peace treaties." The site points out that he "took the initiative in opening the international Court of Arbitration at The Hague." The United States and Mexico presented a difference before the court, and, "When this example was followed by other powers, the arbitration machinery ... was finally called into operation."
Roosevelt also "played a prominent part in extending the use of arbitration to international problems in the Western Hemisphere" and "offered his good offices as mediator between Russia and Japan," which helped lead to a 1905 peace treaty ending the Russo-Japanese War, the Web site said.
The site noted that Wilson was not only president but founder of the League of Nations.
Wilson led the nation through World War I, but "people everywhere saw in his peace aims the vision of a world in which freedom, justice and peace could flourish."
At the 1919 Peace Conference in Versailles, France, he "failed to carry his total conception of an ideal peace, but he did secure the adoption of the Covenant of the League of Nations," the site noted, adding that his "major failure" was at home "when the Senate declined to approve American acceptance of the League of Nations."
The Nobel site said Carter was selected "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."
"During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize," the committee said in 2002, adding that after his presidency Carter took on "extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents."
And Gore was chosen, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."
Gore "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," the committee said in its 2007 announcement.
In its announcement Friday, the committee praised Obama for bringing about a shift in tone. Watch as the Nobel committee chairman explains Obama's selection »
"The committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," the statement said.
"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
It's too bad Hoover didn't win for his humanitarian efforts after both World Wars.
Quote"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
:rolleyes:
Vapid self-justification wrapped in a not-that-subtle attack on G W Bush. Absolutely pathetic.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:54:49 PM
Quote"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
:rolleyes:
Vapid self-justification wrapped in a not-that-subtle attack on G W Bush. Absolutely pathetic.
Yes. It would appear that Europe has its own colonial white guilt issues.
Quote from: Rasputin on October 09, 2009, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:54:49 PM
Quote"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
:rolleyes:
Vapid self-justification wrapped in a not-that-subtle attack on G W Bush. Absolutely pathetic.
Yes. It would appear that Europe has its own colonial white guilt issues.
You're not wrong there; my country took the lead in abolishing slavery and the slave trade, and yet our glorious leaders still feel the need to fall all over themselves to apologise for slavery whenever they get the chance.
During the "Bush" years we have at least 4 prizes which are explicitly anti-bush
2002 Carter
2005 Mohammed el Baradei
2007 Gore
2009 Obama
I hope the Committee gets over this and awards future prizes on merit.
Agelastus, your avatar is so pretty as to distract me from the thread was about.
Which in this case, is merciful.
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 02:22:49 PM
During the "Bush" years we have at least 4 prizes which are explicitly anti-bush
2002 Carter
2005 Mohammed el Baradei
2007 Gore
2009 Obama
I hope the Committee gets over this and awards future prizes on merit.
I'd say a good case for Carter can be made for his work on voting rights and monitoring elections around the world, and his work with Habitat for Humanity.
:huh:
I... can't justify this.
I mean, I would not mind Obama winning if he had actually done anything (like ending at least one of the wars the US is in), but he has done
nothing worthy of note yet!
If he had spent his mandate(s) on a lot of international diplomacy and hard efforts, I could see him winning in about a decade or so, but
today... it is just inappropriate.
Also, he is too young. I used to think of the Nobel as a sort of 'lifetime achievement' award, given to lives dedicated to something, but he was awarded just for... hope? nice words? wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons?
No, this is a really bad choice. It borders on the ludicrous.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 09, 2009, 02:47:22 PM
Agelastus, your avatar is so pretty as to distract me from the thread was about.
I agree :blush:
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 05:19:46 AM
Wow. :huh: Just wow. :huh:
Agree that this is worse than Arafat. The prize committee lost little creditability with this choice, for they had little to lose. But they lost all that they had.
Obama is worse than Arafat? :rolleyes: Give me a fucking break.
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 05:19:46 AM
Wow. :huh: Just wow. :huh:
Agree that this is worse than Arafat. The prize committee lost little creditability with this choice, for they had little to lose. But they lost all that they had.
Obama is worse than Arafat? :rolleyes: Give me a fucking break.
That's not what he said Jaron; Obama's done less to deserve the prize than even Arafat is what he said.
That's pretty much objective fact, given how little time Obama has had to exercise his influence on the world stage.
Now as for Obama the man compared to Arafat, I am sure Obama is a much more honourable and worthy individual. But since the Peace Prize should relate to actions, that's frankly irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 05:19:46 AM
Wow. :huh: Just wow. :huh:
Agree that this is worse than Arafat. The prize committee lost little creditability with this choice, for they had little to lose. But they lost all that they had.
Obama is worse than Arafat? :rolleyes: Give me a fucking break.
Obama isn't worse than Arafat; giving Obama the Nobel makes less sense though, because he hasn't really done much of anything yet. With Arafat, the Committee was merely wrongly of the opinion that Arafat *had* done peaceful stuff.
After all, you aren't worse than Arafat, either, but we'd all be pretty surprised if you got the prize. ;)
Quote from: KRonn on October 09, 2009, 12:13:22 PM
Heck, Pres Obama hasn't even brought peace to the US! Our political divisions are worse than ever! :(
And look how he left Chicago, what with honor students getting beaten to death & whatnot.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2009, 11:36:58 AM
Don't be ridiculous he should accept the prize and deposit the $$ in the Treasury. Drop in the bucket perhaps but every little bit counts.
Throw the medal on ebay & then put that $$ in the Treasury, & we'll be okay.
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 04:05:39 PM
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 05:19:46 AM
Wow. :huh: Just wow. :huh:
Agree that this is worse than Arafat. The prize committee lost little creditability with this choice, for they had little to lose. But they lost all that they had.
Obama is worse than Arafat? :rolleyes: Give me a fucking break.
Obama isn't worse than Arafat; giving Obama the Nobel makes less sense though, because he hasn't really done much of anything yet. With Arafat, the Committee was merely wrongly of the opinion that Arafat *had* done peaceful stuff.
After all, you aren't worse than Arafat, either, but we'd all be pretty surprised if you got the prize. ;)
There should be a Jaron option in Nobel peace prize voting. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 04:05:39 PM
After all, you aren't worse than Arafat, either
Oh, let's not be too hasty with that statement.
You guys are always bitching about the PLO and how you're happy Arafat died and how he was a terrorist and a murderer. And yet...
you somehow deem him more worthy of the prize than the President of the United States.
Since his rise to prominence, Obama has called for healing in America, of old racial tensions and political hatreds. He has brought together multitides who only a short time ago would have made strange bedfellows, very strange indeed. Likewise, in the wake of the disasterous Bush administration, he toured Europe, letting our old allies know they still have a friend across the Atlantic. He has taken great measures to ensure the Muslim world that America is not their enemy, and that they too have an ally in the struggle against terrorism and religious extremism.
This is not a case of a man not doing his part to secure peace.
This is NOT a case of a man being unworthy of this honor.
This is a case of Obama haters grasping at straws to deny their most hated political enemy a just and deserved recognition for his efforts not on the half of Democrats, nor just Americans, but every single human being on this planet today and untold multitudes yet to be born into the world of tomorrow.
:lol: Good one, Chancho.
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:20:48 PM
You guys are always bitching about the PLO and how you're happy Arafat died and how he was a terrorist and a murderer. And yet...
you somehow deem him more worthy of the prize than the President of the United States.
Since his rise to prominence, Obama has called for healing in America, of old racial tensions and political hatreds. He has brought together multitides who only a short time ago would have made strange bedfellows, very strange indeed. Likewise, in the wake of the disasterous Bush administration, he toured Europe, letting our old allies know they still have a friend across the Atlantic. He has taken great measures to ensure the Muslim world that America is not their enemy, and that they too have an ally in the struggle against terrorism and religious extremism.
This is not a case of a man not doing his part to secure peace.
This is NOT a case of a man being unworthy of this honor.
This is a case of Obama haters grasping at straws to deny their most hated political enemy a just and deserved recognition for his efforts not on the half of Democrats, nor just Americans, but every single human being on this planet today and untold multitudes yet to be born into the world of tomorrow.
QFT
Whatever happened to Republicans taking pride in OUR country?
Republicans today are now on the side of Hamas and the Taliban in condemning this award.
You might want to consider the difference between deeds and words, or more appropriately, actions and intentions, before you bury yourself any further Jaron.
