Did A Modest And “Deeply Humbled” Obama Make The Right Look Foolish?
President Obama struck a remarkably humble and modest tone in a speech today where he announced his intentions to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, which was announced earlier today. This is a remarkably different tone from that of his conservative critics, perhaps best exemplified by the outright laughter from MSNBC Host Joe Scarborough (who was later allegedly called out by the White House). Video of his speech after the jump.
Our answer to the question in the headline? Yup! Tell us what you think in the poll below.
65 comments
ImNotBlue says: Well, it’s because what he said doesn’t make sense. He talked about how the award, for him… is not an award, for him. Well, yes it is. You don’t “share” the NPP… you get it for the things YOU do/did… or in this case, the things… you… um… things… you… uhhhhh… well, you get it for things.
However, the funniest part of the speech was when he listed all the people who he was “sharing” the award with… the folks fighting for democracy, etc. etc. THOSE are the people who should have won the award… not Obama! What he said was, “You are all doing the hard work, the suffering… and I… I represent you,” or in other words, “I’ll take credit for your suffering.”
I’m sure if they could have heard his message (but they can’t because they’re fighting, hiding, dead, or otherwise oppressed), they would have said, “Thanks!” Only pausing momentarily to realize Obama has some tough fights of his own… namely Joe Scaraborough. “Wow,” they must think… “Here I am, risking my life.. but Obama takes on a talk show host. How brave.”
What he should have done is refuse to accept it. He has accomplished nothing other than fooling the American people into voting for him. That said, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for phony ass global warming — so I guess the president is in pretty good company.
Zakk says: Did A Modest And “Deeply Humbled” Obama Make The Right Look Foolish? – I think you could answer this question with the same reply to this question; has Obama done anything to deserve a Nobel Prize? Nope!
The funniest part is that Obama is actually fighting democracy in Honduras. The person who should have won that award (if it were a serious award — which it isn’t) is George W. Bush for fighting terrorism on behalf of the free world.
Zakk says: Chris, I’m not sure, but I think you can be jailed for talk like that.
TfT says: The quick answer to the question is: NOPE!
LOL, Obama humbled! HAHAHA HOHOHO HEHEHE
For the committee to award this for things HE MIGHT do is a slap in the face to all those who already DID.
“A call to action”? For what, withdrawing from Afghanistan?
The NPP has been meaningless since it wad awarded to Yassar, now it’s just a joke, pure and simple.
tjl says: I don’t think it was Obama being humbled that made the Right look stupid. I mean, look at the idiots above. Cry babies. he uneducated class, i.e. the Right, make themselves look stupid. And I think it’s more about another black man winning an award that has Chris Jones and the racist un-class all up in arms. It’s a tough time to be a racist, isn’t it fellas?
Geroge W. Bush should get a high school diploma first before we start handing him awards. Remember how retarded that dude was?! Yeah, I do too!
tjl says: Bush is/was retarded, in case you missed that Double-Chin Jones….
m says: >What he should have done is refuse to accept it.
Nobody does that. That’s an incredible insult to the Prize and the Committee. You just don’t refuse to accept a Nobel Prize when you’ve been awarded it. *Especially* if you’re the President of the United States.
It doesn’t take much. I’ll use this thread as Exhibit A. Lot’s of foolishness going on.
And still no sign of Captainunamerican. Must be organizing his Taliban talking points.
m says: >For the committee to award this for things HE MIGHT do is a slap in the face to all those who already DID.
The Peace Prize is given all the time just in order to promote something, before “it” has happened.
Kissinger in 1973 (Vietnam war wasn’t over). Gorbachev in 1990 (before the fall of the Soviet Union). Arafat in 1994 (mid-east peace conflict still not solved). Gore in 2007 (solving climate change is still far away).
I just find it ironic that in the past decade, people that conservatives just love to hate have gotten plenty of Nobel prizes: Carter got his in 2003. Al Gore got his in 2007. Paul Krugman got his in 2008. Now Obama gets it.
Zakk says: “Cry babies. he uneducated class, i.e. the Right” – he, he, he, ‘he uneducated class…” really?
Although I enjoy your baseless attacks on the right, I would like to know what it was that Obama did to deserve the prize? I think the award is a pointless thing anyway that lost all credibility when Arafat won, but seriously, what has he done that deserves this award?
Now, this is where you come back with more conspiracy theories about the right and avoid the question.
