Really? You're saying this to Little32, despite the fact that your other half said she was insane ?
This is a reference to post 51

Do you want me to provide alternative candidates? Really?

I mean, I certainly can . . . but really?

Additionally, you're accusing me of not understanding you . . . but my whole point is that the Nobel Peace Prize has a history of questionable winners (Yassir Arafat, et al.). This is another in a long line - you can't argue both ways.

I addressed this. Respond to me, not him - we live a thousand miles apart and are different people. Unless you want me to start denigrating you by addressing DS or whatever. Act like an adult.

I did in fact respond to HIM. In case you didn't notice, I quoted him. my response was in light of the hypocrisy of him trying to call HER out when someone else had gone down that road ages before.


As far as acting like an adult, that's a laugh coming from someone like you.

HAM

Questionable in whose mind? And who are you to provide "alternative candidates?" Really? Are you serious?

In fact, why do you always seem to think your solution or answer is the best?

That's fair - I'm certainly in no position to claim I'm the oracle here. But it's completely disingenuous to claim that I'm wrong and you're right, because who am I to know what's right? Right?

Obviously "questionable" is subjective, and perhaps I should have made that more a part of my argument. Look, Obama can't be worse than Arafat or Kissinger - we're not at a low point. But to act like it's inane or stupid to think "Bwuh?" at the news that he won the vote 12 days after taking office seems odd to me. He might be the best choice - in fact, I'll say this:

I HOPE TO GOD ABOVE - LITERALLY, TO THE HIGHEST POWER - THAT BARACK OBAMA IS THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE AWARD.

But that doesn't mean he is. Hoping is like crying - nothing changes as an explicit result.

Actually, I agree with KSig RC. Some of the past winners have been very questionable, like Arafat and Kissinger.

There are 205 candiates for the award. I wonder who they other 204 are.

Well, the ultra-accountable and ultra-credible committee will tell us exactly who those people are!

In like 50 years!

Really? You mean just in terms of people questioning whether he should have won?

I'm just kind of alarmed by what this would seem to mean in terms of other people's efforts to do good in the world. If Obama, with relatively short list of real accomplishments to benefit other people*, is the most qualified, aren't we kind of doomed?


*I don't mean for an individual or for a US politician, because obviously getting elected President is an accomplishment. I mean a legacy of getting stuff done.


ETA: or did you mean that he would behave in the future according to the standards that the Nobel Peace Prize have rewarded in the past, which would still be at least 50% "Yikes" for me.

Just throwing in my two cents on the choice: I think it's just a nail in the coffin of the Noble awards in certain areas seeming anything but baldly political endorsements. It's not the final nail, or anything, but really, who cares? They can give their prizes and that's swell. The rest of us can just regard their value in the context of previous award winners.

It really isn't that serious.

You (and several others) are being absolutely ridiculous. No one is doomed. This award isn't going to cause any harm. Simply put, he is being recognized. He will receive the prize. It will be donated. Life will go on. You weren't on the committee to make the decision. It wasn't your call to make. There is nothing you (or any other naysayers) can do about it.

DI2 in all seriousness, why did he do to deserve it. You keep getting on us for saying we don't feel he deserves it, but all you say was we are not on the committee who chose him. That is true, but we are still entitled to our opinions. None of us are saying he will never deserve it, but we feel that he has done nothing as of yet to be considered "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."

Simply saying that this doesn't appear to have been given based on the typical selection criteria is one thing. Saying he just flat out doesn't deserve it is another. The latter is judgmental and presumptuous. Furthermore, if you are aware of WHY they gave him the award, then what is the problem? I think it has been made quite clear that he received it in essence because of EXPECTATIONS in the FUTURE. If that is the case, it is too early to say he doesn't deserve it because he hasn't had time to live up to those expectations. There's just too much eagerness surrounding his presidency. eagerness to see him operate as superman and transform the country and fix all problems in less than a year OR eagerness to say he is a bad president when he has been in office less than a year.

I think some people are overly critical of this because they feel he is getting too many accolades simply by being elected as the first black president of the United States.

