Humble Obama Will Accept Nobel Peace Prize As "Call To Action"

like the UN or any organization that cares about international multilateral efforts, right?

thanks for proving my point. rather than replying with a serious counterargument, you call me a 'stalinist' lefty and manage to slander obama yet again. why so much hate ides? what did the scary left ever do to you? for that matter, what did the entire world ever do to make you hate it so much?

and diversity of opinion was exactly my point! you're just so blind that you can't even see that you're accusing me of your exact fault!

but you'll get no further reply from me, because arguing with the likes of you is like your friends that shout at the town hall meetings - the result is nothing but exasperation, two steps back, etc.

continue the good fight, worthy soldier!

How about the facts that he's actively continued Bush's policies on indefinite detention without judicial review, rendition, warrantless wiretapping. He's also, sought increased military spending, increased military incursions into Pakistan, despite the protests of the Pakistani government, and is likely to escalate the war in Afghanistan?

Oh, and he's also for pre-emptive war: "No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened... Read More." i.e., preemptive strike.

Wait.. what is wrong with the quote?

Are you saying we should not act if we are attacked or in danger of imminent attack? That's ludicrous.

The problem with Iraq wasn't preemption. It was that the threat wasn't imminent (in fact, it was nonexistent).

I'm giving specific reasons why he doesn't deserve the award, since you seemed so worked up about Ides' critical and flippant comment...

I'm not saying that we should rashly pull-out, but Obama's decisions to continue some of Bush's policies really conflict with the idea of a peace prize. Practically speaking, maybe they're necessary (just like it's necessary for the Communist Party in China to crush dissent in order to maintain order), but in terms of winning a peace prize, let's see some tangible results first.

ok, yep, i can agree with you there. and that was really my entire point - come back with a rational statement rather than just railing on obama because you don't like him. if you don't like him, fine. that's your opinion. but to brow beat him and others just because they're of the liberal viewpoint, well, good luck getting anything productive accomplished. and frankly, that's all i see lately - hatred spewed because you don't like or just can't get your mind around a different point of view.

Politics makes everyone crazy :S

yes, only those who worship at the altar of Obama can comprehend the complex nuances of his deep and vast mind. And why is disagreeing with Obama (or his cult) "hate". Do you have no counter-argument yourself unless we "hate" him? I have the supernatural ability to disagree with people and yet still respect them, you should try that.

read the bulk of ides' comments when it comes to the left, or whatever he considers the left. it's hate, pure and simple. disagreement would be to offer what could be considered an alternate solution. instead, from ides, we get name calling, irrelevant 'facts,' and fallacious arguments. so did you still want to talk about respect?

I'm embarrassed to say I actually agree with Ides for once.

Why? Is Keith Olbermann spending the night with Obama again? Or is it Wolf Blitzer tonight?

Have you ever actually seen Blitzer's show? Or are you just throwing around any name that's not Fox News or Lou Dobbs and seeing what sticks? Because for the past year it's really only gotten more and more obvious that you've been grasping at straws for anything to go negative about.

Now granted, Blitzer is an idiot and a hack. But you can't really call him a partisan hack. He'll just believe whatever you put in front of him. In fact, wasn't he right there with that Birther bullshit for a little while?

Are you kidding? Blitzer had his panties in a wad because SNL dared to mock Obama last week. Did you ever see CNN "fact check" an SNL skit about Bush, Ford or Reagan?

Like I said, it's whatever's put in front of him. One week he's ruffled about Saturday Night Live (which, let's be honest, was weak even if does stroke your hate-boner - what's-his-name doesn't even attempt to impersonate Obama anymore). The next week he'll be upset that people are labeling Tea-Baggers as racist, "just because they're expressing their right to protest" without really mentioning all the Witch Doctor and Nazi images floating around.

I'm pretty sure there's just a team of bitter, polar-opposite producers all fighting each other for his remote control. Or somebody just gives him the topics and tells him which way to go that will best fill a couple hours of television.

I disagree with the logic in your argument. You're using the "offer a better solution or shut up" argument. It's not my job, as a critic, to offer a solution. It's up to those people doing the job to do their job better. It's ok to criticize the Nobel Committee's choice if it's, on its face, a poor choice. If I'm criticizing O as the recipient, (which I may or may not be), I'm not really saying I can find someone better, what I'm really expressing is that I can't believe they couldn't find someone else b/c it is so patently a poor choice.

I mean, just look at it. Who got it in the past? Mandela? Walesa? I mean, come on, what did O do to even compare to them?

Yeah, I waited for now. Not when that racist, terroristic, murdering piece of shit Arafat won it. Oh wait, do you love him and his hope and change too?

The award is stupid. Anything that commends Carter (who fails at life itself) and Yasser Arafat must unilaterally be disregarded. My toilet paper is more pristine.

zionist.

And I should add, yes, Gandhi was nominated multiple times including 1947. Probably would have had a better chance of winning after India gained its independence but he was murdered in January 1948 and thus not eligible.

Just out of curiosity, who would make the list?
Bush?
Rumsfeld?
Cheney?

This is true, so...

Keep fucking that chicken.

who wants to fck Bloomberg? He screwed us all already.

"He doesn’t realise how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is. " AMEN

MLK marched the streets of Selma for Civil Rights
Obama marched the streets of Chicago for the Olympics

MLK had a dream about justice for all
Obama had dreams from his father

MLK bumped with Hoover and the system
Obama fist-bumped Michelle

MLK penned letters from a Birmingham jail
Obama produced videos for YouTube

Pre-Internet: MLK won the Noble Prize for Peace
Post-Internet: Obama wins the Noble Prize for Peace.
...that's the difference.

Very clever. Did you read that in a chain email forwarded from your aunt?

perhaps you miss a point: it is not a lifetime achievement!

It is a matter of impact and political potential : a model of behavior if you will.

But if you think Bush&Co was a good type of leadership you might not understand at all what international politics in the world arena is.

"has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama 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.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Now, we can keep ignoring the role MULTILATERALISM plays in international politics... don't we?

Did you even notice how everything you wrote is in the future tense?

Nobody said those things were evil. Grow up. If you want to salvage any credibility you would actually address the chief complaint which has been that President Obama hasn't actually achieved any of these things - yet. And that past award winners have actual accomplishments to point to. And most of the winners that failed to achieve lasting peace put in more than eight months of "extraordinary efforts".