FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Barack Obama got Nobel peace prize..... share your views.

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 



Does he deserve Peace prize?
Yes
11%
 11%  [ 2 ]
No
88%
 88%  [ 16 ]
Total Votes : 18

metalfreek
Today, Barack Obama was given the award of Nobel peace prize. What do you think about it. please share your views.

Let me say what I think. Obama is a man with peace in his heart. He has clearly spoken about maintaining peace with Muslim country, middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq. I am sure he will do his best to achieve this. Saying this I also think that at this moment of time he didn't deserved it. He has done nothing significant in order to achieve peace till now.

But I also hope that this prize will encourage him to do some good things to maintain peace with Muslim countries, Middle East, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last edited by metalfreek on Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total
truespeed
Although you could argue he hasn't done anything any other US president hasn't done in terms of vowing to reduce nuclear weapons,i think his general posture and attitude and willingness to embrace and talk to everyone without preconditions makes him different from other US presidents.

Should he of won the award so soon? I am not so sure,as he hasn't actually achieved anything yet. Is the world a safer place since he became president,i would say yes,the US finally have a president the rest of the world respects,and although in the USA he may not be held in high regard,the rest of the world likes him,and have a higher opinion of the USA because of him.
deanhills
My immediate response was:"For what?" For me a prize like that should go to someone who went all out, to the extent of making self-sacrifices for creating peace, and not only for 9 months, but years of dedication. There should be a record of deliberate ongoing fighting for peace. I'm even wondering whether this Noble Prize could be a plot to force the President of the United States to make specific decisions, as the President has not been proven in those decisions yet. Are the people who made the decision to give him a Noble Prize hoping he would stop war in the Middle East? Influence the President? Appeal to his ego?

If any credit is given to Obama for being President and being different than Bush, then it has to also be given collectively to the people of the United States who voted him into power. For that reason it does not make any sense either.

If I were the President I would have declined the Nobel Peace Prize. Even Angelina Jolie has done more for the Peace Prize than he has been given the opportunity to do so far. If it had been given to him after at least one term of office, maybe it would have been different as there would have been a very clear and distinctive stamp that he would have made, but for me this is completely out of whack with reality, and even cause for suspicion.
handfleisch
The Nobel committee has acknowledged what so many Americans and people of the world think and feel. It's a very good thing.

For those who question this, do your homework. The committee clearly explained its reasons, mentioning the similar case of Gorbachev -- to acknowledge recent work and encourage future work for progress in his peace efforts around the globe. And below is a list of Obama's peacemaking efforts currently underway.

Americans, it's time to celebrate and be proud. And the rest of the peace-loving world should, too.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Quote:
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a stunning decision that comes just eight months into his presidency.
Less than nine months into his presidency, Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

The president had not been mentioned as among front-runners for the prize, and the roomful of reporters gasped when Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee, uttered Obama's name.

The president, who was awakened to be told he had won, said he was humbled to be selected, according to an administration official.

The Nobel committee recognized Obama's efforts to solve complex global problems including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

"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," the committee said.

Jagland said the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease.

He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," it said.
...
The award comes at a crucial time for Obama, who has initiated peace missions to key parts of the globe.

Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, has returned to the region to advocate for peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Mitchell met Thursday with Israeli President Shimon Peres. He plans to meet Friday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before talking with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton starts a six-day trip to Europe and Russia on Friday. On the trip, the secretary will discuss the next steps on Iran and North Korea, and international efforts to have the two countries end their nuclear programs.

The centerpiece of the trip will be her visit to Moscow, where she will work toward an agreement to take the place of the Start II arms control pact, which expires December 5. She also will address the new bilateral presidential commission that is working on a broad range of issues, from arms control to health.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who won the 2005 peace prize for his efforts to prevent nuclear energy being used for military means, said Obama deserved to win for his efforts to bring Iran to the table for direct nuclear talks with the United States.

"I could not think of anybody who is more deserving," said ElBaradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency.


truespeed
They are saying now on the news, the short list for the prize was drawn up only 11 days into his presidency,so someone at nobel,put his name forward based on his first 11 days in office,so it would seem like the people of Nobel had/have an agenda,not on what Obama has achieved,but on what they hope he might achieve.
handfleisch
truespeed wrote:
They are saying now on the news, the short list for the prize was drawn up only 11 days into his presidency,so someone at nobel,put his name forward based on his first 11 days in office,so it would seem like the people of Nobel had/have an agenda,not on what Obama has achieved,but on what they hope he might achieve.


The 11 days thing really has nothing to do with it, but yes, it is based partly on what they hope he will achieve. The prize was not awarded based on the 11 days but on the eight months of activities (see the list of peace efforts above) and also on the hope of more to come (as the committee did for Gorbachev, as encouragement during a difficult but promising process).
truespeed
handfleisch wrote:
truespeed wrote:
They are saying now on the news, the short list for the prize was drawn up only 11 days into his presidency,so someone at nobel,put his name forward based on his first 11 days in office,so it would seem like the people of Nobel had/have an agenda,not on what Obama has achieved,but on what they hope he might achieve.


The 11 days thing really has nothing to do with it, but yes, it is based partly on what they hope he will achieve. The prize was not awarded based on the 11 days but on the eight months of activities (see the list of peace efforts above) and also on the hope of more to come (as the committee did for Gorbachev, as encouragement during a difficult but promising process).


Yes but why was his name even on the list at all,as the final nomination date was 11 days into his presidency,what reason could anyone at Nobel have for adding him to the list at that stage. Its almost as if they added him "just in case".

In terms of exposure for Nobel and publicity,they couldn't of chosen a better candidate,but based on what they knew of him and his achievements at the time of his nomination,they chose the wrong man for the wrong reasons.

He looked embarrassed and apologetic during his press conference earlier today.
ocalhoun
Probably should have been nominated for the next award, not this one. Wait for his efforts to bear fruit and judge him by that, not just by his intentions.

Besides that, why, oh why, can't anyone seem to understand that a nuke-free world is impossible?
Bikerman
The consensus here in the UK (and other European countries) seems to be that he was nominated mostly because he isn't Bush.
A great many people in Europe believe that the Bush administration was catastrophic, both for relationships between Europe and the US, and for international relations in general.
This isn't particularly a party political point - it goes deeper. The perception of Bush here was basically that he was quite stupid, anxious for war, didn't pay attention (or care) much about institutions like the UN, deliberately blocked any progress on international issues like climate change, and generally made the world a less safe place.
Now, we can argue all day about how fair or unfair that portrayal actually is, but I promise that this represents a very widely held view amongst Europeans.

Obama is (almost by default) seen as progressive, more willing to engage internationally, pro-science and someone who will possibly make the world a safer place.
We've discussed many times the difference in political institutions and philosophy between Europe and the US. Europe is generally much more (what Americans would call) left wing. 'Big' government is not (necessarily) regarded with the same suspicion, anger and contempt that I notice in the US, although in some ways we are actually more cynical about our 'leaders'.
Europe is very different to the states. The UK is probably closer to the US, in this sense, than most of Europe but we are still very far apart in many respects - two countries divided by a common tongue....

Does Obama deserve a Nobel? - no, I think not. There again, there are many winners of that particular award over the last decades who I would say the same for (specifically Mother Theresa, Elie Wiesel, Al Gore, the Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Rigoberta Menchú, Freddie De Klerk, Yasser Arafat ..... I could go on). I've always been against the whole idea of an annual Nobel Peace prize - I think perhaps it should be awarded on the rare occasions that there is an obvious and outstanding candidate, rather than being dished out pretty much every year (certainly since the 1950s).
handfleisch
truespeed wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
truespeed wrote:
They are saying now on the news, the short list for the prize was drawn up only 11 days into his presidency,so someone at nobel,put his name forward based on his first 11 days in office,so it would seem like the people of Nobel had/have an agenda,not on what Obama has achieved,but on what they hope he might achieve.


The 11 days thing really has nothing to do with it, but yes, it is based partly on what they hope he will achieve. The prize was not awarded based on the 11 days but on the eight months of activities (see the list of peace efforts above) and also on the hope of more to come (as the committee did for Gorbachev, as encouragement during a difficult but promising process).


Yes but why was his name even on the list at all,as the final nomination date was 11 days into his presidency,what reason could anyone at Nobel have for adding him to the list at that stage. Its almost as if they added him "just in case".


The Nobel committee doesn't nominate people. So this issue of the 11 days doesn't really matter -- anyone can be nominated. Spiderman could be nominated -- it doesn't make any difference in the Nobel committee subsequent decision-making. I saw that FOXaganda was using this 11 days thing and implying that the committee based their decision on what Obama did after 11 days in office, which is a lie, of course (it's FOX).