Yes and that's why a lot of us are against this. He talks the good talk and that was enough for him to get what is considered one of the most prestigious award in the world. Nobody here is saying we expect him to work miracles in less then a year, or that he is a bad president because he hasn't fixed some pretty major problems. The point is he hasn't as of yet lived up to his promises, yet by saying he will he gets the Peace Prize? That's our issue.

What I guess I don't understand is why you feel you need to make it an issue. This is one of those things that is left up to the discretion of the committee. If they wish to break with their own tradition, they are well within their right to do so. They don't really have to answer to the general public.

Well, you said it best so in response to your first quote I give you your second. I've NEVER heard President Barack Obama say "I'm NOT black I'm biracial." Since the two are not mutually exclusive he never has to and most likely never will. Barack Obama IS black and always will be.

Yeah. I have never heard him say that either. He calls himself a mutt, but he has never stopped anyone from calling him black or made a big deal out of it.

And on more than one occasion, Michelle has told a group of kids that her husband is the first BLACK president of the country. I really don't think she would be doing that if he didn't identify that way.

Why did he get it and will it help him after losing the Games for Chicago? Okay he did not lose them but, it looks bad on his credit side of things, right? He is in charge of two wars at this time. He has not ever been able to work out the Middle East peace or problems anywhere else. Will the future be kind?

I wasn't following the bid for the games very closely. However, I am curious. How many countries were making a bid for the games? And why does he need "help" after "losing" the games for Chicago?

And you said he has not ever been able to work out the ME peace or problems anywhere...What do you mean EVER? He's STILL in office.

If this is going to be the criteria for awarding prizes, medals, etc. in the future, why don't we just start having committees decide before an athletic event who the committee EXPECTS to win the event, then award the medal or the win based on the expectation.

Or why even bother having elections any more, they are expensive and a waste of time, let's just have a committee decide who should win the seat because they are EXPECTED to win.

I think this new way of awarding based on expectations could save all of us a lot of time and energy in the future!

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Isn't all of the stuff concerning the Nobel Peace Prize done in Europe?

And that is EXACTLY why some of us (like myself) feel he doesn't deserve it........yet. If he fulfills all these expectations, then sure go ahead and give him the prize. But why should he get it now, when he hasn't fulfilled them yet? The Nobel Prize hasn't (at least from my understanding) been given out to just expectations, they've been given out to actions. He hasn't completed anything yet, he hasn't SHOWN anything yet (except that he apparently loves to talk). That isn't Nobel Prize worthy.

Mr. Cellophane, shoulda been my name
 

There IS a criteria - so may I please ask those who believe Obama won what exactly he did that qualifies him as having done the "most or the best work"?

I guess "best", being very subjective, is what might be argued, although I doubt very well.

Surprise me.

And this makes a good point - http://www.slate.com/id/2232026/

My point was actually that if Obama were in fact the top person in the world who accomplished something for peace with as little as he's really done then we were doomed, not that giving him the award meant anything at all.

The award is meaningless.

The problem is that it really is none of your business why they decided to give it to him based on expectations. Let the folks in Europe do what THEY want to do with an award that THEY give. People are wasting their time griping and complaining about it. Just because you and some others think he doesn't deserve the award doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things and thank goodness for that.

I completely understand why Europeans feel the way they do about Americans...

Yeah, thank you for providing such a great example.

Whatever.

And the attitudes concerning the olympics also validate my statement. I still can't believe someone had the nerve to say they wondered if this would "help" Obama after he "lost" the olympic bid for Chicago. REALLY? smh

Personally, I think the win was a bit premature. I'm not one to say "he didn't deserve it!!!!!" or "PROVE TO ME WHY HE DESERVED IT!!" It already happened. There's nothing anyone can do about it. The committee members thought he was the best for whatever reason, and they're the ones who decide who wins, so whatever.

Just because those in a position to award a prize chose someone does not mean they necessarily earned it - I'm reminded of the good ol' days of the Olympics when Russian and other Soviet Bloc judges could be counted on to blatently favor their athletes. Certain Academy Award winners have surprised me - and not in a good way. Emmys, Grammys, Tonys, heck, MTV Music Awards :rolleyes: - Debating the winners of subjective awards is the American way!

