On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:14:23 -0400, H the K
wrote:



The Nobel committee has awarded on the basis of "hope" before.

Desmond Tutu won the prize for working for the end of apartheid, which
was not achieved for more than 10 years after his selection.

The Dalai Lama won the prize for struggling for the liberation of Tibet,
which has not been achieved.

Aung San Suu Kyi won for her efforts to liberate Burma, which has not
happened.


I saw the same Rachel Maddow puerile argument. She really
disappointed me with that.
Akin to saying those who won the medicine award for the double helix
wouldn't have got the award because DNA still isn't fully understood.
A look at the list of former winners shows without exception - until
Obama - years or decades of hard and often not widely recognized work.
There can be quibbles with the list, but that is a constant.
Even Obama is embarrassed at getting the award.
But he's handled it well.
Any justification is political nonsense IMO.
And the award was a political statement more than for real
accomplishment and sacrifice.
We'll see how it holds up if he decides to drop some MOAB's on the
Arabs. I suspect this is an attempt to forestall such events.

I can think of many reasons why Obama won, including these few:

his ending of the concept of pre-emptive war
his ending of the policy of not talking to our enemies
his shutting down of the torture mills

Right. Except those are givens, and to me simple American and common
sense values. Hardly groundbreaking. Party platform.

his message of hope and a brighter future for people all around the world

I understand "hope." But we live in a reality of sacrifice and work.
And that's how medals and ribbons should be won.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Look at the wiki page about the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, I looked. Obama doesn't belong on the list.
My opinion.
Seems the committee is working on "hope" criteria instead of
established work as in the past.
Maybe he'll justify it in the end, but the "rules" have certainly
changed.
BTW, John Paul II, the Polish Pope, should be on that list.
He exuded peace and love, and spread it where ever he went.

You're right he might or might not, but most presidents have far-reaching
impact. GWB is an example. Not for good, but his impact on the world was
large.

I don't think you're a bad person. If I implied that, it was
unintentional.

I was just kidding. I know I'm not a bad person. Mostly.

--Vic


I don't know if he deserved it or not. He got it. We should be proud that
the Nobel committee thinks so highly of him. That hasn't been case of recent
presidents.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:14:23 -0400, H the K
wrote:



The Nobel committee has awarded on the basis of "hope" before.

Desmond Tutu won the prize for working for the end of apartheid, which
was not achieved for more than 10 years after his selection.

The Dalai Lama won the prize for struggling for the liberation of Tibet,
which has not been achieved.

Aung San Suu Kyi won for her efforts to liberate Burma, which has not
happened.


I saw the same Rachel Maddow puerile argument. She really
disappointed me with that.
Akin to saying those who won the medicine award for the double helix
wouldn't have got the award because DNA still isn't fully understood.
A look at the list of former winners shows without exception - until
Obama - years or decades of hard and often not widely recognized work.
There can be quibbles with the list, but that is a constant.
Even Obama is embarrassed at getting the award.
But he's handled it well.
Any justification is political nonsense IMO.
And the award was a political statement more than for real
accomplishment and sacrifice.
We'll see how it holds up if he decides to drop some MOAB's on the
Arabs. I suspect this is an attempt to forestall such events.

I can think of many reasons why Obama won, including these few:

his ending of the concept of pre-emptive war
his ending of the policy of not talking to our enemies
his shutting down of the torture mills

Right. Except those are givens, and to me simple American and common
sense values. Hardly groundbreaking. Party platform.

his message of hope and a brighter future for people all around the world

I understand "hope." But we live in a reality of sacrifice and work.
And that's how medals and ribbons should be won.

--Vic



We also live in a reality of hope and sometimes hopelessness. I choose the
former.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Look at the wiki page about the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, I looked. Obama doesn't belong on the list.
My opinion.
Seems the committee is working on "hope" criteria instead of
established work as in the past.
Maybe he'll justify it in the end, but the "rules" have certainly
changed.
BTW, John Paul II, the Polish Pope, should be on that list.
He exuded peace and love, and spread it where ever he went.

You're right he might or might not, but most presidents have far-reaching
impact. GWB is an example. Not for good, but his impact on the world was
large.

I don't think you're a bad person. If I implied that, it was
unintentional.

I was just kidding. I know I'm not a bad person. Mostly.

--Vic


I don't know if he deserved it or not. He got it. We should be proud that
the Nobel committee thinks so highly of him. That hasn't been case of
recent presidents.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Maybe it was really the NoBalls award.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Look at the wiki page about the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, I looked. Obama doesn't belong on the list.
My opinion.
Seems the committee is working on "hope" criteria instead of
established work as in the past.
Maybe he'll justify it in the end, but the "rules" have certainly
changed.
BTW, John Paul II, the Polish Pope, should be on that list.
He exuded peace and love, and spread it where ever he went.

You're right he might or might not, but most presidents have
far-reaching
impact. GWB is an example. Not for good, but his impact on the world was
large.

I don't think you're a bad person. If I implied that, it was
unintentional.

I was just kidding. I know I'm not a bad person. Mostly.

--Vic


I don't know if he deserved it or not. He got it. We should be proud that
the Nobel committee thinks so highly of him. That hasn't been case of
recent presidents.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Maybe it was really the NoBalls award.


Sure is nice to be a proud American... isn't it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:43:03 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:14:23 -0400, H the K
wrote:



The Nobel committee has awarded on the basis of "hope" before.

Desmond Tutu won the prize for working for the end of apartheid, which
was not achieved for more than 10 years after his selection.

The Dalai Lama won the prize for struggling for the liberation of Tibet,
which has not been achieved.

Aung San Suu Kyi won for her efforts to liberate Burma, which has not
happened.