The committee decided based on his achievements so far and for encouragement for the future.
Bikerman
handfleisch wrote:
The Nobel committee doesn't nominate people. So this issue of the 11 days doesn't really matter -- anyone can be nominated. Spiderman could be nominated -- it doesn't make any difference in the Nobel committee subsequent decision-making. I saw that FOXaganda was using this 11 days thing and implying that the committee based their decision on what Obama did after 11 days in office, which is a lie, of course (it's FOX).

The committee decided based on his achievements so far and for encouragement for the future.

Hmm...it actually operates behind closed doors for the most part. the committees send out invitations to previous winners statesman and other people. These people make the nominations and the committee makes the final decision from the list. The nominations and the decisions are confidential.
As long as the committee members are trustworthy, then this is a pretty good way of doing things. more democratic system would be open to abuse.
liljp617
Does it make any difference? I mean, the thing was given to Yasser Arafat and Al Gore -.- The award itself is worthy of laughing at.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Does Obama deserve a Nobel? - no, I think not. There again, there are many winners of that particular award over the last decades who I would say the same for (specifically Mother Theresa, Elie Wiesel, Al Gore, the Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Rigoberta Menchú, Freddie De Klerk, Yasser Arafat ..... I could go on). I've always been against the whole idea of an annual Nobel Peace prize - I think perhaps it should be awarded on the rare occasions that there is an obvious and outstanding candidate, rather than being dished out pretty much every year (certainly since the 1950s).
Totally agreed, and very well put as well. Not only does Obama not deserve a Nobel prize, but who does really? Better to only award the prize when there is seriously someone who deserves it and that does not necessarily have to be every year.

liljp617 wrote:
Does it make any difference? I mean, the thing was given to Yasser Arafat and Al Gore -.- The award itself is worthy of laughing at.
Good point!!!! I'd forgotten about Yasser Arafat. Twisted Evil
handfleisch
Jeez, the wet blankets are really flying over here. Sorry but I am celebrating something very good happening to the US of A, because as the State Dept put it, "Better to be thrown accolades than shoes". And I won't be tardy for this party!
truespeed
handfleisch wrote:
Jeez, the wet blankets are really flying over here. Sorry but I am celebrating something very good happening to the US of A, because as the State Dept put it, "Better to be thrown accolades than shoes". And I won't be tardy for this party!


But this isn't about Obama,or the USA,its about why someone at Nobel, decided after 11 days to add his name to the nomination list,its like Christiano Ronaldo joining Real Madrid,and getting nominated for Spanish player of the year before he has even played a game.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Jeez, the wet blankets are really flying over here. Sorry but I am celebrating something very good happening to the US of A, because as the State Dept put it, "Better to be thrown accolades than shoes". And I won't be tardy for this party!
If you want to act like the story with the Emperor who was wearing no clothes, and everyone commenting what beautiful clothes he was wearing, go ahead. But please don't ask other people who have common sense to play act with you, as that is perfectly rediculous.

If I had been Obama, I would have declined the Prize. There are many people out there who are much more deserving in having risked their lives for peace. I would not have nominated him, but Clinton was successful in a Peace Mission to North Korea to free the American Journalists. There are those who assisted in deliberations for peace either historically or most recently, such as during the Gaza war, to get it to end. Or any of those who helped to fight for peace in war-torn Congo border with Rwanda. There are so many real examples of people risking their lives for peace. I would not have given a prize to Angelina Jolie, but even she did more than your President to go out and act as an Ambassador for Peace. She visited areas where there had been war. Obama might have done something like that eventually in his life, but not yet.
handfleisch
truespeed wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Jeez, the wet blankets are really flying over here. Sorry but I am celebrating something very good happening to the US of A, because as the State Dept put it, "Better to be thrown accolades than shoes". And I won't be tardy for this party!


But this isn't about Obama,or the USA,its about why someone at Nobel, decided after 11 days to add his name to the nomination list,its like Christiano Ronaldo joining Real Madrid,and getting nominated for Spanish player of the year before he has even played a game.


Have you even read my response to this point that you keep making over and over? The 11 days point is a crock.
truespeed
handfleisch wrote:
truespeed wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Jeez, the wet blankets are really flying over here. Sorry but I am celebrating something very good happening to the US of A, because as the State Dept put it, "Better to be thrown accolades than shoes". And I won't be tardy for this party!


But this isn't about Obama,or the USA,its about why someone at Nobel, decided after 11 days to add his name to the nomination list,its like Christiano Ronaldo joining Real Madrid,and getting nominated for Spanish player of the year before he has even played a game.


Have you even read my response to this point that you keep making over and over? The 11 days point is a crock.


But its not a crock,his nomination was placed 11 days into his presidency,you can argue he didn't receive it for what he achieved in his first 11 days,but his name was put on the list then.

This is what is wrong with his nomination,not what he has achieved (or not since),and wether that is enough to justify a Nobel peace prize.

Your saying he won it for all the things you listed,all of those were done after his nomination,not before,all i am saying is he shouldn't of been nominated in the first place. Nominations should be about achievements not what might be achieved.

Last edited by truespeed on Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Jeez, the wet blankets are really flying over here. Sorry but I am celebrating something very good happening to the US of A, because as the State Dept put it, "Better to be thrown accolades than shoes". And I won't be tardy for this party!
If you want to act like the story with the Emperor who was wearing no clothes, and everyone commenting what beautiful clothes he was wearing, go ahead. But please don't ask other people who have common sense to play act with you, as that is perfectly rediculous.

If I had been Obama, I would have declined the Prize. There are many people out there who are much more deserving in having risked their lives for peace. I would not have nominated him, but Clinton was successful in a Peace Mission to North Korea to free the American Journalists. There are those who assisted in deliberations for peace either historically or most recently, such as during the Gaza war, to get it to end. Or any of those who helped to fight for peace in war-torn Congo border with Rwanda. There are so many real examples of people risking their lives for peace. I would not have given a prize to Angelina Jolie, but even she did more than your President to go out and act as an Ambassador for Peace. She visited areas where there had been war. Obama might have done something like that eventually in his life, but not yet.


As so often, your point is absurd and indicative of your indiscriminate use of flaky sources, since its only the Hope America Fails crowd like Limbaugh and Malkin (whom you have cited before) that are talking about "declining the prize". Although it is always funny when you start citing your "common sense" -- the last time you did that was to simply deny established facts because they didn't go along with your special version of "common sense".

The emperor has no clothes? I have already shown that committee cited several peace efforts underway that Obama is responsible for. You cite Clinton's trip to N.Korea -- if you don't realize that could never have happened under Bush, you are indeed confused, and ignorant about how this is precisely an example of what the Nobel committee was hoping to encourage more of (working with these countries like Iran and North Korea to bring them into the accepted ways of global community). So much for "no clothes".

Re "your president" -- what nationality are you?

My point is simple. The US president, due to his actions and intentions, is now getting accolades instead of condemnation, and that is something to celebrate. Only the bitterest cynics could have a big problem with that.
soljarag
When I first heard he won I thought it was a joke. I could not believe he won, what exactly has he accomplished? Sure he says all these great things (and I admit, he is a great public speaker) But why not wait until next year to see what happends... I'm sure some great people missed out on the award this year...

Remember right after 9/11 Bush had one of the highest approval ratings because of the state of mind the country was in... then look what happend...

Obama is still riding his "rockstar" apeal and as soon as that fades away and all his ideas dont pan out how we think they will.... it will be the same story for him .. (although I don't think quite as bad as bush got it...unless another attack happends)


I'm pretty sure obama didn't want this award... its just another controversy he has to deal with...


Oh and about that 10 or so day thing.... that doesnt matter..... there is still the fact that to this day he has accomplished NOTHING worthy of a Nobel Peace prize ..... There are many other people who should of won... If you start giving prizes to people based on what you THINK they will do... then the prize ia just based on how convencing they are

Last edited by soljarag on Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total
soljarag
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Does Obama deserve a Nobel? - no, I think not. There again, there are many winners of that particular award over the last decades who I would say the same for (specifically Mother Theresa, Elie Wiesel, Al Gore, the Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Rigoberta Menchú, Freddie De Klerk, Yasser Arafat ..... I could go on). I've always been against the whole idea of an annual Nobel Peace prize - I think perhaps it should be awarded on the rare occasions that there is an obvious and outstanding candidate, rather than being dished out pretty much every year (certainly since the 1950s).
Totally agreed, and very well put as well. Not only does Obama not deserve a Nobel prize, but who does really? Better to only award the prize when there is seriously someone who deserves it and that does not necessarily have to be every year.

liljp617 wrote:
Does it make any difference? I mean, the thing was given to Yasser Arafat and Al Gore -.- The award itself is worthy of laughing at.
Good point!!!! I'd forgotten about Yasser Arafat. Twisted Evil



Thats a great point!!! they should not give the award out every year. Only when someone does something major...

