The president of the United States wins one of the most prestigious honors in the world and Republicans, rather than exhibit national pride, bitterly attack their country’s leader as unaccomplished and undeserving.

The same Republicans cheered when the United States lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games sought by Obama despite the economic bonanza the world event could have brought to Chicago, Milwaukee and the financially stressed Midwest.

The angry opposition of Republicans to President Barack Obama now has deteriorated into opposition to anything that is good for their own country under Obama’s leadership.

Republicans wouldn’t have been so baffled by Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize if they had bothered to read the citation. The Nobel committee, which unanimously awarded the honor to Obama, explicitly stated the prize was not being given for what Obama might do in the future, but for what his election already has meant for the world.

The citation spelled out clearly the difference one person can make.
Obama’s election immediately transformed the world’s greatest superpower from an arrogant nation acting unilaterally without any regard for world opinion into a global leader in multinational diplomacy attempting to solve problems through negotiations.

The United States also immediately stopped feigning ignorance over whether climate change existed and began working with other nations to take concrete steps to meet a grave threat to the planet’s survival.

The Nobel committee didn’t mention race, but Obama also pushed open doors and provided hope and new opportunities for people of color not only in his own country, but around the world as well.

The lack of graciousness of Republicans toward a prestigious honor for our president—and for the United States itself—carries special irony for those of us who were accused of being unpatriotic in the past for protesting the policies of the United States when it got off track.

Those same Republicans who said we should support our country “right or wrong” now refuse to support it even when others around the world are heaping praise upon us for moving in the right direction.

There’s a big difference between opposing a president for escalating a war resulting in the loss of thousands of American lives and opposing a president for attempting to make affordable health care available to all Americans.


Republicans, if you dont think this is true. please explain why LOGICALLY. Don't just yell out obama a socialist.

 

During the 1995-1996 legislative years, radical, right-wing Republican Members of Congress engaged in subversive, anti-American actions that shut down the U.S. Government.


The anti-American actions included failure--or refusal--to provide timely appropriations for national programs established by Congress resulting in:

• Obstructing administration of programs established by law for national defense, citizen-service, and national well-being programs
• Denial of right-to-work and other human rights for millions of Americans
• Jeopardy of benefits and services--often life-critical--for citizens, such as social security, Medicare, veterans benefits, food and nutrition, anti-poverty, and other programs
• Subversive undermining of confidence of the American people in their Government
• Anti-American damaging of reputation and stature of the United States in the eyes of the world

If the involved Members of Congress had engaged in military power--rather than political subversion--to shut down the Government, the act would have been treason.

Under the existing Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 3, reads:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representativein Congress…who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same…."

Logically and unequivocally, shutting down the U.S. Government represents "…insurrection or rebellion…." against the United States of America.


http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-844.pdf
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Republicans, if you dont think this is true. please explain why LOGICALLY. Don't just yell out obama a socialist.

 

Who are these blasted "rebulicans" anyways?

 

My problem with him winning the award is this: What did he do to even be nominated for it? Before he became president, all he really did was just all talk saying things he would do, but never did them. When he became president, within the first 11 days of his stepping in office, I personally don't believe he did enough to be even considered as a possible candidate for the NPP.

It's like... putting butter on bread before you toast it, if you get my analogy. (Couldn't think of a better one really...)

P.S. this is a redundant topic....

P.P.S. I will say how it's retarded how some people got up in arms about Obama bowing to Japan's leaders.

 

Read this, and tell me you still think it was not given to him for what he would accomplish.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

The Norwegian Nobel Committee 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.

None of these are done yet, but he stated he would during his election. And he has taken steps forward to making this happen.

He did not make his first step to making this happen until September 24, 2009 at the UN Security Council when he affirmed the its commitment to to the goal of world free of nuclear weapons and established a broad framework for reducing global dangers.

And the deadline for submission for a person to be submitted for the Nobel Peace Prize is to be no later than February 1. He had yet to do any steps toward the goal of a world without nuclear weapons until late September. He had only been in officer for 11 days as the President as of this day.

And then in the beginning of October, the 5 man committee vote on who wins the Nobel Peace Prize. So 7 days later, being October 1, the committee decides he deserved it.

And if I remember correctly, the US was not the only country who was shocked nor disapproved that Obama should have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now that covers your main argument about the Nobel Peace Prize issue. Check the old thread for further details.

