On Oct 16, 5:19*am, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT), Jon wrote:
A pretty good view of the prize:

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6501

A very short read, and fwiw, I think the last sentence is a bit
strong. To me this episode says only something about who awarded the
prize, not about the recipient. I know nothing about the President's
humility (mentioned in the last sentence), but there's no way
politically he could have declined the award.

Jon.

I would agree insofar as it saying only something about who awarded the
prize...in fact, that is exactly what I said early on. *But I'd don't
necessarily agree that this reflects upon Norwegians, "Oslovians," or anyone
else besides the 2 goofballs on the committee who initiated it (well, 3, I
guess, counting the goofball who nominated him...assuming they didn't intend it
to be joke...hell, maybe they got stoned and nominated Obama AND Limbaugh....)
and the 3 who allowed themselves to be convinced against, apparently, their
better initial judgment. *I say "apparently" because AFP and Reuters are
reporting that the Norwegian paper Verdans Gang reported that 3 of the 5 members
of the committee had initial reluctance, but were convinced by the head of the
committee to go with Obama. *And the committee has already demonstrated that it
is no more than a silly joke anyway, what with Al Gore and Kofi Annan (note that
the Peace Prize is completely separate from the others - the rest are handled
by/in Sweden).

The thing I find most amusing in all of this is the Obamanics who insist on
justifying and rationalizing the decision of 5 Norwegian goofballs like it is
some anointing from God...

TC,
R

Distillation: The members,once again, failed to consult with (let
alone bow to) the diminutive member.

Imbecile.

g.