posted October 09, 2009 06:15 AM         

lol can anyone actually tell me WHAT FOR?

Is it for bombing the moon?
Lying about troop withdrawal in Afghanistan
Promoting a lethal flu vaccine

posted October 09, 2009 07:53 AM         

on a more somber note,
it surprised me too.

posted October 09, 2009 09:29 AM         

Until the mistake gets cleared up, I'm going to stick with the award O'Bomber is really eligible for.

Worst impersonation of a US President in American History

Well, no one here can say they weren't warned in advance, now can they?

lalalinda

posted October 09, 2009 12:01 PM         

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 09, 2009 07:06 PM         

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 09, 2009 07:43 PM         

only slightly less so than watching the looks of confusion on nearly all the Obama supporters I know.

maybe someone could dredge up a few of our old GU Obama threads ... just for kicks.

oh well, I guess that would be in bad taste

posted October 09, 2009 08:55 PM         

The Nobel Prize for Effort

The news blindsided even his biggest champions: Barack Obama had joined Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Dalai Lama as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Noble laureate, echoed many when he responded: "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far." Even the Nobel Prize committee acknowledged the award honored Obama's "efforts" to advance global harmony, rather than concrete achievements to date. Many hoped the award would boost Obama's standing to address world conflicts, but his political opponents wasted no time calling foul, noting that three prominent Democrats have won the honor in the last seven years. Said Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele: "It is unfortunate that the President's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."

*******

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500

The Last Thing Obama Needs Is the Nobel Peace Prize

**********

posted October 09, 2009 09:45 PM         

LMAO!!

posted October 10, 2009 12:10 AM         

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 10, 2009 02:58 PM         

Opinion L.A.: A peek under the hood as the Times considers Obama's Nobel Prize Opinion L.A.: A peek under the hood as the Times considers Obama's Nobel Prize

The negative reaction to the president's Nobel Peace Prize ignores history.
By Tim Rutten

October 9, 2009 | 5:52 p.m.

* EmailE-mail
* printPrint
*
Share
* increase text size decrease text size Text Size

Within hours of Friday's announcement that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, commentators and politicians all over the map were denouncing the award as "absurd."

At first blush, that seems the only reasonable response, because the president has yet to bring peace anywhere, and given the Nobel committee's deadlines, his nomination for the prize must have occurred within 11 days of his inauguration. On the other hand, under the terms of Alfred Nobel's will, the peace prize is awarded by five lawmakers selected from the Norwegian Storting, or parliament. The committee's current president is

Norway's former prime minister, Thorbjorn Jagland, now president of the Storting.

In other words, the prize was conferred by experienced politicians who seem to know exactly what they were doing. Expressing its particular approval of Obama's "vision ... of a world without nuclear weapons," the committee wrote: "Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. ... Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. ... For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman."

This year's prize, then, is meant to reward words and not deeds.

Considering the 89 Nobel Peace Prizes that have been awarded since 1901 is a melancholy experience. By and large, they're the chronicle of a blood-soaked century's fitful hopes and consistent failures. With the exception of a handful of organizations -- the Red Cross, the American Friends Service Committee, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees -- whose good efforts continue, it's largely a story of individuals involved with forgotten peace initiatives, abandoned agreements and ultimately ineffectual treaties. The notable recent exceptions are the prizes given to the people who brought an end to South African apartheid and Ulster's civil strife.

But it's certainly true of the three previous American officeholders who were awarded the prize. Theodore Roosevelt won for his role in forging the Portsmouth Treaty, which ended the Russo-Japanese War but brought only a temporary cessation of animosity between those two countries. Woodrow Wilson won for his promotion of the League of Nations, but he was unable to persuade even his own country to join, and the organization failed utterly after the rise of fascism. Vice President Charles Gates Dawes was given the 1925 award for his formulation of a "plan" that was supposed to stabilize the German economy while allowing the payment of reparations for World War I. It didn't, but it did further poison his already bitter relationship with President Coolidge, whose Cabinet meetings Dawes refused to attend.

Against that backdrop, the Norwegian pols' preference for Obama's hopeful rhetoric doesn't seem quite so absurd.