 

Republicans seem to have gotten on a "I want it now, and if that doesn't benefit you than tough luck because you obviously are too lazy to be as deserving of full participation in our country's opportunities as me" bandwagon. And if they can pawn all the real problems off on our grandchildren rather than dealing with them now, so much the better. Republicans apparently don't want to protect our planet from climate change, don't want to reform the financial system that led to the most recent meltdown (one of series of boom and bust times that hurt regular people but not so much the wealthiest Americans), don't want to let all Americans participate in the health care this country has to offer but won't hesitate to protect the interests of the big insurance companies, don't want workers to have any protections but won't hesitate to protect the rights of the owners who laid off the workers in order to protect CEO and Board multimillion dollar compensation schemes, etc., etc., etc.

 

You expect a lot, don't you?

 

No, it's you who expects a lot.

So far all you have gotten is more of the same.

 

while i agree with most of what you say twofeathers

i have to disagree on the Nobel prize

the president had done nothing to earn it and the award cheapend the whole status of the peace prize

it was motivated by people wanting to jump on the "black president bandwagon" and he should have had the decensy to refuse it

as for the rest i have said my piece elsewhere

each side in American politics thinks they have a Devonne right to rule and their elected king can do no wrong and the others can do no right

 

Remember that the Nobel prize has a long history of being awarded more for the committee's aspirations than for others' accomplishments -- for Mideast peace or a better South Africa, for instance.

In some cases, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said as much.

"Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early?" he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond -- all of us."

Obama certainly understands his challenges are too steep to resolve quickly.

"It's not going to be easy," the president often says as he sets tasks for the United States.

The Nobel committee, it seems, had the audacity to hope that he'll eventually produce a record worthy of its prize.
-----------
As for as it being redundant (Nobel Prize topic) I tried to keep my response as short as I could..I only responed to this post...I understand the other post and the post from Tom From Nothumberland..I hope this answers said things in the posts.

 

I am one of those republicans, and I personally do not find it as a "I want it now" mentality as you put it. I think it is more, than this President is checked and reviewed in detail, much more than any other President. He preached Change during his campaign, and when he got elected, everyone who voted for him expected a Messiah, instead of a man. So now, many people are trying to figure out what is going on. His approval rating shows that.

As for me, I am trying to see and keep an eye on his promises and what he will accomplish. Because I personally think he promised the world, but will barely be able to complete nearly as much as he promised. And that will be his demise come next election. And only reason I scrutinize him so much, is because he is a democrat president, which I did not vote for.

As for the idea of transparency in the government, I think that was a bad move. Because now so many people can notice things that were not so much in your face, and because of that, I think he is getting more and more attacked by the media.

 

To my knowledge, no one officially looks at past prize winners to see if they have measured up. Judging by past winners, perhaps it is an over blown honor to receive it. Maybe a new award should be created, "the Nobel Peace Promise", the actual peace award could then be given to those who actually delivered on the promise.

 

LOL's

 

Maybe we should? I don't disagree with this post. That's way I posted the Chairmans words.

However It's not the award that really bothered me it was the negitive embrace that was shown toward the American President receiving the honor.

 

But again, Americans were not the only ones who were shocked or had negative comments about him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Not to mention the two main details you keep forgetting about this Nobel Peace Prize.

1. Three of the five committee members originally objected to Obama being nominated for the award.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/1...-reportedly-objected-to-awarding-obama-prize/

2. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland, was also the secretary general of the Council of Europe. And he was asked to step down by Norwegian politicians, because it seems that his decision could have been biased.

http://momento24.com/en/2009/10/11/...-chairman-for-awarding-obama-the-peace-prize/

But again, all of these things have been talked about in the old thread, and another thread, when it got brought up in that one as well. As many threads stray from the original topic, and go off in tangents that have nothing to do with the original post.

 

First of all, 80% of President Obama's term is still remaining at this time. So it's a little premature to say he never did them.

Secondly, aren't most politician's campaign promises typically broken anyway. He's doing better than average if he only does half of them.

 

What I expect from the Republicans is that they will continue to behave like obstructionists. And you are right. I have gotten more of the same from them.

 

President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal faced considerable criticism aswell.
President Lyndon B. Johnson faced considerable criticism aswell.

Both Presidents faced considerable criticism yet made incredible domestic reforms that improved American social and economic life.

The concept that the world was round or that the earth was not the center of the universe was also highly criticized...did the criticism make it the right answer?

 

If I was running for office I would not make unrealistic promises. I would explain what I think the problems faced by the United States are. I would add that these are serious, deep seated problems, and that they do not have easy solutions. I would explain what my policies would be. I would say that I cannot promise that my policies would succeed. I would also say that I am in favor of raising taxes on the richest 5% of the country, and that those in that 5% who object should vote for my opponent. I would also say that I lack any enthusiasm for gay marriage, or for the presumed "wall of separation" between church and state.

Naturally I would lose. However, if I won I would have a mandate to do what I wanted to do.

 

Are you making excuses for him or for yourself?

Idealists are the most easily swayed by rhetoric.