M – I agree that it would be just as big a waste of time to ‘refuse’ the award.
@m an “insult to the prize and the committee” — LOL The same committee that gave Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Yasser Arafat the prize? Ha!
@Zakk it lost all credibility when Arafat one and then became nonexistent when Al Gore won for phony global warming.
@til, yes you got me. I don’t think Obama deserved it. (meaning I hate black people)
Jim Treacher says: “Let me be clear” = “Here comes the horsecrap”
Colby Hall says: I believe that the right is WAY overplaying this (particularly on the heels of the cheers surrounding the Olympic bid failure). Look, there’s plenty of solid, policy driven reasons to criticize the Obama administration (just as there are many to support it.) However, mocking the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded a sitting US President makes one look beyond petty. It makes one look foolish. Just my two cents.
Thanks for reading and keep the comments respectful please!
If Obama had class instead of arrogance, he would have rejected the award. He would have instead given it to a high ranking general, and said it was a gesture to honor the brave men and women of the U.S. military who have risked so much and done so much for the cause of world peace.
The only ones who look foolish are the Nobel committee, nominating a man so soon and awarding him for accomplishing nothing. You can’t spin it any other way.
Obama now finds himself in the company of anti-Semite Jimmy Carter, “global cooling I mean global warming I mean climate change” profiteer Al Gore, and unrepentant terrorist Arafat. Obama was stupid to accept the award, fake humility or not.
The inevitable backlash from Fox and Friends:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/10/fox-and-friends-on-obamas-nobel-peace.html
JJ in Texas says: well said Colby Hall – we need debates not cat fights.
m said: “Nobody does that. That’s an incredible insult to the Prize and the Committee. You just don’t refuse to accept a Nobel Prize when you’ve been awarded it. *Especially* if you’re the President of the United States.”
The Nobel committee deserves to be insulted for giving Arafat the award, and for ignoring the true intention of the award and making it a purely political prop.
For years I’ve said one of my goals in life would be to win a Nobel Peace Prize…then donate the prize money to a worthy charity, spit on the award, throw it to the ground, stomp on it, and grind it under my heel and proudly proclaim, “That’s what I think of this worthless, meaningless piece of garbage. I refuse to accept this farce of an award and join the likes of the murderous Arafat.”
tjl says: Zakk, with two”k’s” is it? Pretty hip, bro. Listen, I forgot the “T” in a sentence and you misspelled your own name. We can look past our petty mistakes. We cool, ZaKK?
Simple – he restored the way the rest of the world looks at us. George W. Bush was a fear-monger, a murder, retarded (though he could spell his own name!)… but, to his credit, aside from 9/11 (you guys remember that?), he kept our country safe.
And really, ZaKK, does it matter if he deserved the Peace Prize? Really? Are we really hurt by the fact that Chicago didn’t get the Olympics? What hurts is that the uneducated class, the Right, cheers when we lose and cries when we win. Just shut up and accept that we live in the greatest country in the world and Republicans are ashamed of our great country. It’s an honor that OUR president received the prize. It would have been an honor to have Chicago win the Olympics bid. You can go on rooting against America, you Patriot you! Not me..
Oh, yeah, and my baseless claim…
58% of people with Post-Graduate degrees voted for Obama, while only 40% voted for McCain last November. And, yeah, I have one of those so-called Post-Graduate degrees. I am better than you, ZaKK. Believe it. (a toilet…. you kill me bro! as you say, “he, he, he”)
tjl says: Tony, trust me, you aren’t going to win any awards in your lifetime. You should really rethink your goals.
TfT says: I don’t think laughing at this is over reacting at all. The man got the award after being in office for 12 days! Now even you Colby have to laugh at that. What did he do? Nada, zilch, zero…..just go back and look at that SNL skit, or maybe go watch CNN’s critical review of that comedy skit (another laughable moment).
It is laughable. Obama calls it a “call to action” by whom? The elitists on the Nobel committee?
The committee poked their finger in the eye of those nominees who actually accomplished something.
It is not just the right that is laughing at this award.
momo says: Modest And “Deeply Humbled”
WAY funny!!
Is this The Onion?
tjl says: Fat Jones, you got it backwards…. You hate black people, therefore you don’t think Obama should have won.
