Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. an unfortunate reality my friend


  2. Quote Originally Posted by iron fists View Post
    Yeah I fist wana say congradulations to lebron james for winning the championship next year and being 2010 mvp....I mean he said he was gona do it so why no reward him now...who cares if he does it, it is the promise and hope that he said he would..I mean obama had two weeks in the office and in his two weeks of talking out his a** through a telepromptor he was worthy of the nobel peace prize. I just dnt know how he pulled it off...really...there were great competitors in the field who had spoke of what ifs and what that of a greater magnitude....The first one garanteed a cure for cancer and aids by winter of next year, the second told stories of dreams he had of ending global warming by 2011, the third hinted but a wisper about an aerosal nuclear vaporizer that incenagrate any nuclear missle within 15 feet. And not to mention the darkhorse of the competetion whos promises and ideas were so genious and world effective, that he couldnt even speak of it...all he could tell us was that hope and change were on the horizon.......

    That was a close, but prestigeous win for obama barely edging out the rest of the field.
    I think we should take a step back and focus on this issue as objectively as we can, if that is possible.

    First, the fact that he was only about two weeks in office before the nominations ended is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. The deadline had already been fixed before Mr. Obama even won the presidential elections! Furthermore, he did not (and could not) nominate himself for the award. It might interest some of us to know there were about 205 nominees for the award, including Stalin! For those who care, nominations come from the following:


    Qualified Nominators

    The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:

    1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
    2. Members of international courts;
    3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
    4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
    5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
    6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
    7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.


    The Nobel Peace Prize may also be awarded to institutions and associations.
    And, again, for those who care, the selection process works like this:


    Below is a brief description of the process involved in selecting the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.

    September – Invitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate – members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

    February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year's discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.

    February-March – Short list. The Committee assesses the candidates' work and prepares a short list.

    March-August – Adviser review. The short list is reviewed by permanent advisers and advisers specially recruited for their knowledge of specific candidates. The advisers do not directly evaluate nominations nor give explicit recommendations.

    October – Nobel Laureates are chosen. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced.

    December – Nobel Laureates receive their prize. The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony takes place on 10 December in Oslo, Norway, where the Nobel Laureates receive their Nobel Prize, which consists of a Nobel Medal and Diploma, and a document confirming the prize amount.

    Second, Mr. Obama himself acknowledged he did not think he deserved (yet) to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with some of the earlier recepients that he looked up to as role models. He also reiterated he did not think he was awarded the Prize for any personal (or public) accomplishment (in the sense of a completed process with a specific result or outcome). And this is important. Anyone that understands the workings of the Nobel Peace Prize selection process would admit that it is not always awarded for any specific achievement. Sometimes, the selection committee uses the Prize to make a statement; to stimulate a particular line of dialogue; to influence action in a particular direction; to build momentum for a specific cause. For example, Nobel Committee awarded Peace Prize for 1996 to Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo and José Ramos-Horta "for their work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor". At the time, the peace process in East Timor was still in progress, and as we now know, was not brought to a fruitful conclusion. Another example, Aung San Suu Kyi received the Peace Prize in 1991 "for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights". To this day, there still is no democracy in Burma (Myanmar). And so on.

    So, in such cases, with its awards, the Nobel Committee is making a bet, so to say. It awards the Prize to stimulate, encourage, motivate, and influence a cause or process. To be fair, though, the Committee believes Mr. Obama has already triggered a subtle change in the conduct of international relations, especially in terms of a preference for dialogue, consensus, and partnership, and jettisoning of the confrontational approach to international policy. The key part of the award citation is: "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

    Third, part of Mr. Alfred B. Nobel's conditions for the Peace-Prize award include promoting fraternity among nations, stimulating international peace congresses, and so on. The awarding committee is of the opinion that awarding the Prize to Mr. Obama is in tune with these requirements or ideals, especially in terms of Mr. Obama's erstwhile efforts at promoting these ideals.

