Friday, October 09, 2009

Who cares about a prize from socialist Swedes and Norwegians?

So, if you don't like the guy who wins the presidency, you assert that he's not legit, because he was born in Africa, or perhaps on Mars.

Therefore, he must be a socialist, so he should not be allowed to speak to students, during the school day.

Are you the same one who rants against socialism, and then yells, "Don't touch my Medicare!" Are you the same one who thinks it should be OK to take a bazooka to a gathering where this president is present? But, I digress.

Then, if that same president tries to help bring the Olympics to the USA, you cheer when Brazil wins the bid. But weren't you the same one that used to chant U! S! A!, every chance you got?

Now, if that same man wins a Nobel Prize, you carp about how he hasn't gotten anything done. You claim the committee made its decision when he'd only been in office -- illegitimately! -- for 15 minutes. So he doesn't deserve the award, which is a bogus prize from foreigners, anyway -- socialist Swedes and Norwegians!

If it might hurt President Barack Obama's approval rating, would you like to see some buildings in America blow up? Did you know a Swedish guy invented dynamite? His name was Nobel.

7 comments:

Scott said...

Again, I am not an 'Obama hater' but there are legitimate, intelligent reasons to question this award.

http://www.vagreenparty.org/richblog/?p=450

The European judges say they gave the award on his 'promise' not his accomplishments so far. Well, its their award to give, but as a citizen of the world, I hope Obama takes a stonger stand on climate change in order to earn this award.

http://www.vagreenparty.org/richblog/?p=451

F.T. Rea said...

Scott, Yasir Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize. And, Mahatma Gandhi never got one. So, the history of this prize is somewhat squirrelly.

And, arguing about who is deserving, or not, ends up sounding something like talking about the Oscars.

Scott said...

Your writing, not mine:

"Now, if that same man wins a Nobel Prize, you carp about how he hasn't gotten anything done."

Scott said...

Instead of attacking anyone who questions Obama's award, let's build on the hopes (Obama's included) that the award can mean more-

http://www.psr.org/take-action/security/real-prize-global-elimination.html

Dale Brumfield said...

Actually, the award is going to make his life even more difficult: if he sends the requested troops to Afghanistan he will be branded a hypocrite and not deserving; if he bucks the generals on the ground and doesn't, he will be branded soft on terrorism. There is no win here for him - he should have refused it.

Scott said...

When it comes to Afghanistan, Obama needs to stand up to the generals and change strategy altogether...

http://www.vagreenparty.org/richblog/?p=447

paul_h said...

The award should be about accomplishments, not intentions. He has still yet to make the tough calls in Isreal to stop the settlements, is ramping up the war in Afghanistan and is unable to fulfill his promises in Iraq and Guantanemo.

Even knowing the sketchy history and origins of the Nobel Peace Prize, I still think it means something. He would have done himself and the award credit by declining it.