Hey, quick question to my friends on the right — who “should” have won? I would love to see who you guys think should have won. (note: an unacceptable answer is — no one, they are elitist lefties, socialists, no credibility, etc.)
libra blue says: “yes you got me. I don’t think Obama deserved it. (meaning I hate black people)”
@Chris Jones, You got that right! The worst part is that this “win” for Obama diminishes the awards of previous winners like Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela who worked for years to earn such an honor and it lowers the standards for future nominees.
Since Obama has accomplished nothing as senator or president I would like to see the nominees he beat. They must be total losers!
libra blue says: @TfT, Since the nomination process starts the September before the awards are issued I am curious to know who the hell nominated BO and what reasons they gave.
I mean “you can put lipstick on a pig, but. . . ,” well you know how that goes.
Zakk says: FYI – I can spell my name however the hell I want, dick wad’. We Cool?
I was simply pointing out that you like to call others retards, but apparently you are too stupid to use your spell check. I realize it was a simple typo and I was making light of it, but you went ahead and tried to make things personal. Such a tiny, tiny person you are. We Cool?
“What hurts is that the uneducated class, the Right, cheers when we lose and cries when we win.” Kind of like when troops died in Iraq, the left would get all excited. Face it, for the 8 years of Bush’s presidency you and your ilk were rooting for the opposition. Sorry, you can’t just suddenly be pro-American just because you won an election. We Cool?
“58% of people with Post-Graduate degrees voted for Obama, while only 40% voted for McCain last November. And, yeah, I have one of those so-called Post-Graduate degrees. I am better than you, ZaKK. Believe it.” – Elitist? – Typical. We Cool?
“Fat Jones, you got it backwards…. You hate black people, therefore you don’t think Obama should have won.” – why is it when ever you don’t have a real answer to a problem, you pull out the race card? Pretty pathetic. We Cool?
As far as who should have won, I’m going to say anyone who as actually accomplished something for the greater good of the planet. Why did Obama win? I know, just by asking that I am a racist, right? We Cool?
Now, don’t you have a mirror to go look into so you can reflect on how great you are? We Cool?
Jelperman says: Of course the Republitards got owned. They simply have no idea of how conduct themselves with anything resembling class or dignity, and are made to look like utter wankers by people like Obama who DO know how to behave with class.
@libra blue It just shows that the award has become about leftist politics than about peace or good works. People like Mandela, Mother Theresa, and others deserved the award and gave it credibility. At some point things when off the rails and people like Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, and now Barack Obama started winning. Europe loves Obama because he speaks the same language as they do — the language of appeasement. What history has shown us is that it’s much more important to be feared than liked.
ImNotBlue says: m says:
October 9, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I just find it ironic that in the past decade, people that conservatives just love to hate have gotten plenty of Nobel prizes: Carter got his in 2003. Al Gore got his in 2007. Paul Krugman got his in 2008. Now Obama gets it.
Yes, M… we all agree that the NPP is an ideologically based “award” given to those who promote left-wing group-think. It’s nice to agree on something, isn’t it?
But anyway… I think you’re mistaken (shocker) in the idea that Obama couldn’t have turned down the award. I think if he had come out at the speech and said, “I am deeply humbled by this award, however I don’t feel it appropriate for me to accept at the time. As I have said since my earliest campaign days, my presidency will not be ABOUT ME, it will be about what WE ALL can achieve. And while this is clearly a great honor, I am only the spokesperson for change… the American people and the rest of the world calling for change, they are the real one’s who should be honored.” And so on… It would have shown great humility and respect… the left would have loved it because they could say, “What a great guy he is,” and the right couldn’t complain about squat (except about the NPP committee themselves, and how far would that go?).
Turning down the award would have been a bold statement, and made Obama look really strong. I doubt the NPP prize committee would have stopped looking at him fawningly (and no doubt nominated him again and again the following years). Instead, he essentially said, “Thanks for everyone else’s hard work, you got me an award.”
tjl says: ZaKK, we are cool! I love this!
Great answer to my question — “anyone who actually accomplished something for the greater good of the planet.” No one in particular. I guess that’s because it would mean having to actually care about shit like that. Heck, I woke up this morning and rode my bike to work — thus cutting down my carbon emissions. I was robbed!
I just pull the race card on Chris Jones because we have a past. You should consider that. Jones and I went to high school together and we’ve joked about this in the past. He and I, we cool. So, no, I don’t always pull the race card my friend. And yes, I do consider you my friend now. We cool?
Now, my mirror is calling me, friend….
ImNotBlue says: Jelperman says:
October 9, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Go read anything by “tjl” and then tell me about who has “class” and who doesn’t.