    Overall, in my opinion, the award to Mr. Obama will be historically validated, if it ultimately helps to improve fraternity among nations.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.
    •   
       


  3. Oh yeah? Well, your mother!

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Oh yeah? Well, your mother!
    What?
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  5. This is just my opinion but.......I didn't agree at all with Obama getting elected the way he did because I felt like the media was the driving force behind his campaign just because a black president elect headline gets better ratings than a McCain wins election headline, BUT THIS IS AMERICA. At first glance, I didn't feel like Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize but I didn't know what all the factors were that went into that process either and frankly I didn't care. The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, whether we like it or not, he is our elected leader and we should all just be happy that our nations leader has won something as prestigious as the Nobel Peace prize and be supportive of him. It wasn't his choice to win the thing in the first place. He represents us ALL (whether we like it or not) to the rest of the world. Ironlungs is right, we have to support this guy or else we're screwed.
    And just so everyone knows, I didn't vote for Obama, I thought the presidential race was sickening and a joke (also kinda scary), I'm not a "democrat" or even into politics for that matter, and I haven't heard anything that Obama has said that would convince me that he is going to be able to change anything, BUT HE IS OUR PRESIDENT WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOTand that is not going to change for years (barring something horrible) and the better he does, theoretically, the better that we will do. We really need to pull together guys.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post

    Overall, in my opinion, the award to Mr. Obama will be historically validated, if it ultimately helps to improve fraternity among nations.
    Marred by being guilted into doing so. Though I am sure the 10% of reported unemployed in America would probably wish Mr. President would refocus on something withing America.
    The Historic PES Legend

  7. Quote Originally Posted by EMT803 View Post
    This is just my opinion but.......I didn't agree at all with Obama getting elected the way he did because I felt like the media was the driving force behind his campaign just because a black president elect headline gets better ratings than a McCain wins election headline, BUT THIS IS AMERICA. At first glance, I didn't feel like Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize but I didn't know what all the factors were that went into that process either and frankly I didn't care. The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, whether we like it or not, he is our elected leader and we should all just be happy that our nations leader has won something as prestigious as the Nobel Peace prize and be supportive of him. It wasn't his choice to win the thing in the first place. He represents us ALL (whether we like it or not) to the rest of the world. Ironlungs is right, we have to support this guy or else we're screwed.
    And just so everyone knows, I didn't vote for Obama, I thought the presidential race was sickening and a joke (also kinda scary), I'm not a "democrat" or even into politics for that matter, and I haven't heard anything that Obama has said that would convince me that he is going to be able to change anything, BUT HE IS OUR PRESIDENT WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOTand that is not going to change for years (barring something horrible) and the better he does, theoretically, the better that we will do. We really need to pull together guys.
    Whatever happened to dissenters being the highest form of patriots? Now that the tables are turned, dissenters are considered on par with terrorists by some.
    The Historic PES Legend

  8. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Marred by being guilted into doing so. Though I am sure the 10% of reported unemployed in America would probably wish Mr. President would refocus on something withing America.
    He certainly was not guilty of this "distraction". He was awarded the prize; he did not focus on getting it. In terms of the unemployment in the USA, as elsewhere, it is a problem that does not disappear overnight. Monthly non-farm payroll losses are now, on average, lower than in the last months of the previous administration. While that is no consolation for the unemployed, it signals the emergence of some economic recovery.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    He certainly was not guilty of this "distraction". He was awarded the prize; he did not focus on getting it. In terms of the unemployment in the USA, as elsewhere, it is a problem that does not disappear overnight. Monthly non-farm payroll losses are now, on average, lower than in the last months of the previous administration. While that is no consolation for the unemployed, it signals the emergence of some economic recovery.
    I mean recerting his views to America. I think that point got lost in typed text.

    As for unemployment in the US.. we here in the USA has been put in drastically more debt because of TARP, with promises of unemployment not rising above 8%.. that was 2% ago, as for recovery, even Obama friendly economists are disagreeing with the recovery signals. There are too many that seem to be conflicting to say one way or another... housing prices is most areas saw a 2 month increase, people were claiming the recession was over, then last month dropped a sharp double digit percentage. No something does not happen overnight, I do not disagree with you, but do not make promises to the people that you cannot keep. This award was given to the president on promises... and his track record is less than spectacular on his promises.
    The Historic PES Legend

  10. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I mean recerting his views to America. I think that point got lost in typed text.

