ILLMAS Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 To win a nobel peace prize, don't you have to do something extordinary to win it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Nah. Having good intentions & making people feel hopeful are enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 >>Having good intentions & making people feel hopeful are enough.<< That's right. A chemist set up the prize out of guilt for unleashing dynamite on the world. Unlike the other Nobel categories that recognize accomplishments, the Peace prize can be given to people in the process of resolving conflict, so the award actually helps create the peace it honors. Those who bring political controversy to the discussion shame Alfred Nobel's intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb39 Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Thank you, Jainen, for your insight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 What's political about quoting Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 These are a few of the reasons for his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. Who do you think should have one, one of the Bush people or Reagan? Get a life. Mike Dubin CPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulldogTom Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 >>Having good intentions & making people feel hopeful are enough.<< That's right. A chemist set up the prize out of guilt for unleashing dynamite on the world. Unlike the other Nobel categories that recognize accomplishments, the Peace prize can be given to people in the process of resolving conflict, so the award actually helps create the peace it honors. Those who bring political controversy to the discussion shame Alfred Nobel's intentions. What conflict is he resolving? Iran? Afganistan? Israel? When J. Carter won, he made extrordinary progress in the middle east. Obama has not done anything yet. He may, at some point, be very successful in resolving some of the world's problems and be worthy of such a distinguished honor. But I don't see anything yet that qualifies him. Tom Lodi, CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Bush & Reagan are out of office, haven't been proposed, and I'd suggest that it's time to move on & get over THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulldogTom Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 These are a few of the reasons for his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. Who do you think should have one, one of the Bush people or Reagan? Get a life. Mike Dubin CPA It is curious that the deadline for nominations for the prize was February 10th. Lets see, Obama took office on January 20th, and in 21 days accomplished so much to bring peace to the world that he is bestowed (what was until now) one of the most prestigeous honors in the world. I am not a big fan of Clinton either, but I would be able to make a better case for him winning than Obama. This is like the NFL deciding after the draft who has the best team and awarding the super bowl trophy before the season starts. Mind boggling? Tom Lodi, CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion EA Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why didn't Obama graciously turn it down?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 It is curious that the deadline for nominations for the prize was February 10th. Lets see, Obama took office on January 20th, and in 21 days accomplished so much to bring peace to the world that he is bestowed (what was until now) one of the most prestigeous honors in the world. I am not a big fan of Clinton either, but I would be able to make a better case for him winning than Obama. This is like the NFL deciding after the draft who has the best team and awarding the super bowl trophy before the season starts. Mind boggling? Tom Lodi, CA <<<Mind boggling?>>> No, just change you can believe in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcjenkins Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 It boggled my mind, that's for sure. Mind you, the DEADLINE was Feb 10th. That was the LAST DAY that a nomination could be made. Nominations opened, I understand, before he was sworn in. There were 205 nominations this year. I guess that Perez's comment is closest to the answer. From the Jerusalem Post: "Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a Lord in heaven and believers on earth," Peres, himself a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, wrote to Obama." At least, that's the only logic that makes any sense at all to me, small as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 >>the only logic that makes any sense<< Obama's dark horse campaign electified the world, to be sure. But the laureate was not chosen in February--it was last month after a brilliant head start bringing back international cooperation and diplomacy in the mideast and elsewhere. Measure that by how seriously everyone took his recent proposal for reduction of nuclear arms. Two years ago such an idea from the war-mongering Americans would have seemed ludicrous. Under Obama's leadership, the whole world now believes it might be possible. Well, the whole rest of the world anyway. MY mind is boggled by the response of so many Americans. Hey, our president just received one of the most prestigious honors imaginable, and we pooh-pooh it as unworthy and denigrate our own elected representative. It seems to me the ultra-conservative mainstream media has thrown aside patriotism for cheap political potshots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 >>the only logic that makes any sense<< Obama's dark horse campaign electified the world, to be sure. But the laureate was not chosen in February--it was last month after a brilliant head start bringing back international cooperation and diplomacy in the mideast and elsewhere. Measure that by how seriously everyone took his recent proposal for reduction of nuclear arms. Two years ago such an idea from the war-mongering Americans would have seemed ludicrous. Under Obama's leadership, the whole world now believes it might be possible. Well, the whole rest of the world anyway. MY mind is boggled by the response of so many Americans. Hey, our president just received one of the most prestigious honors imaginable, and we pooh-pooh it as unworthy and denigrate our own elected representative. It seems to me the ultra-conservative