In another post, he went on a “fat” tirade… and has yet to respond with anything other than invective and personal insults. If that’s your definition of classy, I think I’ll do without.
Puter Boi says: After reading the “headline” and the answer in the piece, I am more certain than ever that Colby Hall lit a candle and said a prayer of thanks. Very moving. I wept.
til,
I think you will have to state what your advanced degree was in and from where before you get kudos for being so enlightened. After seeing some of your comment post on here I surely doubt your claims. You will also have to explain the ” if you disagree with Obama you are racist” claim that you have used twice in the comments. I am not racist but disagree with Obama daily. I also think that the award was misplaced and only solidifies the award as a farce.
Isnt it funny how the left and people like til think that undermining a war and hurting our own soldiers during a war is patriotic but not wanting the most corrupt city in the country to get the Olympics isnt? The difference is no US citizen stands to get hurt or killed in opposition to the olympics. Also, just a caviot, but the right wasn’t against the Olympics but only laughing at Obama from trying to use is so called clout to get the Olympics and fail. The reason it is so funny is because the left as declared him the savior and the world uniter. It is funny because each time he does these things he continues to fail and that notion is farther and farther from reality. proving that the left have disengaged from reality many years ago.
til also ask who should have gotten it… how about anyone else who actually done something not just talked about doing something. But other than that top the list was the dissidents to china for the Tienanmen massacre, that sounds like a noble one to me. How about Wei Jingsheng she is a human rights activist in China that spent 17 years in prison for standing up for human rights. See the difference…people that actually make a stand, do something, maybe even sacrifice something for that believe. Instead they all get slapped in the face by this committee by shunning them for someone that wants to do something maybe one day. Despicable!
good day-
Zakk says: I do enjoy a good back and forth.
Sorry for jumping in on you and Chris Jones inside joke. I do however get tired of hearing the complaint that anyone who disagrees with the President or his policies is a racist.
And yes, you were robbed. If you rode your bike to work then you do deserve a prize.
Maybe, we are cool. Maybe we are…
sweasel says: I don’t even understand the question. What is the relationship between Obama saying “I am humbled” and the people (right or left) who don’t think he’s done anything to deserve the award? So, he’s humbled. Great. He still hasn’t done anything to deserve the award.
ImNotBlue says: If I were you, Zakk… I’d be more cautious about buying what “tjl” is selling.
It’s still rude and uncalled for… especially on a PUBLIC forum like this.
jwhitwell says: Colby and JJ are right – we don’t need catfights.
So in future, Colby, if you want to keep things civil, how about you not slap people with a fish in the headline/article to begin with?
That said, it’s a bit infantile to ask a loaded question like that, then be impressed with yourself for answering your own question? Gee, we had no idea what you thought the answer was – thanks for spelling it out.
tjl says: Scott you sure are cute…
Caviot? I believe the word you are looking for is “caveat.” Maybe?
Also, “after seeing some of your comment post on here” needs to be re-read and corrected.
I have an MFA from SDSU. I would LOVE to proof your posts next time. So, if you want to get on me for typos in a comment thread, Scottie boy, make sure you re-read yours first. Thanks sweetie…
Also, you seem to get mixed up and confuse the J in my name with an I. Simple mistake (made twice), but I realize that J and I are tough letters.
This BS about the left “hurting the soldiers” is silly. We didn’t want them to go off and fight/die in an unnecessary war. That seems to me like a corrupt act. But, you have no problem with that.
Also, great research there. (Again, plenty of typos, but we’ll look past that…) As for Wei Jingsheng – HE is not a SHE, first of all. Thank you for actually giving me someone, but how about someone you know something about and not just someone you googled….
great day!-
tjl says: Thanks Zakk, I really mean no harm….
And Scott, I wouldn’t have jumped on your for your HE/SHE mix up or your “Caviot” except you spent 33% of your post knocking me. I do appreciate and would agree that Wei Jingsheng and others need to be recognized, and a simple response to my question would have sufficed, instead of telling me that I am not who I say I am… just an fyi
CaptainAmerica says: Colby Hall says:
October 9, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I believe that the right is WAY overplaying this >
The right Colby? Is Chuck Todd on the right? Is the American Morning cast on the right? Is all of Morning Joe on the right? I could go on and on. This has nothing to do with a left/right issue. This is a flat out joke and you know it.