You might also want to notice that although Languish is fairly evenly divided on Obama, it is virtually 100% united in declaring that he does not, as yet, deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Quote from: Caliga on October 09, 2009, 12:21:05 PM
See, this thing is a Catch-22.
I probably would not turn down a million dollars, but there's no way I'd be elected President... so I'd never be presented with the million dollars to turn down. I think a safe answer for me is "I would never accept the Nobel Peace Prize". :)
Most people who get it aren't elected President.
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:20:48 PM
for his efforts not on the half of Democrats, nor just Americans, but every single human being on this planet today and untold multitudes yet to be born into the world of tomorrow.
behalf
I won a major award.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mjruvE310Y
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 04:16:13 PM
There should be a Jaron option in Nobel peace prize voting. :P
:lol:
I seriously believe that would be a good idea. :D
Quote from: Fireblade on October 09, 2009, 04:24:33 PM
Whatever happened to Republicans taking pride in OUR country?
our country = Obama?
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2009, 02:22:49 PM
During the "Bush" years we have at least 4 prizes which are explicitly anti-bush
2002 Carter
2005 Mohammed el Baradei
2007 Gore
2009 Obama
I hope the Committee gets over this and awards future prizes on merit.
Next year: the Iraqi shoe throwing reporter.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 04:16:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 09, 2009, 04:05:39 PM
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 05:19:46 AM
Wow. :huh: Just wow. :huh:
Agree that this is worse than Arafat. The prize committee lost little creditability with this choice, for they had little to lose. But they lost all that they had.
Obama is worse than Arafat? :rolleyes: Give me a fucking break.
Obama isn't worse than Arafat; giving Obama the Nobel makes less sense though, because he hasn't really done much of anything yet. With Arafat, the Committee was merely wrongly of the opinion that Arafat *had* done peaceful stuff.
After all, you aren't worse than Arafat, either, but we'd all be pretty surprised if you got the prize. ;)
There should be a Jaron option in Nobel peace prize voting. :P
That was Michael Jackson this time around.
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 04:16:13 PM
There should be a Jaron option in Nobel peace prize voting. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A5re_Kristiansen
QuoteHe was an ardent supporter of the State of Israel, and in 1994 he resigned from the Norwegian Nobel Committee in protest over the award of the prize to Yasser Arafat, whom he labeled "world's most prominent terrorist".
The Jaron option.
Quote
2009
The prize goes to:
BARACK OBAMA for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
2008
The prize goes to:
MARTTI AHTISAARI for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts.
2007
The prize goes to:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) and ALBERT ARNOLD ( AL) GORE JR. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
2006
The prize goes to:
MUHAMMAD YUNUS and GRAMEEN BANK for their efforts to create economic and social development from below.
2005
The prize was awarded jointly to:
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.
2004
The prize was awarded to:
WANGARI MAATHAI
for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace
2003
The prize was awarded to:
SHIRIN EBADI
for her efforts for democracy and human rights
2002
The prize was awarded to:
JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America,
for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development
2001
The prize was awarded to:
UNITED NATIONS, New York, NY, USA
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General
2000
The prize was awarded to:
KIM DAE JUNG for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.
Look at that list. Now give me a fucking break. These people have all done mediocre things compared to Obama. The possible exception being "Red" Jimmy Carter. He seeks peace all right...too bad its rarely, IF ever on good terms for America. Al Gore? Seriously? For what..bringing the world closer together with the internet?
Kofi "Turn A blind eye" Annan?
And to the rest of the nobodies. Whatever.
This is probably the first time in quite awhile that the reciepient actually deserves it. I'm quite pleased by this, so please stop acting like they gave Obama the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2009, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:20:48 PM
for his efforts not on the half of Democrats, nor just Americans, but every single human being on this planet today and untold multitudes yet to be born into the world of tomorrow.
behalf
I was typing in a rage, fuck you. :P
I just thought of something. If the Peace Prize winner sends more troops to Afghanistan that means everyone else has to as well. :)
He should create a dessert and call it peace.
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 05:13:06 PM
Look at that list. Now give me a fucking break. These people have all done mediocre things compared to Obama. The possible exception being "Red" Jimmy Carter. He seeks peace all right...too bad its rarely, IF ever on good terms for America. Al Gore? Seriously? For what..bringing the world closer together with the internet?
Kofi "Turn A blind eye" Annan?
And to the rest of the nobodies. Whatever.
This is probably the first time in quite awhile that the reciepient actually deserves it. I'm quite pleased by this, so please stop acting like they gave Obama the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Yes, I agree. They are all pathetic winners who probably did not deserve to win the prize.
This does not change the fact that Obama has also done nothing to deserve the Peace Prize; it only shows how devalued and pointless the award has been allowed to become.
I'd really like to know what Obama did in his first 11 days in Office that you think justifies his nomination, Jaron?
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 05:27:57 PM
He should create a dessert and call it peace.
watermelons for all.
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 05:27:57 PM
He should create a dessert and call it peace.
Or cover a model in chocolate and call it a piece.
I don't know much about the Norwegian way of doing things and I don't want to, but isn't the peace prize given to a person and not a specific act, much like the literature prize and unlike the real prizes? Maybe the nomination was for Obama (period) and when the time came for a decision (recently) he had in fact done more than 11 days? Getting hung up on the nomination date may not be productive.
His first move after receiving this prestigious award? To escalate the war he's in:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWX7WCpPOVuAYAYvQYK0nawX7wWA
;)
I have no fear of escalation. He's just sending some more to save Afghanistan from the Afghanese.
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 05:35:11 PM
I don't know much about the Norwegian way of doing things and I don't want to, but isn't the peace prize given to a person and not a specific act, much like the literature prize and unlike the real prizes? Maybe the nomination was for Obama (period) and when the time came for a decision (recently) he had in fact done more than 11 days? Getting hung up on the nomination date may not be productive.
Oh, I'm certain the nomination was made for Obama, but the nomination is supposed to be made for the achievements (ie. the actions) of the person involved. Even that Thirty Year career diplomat that won it a couple of years ago in Jaron's list has more actual substance (or, perhaps to put it better, results) in his career than Obama has managed so far.
His victory is most definitely a win for style over substance, for good intentions over actual deeds.
And Jaron, that bit about reassuring Europe? Bush had already taken care of that in his second term - all Obama's done is made us nervous again about America's attitude to Russia.
The nomination isn't supposed to be for anything special at all AFAIK. You can nominate Pi for excellent mathematical service for all I know. It's awarding the prize which has rules to follow.
For reference so we know what we are talking about this is the entirety of the part of Nobel's will which defines the Nobel Prizes:
QuoteThe whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who 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. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical work by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not.
All this brouhaha is a bit much; making too much out of an award that, in honesty, means very little.
It's the weakest of the Nobels anyway. I hold in higher esteem the Nobel awarded to the researchers this year for Physiology than I do anybody who wins the Peace Prize. The Peace Prize is fluff. Always has been.
It has certainly been a joke for a while. When was the last kickass Peace Prize? Begin-Sadat?
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 05:13:06 PM
Quote
2009
The prize goes to:
BARACK OBAMA for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
Extraordinary efforts? :huh: The dude has done jack shit, other than to talk. Let's wait for an effort to actually be exerted before we call it "extraordinary." And then lets wait for a second extraordinary effort before we start talking about effort
s.
If there was a Nobel Prize for Empty Rhetoric I think we know which group would win.
You?
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2009, 08:03:57 PM
Extraordinary efforts? :huh: The dude has done jack shit, other than to talk. Let's wait for an effort to actually be exerted before we call it "extraordinary." And then lets wait for a second extraordinary effort before we start talking about efforts.
You're confusing efforts with accomplishments. He's made efforts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2009, 08:10:08 PM
You're confusing efforts with accomplishments. He's made efforts.
Yep, he made efforts to alienate/offend our allies & clumsily attempt to appease those who hate us. I'm surprised you of all people give him a pass on his approach towards Russia. Save some kool-aid for your fellow Dems, willya?
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Complain abotu the Democommies not being badass enough. Same as they've been doing for years.
If Russia was still Red they'd probably be trying to borrow money and move more of our manufacturing base over there too. Makes your blood boil I should say.
Quote from: Jaron on October 09, 2009, 04:20:48 PM
You guys are always bitching about the PLO and how you're happy Arafat died and how he was a terrorist and a murderer. And yet...
you somehow deem him more worthy of the prize than the President of the United States.
