GolfHos

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7Jzp3nwfd94

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/anti-obama-violence/   :o ::) ::) ::)

Maybe.

Although I think most people (including righties but perhaps not whackjob righties) have long since stopped paying attention when Oslo passes gas.  I mean, seriously, Yassar Arafat and David Trimble?  They haven't always got it wrong but selecting terrorists and allies of terrorists strikes me as a bit odd *goshdarn* retarded.

re:  Obama.

I don't really know if he deserves this or not.  Perhaps he should be rewarded for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".   That's for others (retarded Norwegians) to decide.  However, he's not been long on the scene.  Even if you count his candidacy he's been in the mix for no more than 18 months or so.  Strikes me there are people doing exceptional things for 30-40 years who might be better selections. 

Oh yeah, think what you want about Reagan but to give this thing to Gorbachev and pass on Reagan is another example of the dumbassiness of these people.  Even if one believes Gorbachev would have eventually torn down that wall all by his lonesome I think even the most myopic of libtards would agree those two are a package deal.  They will always be on the same page of the history book.

Here's what I think about Reagan and the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe:

  (http://www.religion-cults.com/pope/pope-valesa16.jpg)
 
So no, I don't give much more than passing credit to St. Ronnie, and neither does much of the rest of the world.
 

ROFL, HRC surrenders!:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace

Well, with the world on your side you must be right.   ::);)[sm_devil]

To a degree that's my point though.  Gorbachev happened to be nursing a patient on its death bed when it finally croaked.  I think Ronnie was kidney punching the invalid, Walesa was denying it sustenance and basically the march of history was pulling the plug.  To give singular credit to Gorbachev is dumb.

In my opinion this award has been politicized by a group of self-important who gives a *fudge*s.  As far as I know the Stockholm awards don't seem such a mess but I'm not smart enough to understand if that chemist/biologist/poet/whomever deserves the trophy. 

I'm kind of OK with the idea that my reality synchs up with the rest of the worlds:


If it didn't, I might have to examine it more deeply. I highly recommend that type of introspection. Just sayin'.  [sm_devil]

Glenn Beck's head was literally exploding on the radio machine. I'd like to thank the committee for giving me hours and hours of listening pleasure!

Introspection (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8299205.stm)

LOL, he may not  :airquotes: deserve  :airquotes: a Nobel, but the lulz this provides as the Wingnutz poop themselves HAS to be worth some kind of award.

OTOH

If that sort of voyeurism floats your boat then by all means...   :shoothead: :)

We sidetracked a little on the Gorbachev thing.  My fault.  My main point on the Nobel Peace Prize is that I believe we in this room are as qualified as those yahoos to award the thing.  I usually just give it a LOL and move on (present thread evidence to the contrary   [sm_anon]) or perhaps say, "hey, better year this time guys, good job."  End of interest.

The Nobel nominations had to be submitted by Feb. 1st.  They awarded this thing to a guy who was president for a week and a half.  Prior to that he was getting himself elected.  Prior to that he was the esteemed Senator from Illinois.  Not sure how much "save the world" juju he managed during that time.  He may turn out to be the greatest president we've ever had.  Somehow the Nobel panel had that figured out before the guy received his first paycheck.  I don't know how that can be seen as anything but gross ineptitude or a gang with an agenda.  Either way, they're not worth my consideration.

I'm thinking they did it was because Fox News recently became available on Norwegian cable, and it's ALL for the LULZ.

I had to wipe Hannity's saliva off of my car radio speakers at lunch.

When I first saw this earlier today my gut reaction was, "for what?". And when I read the following I understood. It was just a vote of confidence for talking a good game. Way to lower the bar Nobel committee.



I voted for the dude because I truly believed the country needed a new direction and really thought this guy could make things happen. But it's getting to be way too much for someone who arguably hasn't even done jack squat domestically even though he has the senate and the house in complete Democratic control.

Bang on - its completely agenda ridden.  Sometimes they nail it, sometimes they let the agenda (whatever it may be) make the thing a joke.

But I suppose its true of any award granted by the judgments of our species.


And from Fuzzy's link - too late to respond three years from now?  WTF he is on about?  They're afraid he'll totally *fudge* it up are they?  And if that's so......  ::)


I wish him all the luck, he seems to have the tact for it.  But its not going to be easy - Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, etc. - they all need their enemy in order to stay in power.  They aren't going to let go easily.

