Obama Wins a Nobel Prize and This Man is a Boob

**Athena** · October 13th, 2009, 04:20 PM

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world's most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation's leader -- elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority -- as unworthy of such recognition?

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

Okay, I know, it's just some conservatives who've been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as "Hanoi Jane" behavior. Others who haven't taken leave of their political senses -- and are familiar with the concept of manners -- responded to President Obama's unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.

Some of Obama's most strident critics, however, just can't give it a rest. They use words like "farce" and "travesty," as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate. Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush's cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama's credit -- and to our country's.

Read More... or don't because this guy is utterly ridiculous.

I voted for Obama. I also believe he should have politely declined this peace prize. To this man, it's apparently because I hate America. In reality...

The votes for said peace prize had to be tallied back in February. February. The man had been president for a month. Last I checked, peace prizes were awarded to those who had affected change... not those who simply promised to some day.

There's more to it than the fact that this award lacks merit, though. By presenting it to Obama, not only do they further damage the credibility of the award, but they deny a person or organization who could have actually benefitted from the accolade and publicity from getting it.

Whatever. What's done is done. But to call those of us who disagree with the award "addlebrained"? You talking heads are shameless.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 13th, 2009, 04:28 PM

The votes may have been tallied in February, but the voting occurred when he was in office for 12 days. The spin has been placed that it was based on the promise he had shown. I have a grandson that can make promises...

The prize became a joke when they gave it to a some dude working for climate change.

**Pete Bondurant** · October 13th, 2009, 04:51 PM

They awarded one of these things to Jimmy Carter for doing nothing, so why not B.O.?

I think that these awards are offered in vending machines now.

**Stella** · October 13th, 2009, 05:16 PM

I didn't vote for Obama but I am fairly embarrassed at the loud disrespectful opinions of the Republican party (and others). The office of the President of our country deserves more respect, but this is how our whole country is behaving now.

And what Dakota said about when the dude got the award for climate change. Same joke, different person.

I also thought Obama's acceptance speech was, well, lame. Probably the best the lot of them could come up with, which speaks volumes, since he knew he had been nominated. (And shouldn't someone on his staff have drafted up something just in case?) I mean the Prez talks every single day about something or another.

{S}

**sleepinwithangels** · October 13th, 2009, 05:50 PM

I've pretty much been a n Obama fan since he knocked out Hilary..(she's who I really wanted).

I do not agree that he is deserving of this award (yet.) I do hope that he does all the things that he promised and then he will be deserving of the award.

But, all this crap talkin is ridiculous..it's done..been over and done with for months..so Obama-Bashing and what-not is ridiculous at this point..be mad at him for the shit he is doing now..not the shit that was given to him months ago..

guy who wrote the article..douchebag

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 13th, 2009, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Stella

I didn't vote for Obama but I am fairly embarrassed at the loud disrespectful opinions of the Republican party (and others). The office of the President of our country deserves more respect, but this is how our whole country is behaving now.

And what Dakota said about when the dude got the award for climate change. Same joke, different person.

I love it how Obama bashing is frowned upon... like it's the first president it's ever happened to. NOT!!! Every president has had his opponents.

I respect Obama as our president. There are things that I would do for him because he is our president. I do not respect/believe/bow down to everything any president does and refuse to. That is the same attitude I have always had for every president during my lifetime. It is a right that every generation of my family has fought for since entering the country.

It does not mean the opposition is right, but a good think on a subject never hurt anyone. Healthy debate should be allowed and encouraged.

I do not blindly follow people because someone put a title before a name. It is our duty as thinking citizens to wonder and question.

Without opposing viewpoints, we might as well have a dictatorship or rename the presidency "The Great Sheep Herder".

**brokenandtwisted** · October 13th, 2009, 06:56 PM

I still chuckle every time I see the Obama/Nobel issue come up. Seriously, he accepts the prize and then immediately afterward speaks with his war council. Isn't that hilariously ironic?

A president with a war, who still uses Blackwater, openly suggests waging war with Pakistan, increases his troops in said war and even supports a bill to destroy/suppress evidence of torture. Peaceful, much?

Your president promises a lot. Half the shit he says is nebulous at best...but he promises change, and is awarded for promises. Funny...can I promise a cure for cancer and take the 1.4 million dollar prize, please?

**Pete Bondurant** · October 13th, 2009, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by brokenandtwisted

I still chuckle every time I see the Obama/Nobel issue come up. Seriously, he accepts the prize and then immediately afterward speaks with his war council. Isn't that hilariously ironic?

