Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. (Post 1856622)

Please see above.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle (Post 1856621)

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:)

Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1856754)

If the Nobel Committee want to cheapen the meaning of the Peace Prize, that's their privilege. Unfortunately, their decision also cheapens every Nobel prize they've awarded in the past.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1856663)

Which part has never happened before? Because each element is notably present, whether by sheer numbers and diversity (others have carried more of the popular vote across a broader spectrum), others have utilized a message of hope/change/empowerment (off the top of my head, Kennedy), etc., in previous presidential bids. Now, Obama's been the most recent, and certainly a big departure from Bush, but it seems like you're markedly overstating your case.

Now, I'm not trying to denigrate Obama's campaign, but it's just that: a campaign, one full of politics and promises, just like every other campaign. Trust me, I vastly prefer the politics of hope over those of fear or xenophobia or whatever, but it's too soon to say this new type of politics actually leads to anything substantive, don't you think?

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. (Post 1856817)

Yes there have been plenty of people who have run on the same message and there have been presidents who've carried more of the vote. Who is the last president who had this much international support before and after being elected president? How many U.S. presidents draw crowds of millions anywhere outside of the country (even before being elected)?
And by support and being able to unite people I don't just mean Americans. Im not talking about just his election bid. As a world leader Obama's efforts and support are not paralleled by many. There are not many people who have rallied and campaigned for peace and unity and hope at the scale Obama has. If you think of the people who have had this kind of world wide support names you might mention would be Mandela, Bishop Tutu, Martin L. King Jr. Now, I would not go as far to say that Obama is their equal exactly, but he has gone a step further than any of them has been able to. To come from relative obscurity and be able to achieve what he has is quite amazing. All the other world leaders of this magnitude came out of some MAJOR civil rights movement/ fight against injustice. Obama came from "average" America. That is a feat.

So, what I am saying about his efforts is not specific to his camaign for president only. His campaign and promises made are just a bunch of words that aren't worth a certificate from Staples. What makes Obama's efforts even remotely worthy of a Nobel is the overwhelming support and inspiration and change he has made around the world. There has been no person who has had this much influence this soon and has used positivity to gain it.

Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1856754)

That's what most people are questioning. If the Nobel Committee want to cheapen the meaning of the Peace Prize, that's their privilege. Unfortunately, their decision also cheapens every Nobel prize they've awarded in the past.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2 (Post 1856613)

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1856837)

I've avoided this thread for days because I knew where it was going to go. I wasn't disappointed, but here I dive in anyway.

Originally Posted by srmom (Post 1856839)

I must have a French aesthetic. ;)

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1856853)

Thank you.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1856856)

What do you mean by that? I bet you mean "you people."

God, what a racist :(

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1856859)

OMG! If the "you" shoe doesn't fit then don't wear it. :mad:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1856860)

*tempted to bring back the Bush/Shoe image*

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1856863)

I never found that incident funny.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1856863)

I never found that incident funny.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1856868)

See, but you can't question that incident, because it happened overseas - regardless of whether it affected an American President, foreigners have a right to conduct their own business without our interference or presumption that our way of life (AKA "don't throw shit at the President") is inherently right. How arrogant.

Originally Posted by srmom (Post 1856907)

As long as it's a European shoe, it will be okay. They are the arbiters of taste and discretion, you know. Never question anything coming out of Europe...

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1856914)

Originally Posted by srmom (Post 1856924)

The four members who are quoted in the article are named, Thorbjoern Jagland, Aagot Valle, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, and Kaci Kullman Five.

I think I can pronounce the last one, but I'll bake a batch of cookies for anyone who can phonetically spell the others.:p

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel (Post 1856977)

I know LucyKKG and I both can, likely icelandelf too. I don't need any cookies though.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1856868)

See, but you can't question that incident, because it happened overseas - regardless of whether it affected an American President, foreigners have a right to conduct their own business without our interference or presumption that our way of life (AKA "don't throw shit at the President") is inherently right. How arrogant.

Originally Posted by srmom (Post 1856834)

Even Clarence Page (who's Black btw) is questioning the validity of awarding Obama the peace prize. Is he a racist?

Originally Posted by deepimpact2 (Post 1857059)

for those who want to talk about threads going downhill. . .
They go downhill because of stupid comments like this. Why do I say that this is stupid?
Because you just took what I said and twisted it. As usual. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1857064)

We're just having fun with this dumbass thread now. Step aside.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2 (Post 1857059)

for those who want to talk about threads going downhill. . .
They go downhill because of stupid comments like this. Why do I say that this is stupid?
Because you just took what I said and twisted it. As usual. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1857103)

Let me know what I twisted, and we'll discuss. Mostly, it was meant as parody, but when I go back to read I do see increasing grains of your logic in there . . . I'd love to hear where my parody was silly, though. That would be divine.

Otherwise, keep asserting opinion as fact, and we'll go ahead and continue to have hilariously ineffectual threads everywhere.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1857103)

Let me know what I twisted, and we'll discuss. Mostly, it was meant as parody, but when I go back to read I do see increasing grains of your logic in there . . . I'd love to hear where my parody was silly, though. That would be divine.

Otherwise, keep asserting opinion as fact, and we'll go ahead and continue to have hilariously ineffectual threads everywhere.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1857103)

Let me know what I twisted, and we'll discuss.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2 (Post 1857230)

If an American President's security is compromised overseas, then clearly that would be an instance where the US would become involved. Awarding someone a Nobel Peace Prize is not even on the same level.