Nobel Peace Prize!

Someday I intend to give $100,000 to each and every citizen of the US.

Someday I intend to meet with all the world leaders for intensive talks until all standing armies are disarmed and all military conflicts ceased worldwide.

Someday I intend to use all the money saved by disarming the world's militaries to fund disease cure research, bring medical care to the world, and feed and cloth everyone, everywhere.

Someday I intend to "...teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..." le,la,le,la,di,dee,dee,da...

I have some really great intentions...Soooo, when do I get my Nobel Peace Prize?

I think the main reason that people feel the need to "beat up" on President Obama is that he seems to be pressing a socialist agenda on the rest of us and I don't like that. The United States of America is not Europe and we should not be heading in the direction that they have taken (in my opinion). Another reason for the disdain for this particular award is that this seems to be just feeding his voracious appetite for media attention. Much like him being on Monday Night Football last night. He might have been a decent "community organizer" but he's not a proven leader and has not accomplished anything thus far aside from getting elected to the Presidency. In my opinion, that was more of an accomplishment for the media to get him elected than an accomplishment of his own.

If President Obama ever actually accomplishes anything that I think is commendable then I will note that as well. Much like I changed my opinion of President Bush when he started his strides toward socialism with the bailouts and some of the parts of the Patriot Act.

Again, this is just my opinion and I don't claim to speak for anyone else.

"lazarus,

Irregardless of how you view it"

that's the funny part. i dont "view it" in any way. i gave little thought to the nobel prizes before, and i give them little thought now.

See? Who says we can't all get along? Here's Chef Boy R.D. offering to help Nathan pack his stuff for his hypothetical move.

Hey Chef, you know what they don't have a lot of in Russia? Clothes dryers. They have washing machines like us, but when their clothes are washed they hang them outside in the cold arctic air to dry, which I am sure isn't very effective. And for one month out of the year they don't have hot water because the steam plants need preventative maintenance. So you know what Chef, I might just move there one day and open me up a chain of laundromats.

snore

Poor Nathan. Since you are learning Russian, perhaps you would like to move there. The state can take care of you when you are to lazy to do anything yourself, feed you when you get hungry, take care of you when you get sick. Oops, you're to late for all that. At least you'll have plenty of vodka.

Chantal - sorry for diverting the blog for a moment, I just really would like to know whether or not Rosetta Stone is worth the price from someone besides a random web review.

-- Posted by Thom on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 9:39 PM

Rosetta Stone locked words in my brain faster than any other method I have ever tried. Not only do you remember the words, but you learn how to properly say them and you learn how to spell them. Writing the words with a pencil is a little hard, because of the muscle memory involved that you don't get, but you can practice that on your own. Before you get Rosetta Stone though learn the Cyrillic letters on your own. I recite them in the shower in the morning. What a nerd! :p

My challenge is that you attend church for the next 3 months of your life according to the list I provide. Miracle Tabernacle, Gateway, Peoples' Church and New Harvest. Do you accept? If not, then we know who lives in La La Land.

-- Posted by 1ukolsir on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 4:44 PM

Out of the list of churches you provided I have been to one, Miracle Tabernacle. It was a nice church with a talented group of musicians. I think that you may have the wrong idea about me and that is understandable taking into account my opinions on certain issues or the words that I choose to use on occasion. Maybe you think I am arrogant or that I think that I am better than others. I am certain that it would be very hard for you to define me with those terms if we spent an afternoon talking on your front porch. One thing I most certainly am is opinionated, and I can argue a box around someone pretty quick. You may disagree, but I do think that when I argue, I argue fair. I am happy to concede when I am wrong, because that means I have learned something from you. When I call someone an idiot on here it is usually because I believe that you either aren't using good logic, or you are using invalid data to back up your claim and you will not admit that fact when the opposite has been clearly shown. The second one is by far my favorite type. These are the type people that for example, argue that a song was sung by a certain artist and when you clearly prove to them that it wasn't by playing the album for them they still say you are wrong. I never have understood this type of person, but they sure are funny to me. There are probably more reasons that would cause me to use the word idiot that I have not mentioned, but you understand what I am getting at. Either way, as far as opinions are concerned, everyone has one and some opinions are right and some opinions are more right. Occasionally people will put an opinion out there that is just wrong and to make it right would involve some pretty large stretches of the imagination. I don't like those very much.