No one that I've read has advocated taking the award away, draw and quartering the judges, or really anything in terms of "doing something" about it. I've requested (both here and in my newspaper column) that those who feel he deserved the award let me know what it is they feel qualifies as Obama having done the "best and most" in promoting peace but no one does.

Giving something for nothing - the European way!:cool:

(I'm sure they'd love your characterizations):rolleyes:

What are you talking about?

Perhaps that is because in light of the circumstances, we aren't obligated to do so. No one has to answer to you or anyone else who disgrees with the decision because the committee has the discretion to do what they feel is best. The fact that they felt this way is enough for me and should be enough for you.

Like I said, there are settings in which Obama is very vocal about biracialism as his primary identity rather than Black as his primary identity.

Obligated? Strange choice of words. No, you are not obligated to answer me, but the failure to do so indicates that you have no valid answer to a very fair, logical question - what has Obama done to deserve the award? No answer would seem to indicate that you have, well, no answer to that question. Fair enough. But who are you to tell me that I cannot feel he was given the award for reasons other than those specified in Nobel's will? I've felt no need to tell those who feel he earned it that they are wrong or that anything that is "enough for me" must needs be enough for them. I would honestly like to know what it is that Obama has achieved since becoming president (never mind within the 9 days between his becoming president and being nominated) that merits the Nobel Peace Prize. And just as an FYI - he is hardly the first controversial award winner.

If, as you have done, you wish to criticize those who feel that he does not deserve the award then you have in fact demonstrated that "the fact that they felt this way is enough for me" is not true. If it were, you wouldn't be as invested in this thread.

No, it absolutely should NOT be enough for everybody - under similar logic, we would never question decisions by Congress, judges, juries, police officers, and others who may do what they think is "best" to disastrous ends.

It's fine if it's enough for you, but I see no reason why it is wrong or improper to feel differently.

No, it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer. You should know that from many of the discussions that have taken place on here. More than likely it is the presumptuous tone of your question.

And since, as you pointed out, he ISN'T the first controversial award winner, that should remove some of the shock and surprise.

The difference is that a foreign country is "in charge of" this award. I certainly do question things...when the US is "in charge of" it. I'm not arrogant enough to tell folks in a foreign country what they should or should not do. That attitude is why other countries have so much hatred towards the US anyway. Instead I leave my questioning for things that occur HERE.

If it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer, do tell why you (or anyone) who has a valid answer would play coy and not give it.

It's hardly presumptuous (presumptous of what, exactly?) to say I don't feel he fits the criteria (which I quoted, just in case) and to ask that if you do, please tell what he has done that would qualify him to win. If, for whatever reason, you chose not to disclose why you think he qualifies - what are we to think?

When did shock and surprise enter the conversation? I will say that Obama himself said he was surprised - did you expect him to win? Really? (Rhetorical question, btw.)

In case you missed it - the U.S. is a part of the world, and what happens in one country, affects another. The award is decided upon by 5 Norwegians, but it is an international award specifically designed to have a worldwide impact. So you are concerned about what other countries would think of us exercising free speech? Is your solution to shut out criticism of Obama (or in this case, really the Nobel committee)? You've said you won't give an answer to the question of why he qualifies - so are you just interested in being critical of those who quite simply don't think that he was the BEST choice - notice in my earlier post I went to the trouble of looking up other nominees, who I felt were better qualified.

The fact that you are so concerned with how criticism of the award might feed into international opinion of the U.S. is ironic given that one reason given for Obama's being given the award is the fact that his election changed the perception of the U.S. by other countries. If we are going for the whole isolation thing, then why should we be concerned with anything we are not "in charge of"? For that matter, using your "logic", why should any other country criticize the U.S. if they are not "in charge of " it? Iraq? Guatanamo Bay? Should the world have no say in these things because they are not in charge of it? The U.N. would have to shut down in every country were only in a position to have an opinion of those things they were "in charge of".

I honestly hope that Obama lives up to the opinion of the committee and is able to bring about a peaceful, non-nuclear world. That would obviously be a great thing. I just don't think he's done it yet or made enough progress towards it to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize.

(Smilies inserted at request of 7 yr. old son who is looking over my shoulder- :) :D ;) :confused::confused:)

Please see above.