Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What has this man achieved since entering office? Nothing at all. Just superficial changes to previous and his campaign of 'change' is nothing but BS. Somebody should throw a shoe at that him and the Nobel Peace Prize panel.

At 10/9/09 05:06 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: THe dudes being rewarded for his fucking rhetoric during his campaign. That is just plain fucked up. Its awarding the prize based on what he *Says* he's going to do, so apparently sugar coated words are enough for a Nobel Prize now...

Gores winning was at least feasible, regardless of what you think about him or what he's done he's at least *done* something recognisable. Obama had to have been nominated within 2 weeks of his coming to power and in those two weeks he achieved nothing worthy of the peace prize.

Congratulations Nobel Committee you just lost any semblance of credibility you had.

Exactly. Apparently all a person needs to do is make promises to change the world and being peace, and they'll receive a Nobel prize.

It's angering really, that there are tons of other people out there who have ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING and they get ignored all because Obama promised peace, but has failed to bring it. If Obama deserves this award, then he should do something to earn it. Obama needs to do something to deserve the award, not just promise to do something.

At 10/9/09 05:09 PM, ThePretenders wrote: What has this man achieved since entering office? Nothing at all. Just superficial changes to previous and his campaign of 'change' is nothing but BS. Somebody should throw a shoe at that him and the Nobel Peace Prize panel.

Stimulus Package
Cap And Trade
Health Care Reform (within the next month)
Killing the F-22

How can you say he's done nothing?

At 10/9/09 05:06 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Obama had to have been nominated within 2 weeks of his coming to power and in those two weeks he achieved nothing worthy of the peace prize.

That makes sense because the deadline for nominating a candidate is February 1st. I certainly don't remember Obama doing anything worthy of the award before he came into office. Sure, he spoke about change, but if he'd actually done at least one thing, you'd think it'd be on the front page of newspapers, etc.

I'm sure there were far more qualified candidates than Obama, but I can't help but feel a bit of national pride that the president won the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe the last U.S. President to win it was Carter in the 80's for Habitat for Humanity.

At 10/9/09 05:42 PM, GayDorf wrote:

Stimulus Package

only thing this stimulated was Obama's package.

Cap And Trade

probably will never pass.

Health Care Reform (within the next month)

I somehow doubt it. considering the right wing was shut out of the process, the odds of them voting yes is pretty much nil. Also unless they've persuaded enough 'blue dogs' over, it won't pass.

Killing the F-22

technological superiority has its benefits. Last thing you want to be in war is to be on even terms.

How can you say he's done nothing?

How about this. He's done nothing good.

THIS JUST IN! Obama has won International Idol!

This phrase is more appropriate here than anywhere else ever:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I'll let you derive your own conclusions from this statement.

I have yet to see any political actions by Obama worthy of a Nobel Prize. America's first black president? An accomplishment, to say the least, but not enough.

At 10/10/09 12:01 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: I have yet to see any political actions by Obama worthy of a Nobel Prize. America's first black president? An accomplishment, to say the least, but not enough.

He's gone this far without having shoes thrown at him. That's an accomplishment too, in it's own way.

At 10/9/09 04:50 PM, TightRope wrote:

Globalism is a bad thing if you weren't aware.

No globalism is a good thing and an neccessary inevitability. Globalization is a bad thing.

So now we're giving out Nobel Peace Prizes for good intentions?

At 10/10/09 03:41 AM, awkward-silence wrote: No globalism is a good thing and an neccessary inevitability. Globalization is a bad thing.

Prove it. Why should people be asked to ignore their own national sovereignty when there are nations in the world that would be pleased as punch to take advantage of them once they did? Globalism sounds good on paper, but somehow I think that humanity isn't evolved or altruistic enough to make it work as a foreign policy.

At 10/10/09 03:50 AM, dySWN wrote:

Prove it. Why should people be asked to ignore their own national sovereignty when there are nations in the world that would be pleased as punch to take advantage of them once they did? Globalism sounds good on paper, but somehow I think that humanity isn't evolved or altruistic enough to make it work as a foreign policy.

That's one aspect of a more extreme globalist ideology. I think that one world government will happen in the next couple hundred years (not necesarry a government like we think of the fed, but a body like U.N. with just a little more authority).