I am not sure what people think about me, and really I never have cared about that. I know me, and I am happy being me. Church by the way is counter to a good portion of the conclusions that I have come to over the course of my 31 years. I came to my conclusions via more than one path of course, but what ultimately pushed me over the edge was a very long struggle through an understanding of the evolution of species. It was not a casual determination that I made based on one event or one field of study though. I have faith that I have made the right choice for my life. To each his own though which is what makes America the greatest country in the world more than anything else. If anyone ever tried to change that basic principle of America, you can be sure that I will be the first to fight. Sorry about rambling and using I so many times. I'm just being real with you.

Congress writes the budgets-not the president.

But don't let petty facts like constitutional authority get in the way of your argument.

-- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 2:49 PM

What does the President do between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February?

Here's a hint quietmike: it involves 3 trillion dollars and a budget

You do know that you can call talk radio stations and if you want to challenge the host they will generally put you to the front of the line.

Try that with CNN.

This award is granted by the estate of a man in an attempt to clean up his own image. Nobel owned a company that made some legit weaponry. The kind made for killing men.

I'm not even sure why so many care about the award, especially since the prize money is what many of the prize winners would call "peanuts."

According to his will the award goes 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." (you all can read wikipedia as well as me)

In general, the President of the United States should be nominated, and considered the odds-on favorite, no matter who it may be.

Nathan Evans

As for your touted chart from Wikipedia, DEMOCRATS were in charge of congress then headed up by the drunkard "tip" O'Neal.

Congress writes the budgets-not the president.

But don't let petty facts like constitutional authority get in the way of your argument.

Demonizing those that you disagree with in such a negative connotation only goes to prove the accusations that people hurl at you and especially in a tone that makes fun of certain stereotypes.

In laymen terms . . . lazarus and Nathan are not the mental giants that they evidently perceive themselves to be if they have to resort to name calling and negative stereotypes when disagreeing with other individuals with a different thought process than them.

well, i am just outraged. when i read that elinor ostrom won the nobel prize in economics i just wanted to puke. i mean, lets be real. she is a woman. that can be the only reason she got it. just because she is a woman. shoot, that has to be how she got into graduate school to start with. it had to be some sort of affirmative action thing. we all know womenses aint smart enough to get in graduate school any other way. and what has she done? she aint done nothing. she made a theory. well a theory isnt something. heck, i caint even understand her theory. this is a flat out slap in the face of all the other nobel prize winners. i caint remember any of them but mother theresa, but i am outraged on their behalf. i tell you what. this is surely a sign of the apocalypse. when a woman wins the nobel prize in economics, the end cant be far off. this was all foretold in revelations, and now it is coming to pass. be afraid, be very afraid!

nathan...When 72% of this country defines themselves as conservative, I'd hardly call it dead. By the way, your "half-breed" comments are exactly what to expect from a liberal such as yourself. When presented with facts, you resort to launching personal attacks against those who are of a different opinion than yourself. With that comment, you have destroyed any credibility that you may have had. I have not read one single blog post of yours where you used anything other than Wikepedia as your source for facts to support your positions. Wise choice, that is if you continue to want to prove that liberalism really is a mental disorder.

Have a fine day my friend.

Quietmike . . . I agree with the point you made above to a degree. It seems that Obama and those around him want to shift America to be more like Great Britain and France and let me tell you, that is not a direction I desire to go or I would move there. Unfortunately many people don¡*t have enough world view to realize how bad of a direction that would be if we did follow that route. I believe there are many issues we can change and improve but I like America fundamentally as it is.

I guess I would like to see America run by centrists and moderates and not by far right or radical left wingnuts. I would also like to see more people take accountability for the actions and work toward improving their situation and issues instead of always expecting someone else to solve their problems. It would force more people to quit making bad decisions and take responsibility more. I think that is why I have moved away from the Democratic Party and started more independently in hopes my small step can help lead this nation back to more common sense ideals and beliefs and bring America back to what it use to stand for. Maybe I am an idealistic fool for believing that but I would like to think it can be done. ļ

If anything, it sounds like the conservatives are the ones that really have a problem with the United States. The whining never never ends with you people. Abortion, illegal immigrants, gay marriage, Obama, healthcare reform, prayer in school, cash for clunkers, the freaking Nobel Peace Prize, cry, cry, cry, soy, soy, soy. I like America just fine.

-- Posted by nathan.evans

Hmm, Wasn't it a liberal who campaigned on CHANGE?

If all you liberals like America so much why not leave it alone?