Since his rise to prominence, Obama has called for healing in America, of old racial tensions and political hatreds.
You are a case in point about how effective that has been.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Razz, if you don't see any difference between the Bush & Obama Administrations & their respective approaches to Russia, I'm not going to bother arguing with you over it.
Btw, do you disagree with *anything* Obama does?
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2009, 10:57:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Razz, if you don't see any difference between the Bush & Obama Administrations & their respective approaches to Russia, I'm not going to bother arguing with you over it.
Btw, do you disagree with *anything* Obama does?
Wouldn't Obama have to do something first?
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2009, 10:59:46 PM
Wouldn't Obama have to do something first?
He picked Hil for Sec of State, ensuring media coverage for at least a few years. :wub:
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2009, 10:57:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Razz, if you don't see any difference between the Bush & Obama Administrations & their respective approaches to Russia, I'm not going to bother arguing with you over it.
Btw, do you disagree with *anything* Obama does?
In their respective first years as president? No. There has been no substantial difference. Obama has saved some money by scrapping a missile defense system that didn't work and has made some progress in getting Russia to agree to American demands regarding Iran but that kind of stuff does go around and around.
Of course I disagree with Obama on things.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2009, 10:57:54 PM
Razz, if you don't see any difference between the Bush & Obama Administrations & their respective approaches to Russia, I'm not going to bother arguing with you over it.
I agree, Obama has yet to base policy on his personal perception of a foreign leader's "soul".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2009, 07:10:26 PM
It has certainly been a joke for a while. When was the last kickass Peace Prize? Begin-Sadat?
The Late '90s was good
'95 Pugwash/Joseph Rotblatt
'96 Bishop Belo/Jose Ramos Horta
'97 International Campaign to Ban Landmines
'98 John Hume/David Trimble (my brain keeps tying to type David Hume)
'99 Doctors Without Borders
'00 Kim Dae Jung (Sunshine Policy)
The Prize goes downhill with the Expanded Peace Concept where the Norwegian Nobel Committee move beyond Nobel's definition to include work for Human Rights, The Environment and Culture in the concept of Peace. I think the downhill slide starts with Rigoberta Menchu, who got it for fighting for the rights of Guatemalan Indians, and finally jumps the shark with Wangari Mathaai. Both are quite obviously righteous and just people, but one has to question their Nobel Peace Prize Worthiness.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Airlifted Georgian troops back from Iraq on US planes. Shipped "humanitarian supplies" to Georgian ports on US navy ships. Called for the ouster of Russia from the G8+1. Proclaimed "we are all Georgians now."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2009, 02:06:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Airlifted Georgian troops back from Iraq on US planes. Shipped "humanitarian supplies" to Georgian ports on US navy ships. Called for the ouster of Russia from the G8+1. Proclaimed "we are all Georgians now."
Wow. I suppose all that's left is to issue a sternly worded letter.
Anyway, that prize means there's one thing less for Obama to do before he can get rid of DADT. :cool:
Quote from: Viking on October 10, 2009, 01:11:40 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2009, 07:10:26 PM
It has certainly been a joke for a while. When was the last kickass Peace Prize? Begin-Sadat?
The Late '90s was good
'95 Pugwash/Joseph Rotblatt
'96 Bishop Belo/Jose Ramos Horta
'97 International Campaign to Ban Landmines
'98 John Hume/David Trimble (my brain keeps tying to type David Hume)
'99 Doctors Without Borders
'00 Kim Dae Jung (Sunshine Policy)
The Prize goes downhill with the Expanded Peace Concept where the Norwegian Nobel Committee move beyond Nobel's definition to include work for Human Rights, The Environment and Culture in the concept of Peace. I think the downhill slide starts with Rigoberta Menchu, who got it for fighting for the rights of Guatemalan Indians, and finally jumps the shark with Wangari Mathaai. Both are quite obviously righteous and just people, but one has to question their Nobel Peace Prize Worthiness.
I disagree with you about Human Rights - the other categories (environment and culture) sure, do not fit that well into a "peace prize".
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2009, 05:49:07 PM
and one part to the person who 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.
Well if you just take this definition (without the subsequent modifications) then I'd say that Obama has done more in this respect than Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela or Medicines Sans Frontieres. :huh:
Essentially this is an award for the best achievement ("have done the most")
or the best effort ("the best work") in pro-peace, anti-militaristic diplomacy. He has been definitely making an effort in that area over the last year.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Bush looked into the Putin's eyes and found him straightforward and trustworthy
Bizarre. Though more credible than awarding it to 'Esperanto' :lol:
Quote from: Viking on October 10, 2009, 01:11:40 AM
'97 International Campaign to Ban Landmines
Useless.
It should go to Blount next year for showing up to class after not being kicked of the Oregon football team.
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2009, 08:23:22 AM
It should go to Blount next year for showing up to class after not being kicked of the Oregon football team.
:lol:
And people say I drive shit into the ground.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Nothing, unfortunately. But your disputation is weak-sauced in the extreme. If Bush jumped off the brookly bridge, should Obama do it to?
Spaz.
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2009, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2009, 10:57:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Razz, if you don't see any difference between the Bush & Obama Administrations & their respective approaches to Russia, I'm not going to bother arguing with you over it.
Btw, do you disagree with *anything* Obama does?
Well, it is true that Obama hasn't looked into Putin's eyes, seen his soul, and pronounced him a man of peace, but other than being less psychically perceptive than Bush he has pursued similar inaction in regard to Russia.
Similar inaction? Obama pushed the reset button and accepted, on behalf of America, full responsibility for any problems in US-Russia relations.
Quote from: Scipio on October 10, 2009, 08:33:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2009, 10:19:13 PM
And what exactly has the GOP done in the face of the Russian menace recently?
Nothing, unfortunately. But your disputation is weak-sauced in the extreme. If Bush jumped off the brookly bridge, should Obama do it to?
Spaz.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 09, 2009, 09:41:48 AM
It's embarrassing :Embarrass:
Couldn't they have had the decency to at least wait and see what the man is going to do?
I've no problem with them giving the award at the moment agreement's reached even if it later falls apart - I think the Arafat-Rabin award was fine and the Hume-Trimble one. Similarly I think it's good to give it to people who aren't succeeding and may never achieve success to show world sympathy - for example the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi.
For those reasons I think Tsvangerai is probably the most deserving.
I'd like to make clear I don't think Obama deserves the award. He's no Teddy Roosevelt and I doubt he'll ever be one. Still it's not something I'll get all broken up about. If he somehow does put an end to Iranian nuclear ambitions and normalizes relations with that country I think he'd deserve it. Though I doubt that will happen either.
I don't know if Tsvangerai deserves it either. It's more like a condemnation of Mugabe. But he's certainly more deserving then Obama (and I say this as one of Obama's supporters and fanboys). Shit, deserves it more then Obama.
Teddy was great, but he didn't deserve his Nobel either.
Jews are great, BUT they corrupt our race and society.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Teddy was great, but he didn't deserve his Nobel either.
Negotiating a peace treaty that the two parties would have been unable to arrive at on their own seems like the very essence of Peace Prize type activity.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Teddy was great, but he didn't deserve his Nobel either.
True. No one has ever deserved their Nobel prizes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2009, 03:38:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Teddy was great, but he didn't deserve his Nobel either.
Negotiating a peace treaty that the two parties would have been unable to arrive at on their own seems like the very essence of Peace Prize type activity.
The bio I read suggested he was egging Japan on in the runup to the war.
I meant to say Shit, my cat deserves it more, but this works to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2009, 03:38:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Teddy was great, but he didn't deserve his Nobel either.
Negotiating a peace treaty that the two parties would have been unable to arrive at on their own seems like the very essence of Peace Prize type activity.
Seems that way to me as well. But what do I know, I voted for Obama. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 04:33:46 PM
I meant to say Shit, my cat deserves it more, but this works to.
You named your cat poop too?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 03:09:29 PM
I don't know if Tsvangerai deserves it either. It's more like a condemnation of Mugabe. But he's certainly more deserving then Obama (and I say this as one of Obama's supporters and fanboys). Shit, deserves it more then Obama.
I don't know. Tsvangerai's campaigned against Mugabe for a good couple of decades and has now got him into a power-sharing deal. Zimbabwe has seen some recovery, albeit from an appallingly low base. I think it'd be good for the world to show we're willing to cooperate with the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and that we'd oppose Mugabe wittling that position's power away.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 10, 2009, 04:46:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 04:33:46 PM
I meant to say Shit, my cat deserves it more, but this works to.