They just degraded the award by giving it to someone just based on what they "hope" he will do.


I had no problem with Al gore getting the award.... atleast he did something that year... instead of basing it off a couple months of "promises"

if his promises don't pan out, can we take back the award?
Ophois
I don't think Obama earned a Nobel Prize for Peace.

Having said that, I don't see any reason to cheer, except that the world is finally liking us Americans again. I thought that "stupid American" label would never go away. Needless to say, I'm rather happy it's a Nobel and not a middle finger.

On the other hand, it's perfectly legitimate to say he didn't deserve it. That's fine. But do people have to "boo" him for it? Do people really have to cheer for the Olympic loss and jeer the Nobel win? Is that really how we want the world to see us? Damn, people... it's not like he stole your f*ckin baby in a Wal-Mart parking lot.

Ok, I get it. Some people really don't like Obama. Let's cheer for every negative thing to happen to America under his watch, and piss and moan about every good thing that happens under his watch, because that's the mature thing to do.

I bet these people would even cheer for his dog dying.
I heard Malia lost a tooth, I wonder how many people will laugh and point and make fun of her for it. Jeez. Gimme a break.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
My point is simple. The US president, due to his actions and intentions, is now getting accolades instead of condemnation, and that is something to celebrate. Only the bitterest cynics could have a big problem with that.
The heading of the Nobel Prize is not "Accolades for a good President", but Nobel Prize for Peace. The criticism is not against President Obama, but the Committee who gave him the Nobel Prize. The US President has only been around for 9 months. I have not seen him in a single act where he has been directly involved and responsible for brokering a Peace Agreement anywhere in the world. I've heard him making promises and undertakings, but the GITMO detainees for example are very much still being detained for example. In the meanwhile there are people who have worked very hard in their lives to accomplish international peace. You may have found some of them in brokering a peace agreement during the Gaza War, or liaising with Russia regarding the Georgia crisis, or working hard in Iraq for restoring order and peace.

Ophois wrote:
I don't think Obama earned a Nobel Prize for Peace.
There are a number of people who agree with you on this.

Ophois wrote:
Having said that, I don't see any reason to cheer, except that the world is finally liking us Americans again. I thought that "stupid American" label would never go away. Needless to say, I'm rather happy it's a Nobel and not a middle finger.
World opinion is better than before, but world opinion was not perfect about the US before Bush took office, neither is it perfect today. It is hopeful and cautious at best.

Ophois wrote:
On the other hand, it's perfectly legitimate to say he didn't deserve it. That's fine. But do people have to "boo" him for it? Do people really have to cheer for the Olympic loss and jeer the Nobel win? Is that really how we want the world to see us? Damn, people... it's not like he stole your f*ckin baby in a Wal-Mart parking lot.
Hopefully it would be understood that not agreeing that Obama should have received the Nobel Prize is not synonymous with not liking him, or booing him. The criticism is not Obama, but the people who gave him the Nobel Prize. That has to be logical to any rational thinking person.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
In the meanwhile there are people who have worked very hard in their lives to accomplish international peace.
Unfortunately, these people usually never seek the attention of cameras and press. They do what they do for the good works, not for the accolades.
Quote:
World opinion is better than before, but world opinion was not perfect about the US before Bush took office, neither is it perfect today. It is hopeful and cautious at best.
I'm not saying it's perfect, nor does it ever need to be. But it is a far cry better than it was the past 8 years. I know it wasn't perfect before then either, but an unpopular war and torture tend to really bring down public opinion.
Quote:
Hopefully it would be understood that not agreeing that Obama should have received the Nobel Prize is not synonymous with not liking him, or booing him. The criticism is not Obama, but the people who gave him the Nobel Prize. That has to be logical to any rational thinking person.
Certainly not the people of this forum. Most people here have seemed to keep their reasons, well... within reason. I was really referring that statement to the many people I talk to in public who actually do use this as another reason to dislike the man.
coolclay
Lol, I was the same was as many here when I first heard he got I really could not believe it, I thought for sure it was a prank. Sure enough it was real. Seriously though WTF were they thinking. Obama did pretty much exactly what any other candidates that he ran against would have did. He certainly hasn't done anything worthy of the NPP. That's not to say he won't but regardless he certainly hasn't. Like others has also said the NPP winners have certainly declined in the past few years. I don't think it should be a mandatory yearly award either. They should up their standards, and have a more stringent selection/nomination process. So many more people are worthier than him for a prize of this caliber. Regardless hopefully he pulls through and makes the prize worthwhile.
Da Rossa
Why would he deserve? He's done nothing so far.

For the ones that hated Bush, good news: this can, in the good side, work as a burden to prevent Obama from invading other countries. The bad news is: it's about time Iran got invaded. But in these conditions Obama will be very reluctant from now on.
liljp617
soljarag wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Does Obama deserve a Nobel? - no, I think not. There again, there are many winners of that particular award over the last decades who I would say the same for (specifically Mother Theresa, Elie Wiesel, Al Gore, the Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Rigoberta Menchú, Freddie De Klerk, Yasser Arafat ..... I could go on). I've always been against the whole idea of an annual Nobel Peace prize - I think perhaps it should be awarded on the rare occasions that there is an obvious and outstanding candidate, rather than being dished out pretty much every year (certainly since the 1950s).
Totally agreed, and very well put as well. Not only does Obama not deserve a Nobel prize, but who does really? Better to only award the prize when there is seriously someone who deserves it and that does not necessarily have to be every year.

liljp617 wrote:
Does it make any difference? I mean, the thing was given to Yasser Arafat and Al Gore -.- The award itself is worthy of laughing at.
Good point!!!! I'd forgotten about Yasser Arafat. Twisted Evil



Thats a great point!!! they should not give the award out every year. Only when someone does something major...

They just degraded the award by giving it to someone just based on what they "hope" he will do.


I had no problem with Al gore getting the award.... atleast he did something that year... instead of basing it off a couple months of "promises"

if his promises don't pan out, can we take back the award?


I'm sorry, what did Al Gore do to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?
Da Rossa
last, but not least: I personally think that the prize should not be handed every year. The comission should name a winner only when something RELEVANT is done in the world. Otherwise it gets discredited.

Ow, its already discredited; Gandhi and Pope John Paul II never got it. It's a political gift.
bukaida
Well, Let us hope that he will think twice before attacking any other new country after this. Also let us hope that he will bring down an end to the existing wars.
handfleisch
soljarag wrote:

I'm pretty sure obama didn't want this award... its just another controversy he has to deal with...


Now that I agree with. It's also just more pressure on Obama. The Nobel committee clearly indicated they are expecting big things.

Still, it's good to have a president where that is even in the realm of possibility.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Why would he deserve? He's done nothing so far.

For the ones that hated Bush, good news: this can, in the good side, work as a burden to prevent Obama from invading other countries. The bad news is: it's about time Iran got invaded. But in these conditions Obama will be very reluctant from now on.
Right, that was one of my worries, that perhaps this is a conspiracy to get the President of the United States not to invade any more countries. Twisted Evil I don't have any fears however. If Obama thinks it is necessary, I kow he will. Hopefully though it won't be necessary, and he will keep the troops in Iraq, so that Iran does not invade Iraq, and create a reason for being invaded by the US.
handfleisch
Leave it to the incomparable US House Rep. Alan Grayson to tell it like it is, speaking to Republicans criticizing Obama's Nobel Prize:
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/grayson-nobel-fear-hatred-racism/
Quote:
"I think I understand their disappointment," Grayson told MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Friday. "They're not going to be winning the Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon. They probably wish there was a Nobel prize for fear, a Nobel prize for hatred, a Nobel prize for racism. Then they'd be in the running."

Schultz aired a clip of Grayson speaking on the House floor Thursday, in which the Florida congressman took on the Republicans for their opposition to much of the Obama White House's agenda.

"America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of health care reform, and one party that's against it, and they know why," Grayson told the House.

"They understand that if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation," Grayson continued. "They understand that if Barack Obama were to somehow bring about world peace, they would blame him for destroying the defense industry. In fact they understand that if Barack Obama had a BLT for lunch tomorrow, they would try to ban bacon."
Da Rossa
deanhills wrote:
Right, that was one of my worries, that perhaps this is a conspiracy to get the President of the United States not to invade any more countries. Twisted Evil I don't have any fears however. If Obama thinks it is necessary, I kow he will. Hopefully though it won't be necessary, and he will keep the troops in Iraq, so that Iran does not invade Iraq, and create a reason for being invaded by the US.


