Nobel Peace Prize.

[metsluva57]

I really don't get why he won it.
He's only been in office for 9 months.
And just because he talks and gives speeches about peace, he deserves to win the nobel peace prize? I don't think so.
The only way I would agee with it is if he took his words and did something with them, but so far, he hasn't.
And the part that really bugs me is that gandhi has never won the nobel peace prize, and obama did?

 

[chisnpeke]

I'm confused too. Jimmy Carter worked for years and years to promote peace and he didn't get his Nobel Peace Prize until 2002. President Obama hasn't been on the national scene for that long even. It would have been more appropriate down the line.

 

[Sparx]

i really feel like a majority of the people who are upset about this are upset about because they don't like obama. i don't feel like most of the controversy comes from weather or not he is a peacemaker, i feel like it comes from he is obama.

 

[Pecobill]

-cnn

he's one of three sitting presidents to ever win this, and i say good for him.
and i definitely agree with the last line. more people voted in obamas election than ever in any election the history of the world.

That's because ACORN went out and bribed people to vote.Anyway back to the topic.Obama doesn't deserve this he has done nothing for world peace and nothing but make deployments worse for the troops.He wasnt even on the list of people to be considered for this award.The only reason he recieved it is because of politics.Oh yea and that history of the world part is completely wrong

 

[chisnpeke]

i really feel like a majority of the people who are upset about this are upset about because they don't like obama. i don't feel like most of the controversy comes from weather or not he is a peacemaker, i feel like it comes from he is obama.

I really am neutral feeling about Obama so far. I just don't feel he has done enough to deserve such an award yet.

To the contrary, I feel like the people who feel Obama deserves this are the ones who love him.

 

[chisnpeke]

That's because ACORN went out and bribed people to vote.Anyway back to the topic.Obama doesn't deserve this he has done nothing for world peace and nothing but make deployments worse for the troops.He wasnt even on the list of people to be considered for this award.The only reason he recieved it is because of politics.Oh yea and that history of the world part is completely wrong

I wouldn't say he has done nothing at all for world peace. He has tried to have Middle Eastern peace talks. That's much more peaceful than fighting. Has he done enough for world peace that it would make him qualified to win this award? Not in my opinion. This award should take years (many years) to earn, not a couple.

 

[Sparx]

I really am neutral feeling about Obama so far. I just don't feel he has done enough to deserve such an award yet.

To the contrary, I feel like the people who feel Obama deserves this are the ones who love him.

i'll agree that the statement goes both ways. people are just far too politically minded to think of him as a person receiving the award, and they think of him as a democrat that they either voted for (or support) or didn't (don't support) receiving this award.

kwim?

 

[Pecobill]

I wouldn't say he has done nothing at all for world peace. He has tried to have Middle Eastern peace talks. That's much more peaceful than fighting. Has he done enough for world peace that it would make him qualified to win this award? Not in my opinion. This award should take years (many years) to earn, not a couple.

That's true though the UN has been trying to have those talks for years.Trying doesn't count accomplishing something does.

 

[chisnpeke]

i'll agree that the statement goes both ways. people are just far too politically minded to think of him as a person receiving the award, and they think of him as a democrat that they either voted for (or support) or didn't (don't support) receiving this award.

kwim?

I know exactly what you mean. They are basing whether he should have received this award on politics. To me it has nothing to do with politics. I don't think it was right for him to receive this award so soon.

Jimmy Carter definitely deserved his. He worked for many years on peace. Al Gore I also believe deserved his. I just don't believe Obama has earned it quite yet.

 

[chisnpeke]

That's true though the UN has been trying to have those talks for years.Trying doesn't count accomplishing something does.

Awards can be given for effort. I personally believe we can try and try and try and there will never be complete peace in the Middle East. What is important is that someone tries.

 

[chisnpeke]

I really don't get why he won it.
He's only been in office for 9 months.
And just because he talks and gives speeches about peace, he deserves to win the nobel peace prize? I don't think so.
The only way I would agee with it is if he took his words and did something with them, but so far, he hasn't.
And the part that really bugs me is that gandhi has never won the nobel peace prize, and obama did?

There is something completely disgusting about that fact.

