Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That’s great, but how is this even on the same > scale as what Obama has done? He has already > changed the way that almost every person in the > world perceives the most powerful country in the > world. That’s a pretty concrete thing. So you’re saying he won the award for getting people to perceive the US differently?
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That’s great, but how is this even on the same > > scale as what Obama has done? He has already > > changed the way that almost every person in the > > world perceives the most powerful country in > the > > world. That’s a pretty concrete thing. > > So you’re saying he won the award for getting > people to perceive the US differently? You took the words right out of my mouth. And keep in mind that the award is based on his accomplishments in 2008 and the first month of 2009. So…the campaign trail and winning the Presidency.
purealpha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You guys are obsessed with “concrete results”, > life isn’t concrete, step out of your box. I don’t have a box - but I can step outside of my apartment if I get hungry tonight. Give me a result. It doesn’t have to be concrete.
It’s a “peace” prize. I have scene political rallies in which the only thing the speakers needed to do to receive support was to violently denounce America. This was in a country that most people consider to be religiously and socially moderate. If I tried to do that today, people will ask wtf is wrong with me. Multiply this by hundreds of millions of people and you’ll get the overall effect of the Bush-Obama transition. Also consider that many people in other countries lump America, England, Christianity, and/or western countries together, just like people in America can’t tell the difference between Laos and Myanmar. If people are violently opposed to America, they will probably be violently opposed to America’s allies and countries that are culturally similar to it. I’m not really a liberal person, and I don’t think Obama is unique in his ability to do what he does. However, if he is a vessel of this sort of change, how can we not support that? I do vehemently oppose many of Obama’s other policies, but that’s besides the point.
steph96 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And keep in mind that the award is based on his > accomplishments in 2008 and the first month of > 2009. So…the campaign trail and winning the > Presidency. Why is time span even relevant? This prize is based on accomplishment, not how long someone has spent trying to accomplish something.
iheartiheartmath Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> So you’re saying he won the award for getting > people to perceive the US differently? I see nothing wrong with this. He changed the perception. Even if it was for a brief amount of time, in BO I also once saw a glimmer of hope and peace. He is fighting interest groups with reach beyond borders. He may never achieve anything but he restored the faith of many that one day we might become better.
Disagree.
Intangible results are actually super tangible. For example mood, mood of a nation. When a tribe has a negative “leader” (Bush) mood sucks. Mood in an environmental thing and you are all impacted by it regarless of it you realize you are being impacted. Because people are living growing beings, hence mood is tangible and super duper relevant…in itself relevant of a peace prize. Mood of the world too, if people even feel a little less oppressed and bullied by the USA and that we don’t give a sh#t about anyone but ourselves that is tangible for the same reasons I just said. Maybe they are hopefull… Hope is good stuff. Probably a hopefull person is more motivated, creates less problems in society (crime and sh@t), and needs less healthcare. Healthcare is tangible, and thus intangle stuff like hope is tangible. Positive ideas…old skeptical people die and new people take over the world, implanting positive ideas and being a good role model of the little brats will have massive tangible results in the future. Do you want your kids growing up to act like BUSH? 
I could go on and on with common sense stuff but I’m busy modeling, werd…
Ok, put it this way. Let’s say that during the Cold War, you did something that removed all anti-Capitalist sentiment from the USSR. You would have undoubtedly received the Nobel prize or some other form of recognition for this. This is despite the fact that you did nothing but alter the thinking of a few million people. Isn’t this analogous to what Obama is doing?
Lets put it this way, if Hitler had committed suicide 5 years earlier, he should have been awarded a …oh crap.
needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lets put it this way, if Hitler had committed > suicide 5 years earlier, he should have been > awarded a …oh crap. BRAVO
Why does Hitler always come up?
It’s Godwin’s Law: Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s Godwin’s Law: > > Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi > Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation made by > Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet > adage. It states: “As a Usenet discussion grows > longer, the probability of a comparison involving > Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law The term Godwin’s law can also refer to the tradition that whoever makes such a comparison is said to “lose” the debate.
purealpha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Intangible results are actually super tangible. > For example mood, mood of a nation. When a tribe > has a negative “leader” (Bush) mood sucks. Mood > in an environmental thing and you are all impacted > by it regarless of it you realize you are being > impacted. Because people are living growing > beings, hence mood is tangible and super duper > relevant…in itself relevant of a peace prize. > > Mood of the world too, if people even feel a > little less oppressed and bullied by the USA and > that we don’t give a sh#t about anyone but > ourselves that is tangible for the same reasons I > just said. Maybe they are hopefull… > > Hope is good stuff. Probably a hopefull person is > more motivated, creates less problems in society > (crime and sh@t), and needs less healthcare. > Healthcare is tangible, and thus intangle stuff > like hope is tangible. > > Positive ideas…old skeptical people die and new > people take over the world, implanting positive > ideas and being a good role model of the little > brats will have massive tangible results in the > future. Do you want your kids growing up to act > like BUSH? > > I could go on and on with common sense stuff but > I’m busy modeling, werd… From the part of the world where I’m from and I’m sure others, the US under Bush was seen as the evil empire, a bully that put those who were not in agreement to bomb an innocent nation into the “axis of evil” bucket. On the domestic front, Obama has yet to produce a comparable tangible effect. Unfortunately, the tea-baggers, birthers, ditto-heads, and Glenn Beck cheerleaders have muddied the debate to the point where in DC I’m no longer shocked at seen swastikas. Obama has had to deal with a horrible economy and very cluttered and ambitious agenda. He still deserves the benefit of the doubt domestically, but overseas the huge improvement of America’s image is a tangible benefit that will help in dealing with Iran. I think the prize belongs to the people of the US for being grand enough to realize just how terrible Bush II was.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s Godwin’s Law: > > Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi > Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation made by > Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet > adage. It states: “As a Usenet discussion grows > longer, the probability of a comparison involving > Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law sublimity’s law (much more general than Godwin’s law): people on the internet will fight.
Purealpha, there are no tangible results though. That’s fine and great that the world’s “perception” of the U.S. has changed. You’re right—that’s an intangible result. But unless there are tangible results that follow that change of perception—e.g. actual peace, extraordinary treaties (new treaties occur all the time)—then there is nothing to be said for that “change in perception.” Obama very well may EARN the Nobel Peace Prize before the end of his presidential tenure, but don’t you think it’s a little premature to be awarding him such a prestigious prize without any tangible accomplishments besides good feelings that have yet to produce results? I find it conspicuous that Jimmy Carter—a political liberal Democrat, a well known anti-Semite and one of the weakest presidents of the 20th century—Al Gore, another political liberal Democrat who has been thoroughly discredited, and now Barack Obama, another political liberal Democrat with weak foreign policy (no doubt America’s diminished role as superpower is what the world wants), are all awarded the prize in just a few years. All the while, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did far more for world peace and for the liberation of humanity and neither were recognized for it by the committee. Obviously, those running the committee are political Leftists, which diminishes the meaning of this prize a lot. As has been stated, once Arafat was awarded the peace prize, the prize lost all its meaning.
Enter the legendary Kkent…I’m out…
ceo1975, I live in D.C. and have never seen a swastika, except when I saw anti-war protesters under Bush and a handful of reactionaries under Obama using it in a negative way.