No, actually the there is a little thing in it: Obama is, actually, a suporter of the Arabs in all meanings. Obama is tied to the men overseas that helped him get there. Good reading:

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081101msm_en.html
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
No, actually the there is a little thing in it: Obama is, actually, a suporter of the Arabs in all meanings. Obama is tied to the men overseas that helped him get there. Good reading:

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081101msm_en.html
Good reading Shocked Question Question Question you're not serious are you Da Rossa? The url you provided is really a trash Website. Think we need to differentiate between crazy maniacs who support Obama and Obama the President. In the example you gave (hopefully as a joke) there is a huge difference. I've rarely seen Obama taking a rash decision, nor taking decisions without consulting with his advisors. I'm dead certain that if an invasion is called for and he needs to make that decision, that he will, after very careful consultations with all of his advisors.
dickyzin
I simply believe Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (well, up until the time of writing) is simply because he hasn't done or achieved much (too early to tell if his policies work or not). He also hasn't sacrificed his freedom, life and so on, in order to achieve peace or promote peace, like other Nobel Peace Prize laureates have.
tingkagol
Ophois wrote:
I don't think Obama earned a Nobel Prize for Peace.

Having said that, I don't see any reason to cheer, except that the world is finally liking us Americans again. I thought that "stupid American" label would never go away. Needless to say, I'm rather happy it's a Nobel and not a middle finger.

On the other hand, it's perfectly legitimate to say he didn't deserve it. That's fine. But do people have to "boo" him for it? Do people really have to cheer for the Olympic loss and jeer the Nobel win? Is that really how we want the world to see us? Damn, people... it's not like he stole your f*ckin baby in a Wal-Mart parking lot.

Ok, I get it. Some people really don't like Obama.

I am not American, but you sir are funny. And you are probably the only one I agree with in this thread.
Da Rossa
deanhills wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
No, actually the there is a little thing in it: Obama is, actually, a suporter of the Arabs in all meanings. Obama is tied to the men overseas that helped him get there. Good reading:

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081101msm_en.html
Good reading Shocked Question Question Question you're not serious are you Da Rossa? The url you provided is really a trash Website. Think we need to differentiate between crazy maniacs who support Obama and Obama the President. In the example you gave (hopefully as a joke) there is a huge difference. I've rarely seen Obama taking a rash decision, nor taking decisions without consulting with his advisors. I'm dead certain that if an invasion is called for and he needs to make that decision, that he will, after very careful consultations with all of his advisors.


No no, get prepared, that actually isn't a joke, trust me. I respect that in the first glance you thought that that website is shit, but it's only poorly layouted. The man is, in fact, the most responsible Brazilian philosopher. I thought he was a maniac as well, but now, since I don't know much of how life works, I decided to suspend the judgment and see what the man has to say. He thinks not about the present, but in terms of generations, and that's the thing. He's not only a philosopher, but also has a journalistic carrer for decades. As a journalist, he focuses on bringing up the facts that the "big media" refuses to tell.

Unfortunately most of his work is in Portguese so you can't see the good part. If you got portuguese, then you could listen to him, since he has a space on BlogTalkRadio.
If you read his articles in English then you probably won't get it because they're fragmentary. You would need, at first, to join his philosophy course to understand the fundamentals of his ideas.

So, all I have to say is: trust me. That is the man. That is Olavo de Carvalho.
handfleisch
What Obama had done BEFORE FEB 1, when he was nominated:

-Worked vigorously against nuclear weapons and cutting nuclear stockpiles
-ended torture as policy
-endorsed diplomacy over force
-worked with other countries through int'l institutions (reversing the John Bolton school)
-declaring anti-Constitutional secret prisons must be closed and working toward the goal of closing them

SINCE... there are tons of reasons, here's a few:
-opened negotiations with Iran, immediately getting an agreement that Iran would send out 75% of its uranium for enrichment elsewhere under the supervision of the international community
-working to improve the global climate through a $15 billion for alternative energy and transportation. That includes high-speed rail, the toughest auto-emissions standards in U.S. history.
-pursued a time-table for exiting Iraq
-improved relations with Russia
-made women's rights a main part of U.S. foreign policy
-made peace overtures to the Islamic world

A few more Nobel Peace Prize winners who received the prize in order to encourage their efforts, which were just at the beginning:

-Aung San Suu Kyi received it though she has not yet been successful against the Burmese military regime
-Jimmy Carter got it for his tireless efforts to bring peace to the Middle East, though that hasn't happened yet
-In 1935, Carl von Ossietzky, a journalist who symbolized domestic opposition to Hitler, even though his efforts were just beginning and obviously would not be successful
-Gorbachev, who had barely begun to dismantle the USSR, got it
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1984 even though he was a full decade away from successfully leading the fight against Apartheid
-Shirin Ebadi won the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting tyranny in Iran, though the fight goes on. -President Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize for the potential outcome of his work in creating the League of Nations and on the Treaty of Versailles, though the promise of preventing wars in the future obviously never was fulfilled.

So there are plenty of example of the Nobel Peace Prize going to people like President Obama, for the same reason: to recognize what has been done, and to encourage future success.

I will say it again, only the most bitter of cynics can have a big problem with this. And the rest of us are proud and happy about it.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
No no, get prepared, that actually isn't a joke, trust me. I respect that in the first glance you thought that that website is shit, but it's only poorly layouted. The man is, in fact, the most responsible Brazilian philosopher. I thought he was a maniac as well, but now, since I don't know much of how life works, I decided to suspend the judgment and see what the man has to say. He thinks not about the present, but in terms of generations, and that's the thing. He's not only a philosopher, but also has a journalistic carrer for decades. As a journalist, he focuses on bringing up the facts that the "big media" refuses to tell.

Unfortunately most of his work is in Portguese so you can't see the good part. If you got portuguese, then you could listen to him, since he has a space on BlogTalkRadio.
If you read his articles in English then you probably won't get it because they're fragmentary. You would need, at first, to join his philosophy course to understand the fundamentals of his ideas.

So, all I have to say is: trust me. That is the man. That is Olavo de Carvalho.
OK, this sounds serious then. I was completely unaware that Obama's country of birth had ever been disputed. Maybe we need to ask Handfleisch about this, as Handfleisch is a genuine expert and has been following both Obama and Obama critics long before Obama became President. If anyone, he would probably know the allegations that are being made inside out:

Question 1 - Was Obama born in Kenya or in the United States?
Claim is made by Carvalho that Obama did not want to show his Birth Certificate as well as blocked all his other certificates from the Public? Common sense to me would be that the US Government would already have scrutinized his Birth Certificate and authenticated all relevant diplomas etc at the time when he had been nominated for Senator and that would have been a requirement by law? This is what Carvalho claims:
Quote:
As a last resort, one can try to find something about Obama through witnesses. It is interesting what they tell. The grandmother says that he was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii, as he claims. His Kenyan brothers say that he is a Muslim and not a Christian as he claims. His sister says that he was born in one hospital, while he claims to have been born in another one. The sponsor of his studies in Harvard says that the money was provided by a well-known pro-terrorism agitator. Old friends say that he was always with Frank Marshall Davis when Davis was selling cocaine. Up to now, the only witness to be seriously disproved was a nutcase from Minnesota who said he had sexual relations with then Senator Barack Obama—which, if true, would not raise a shred of the risk to national security contained in the other depositions.

Source: http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081101msm_en.html
Evidence from source:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/grandmaO/Obama%20Affidavit%20of%20Kweli%20Shuhubia10302008corrA.pdf
Is the evidence bona fide, or fabricated?

Question 2 - Did Obama use a ghost writer to write the book: "Dreams From My Father?"
Source of claim:
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081101msm_en.html

Evidence from source:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75611

An interesting point made by BBC was that Obama never knew his father. That point was raised in a BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm
Quote:
Mr Obama's parents separated when he was two and later divorced. His mother subsequently married an Indonesian, and the young Barack lived in Jakarta for some years before returning to the United States. He saw almost nothing of his birth father, who moved back to Kenya and later died in a car crash. But he entitled his autobiography Dreams from my Father.


Question 3 - Carvalho Claims of Obama lies about his life and accusing Obama of hiding all personal documentation from the public
Source of claim:
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081101msm_en.html

Quote:
He has already made up so many phony stories about his life (that he was a member of the Senate Banking Committee, that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, that his father was a goat shepherd), he has already omitted so much essential data, (that he was a member of a Socialist party, that the genocidal Raila Odinga is his cousin, that he campaigned for Odinga in Kenya (Source for claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm), that his brother is starving in a slum in Mombasa, that his aunt is an illegal alien in the United States), and he has concealed is such a way his connections with ACORN and with terrorist William Ayers, Islamic agitator Louis Farrakhan, and the crook Tony Rezko, etc.—that to try to uncover his true biography is almost an impossible mission. His own book of memories, which won him literary fame, is of dubious authorship. Computerized tests in an authorship investigation concluded that the book was not written by Obama, but by William Ayers.