I saw the same Rachel Maddow puerile argument. She really
disappointed me with that.
Akin to saying those who won the medicine award for the double helix
wouldn't have got the award because DNA still isn't fully understood.
A look at the list of former winners shows without exception - until
Obama - years or decades of hard and often not widely recognized work.
There can be quibbles with the list, but that is a constant.
Even Obama is embarrassed at getting the award.
But he's handled it well.
Any justification is political nonsense IMO.
And the award was a political statement more than for real
accomplishment and sacrifice.
We'll see how it holds up if he decides to drop some MOAB's on the
Arabs. I suspect this is an attempt to forestall such events.

I can think of many reasons why Obama won, including these few:

his ending of the concept of pre-emptive war
his ending of the policy of not talking to our enemies
his shutting down of the torture mills

Right. Except those are givens, and to me simple American and common
sense values. Hardly groundbreaking. Party platform.

his message of hope and a brighter future for people all around the world

I understand "hope." But we live in a reality of sacrifice and work.
And that's how medals and ribbons should be won.

--Vic

Good answer, Vic. I first noticed, upon reading Harry's
'justification,' was his use of 'action verbs' for his examples.

Tutu 'working', Dalai Lama 'struggling', Aung San Suu Kyi 'efforts to
liberate'...

I waited to see the Obama action verb. I guess it would be 'suffered
behind a teleprompter'.

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:58:33 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Look at the wiki page about the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, I looked. Obama doesn't belong on the list.
My opinion.
Seems the committee is working on "hope" criteria instead of
established work as in the past.
Maybe he'll justify it in the end, but the "rules" have certainly
changed.
BTW, John Paul II, the Polish Pope, should be on that list.
He exuded peace and love, and spread it where ever he went.

You're right he might or might not, but most presidents have far-reaching
impact. GWB is an example. Not for good, but his impact on the world was
large.

I don't think you're a bad person. If I implied that, it was
unintentional.

I was just kidding. I know I'm not a bad person. Mostly.

--Vic


I don't know if he deserved it or not. He got it. We should be proud that
the Nobel committee thinks so highly of him. That hasn't been case of
recent presidents.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Maybe it was really the NoBalls award.


You gotta love her logic.

"We should all be proud of nomdeplum because Harry thinks shes the
cat's meow."

That would be a worthy idea except that Harry's 'blessing' now carries
about as much weight as that of the Nobel Committee.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:15:38 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:58:33 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Look at the wiki page about the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, I looked. Obama doesn't belong on the list.
My opinion.
Seems the committee is working on "hope" criteria instead of
established work as in the past.
Maybe he'll justify it in the end, but the "rules" have certainly
changed.
BTW, John Paul II, the Polish Pope, should be on that list.
He exuded peace and love, and spread it where ever he went.

You're right he might or might not, but most presidents have far-reaching
impact. GWB is an example. Not for good, but his impact on the world was
large.

I don't think you're a bad person. If I implied that, it was
unintentional.

I was just kidding. I know I'm not a bad person. Mostly.

--Vic


I don't know if he deserved it or not. He got it. We should be proud that
the Nobel committee thinks so highly of him. That hasn't been case of
recent presidents.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Maybe it was really the NoBalls award.


You gotta love her logic.

"We should all be proud of nomdeplum because Harry thinks shes the
cat's meow."

That would be a worthy idea except that Harry's 'blessing' now carries
about as much weight as that of the Nobel Committee.

Got news for you - she's not a she.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:55:46 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:15:38 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:58:33 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Look at the wiki page about the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, I looked. Obama doesn't belong on the list.
My opinion.
Seems the committee is working on "hope" criteria instead of
established work as in the past.
Maybe he'll justify it in the end, but the "rules" have certainly
changed.
BTW, John Paul II, the Polish Pope, should be on that list.
He exuded peace and love, and spread it where ever he went.

You're right he might or might not, but most presidents have far-reaching
impact. GWB is an example. Not for good, but his impact on the world was
large.

I don't think you're a bad person. If I implied that, it was
unintentional.

I was just kidding. I know I'm not a bad person. Mostly.

--Vic


I don't know if he deserved it or not. He got it. We should be proud that
the Nobel committee thinks so highly of him. That hasn't been case of
recent presidents.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Maybe it was really the NoBalls award.


You gotta love her logic.

"We should all be proud of nomdeplum because Harry thinks shes the
cat's meow."

That would be a worthy idea except that Harry's 'blessing' now carries
about as much weight as that of the Nobel Committee.

Got news for you - she's not a she.

hesheit's got the logic often used by 'she's'

On 10/10/09 7:55 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:15:38 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:58:33 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
"Vic wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Look at the wiki page about the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, I looked. Obama doesn't belong on the list.
My opinion.
Seems the committee is working on "hope" criteria instead of
established work as in the past.
Maybe he'll justify it in the end, but the "rules" have certainly
changed.
BTW, John Paul II, the Polish Pope, should be on that list.
He exuded peace and love, and spread it where ever he went.

You're right he might or might not, but most presidents have far-reaching
impact. GWB is an example. Not for good, but his impact on the world was
large.

I don't think you're a bad person. If I implied that, it was
unintentional.

I was just kidding. I know I'm not a bad person. Mostly.

--Vic


I don't know if he deserved it or not. He got it. We should be proud that
the Nobel committee thinks so highly of him. That hasn't been case of
recent presidents.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Maybe it was really the NoBalls award.


You gotta love her logic.

"We should all be proud of nomdeplum because Harry thinks shes the
cat's meow."

That would be a worthy idea except that Harry's 'blessing' now carries
about as much weight as that of the Nobel Committee.

Got news for you - she's not a she.


Gotta love it when the "regressives" have their little boy
"discussions." Your compadre, the idiot Scott Ingersoll, thinks "nom" is
me.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All