I knew I could count on you Jax. You are correct though, I do have a certain amount of disdain for a specific bunch of locals there that I would term as "Hazzard County Conservatives". Oh and when Liberals were whining, we were whining about things that actually mattered like war and Republican redistributions of wealth, not George Tenet being awarded the Medal of Freedom that he soooooo obviously deserved.

can't*

Nathan, since you like tho travel to other countries so much, try a new plan. Move to one of them and get out of the U.S. you dislike so much. You and many of us will be happier.

-- Posted by Chef Boy R.D. on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 11:16 PM

I'd rather reproduce with the native females of Tennessee to ensure that ignorant half breeds like yourself don't end up making the gene pool any shallower than it already is.

Hmmm, well since you asked. I am currently learning Russian and I speak to Russians everyday. These folks grew up in the former Soviet Union and could probably teach you a great deal about life in Russia. As a matter of fact I am visiting Russia in December. Some of these Russians live here where I live. They are some of the most hard working, intelligent people I have ever met.

Personally, I have been fortunate enough to spend a year in Japan and I have also visited Korea. I have also spent a lot of years in far away parts of the United States as well. I do understand what you mean when you talk about seeing the world from different points of view and that is perhaps the greatest lesson I have learned from my travels.

War mongers questioning the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize does not move me. When did peace become their concern?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 9:26 AM

Darrick,

The committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize lost ANY credibility it may have once had as of October 8th 2009. The Nobel Peace Prize itself is now worth no more than a dime store ring. It used to be awarded for great accomplishments. It has now been awarded for as of yet unfullfilled promises expopused by a politician who cut his teeth on Chicago politics, the most corrupt political system in the country.

Nuff Said

Everytime I hear anything in the news about our elected "fearless leader" and the first lady, I want to puke! Everything he says he's going to do hasn't been done or it will benefit anyone but the working class like us, or "Joe the Plumber" who he said he would help. With everything in the crisis like it is, reminds me of a historical account of a certain King Louis and Marie Antionette.

Nathan...Once again your liberal belief system has propelled you into sidestepping facts. The Nobel Peace Prize has never been awarded to a nation. It has always been awarded to individuals based on their past accomplishments that have somehow promoted peace. The United States of America was NOT nominated for the Nobel Prize, Barack Obama was. If simply being born part black meets the criteria for such nomination, there are literally millions of individuals in this and other countries who are far more deserving. As far as his winning the presidency is concerned, I can't think of a single thing in his past that qualifies him to be in that position either, but that's a debate for another day. So, please offer up one single shred of evidence of some great deed that Mr. Obama accomplished in twelve days that made him worthy of this award. I'm going to bet that you'll sidestep facts once again. But, then again that's what liberals do. I honestly don't know why I'm asking you to present facts that support your position when you so blatantly refuse to offer any.

-- Posted by Tattoos & Scars on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 8:46 AM

LOL!

Nathan...Once again your liberal belief system has propelled you into sidestepping facts. The Nobel Peace Prize has never been awarded to a nation. It has always been awarded to individuals based on their past accomplishments that have somehow promoted peace. The United States of America was NOT nominated for the Nobel Prize, Barack Obama was. If simply being born part black meets the criteria for such nomination, there are literally millions of individuals in this and other countries who are far more deserving. As far as his winning the presidency is concerned, I can't think of a single thing in his past that qualifies him to be in that position either, but that's a debate for another day. So, please offer up one single shred of evidence of some great deed that Mr. Obama accomplished in twelve days that made him worthy of this award. I'm going to bet that you'll sidestep facts once again. But, then again that's what liberals do. I honestly don't know why I'm asking you to present facts that support your position when you so blatantly refuse to offer any.

It is their prize. They can stick it in a wild hog's ear for all I care.

Another thought. Maybe Obama pulled a John Kerry by voting for recieving the award before voting against having second thoughts about it.

"Personally I see Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as an award for the American people more than anything. It just shows how far we have come in such a short amount of time."

Funny you write that, Nathan, after my friend let me know that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, I had to leave for work - I listen to NPR to see if they would talk about his win. They did. The one thing they kept bringing up was almost exactly verbatim what I quoted from you.

According to the rules set by the Nobel nominating committee, the criteria for even being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is that the proposed nominee must have accomplished (past tense)some great deed that promoted peace among nations. I will remind you once again that Obama was nominated for this award after serving only 12 days after taking office. This award has NEVER been given based upon the "hope" that someone might accomplish something. Based upon this principle, the Heisman award would be given to any player who "hopes" or "promises" to play well. Your arguments in support of this debacle only demonstrates your ignorance of the facts. That is unless you can point out some great accomplishment of his during the first twelve days of his presidency, and that my liberal friends is something you just cannot do.