Those crafty Norwegians and their hidden, super secret agendas  ::)

FWIW, the prize is award "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." It's not intended to a be a lifetime achievement award. When Gorbachev won his prize, Reagan had already been officially out of office for almost 2 years (unofficially 3 years if you count his final lame duck year in which the Executive Branch was run by Nancy's astrologer).

As for Obama, you can argue with whether or not somebody was more deserving, but he has clearly "accomplished" whatever is indicated in his citation (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html):



While the Committee indicated that Obama "as President created a new climate in international politics", he laid the groundwork well before that. Have we all forgotten all the wingtard complaints of Obama running for "President of the World" because of all his overseas trips during his campaign? Yes, all he did was speak, but that's what virtually any Nobel Peace Prize laureate ever really needs to do.

Leave it to Rachel Maddow to offer some perspective:

GMJuEOaF84o

No need to supersize it.  I'd say describing it as your standard portion, right out there in the open agenda is probably apt. 

Although I think my characterization of grossly inept is just as likely.  Which sorta collides with "crafty". 

(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/03/23/2003634787.jpg)

Maybe it's the pointy hats.

I'm certain the least of the Nobel nominators and committee members are far more accomplished then you and me and probably Stroh, too.

Pfft. They moonlight as members of parliament of the country of Norway. Big deal. It's not like that's a REAL country--only the 3rd ranked per capita GDP in the world. Color me not impressed.

Still pretty sure it was for the LULZ.

Here, BillO comes off sounding pretty reasonable while Laura Ingraham seriously makes the argument that 'War Is Peace'.:

0QlBydA5mpo&feature=player_embedded

dear god, people with that kind of cognitive dissonance getting power/attention really makes me hope humanity ends sooner than later.

LOL  And I was all set to come in and say this thread sucks.

Probably still does.

Oh ya, raise the eyebrows and dismiss the opinion.  Good on ya.

As I've already stated..... oh hell with it.  Reading comprehension for $100 Alex.

Should I not have quoted you?  [sm_devil]

I think they gave it to him simply for managing to become POTUS with the disability of being a muslim negro named Hussein Obama.  I mean that's pretty wild coming from America.  I don't think it has to be any more complicated than that. 

Quoting me was not the flaw.  It was the thought process you assumed my line to possess without apparently reading the line below it.  It was a nice attempt at wise-assishness, but well off the mark.

If you would please stop projecting a radio show host image upon me, I would appreciate it.  Thanks.

Ah, got it.


I'll try again:

'Those darn Norwegians and their agendas, whatever they may be'

Still sounds pretty *charmin*y.

May I suggest that the *charmin*yness is in direct  proportion to the douchebaggery of the original premise?


Much as I don't give much credence to some sort of 'Unknown Agenda' on the part of some Norwegian legislators, I'm also not buying that they have much more than a passing familiarity with the vagaries of American racial politics, and probably somewhat less than passing.

FWIW, I remember a similar level of noise on the part of the American Left when Kissinger was awarded his Nobel, apparently for bombing the *feces* out of Laos and Cambodia.

So, the Norwegian agenda appears to have progressed somewhat, whatever that agenda is.

You may suggest, sure, but I think its incorrect.  Subject to my original premise - our species cannot always be trusted to make sound rational judgments.  Thats not Norwegian, its not male or female, its not left or right, and its certainly not crafty - its human nature.  Was there a well orchestrated agenda along with all of its coercion at work here?  Probably not.  My guess is they fell victim to human nature and are rather unaware of their biases.  They made the populist choice, picked someone they liked, an emotional decision.  Seeking justification for the choice after it was already made.  We all do it.  My belief is that even Nobel Committee members (being smarter or more accomplished than Uisce, Blader, and even Stroh  [sm_shock]) are suseptible to this from time to time.

I did piggyback on the 'agenda' term that Uisce used - perhaps thats a bit strong as it suggests a collective knowledge of the task.  If you want to pick on my use of that term, its certainly open to debate - but to assign xenophobia (those darn Norwegians) and conspiracy theorist (hidden agendas are everywhere - oh noes!) to my opinion is just over the top.


edit:  And 'whatever it may be' was used simply because I haven't taken the time to determine if any particular or consistent bias is in play (nor do I plan to take the time - I was over it the moment I heard he won it - no biggie to me).  I was not putting one forth, or attempting to be wise-assey.

For the record I was being wise-assey.

LMAO.

I prefer to think of this award, as I saw someone elsewhere term it, as being essentially an international sigh of relief.

I just wanted to use 'Douchebaggery' in a sentence.