You named your cat poop too?
Actually the Cat's name is Brown.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 03:09:29 PM
I don't know if Tsvangerai deserves it either. It's more like a condemnation of Mugabe. But he's certainly more deserving then Obama (and I say this as one of Obama's supporters and fanboys). Shit, deserves it more then Obama.
He's been brutally tortured time and time again for years and never stopped opposing Mugabe. If there is anyone who deserves it is him.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 11, 2009, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 03:09:29 PM
I don't know if Tsvangerai deserves it either. It's more like a condemnation of Mugabe. But he's certainly more deserving then Obama (and I say this as one of Obama's supporters and fanboys). Shit, deserves it more then Obama.
He's been brutally tortured time and time again for years and never stopped opposing Mugabe. If there is anyone who deserves it is him.
How does his actions promote "fraternity between nations", contribute to "abolition or reduction of standing armies" or are associated with "peace congresses"? :huh:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 11, 2009, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 03:09:29 PM
I don't know if Tsvangerai deserves it either. It's more like a condemnation of Mugabe. But he's certainly more deserving then Obama (and I say this as one of Obama's supporters and fanboys). Shit, deserves it more then Obama.
He's been brutally tortured time and time again for years and never stopped opposing Mugabe. If there is anyone who deserves it is him.
It's not the Nobel torture prize.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2009, 02:06:23 AM
Airlifted Georgian troops back from Iraq on US planes.
:pinch: In hindsight, that might not have been an unqualified good, especially from the Georgian troops' perspective.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:54:49 PM
Quote"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
:rolleyes:
Vapid self-justification wrapped in a not-that-subtle attack on G W Bush. Absolutely pathetic.
I think it's a lame award but don't get the Bush bashing thing? why would anyone think that?
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2009, 01:04:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2009, 02:06:23 AM
Airlifted Georgian troops back from Iraq on US planes.
:pinch: In hindsight, that might not have been an unqualified good, especially from the Georgian troops' perspective.
It's not like they were there in time for the fighting anyway.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2009, 01:00:42 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 11, 2009, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 03:09:29 PM
I don't know if Tsvangerai deserves it either. It's more like a condemnation of Mugabe. But he's certainly more deserving then Obama (and I say this as one of Obama's supporters and fanboys). Shit, deserves it more then Obama.
He's been brutally tortured time and time again for years and never stopped opposing Mugabe. If there is anyone who deserves it is him.
It's not the Nobel torture prize.
Of course not
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foperatorchan.org%2Fn%2Fsrc%2Fn25614_AdviceObama.jpg&hash=4eaa185679abb6170570e26f0f78d7ae0a5d1105)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2009, 01:14:51 PM
It's not like they were there in time for the fighting anyway.
They could've been transported at the speed of light, and they'd still be late for the fight.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 11, 2009, 01:09:54 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:54:49 PM
Quote"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
:rolleyes:
Vapid self-justification wrapped in a not-that-subtle attack on G W Bush. Absolutely pathetic.
I think it's a lame award but don't get the Bush bashing thing? why would anyone think that?
Because all Obama has done to earn those compliments is simply not be George W. Bush. It isn't like he has taken positive action to create "a new climate in international politics." This pretty much always occurs ion a change of Administrations. This change of Administrations, though, was deemed worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, when previous ones were not. I see this as a slam on Bush, since it cannot possibly be attributed to any actual work accomplished by Obama in the first 11 days he was in office.
The second sentence is probably not about Bush. I think it is referring to Bono as the other "rare" person that captured the world's attention, gave it hope, etc. Bono, though, didn't succeed Bush and so he didn't get the prize.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 11, 2009, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2009, 01:00:42 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 11, 2009, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2009, 03:09:29 PM
I don't know if Tsvangerai deserves it either. It's more like a condemnation of Mugabe. But he's certainly more deserving then Obama (and I say this as one of Obama's supporters and fanboys). Shit, deserves it more then Obama.
He's been brutally tortured time and time again for years and never stopped opposing Mugabe. If there is anyone who deserves it is him.
It's not the Nobel torture prize.
Of course not
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foperatorchan.org%2Fn%2Fsrc%2Fn25614_AdviceObama.jpg&hash=4eaa185679abb6170570e26f0f78d7ae0a5d1105)
GWB didn't get any prizes for his ground breaking work in developing North Korean weapons.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 11, 2009, 01:09:54 PM
I think it's a lame award but don't get the Bush bashing thing? why would anyone think that?
The below part of what I quoted is a not-very-veiled condemnation/criticism of Bush. There's actually no other way to interpret it, as every sentence is phrased in a way to imply a negative comparison with what has preceded Obama...ie. George W. Bush.
Quote"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The other part I quoted is the vapid self-justification. They cannot come up with anything concrete Obama has achieved, so they have to resort to this -
Quote"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
It's a good soundbite, but a good soundbite is not an explanation of why you give Obama an award for achievement before he has achieved anything.
QuoteHumbly but proud, I accept this Academy Award for my performance at the inauguration day. I want to thank my family for the support they given me during those difficult first years.
Tsvangerai has shown great restraint (perhaps too much) in dealing with provocations with Mugabe and has thereby kept the peace in that part of the planet. His government has already delivered very significant benefits in the quality of life to the people of Zimbabwe (albeit mostly by simply ceasing the energetic economic self-sabotage that was the previous government's policy). He is still locked in a bitter power struggle with Mugabe who maintains control over the security forces. A Nobel would have actually served some useful function in bolstering his prestige and focusing attention back on Zimbabwe.
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2009, 05:21:44 AM
[How does his actions promote "fraternity between nations", contribute to "abolition or reduction of standing armies" or are associated with "peace congresses"? :huh:
No less than those of 90% of the awardees over the years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2009, 09:41:54 AM
Tsvangerai has shown great restraint (perhaps too much) in dealing with provocations with Mugabe and has thereby kept the peace in that part of the planet. His government has already delivered very significant benefits in the quality of life to the people of Zimbabwe (albeit mostly by simply ceasing the energetic economic self-sabotage that was the previous government's policy). He is still locked in a bitter power struggle with Mugabe who maintains control over the security forces. A Nobel would have actually served some useful function in bolstering his prestige and focusing attention back on Zimbabwe.
Thank god the committee was able to focus and not be distracted by irrelevant black people.
Quote from: grumbler on October 11, 2009, 01:43:48 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 11, 2009, 01:09:54 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 09, 2009, 01:54:49 PM
Quote"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
The committee added, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
:rolleyes:
Vapid self-justification wrapped in a not-that-subtle attack on G W Bush. Absolutely pathetic.
I think it's a lame award but don't get the Bush bashing thing? why would anyone think that?
Because all Obama has done to earn those compliments is simply not be George W. Bush. It isn't like he has taken positive action to create "a new climate in international politics." This pretty much always occurs ion a change of Administrations. This change of Administrations, though, was deemed worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, when previous ones were not. I see this as a slam on Bush, since it cannot possibly be attributed to any actual work accomplished by Obama in the first 11 days he was in office.
The second sentence is probably not about Bush. I think it is referring to Bono as the other "rare" person that captured the world's attention, gave it hope, etc. Bono, though, didn't succeed Bush and so he didn't get the prize.
well OK. But It's still a weak ass reason to give Obama any kind of award. I think by "changing the political climate" - they were inferring his campaign which was handled far better than his admin thus far (though to be fair early on in his campaign nobody took the Junior senator seriously either.)
That said. I don't think his campaign however well done was worthy of a Nobel... it stinks of backhanded racism. thanks for proving that a Black guy can become President. also lame.
My uncle, the Crazy California Republican he is, sent me this:
QuoteBREAKING NEWS: This just in!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!
It must be nice for the right to be able to bash a President with the same or more vehemence that everyone else used on Bush. Way to take the high road. (oh wait they also had Clinton, never mind)
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 12:23:58 PM
It must be nice for the right to be able to bash a President with the same or more vehemence that everyone else used on Bush. Way to take the high road. (oh wait they also had Clinton, never mind)
Silly fool, there is no "high road" in American politics, especially when it comes to the out of power parties dealing with the in power President, just various levels of low and lower roads. This has been true since the day George Washington stepped down from the office.