Further allegations by Carvalho about Americans not being allowed to question Obama:
Source:
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081101msm_en.html

Quote:
At this point, you may ask, “But why will voters trust the word of someone who has no credibility, whose birthplace is not known for certain, who hides two-thirds of his life and lies about the other third, who is loved by all those who hate the United States and clumsily conceals his affections for their friends?” In Brazil you can ask that, but if you are in the United States, ask it in a whisper. If you dare to display your suspicions in a very audible way, the government will investigate your records, in search of heinous crimes such as tax dues and unpaid traffic tickets, as it did to Joe the Plumber. Or it will send you to jail, as it did to Brent Garner, from Lawrence, Kansas. You also run the risk of having your garage vandalized4 or of being beaten, as happened to some Republican activists.

For me, even if all the allegations were true, they are irrelevant. Obama is President, he is part of a democratic system where there are so many checks and balances in the United States that I just can't see him being guilty of lies about his personal life. I don't see anything wrong with a ghostwriter, if he did use ghostwriters for his books, in fact that would have shown someone who is really shrewd and excellent at presenting and marketing himself. I also don't see a problem with his choice of religion. If he had practised the moslem religion during part of his life, to me that would be to his credit, as he would clearly be able to understand a greater percentage of the international population and where they come from. Kenya is a great country with great people. I can imagine that they are so proud of their link with Obama that people would be liable to make up a lot of stories that may be taken literally to Obama's detriment in the United States. What is admirable is that Obama never disowned them, he is obviously proud of his roots.

The reason why I am putting the above for discussion is hoping that Handfleisch can refute it with real factual information. Perhaps Da Rossa can then submit these to Carvalho in his own language.

I don't have any problems with Obama, except the ones I have already mentioned about spending too much money. I think these have been discussed by a number of Frihosters in various threads.
jmi256
I can’t imagine anyone other than those who have drank the most kool-aid really agreeing that Obama did anything to deserve the award. But many Americans have been arguing since before the election that he hasn’t really accomplished anything other than a lot of “nice” speeches and a record amount of “present” votes in the Senate, so I don’t think that really comes as a surprise. It seems that the award hasn’t helped his popularity much here in the US as his poll numbers still hover well below where President George W Bush was at this point in his presidency. I think the vacation Obama took at the end of the summer helped with the fatigue that Americans were experiencing from seeing him on TV all the time, doing entertainment shows, etc., but it may be creeping in again.



To be honest, I’m sort of ambivalent that he was handed the award, but I do agree that giving it to him with a lack of any real accomplishments undermines the importance of the award, especially to those who actually earned it in the past. At the same time, I don’t fault him. It was the committee that made the bad choice based on rhetoric rather than achievement. In a way I think this hurts him; It reinforces the argument that he’s an empty suit who has made his way on empty rhetoric. Even if he goes on to accomplish all the things he said he was going to do and the committee gave him credit for without results, the award at this point will always be seen as empty. If he was actually able to accomplish some worthwhile goals before being nominated, it would have been better received.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
At the same time, I don’t fault him. It was the committee that made the bad choice based on rhetoric rather than achievement. In a way I think this hurts him; It reinforces the argument that he’s an empty suit who has made his way on empty rhetoric. Even if he goes on to accomplish all the things he said he was going to do and the committee gave him credit for without results, the award at this point will always be seen as empty. If he was actually able to accomplish some worthwhile goals before being nominated, it would have been better received.
Well said and a very good point. The award was actually made to the detriment of Obama. I can just imagine him, being the serious marketing person that he is, mumbling about the real bad timing of the award. It would have been much better to have received it during the last year of his Presidency and when he will be campaigning for re-election. At least by that time the Committee might have been able to list real accomplishments against the Prize.

I wonder whether it could be clever marketing for Obama to donate the prize to a worthy "peace" type cause, such as UN Children Fund (UNICEF). That would create something really positive out of it and impress everyone.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

I wonder whether it could be clever marketing for Obama to donate the prize to a worthy "peace" type cause, such as UN Children Fund (UNICEF). That would create something really positive out of it and impress everyone.

He's a politician... as long as nobody's looking, it'll go right into the campaign funds for next election.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:

I wonder whether it could be clever marketing for Obama to donate the prize to a worthy "peace" type cause, such as UN Children Fund (UNICEF). That would create something really positive out of it and impress everyone.

He's a politician... as long as nobody's looking, it'll go right into the campaign funds for next election.
You are right of course. That is probably exactly what is going to happen. Do you think that he has debts that our outstanding from his campaign last year? It must have been an enormously expensive campaign.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Question 1 - Was Obama born in Kenya or in the United States?
Are people really still asking this?
Quote:
Question 2 - Did Obama use a ghost writer to write the book: "Dreams From My Father?"
Just like every other politician or public figure...
Quote:
Question 3 - Carvalho Claims of Obama lies about his life and accusing Obama of hiding all personal documentation from the public
What? A politician hiding their past? The hell you say!
ocalhoun wrote:
He's a politician... as long as nobody's looking, it'll go right into the campaign funds for next election.
Even if people are looking. These politicians get more bold every year...
deanhills wrote:
You are right of course. That is probably exactly what is going to happen. Do you think that he has debts that our outstanding from his campaign last year? It must have been an enormously expensive campaign.
Nope. He made it this far, which means he will never actually pay for anything, ever again. No debt. He will never even pay for gas.

Which brings me to another point, which I can not stress enough.
Why are our politicians on par with rock stars, economically speaking? Why do they enjoy the fruits of our labors, while continuing to make those labors more detrimental to us, and economically less valuable? Honestly, why do voters seem to think that a rich man really gives a f*** about how much their constituents make? Why do people think that just because they can "identify" with the tone of a politicians voice, that the politician "identifies" with, or even cares about, the welfare of that person?

It seems like we have been an elitist-electorate-kleptocracy(yeah I made that up, sue me) for a couple of centuries now, and where has it gotten us? We vote-in the very rich, based on empty promises. We let them rape our freedoms. We hand over our rights and liberties like Jell-O to a SkinHead in prison. What do we have to show for it? Security? I think not. I treat people for wounds that say otherwise, every time I go on shift. So why? Why are these lying scumbags held to such high esteem? Our "leaders" make fun of France, but have you seen France? Those Citizens actually march and protest when they feel their Government is not keeping in line. Our Government no longer fears us, and that's the crux. We have become complaisant, bought-off. We should be charged with "complicity" in the downfall of our own civilization. Sad.

And there are three hundred million of us.
handfleisch
Well, it's the internet, so I guess it's no surprise the haters and conspiracy theorists have now taken over this thread, and no one responds to my list of things Obama has done to deserve the award, had done even at the time of the nomination, and the list of previous Nobel prize winners who, like Obama, were awarded in order to encourage continuing, future action. But forgive me for interrupting the fun of lunatic speculation and indulging in bitterness. Proceed.
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
No no, get prepared, that actually isn't a joke, trust me. I respect that in the first glance you thought that that website is shit, but it's only poorly layouted. The man is, in fact, the most responsible Brazilian philosopher. I thought he was a maniac as well, but now, since I don't know much of how life works, I decided to suspend the judgment and see what the man has to say. He thinks not about the present, but in terms of generations, and that's the thing. He's not only a philosopher, but also has a journalistic carrer for decades. As a journalist, he focuses on bringing up the facts that the "big media" refuses to tell.
Err, I just read his article on Darwin. If that is representative of his approach to philosophy then I won't bother reading anything else by him. The article is a combination of straw-man fallacies, misunderstanding (deliberate or not), out of context quotes and misrepresentation.
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
To be honest, I’m sort of ambivalent that he was handed the award, but I do agree that giving it to him with a lack of any real accomplishments undermines the importance of the award, especially to those who actually earned it in the past. At the same time, I don’t fault him. It was the committee that made the bad choice based on rhetoric rather than achievement. In a way I think this hurts him; It reinforces the argument that he’s an empty suit who has made his way on empty rhetoric. Even if he goes on to accomplish all the things he said he was going to do and the committee gave him credit for without results, the award at this point will always be seen as empty. If he was actually able to accomplish some worthwhile goals before being nominated, it would have been better received.


The award has been seen as empty by anyone with a brain for years...
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
The award has been seen as empty by anyone with a brain for years...


Do you have any Grey Poupon?

Was the award empty when Aung San Suu Kyi received it in 1991, even though the Burmese military regime still reigns?
Was it empty in 1935, when Carl von Ossietzky, a journalist symbolizing domestic opposition to Hitler, got it though his efforts were just beginning and obviously would not be successful?
Was it empty when Archbishop Desmond Tutu got it in 1984, even though he was ten years away from success in leading the fight against Apartheid?