 

[Sparx]

There is something completely disgusting about that fact.

i wanted to comment on that one. people say they're disgusted and think the award is irrelevant now, but up until 1960, the award went to exclusively to white europeans. (maybe one or two exceptions?)

gandhi was nominated 5 times. the latest was the year he died in 1948. (no posthumous awards ever. its against the rules) gandhi lead a nonviolent crusade against the oppressive british. the same british who happened to be very influential over the award.

gandhi was also not too well liked in his native india during his lifetime. he was often blamed for a lot of the strife that they suffered, so his own people weren't backing him too much.

 

[MickeyisBeast]

i wanted to comment on that one. people say they're disgusted and think the award is irrelevant now, but up until 1960, the award went to exclusively to white europeans. (maybe one or two exceptions?)

gandhi was nominated 5 times. the latest was the year he died in 1948. (no posthumous awards ever. its against the rules) gandhi lead a nonviolent crusade against the oppressive british. the same british who happened to be very influential over the award.

gandhi was also not too well liked in his native india during his lifetime. he was often blamed for a lot of the strife that they suffered, so his own people weren't backing him too much.

Couldn't of said it better myself.

 

[chisnpeke]

i wanted to comment on that one. people say they're disgusted and think the award is irrelevant now, but up until 1960, the award went to exclusively to white europeans. (maybe one or two exceptions?)

gandhi was nominated 5 times. the latest was the year he died in 1948. (no posthumous awards ever. its against the rules) gandhi lead a nonviolent crusade against the oppressive british. the same british who happened to be very influential over the award.

gandhi was also not too well liked in his native india during his lifetime. he was often blamed for a lot of the strife that they suffered, so his own people weren't backing him too much.

Very interesting facts. It would have been a huge deal for him to have won the award back then because it would have been so very unlikely. The fact that he never won still digusts me, no matter what the times were like.

 

[Sparx]

Very interesting facts. It would have been a huge deal for him to have won the award back then because it would have been so very unlikely. The fact that he never won still digusts me, no matter what the times were like.

i think if he had won, it might have made things worse for him. because the main reason he didn't win was because of the political airs at the time. if he had won, the british would have probably been much much worse on him and his people, which would in turn cause his people to attack him more, and blame him.

does that make sense? i know he was probably the most deserving candidate ever, but i feel like it was better for him to NOT win.

 

[chisnpeke]

i think if he had won, it might have made things worse for him. because the main reason he didn't win was because of the political airs at the time. if he had won, the british would have probably been much much worse on him and his people, which would in turn cause his people to attack him more, and blame him.

does that make sense? i know he was probably the most deserving candidate ever, but i feel like it was better for him to NOT win.

It does make sense. Considering what was going on at the time it would have been better for him not to win but it's weird to think that people could have thought of him as anything but peaceful since he is such an icon of peace now.

 

[Sparx]

It does make sense. Considering what was going on at the time it would have been better for him not to win but it's weird to think that people could have thought of him as anything but peaceful since he is such an icon of peace now.

i know it does feel weird to think about people hating him, but thats kind of why we remember him. he fought against tyrannical oppression of his people. and he did a good job at it, which made the oppressors fight all that much harder, and made his people angry towards him. if you think about it that way, at least i find him all that more inspiring.

 

[chisnpeke]

i know it does feel weird to think about people hating him, but thats kind of why we remember him. he fought against tyrannical oppression of his people. and he did a good job at it, which made the oppressors fight all that much harder, and made his people angry towards him. if you think about it that way, at least i find him all that more inspiring.

 

[BabyPiglet]

Pecobill, you really said a lot without backing any of it up.

I'm not a radical Obama lover or whatever, I supported him, sure. There have been a few things he has done that I haven't quite agreed with, but his influence on people's morale is undeniable.

I think it has nothing to do with his presidency, persay, so it doesn't matter that he was in the white house only 11 days before the nomination deadline. He did a lot before he was even ever elected.

 

[Pecobill]

Pecobill, you really said a lot without backing any of it up.

I'm not a radical Obama lover or whatever, I supported him, sure. There have been a few things he has done that I haven't quite agreed with, but his influence on people's morale is undeniable.

I think it has nothing to do with his presidency, persay, so it doesn't matter that he was in the white house only 11 days before the nomination deadline. He did a lot before he was even ever elected.

Yea the morale has definitely improved

I'm assuming all those protests this year have been good morale? Obama has spent more money than all the president's in history with nothing to show it.As a matter of fact he hasn't done a single thing he promised to do yet.So sure the morale has definitely improved...in the rest of the world

Also I couldn't back up most of my points without getting too political.You said he did a lot before he was elected.What did he do? He wasn't even a Senator for a year before he even ran for President.