When I said globalism is a good thing I was pointing to things tied to globalism like the recongnition of and concern for global common spacem, (ex. ozone, oceans, things that come about with the revelations of the fish tank theory). That is an affect of globalism and the concern for and desire to preserve these are also of a globalist mindframe.(Let's not forget foreign aid and disaster relief).

As human being, we have only just recently started seeing ourselves as part of a larger picture in terms of human society and do have a lot of maturing to do before any of the more "radical" globalist idea's are even attempted to be implemented. However, the more moderate idea's are a positive and a neccessity.

At 10/9/09 05:37 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

I can't wait to see how Glenn Beck spins this.

I'm a little surprised, but not overly. Since I've moved to europe I've noticed that people over here fucking love Obama. Its his own country that people think he is the devil. But then again, America has always had difficulty linking up with a global mentality.

Why should American's (namely those in the USA) HAVE to go along with the crowd? Don't get me wrong, I understand certain circumstances require a global effort. However, socialist ideals need to stay the "F" out. Didn't Obama send back the gifts that Great Britain sent him? As far as doing anything to deserve such a high honor as a peace prize... well I am dumbfounded. He has only furthered the failings and continued making the same mistakes as our last president made yet people are still blaming Bush (I know he deserves it but still...) It also goes to figure anytime anyone mentions any major problem they run to make an excuse, call Acorn, or blame Bush. Obama's czars are out of line, they are convicts and white collar criminals. "What is the difference between Obama and God? God doesn't think he is Obama." Glenn Beck is awesome, not a fan but he seems to be on the level as does Lou Dobbs and Anderson Cooper. But here is where you tell me I am wrong and that John Stewart is the best news reporter.......

At 10/10/09 03:41 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

At 10/9/09 04:50 PM, TightRope wrote:

Globalism is a bad thing if you weren't aware.

No globalism is a good thing and an neccessary inevitability. Globalization is a bad thing.

Because obviously applying averages to everything while shifting more power to a fewer rich politicians and bankers is a WONDERFUL IDEA!

This just in! Obama has won the Kentucky Derby!

Yo guys, talk about globalism in a new thread if you'd like to: [new topic]

This thread is for bitching about obama only. >:(

oi that cad, doin stuff.

At 10/10/09 10:08 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

oi that cad, doin stuff.

beyond appearing on every tv show known to man and doing teleprompter readings, what exactly has he done so far?

Maybe I can win the Nobel prize in medicine by aspiring to cure cancer.

At 10/10/09 04:08 AM, awkward-silence wrote: That's one aspect of a more extreme globalist ideology. I think that one world government will happen in the next couple hundred years (not necesarry a government like we think of the fed, but a body like U.N. with just a little more authority).

I kinda doubt that, but I suppose it's really up to debate. Maybe we'll get some sort of charismatic leader or worldwide crisis to prompt it - there's know way of seeing that coming.

When I said globalism is a good thing I was pointing to things tied to globalism like the recongnition of and concern for global common spacem, (ex. ozone, oceans, things that come about with the revelations of the fish tank theory). That is an affect of globalism and the concern for and desire to preserve these are also of a globalist mindframe.(Let's not forget foreign aid and disaster relief).

As human being, we have only just recently started seeing ourselves as part of a larger picture in terms of human society and do have a lot of maturing to do before any of the more "radical" globalist idea's are even attempted to be implemented. However, the more moderate idea's are a positive and a neccessity.

I guess I can see that line of reasoning, although I still don't think that a single governing body for the world is the way to go to address such issues. Living in a relatively small city in a relatively unpopulated state, I've seen first hand what happens when you put such a vast distance (both culturally and physically) between the people and their government - you wind up with tone-deaf ideologues dictating policies that may work for most other places, but fail to address the issues of local life properly.

I would argue that, if we want to address issues that face the world as a whole, a diplomatic meeting of nations would probably work better than a global governing body with the force of law and authority; the leaders of each member nation, having a closer connection to the realities of life at home, would be able to make better decisions for their citizens as individuals following certain tenets set forth by the council, as opposed to unilateral group governance. The UN came close to accomplishing this, but its moved so far from it's original purpose as a meeting of the diplomatic minds that it may as well be an object lesson in corruption.

At 10/9/09 05:42 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/9/09 05:06 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Obama had to have been nominated within 2 weeks of his coming to power and in those two weeks he achieved nothing worthy of the peace prize.