A president with a war, who still uses Blackwater, openly suggests waging war with Pakistan, increases his troops in said war and even supports a bill to destroy/suppress evidence of torture. Peaceful, much?

Hey there....you are making this fellow seem almost palatable!

**this is going badly** · October 14th, 2009, 02:51 AM

Obama won because he is not GW Bush who, let's face it was pretty much a retarded. Oops... sorry I mean "special". Bush was not "world leader" material. Obama did not nominate himself. He was chosen by a private group and his award is private money. The behavior of right wing American has been shameful. They make all Americans look like idiots to the rest of the world. It's high time to stop the nearly year long temper tantrum.

**this is going badly** · October 14th, 2009, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

I love it how Obama bashing is frowned upon... like it's the first president it's ever happened to. NOT!!! Every president has had his opponents... Healthy debate should be allowed and encouraged.

I agree that opposition and questions are important, but you hit the nail on the hear when you said bashing. Very little of the "commentary" I have heard from the right has anything to do with what Obama is doing or not doing. It is non stop muckraking and fear mongering. Most of the taking heads on FOX are a great example. Just look into Glen Beck's reporting on CNN and you will find a pretty clear liberal bias, Just over a year ago he was an advocated for national health! Beck goes to FOX and becomes a Right Wing poster boy almost overnight. Is the position he represents his own? I doubt it. He is not a journalist, he is a TV personality. Speaking of sheep... Becks supporters are filling his bank account and feeding his ego. He will walk away a wealthy man and be laughing his ass off when he does.

Sorry for the rant. Bull Shit really chaps my ass.

**malq** · October 14th, 2009, 05:10 AM

Just the mere fact this title showed up in Three Things pretty much says it all.

The NPP lost all credibility a long time ago. It has become nothing more than a political tool. Mother Theresa is the only one that ever deserved it in my opinion
in 1979.
check out the list. http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 14th, 2009, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by this is going badly

I agree that opposition and questions are important, but you hit the nail on the hear when you said bashing. Very little of the "commentary" I have heard from the right has anything to do with what Obama is doing or not doing. It is non stop muckraking and fear mongering. Most of the taking heads on FOX are a great example. Just look into Glen Beck's reporting on CNN and you will find a pretty clear liberal bias, Just over a year ago he was an advocated for national health! Beck goes to FOX and becomes a Right Wing poster boy almost overnight. Is the position he represents his own? I doubt it. He is not a journalist, he is a TV personality. Speaking of sheep... Becks supporters are filling his bank account and feeding his ego. He will walk away a wealthy man and be laughing his ass off when he does.

Sorry for the rant. Bull Shit really chaps my ass.

As a person who grew up listening to Big Eddie (and knows him - he's local and a family friend), I can tell you that the left is no different than the right, Opinions are opinions, assholes are assholes, and money talks.

Being branded as stupid, un-American, or racist for disagreeing with the Big O is ridiculous... and THAT chaps my ass and it makes me wonder all the more.

**TheMorningStar** · October 14th, 2009, 09:47 AM

They give awards for effort in grade school but I think our public servants need to be held to a higher standard.

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by this is going badly

Obama won because he is not GW Bush who, let's face it was pretty much a retarded. Oops... sorry I mean "special". Bush was not "world leader" material. Obama did not nominate himself. He was chosen by a private group and his award is private money. The behavior of right wing American has been shameful. They make all Americans look like idiots to the rest of the world. It's high time to stop the nearly year long temper tantrum.

I agree one hundred percent. Well said. Its really pathetic and embarrassing; he couldn't do a thing right for some Americans if he tried. They were losing their shit from day one no matter WHAT he did. Barack Obama is an amazing man and a great President. Thats all I'll say for now.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 14th, 2009, 10:09 AM

From the Nobel website:

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...aureates/2009/

As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated 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".

Mahatma Gandhi, one of the strongest symbols of non-violence in the 20th century, was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, shortly before he was assassinated in January 1948. Although Gandhi was not awarded the Prize (a posthumous award is not allowed by the statutes), the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to make no award that year on the grounds that "there was no suitable living candidate".

Jane Addams was nominated 91 times between 1916 and 1931, when she was finally awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. By contrast Emily Green Balch, Fridtjof Nansen and Theodore Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize the first year that they were nominated.

Roosevelt won in 1906 after he "offered his good offices to mediate the dispute; the result was the Treaty of Portsmouth signed by Russia and Japan on September 5, 1905, at Portsmouth, N.H., U.S.A."