Man, I really need to get a hobby. This is probably not good for my health. Goodnight folks.

Are you reading the same comments that I am Thom? You came in with your usual blah blah blah about Wikipedia, all because I linked to a graph (that happens to be correct by the way) and you somehow think that my argument is weakened because you don't approve of the source. PROVE THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE GRAPH IS WRONG IF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I don't understand you and your use of the Wikipedia is wrong defense. If it is wrong then it should not be hard for you to show us all that it is wrong.

I give up, Nathan, you and Wikipedia are all knowing. You're not at all being childish with your constant attacks on people simply because they disagree with you.

I've given you my personal e-mail so that we could hash things out like grown men, but you obviously aren't interested in that. You like to play your little games on the blogs. You border on threatening me in one post months ago, now you're "issuing a challenge"? You, sir, are pathetic. Grow up or shut up, Nathan. Although I have no idea why you should grow up now since obviously the Marines couldn't help you.

Put up or shut up Thom.

Thom I am issuing a challenge to you. I dare you to go out and find one wikipedia article that would be considered mainstream that is inaccurate. Honor system is in play here Thom, I know how you like to bend the truth to suit your needs and all.

You're right, once again I've been humbled by an individual that uploaded a random graph chart to Wikipedia, just like anyone else can. Why didn't I think of using Wikipedia as a reliable resource? Oh yeah, because it is NOT a reliable resource since just anyone can update or add items to it. At least link to the sources (White House OMB, for instance).

Or even to the article from which these graphs came, that notes that the US National Debt will grow from 9.99 TRILLION dollars in 2008 to an estimated 16.57 TRILLION dollars in 2012 (the next Presidential election). Actually, this chart shows a jump from 2008-2009 alone of over 28% (from 9.99 Trillion to 12.87 Trillion dollars).*

*These numbers are from Wikipedia and I did not research them beyond looking on there.

Nathan - You really have to stop this. There are two things within mere days on which you and I have agreed. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did fall due to their "failed economic system". The questions that I would pose now are:

Would this be the "failed economic system" where the government had control of the banking and financial industries?

Or would this be the "failed economic system" in which the government had control over every citizen's health care options?

Or possibly the "failed economic system" in which the government had control over the auto industry?

It may have also been the "failed economic system" in which the government created jobs for its people.

Then again, it might have been the "failed economic system" in which the government tried to provide for the needs of its people rather than allowing the free market to work.

Or maybe it was that the government wanted the citizens to rat on other citizens that complained of the "failed economic system".

Do any of these indicators of their "failed economic system" sound even remotely familiar to any of you?

Umm "Tattoos & Scars" if you can see beyond your narcissism for a few seconds you may realize that I could care less about the Nobel Peace Prize or the fact the Barrack Obama received it. I don't have a collection of Nobel Peace Prize commemorative plates hanging on my wall nor could I name more than 5 past recipients. If you are so worried about receiving an answer to your question, you should right a letter to the committee that issued the award. When you get your answer you should go and get a special tattoo on your forehead so you can remember it the next time the issue comes up since it is so important to you.

Nathan...Nathan...Nathan, you still can't do it can you? You, nor any other Obama supporter can tell us just exactly what he did in the first twelve days of his presidency that even warranted him getting the nomination in the first place. If you honestly believe he met the criteria of a Nobel Peace Prize nominee after serving less than two weeks in office, then you must also believe that every beauty pageant contestant is also worthy of being nominated for the Nobel Prize every time they open their mouths and express their personal desire for world peace. The Nobel Prize has now been cheapened to the point that the surprise in a box of Cracker Jacks has more value.

Perhaps,he's done something akin to the Treaty of Portsmouth and we missed it while we were focusing on John and Kate.

Theodore Roosevelt won the prize in 1906 but waited until he was out of office to accept it.

He wanted to use the money from the award for a foundation to further the cause of peace but wound up dispersing the funds (which had grown to nearly half a million of today's dollars) through humanitarian efforts (such as the Red Cross) that performed good works during and after the Great War.

Here is the statement of intent he made at the time.

"I think it eminently just and proper that in most cases the recipient of the prize should keep for his own use the prize in its entirety.

But in this case, while I did not act officially as President of the United States, it was nevertheless only because I was President that I was enabled to act at all; and I felt that the money must be considered as having been given me in trust for the United States.

I therefore used it as a nucleus for a foundation to forward the cause of industrial peace, as being well within the general purpose of your committee; for in our complex industrial civilization of today the peace of righteousness and justice, the only kind of peace worth having, is at least as necessary in the industrial world as it is among nations.

