AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

On Oct 9, 8:42*am, Jon wrote:
As one article mentioned, nominations for the prize close on Feb 1,
just 12 days after the President took office. Perhaps someday he will
have a record deserving of the prize, but right now anyone with at
least half a brain, supporter or not, must be thinking "Huh?"...

I suspect that people with half a brain would be lucky to articulate
"Huh?" (or anything else, for that matter) on their best days, and it
isn't likely that they can support themselves in an upright position
(or anything else, for that matter).

Aside from that, cogent (if somewhat belated) observation.

Gosh, this thread has already driven several people well beyond their
capabilities. Maybe the Swedes ain't as dumb as they look.

giles

On Oct 9, 2:36*pm, Giles wrote:

I suspect that people with half a brain would be lucky to articulate
"Huh?" (or anything else, for that matter) on their best days, and it
isn't likely that they can support themselves in an upright position
(or anything else, for that matter).

Yes I already knew that WLGTRC does not contain a section on idioms,
but anyways,

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12...ain/index.html

Jon.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,

Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.).

HTH,
R

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:15:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,

Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.).

HTH,
R


Jeez richard. Sour grapes make lousy whine.

Alfred Nobel created the prize to be awarded "to the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding
and promotion of peace congresses."

Hopey has been going around the world for the last 9 months trying to
do those very things. And, as should be obvious, while the nominations
were in February the voting by the committee was just a short while
ago. All it takes to be nominated is to have one qualified person,
like a history professor, forward said nomination to Oslo. Limbugh has
been nominated, as was W.

hth

Geo. C.

On Oct 9, 10:18*am, georgecleveland wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:15:50 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,

Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. *My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.). *

HTH,
R

Jeez richard. Sour grapes make lousy whine.

Yeah, but if it's all ya got to work with.....

Alfred Nobel created the prize to be awarded "to the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding
and promotion of peace congresses."

Hopey has been going around the world for the last 9 months trying to
do those very things. And, as should be obvious, while the nominations
were in February the voting by the committee was just a short while
ago. All it takes to be nominated is to have one qualified person,
like a history professor, forward said nomination to Oslo.

Undoubtedly, there have been worse candidates.

Limbugh has been nominated, as was W.

There! See what I mean?

Nevertheless, even for a famously opaque and inscrutable
organization, the Nobel committee seems to have outdone itself this
time around. Surely there is SOMEONE in the world who has actually
accomplishment something or other of significance in bringing about,
or at least encouraging, peace in this world in the last year or so.

Or maybe not.

Maybe, every once in a while, they should just hold on to one or
another of the prizes for a year or two.....just until a credible
winner, or at least candidate, shows up.

hth

A reasonable voice always does.

giles

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0500, georgecleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:15:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,

Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.).

HTH,
R


Jeez richard. Sour grapes make lousy whine.

Alfred Nobel created the prize to be awarded "to the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,
for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding
and promotion of peace congresses."

And you feel that he had done that by Feb 1, 2009?

Hopey has been going around the world for the last 9 months trying to
do those very things.

He has? Lessee - on the recent trip to Copenhagen (not to campaign for the
Olympics) the White House touted his meeting with McChrystal (the military
commander he personally picked to help win a war) about troop build-ups.

And the NYT compares him to such "lofty company" (maybe they should have said
"transformative figures"...) as Lech Walesa and Teddy Roosevelt. Lech Walesa's
thoughts? "What? So fast? Well, there hasn't been any contribution to peace
yet. He's proposing things, he's initiating things, but he is yet to deliver."
Teddy didn't give any thoughts on the matter.

The 1976 joint winner, Mairead Corrigan: "President Obama has yet to prove that
he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in
Afghanistan and many other issues"

And the Middle East peace he is supposedly inspiring? Let's see...

Hamas - ""Obama does not deserve this prize."

Iran: (Government Spokesman) "The decision in this area was hasty, and
conferring this prize was premature."
Iran: (Ahmedinejad) "I hope that by receiving this prize, he will start taking
practical steps to remove injustices in the world."

Fred Armisen:

"Out of Iraq? Nope, not even close..."
"Close Guantanamo Bay? Not Done..."
"Improve Afghanistan? Actually, I think it's worse..."

And guess who said this:

"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of
the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

In your opinion, was the speaker being honest, falsely modesty, disingenuous, or
???

And yes, I realize there are numerous quotes out there that either show outright
support (or at least don't directly question it) for his win.

And, as should be obvious, while the nominations
were in February the voting by the committee was just a short while
ago.

Well, it might not be as "obvious" as you think. The nominations were reviewed
and a "short list" was compiled by, IIRC, March 15, 2009. Do you feel that he
had accomplished the above by then? If so, why? The voting was in August. IAC,
can you objectively show how and why you feel he is "the person who shall
have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the
abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of
peace congresses," even as of yesterday?