Obama remains a powerful voice of hope and change for many Europeans, not only because of his eloquence and his reassertion of America's role as a leader of international diplomacy, but also because he physically embodies change as progress. In this country, most people have taken their cue from a president determined to govern as chief executive of a post-racial society. Many Europeans -- and particularly those associated with the prize -- are bound to recall that just 45 years ago, the Nobel went to another black American, Martin Luther King Jr., then involved in the struggle against legalized racial separation in the United States. Now, against all odds and expectations, that same United States has elected an African American president -- and it is Europe that faces its own questions of race, ethnicity and identity.

It's probably too much to hope that the Nobel committee's decision to honor Obama for the constructive civility of his thinking and the inspiration engendered by his eloquence might exert any similar influence on our own poisonously partisan politics. The right-wing blogosphere was quivering with outrage Friday, a sentiment that reached its nadir in the assertion of Redstate.com commentator Erick Erickson that the award represented "an affirmative action quota." Another right-wing blogger actually speculated that Obama had delayed announcing his decision on Afghan troop levels in order to get the prize.

It would have been unthinkable a few years ago that the opposition party would not have at least extended the president perfunctory congratulations for this honor; he is, after all, the head of state. No longer. Before Obama even had a chance to speak in public, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele denounced the award. The Democratic National Committee fired back, accusing the GOP of "joining the terrorists" because the Taliban and Hamas also criticized Obama's selection. So it goes in a country whose two political party organizations now are little more than hair-trigger attack machines.

Still, the Nobel Prize is a funny thing that sometimes confers its own peculiar specific gravity. Earlier this week, for example, the literature award went to a Romanian-born author, Herta Muller, who is little read in her adopted country -- Germany, in whose language she writes -- and known hardly at all in this country. On Thursday morning, when the award was announced, "The Land of Green Plums," by all accounts her best book, was No. 56,359 on Amazon.com; by the close of business that day, it was No. 7.

If the peace prize increases our attention to Obama's continuing appeal to our nature's better angels -- both at home and abroad -- by a mere fraction of that climb, where's the absurdity?

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 10, 2009 03:38 PM         

in these things he is no peacemonger.

but when you consider that he inherited the conflict when he took office, that he has spent a lot of time and energy reaching out to our "enemies" - one of the things the right see as "apologizing and fraternizing' with them - and urging the international community to consider a peaceful coexistence and international cooperation to that end,
it makes plenty of sense.

it is impossible to walk into the oval office and say "right, we're out of all conflicts from this moment on..." unless you're living in cloud cuckooland. you will a) not get away with it b) possibly get yourself "removed" for putting huge numbers of military out of gainful employment and c) leave behind the mess created by your predecessors and plenty of motive for retribution.

so it's not so easy to implement the promises he made on campaign. one step at a time, my mother used to say. when the situation is this complicated, it's even more essential.

it DOES seem early, but i'm guessing they want to encourage other leaders to get in formation with the peace efforts.

posted October 10, 2009 03:55 PM         

don't forget about all that "He's a muslim" crap and "he consorts with terrorists crap" and how he's un-American crap that he had to deal with.

he's damned if he doesn't and damned if he does.

he can be seen as weak,having no backbone,in cahoots with muslim,and other ridiculous crap if he got out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

ugh

this sh-t makes me sick.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 10, 2009 05:05 PM         

so when people talk about "flip-flops" they are not being realistic, even though most people never seriously even THINK about what is involved in ruling a country in times a s complicated as we're in now. nothing can be done straightforwardly anymore, it seems. every little change in direction has a hundred interim steps and stages before it can be implemented.

so while (as i KEEP saying) i am not completely sold even now on obama, i am not going to condemn him yet either. he strikes me as someone with a strong center. and he has certainly not exhibited any major socialist or dictatorial tendencies either. quite the contrary.

i think the biggest danger is that he will let us be sold out to the corporations even more than already done by his predecessors. and they did a pretty good job!

the other thing i keep saying is that whoever he turns out to be, his election was a very good thing. it has created a lot of thought and energy around what is happening to this country and what people THINK should be happening. and they're talking about it. and the fact that the majority voted for who he SAID he was is a sign that people are looking for a healthier way of life.

much better than playing rip van winkle as we have been doing for years as a country.

posted October 10, 2009 10:49 PM         

But then I also consider those ribbons all children get at certain field days to be worthless, save as "thank you for showing up." But those ribbons were more deserved for effort than Obama who "might be inspired to one day match his actions with his rhetoric."

