Nobel Committee & "Obamania"? - Page 3

I just don't understand how most of you americans can be criticizing the commitee for awarding your president..so maybe he didn't do much to deserve it, maybe the commitee couldn't find anyone better to award this to. And, come on he was just nominated 12 days after inauguration, a nomination doesn't mean he got it then. It seems to me there is a lot of hate towards the president and people like rush limbaugh are just so upset that only crazy fanatics and weirdos who don't even know what socialism means, like the strip club owner mentioned in another thread and the teabaggers are the ones who are hating on Obama and most people with any kind of recognition are respectful of him and willing to really give him a chance

Why do you say "most?"

My fault I should have said "all" the western world is accepting of obama and glad to have him and be rid of bush. But then again the extreme capitalism that conservatives stand for is not something Europeans can ever understand..

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that "all" Americans are critical of the Nobel Peace Prize committe for having awarded the prize to president Obama?
If so, what do you base this on?

Oh, no I was just referring to the people on this thread who were criticizing the committee and followers of Rush Limbaugh because that's all he was advocating on Friday...
Sorry, I said most because it seems to be most people who commented on this thread feel that way.

Conservatives are absolutely rabid in their hatred of Obama. Don't ask me to explain it. Their reasons are mostly nonsense to me.

I'm a conservative. I do not have a "rabid hatred of Obama". I do not like his politics, and I believe he's the most dangerous president the US has ever had, but I don't personally hate the man.

I'm curious - what are some of those reasons that "are mostly nonsense" that you think conservatives have for "their hatred of Obama"?

I don't think you should be flamed for that comment but you certainly should rethink the me, me, me thing. That is exactly the kind of comment that contribute to other countries thinking the US is arrogant.

This is an excellent post. We indeed are a global society, moreso today than ever before in history and more people need to realize that. Quite frankly I find that most countries do believe this but the US seems to be behind in this thinking IMO.

I agree. It's ridiculous, this and how joyful they all were Chicago wasn't chosen for the Olympics. It's just so wrong...
I think it was Rush Limbaugh who kept saying immediately after he was elected that he did not want him to succeed and that attitude hasn't changed at all- conservatives don't want him to succeed, they want the US to remain just as backwards as it has been in the past 8 years.

The Noble committee is simply a group of people who are capable of making mistakes and petty political statements. They not only gave a peace prize to Arafat but they also never gave the award to Gandhi even though he was nominated five times. Their giving or not giving the award hasn't changed the legacy that each man is remembered for. I personally think this would've been a good year for them to have not given the peace prize, I can't think of any deserving recipient. That isn't saying anything negative about Obama, simply saying that he hasn't yet done anything deserving of the prize. Hopefully he will make wise choices for the charities receiving the money so it will be put to good use.

I don't hate obama nor do I consider myself to be Conservative.

I actually voted for Obama.

But only because I really really really really did hate Palin.

Wow, there's some serious venom about conservatives in here! Do I dare even post???

For everyone who is quite sure that it is ONLY the Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits who were/are incredulous that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, try these on for size:

Air America correspondent Ana Marie Cox wrote on Twitter, "Apparently Nobel Prizes are now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush."

Jennifer Loven at the Associated Press wrote: "He Won, But For What?"

Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein joked on Twitter: "Obama also awarded Nobel Prize in chemistry. 'He's just got great chemistry,' says Nobel committee."

The Daily Beast's Peter Beinart wrote: "I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce."

Michael Russnow wrote on the Huffington Post that he too is an Obama supporter but, "Whatever Happened to Awarding for Deeds Actually Done?" Russnow likens the "extremely premature" award to "giving an Oscar to a young director for films we hope that he or she will produce."

(Yup, the the "wing of the Republican Party, according to the White House, Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564303,00.html )

None of those are even close to right-wing pundits. Those sources are about as liberal as you can get. It is really partisan politics? This post was started by Tricia - an adamant Bush detractor and Obama supporter. Even her post stated:

If you read these last 2-4 pages (like I just did, catching up), it's all about the evil conservatives who "hate" Obama. Um, what? As far as I know, even the evil conservatives and right-wing pundits are over this bump.

If you believe that Obama couldn't have possibly done anything to assuage the mess left by the previous administration, then you must also acquiese that Bush really had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist acts, since those took place not quite 9 months into his Presidency. It only stands to reason if Obama can continue to blame Bush for everything happening now, then 9/11 wasn't Bush's fault at all - it must have been Clinton's fault.

Here's the thing. I KNOW that Obama supporters/Bush detractors/haters do not believe that at all. 9/11 was Bush's mess and he had to take responsibility for it. He did, after all, take the responsibility and not blame it on Clinton. Other pundits brought up some failings by the Clinton administration, but Bush did not. He got on with taking care of business is the best way he saw fit. Hindsight being what it may be, he didn't keep looking backward for a scapegoat - he looked forward for solutions.

What I'm seeing now in this thread (and pretty much any US political thread that goes on for more than about 4 pages) is that it comes down to this: Hard core Obama supporters will never see him as doing wrong and will always point the finger at the GOP/conservatives as being whiners, and (racist) uneducated blowhards who don't know what they're talking about. Oh yes, and we are a "global community", and Obama plays well to that ideology. Hard core Obama detractors...well, lately have just shut up after a few pages because it's pointless to argue, unless they/we just keep going after one point like a dog on a bone. Even if they/we aren't actually saying anything bad about Obama and his agenda, it gets turned around that way. Moderates from both sides stick it out for about the first 2-3 pages and then fade away because neither side pays them and their opinions any attention regardless.