By any reasonable standard, it is something for Americans to be proud of. Americans who don't want the US to fail, I mean.
Ophois
Just to clarify:

I am glad Obama got the NPP, for what it's worth. It's a far cry better than what the international community was willing to give us a few years ago.

I do wonder, however, what would be said by the anti-Obama crowd, had Cheney won the NPP(I know, unlikely,but go with me on this). Would the NPP still be viewed as "empty" by these people? Or would it be an affirmation of how much better the Right is, was, and always will be than the Left?

It's being used as a party division tool, and to me, that's what is making it "empty".
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
I do wonder, however, what would be said by the anti-Obama crowd, had Cheney won the NPP(I know, unlikely,but go with me on this). Would the NPP still be viewed as "empty" by these people? Or would it be an affirmation of how much better the Right is, was, and always will be than the Left?


If anyone received the award 11 days after taking office, with no real experience/results beforehand and with nothing to show for it, everyone would have been asking the same questions and had the same criticism. Liberals would have been screaming the loudest of course, but you don't hear a peep from them now.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Ophois wrote:
I do wonder, however, what would be said by the anti-Obama crowd, had Cheney won the NPP(I know, unlikely,but go with me on this). Would the NPP still be viewed as "empty" by these people? Or would it be an affirmation of how much better the Right is, was, and always will be than the Left?


If anyone received the award 11 days after taking office, with no real experience/results beforehand and with nothing to show for it, everyone would have been asking the same questions and had the same criticism. Liberals would have been screaming the loudest of course, but you don't hear a peep from them now.

LOL. Obama got the award 11 days after taking office? Miles off base. But pretty much the kind of total factual errors we expect from the right wing.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Ophois wrote:
I do wonder, however, what would be said by the anti-Obama crowd, had Cheney won the NPP(I know, unlikely,but go with me on this). Would the NPP still be viewed as "empty" by these people? Or would it be an affirmation of how much better the Right is, was, and always will be than the Left?


If anyone received the award 11 days after taking office, with no real experience/results beforehand and with nothing to show for it, everyone would have been asking the same questions and had the same criticism. Liberals would have been screaming the loudest of course, but you don't hear a peep from them now.

LOL. Obama got the award 11 days after taking office? Miles off base. But pretty much the kind of total factual errors we expect from the right wing.


Sorry, I said "nomination" instead of "award." Sorry for the oversight, but since it has been well established in this thread that he was nominated 11 days after he took office I thought you might be intelligent enough to follow. Apparently I forgot who usually lurks in here and who I was dealing with.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Ophois wrote:
I do wonder, however, what would be said by the anti-Obama crowd, had Cheney won the NPP(I know, unlikely,but go with me on this). Would the NPP still be viewed as "empty" by these people? Or would it be an affirmation of how much better the Right is, was, and always will be than the Left?


If anyone received the award 11 days after taking office, with no real experience/results beforehand and with nothing to show for it, everyone would have been asking the same questions and had the same criticism. Liberals would have been screaming the loudest of course, but you don't hear a peep from them now.

LOL. Obama got the award 11 days after taking office? Miles off base. But pretty much the kind of total factual errors we expect from the right wing.


Sorry, I said "received" instead of "nominated." Sorry for the oversight, but since it has been well established in this thread that he was nominated 11 days after he took office I thought you might be intelligent enough to follow. Apparently I forgot who usually lurks in here and who I was dealing with.

Yeah, right. Why don't you answer all the points above then, about all the things Obama had done up to the nomination? Why can't you figure out that the "11 days" point is moot talking point, since the award was not for those eleven days but for everything he has done up to now? And speaking of points well-established in this thread, if you think Obama doesn't deserve it, then you think Suu Kyi, Carl von Ossietzky, Gorbachev and Bishop Desmond Tutu didn't deserve it either, right?
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Which brings me to another point, which I can not stress enough.
Why are our politicians on par with rock stars, economically speaking? Why do they enjoy the fruits of our labors, while continuing to make those labors more detrimental to us, and economically less valuable? Honestly, why do voters seem to think that a rich man really gives a f*** about how much their constituents make? Why do people think that just because they can "identify" with the tone of a politicians voice, that the politician "identifies" with, or even cares about, the welfare of that person?

It seems like we have been an elitist-electorate-kleptocracy(yeah I made that up, sue me) for a couple of centuries now, and where has it gotten us? We vote-in the very rich, based on empty promises. We let them rape our freedoms. We hand over our rights and liberties like Jell-O to a SkinHead in prison. What do we have to show for it? Security? I think not. I treat people for wounds that say otherwise, every time I go on shift. So why? Why are these lying scumbags held to such high esteem? Our "leaders" make fun of France, but have you seen France? Those Citizens actually march and protest when they feel their Government is not keeping in line. Our Government no longer fears us, and that's the crux. We have become complaisant, bought-off. We should be charged with "complicity" in the downfall of our own civilization. Sad.

And there are three hundred million of us.
Well said! I would say that it is the 300 million people who make the "rock star" type image of politicians possible. The people do not treat their politicians as politicians. That of course puts a lot of extra pressure on the politicians too. As when they get to be nominated and selected they have to answer for every aspect of their lives in the greatest of details. They become property of the 300 million people. Or should I rephrase it, the focus is on the perception of those politicians (in contrast with what is "real"), which could be equal or departing from the image that the politicians wish the 300 million people to have of them, instead of Government for the people, by the people.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Well said! I would say that it is the 300 million people who make the "rock star" type image of politicians possible. The people do not treat their politicians as politicians.
Exactly. A politician is a public servant, and should be regarded as nothing more than that. When cops break the law, we fire them and/or jail them. When politicians break the law, we might ask them nicely to step down, and many times they don't.
Quote:
That of course puts a lot of extra pressure on the politicians too. As when they get to be nominated and selected they have to answer for every aspect of their lives in the greatest of details.
I don't care. If they can't handle the pressure, they should quit, and go work at Arby's. I knew the risks and pressures of my job, and I accept it without too much complaint. They should do the same.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Well said! I would say that it is the 300 million people who make the "rock star" type image of politicians possible. The people do not treat their politicians as politicians.
Exactly. A politician is a public servant, and should be regarded as nothing more than that. When cops break the law, we fire them and/or jail them. When politicians break the law, we might ask them nicely to step down, and many times they don't.
That was the point I was trying to make, i.e. people don't look at politicians as public servants, but as demi-gods. Hence why it is so difficult to get rid of the demi-gods too.
Voodoocat
Quote:
But this isn't about Obama,or the USA,its about why someone at Nobel, decided after 11 days to add his name to the nomination list,its like Christiano Ronaldo joining Real Madrid,and getting nominated for Spanish player of the year before he has even played a game.


At least Ronaldo would have accomplished something before his nomination! What a great player.

Obama's nomination even has the Swedes ticked off! According to the Local, a swedish online newspaper published in english: (Link: http://www.thelocal.se/22560/20091009/)

Quote:
The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (Svenska Freds) has classified as "shameful" the decision by the Nobel Committee in Oslo to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 to Barack Obama.


And:

Quote:
Moderate Party parliamentary group leader Lars Lindblad said that, though he was glad Obama had been elected president of the United States, awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize was a "historic mistake".



He finishes with:
Quote:
"In my view the Peace Prize should go to somebody who has achieved something," he told Dagens Nyheter.


I believe that most people think that prizes should be awarded for accomplishments, not the hope of accomplishment. President Obama has certainly entered the tumultous international arena with the intent of bringing peace, but then again, so did Chamberlain. The question remains: what will he accomplish? I certainly hope he achieves his goal, but until he does, why not offer the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to a person or organization with a proven record of accomplishment?
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
The question remains: what will he accomplish? I certainly hope he achieves his goal, but until he does, why not offer the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to a person or organization with a proven record of accomplishment?


Um, because Obama does have a proven record of accomplishment, had one even as of the nomination, and because the Nobel Peace Prize historically sometimes goes to someone to encourage and help in their efforts. Scroll up to my other posts for details.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
The question remains: what will he accomplish? I certainly hope he achieves his goal, but until he does, why not offer the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to a person or organization with a proven record of accomplishment?


Um, because Obama does have a proven record of accomplishment, had one even as of the nomination, and because the Nobel Peace Prize historically sometimes goes to someone to encourage and help in their efforts. Scroll up to my other posts for details.

Please explain why it wouldn't be more sensible to nominate and perhaps give him the award the next time around...
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
The question remains: what will he accomplish? I certainly hope he achieves his goal, but until he does, why not offer the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to a person or organization with a proven record of accomplishment?


Um, because Obama does have a proven record of accomplishment, had one even as of the nomination, and because the Nobel Peace Prize historically sometimes goes to someone to encourage and help in their efforts. Scroll up to my other posts for details.