He's not the first one to get this award who made the world go WTF, and I can think of worse than him who got it. Even decades ago, there were nominees who refused to be considered because they considered it an award based on politics rather than merit and didn't want to feel slimy by even being considered for it, or take part in a farce. So I have no idea when it actually jumped the shark.

posted October 11, 2009 10:31 AM         

quote:

---

any president, no matter how intimate he is with washington, finds out when he gets into office, and not before, the extent of the deals that have been done before his arrival and the things nobody knows about. many of those deals he basically HAS to honour whether he agrees with them or not. if he wants to get out of them, or go against them, he'd better be a very good politician (ie metaphorical chess player and/or martial artist), or willing to give up his life and/or future career.

---

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows quite well that this is the way the political game is played. Little me, completely free from any Washington connections, understands this. Was Obama taken by surprise? Not for a minute do I believe that Obama is as naive a man as were so many of his supporters.

quote:

---

and the fact that the majority voted for who he SAID he was is a sign that people are looking for a healthier way of life.

---

posted October 11, 2009 10:59 AM         

I don't think Obama is anything like Bush. That's just my opinion.

I didn't vote for him because I was naive. I never thought he was either. I believe that he's an idealist just like I am, especially with our similar backgrounds in regards to our multiethnic,multicultural backgrounds and the belief that there should be unity that tends to be connected to all that. I wanted a liberal,democrat to be in office. If Hillary Clinton was the democratic nominee, I'd voted for her too. I wouldn't have voted for Republican McCain, especially with Sarah Palin as his running mate.

There was also Cynthia McKinney,who was the Green Party candidate. She's even more liberal than Obama. However, the Green Party is not strong of a party. It really has no clout. I wasn't going to waste my vote on Ralph Nader either.

many people voted for candidates for reasons other than being naive,drinking the kool-aid.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 11, 2009 02:14 PM         

I can think of quite a few very intelligent people who, in my estimation, naively bought into Obama's vague promises of "hope". (I laugh but, in all honesty, my heart was breaking to see everyone get their hopes up. And I'm angry about it now. Angry that the best in us was used against us.)
The two brain cells comment was strictly in reference to the President. Who, of course, actually does have several brain cells, and, therefore, knew quite well what he was getting into.

If given the choice between undue optimism and crippling pessimism ..... hmmm ... well sometimes I'd go with the former and sometimes the latter. Depends on my mood. But surely there's a healthy, clearsighted middle way? Wise as serpents, harmless as doves etc etc ...

posted October 11, 2009 04:48 PM         

i think it's a) premature and b) a little irresponsible to say we were hoodwinked. maybe some people actually bought the "messiah" stuff jwhop is always complaining about, but the PEOPLE are the power on the ground, "they" can only get away with what we let them get away with in the end.

the man APPEARS to have a pretty strong centre. whether he can manipulate the game or he falls on his face, it's not going to happen overnight. it seems that the people against him are just planning on obstructing everything his administration comes up with, and those who voted for him are complaining that he hasn't "delivered"...i think people are waking up and realizing that it's not enough to vote and sit in front of your tv while the government does all the work. i hope!

of course we all know how twisted the political game is, or THINK we do...but no one knows the extent of the spider's nest until they actually get into that office. so it's not a matter of being naive, but uninformed of details that significantly change the playing field from what we think it is.

posted October 11, 2009 05:26 PM         

I understand that these particular devils are in the details. I just don't think its fair to say the man was unexpectedly side swiped. One doesn't manage to make to the big seat unless you've already been initiated ... so to speak. Having said that, not for a minute do I believe the President's in charge - he's a mouthpiece and he'll do what he's told if he knows what's good for him. Honestly, allowing power to change hands in such a potentiallyy drastic way every four years just isn't practical, if you look at from the other guy's perspective. So, yeah, I'm sure he was promised the world while he was being groomed, but he'd need to be a complete fool to think he wasn't walking into that 'spider's nest'.

Actually, it's the lack of "a strong center" that's worries me. Impressions, eh?

posted October 11, 2009 06:21 PM         

quote:

---

But surely there's a healthy, clearsighted middle way?

---