Sad, really, that we can't even have a civil discussion without it turning to name calling on either side beyond 3-4 pages.

I don't have a problem with any of the quotes you posted, I myself as a liberal question their decision and I don't think Obama did much to deserve the award. But i do have a problem with statements like this

\t\t\t \t\t \t \t and then a lot of people said they agree with this statement.
To me that was pretty hateful and offensive. And I have a problem with people who try to blow things out of proportion citing evidence that the committee shouldn't be trusted because they awarded Yassir Arafat ..To me this is a hateful and biased way to approach the situation!
I guess what I just can't understand is, why does the fact that the nobel prize committee may have made a mistake and overemphasized our president's positive influence in global peace make you so upset????

I think what John McCain said was very good, don't you?
Soooo, don't understant you comment, "At least Schwarzenegger said it was a great honor for his/your contry." McCain is always classy.

Yeah, "us guys" DO know how to represent our country. It just isn't the way the Europeans like us to represent ourselves, most times. Oh well.

As for "poking fun at the Nobel Prize Committee", I really don't much care about them either, seeing as how they took an application for Barack Obama within twelve days of his inaugeration. What did he do Day 1-11 that earned him a Nobel Peace Prize? But, what am I talking about anyway, this is the same committee that gave the prize to Al Gore, that renders it meaningless now, anyway.

That may not have come out right. I'm not saying that the US shouldn't be worried about the rest of the world, or think we are the only ones here. I'm simply saying that the POTUS's first responsibilty is to the US, not the rest of the world. You can't say that this country isn't a mess (don't worry about who to blame), so why not concentrate on that first? I didn't vote for the man, but my tax dollars do pay his salary so I do have the right to not agree with him or how he's going about doing things.

I'm not saying it's all about "me, me, me" (although, it did read that way..as I said, it may not have come out right). But I think in order to really help and work with other countries, we have to get OUR crap straightened out first. Does that make better sense?

I agree with you.

Is there a rule, that I am not aware of, that the Nobel Committee cannot be criticized? I think they are pretty clueless myself and have since they gave an award to Al Gore who hasn't done ANYTHING except make a HUGE carbon footprint. Talk about the ultimate in hypocrisy, Gore is it and he gets a Nobel prize for it. What a joke. Yep, that is pretty darn clueless in my book.

And last I looked, we are still free to criticize our POTUS. And I don't hate Barack. To you Obama supporters who are so aghast at people having the audacity to critcize Barack; hate and criticism do not walk hand in hand in my world, do they in yours?

Since this is a rather broad generalization and I consider myself
a) an Obama suppporter / Bush detractor hater
and
b) Someone who does not see 9/11 as Bush' fault

I would like to see your proof for the bolded statement. Particularly after I outlined in this very thread how some problems are longer term than the length of time a President is in office, it should be clear that not all Obama supporters fit into your cookie-cutter.

I see a difference between criticism, disagreement and insults. Throwing around a term like "clueless fanboys" is nothing more than an insult (which expresses disagreement but does not explain it) and does not qualify as "criticism." "Criticism" requires thought.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the insults, I have felt the same, many, many times, here, when reading posts calling President Bush names, like, "stupid". In fact I saw a post just last week saying that very thing.
Weird that no one posted complaining how mean that was to say about Bush.

But I have to say I feel that being a, "hater" is WAY worse than calling someone a "clueless fanboy". I would much rather call someone a dumb name than to feel the horrible, self destructive, sinful HATE.

Oops, the Nobel Committee has put out a statement saying, they chose Barack based on what he HAS done.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/...el_peace_obama

So he became the first mixed race president of a country with a history of violence along racial divides. Hmm. Sounds peaceable enough for me.

But I'd still vote again for Ralph!

By the voters' choice...so assuming that his presidency coming into effect is itself Nobelworthy, the award should go to the voters.

So, you're saying that all the people who were awarded the Nobel peace prize for inspiring others to action, should give them back?

Who said anything about giving it back?

Seriously though, if we're saying that the election of a black president is itself Nobelworthy, I would like to see the award for inspiring it go to someone other than that black president himself. The campaign manager, on those grounds, would have been an intriguing choice.

Mother Teresa inspired people to take care of...poor people.
Barack Obama inspired people to vote for...Barack Obama.

He already got rewarded for that inspiration by being the direct beneficiary of its result; it seems redundant at best to Nobel him for that.

Again, I'm not saying he won't do something in the future to deserve it. It's a distinct possibility that he will, in which case it'll kind of be a shame that he already got it as a door prize.

This makes it sound as though being elected president was his ultimate goal; that now he can just set it on his mantle and admire it, like the league bowling trophy.

I can see an aspect of his life which is inspirational and that is that the odds were against him in his ascent to the presidency.

A mixed race little boy from a broken home who gets bumped around the world is raised by his grandmother - a lot of these stories end differently. I think that one benefit of his having been elected is that now a lot of little kids with similar family situations who would have given up on trying to achieve anything now believe that they can go as far as their dreams and ambitions take them. Remember the song "any little boy can be president"? I know, overcoming odds in and of itself is not worthy of the Nobel Prize, otherwise they would have to give out a lot more of them. But there isn't much anyone can do about it now.

....why exactly?

You said it, sister!!

I will!!!! It was MEAN for that poster to call Bush stupid; how preposterous! Former President GW Bush is FAR from stupid. Stupid is just a made up fake cartoon image created by Bush detractors. Bush is a human being and doesn't deserve to be called names! There!!! Argh! And I see HATE thrown around against Sarah Palin...still don't understand THAT one either!! It's fine to HATE SP and call Bush stupid, but DARE question BO's politics and that's inappropos?