All it takes to be nominated is to have one qualified person,
like a history professor, forward said nomination to Oslo. Limbugh has
been nominated, as was W.

And what your reaction be if "Limbugh" (I'm guessing you mean Rush Limbaugh) had
won (or even found out he was under serious consideration)? Bush is another
matter - while IMO he wouldn't be an appropriate choice (or deserving choice
overall), his selection would at least have had a marginally-defensible claim
for actual accomplishments and attempts in Africa.

Finally, again, barring anything untoward from Obama's camp, this doesn't really
reflect upon him, but rather, greatly diminishes an already-diminished Peace
Prize. Should a undergrad that shows great promise be given a degree based on
that promise? Should a med student who shows great promise be allowed to skip
further training because of that promise? Would you loan your life savings to
your broke-ass deadbeat brother-in-law because he promised - greatly - to pay
you back...?

TC,
R

hth

Geo. C.

wrote:



for more than a year prior to feb 2009, obama gave clear indications of
his positions, philosophies, and character (for those willing to read
and listen)...enough that my wife and i independent of one another took
notice, hoped he would announce as a candidate, and then began our
active support. something we'd not done with any heartfelt enthusiasm
since our 20s. i doubt we were the only ones affected in this way.

he changed the direction of this country (and the perceptions of this
country) long before january 20, 2009. i just don't understand the
schadenfreude for obama that some have...unless they simply acknowledge
being a rascist. i'll wager though that of all the nobel recipients, he
is easily the most recognizable and best-known in the world.

my hope is for people, especially those in other countries, to believe
genuinely that our president promotes and desires peaceful solutions. we
are too often a violent short-sighted society, rightly perceived as
such, with petty purposes and ideas. i like having a president who
doesn't fit that mold, and who garners the admiration and respect of
other world leaders...not to mention the nobel committee.

i'm incredibly proud of obama...he's doing a terrific job as president
under the worst of circumstances.

though the bewilderingly hostile chasm and wasteland between repubs and
dems, conservatives and liberals, (using those labels in the most
dogmatic sense) keeps us a divided nation, i am seeing more folks (like
paul...and even tim g) in recent months who are willing to express
their dissatisfaction with the way things have been and who are seeking
ways to bridge the divide. it's encouraging... as is a president
awarded the nobel peace prize.

jeff

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,
Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.).

Would you like some cheese with that whine ?

Obama was awarded The Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation
between peoples".

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and even though it was surprising
to even hint at some sort of skulduggery is just petulant whining.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee has never claimed to be an agenda
free selection committee and I think they're flippin' the bird to
Shrub as much as they're honoring Obama. To which I can only say,
BRAVO, well done.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 9, 10:39*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,
Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. *My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.). *

Would you like some cheese with that whine ?

Ooh! Piquant!

Obama was awarded The Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation
between peoples".

Which, if you read it closely (or just glance at it), seems eerily
close to meaning something or other, doesn't it?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

surprise.

and even though it was surprising
to even hint at some sort of skulduggery is just petulant whining.

Skullduggery? Intrigue? Questionable motives? Obscure intentions?
Impenetrable logic? The Nobel committee?

No.....say it ain't so.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee has never claimed to be an agenda
free selection committee

Which, perforce, makes all of their decisions unassailable.....right?

and I think they're flippin' the bird to
Shrub as much as they're honoring Obama.

Wouldn't it have been much easier (not to say much more decorous and
much less wasteful) to simply tell the world that Bush was a pig and
an idiot, and then give the prize to someone who had actually
accomplished something or other to bring about, or at least promote,
peace in this world?

To which I can only say,
BRAVO, well done.

Well, yeah, we believe that.

Dumbass.

g.

On Oct 9, 9:15*am, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:58:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe...ize/index.html

I guess they figured if Kofi Annan and Al Gore didn't convince folks this thing
is a cheap joke, this ought to do it...

Sheesh,

Spoken like someone with the emotional maturity of a bratty
13-year-old. Obama is the president, get over it already.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Unless he was nominated in for 2008 too late (even more ridiculous), and as
others have correctly pointed out, he had to have been nominated no later than a
coupla weeks into office as POTUS. *My guess is that there will be some, er,
"discussion" from at least some perfectly reasonable eligible nominators to
release more details of this nomination long before the 50-year mark.

And for the record, unless he or his people had something untoward to do with
this (and that would include, um, "encouraging" one or more nominators to
nominate him), this doesn't reflect on Obama one bit, it reflects upon the
Committee (which has shown itself to be goofy in the past, ala Annan, Gore,
etc.). *


So.....um.....they missed you again, huh?

Tsk, tsk.

g.