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.