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2009, 12:31:13 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 12:23:58 PM
It must be nice for the right to be able to bash a President with the same or more vehemence that everyone else used on Bush. Way to take the high road. (oh wait they also had Clinton, never mind)
Silly fool, there is no "high road" in American politics, especially when it comes to the out of power parties dealing with the in power President, just various levels of low and lower roads. This has been true since the day George Washington stepped down from the office.
yeah I guess you are right on that one. which really is too bad.
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2009, 12:31:13 PM
Silly fool, there is no "high road" in American politics, especially when it comes to the out of power parties dealing with the in power President, just various levels of low and lower roads. This has been true since the day George Washington stepped down from the office.
I thought Washington was treated with great reverence as President (being the Father of the country and all), and that it was only with Adams that things went downhill.
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2009, 12:31:13 PM
Silly fool, there is no "high road" in American politics, especially when it comes to the out of power parties dealing with the in power President, just various levels of low and lower roads. This has been true since the day George Washington stepped down from the office.
I thought Washington was treated with great reverence as President (being the Father of the country and all), and that it was only with Adams that things went downhill.
Are you sure you are a lawyer?
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2009, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2009, 12:31:13 PM
Silly fool, there is no "high road" in American politics, especially when it comes to the out of power parties dealing with the in power President, just various levels of low and lower roads. This has been true since the day George Washington stepped down from the office.
I thought Washington was treated with great reverence as President (being the Father of the country and all), and that it was only with Adams that things went downhill.
Are you sure you are a lawyer?
I guess my knowledge of history is better than my reading skills... :blush:
I've never heard of this guy before, but his bio says he's some kind of urban planning and sustainability expert.
Quote
Our Euro President
Joel Kotkin, 10.13.09, 12:01 AM EDT
Obama, Oslo and the Nobel Prize.
Barack Obama's seemingly inexplicable winning of the Nobel Peace Prize says less about him than about the current mentality of Europe's leadership class. Lacking any strong, compelling voices of their own, the Europeans are now trying to hijack our president as their spokesman.
There's a catch, of course. In their mind, Obama deserves the award because he seems to think, and sound, like a European. In everything from global warming to anti-suburbanism to pacifism, Obama reflects the basic agenda of the continent's leading citizens--in sharp contrast to former President George W. Bush.
Indeed it's likely that if Obama wanted to run for presidency of the E.U., he could mail it in. Unfortunately for him, he presides over a country that faces a very different future from that of Europe.
This is not to say we cannot learn from Europe in certain areas--namely fuel economy and health care. Republicans dropped the ball on both of these issues, and as a result both our health care system and automobile efficiency pale next to those of the continent.
Still, the reality is that America and Europe are very different, which would necessitate disparate policy approaches. Our growing divergence with Europe spans everything from demographics to economic needs and basic values. In all these areas, the gap is likely to increase over time.
This is why the Obama Administration's Europhilia, now likely to become more pronounced, represents a dangerous temptation. For one thing, Europe's generally ultra low birth rates--compared with those in the U.S.--imposes structural limits on how their economies can grow and even if they even need growth.
If our core problems come from over-consumption and irrational financial-sector exuberance, Europe's sluggishness stems from the lack of an expanding workforce and consumer base. This means Germany--by far the most important E.U. country in terms population and gross domestic product--must rely on exports to maintain its generally slow growth rate. More important, as the current generation in their 50s retire, the workforce is likely to shrink dramatically in almost all European countries, making even modest growth difficult.
In a rapidly aging society like Germany's and those of other E.U. countries you can make a case for slow growth, limited work hours, early retirement and a strict regulatory regime. But for America, with its growing workforce and population, slow economic growth simply is not socially sustainable.
More broadly, we are talking about two different mindsets. As one writer puts it, Europeans "emphasize quality of life over accumulation" and "play over unrelenting toil." In contrast, most Americans seem ill-disposed to relax their work ethic, which has been central to the national character from its earliest days.
Of course, the European approach is celebrated by some Americans, particularly those who already have achieved a high level of affluence. It plays very well in "little Europes" of America, cities like San Francisco, Portland and Boston, places with relatively few children and generally slow-growing populations.
But most Americans do not seem ready for a lifestyle buffeted by regulations and limitations. Still attached to their aspirations, they seem no less satisfied with their way life than do Europeans. Even amid the recession, 70% Americans still embrace the idea that they can get ahead through hard work.
There are other critical differences. Americans remain more religiously minded. One analyst, David Hart, has spoken of Europe's "metaphysical boredom." Half or more of Europeans never attend church, compared with barely 20% in the U.S.
Among younger Europeans, the loss of traditional Christian identity--with its focus on long-term commitments, sacrifice and responsibility--is virtually complete: According to one Belgian demographer, barely one in 10 young adults in the E.U. maintains any link to an organized religion. In contrast roughly 60% of Americans, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey, believe religion is "very important," twice the rate of Canadians, Britons, Koreans or Italians and six times the rate of French or Japanese.
Some observers, both in America and abroad, see this spiritualism, particularly among evangelical Christians, as reflecting a kind of social retardation. Yet belief in America is remarkably varied, extending beyond groups that are easily classified as liberal or conservative. In America, a broad "spiritual" focus--dating from the earliest founders and continuing through the transcendentalists and Walt Whitman--persists as a vital force. Even President Obama, whose base tends to be secular, has made much of his religious ties.
In Europe, the only truly rising faith appears to be the secular religion of the environmental zealots. Often almost theocratic in its passion, the green movement tends to be hostile to even modest population growth and economic progress. It's no coincidence that the last American to win the Nobel Prize was the climate change high priest himself, former Vice President Al Gore.
To be sure, Americans also care about the planet, but they seem more disposed to see technological innovation, not abstinence, as the best way to confront ecological problems. The kind of highly restrictive regulatory environment common in Europe--and sadly in such places as California--simply is not well-suited for a country that must produce much more wealth and millions more jobs in order to sustain itself.
Even though they may espouse secular ideals, this more growth-oriented mentality also attracts a sizable number of talented and ambitious young Europeans to the U.S., as well as Australia and Canada. Although influential social commentator Richard Florida has claimed that the bright lights and "tolerance" of Europe are luring large numbers of skilled Americans, actual migration trends tell quite the opposite story. By 2004 some 400,000 E.U. science and technology graduates were residing in the U.S. Barely one in seven, according to a recent European Commission poll, intends to return.
Perhaps the president should speak to these young Europeans. They still buy the notion of America as a country open to innovation and striving for upward mobility. Europe, in contrast, perhaps as the result of two debilitating wars in the last century, understandably craves peacefulness and social stability over all else.
When he goes to Oslo next month, Obama should remember that America's future is not to become a bigger version of Norway, a tiny country fat with fossil fuels that can afford its air of moral superiority. We are also not latter day versions of Britain, France, Germany or Russia--all of them worn empires exhausted by history.
Ultimately America is about hope and aspiration. It is, if you will, a country based on an ideal, not a race or cultural legacy. As the British writer G. K. Chesterton once put it, the U.S. is "the only nation ... that is founded on a creed." That creed is not so much religious as aspirational, and it will become more important as we attempt to cope with our own growing diversity as well as the rising powers from the developing world.
So even as he enjoys his popularity on the continent, Obama must be careful not succumb to those who urge him to reshape America in Europe 's image. Take this prize, Mr. President, and then shelve it.
Joel Kotkin is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is executive editor of newgeography.com and writes the weekly New Geographer column for Forbes. He is working on a study on upward mobility in global cities for the London-based for Forbes. He is working on a study on upward mobility in global cities for the London-based and writes the weekly for Forbes. He is working on a study on upward mobility in global cities for the London-based Legatum Institute. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin early next year.
QuoteTake this prize, Mr. President, and then shelve it.
:o Pretty rude IMHO.
Quotewho urge him to reshape America in Europe 's image
Fuck Europe.
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2009, 12:31:13 PM
Silly fool, there is no "high road" in American politics, especially when it comes to the out of power parties dealing with the in power President, just various levels of low and lower roads. This has been true since the day George Washington stepped down from the office.
I thought Washington was treated with great reverence as President (being the Father of the country and all), and that it was only with Adams that things went downhill.
By the general population, perhaps....but there's a reason why he only went to Congress once for the State of The Union, and swore never to ever go there again. He sent the rest of his addresses by courier.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 12:23:58 PM
It must be nice for the right to be able to bash a President with the same or more vehemence that everyone else used on Bush. Way to take the high road. (oh wait they also had Clinton, never mind)
What are you talking about?