There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships."

The Nobel Prize officials made this statement when announcing Mr. Obama's selection.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

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 vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.

Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.

Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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.

His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

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 endorses Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.' "

Oslo, October 9, 2009

According to a CNN article:

"Obama said he did not feel he deserved 'to be in the company' of past Peace Prize winners, but would accept the prize while pushing for a broad range of international objectives, including nuclear nonproliferation, a reversal of the global economic downturn and a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He also acknowledged the ongoing U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that he is the 'commander in chief of a country that is responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people' and U.S. allies.

'This award is not simply about my administration', he said.

It 'must be shared' with everyone who strives for 'justice and dignity.' "

Sometimes,the goals of the peaceseekers are not fulfilled as they would have liked.

Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations faltered and though James Earl Carter was lauded "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",much remains to be done in these areas.

Perhaps,it is less necessary for a recipient to make great changes by himself as it is to insure that progress keeps coming from as many sources as possible.

The Nobel laureates would earn their distinctions by being both instruments and inspirations for positive change.

Perhaps,our current Chief Executive will further the plans his predecessors have attempted for over a century.

THAT would be bully!

It's funny how the people who accused Obama's followers of labeling him the Messiah are the very same who have expected miracles the entire time he has been elected.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 3:58 PM

Miracles? I expect no miracle from any mortal but I only give credit when credit is due.

Barrack Obama may very well be a fine man, a good father and a good husband but I must judge him on being a leader.

So far I have seen no evidence of him being a good leader.

I do not think going to Muslim Nations and apologizing for the United States is any reason for him to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The United States has given Millions of Muslim refugees a safe haven long before the name of Barrack Obama was ever heard. We give them every benefit that the United States has to offer even more benefits than the true citizens of this great country get. We are still in the mist of the same 2 wars that was going on while Bush was President.

Our very own country is more divided than I have ever seen it in my lifetime.

I just would like to know what peace efforts has he accomplished because I just don't see any yet.

maybe we will be blogging on this award next?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...

Giving him a award for anything is a crock of bull for he has done nothing, Reagan deserves a peace prize,I can think of several other way before BHO! or shouls we call him by his future name of Muhammad or someting like that which then we will see that he is as far away from peace as possible. Gimme a Break!

i figured out a long time ago that hate, like any corrosive, does the most damage to the vessel that carries it. i read what the nobel committee had to say, and obama's acceptance, and it would seem that once again hate radio simply creates it's own alternate reality to justify the endless stream of mindless hate. the reason you feel so frustrated and angry is because the hate you are swallowing is only poisoning you.

War mongers questioning the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize does not move me. When did peace become their concern?

Actually, Darrick, I believe the real question is whether or not President Obama is going to support the initiative of the commander that he put in place, or if he's going to turn his back on him and not support his strategies. Or one could ask why you can't get beyond the fact that Obama is in charge now so he needs to make decisions and stand behind them.

I don't doubt that this has got to be one of the most difficult decisions of his Presidency so far. But you either support the troops you have in place, or you pull them all out. Don't leave them there without the resources necessary to maintain. Like General McChrystal said, resources won't win this war, but a lack of resources will lose it.

Thom,

The real question is why the president who started the wars never sent the appropriate amount of troops to begin with... as HIS commanders advised him to do. At least Obama isn't firing the commanders that give him different strategies than he expected.

Well, Nathan, we can both agree on one thing...the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.

As for President Obama and Gen. McChrystal, if the General requested these troops in August, why is the President still trying to decide whether or not to send them? That just baffles me. I'm just wondering what the reasoning is for a civilian commander questioning the strategies of the military commander that he put in command.

TODATE THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH TIME TO GET ANY TRUE RESULTS.

--

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 7:35 PM

Seems the people on your side of the fence thought that George Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks only eight months into his term. The only thing that I have seen Obama accomplish is to bend over and denigrate the United States in every speech in every country he has traveled. If the U.S. was hated so much by nearly every nation in the world during the Bush administration as so many libs like to claim. Then why do most of them have their hands out for U.S. dollars for aid.

I imagine he may have been awarded the prize (of which there are many) for being the first to overcome the hateful, selfish and ignorant past of our ancestors (including some of his own). I have not heard what award he was presented, but his accomplishment in attaining his current position not only does in fact remain historic, it undoubtedly represents a milestone of human fraternity that was unthinkable even a few short decades ago.