Please explain why it wouldn't be more sensible to nominate and perhaps give him the award the next time around...

That's mostly irrelevant to all the points I have made (which none of the detractors even tried to address) about the soundness and historical consistency the award to Obama represents. To address your complaint briefly, it's the same reason they didn't wait to give the award to Carl von Ossietzky, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and all the others I mentioned above. Because the act of encouraging and supporting is done to bolster initial efforts, which by definition occur early on, at the beginning of a campaign.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
The question remains: what will he accomplish? I certainly hope he achieves his goal, but until he does, why not offer the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to a person or organization with a proven record of accomplishment?


Um, because Obama does have a proven record of accomplishment, had one even as of the nomination, and because the Nobel Peace Prize historically sometimes goes to someone to encourage and help in their efforts. Scroll up to my other posts for details.

Please explain why it wouldn't be more sensible to nominate and perhaps give him the award the next time around...

That's mostly irrelevant to all the points I have made (which none of the detractors even tried to address) about the soundness and historical consistency the award to Obama represents. To address your complaint briefly, it's the same reason they didn't wait to give the award to Carl von Ossietzky, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and all the others I mentioned above. Because the act of encouraging and supporting is done to bolster initial efforts, which by definition occur early on, at the beginning of a campaign.
I can't speak for Ossietzky, but definitely in the case of Bishop Desmond Tutu you are WRONG! Bishop Tutu has a lifelong dedication for working for peace the non-violent way. He was given the prize specifically for having spoken out against apartheid, which during the period of doing it had been a very brave thing to do. By the time he got the award, he had a proven dedication for that. He was an excellent candidate. He had fought for peace against lots of oppression, he earned and deserved the prize at the time when it was given to him. There is ZERO comparison with Obama. At best this is an excellent example of who deserved the prize at the time he received it, and who did not deserve the prize YET!!!! Bishop Tutu had made very specific sacrifices and had taken huge risks for speaking out against apartheid, long before the Prize was given to him. Obama got his because of promises he made, which is premature at this time. I'm sure Obama is as unhappy about getting the prize at this time, as most other people who have as much common sense as he has to know that this was not very good timing. Again, this criticism is levelled at the Committee, not Obama.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I can't speak for Ossietzky, but definitely in the case of Bishop Desmond Tutu you are WRONG!


BTW Ossietzky and Tutu were not the only examples.

deanhills wrote:
Bishop Tutu has a lifelong dedication for working for peace the non-violent way. He was given the prize specifically for having spoken out against apartheid, which during the period of doing it had been a very brave thing to do. By the time he got the award, he had a proven dedication for that. He was an excellent candidate. He had fought for peace against lots of oppression, he earned and deserved the prize at the time when it was given to him. There is ZERO comparison with Obama. At best this is an excellent example of who deserved the prize at the time he received it, and who did not deserve the prize YET!!!! Bishop Tutu had made very specific sacrifices and had taken huge risks for speaking out against apartheid, long before the Prize was given to him.

Apartheid was nowhere near falling when Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize, he hadn't been successful in that yet, so in effect his critics could charge him as winning it "for nothing" or that he didn't deserve it (not true of course), and that is why his example is exactly in the same category as Obama receiving it. And like in Tutu's case, the Nobel committee said they want to encourage more action.
deanhills wrote:
Obama got his because of promises he made, which is premature at this time.

Wrong, he got it based on action, leadership and example he has set, as well as to encourage more (like in Tutu's case). Stopping torture as a policy. Declaring Guantanamo prison wrong in every way. etc etc. Scroll up for a few more I have cited.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Apartheid was nowhere near falling when Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize, he hadn't been successful in that yet, so in effect his critics could charge him as winning it "for nothing" or that he didn't deserve it (not true of course), and that is why his example is exactly in the same category as Obama receiving it. And like in Tutu's case, the Nobel committee said they want to encourage more action.
Bishop Tutu did not get the Nobel Peace Prize for ending apartheid in South Africa (there were a great number of people responsible for that), he got it for the personal risks he took to speak out against apartheid. Those risks were much MUCH more intense during the seventies and early eighties in South Africa, than at the time when apartheid ended. He spoke out against near-fascist characters like Vorster and PW Botha, and he did it in a completely non-violent way. His role was completely unique from a peace point of view and he more than justified the prize that was given to him at the time when it was given to him. By the time that apartheid ended, which was at the beginning of the nineties, sanctions had been lifted and bombs stopped to explode. I believe a second South African Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Mandela and de Klerk in 1993. Which was also appropriate. The prize had been awarded to the two for their contribution to a peaceful transition surrounding the end of apartheid.

I believe you are in the minority defending Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. Again, the criticism is not against Obama, but the Committee that nominated him for the prize. People believe he holds promise, but not proven yet.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Apartheid was nowhere near falling when Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize, he hadn't been successful in that yet, so in effect his critics could charge him as winning it "for nothing" or that he didn't deserve it (not true of course), and that is why his example is exactly in the same category as Obama receiving it. And like in Tutu's case, the Nobel committee said they want to encourage more action.
Bishop Tutu did not get the Nobel Peace Prize for ending apartheid in South Africa (there were a great number of people responsible for that), he got it for the personal risks he took to speak out against apartheid. Those risks were much MUCH more intense during the seventies and early eighties in South Africa, than at the time when apartheid ended. He spoke out against near-fascist characters like Vorster and PW Botha, and he did it in a completely non-violent way. His role was completely unique from a peace point of view and he more than justified the prize that was given to him at the time when it was given to him. By the time that apartheid ended, which was at the beginning of the nineties, sanctions had been lifted and bombs stopped to explode. I believe a second South African Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Mandela and de Klerk in 1993. Which was also appropriate. The prize had been awarded to the two for their contribution to a peaceful transition surrounding the end of apartheid.

I believe you are in the minority defending Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. Again, the criticism is not against Obama, but the Committee that nominated him for the prize. People believe he holds promise, but not proven yet.


You are right, Tutu had been very active when he rec'd the Nobel Prize. But he had not successful. He rec'd it to encourage his fight. Same reason Obama got it.

Again, critics at the time could have said the prize was awarded prematurely, awarded from nothing bu talk. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. And the many other examples of Nobel Prize laureates show this to be true also.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Apartheid was nowhere near falling when Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize, he hadn't been successful in that yet, so in effect his critics could charge him as winning it "for nothing" or that he didn't deserve it (not true of course), and that is why his example is exactly in the same category as Obama receiving it. And like in Tutu's case, the Nobel committee said they want to encourage more action.
Bishop Tutu did not get the Nobel Peace Prize for ending apartheid in South Africa (there were a great number of people responsible for that), he got it for the personal risks he took to speak out against apartheid. Those risks were much MUCH more intense during the seventies and early eighties in South Africa, than at the time when apartheid ended. He spoke out against near-fascist characters like Vorster and PW Botha, and he did it in a completely non-violent way. His role was completely unique from a peace point of view and he more than justified the prize that was given to him at the time when it was given to him. By the time that apartheid ended, which was at the beginning of the nineties, sanctions had been lifted and bombs stopped to explode. I believe a second South African Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Mandela and de Klerk in 1993. Which was also appropriate. The prize had been awarded to the two for their contribution to a peaceful transition surrounding the end of apartheid.

I believe you are in the minority defending Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. Again, the criticism is not against Obama, but the Committee that nominated him for the prize. People believe he holds promise, but not proven yet.


You are right, Tutu had been very active when he rec'd the Nobel Prize. But he had not successful. He rec'd it to encourage his fight. Same reason Obama got it.
Tutu was not given the Nobel Peace prize for "winning apartheid", Tutu was given the prize for risking his life in speaking out against apartheid. Which he had done consistently over a very long time. Instead of moving along the road of using bombs and terrorism, Tutu worked on speaking out and using his voice, at a great risk to himself.
gandalfthegrey
The whole issue here is not about Obama winning, but rather the bias of the Norwegians on the nobel committee who decided to give it to him. They obviously feel in their deluded minds that any American who tries to bring about more leftist/progressive policies (even though they are right wing when compared to Europe) deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Bush deserves much of the credit for Obama's win, as much as Obama inspired people and has promised change for the better.
deanhills
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Bush deserves much of the credit for Obama's win, as much as Obama inspired people and has promised change for the better.
Laughing Interesting perspective, but if one looks at it closer there is some merit in it. If Bush's popularity had not been so down in the dumps from the Swedish perspective, possibly they would not even have looked across the Atlantic.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Bush deserves much of the credit for Obama's win, as much as Obama inspired people and has promised change for the better.
Laughing Interesting perspective, but if one looks at it closer there is some merit in it. If Bush's popularity had not been so down in the dumps from the Swedish perspective, possibly they would not even have looked across the Atlantic.