Just read Chris Hitchen's article in Time on Obama's prize, in which I learned that Jimmy Carter wrote to Arab heads of state in the runup to Gulf War I urging them not to participate in the liberation of Kuwait.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 04:18:09 PM
in which I learned that Jimmy Carter wrote to Arab heads of state in the runup to Gulf War I urging them not to participate in the liberation of Kuwait.
Prudent move. Arabs don't like fighting other Arabs when America The Jew is involved. Best to stay out of the way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 04:18:09 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 12:23:58 PM
It must be nice for the right to be able to bash a President with the same or more vehemence that everyone else used on Bush. Way to take the high road. (oh wait they also had Clinton, never mind)
What are you talking about?
Just read Chris Hitchen's article in Time on Obama's prize, in which I learned that Jimmy Carter wrote to Arab heads of state in the runup to Gulf War I urging them not to participate in the liberation of Kuwait.
:bleeding:
Link?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2009, 07:03:47 PM
:bleeding:
Link?
Link.net = google/search&Time magazine&Christopher Hitchen's article on Obama and the Nobel Prize.
Actually I'm thinking now it was Newsweek.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 07:27:20 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 13, 2009, 07:03:47 PM
:bleeding:
Link?
Link.net = google/search&Time magazine&Christopher Hitchen's article on Obama and the Nobel Prize.
Actually I'm thinking now it was Newsweek.
googling "hitchins obama nobel" will do it.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 12:23:58 PM
It must be nice for the right to be able to bash a President with the same or more vehemence that everyone else used on Bush. Way to take the high road. (oh wait they also had Clinton, never mind)
:hug:
As long as you felt that way about the Dems during Bush.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 04:18:09 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 12:23:58 PM
It must be nice for the right to be able to bash a President with the same or more vehemence that everyone else used on Bush. Way to take the high road. (oh wait they also had Clinton, never mind)
What are you talking about?
Just read Chris Hitchen's article in Time on Obama's prize, in which I learned that Jimmy Carter wrote to Arab heads of state in the runup to Gulf War I urging them not to participate in the liberation of Kuwait.
um so? what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about how the office of President has been basically a joke ( to the media and most of Languish at least) since and including Clinton. Maybe it always has been a joke and I was naive about it before?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 08:40:18 PM
um so? what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about how the office of President has been basically a joke ( to the media and most of Languish at least) since and including Clinton. Maybe it always has been a joke and I was naive about it before?
Nothing. It was a non sequitor.
How about my question? What right wing bashing are you talking about? If you're referring to the people who think Obama winning the Peace Prize is a joke, that's 99% of the country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 08:46:29 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 08:40:18 PM
um so? what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about how the office of President has been basically a joke ( to the media and most of Languish at least) since and including Clinton. Maybe it always has been a joke and I was naive about it before?
Nothing. It was a non sequitor.
How about my question? What right wing bashing are you talking about? If you're referring to the people who think Obama winning the Peace Prize is a joke, that's 99% of the country.
Never heard of Fox news or any of the freaks bring automatic weapons to Obama rallies Death Panel idiots, Tea baggers (i refuse to call them tea partyers, there aren't enough for a party) etc... I don't think any of them are lefties. but partisan bashing is fair ( if recently beyond stupid in the manner it's done) , It was done to Bush, Clinton before him... and according to this thread all the way back to Washington.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 09:23:44 PM
Tea baggers (i refuse to call them tea partyers, there aren't enough for a party)
If up to 75,000 people at a single gathering in Washington isn't enough for a party, then what is? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2009, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2009, 03:38:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Teddy was great, but he didn't deserve his Nobel either.
Negotiating a peace treaty that the two parties would have been unable to arrive at on their own seems like the very essence of Peace Prize type activity.
The bio I read suggested he was egging Japan on in the runup to the war.
QFT. Teddy was very anti-Rooskie. Some pundits suggested that he both caused the war and ended it.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:28:12 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 09:23:44 PM
Tea baggers (i refuse to call them tea partyers, there aren't enough for a party)
If up to 75,000 people at a single gathering in Washington isn't enough for a party, then what is? :huh:
It's interesting how the numbers for right wing rallies get inflated and whack job WTO rallies or hundreds of thousands of gays gets no coverage or downplayed as to the size of the rally. Liberal media conspiracy my ass.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 09:53:02 PM
It's interesting how the numbers for right wing rallies get inflated and whack job WTO rallies or hundreds of thousands of gays gets no coverage or downplayed as to the size of the rally. Liberal media conspiracy my ass.
Actually the 75,000 figure is like the lowest possible for the whole Taxpayer March on Washington thing. Alot of conservative commentators claimed figures as high as 1 million, but the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston University likes the lower figure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 08:46:29 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 08:40:18 PM
um so? what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about how the office of President has been basically a joke ( to the media and most of Languish at least) since and including Clinton. Maybe it always has been a joke and I was naive about it before?
Nothing. It was a non sequitor.
How about my question? What right wing bashing are you talking about? If you're referring to the people who think Obama winning the Peace Prize is a joke, that's 99% of the country.
I thought it was a joke at first too, but then I remembered Obama was able to make peace between a black college professor and a white policeman, so maybe it wasn't wholly underserved.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 09:53:02 PM
It's interesting how the numbers for right wing rallies get inflated and whack job WTO rallies or hundreds of thousands of gays gets no coverage or downplayed as to the size of the rally. Liberal media conspiracy my ass.
Actually the 75,000 figure is like the lowest possible for the whole Taxpayer March on Washington thing. Alot of conservative commentators claimed figures as high as 1 million, but the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston University likes the lower figure.
That's because conservatives can't count worth shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2009, 12:03:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 09:53:02 PM
It's interesting how the numbers for right wing rallies get inflated and whack job WTO rallies or hundreds of thousands of gays gets no coverage or downplayed as to the size of the rally. Liberal media conspiracy my ass.
Actually the 75,000 figure is like the lowest possible for the whole Taxpayer March on Washington thing. Alot of conservative commentators claimed figures as high as 1 million, but the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston University likes the lower figure.
That's because conservatives can't count worth shit.
Anybody who holds a march inflates the figures.
I'm glad that Affirmative Action has reached new, dizzying heights. :)
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 09:53:02 PM
hundreds of thousands of gays gets no coverage or downplayed as to the size of the rally.
???
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 13, 2009, 10:53:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 08:46:29 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 08:40:18 PM
um so? what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about how the office of President has been basically a joke ( to the media and most of Languish at least) since and including Clinton. Maybe it always has been a joke and I was naive about it before?
Nothing. It was a non sequitor.
How about my question? What right wing bashing are you talking about? If you're referring to the people who think Obama winning the Peace Prize is a joke, that's 99% of the country.
I thought it was a joke at first too, but then I remembered Obama was able to make peace between a black college professor and a white policeman, so maybe it wasn't wholly underserved.
That is a good one :lol:
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2009, 12:56:46 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 13, 2009, 09:53:02 PM
hundreds of thousands of gays gets no coverage or downplayed as to the size of the rally.
???
Big protests (probably more like 10 or 20 thousand but I was trying to get in the spirit of the thing) apparently descended on Washington protesting this weekend (it was on John Stewart) Major news outlets = 0 coverage whatsoever. fluff pieces all day instead.
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
:huh: It was a front page story on CNN.com at one point.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
It's on TV but there's no news coverage? Are they covering it as a sporting event? :huh:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
It's funny how people on both the extreme left and right complain about the exact same things. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2009, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
It's on TV but there's no news coverage? Are they covering it as a sporting event? :huh:
That would be awesome. Especially when the riot cops showed up to stomp those faggots out.
At any rate, gay gatherings always have to be covered differently than regular person gatherings. You can't show wide angle shots and whatnot because of all the fornicating that they are doing, which if you put it on the air will get you in big trouble with the regulators. The immaturity of the gays yet again hampers their cause.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2009, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
It's on TV but there's no news coverage? Are they covering it as a sporting event? :huh:
Comedy not sports.