That makes sense because the deadline for nominating a candidate is February 1st. I certainly don't remember Obama doing anything worthy of the award before he came into office. Sure, he spoke about change, but if he'd actually done at least one thing, you'd think it'd be on the front page of newspapers, etc.

Oh, you silly, silly people. If you would actually bother to be better informed about the process, we wouldn't even need to have this argument.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/E U_NOBEL_QA

"Q: Does the award typically have more to do with past accomplishments or with encouraging future efforts related to peace?

A: Both. The committee often uses the award to encourage and promote a cause or campaign. The awards to Al Gore and the U.N. panel on climate change in 2007, or in 1997 to anti-land mine activists, would fall into that category. Other years it honors people with a long history of peace work. Last year's prize to longtime peace mediator Martti Ahtisaari was almost like a lifetime achievement award."

"Q: Did Obama accomplish anything prior to becoming president that may have contributed to his nomination?

A: It's hard to know if members of the committee were thinking about Obama's earlier accomplishments when they decided to award him the prize. But a lot of what they praised about him - like his calls for more international cooperation, a smaller world stock of nuclear arms, better U.S. relations with Muslim nations and stepped-up efforts to combat climate change - was prominent in his campaign speeches, long before he took the oath of office."

"Q: Who can nominate candidates for the award? And when were nominations due?

A: The committee accepts nominations from former peace prize winners; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and parliaments; professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

The deadline for nominations was Feb. 1."

At 10/10/09 11:29 AM, Elfer wrote: Maybe I can win the Nobel prize in medicine by aspiring to cure cancer.

I'll win the nobel prize by aspiring to take over the world and unite all the peoples under 1 banner. a trangular flag with a few paintball splatters on it. i will personally bitchslap the leaders of the middle east with a steel gauntlet and tell them to behave themselves or get slapped again.

and the lord will look down and see that it is good..... or facepalm at the idea of a white guy running around slapping people with a steel gauntlet when they step out of line.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there are probably a lot more deserving people.

At 10/10/09 05:40 PM, Stoicish wrote: I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there are probably a lot more deserving people.

Easily, I'm an Obama supporter and I agree.

At 10/10/09 02:42 PM, Darkside-void wrote: Oh, you silly, silly people. If you would actually bother to be better informed about the process, we wouldn't even need to have this argument.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/E U_NOBEL_QA

In fairness, that FAQ came out two hours after I posted, and since I'm not a journalist, keeping that up to date with news isn't necessarily gonna happen. Did you discover it right when it came out or just before you posted?

I'm still unsatisfied because it doesn't mention what he actually did. It even says when you quoted it:

A: It's hard to know if members of the committee were thinking about Obama's earlier accomplishments when they decided to award him the prize. But a lot of what they praised about him - like his calls for more international cooperation, a smaller world stock of nuclear arms, better U.S. relations with Muslim nations and stepped-up efforts to combat climate change - was prominent in his campaign speeches, long before he took the oath of office."

Before I posted yesterday, I read from the Nobel Peace Prize's website that the award goes to a 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 and promotion of peace congresses". OK, Obama did the promotion part with his speeches, but what else before the nomination deadline?

And what about the other 204 nominations? I don't know who they are and what they did, but you'd think there'd be several who did all of what the Peace Prize says.

Does anybody know where to find a list of other top candidates for the prize? And when is it being awarded anyway?

At 10/10/09 06:39 PM, Patton3 wrote: Does anybody know where to find a list of other top candidates for the prize?

Some people have been named, but the official list of nominations won't be available until at least 50 years later. (Oh snap!)

And when is it being awarded anyway?

Typically on the second Friday of October.

At 10/10/09 07:03 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/10/09 06:39 PM, Patton3 wrote: Does anybody know where to find a list of other top candidates for the prize?

Some people have been named, but the official list of nominations won't be available until at least 50 years later. (Oh snap!)

That Greg Morteson person seems like a way better choice for that prize than Obama. He founded a strong humanitarian organization. What humanitarian work has obama done?

I think you guys have a case of the: the guy that we that was good lost and was replaced with a guy we thought was bad, so let's shit on him.

With Gore winning a Nobel Peace Price, it's not like the award has much credibility anyways. It's just another politicized selection. It's not a slight against Obama either; I wouldn't expect any president to win what the award is supposed to represent within the first year of their presidency.