In the acceptance speech:
"I'd also like to thank former president Bush, for being so bad that he made me look this good."
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Bush deserves much of the credit for Obama's win, as much as Obama inspired people and has promised change for the better.
:lol: Interesting perspective, but if one looks at it closer there is some merit in it. If Bush's popularity had not been so down in the dumps from the Swedish perspective, possibly they would not even have looked across the Atlantic.

In the acceptance speech:
"I'd also like to thank former president Bush, for being so bad that he made me look this good."


The American voters could have voted for McCain and chickened out on taking the forward step of electing the candidate that was record against the war in Iraq, Obama. So there is some truth to the fact that because Bush and the Republican party was so atrocious in the horrible effect on world peace, that just addressing and reversing a lot of what they did equals peace effort. Sure that's true, and what's wrong with that? But Obama has also made bold moves that are not just reversing Bush but are positive, progressive movements in world statesmanship and leadership. The world and the Nobel committee correctly recognize these important efforts, both the concrete accomplishments and the encouraging steps in the right direction.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
The American voters could have voted for McCain and chickened out on taking the forward step of electing the candidate that was record against the war in Iraq, Obama.
What kind of argument is that Handfleisch? If you wish to argue that way, one can also say that American voters voted for someone who is much younger, with lots more vigour and who would be stronger in war than an old crony. There are million of reasons that can only really be ascertained with a proper scientific study, and even then the outcome would be subjective.

One reason that stands out however, is the equivalent of marriage on the rebound. American voters wanted to make doubly sure they don't get another Bush. McCain is obviously far from being Bush. But Obama is a million steps further from Bush. That was more certaintly. However, there are many other reasons for voting for Obama, the biggest one to me is his phenomenal marketing campaign. That has to be one of the best run and efficient ones in memory. Can imagine it will be studied as part of marketing courses at schools and Universities for a very long time to come. If he had put the same effort into his own business, he probably would have had the makings of a billionnaire, which I'm sure he can still achieve in his lifetime.

This was a good article about the subject after Obama was elected:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/us/politics/05campaign.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=why%20did%20obama%20win%20the%20election?&st=cse
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
with lots more vigour and who would be stronger in war than an old crony.

^.^ I really doubt that anybody (other than a few crazies) would think that Obama would be 'stronger in war' than McCain...

I do agree with you that there are many other factors that affected the election, and nobody knows really which factors were more important than others. The impression that Obama would favor a 'cut and run' strategy in both Afghanistan and Iraq surely influenced many voters though. (Though to be fair, we were on our way out of Iraq before he was elected, and we have yet to see what he's going to do with Afghanistan.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
(Though to be fair, we were on our way out of Iraq before he was elected, and we have yet to see what he's going to do with Afghanistan.)
Very true. And ditto Gitmo. The scandal had been made public long before Obama got elected. Work was underway to process the detainees, except now there seems to be delays after delays.

But good point, McCain would probably have come to McCrystal's assistance much faster than Obama has. Obama has to deal with his support base and lefties in his own party. He knows where he has to go with this, but has to work out his moves in a way that does the least damage for him with regard to support in his own party. Has to be a difficult role for him in circumstances like these, which would be a really good test for his ability as a leader. Though I do wish he would hurry up with making his decision, as looks as though things are really going badly in Afghanistan right now, not only in terms of increased casualties, but the morale of the troops could do very well with knowing more troops are coming, and that their President is standing completely behind them where they are.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
with lots more vigour and who would be stronger in war than an old crony.

^.^ I really doubt that anybody (other than a few crazies) would think that Obama would be 'stronger in war' than McCain...


It's something of an absurd argument, since we can fortunately only speculate on what McCain would have done. It also depends what 'stronger in war' means. If it means escalation or military strikes without much planning or consideration or getting the US involved in murderous debacles via fraudulent pretenses, then sure McCain, as a supporter of Bush's approach, would be "stronger". But I think this makes the US weaker in war, in that it's disastrous in terms of the support of our allies, dispiriting to troop morale, wasteful of resources, encouraging of corruption, harmful to the military's image, etc etc. Maybe "stronger in war" equates with "richer in war" -- more of it, and richer for military corporations.

Likewise if it means making public jokes about bombing trouble spots in the world (McCain's "bomb Iran" moment of idiocy), and general reckless saber-rattling as the Republicans are known for in general, then sure McCain showed he would be "stronger in war" Again, I don't think it makes the US stronger at all.

To the contrary, using implied US military strength in the service of peace, like to get results at the negotiating table as is happening with Obama and Iran, could be called being "stronger in war", and there is pretty much zero chance the Republicans would be able doing that if they had managed to remain in office.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Maybe "stronger in war" equates with "richer in war" -- more of it, and richer for military corporations.

No doubt.

But it also means a clear decision between full dedication to victory or cutting losses and leaving.

Then, there's experience... One was in the military, and in fact, in a war worse than the two we're in now combined. One was not.

Speaking from my own experience, it is difficult to really understand the military without having been affiliated with it. And call me presumptuous, but I think that better understanding of it could help lead to more effective use of it.

I'm quite sure Obama is better at avoiding war, but when war is forced on him anyway, is he 'stronger'?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm quite sure Obama is better at avoiding war, but when war is forced on him anyway, is he 'stronger'?
So far he has shown that if he is boxed into a corner, his choice is to postpone issues. Such as Gitmo for example, but it would appear ditto with the Afghanistan question. I also agree with you completely. Someone who is seasoned in war, especially one that has gone horribly wrong, would be more able to make a wise decision when war is forced on him, than the one who has been preaching to get away from war. Obama is a quick learner however, and as far as I have seen a pragmatist as well, so hope he won't postpone his decision on Afghanistan too long, as that may work to his detriment eventually. As a leader of the military forces, this is the one place where decisive action in the here and now cannot be postponed.
handfleisch
just found this list, some more food for thought. Details about each one at the link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8692302&mesg_id=8692302

Quote:
30+ plus reasons Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
3/18/8 – Obama caught world-wide attention for his moving speech on race relations

7/24/8 - Obama lays the foundation for a new era of international relations and began inspiring renewed hope in American leadership during his campaign speech in Berlin

11/6/8 – Obama’s victory was hailed as a promise of hope for the world.

12/1/8 – Obama began plans to restore U.N. ambassador to cabinet rank.

1/22/9 - Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace

1/22/9 – Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay

1/22/9 – Ordered comprehensive review of detention policies

1/22/9 – Prohibited use of torture

1/22/9 - Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons

1/23/9 – Lifted “Global Gag Rule” on international health groups

1/26/9 – Began to address climate change by increasing fuel standards for automobiles

1/26/9 – Appointed Special Envoy for Climate Change

1/27/9 - Signs Lily Ledbetter “Fair Pay” Act

2/1/9 – Expanded healthcare for children by signing SCHIP

2/5/9 - Again addressed energy conservation by increasing standards for appliances.

2/24/9 – Directed almost $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve America’s health

2/25/9 - Initiated international efforts to reduce mercury emissions worldwide

2/27/9 – Committed to responsibly ending the war in Iraq

4/1/9 – Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.

4/1/9 – Enhanced U.S. – China relations

4/2/9 - Led global response to the economic crisis through the G20, obtaining commitments of $1.1 trillion to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable economies

4/4/9 - Renewed dialog with NATO and other key allies

4/5/9 – Announced new strategy to responsible address international nuclear proliferation

4/13/9 – Began easing tension with Cuba through new policy stance

4/17/9 - Secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster [Pakistan's] economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism"

4/22/9 - Developed the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents.

5/8/9 – Proposed International Affairs budget that included funds to create a civilian response corps -- teams of civilian experts in rule of law, policing, transitional governance, economics, engineering, and other areas critical to helping rebuild war-torn societies; Provide $40 million for a "stabilization bridge fund," which would provide rapid response funds for the State Department to help with an international crisis situation.

6/4/9 - Gave historic address to the Muslim World in Cairo - "American is not at war with Islam" Foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been remarkable. "He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region"

8/4/9 - Used DIPLOMACY to free 2 American journalists from a North Korea prison

9/18/9 - De-escalation of nuclear tension through repurposing of missile defense prompting Russia to withdraw its missile plan.
LimpFish
Obama getting the Nobel peace prize is just a joke. Unfortunately this might lower people's views on the Nobel Peace Prize in the future...
Related topics

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Nobel Peace Prize 2006 - To a bank and banker
Obama wins the Nobel Prize!
Things only a Republican could believe
STEVEN WRIGHT QUOTES
irony: Liberal Church May Lose Funds Over Sermon
Humour thread - Be Happy
Stanley "Tookie" Williams
Redemption - The movie
What is your favourite movie?
federer
What's your dream?
The Middle East Conflict
Whats the best lyrics of a song?
Best US President
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.