John Stewart covered the 3 minutes given to it on CNN (they (CNN)covered an empty field where some people were (didn't say how many) protested that Obama song taught to kids in Jersey for 8 minutes)
Quote from: Caliga on October 14, 2009, 07:52:05 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
It's funny how people on both the extreme left and right complain about the exact same things. :)
which is exactly what I said in my original post before I had to write 3 or 4 more posts explaining it to people. Kind of loses the humour at that point :(
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 12:15:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2009, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
It's on TV but there's no news coverage? Are they covering it as a sporting event? :huh:
Comedy not sports.
John Stewart covered the 3 minutes given to it on CNN (they (CNN)covered an empty field where some people were (didn't say how many) protested that Obama song taught to kids in Jersey for 8 minutes)
Oh yeah, I heard some GOPtards were protesting at an elementary school.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 12:16:36 PM
which is exactly what I said in my original post before I had to write 3 or 4 more posts explaining it to people. Kind of loses the humour at that point :(
I'm not good at scrolling back. I'm especially poor at viewing prior pages as well. ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on October 14, 2009, 12:21:16 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 12:16:36 PM
which is exactly what I said in my original post before I had to write 3 or 4 more posts explaining it to people. Kind of loses the humour at that point :(
I'm not good at scrolling back. I'm especially poor at viewing prior pages as well. ^_^
well you seem to be in good company so kutgw! :p
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2009, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 12:15:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2009, 07:47:34 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
It's on tv right now. 75,000 people protesting about DADT. But no news coverage. Yet similar numbers to the tea party types.
It's on TV but there's no news coverage? Are they covering it as a sporting event? :huh:
Comedy not sports.
John Stewart covered the 3 minutes given to it on CNN (they (CNN)covered an empty field where some people were (didn't say how many) protested that Obama song taught to kids in Jersey for 8 minutes)
Oh yeah, I heard some GOPtards were protesting at an elementary school.
Lol, looks like the GOPtards were protesting the DEMOtards... :D
Barrack Hussein Obama... Uhhh, Uhhh, Uhhh.... When I heard that song I just had to laugh too. :lol:
I did hear on the news tonight that Obama watched an NCAA football game last weekend, so is a shoo-in for the Heisman. Is there NOTHING that man cannot do?
Poll Question for our prognosticators: which Academy Award will he win this year?
hmm tough call. maybe all of them?
I'd say he's a lock for Fake Documentary and Best Screenplay by a Blogger (Diablo Cody Memorial award)
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2009, 09:17:31 PM
I did hear on the news tonight that Obama watched an NCAA football game last weekend, so is a shoo-in for the Heisman. Is there NOTHING that man cannot do?
Poll Question for our prognosticators: which Academy Award will he win this year?
The DW Griffith Lifetime Achievement Award, of course; he deserves nothing less. :)
Quote from: grumbler on October 14, 2009, 09:17:31 PM
I did hear on the news tonight that Obama watched an NCAA football game last weekend, so is a shoo-in for the Heisman. Is there NOTHING that man cannot do?
Poll Question for our prognosticators: which Academy Award will he win this year?
If there's one award more devalued than the Peace Prize, it's the Oscars.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gOy7GLcrP7iQja3yU5Zu4BHMqFdw
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fafp%2Fmedia%2FALeqM5j_OHbBuYvPS3O6SXHySBPRViqXLA%3Fsize%3Ds2&hash=5535d44d4d8792e9c9c718f5fdce279dac40fadc)
QuoteMajority of Nobel jury 'objected to Obama prize'
(AFP) – 2 hours ago
OSLO — Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.
"VG has spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to give the peace prize to Barack Obama," the newspaper said.
In a surprise move last Friday, the Nobel committee attributed the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama less than nine months after he had taken office.
The committee, appointed by the Norwegian parliament, honoured Obama for "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
"The committee was unanimous," its influential secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP on Friday.
But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said.
It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections.
The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.
The members of the committee represent their parties but do not sit in Norway's parliament.
"Each year, we start with many candidates and many different points of view and agree as the discussions move along. This year was no exception," Lundestad commented Thursday.
The newspaper quotes Ytterhorn and Five as saying they both supported the committee's final decision.
Obama himself said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the prize.
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2009, 09:27:44 PM
If there's one award more devalued than the Peace Prize, it's the Oscars.
That award officially jumped the shark the year Al Sharpton bitched that not enough African-Americans won Academy Awards, and LIKE MAGIC both Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won the best Actor/Actress awards. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 08:32:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 14, 2009, 09:27:44 PM
If there's one award more devalued than the Peace Prize, it's the Oscars.
That award officially jumped the shark the year Al Sharpton bitched that not enough African-Americans won Academy Awards, and LIKE MAGIC both Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won the best Actor/Actress awards. -_-
Yes, certainly neither is talented enough to win on their own. :rolleyes:
My point is that the Academy had practically ignored the work of African-American actors until that point, and then suddenly they dominate? :huh:
Denzel was awesome in Training Day, I think the performance deserved an award. Halle Berry, not so much.
Quote from: frunk on October 15, 2009, 08:41:30 AM
Denzel was awesome in Training Day, I think the performance deserved an award. Halle Berry, not so much.
I agree on the former and didn't see the latter because I heard it sucked from a friend who did see it. He said all she basically does in it is spread her legs. :mellow:
Quote from: frunk on October 15, 2009, 08:41:30 AM
Denzel was awesome in Training Day, I think the performance deserved an award. Halle Berry, not so much.
I belive Halle Berry got it for showing her undersized caligas.
N.B. 500 years from now etymologists will wonder why boobs and roman shoes have the same etymology.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 08:37:30 AM
My point is that the Academy had practically ignored the work of African-American actors until that point, and then suddenly they dominate? :huh:
Sorry, I thought that you were joking, and was playing along. :Embarrass:
No, I am not tinfoilhatted enough to believe that Rev Al Sharpton controls who gets Academy Awards.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2009, 08:44:12 AM
N.B. 500 years from now etymologists will wonder why boobs and roman shoes have the same etymology.
... and have their grants revoked for excessive "research". ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2009, 09:47:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2009, 08:44:12 AM
N.B. 500 years from now etymologists will wonder why boobs and roman shoes have the same etymology.
... and have their grants revoked for excessive "research". ;)
It's either that or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1TcJKFB0sY
I'd be up for either job.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 09:27:10 AM
No, I am not tinfoilhatted enough to believe that Rev Al Sharpton controls who gets Academy Awards.
Of course not. Then again, it's not entirely tinfoil to think that the Academy, like many organizations, are prone to react to accusations of racism, at least a little bit, and that might have swayed some of the voters.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 10:24:28 AM
Of course not. Then again, it's not entirely tinfoil to think that the Academy, like many organizations, are prone to react to accusations of racism, at least a little bit, and that might have swayed some of the voters.
Yes, exactly. Didn't mean to imply I thought there was some kind of weird conspiracy, grumbles.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 09:27:10 AM
No, I am not tinfoilhatted enough to believe that Rev Al Sharpton controls who gets Academy Awards.
Of course not. Then again, it's not entirely tinfoil to think that the Academy, like many organizations, are prone to react to accusations of racism, at least a little bit, and that might have swayed some of the voters.
But this isn't what Cal is asserting, so I don't know why you would bother mentioning the obvious.
Meh. Those prize committees tend to be at least a little political; in class today, we were looking at the Pulitzer Prize committee's burn of Edward Albee in 1963 as compared to the "no prize in drama" announcement in 1997.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 10:28:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 10:24:28 AM
Of course not. Then again, it's not entirely tinfoil to think that the Academy, like many organizations, are prone to react to accusations of racism, at least a little bit, and that might have swayed some of the voters.
Yes, exactly. Didn't mean to imply I thought there was some kind of weird conspiracy, grumbles.
WTF? You said "That [Academy] award officially jumped the shark the year Al Sharpton bitched that not enough African-Americans won Academy Awards, and LIKE MAGIC both Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won the best Actor/Actress awards."
In order for your assertion to be true, then two things must be true:
(1) the award of the two top acting Oscars to black actors represented a "jumping of the shark," or the act so stupid that it forever changes the perception of an institution, show, etc;
(2) that the awards would not have gone to these two except for Sharpton's bitching.
The first is pretty close to racism. Washington, had, in fact
already won a previous Academy Award! I cannot possibly see his winning another as "jumping the shark." Berry had already won the Golden Globe and at least one Emmy, and in fact for this very role she took a top prize at the Berlin Film Festival, the SAG award, the NBR Award, and a bunch of regional acting awards. She had been nominated in this role for every top award (BAFTA, Golden Globe, etc).