mainstream media has thrown aside patriotism for cheap political potshots. I just had a question hit me... Jainen, do you lock the doors of your car, business and home when you are away and at night? I'm just sayin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 >>do you lock the doors of your car, business and home<< Yes, I do. It's worked pretty well so far, but I don't think it would keep me safe from a nuclear bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The best protection against being vaporized by a nuclear bomb is still the deterrent effect of having plenty your own, plus doing whatever is necessary to prevent more nations from getting them. Making foolish "agreements" with other nations to give up our advantage is beyond naive, and any leader who would actually do so is criminally negligent. I'd compare it to having our police give up their weapons because organized crime bosses agree to give up theirs. I doubt that the whole world is electrified by his proposals. Some who share his incredibly amateurish world view may be, but there are plenty of other leaders who are thinking that maybe there are enough neo-Chamberlains in charge to fool them into agreeing to this sort of nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxxcpa Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The world has not changed appreciably since Obama was elected. Maybe some expectations have changed, but is that enough to merit the peace prize? If they had offered it to me, I would have accepted it like Obama did, but would be very puzzled as to why I got it. All I have ever done is complain about the wars Bush got us into, but none of my complaints have accomplished anything. I complain about representation without taxation too, but the welfare programs and EICs continue unabated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Regardless of when the VOTE was, the NOMINATIONS still closed barely two weeks after he took office. There was NOTHING he had done in those two weeks to qualify him even for nomination. And that is plain fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb39 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Regardless of when the VOTE was, the NOMINATIONS still closed barely two weeks after he took office. There was NOTHING he had done in those two weeks to qualify him even for nomination. And that is plain fact. He energized his own as well as several other nations. He gave people reasons to hope that things would get better. If, (as it appears on this board), Jainen and I are the only ones who voted for him, how did he get elected? In my opinion, this board has gotten far, far too political. I promised myself to stay out of political posts, but all of this nit-picking about a prize that President Obama neither asked for, voted for or apparently expected, is just too much. Accept it as the honor that it is, and hope that we can live up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Has the board gotten too political, or just too much out of phase with your political views? Seems to me that when a thread is clearly labeled as being NT, then the door is thrown open for whatever takes place on that thread. It's easy enough to skip over any thread that offends your sense of propriety when it's labeled properly. Besides, whatever political differences any of us may have shouldn't detract from the fact that we respect and appreciate one another's tax knowledge. There's simply no linkage between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 >>There was NOTHING he had done in those two weeks to qualify him even for nomination<< Well, a nomination is only an alert that he was someone to look at. That was based not on two weeks but on his whole political career and personality, which had just gone through the most searching investigation ANYONE has ever had. He's a trained community organizer, and the world responded favorably as did his own country. Nothing in the first two weeks, are you nuts? Just bucking political tides to leave Bob Gates in the cabinet was a huge step towards peace that opened some very important doors for his diplomacy. Nobody could miss the commitment to hard core military deterrence in that appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneInAlabama Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The best protection against being vaporized by a nuclear bomb is still the deterrent effect of having plenty your own, plus doing whatever is necessary to prevent more nations from getting them. Making foolish "agreements" with other nations to give up our advantage is beyond naive, and any leader who would actually do so is criminally negligent. I'd compare it to having our police give up their weapons because organized crime bosses agree to give up theirs. I doubt that the whole world is electrified by his proposals. Some who share his incredibly amateurish world view may be, but there are plenty of other leaders who are thinking that maybe there are enough neo-Chamberlains in charge to fool them into agreeing to this sort of nonsense. AMEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontanaEA Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Thank you, Jainen and MCB39 for speaking up to defend our president, our country, and the ideals of peace and honor. I wish these threads would be saved for another board, not the one I rely on for info on my tax software. It is impossible to ignore them, and they makes it difficult to key into the real reason we have this board. Those of us who support our president and wholeheartedly approve of the way he represents our country to the world, feel an obligation not to let all the criticism go unchallenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Defending the president doesn't always equate to defending the country. Sometimes OPPOSING the president is the best way to defend the country. That fact was very evident to a large number of Americans from 2000 - 2008, because they constantly reminded us about it and tried to convince us & themselves that they honestly believed that to be true. But now they're trying to convince us that those rules don't apply any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunTaxMan Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Obama IS doing something extraordinary! He is creating the greatest increase in our National Debt in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts