Thread: Our fearless leader...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

al gore won the peace prize for his global warming/climate change, when there is not any true evidence of either. obama won his prize for wanting to change the usa for the better without having changed anything. do you see a trend here. it seems now if you just "want" to change something you will win, thus making the award completely and utterly a joke.

this is absolutely incorrect

Originally Posted by JMS

I never said I hated the awards, President Obama or Al Gore.

You equivocate like a Scottish witch. You may quibble with my verb if you like, but:

Originally Posted by JMS

who takes the Nobel prizes seriously. I for one have not since Gore was awarded a Nobel peace prize.

Originally Posted by JMS

You make a lot of assumptions here.

Just one.

Originally Posted by xman

your confirmation bias?

Originally Posted by JMS

these are open threads that anyone can respond to no matter my own belief. I only wish to see others thoughts on the matter.

Originally Posted by xman

Don't get me wrong. I'm puzzled by the Nobel committee's decision too ...

X, try speaking in a way I understand. I know you are disagreeing with me but what you are saying is not really making any sense to me...similar to when someone tries to explain the complexities of the universe with their mouth full of food.

If you can be more direct in a PM please PM me.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

it seems now if you just "want" to change something you will win,

I want to change Mark into a left-leaning liberal lush.

Where do I pick up my prize?

Originally Posted by majurey

I want to change Mark into a left-leaning liberal lush.

Where do I pick up my prize?

I want to change your Williams and your Livi into my Williams and my Livi

As long as that happens, I can humbly refuse any additional prize

The Nobel Peace Prize has historically been given to people not for their actions, but for their determination and beliefs:

1919 - Woodrow Wilson, for his role in forming the League of Nations. The League of Nations was supposed to prevent future wars.
1935 - Carl von Ossietzky, for symbolizing domestic opposition to Hitler's rise. Hitler was in power until 1945.
1984 - Desmund Tutu, for leading the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid did not end until 1994.
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi, for fighting for democracy in Burma. Burma was, and still is, governed under a military junta.
2002 - Jimmy Carter, for efforts to promote peace in the Middle East. We know where that stands currently.
2003 - Shirin Ebadi, for her women's rights efforts in Iran.

Also, this is taken from his acceptance speech:

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize. Me and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build. A world that gives life to the promise of our Founding documents.

And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace prize has not been used just to honor specific achievement, it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21 century. These challenges cannot be met by any one leader or any one nation.

This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration, it's about the greatest efforts of people around the world. That's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity. For the young woman who marches silently on the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets, the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refused to abandon her commitment to democracy, for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away. For all those men and women across the world who sacrificed their safety and their freedom, and sometimes their lives for the cause of peace. That has always been the cause of America, that's why the world has always looked to America and that's why I believe America will continue to lead.

I thought it odd that he won as well, but there is a precedent for this and even he acknowledged it.

Originally Posted by commiecat

The Nobel Peace Prize has historically been given to people not for their actions, but for their determination and beliefs:

1919 - Woodrow Wilson, for his role in forming the League of Nations. The League of Nations was supposed to prevent future wars.
1935 - Carl von Ossietzky, for symbolizing domestic opposition to Hitler's rise. Hitler was in power until 1945.
1984 - Desmund Tutu, for leading the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid did not end until 1994.
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi, for fighting for democracy in Burma. Burma was, and still is, governed under a military junta.
2002 - Jimmy Carter, for efforts to promote peace in the Middle East. We know where that stands currently.
2003 - Shirin Ebadi, for her women's rights efforts in Iran.

Also, this is taken from his acceptance speech:





I thought it odd that he won as well, but there is a precedent for this and even he acknowledged it.

What's odd is that you claim that the Nobel prize is given not for actions, then you proceed to give examples of individuals who's actions (see bold in red) earned them the prize.

Originally Posted by commiecat

The Nobel Peace Prize has historically been given to people not for their actions, but for their determination and beliefs:

1919 - Woodrow Wilson, for his role in forming the League of Nations. The League of Nations was supposed to prevent future wars.
1935 - Carl von Ossietzky, for symbolizing domestic opposition to Hitler's rise. Hitler was in power until 1945.
1984 - Desmund Tutu, for leading the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid did not end until 1994.
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi, for fighting for democracy in Burma. Burma was, and still is, governed under a military junta.
2002 - Jimmy Carter, for efforts to promote peace in the Middle East. We know where that stands currently.
2003 - Shirin Ebadi, for her women's rights efforts in Iran.

It takes a lot of "guts" to compare the suffering of 10 days in the POTUS office with what Carl von Ossietzky had to go through when he was awarded the prize.

Congratulations for being one of the best masters of propaganda on this forum.

Originally Posted by honedright

What's odd is that you claim that the Nobel prize is given not for actions, then you proceed to give examples of individuals who's actions (see bold in red) earned them the prize.

So now we're going to argue semantics? It's an action to say your intentions. People against Obama winning the award cite that he's only said he wants to do things, without actually doing them. I'm pointing out that by that logic; Wilson didn't deserve it because his action failed, and Ossietzky and Tutu should have received their awards 10 years afterwards. What do you tell Ebadi and Kyi when they haven't changed a thing? Should the election committee wait to see if either achieves their goal, or do you give them the award for trying?

@sparq -- if you can't comprehend my posts then please refrain from replying to them. I wasn't comparing their life situations FFS -- I was citing people who got the award years before their belief/movement came to fruition. Talk about propaganda.

Originally Posted by majurey

I want to change Mark into a left-leaning liberal lush.

Where do I pick up my prize?