The second is even more tenuous. In order for this to be true, either Sharpton cannot have previously bitched about the lack of Oscar awards to blacks, or else something had to have changed in 2002 to have his bitch carry weight it had never carried before (and thus be effective in that year as no other). Either of these are extraordinary claims that require proof.
I don't know where you got "some kind of weird conspiracy" from, though. It is either a complete strawman or you are attributing someone else's arguments to me.
As I noted earlier, your statement was so absurd that I initially, of course, thought you were joking. Besides, we all know that the Academy Awards had already jumped the shark when
Titanic got Best Picture in 1997.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 07:12:16 PM
Besides, we all know that the Academy Awards had already jumped the shark when Titanic got Best Picture in 1997.
:o It seems that 1997 was a bad year for awards in general.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 06:36:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 09:27:10 AM
No, I am not tinfoilhatted enough to believe that Rev Al Sharpton controls who gets Academy Awards.
Of course not. Then again, it's not entirely tinfoil to think that the Academy, like many organizations, are prone to react to accusations of racism, at least a little bit, and that might have swayed some of the voters.
But this isn't what Cal is asserting, so I don't know why you would bother mentioning the obvious.
Cal didn't assert anything. He implied.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 07:12:16 PM
WTF? You said "That [Academy] award officially jumped the shark the year Al Sharpton bitched that not enough African-Americans won Academy Awards, and LIKE MAGIC both Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won the best Actor/Actress awards."
In order for your assertion to be true, then two things must be true:
(1) the award of the two top acting Oscars to black actors represented a "jumping of the shark," or the act so stupid that it forever changes the perception of an institution, show, etc;
(2) that the awards would not have gone to these two except for Sharpton's bitching.
The first is pretty close to racism. Washington, had, in fact already won a previous Academy Award! I cannot possibly see his winning another as "jumping the shark." Berry had already won the Golden Globe and at least one Emmy, and in fact for this very role she took a top prize at the Berlin Film Festival, the SAG award, the NBR Award, and a bunch of regional acting awards. She had been nominated in this role for every top award (BAFTA, Golden Globe, etc).
The second is even more tenuous. In order for this to be true, either Sharpton cannot have previously bitched about the lack of Oscar awards to blacks, or else something had to have changed in 2002 to have his bitch carry weight it had never carried before (and thus be effective in that year as no other). Either of these are extraordinary claims that require proof.
I don't know where you got "some kind of weird conspiracy" from, though. It is either a complete strawman or you are attributing someone else's arguments to me.
As I noted earlier, your statement was so absurd that I initially, of course, thought you were joking. Besides, we all know that the Academy Awards had already jumped the shark when Titanic got Best Picture in 1997.
Jesus, what the hell is wrong with you? I don't put hours, or even minutes, of thought into stuff I post on Languish, so it's folly to expend such effort in dissecting it. Reserve your efforts for people (and I won't name names because I refuse to engage in mudslinging... except against you I guess ;) ) whose posting obviously consists of googling shit/reposting from Wikipedia and presenting it as their personal opinion/knowledge. -_-
Titanic was awesome. Well, the part with the sinking, anyways.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 09:35:46 PM
Titanic was awesome. Well, the part with the sinking, anyways.
The part where DiCaprio goes from pink to blue to grey really made it for me. So about five good minutes, and just shy of three hours of inane crap.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 09:59:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 09:35:46 PM
Titanic was awesome. Well, the part with the sinking, anyways.
The part where DiCaprio goes from pink to blue to grey really made it for me. So about five good minutes, and just shy of three hours of inane crap.
Fuck that. As soon as the 'TITANIC --- LIVERPOOL' slid out of view, the movie was over.
I've never seen the whole movie, just the parts involving Kate Winslet and nudity. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 10:08:08 PM
I've never seen the whole movie, just the parts involving Kate Winslet and nudity. :blush:
Fat chick on couch. :thumbsdown:
The sinking and iceberg whacking parts are great. Don't let the boo birds throw you off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 10:15:25 PM
The sinking and iceberg whacking parts are great. Don't let the boo birds throw you off.
Dude, it's me.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 08:51:45 PM
Jesus, what the hell is wrong with you? I don't put hours, or even minutes, of thought into stuff I post on Languish, so it's folly to expend such effort in dissecting it.
Ah, the old "I fucked up and said something stupid, and then defended it, but it is all the fault of 'what is wrong' with the person who pointed out my blunder" defense. :lmfao:
It would have been more credible, as well as time-saving, for you to have acknowledged my first point, which was that your first post was more-or-less a joke (i.e. thoughtless). Why you disputed that and engaged in this "debate" is beyond me, given that you now say your comment wasn't worth such effort.
I am sorry I wasted lifespan responding to anything but your first post. I'll try not to engage in anything like a debate with you in the future.
QuoteReserve your efforts for people (and I won't name names because I refuse to engage in mudslinging... except against you I guess ;) ) whose posting obviously consists of googling shit/reposting from Wikipedia and presenting it as their personal opinion/knowledge. -_-
Actually, I will reserve my effort for that type and for the type of posters who actually want to engage in intellectual debate (and there are some here).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2009, 10:15:25 PM
The sinking and iceberg whacking parts are great. Don't let the boo birds throw you off.
The special effects were, indeed, awesome. I thought the atmosphere of the 19-teens was also worth seeing. Cameron has no skill at getting credible acting jobs out of his actors, though, and the movie certainly wasn't the best of 1997 (though admittedly 1997 was pretty weak in terms of major movies).
Titanic is worth seeing, once.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2009, 06:39:48 AM
Ah, the old "I fucked up and said something stupid, and then defended it, but it is all the fault of 'what is wrong' with the person who pointed out my blunder" defense. :lmfao:
It would have been more credible, as well as time-saving, for you to have acknowledged my first point, which was that your first post was more-or-less a joke (i.e. thoughtless). Why you disputed that and engaged in this "debate" is beyond me, given that you now say your comment wasn't worth such effort.
I am sorry I wasted lifespan responding to anything but your first post. I'll try not to engage in anything like a debate with you in the future.
But I didn't even think I was engaging in a debate! What I did with my first post was like shoot an arrow randomly into the ether. Your response (though more the second than the first, I guess) was like an ICBM fired directly back at me.
My "what the hell is wrong with you" response was out of line and I apologize for the personal attack... but it was like a knee-jerk to your voluminous response to my throwaway one-liners.
Your comment about not wanting to engage in debate with me is kind of moot, since I don't think we are generally interested in the same esoteric topics--else we probably would have had a confrontation before.
Going back to my first post, I will say that this is a conclusion I came to like ten years ago and have not re-evaluated it since, since after that debacle and the loss of SPR to Shakespeare in Love, I've completely disregarded the Oscars. I used to actually bet in office office pools (and no, I wasn't mad because I lost that year :P In fact, I won the pool and correctly guessed Berry and Washington would win). You've obviously put more thought into this than I ever have. I'm not the kind of person, which I think puts me in a minority around here, afraid to concede defeat--I engage in discussion because I want to learn, not because I want to prove anyone wrong and/or myself right.
Therefore, you are probably correct that I came to a hasty/ill thought-out conclusion.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2009, 09:35:46 PM
Titanic was awesome. Well, the part with the sinking, anyways.
I got up from my seat three times because I thought it was finally over. Even after the friggin boat sank, the only part worth watching, itjust went on and on.
I've never seen it in order, but I think I've seen all of it at various points. And how can you not love: "I'll hold on to you forever." *lets go of dying Leo's hand*
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvader.joemonster.org%2Fupload%2Fzaw%2F512_267022f3a51cfaslow_poke.jpg&hash=e3b040cd5ea0bab3df686c078fcc9a95e7b25ed5)
Quote from: Solmyr on October 18, 2009, 06:38:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvader.joemonster.org%2Fupload%2Fzaw%2F512_267022f3a51cfaslow_poke.jpg&hash=e3b040cd5ea0bab3df686c078fcc9a95e7b25ed5)
I like that! A lot!
Some people say he doesn't deserve it, but I think he's very pretty
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F%7Eguidoanchovy%2Fobama-missamerica.jpg&hash=7e5c6427402ba24d77a896dc77643f6b77319600)
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 18, 2009, 02:31:35 PM
Some people say he doesn't deserve it, but I think he's very pretty
I'd have thought Obama would have better legs.