    As for unemployment in the US.. we here in the USA has been put in drastically more debt because of TARP, with promises of unemployment not rising above 8%.. that was 2% ago, as for recovery, even Obama friendly economists are disagreeing with the recovery signals. There are too many that seem to be conflicting to say one way or another... housing prices is most areas saw a 2 month increase, people were claiming the recession was over, then last month dropped a sharp double digit percentage. No something does not happen overnight, I do not disagree with you, but do not make promises to the people that you cannot keep. This award was given to the president on promises... and his track record is less than spectacular on his promises.
    Cut the guy some slack! He's not even one year in office yet. If he were a dictator, he could introduce policies at will. But the US is a democratic society, so even well-intended policies may take time to become law, if at all. We all know this. Perhaps we should give him another year before we take stock!
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by iron fists View Post
    Well hopefully this award doesnt lube up congress so he can ram his obamacare through.

    Also when we speak of things like supporting our president reguardless..does anyone not remember and has forgotten the speach the great obama made concerning our nations economic status, debt and future...He directly stated that the american dream is over and lost for this generation of citizens and it is our responsibility to sacrifice and endure so that our grandchildren do have to be born into poverty....Now that doesnt sound like his campaign promise and agenda.. what happened....What about all the children being born and raised in poverty now? And obama wants to be a dictator so he can do what he wants without question...Isnt that what socialist radical liberal leaders do in their countries... The world is playing intoi obamas hands because they know if he does what he wants then he will single handedly bring down the USA..look what he has done to the value of the dollar on the foreign currency exchange with his stimulus and spending...we are running on chinas money invested in america, and as soon they pull out we will crumble...they are already talking about no longer using the american dollar as the foriegn trade currency world wide because now the dollar is so weak...Chavez has already publicly stated that under obamas leadership that by the end of 2010 the USA will crumble. The majority of world leaders think obama is a joke and especially for accepting the NPP, and they all say that the award has lost its value and notariaty and lessons the others winners of the awards prestige.
    I am not quite sure, if you intended this post to be taken seriously.

    1) How can Mr. Obama or any other President be a dictator in the US, given its current executive, legislative, and judicial structure?
    2) Take even a cursory look at the historical evolution of the US dollar in the months preceding the Obama administration, and see if your comment is valid.
    I find it funny that a lot of critics of Mr. Obama's approach to stabilizing and re-stimlating the economy are unable to provide valid and viable alternative options. Given the state of the economy before he took over, his choice set was extremely limited.
    3) Most international leaders consider Mr. Obama a "joke"? Are you serious?
    4) Tell me exactly what President Obama would gain, if he succeeded in "crumbling" the USA, to use your term.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Whatever happened to dissenters being the highest form of patriots? Now that the tables are turned, dissenters are considered on par with terrorists by some.
    Well, after looking at how many people were identified as non American during the initial war start-up with Bush as president, there have been no real table turning. Just whatever can be used by opposing parties to make the other look like the bad guy. Dems and repubs are no different in this aspect.

  13. As of now, the Nobel Peace Prize = Total BS. It's completely lost it's meaning and purpose. You might as well call it the Mickey Mouse Club Prize.

    If Obama had VERY politely refused the award he would have gained a little respect from both sides of the aisle.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Chucke View Post
    As of now, the Nobel Peace Prize = Total BS. It's completely lost it's meaning and purpose. You might as well call it the Mickey Mouse Club Prize.....
    I strongly disagree! Perhaps you can refreshen our recollection of the meaning and purpose of the award.