You tell us what Obama did in his two weeks in office (the voting period was over then) to deserve this award? Please share!
It was Chuckie Todd who said that Obama shouldn’t accept the award.
I think the only thing that has happened is that YOU SIR have overplayed your hand. You’ve shown a complete lack of objectivity at all and your biased headlines are getting old.
P.S. You might have pointed out that Obama is FINALLY giving some money to charity since before he was began running for Prez, he was only giving 2% or so of his income.
CaptainAmerica says: Also it was great of Chuck Todd to point out how the Nobel committee has used this award to make POLITICAL STATEMENTS for the past 20 years.
What is your thoughts on that Colby? Agree/Disagree?
John53 says: I am ashamed of the world community, the choice of winners for this years award must have been very thin for someone who has accomplished nothing in his lifetime to win this award.
The Nobel committee has continued down the path of irrelevancy. The committee has made some fairly bad choices for the last decade or so, its anti-America agenda fits in perfectly with Mr. Obama’s. The following is a list of recent Nobel winners.
1994 Yasser Arafat (A terrorist)
2001 Kofi Annan (Anti-American Politician)
2002 Jimmy Carter (Anti American Politician)
2005 Mohamed El Baradei (A fool and a Liar)
2007 Al Gore (A large fool and liar)
2009 Barrack Obama (Anti-American Politician)
This is a collection of Leftist doofuses, unknown bureaucrats, petty dictators, terrorists, conmen, and crooks. What distinguished company, Mister President “No Clue”. The continuing journey to mental retardation is firmly imbedded in our society; this is not all that different from giving an Oscar to a pedophile.
Nobel Committee “How does it feel to be laughed at by the entire world”? The children in my area of the country would call it being “Punked”.
m says: >we all agree that the NPP is an ideologically based “award” given to those who promote left-wing group-think
Of course. Everything that isn’t Fox News or talk radio has a liberal bias, including Wikipedia and the E=mc2. I totally forgot about that.
>The Nobel committee has continued down the path of irrelevancy. The committee has made some fairly bad choices for the last decade or so
>1994 Yasser Arafat (A terrorist)
He shared it with the President and Prime Minister of Israel. Are they terrorists too?
>2001 Kofi Annan (Anti-American Politician)
It was given half to Kofi Annan and half to the United Nations (as an organization). The UN has greatly contributed to world politics.
>2005 Mohamed El Baradei (A fool and a Liar)
Of course. He’s the guy who said Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and HE’S the liar? You’re the fool because you believe in the lie.
>2002 Jimmy Carter (Anti American Politician)
2009 Barrack Obama (Anti-American Politician)
You’re the anti-American because you believe as soon as another American has a dissenting opinion from you they somehow don’t love this country. You should move to Iran or North Korea, cause that type of society probably fits you more.
>2007 Al Gore (A large fool and liar)
Yawn. When Science or Nature published articles that completely debunk global warming then I’ll change my opinion, but because that hasn’t happened I think I’m going to side with Al Gore on this issue over Rush Limbaugh.
m says: By the way, the Nobel Prize Committee consists of three conservatives (Thorbjørn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn), two socialists (Sissel Rønbeck, Ågot Valle) and a secretary who can’t vote (Geir Lundestad).
Yup. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee leans conservative and thus has a conservative bias. Pwned.
m says: Whoops, my bad. Thorbjørn Jagland is actually Labour, not conservative. Thought I even double-checked that. I pwned myself.
ImNotBlue says: m says:
October 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Of course.
Well, wasn’t it YOU who pointed out their penchant for “honoring” left-wingers?
It was given half to Kofi Annan and half to the United Nations (as an organization). The UN has greatly contributed to world politics.
Yes, “Oil For Food” really changed a lot of lives.
Jelperman says: Funny how the Republitards have now joined with Hamas and the Taliban in a collective shit-fit over this. Even funnier is the case of sour grapes claiming the Nobel Prize is worthless. They didn’t think so back when Hannity ans Scarborough were pimping for a quack doctor named Hammesfahr, claiming (falsely) that (a) he was nominated for the Nobel Prize and (b) could magically re-grow Terry Schiavo’s brain.
But when Obama (a black man) wins, they shit a brick -just like they did when Desmond Tutu won and that fat, racist mound of blubber Jerry Falwell called him a “phony”.
ImNotBlue says: Wait, Jelp? You mean, Obama is BLACK?! When did that happen?! Do other people know this?! Really… WOW!