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 14th, 2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Echo

Its really pathetic and embarrassing

Demands of lock step thinking and denigrating anyone that has a different opinion is what is pathetic and embarrassing.

I am not anti-Obama. He has some ideas I really like. I did not vote for him or Bush. What I am against is Obama worship. Even he admits he has gotten some things wrong on the first try and made adjustments.

If it is not OK to have ideological differences with Obama, then it is not OK to have them with Bush or any other president or party.

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

Demands of lock step thinking and denigrating anyone that has a different opinion is what is pathetic and embarrassing.

I am not anti-Obama. He has some ideas I really like. I did not vote for him or Bush. What I am against is Obama worship. Even he admits he has gotten some things wrong on the first try and made adjustments.

If it is not OK to have ideological differences with Obama, then it is not OK to have them with Bush or any other president or party.

Im sorry Dakota. I have to disagree. I see zero lockstep thinking with this administration. The lockstep thinking was in the past 8 years when Bush sent us to war on a LIE and the majority of our country had no problem with it due to the fear mongering and mistruths that were being literally SPOONFED to them via fox news and the Bush Administration.

That was lockstep thinking. It was horrible no matter what party you belonged to and im still embarrassed by it.

People were flipping out about Obama within days of his inauguration. It is very clear that there are a ton of people that were and are never going to give him a chance to do his job. Not saying that you are one of them but its an undeniable fact.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 14th, 2009, 10:42 AM

Do you even watch the news? People were flipping out right and left on Bush, too. In fact, they have for nearly every president. This is not new shit.

Blaming it on Fox News says a lot.

If that was even remotely true, Obama would not be president. What happened? All the spoonfed sheep suddenly woke up and grew a set?

Why is Fox News so bad? Because it leans right? What is wrong with that? It is wrong to have a different opinion than the just-as-obvious-leaning MSNBC?

In the case of the Nobel Peace Prize, voting for Obama after 12 days in office is silly. There are others with actual deeds (not promises) that are far more deserving. It made the prize a further joke. What is un-American for seeing the obvious in that?

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 14th, 2009, 10:46 AM

I do think Obama winning the prize will do wonders for our international image. But that is a double edged sword that makes me wonder about the thinking skills of those international folks.

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

Do you even watch the news? People were flipping out right and left on Bush, too. In fact, they have for nearly every president. This is not new shit.

Blaming it on Fox News says a lot.

If that was even remotely true, Obama would not be president. What happened? All the spoonfed sheep suddenly woke up and grew a set?

Why is Fox News so bad? Because it leans right? What is wrong with that? It is wrong to have a different opinion than the just-as-obvious-leaning MSNBC?

In the case of the Nobel Peace Prize, voting for Obama after 12 days in office is silly. There are others with actual deeds (not promises) that are far more deserving. It made the prize a further joke. What is un-American for seeing the obvious in that?

Of course I watch the news. People were flipping out on Bush because that administration was one of the most criminal and secretive that we have ever had.

Obama was elected because yes alot of the spoonfed sheep DID wake up and smell the lies, they were losing their houses, broke, unemployed, and their sons and daughters were sent to Iraq to fight a war for Oil and Halliburton, that coupled with the fact that young people voted in DROVES, more than any other election.

Fox news is absolutely terrible, its a joke, and unfortunately is the #1 news source for this ill informed country. It is owned and controlled by the mogul Rupert Murdoch who also controls most of the print news. So yes, I have a problem with that. No one person, corporation, or otherwise should have so much control over what the average American reads and hears about such important issues; right OR left. Its yet another example of lockstep.

News should be unbiased and when it isn't it has its effects as we have seen over the past eight years.

Also, I never called you Unamerican. I respectfully disagree with your opinion is all.

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 11:06 AM

I think it is also important to point out that Barack Obama himself was responsible enough to publicly say that he didn't deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

His critics need to stop acting as if he campaigned for it.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 14th, 2009, 11:06 AM

You have not called me (or anyone) un-American. But it has been said by others of people that disagree with Obama. I disagree with very few of his ideals but do disagree with some of his ideas.

I seriously believe that a goat could have run against Bush and one. That does not make the goat something I should worship and assume it is always right.

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

You have not called me (or anyone) un-American. But it has been said by others of people that disagree with Obama. I disagree with very few of his ideals but do disagree with some of his ideas.

I seriously believe that a goat could have run against Bush and one. That does not make the goat something I should worship and assume it is always right.