    If Obama had VERY politely refused the award he would have gained a little respect from both sides of the aisle.
    I do not see any reason he should have rejected it, politely or not.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Marred by being guilted into doing so. Though I am sure the 10% of reported unemployed in America would probably wish Mr. President would refocus on something withing America.
    Agreed. There are A LOT of domestic issues that need to be addressed by this administration.
    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Whatever happened to dissenters being the highest form of patriots? Now that the tables are turned, dissenters are considered on par with terrorists by some.
    I don't consider people that disagree with the status quo or Obama as terrorists. Just people with different opinions. Exactly what the country was founded on. However, when we are trashing a man that represents us all to a great extent for winning an award that he didn't ask to win it does make us look weak and divided (which, judging by this post, we are). At this point in time in our country I wish that we could change that.
    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    This award was given to the president on promises... and his track record is less than spectacular on his promises.
    Agreed, but he hasn't been in office a full year yet. The changes are going to take time.
    Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    Cut the guy some slack! He's not even one year in office yet. If he were a dictator, he could introduce policies at will. But the US is a democratic society, so even well-intended policies may take time to become law, if at all. We all know this. Perhaps we should give him another year before we take stock!
    Great point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucke View Post
    As of now, the Nobel Peace Prize = Total BS. It's completely lost it's meaning and purpose. You might as well call it the Mickey Mouse Club Prize.
    There are a lot of great people that have won that award that would take offense to that statement. As discussed earlier, you don't neccessarily win the NPP for accomplishments. I didn't even realize that before this topic came up, but after reading the thread, I guess he's fallen within the parameters to be awarded the honor and we should all fell proud as a country that our national leader has been recognized. Especially with the things going on over seas.
    If Obama had VERY politely refused the award he would have gained a little respect from both sides of the aisle.
    Again agreed. But I guarantee you that if he had done that people would be talking junk about that to and how Obama has no class blah, blah, blah.
    I didn't vote for this guy, think his campaign was 100% media hype, etc. But the topic of him winning the Nobel Peace Prize and Americans twisting it into what some are twisting it into is sad. Really sad.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    I strongly disagree! Perhaps you can refreshen our recollection of the meaning and purpose of the award.



    I do not see any reason he should have rejected it, politely or not.
    Gladly.

    When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

    If you put an OR in the place of the AND you could make a very weak case for Obama ATTEMPTING TO CREATE fraternity between nations. Any perceived "fraternity" Obama had created after a couple of weeks in the White House has certainly not been tested yet. Some would argue that Obama has done more to polarize his OWN country than any other president to date.

    Even if he has created fraternity (which I'm not conceding he actually has) - that work has been COMPLETELY offset by his ADDITION to standing armies.

    And even with a poor, twisted translation (that omits the majority of the stated purpose of the prize) you'd be hard pressed to make the case that Obama did the MOST or BEST work (among his contemporaries) toward the effort of creating fraternity between nations.

    If you take the stated purpose of the NPP as a whole - and honestly, objectively examine it - you see how utterly absurd this nomination is. Obama fan or not.

  17. Chuck........Strategicmove.... ...I think that YOU guys should be polititians. I'm glad to see two people here disagree respectfully and not resort to insults and other forms of immaturity. Both of you guys have very good points and the great part is.........thats your right as Americans (for now at least )! Good work and valid points.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    I strongly disagree! Perhaps you can refreshen our recollection of the meaning and purpose of the award.



    I do not see any reason he should have rejected it, politely or not.
    Well I can name a few reasons. Firstly is Article 1, section 9 stating that any foreign gift will not be accepted without first having full consent of the US congress... which has not happened. Also the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 and further legislation passed in 1977 has a big hand in denying this gift from being received. So as people are fawning over President Obama and honeymooning on his rhetoric, he is in clear violation of the law.
    The Historic PES Legend

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Chucke View Post
    Gladly.

    When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

    If you put an OR in the place of the AND you could make a very weak case for Obama ATTEMPTING TO CREATE fraternity between nations. Any perceived "fraternity" Obama had created after a couple of weeks in the White House has certainly not been tested yet. Some would argue that Obama has done more to polarize his OWN country than any other president to date.

    Even if he has created fraternity (which I'm not conceding he actually has) - that work has been COMPLETELY offset by his ADDITION to standing armies.

    And even with a poor, twisted translation (that omits the majority of the stated purpose of the prize) you'd be hard pressed to make the case that Obama did the MOST or BEST work (among his contemporaries) toward the effort of creating fraternity between nations.

    If you take the stated purpose of the NPP as a whole - and honestly, objectively examine it - you see how utterly absurd this nomination is. Obama fan or not.
    Thank you for your post. If you take a look at one of my earlier posts, I mentioned the improvement of fraternity among nations, and the holding of peace congresses, so there is no dispute here. You may agree with me that these conditions set by Mr. Nobel are reinterpreted every time by the Nobel Committee. Those conditions made sense at the time Mr. Nobel lived, but cannot be applied one-to-one these days. How many of the recent Nobel Peace Prize winners had solid achievements in terms of the "best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and [/or] for the holding of peace congresses."? Not many! My point is that these conditions must be given a modern rendition to lend them to practical implementation.

