Really...Obama...

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">People have to ask about this shit? The nobel piece prize is a joke. Didn't henry kissinger get one? Hahahah. Henry fuckin' "secret bombings of Cambodia and Vietnam" kissinger. Palestinian terrorist and zionist swine like arafat and the King David Hotel bomber also got nobel piece prizes.

The answer to world peace comes from this toaster:

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/20081108_darth_vader_toaster.jpg">


________________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/dij.gif">

[hutter]

Obama is now in the company of such distinguished company as Yassar fucking Arafat. 'tis fitting.

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>Plus, diplomacy rocks![/quote]

You need to be able to say that no matter who's in office, not just when your guy is in office.
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]

Totally correct. Updated to add that this is an area in which Carter and Clinton excelled, as well.

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>Plus, diplomacy rocks![/quote]

You need to be able to say that no matter who's in office, not just when your guy is in office.[/quote]

Totally correct. Updated to add that this is an area in which Carter and Clinton excelled, as well.[/quote]

Does that mean that Carter and Clinton were not "your guys"? Or that diplomacy only rocks when you get what you want? I just wonder if there can be an objective definition of diplomacy.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>Does that mean that Carter and Clinton were not "your guys"? Or that diplomacy only rocks when you get what you want? I just wonder if there can be an objective definition of diplomacy.
[/quote]
"The profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations."

I'd say that Clinton did it well. Carter was shit awful. Reagan did it in his own way. Even Bush 1. Bush 2 did the equivalent of giving us quaaludes and raping our 13 yr old asses.

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
<br>The Nobel was really for all Americans, not Obama. A thank you for getting rid of the fu*king shit ass administration that ran us and the whole world into the ground over the past eight years.

Just my opinion.[/quote]

So what does that say about the Dems who in 8 years with 300 million people to choose from, kept nominating even less compelling presidential candidates than GW and lost to Him TWICE? How fucking inept. Guess the world owes them a big kick in the ass.


<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>


[/quote]

WTF are you talking about? Did you read my post? My comment was I think the Nobel was given to Obama because he is not the shit head we had the past eight years. He gives the world hope. He can say nuclear. He can speak in complete sentences. The leader of the United States effects the entire world. We saw what happens when a U.S. President fu*ks up. It effects everyone.
If you want to start talking about nominating less compelling presidential candidates, take a look at the last Republican President and Vice Presidential candidates. That was fucking inept.

And, as I stated, that was my opinion. If you don't like it, too bad.

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>Does that mean that Carter and Clinton were not "your guys"? Or that diplomacy only rocks when you get what you want? I just wonder if there can be an objective definition of diplomacy.
[/quote]
"The profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations."

I'd say that Clinton did it well. Carter was shit awful. Reagan did it in his own way. Even Bush 1. Bush 2 did the equivalent of giving us quaaludes and raping our 13 yr old asses.[/quote]

Sometimes I wonder what you're doing on a message board. You can be so astute at times.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>Plus, diplomacy rocks![/quote]

You need to be able to say that no matter who's in office, not just when your guy is in office.[/quote]

Totally correct. Updated to add that this is an area in which Carter and Clinton excelled, as well.[/quote]

Does that mean that Carter and Clinton were not "your guys"? Or that diplomacy only rocks when you get what you want? I just wonder if there can be an objective definition of diplomacy.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]

All 3 names are "my guys". But my greater point was that yes, it doesn't matter who it is (or which party), good diplomacy skills rock. I think these 3 excel(led) at it. I deeply admire the ability to engage other leaders or figures, as opposed to refusing to deal with other leaders because they're in the "Axis of Evil" or some such childish construct. The darkness of the last 8 years, of pissing off the rest of the world in favor of a unilateral approach, going it alone, etc., has finally been fading with this president. In JUST MY OPINION, this is what I look for most in a leader. That is what inspires me.[:)]

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]<br>The nobel piece prize is a joke. Didn't henry kissinger get one? Hahahah. Henry fuckin' "secret bombings of Cambodia and Vietnam" kissinger. Palestinian terrorist and zionist swine like arafat and the King David Hotel bomber also got nobel piece prizes.[/quote]I've been away for a while (and a bit surprised to see this thread still alive). Kissinger and Arafat received the award for their involvement in specific peace treaties/negotiations, and the irony is not lost.

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]<br>The nobel piece prize is a joke. Didn't henry kissinger get one? Hahahah. Henry fuckin' "secret bombings of Cambodia and Vietnam" kissinger. Palestinian terrorist and zionist swine like arafat and the King David Hotel bomber also got nobel piece prizes.[/quote]I've been away for a while (and a bit surprised to see this thread still alive). Kissinger and Arafat received the award for their involvement in specific peace treaties/negotiations, and the irony is not lost.
[/quote]


You're surprised!

I'm amazed at the inventiveness of people who look for a reason to validate the selection. While it's true that the selection committee has in the past given the award to "works in progress" if you will, giving it to somebody a mere 12 days into their mandate makes the whole process look pointless...and make no mistake, it was his the minute he was put on the candidate list.

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by eight6[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]<br>The nobel piece prize is a joke. Didn't henry kissinger get one? Hahahah. Henry fuckin' "secret bombings of Cambodia and Vietnam" kissinger. Palestinian terrorist and zionist swine like arafat and the King David Hotel bomber also got nobel piece prizes.[/quote]I've been away for a while (and a bit surprised to see this thread still alive). Kissinger and Arafat received the award for their involvement in specific peace treaties/negotiations, and the irony is not lost.
[/quote]




You're surprised!