I personally do not think he is always right. He is human and not a deity. Yes he is adored but so was Bush. They are just polar opposites. I agree and disagree with the President. I don't think it should be any other way.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · October 14th, 2009, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Echo

I think it is also important to point out that Barack Obama himself was responsible enough to point out that he didn't deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

His critics need to stop acting as if he campaigned for it.

And his worshipers need to stop acting like he did deserve it.

I respect him for that. He may "grow into it". I hope so.

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

And his worshipers need to stop acting like he did deserve it.

I respect him for that. He may "grow into it". I hope so.

I hope so too.

**Death Bed** · October 14th, 2009, 11:45 AM

Obama is trying harder to please everyone than focusing on being a successful president. His "HOPE" campaign, even if it was well-meaning, is entirely unrealistic. One man can not save the ENTIRE country. The country has to do it's part and put some effort into saving it's self. He has not a legitimate candidate for the Nobel Peace prize, a better candidate would be Angelina Jolie who ACTUALLY is a humanitarian IRL, not just when the cameras are on.

People are caught up in Obama's charisma and fail to look past the facade to see a guy who has been thrust in a position of power who really doesn't know what he is doing at all. And he's just as good a public orator as G.W. ever was, most of his vocabulary consists of "ummmm" and "extraordinary".

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Death Bed

Obama is trying harder to please everyone than focusing on being a successful president. His "HOPE" campaign, even if it was well-meaning, is entirely unrealistic. One man can not save the ENTIRE country. The country has to do it's part and put some effort into saving it's self. He has not a legitimate candidate for the Nobel Peace prize, a better candidate would be Angelina Jolie who ACTUALLY is a humanitarian IRL, not just when the cameras are on.

People are caught up in Obama's charisma and fail to look past the facade to see a guy who has been thrust in a position of power who really doesn't know what he is doing at all. And he's just as good a public orator as G.W. ever was, most of his vocabulary consists of "ummmm" and "extraordinary".

I think its quite the jump to state that he doesn't know what he is doing at all. At least he doesn't knock himself out with pretzels, can pronounce nuclear, can put together and intelligent sentence, and actually has a brain in his head.

Barack Obama NEVER said he could save the entire country. In fact, if you listened to his acceptance speech he stated that the country was in SUCH A MESS that what he needed to do could not be accomplished in one term and maybe not even two. At least he is working on some long needed change. Hell, at least he is WORKING which is more than I can say for the past administration.

He himself stated that he did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize and as far as trying harder to please everyone...I totally agree with you and want him to start doing more of the unpopular things that he needs to do.

Certain people in this country will NEVER be happy with anything that he does and he needs to just stop worrying about it.

He is a good President and I cant wait to see what he gets accomplished in the next 3 1/2 years.

**Death Bed** · October 14th, 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Echo

Barack Obama NEVER said he could save the entire country. In fact, if you listened to his acceptance speech he stated that the country was in SUCH A MESS that what he needed to do could not be accomplished in one term and maybe not even two.

The key words there is "acceptance speech". Never, during his campaign did he inform the people that it would require work. Common sense should have told them that already, but Americans sadly are looking for a quick fix. They elected a black man to be president and act surprised when he tries to borrow his way out of debt.

**Echo** · October 14th, 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Death Bed

The key words there is "acceptance speech". Never, during his campaign did he inform the people that it would require work. Common sense should have told them that already, but Americans sadly are looking for a quick fix. They elected a black man to be president and act surprised when he tries to borrow his way out of debt.

Actually you are very wrong. He reiterated over and over again how much work it was going to take. Like a MANTRA. And he told Americans that he needed them to rally behind him and work with him for change. Have you ever actually listened to one of his campaign speeches or are you simply spouting off ridiculous B.S. ?

PS....the last sentence in your post is repugnant and ignorant. Have fun going through life stuck in another era while the rest of society slowly but surely passes you by.

**Death Bed** · October 14th, 2009, 12:10 PM

I never heard him say anything in his campaigns about how much work it was going to take....but granted I never really listened to him to begin with, much like you with George Bush Jr., who did more for the black people by helping out Africa than Barack has done by conning them into electing him. He got the majority of the black vote simply because he himself is half black. Granted, there are some blacks who are smart enough to see through him, but the majority just wanted a black man to be president, without knowing ANYTHING about him AT ALL other than his pigmentation.

And if you really feel George Bush Jr. was such a crook and went to war based on a lie.....Barack Obama is sending MORE troops over there......