I am no personal fan of Obama, or any other politician, but I can see how his achievement qualifies him for a prize. I do not give him credit for single-handedly changing the world. There are many (both celebrated and unknown) people who came before him who have paved his way, but his own achievements (in the past sense) are worthy of recognition. Failing to cede that fact does an injustice to all those who came before.

Tattoos&Scars and Grit - you both know that there's a difference between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Pulitzer Prize? If you don't, you really should.

I agree with Tattoos and Scars; if anything we should blame the Pulitzer board for giving President Obama this award. Here is a link to the board membership-http://www.pulitzer.org/board/2009, Which award did he get - the one for Journalism or was it for Letters, Drama and Music.

I have saved my opinion of did he or did he not deserve the award until I see why they chose to give it to him. Any great award such as this though that is given to a president is an honor for the country they are representing, simply because they are the face of that country that the world sees.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 8:09 PM

And again, wonderwhy, you didn't give any reason as to why Oboma deserves it. You pretty much repeated your first post but in all caps.

I wish the award was given to someone else who deserves it, who worked for it.

It's almost like, "Here's your award, Obama; Now live up to it."

-- Posted by Mary on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 8:42

Mary, if you look at the post above your comment you will see that I did in fact give you an answer, I had not read the reasoning behind them giving him that award yet so I had no opinion on that, I could have just rattled off something to make you happy but instead chose to no do that. Since i have read up on it since then and better understand their objective there, I can say I agree with their reasoning but I do feel they jumped the gun and should have waited till there was more to substantiate their choice.

Ok, now I understand why you were typing in all caps. You weren't trying to yell.

And again, wonderwhy, you didn't give any reason as to why Oboma deserves it. You pretty much repeated your first post but in all caps.

I wish the award was given to someone else who deserves it, who worked for it.

It's almost like, "Here's your award, Obama; Now live up to it."

I was not excited just to seperate my replys from comments I was replying to. Sorry did not mean to seem upset. Still learning the ropes of blogging.

Wonderwhy,

It wasn't given to our country, IT WAS GIVEN TO HIM!!!! Why? Your angry with all the responses you've aquired here yet still haven't afforded us a reason for his (winning?) of such an award.

People complained about Pres. Bush, but by The Grace of GOD and the extraordinary power of the american military there were fifty million people taken out of the clutches of tyrany. Rape rooms and torture centers were dismantled and women are discovering what it means to be free.

I can't remember the greek word, but fear and worship are the same.

in response to bigdaddy-----

wonderwhy,

I remember the first thing after the events of 9/11 that the democrats demanded, private security at airports be replaced by federal security. This was a private enterprise that was profit based and paid for by airports. Dems demanded and got what they wanted...42,000 new federal employees that you and I pay for.

Shortly thereafter, AARP and other liberal organizations cornered the president into a 580 billion dollar prescription drug benifit for seniors who to this day claim it hasn't helped them.

Also ringing in my ears of the past was No Child Left Behind. I know, we are all mad at George for a horrible program like this, however the departed one named Kennedy and his crew wrote the bill.

IN THE ABOVE STATEMENTS I FIND THAT YOU SEEM TO BE MAKING EXCUSES FOR BUSH'S DECISIONS, HE MADE IT OUT AND OUT CLEAR HE WAS GOING TO DO THINGS HIS WAY AND HIS WAY ONLY, I REMEMBER HIM TELLING US THAT IF WE WERE NOT WITH HIM TO GET OUT OF HIS WAY....... SO FOR YOU TO SUGGEST THAT HE WAS MANIPULATED AND FORCED TO DO THESE THINGS GOES AGAINST WHAT HE SET FORTH UP FRONT. HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY........ DO YOU FEEL HE WAS TOO WEAK OF A PRESIDENT TO STAND BEHIND WHAT HE SAID?

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT THE THINGS CLINTON SIGNED WERE NOT HIS FAULT BECAUSE HE WAS FORCED INTO IT, THAT IS THE SAME MENTALITY AND WELL IT CAN'T GO BOTH WAYS .

Politics have always been cut-throat, but these days we are all being sold down the river.

THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN IN OFFICE LONG ENOUGH TO ENACT POLICY AND SEE THE FRUIT OF IT, WE ARE STILL ONLY AT A POINT OF MAKING UNEDUCATED GUESSES AT THE OUT COME.ONLY TIME CAN TELL.

In summary,

You would never if your life depended on it say that George Bush would have deserved it, whether he did or not. That is obvious by the tone of your post. You have no hint of objectivity, in fact your words ring of democrat rhetoric spin.