    Now, to Mr. Obama. Is his commitment to diplomacy in doubt? He has proposed unconditional holding of talks with Iran over its nuclear programme (without a pre-condition to drop its uranium enrichment). Some may regard this as a demonstration of weakness, but game-theoretic principles show otherwise. Confrontational approaches of earlier periods did not generate much benefit for anyone other than Iran.
    Still on international diplomacy, Mr. Obama has offered North Korea an opportunity for bilateral talks. Furthermore, he is appears to have created favourable conditions for the goal of reducing Russian and American nuclear arsenals, principally by masterly working at defrosting relations with Russia (which, by the way, became very rusty toward the end of the Bush administration). He is also committed to a prompt withdrawal of US forces in Iraq. The list goes on. As a consequence, I believe it is safe to say Mr. Obama has been pivotal in positively changing the global tone of foreign policy. While this is still in the early stages, it is nevertheless promising.

    If you disagree that Mr. Obama, even under what you termed a "twisted translation", "did the MOST or BEST work (among his contemporaries) toward the effort of creating fraternity between nations", to use your words, then tell me which of his contemporaries did more!

    All together, I do not think this award is absurd. Again, look at an earlier post I made here. The Prize may be awarded to spur a direction, motivate action in a certain area, or to underline a certain way of thinking. I admit the timing of the award caught most observers off-guard, but that is not to challenge the integrity of the award. Remember, no matter who gets the award, there is always a better choice, depending on whom you ask.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Well I can name a few reasons. Firstly is Article 1, section 9 stating that any foreign gift will not be accepted without first having full consent of the US congress... which has not happened. Also the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 and further legislation passed in 1977 has a big hand in denying this gift from being received. So as people are fawning over President Obama and honeymooning on his rhetoric, he is in clear violation of the law.
    Well, technically, assuming this award can be described as a gift, the award ceremonies are due early December 2009, so he has not accepted anything yet, and so has not violated any law yet! Furthermore, it is arguable whether he was awarded the prize as the President of the United States, considering the nominations ended February 1, 2009, as Senator of Illinois, or as citizen Obama. We may never know this precisely. So, depending on what status is relevant, the law you invoked may or may not apply. Something else: The laws you quoted were not in effect when Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919) received the Peace Prizes, otherwise it would have been interesting to know what protocol was followed in those cases.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by iron fists View Post
    ...Well firstly I will answer that by the fact that the president with approval of congress and the supreme court ( hence reason for sotomoyor nominee) can alter the whole process of election of president, senate, and house, amend the bill of rights to fit there own agenda as well as the declaration on independence and also interpret it as they seem fit( sotomoyor seems to envogue the thought of rewritting laws...
    The important question is "What are the chances of such outcomes"? As for Judge Sotomayor, you know enough about the workings of the Supreme Court to assess how plausible your position is! I'll leave it at that!

    Read all the news press my friend other than nbc, cbs, they have been dicussing the topic of obama and his lil helpers wanting to amend and nulify parts of the bill of rights and they are criticizing the declaration...
    I do not even read the news organizations you mentioned. The entire idea is laughable, to say the least.

    So yea I would say that the idea or thought of obama wanting to be dictator is not a joke but reality in a socialist driven agenda....
    I smile when this term "socialist" is tossed around with reckless abandon. Have you seen a "socialist" economy in action? I doubt it, otherwise you should know that the US is eons away from such a politico-economic structure. Find a different term!


    And as his first dictator stragety...congress will vote on a healthcare bill that is not written yet, but when it is pass the bill will be wrote and he will tell us what it says so we need not read it ourselves, so he will have the only copy.( Thats dictator 101 overseas, but since its obama its ok.)
    What?

    I cannot give an alternative for the stabalizing of the economy...
    I thought as much.

    ... except for no more political repayment stimulus bills.
    What exactly does this mean?