Ugh… it never fails. When they can’t make the argument, when they can’t defend or talk logically or respectively about the issue… they being with the “racism” charge. How disgusting. How insulting to the actual victims of racism through the years. How pathetic.
sweasel says: No, no…it’s okay. I’m making fun of Obama’s *white* half.
njoy-d-ride says: I have to agree with Poland’s Lech Welesa (1983 Nobel Peace Prize winner) The prize was given to Obama to “encourage” him…
JunkJunk says: You righties need to take a chill pill.
m says: >Well, wasn’t it YOU who pointed out their penchant for “honoring” left-wingers?
Wow. It wasn’t the entire list. I just highlighted the fact that maybe more left-wingers win because they actually change the world in positive ways that contribute to peace and stability. It’s not about left vs right, it’s about good vs bad. And so far, liberals have so far done far more good in this world than conservatives. You think George W. Bush would win the Nobel Peace Prize? Ever? Hell no. His foreign policy is pretty much considered antagonistic and unilateral, hardly factors which promote peace, cooperation and understanding.
Just want to add the fact that you know why Reagan didn’t get the Nobel Prize? Because outside the United States nobody believes that it was him alone that helped bring the Soviet Union down. It’s only Republicans inside the United States that keep repeating that thing. If you mention it to a European, they’re like “what the eff are you talking about?”.
>Yes, “Oil For Food” really changed a lot of lives.
I’ve noticed that you have a penchant to completely take things out of context, strip their meaning and misinterpret things completely. You’d have to be stupid to believe that everything the UN does and contributed to the world is summarized in the Oil for Food program.
For example, the Security Council as an institution changed global politics forever since WW2 because it added an IR norm where countries need to seek approval of their military actions from a world forum in order for it to be considered an internationally legitimate procedure. Despite its many flaws, the Security Council is still considered the prime forum where world order is dictated. Military usage and possibly wars are prevented by the fact that countries or governments know they can’t get approval, thus they are persuaded to seek other means to solve their conflicts. Of course this never applies to all cases because countries can always ignore their decision anyway (or vetoed), but the introduction of the Security Council is a net-gain because every war that starts without its approval will always be considered an internationally illegitimate action.
m says: By the way, I’m not expecting a long or intellectual reply on what I just wrote. I just did it because I know deep down inside, despite how much Fox News or talk radio you guys gobble in every day, it might stimulate the interested of a single cell or two inside of your bodies. That, to me, makes it all worth it. So even if you reply “UR LIBRUL, LOL” I’ll completely understand.
I am inpressed that Limbaugh and the Taliban issued identical statements. Good to see Rush has opened a new market.
m says: If anyone cares, here’s the Secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee explaining the decision to reward Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooqkvd8JPfU#t=1m1s
He’s pretty clear-cut about the reasons that Obama got it. He goes through bullet point by bullet point why this follows Alfred Nobel’s intentions.
ImNotBlue says: I just highlighted the fact that maybe more left-wingers win because they actually change the world in positive ways that contribute to peace and stability.
Jimmy Carter has been an embarrassment, and despite all his blather… has accomplished nothing in terms of “world peace.” Kofi Annan was involved in a number of UN scandals, and the UN has accomplished little to nothing of substantial interest. And Al Gore made a movie and millions of dollars off it… whoopee. Sooooo… “peace and stability” I’ve yet to see any of that. But maybe that follows the Obama/NPP guidelines… “It’s not what you DO… it’s what you talk about doing, even if nothing changes.”
You think George W. Bush would win the Nobel Peace Prize? Ever? Hell no. His foreign policy is pretty much considered antagonistic and unilateral…
Except in Africa where he’s a hero for devoting more money and resources to AIDS prevention than anyone else. WHOOPS… forgot, we’re not supposed to talk about that. In that case, no… he’ll never win. Once again, speaking to ideology, more than rational.
If you mention it to a European, they’re like “what the eff are you talking about?”.
So clearly they’re the folks you want making this decision… when they apparently don’t know what’s going on.
I’ve noticed that you have a penchant to completely take things out of context, strip their meaning and misinterpret things completely.
And I’ve noticed that you’re able to overlook massive scandal, when it helps your argument or folks on your side of the aisle. But when the roles are reversed, forgiveness is not something you possess. “Oil For Food” (as well as other scandal) puts Annan out in the cold when it comes to deserving the NPP.