HAD BUSH DESERVED IT AND BEEN HONORED WITH IT YES I WOULD HAVE BACKED IT, BUT WE ALL KNOW HE DID NOTHING TO EARN A PEACE PRIZE BY USING LIES TO START A WAR. AND HISTORY PROVES THAT. SO NO MY LIFE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE THREATENED, HAD HE EARNED IT I WOULD HAVE PROUDLY BACKED HIM WITH IT. I GAVE BUSH A LONG TIME OF BENIFIT OF THE DOUBT, HE HAD MY RESPECT FOR A LONG TIME INTO HIS SERVICE, HE EARNED THROUGH HIS ACTIONS MY DISTRUST AND THEN DISAPPROVAL OF HIS SO CALLED SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

So tell us if you can how to replace the moral among our troops in a war theatre where the commanding officer has asked for 40,000 troops and been ignored.

YOU GRUMP THAT OBAMA IS NOT SENDING IN MORE TROOPS, BUT IF HE WERE TO THEN YOU WOULD BE SAYING THAT HE SAID HE WAS BRINGING THEM HOME AND BROKE HIS WORD - IN CASES LIKE THIS THERE REPUBLICANS SPEAK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR FACE. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON THERE TO SAY IF HE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT SEND MORE MEN IN, I ONLY KNOW THAT THEIR SAFETY IS NUMBER ONE AND THAT SHOULD BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR.

Tell us how to teach poor people that laziness bequeath more poor generations. Unless someone suffers from a horrible handicap or mental disorder folks need to start accounting for themselves. I'm tired of hearing about The Less Fortunate. They should be refered to as Less Work Oriented.

SADLY THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR MANY YEARS , OUR COUNTRY HAS FOR FAR TO LONG HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO BE DEPENDENT, RATHER THAN A SYSTEM THAT REWARDS EFFORT BY HELPING THEM TO HELP THEMSELVES THEY MUST BE TOTALLY DEPENDENT UPON ON IT FOR ASSISTANCE ( EXAMPLE MUST BE BELOW POVERTY LEVEL FOR HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE, THUS FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN WORKING AND DOING WITHOUT OR NOT WORKING AND BEING COVERED) THE SYSTEM SHOULD ENCOURAGE SELF IMPROVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY. HELP THEM BUT INSIST ON THE PEOPLE ALSO HELPING THEMSELVES RATHER THAN JUST ALLOWING THEM TO SIT BACK AND RAKE IT IN. MAKE THEM ATTEND CLASSES THAT WILL HELP THEM GET OUT ON THEIR OWN.NOT ONLY DOES THIS TEACH THEM TO BE RESPONSIBLE IT WILL FOSTER SELF WORTH AND DESIRE TO DO BETTER. YES THIS WILL IN THE BEGINNING COST MONEY BUT IT WILL BUILD A FOUNDATION THAT WILL IN THE END PAY FOR ITSELF IN FEWER DEPENDENT PEOPLE. SO AGAIN THEY GRUMP ABOUT THE PROBLEM BUT WILL ALSO GRUMP ABOUT THE SOLUTION.......

Corporate greed is an easy one to fix. You go to school, study hard, find a job, work your way up the ladder and be a just CEO in your own right. Lead the way....from the front.

SURE IN A PERFECT WORLD, IF YOU COME FROM A FAMILY THAT IS WELL OFF ENOUGH TO DO SO. THE OLD SAYING IT TAKES MONEY TO MAKE MONEY, RINGS ALL TO TRUE. WHEN YOU HAVE NO MONEY TO BACK YOU THEN YOU MUST MAKE ENDS MEET AND SURVIVE BEFORE YOU CAN BRANCH OUT AND IMPROVE. THERE IS SOME HELP FOR THE POOR OUT THERE BUT THE LOWER MIDDLE CLASS IS STUCK IN A GRAY AREA AGAIN.

Homelessness? Every month I make a payment to a bank to keep myself and three others from being homeless.

Hunger around the world? As a liberterian I say the world shall wait until my country is is fed first.

I 100% AGREE TO THAT, AND THAT INCLUDES IMMIGANTS , WE NEED TO HAVE RESPECT OUR CITIZENS FIRST AND THEN REACH OUT TO OTHERS, WHEN WE CAN'T EMPLOY OUR OWN WHY ON EARTH DO WE SHIP IN MORE? AND WELL THE ILLEGALS, THAT IS A WHOLE OTHER PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED NOW !!! IF WE BREAK THE LAW WE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, SO SHOULD THEY BE, CROSS ILLEGAL - GO HOME OR TO JAIL WITHOUT ANY FRILLS!!!