    I would prefer a stimulus that redistributes the wealth to the tax paying legal citizens , not the welfare leaches that always seem to get more. ( but I guess living for free does get hard in a depression.. yeah right.)...
    Be more concrete! How should that happen in practice? Everyone pretends to have a better prescription than President Obama, so please spell out exactly how you would tackle the issue!

    And if you wana point the finger at bush then point it back at clinton also for the decline of the dollar. the drastic decline has taken place in obamas term under his policies and spending....
    I cannot believe I am reading this! President Clinton? Take a break, and take a look at the determinants of exchange-rate fluctuations!

    Why cant our leader take responsibility for once. Did bush blame clinton when 9/11 happened a month after his start, no of course not it was all his fault, he did that in a month, but how is it obama hasnt done anything himslef in 10 months that has negatively affected us...because he wont take blame its bushes fault. Im sure when air force one breaks down it will be bushes fault too. not obamas for running around the globe with the first unlady on our tax money...
    Are you kidding?

    ... Well just ask the prime minister of great brittain, ask china what they think, and listen to some things chavez from venezuale says. Just google them all. But of course all the muslim leaders love him....well except iran. but all my leaders must not have an accountable opinion, so I wont mention russia either.
    You would be better off, if you formulated your opinions yourself, and not believe everything you hear on radio. Great Britain? China? Russia? Chavez (nicer to Obama than Bush, but arguably anti-American, anyway)?
    If all Muslim leaders love him, according to you, then it is contrary to your original position that world leaders consider him a "joke". Did you listen to (or read) his speech in Egypt earlier this year?

    ...He is not rying to crumble it, bu thats what he is gona do....



    But he also has stated many times that we must start over to rebuild...so that sounds to fit the bill. Plus if we fall then we will have to go to him to get us out and re-elect him because only the sourcerer can undo his curse,he wants world peace but that will never happen because of a little thing called religeon. religeon is what has divided many nations, leaders and the world. So peace is only a dream because religeous beliefs are stronger then individual will, governement and the law( in other countries) But obama will jist have wright convert us all to muslim and outlaw any other religeon punishable by death. Then with a world of muslin, we will have peace....
    I just do not follow your logic here!

    Just google all your questions and look at the array of supporting info. Just dont get obama to wage war against me for telling the truth. like he has with the healthcare companies.
    You got all these from Google?
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    You got all these from Google?
    Sadly, most get their information from Google.

    Strategic (Dr. Strategic - as most do not know), I enjoy your contributions on the subject.
  23. Thumbs up


    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Lungz View Post
    This is all I will say: It's called Propaganda. Our enemies (which I know very well) would do and say anything to have the masses turn against our own leader. Now, regardless if you like the man, or if you disagree with his policies/propositions, NO leader can be effective if his own people are pointing fingers at him and listening to the enemies ideology of him. Stop playing in to their (terrorist) hands.

    /I'm out.
    Nicely said, Fin.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    Well, technically, assuming this award can be described as a gift, the award ceremonies are due early December 2009, so he has not accepted anything yet, and so has not violated any law yet! Furthermore, it is arguable whether he was awarded the prize as the President of the United States, considering the nominations ended February 1, 2009, as Senator of Illinois, or as citizen Obama. We may never know this precisely. So, depending on what status is relevant, the law you invoked may or may not apply. Something else: The laws you quoted were not in effect when Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919) received the Peace Prizes, otherwise it would have been interesting to know what protocol was followed in those cases.
    It doesnt matter if he is being awarded as Senator, Citizen or President. He is and will be a sitting president when the award is confirmed and disbursed, and he was put in for said award after his presidency commenced. But I agree with you that it will be interesting to see how it plays out, since the majority of congress will not bat an eyelash because of who is the sitting president.
    The Historic PES Legend

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Iron Lungz View Post
    Sadly, most get their information from Google.

    Strategic (Dr. Strategic - as most do not know), I enjoy your contributions on the subject.
    I must ask IL... where is it you gain a predominant amount of your information?
    The Historic PES Legend
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-05-2013, 06:54 AM
  2. Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
    By strategicmove in forum General Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 01:49 AM
  3. recalling the following Nobel Prizes
    By lutherblsstt in forum Politics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 09-20-2009, 10:42 AM
  4. Surrrreee Islam is peaceful.
    By windwords7 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-16-2003, 04:58 PM
Log in
Log in