Military usage and possibly wars are prevented by the fact that countries or governments know they can’t get approval, thus they are persuaded to seek other means to solve their conflicts. Of course this never applies to all cases because countries can always ignore their decision anyway…
So essentially the Security Council gets a pat on the back for “trying,” but nobody really expects them to accomplish anything in the “real world.” And this is a positive? To me, theories are nice… but if they don’t yield results, they’re still failures.
m says:
October 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Go back and re-read the comments from your “LIBRUL” friends on this site… then tell me who’s off the rails, or “not intellectual.” HA! The left-wing blogger’s ego is a pretty impressive thing. If we could somehow harness their sense of self-satisfaction into an alternative energy source, we’d manage to power our homes, cars, and offices for hundreds of years to come. And if we managed to hook up their hypocrisy too… well, forget about!
m says:
October 9, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Here’s the transcript from Time.com.
Essentially, unless M would like to disagree… Mr. Jagland’s rational was, “Obama hasn’t done anything concrete, but he has talked a lot, talked to the UN (a group we’ve already said we like), and talked some more.” This is NOTHING substantial anyone can point to (wow me, M), other than talk. But apparently talk enough, convince people you’re going to do “something,” even if after time you’ve done nothing… and that’s good enough to win you an NPP.
Some people see the people in need, and lend a helping hand. Obama sees people in need, and tells everyone else how THEY should lend a hand. At the end of the day, they’re left still waiting for that hand… and Obama’s got another award on the mantel.
m says: >Jimmy Carter… has accomplished nothing in terms of “world peace.”
It’s amazing how oblivious you are about the Carter Center and what he’s done to the world. Just because talk radio hasn’t mentioned his accomplishments doesn’t mean there aren’t any. Carter’s resume is absolutely incredible. How many treaties and negotiations has he brokered? How many elections has his institution observed? A helluvalot. Camp David Accords, Panama Canal treaties, SALT II, Agreed Framework, Nairobi Agreement, Ecuador/Columbia agreement. Observed elections several times over in countries like Bangladesh, China, Ivory Coast, Congo, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Israel, Palestine, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, etc.
>Except in Africa where he’s a hero for devoting more money and resources to AIDS prevention than anyone else.
Thanks for being able to find the only one generally agreed good accomplishment of George W. Bush.
>So clearly they’re the folks you want making this decision… when they apparently don’t know what’s going on.
Yes. They don’t know anything because they’re just totally not next door and totally were a part of the Soviet Union at one point. They don’t eat Republican meme dog food.
>I’ve noticed that you’re able to overlook massive scandal, when it helps your argument or folks on your side of the aisle
The scandal is bad, no doubt about that. The UN isn’t a flawless institution (e.g.. UN Commission on Human Rights), but there’s absolutely no doubt that the UN in general has contributed to geopolitics. All from doing the bureaucratic work such as keeping a log of international treaties to being the official world body which legitimatize military actions.
>So essentially the Security Council gets a pat on the back for “trying,” but nobody really expects them to accomplish anything in the “real world.”
When countries get slapped with decisions by the Security Council, it means business since. Just because it’s not bombs doesn’t mean it doesn’t yield results.
>This is NOTHING substantial anyone can point to… other than talk.
Uh, it’s talk that he got the award for. Diplomacy IS talk. He got the award for setting a new climate of diplomacy in the world. An example of this? Dropping the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, in return for having improved relations with Russia. Obama also clearly uses our dominance as a world power to advance moral causes in international issues, such as resurrecting the notion of nuclear disarmament (which until now had been completely stalemated).
ChrisNH says: The person looking ‘foolish’ is the one who did this blog entry. He starts with the thesis that conservatives look more ‘foolish’ than Obama. Then he puts together a poll, which ends up saying just the opposite…by a landslide! Note to self: When you’ve got a biased political viewpoint that is obviously not going to stand up, stay away from adding ‘Polls’ to your blog.
ImNotBlue says: It’s amazing how oblivious you are about the Carter Center and what he’s done to the world.
Yes, he’s certified elections that were clearly fraudulent. He’s attacking America when it suits his needs. He’s befriended terrorist groups, and attack Israel at every opportunity. What a guy.
He should stick to building houses… a legitimately good thing he created, and keep away from international affairs.
Thanks for being able to find the only one generally agreed good accomplishment of George W. Bush.
Hey, no problem. Always happy to prove you wrong.