Obama did not create the mess we are in. I'll say it again, and with all due respect...President Barack Obama did not create the mess we are in. But he is certainly adding to it by putting his hand in everyones pocket taking what he FEELS will fix the problem. And to date the result are horrible.

TODATE THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH TIME TO GET ANY TRUE RESULTS.

--

wonderwhy,

If Obama had done something to earn the prize, then I would have no problem it. I even have a problem with Al Gore winning it. That was crock as well.

As for helping people get jobs... Where is all of these "green" jobs that he was promising??? What about giving all of the stimulus money to banks and businesses to help save American jobs. The money given went straight to the CEO bonuses,etc. Big companies are still laying off.

The only thing that he has done is try to get "his" healthcare passed, try to get the Olympics, etc.

Maybe if he actually did something, because touring the late night talk shows, then nobody would see a problem with him winning.

Straight from the will of Alfred Nobel:

The peace prize portion will go "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."

How in the world did Obama do any of this within the first 12 days of his Presidency, the nomination deadline for this year? I just hope that President Obama can live up to the award that he'll receive in December. Let us just hope that the charity to which he donates his monetary award isn't ACORN.

I would love to know who it was that nominated him. I would be willing to wager (if it were legal) that it was either Jimmy Carter or Al Gore. We'll have to wait fifty years to find out, unfortunately.

Come on people, wake up. President Obama wasn't awarded the Nobel hunger prize, the Nobel Unemployment prize or the Nobel homeless prize. He was awarded the Nobel PEACE Prize...Get it, for peace !!!!Ever since dumb and dumber were in office, no one around the world wanted anything to do with us. We had few allies and even fewer friends. Basically, we were hated. President Obama is changing that country by country and that it why the award went to him. It wasn't given for final accomplishments but for future intentions. The fact that some leaders are willing to come back to supporting the U.S. is proof of that. For the naysayers, Obama did not get the award because he is president but for the kind of man he is.

Oh yeh, it doesn't read "The Democratic Nobel Peace Prize".

wonderwhy,

Ok, so are you saying he has done nothing to deserve it, too?

You ask a bunch of political questions, but can you honestly say that Obama has done SOMETHING/ANYTHING to deserve it?

He hasn't replaced millions of jobs.

He hasn't stabilized the economy.

And no, you can't stop world hunger, and homelessness overnight, but has he even put forth effort? -Besides the extension of unemployment which is crock.

There are jobs out there. The problem is, the people who are use to working factory jobs aren't willing to work at McDonalds, or other lower paying employers, because of the pay cut.

If they wanted to award him the prize, then they should have at least waited until he accomplished his "promises" first.

I think they gave him this prize because he made promises, not because he has accomplished anything.

simply put" it's a crock"!

Prplehze, spoken like a true republican,

you would never if your life depended on say he deserved it, weather he did or not. That is obvious by the tone of your post. It has no hint of objectivity, it only rings of republican rhetoric spin points.

So tell us if you can , how do you replace millions of jobs that it took years to destroy?

Tell us how to stabilize an economy where the middle class is being squeezed out by corporate greed?

What is your answer for ending homelessness , and hunger around the world?

Ok now explain how Obama caused all of this over night? And how he could have fixed it in 8 short months? And if it were so easy to do why in 8 years Bush did do absolutely nothing to fix these problems?

This is simply just crazy. I no longer think that the Nobel Peace Prize is a special award anymore. I mean, what has Obama done to deserve this??? He hasn't done anything!! The Peace Prize is about helping out humanity. What has he done?

Has everyone in the US gotten their jobs back? NO.

Has the economy stabilized and gone back up? No.

Has he help the homeless, the children who go hungry around the world? No.

I believe he got it for political reasons only.

I second everything jaxspike said.

This is not just given to anyone. The world recognizes a great leader when they see one even when some in America refuse to see or listen to any thing good about our president. Some american cheered when our own country lost the olympics out of hate for Obama. That is very sad. I pray that God continues to watch over Mr Obama and his family and also remove the hate from a lot of peoples hearts. .True christians do not have hate filled hearts. I am very excited about our president getting this award. All americans should be. The world is watching us.

Thats crazy, do they give them things out like candy now? Didnt Al Gore get one of them too a couple of years back? Is it a lottery where they just put everyones name in the hat and they draw the winner, because it seems to me you should have to have actually done something. Thats just me, I could be wrong though.