I'm amazed at the inventiveness of people who look for a reason to validate the selection. While it's true that the selection committee has in the past given the award to "works in progress" if you will, giving it to somebody a mere 12 days into their mandate makes the whole process look pointless...and make no mistake, it was his the minute he was put on the candidate list.




[/quote]

I think you are absolutely right about the fact that Obama had this the minute he was put on the list.

Quite frankly I could care less about it. If it isn't helping me pay my bills or fill out these damn college applications, it isn't worth my time right now. [}:)]

[SallyLightfoot]

Matt Taibbi has an interesting post about Obama winning the Peace Prize:

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/10 ... nal-peace/

<blockquote>How do we do things? We keep the troops in those faraway places like Afghanistan and Iraq, sure, but while we do that we make sure to extol things like tolerance and dialogue and the spirit of diplomacy. We make sure that the same people who were not involved in the decision-making process during the previous bombing runs under Bush are in the loop again, now and hopefully forever. We smile a lot and say nice things about the Geneva convention and the impropriety of torture and secret detention, the importance of the rule of international law. We make everybody feel better about how things are going to go from now on.

This is what Barack Obama did to "earn" the Nobel Prize. He put the benevolent face back on things. He is a good-looking black law professor with an obvious bent for dialogue and discussion and inclusion. That he hasn’t actually reversed any of Bush’s more notorious policies -- hasn’t closed Guantanamo Bay, hasn’t ended secret detentions, hasn’t amped down Iraq or Afghanistan -- is another matter. What he has done is remove the stink of unilateralism from those policies.

They’re not crazy-ass, blatantly illegal, lunatic rampages anymore, but carefully-considered, collectively-run peacekeeping actions, prosecuted with meaningful input from our allies.

You see the difference? The Nobel committee sure did!

There’ve been some dumb Nobel Peace Prizes before. Giving one to Gorbachev in 1990, sandwiched right in between his invasions of Azerbaijan and Lithuania, comes immediately to mind. Giving one to Henry Kissinger, a man responsible for the bombings of millions of Indochinese (and who consistently favored the use of increased bombing runs to force the other side to the negotiating table) is another. The award to Arafat, Rabin and Peres likewise seems humorous to me. The Al Gore award, I don’t even want to go there. I went years thinking that the Al Gore prize was a joke someone was playing on me. I still can’t believe it really happened.

The unifying thread for all these prizewinners is that they were all important political figures who at one time or another embraced violence as a just and appropriate policy, and got the peace crown once the political weather changed and it was time to put the tanks back in the garage. Even Gore, during the Kosovo war, boned up on his war cred before he got a prize for losing an election, growing a beard, and making a freaking movie. And hey, maybe in the real world, you can’t punish politicians for embracing force -- maybe there’s just no way around the use of violence, when you’re running a country the size of the U.S. I wouldn’t know. I’ve never been President or Vice President of anything.</blockquote>

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]


[i]There’ve been some dumb Nobel Peace Prizes before. Giving one to Gorbachev in 1990, sandwiched right in between his invasions of Azerbaijan and Lithuania, comes immediately to mind. Giving one to Henry Kissinger, a man responsible for the bombings of millions of Indochinese (and who consistently favored the use of increased bombing runs to force the other side to the negotiating table) is another. The award to Arafat, Rabin and Peres likewise seems humorous to me. The Al Gore award, I don’t even want to go there. I went years thinking that the Al Gore prize was a joke someone was playing on me. I still can’t believe it really happened.[/i]


[/quote]

On one hand he lauds the committee for it's insight in selecting Obama, then lists off half a dozen comedic errors they've made in the past 30 years. (give or take) The selection committee's track record speaks for itself...I have no reason to believe their latest selection is any more inspired that some of their previous gems.

The Al Gore pick smacks of being swept up in "Global Warming" fever and I suspect the selection of Obama is merely the result of the committee succumbing to ODS.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by eight6[/i]<br>On one hand he lauds the committee for it's insight in selecting Obama...[/quote]Really, I must have missed that section. Got a quote?

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by eight6[/i]<br>On one hand he lauds the committee for it's insight in selecting Obama...[/quote]Really, I must have missed that section. Got a quote?
[/quote]

[i]We make sure that the same people who were not involved in the decision-making process during the previous bombing runs under Bush are in the loop again, now and hopefully forever. We smile a lot and say nice things about the Geneva convention and the impropriety of torture and secret detention, the importance of the rule of international law. We make everybody feel better about how things are going to go from now on.

This is what Barack Obama did to "earn" the Nobel Prize. He put the benevolent face back on things. He is a good-looking black law professor with an obvious bent for dialogue and discussion and inclusion. That he hasn’t actually reversed any of Bush’s more notorious policies -- hasn’t closed Guantanamo Bay, hasn’t ended secret detentions, hasn’t amped down Iraq or Afghanistan -- is another matter. What he has done is remove the stink of unilateralism from those policies.

They’re not crazy-ass, blatantly illegal, lunatic rampages anymore, but carefully-considered, collectively-run peacekeeping actions, prosecuted with meaningful input from our allies.

You see the difference? The Nobel committee sure did![/i]

Have I misunderstood the underlying comparatives between the last two administrations? Benevolence over unilateral action nets the good looking black guy a Nobel.