Yes. They don’t know anything because they’re just totally not next door and totally were a part of the Soviet Union at one point. They don’t eat Republican meme dog food.
Um… what? As you proved, they eat Liberal dog food… why are you surprised by this?
All from doing the bureaucratic work such as keeping a log of international treaties to being the official world body which legitimatize military actions.
Yes, they’re essentially a world secretary… however their ability to effect real change, not theoretical mumbo-jumbo is nil.
Just because it’s not bombs doesn’t mean it doesn’t yield results.
What results? What are the concrete results? Not notes in book… but real, tangible, results?
Dropping the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, in return for having improved relations with Russia.
And terrifying the Polish and Czech’s that Russia will invade them. He made nice with one group, at the peril of another. What happens if Russia invades or attacks those countries? Will Obama still be a hero?
Obama also clearly uses our dominance as a world power to advance moral causes in international issues, such as resurrecting the notion of nuclear disarmament (which until now had been completely stalemated).
Yeah… how’s that working out?
The point is, for all his talk… he’s brought nothing substantial to hang his hat on.
m says: >Always happy to prove you wrong.
If you think you can convince anyone, especially a committee of people whose sole task is to find someone worthy enough of the criteria given by Alfred Nobel, with that George W. Bush was a net positive to the world after all he’s done of pissing over allies, instigating world diplomatic instability, letting North Korea run amok, invading countries for false pretenses, focusing on unilateral foreign policies, discarding international rule of law and organizations – all just because he carried out a policy that yourself most likely politically considered to be horrible anyway (foreign aid = handouts).
In the eyes of the foreign community at large he was absolutely horrible in every category except aids prevention. That one positive doesn’t change my mind about him, and it won’t change anyone else’s either.
m says: >Terrifying the Polish and Czech’s that Russia will invade them. He made nice with one group, at the peril of another. What happens if Russia invades or attacks those countries?
Welcome to the 21st century. The Cold War doesn’t exist anymore. The Iron Curtain has fallen. The Czech Republic and Poland are members of NATO and European Union, two organizations with defense pacts.
>The point is, for all his talk
Exactly. Diplomacy is talking. Obama changed the diplomatic climate of the entire world. You’re thinking as if it’s a bad thing. Bush isn’t President anymore; we actually talk to people now and don’t just piss all over everybody.
ImNotBlue says: m says:
October 10, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I don’t think I actually suggested that Bush win a Nobel. He certainly didn’t (as of yet) do enough to earn one… but then again, neither did Obama.
You’re thinking as if it’s a bad thing.
Not a bad thing… but if it doesn’t yield positive results (which thus far it hasn’t), is it a good thing? No… just a waste of time.
- » Jon Stewart's Epic Parody Of Glenn Beck
- » CNN: Protesters Shout Racial And Gay Slurs At Lewis And Frank (Update)
- » Another CNN Anchor Fails At Celebrity Jeopardy
- » David Shuster On Media Bias, Drudge, Andrew Breitbart, And James O'Keefe
- » FAMU Sex Tape Link - Real Or Hoax?
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
Rory Kennedy To Produce Rosie O’Donnell’s New Talk Show
Our sister site Gossip Cop broke the news on Friday that Rosie O'Donnell was signing a deal with Warner Brothers to have her own talk show in syndication by 2011-2012 (coincidentally when Queen Oprah is going off the air). Now Gossip Cop has confirmed: the show will be produced by none other than Robert F. Kennedy's daughter, Rory Kennedy.
MSNBC Jumps The Gun On Rep. Stupak’s Health Vote
At 1 pm today, MSNBC was reporting that Democratic House member Bart Stupak was voting "yes" on the health care bill, via a chyron on the bottom of their screen, even as the hosts were saying he was "close to" a deal. C-Span repeated the same story. At 1:20 pm Stupak told reporters that he's still planning on voting no, but "getting there." So how did a major news org end up reporting otherwise?
More TV headlines:
»Bart Stupak Will Vote Yes On Health Care: “Real Winners Are The American People” »16
»This Week: Karl Rove and David Plouffe Spar Over ‘Mission Accomplished’ »4
»Networks Come Out In Full Force For The HCR Debate
»David Shuster Defends Brett Baier Interview, Talks Twitter Absence »10
»CNN: Protesters Shout Racial And Gay Slurs At Lewis And Frank (Update) »246
-
Coming soon...
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives
| Dan Abrams, Founder
| Hosting by Datagram
| 
RSS
