Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.
So Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr, Pauling, Feynman, among many, many others, totally did not deserve their Nobels ?
I think it's silly to be mad about it. Some Scandinavians want to honor our president? USA! USA! USA! We're #1! :-P
I mean, seriously, how does it hurt us to have our president win the Nobel Peace Prize? Is it early? Sure... but it's not up to him, or us, it's up to those wacky Norwegians.
In short: It's not exactly a good achievement to get a Nobel Peace Price. All it means is that the norwegians want to kiss up to you.
Swedes... SWEDES! Not Norwegians!
The Nobel Prize is a Swedish reward.But hey, I can see how you got them confused, they both talk funny (although the Norwegians less so). ;-)
Although thanks to Sweden's less than stellar soccer national team, we (Denmark) is now going to the World Championship games after beating them tonight!
A few opinions to stick up for the gamer minority crowd:
The Nobel prize is essentially a guarantee that you live to counter American interests. Any time an organization can give a prize for peace to a man like Arafat, their judgment deserves questioning forever after.
Obama did nothing, has done nothing, and will continue to do nothing to earn a prize for peace, unless your definition of peace is "runs the American dollar into the ground but still makes their military available for the UN to police everyone but ACTUAL despots." Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice. We had 'peace' with Middle Eastern terrorists in that we did nothing while they attacked our country. That's not actual peace. When corruption and despotism run rampant, you don't have peace.
The Nobel prize is awarded to and by the sort of malcontents that think the only real evil in the world is the US.
And I saw it here on this thread somewhere. I just want to point out again that the argument "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" is the Straw Man of the Year for six years running.
You're not seriously still saying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 are you? Seriously?
Or are you saying that there were other reasons why Iraq was invaded (which is true, although the "linked to 9/11"-reason was still paraded around by the previous administration in the beginning)?Also, are you truly saying that the Nobel Prizes are awarded by the Swedes to people because they see the US as the "real evil in the world"???
I think this is not entirely accurate. I think that Laws that deal with a specific situation are clearly more important than Theories that deal with other different situations, for that given situation. Saying the Theory of Evolution is more important than the Laws of Thermodynamics when I am constructing a machine that change heat to work. In real, everyday work, often times "why" something happens is much less important than "how" something happens.Steven, when you use phrases like...
Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.... your going to attract snarky comments. In science, theory is actually more important than a law.
Basically, a law is fact. A single observable thing. Laws are almost entirely useless you specifically want to know how that one thing has been observed to behave.
I trained in a biological discipline, so i am going out on a bit limb here. If your aim is to make a better heat converter. Then yes, knowing the laws of thermodynamics is going to be more useful than an understanding of Evolution. But not much more useful on its own. Combine your understanding of Thermodynamic laws, with theories related to a variety of areas of physics and you can work out how to make the better heat converter.
A good way of looking at it is like this....Laws will let you work out where an astroid will hit earth, Laws and theories combined will give you the way to stop the astroid hitting earth.
Swedes... SWEDES! Not Norwegians!
The Nobel Prize is a Swedish reward.
But hey, I can see how you got them confused, they both talk funny (although the Norwegians less so). ;-)[/smaller]
It's a prize funded by a Swedish bequest, but the Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of the Norwegian parliament.
Yeah, a dane really should know that the peace prize, apart from all the other prizes, is awarded from Oslo, Norway.
Now if we swedes had been the ones who gave it away, then yes, every recipient would be the perfect choice and truly deserving. =)
And to quote Ernst Hugo Järegård: Danskj*vlar!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay, I know there's already a hundred page forum on evooution vs creation, and I know that there are believers on both sides of that talk among gamers, though fellas like me are in a clear minority. I alsom know that believeing in God isn't automatically always going to get you flamed here by fifty people, so it isn't as if I feel I am being put upon.
Poor victimized you!
Obama basically received the Nobel Prize because he isn't Bush. Maybe they should award me one too, since, like Obama, I am also not Bush.
I agree...and I want to be able to build a cult of personality and enshrine myself for all to see just like him...wait if I do that I get called narcissistic and an ego maniac...DOH!....
Maybe if I make hollow promises and and get hooked up with ACORN and Chicago politicians I can get this done without being put in a rubber room!
This basicly makes the Nobel Prize a farce...and demeans everyone her actually EARNED IT
It's a prize funded by a Swedish bequest, but the Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of the Norwegian parliament.
Swedes... SWEDES! Not Norwegians!
The Nobel Prize is a Swedish reward.
But hey, I can see how you got them confused, they both talk funny (although the Norwegians less so). ;-)[/smaller]
Yeah, a dane really should know that the peace prize, apart from all the other prizes, is awarded from Oslo, Norway.
I stand corrected! Something something about egg and my face.
It's still a Swedish award, though, even if it's awarded and nominated by Norwegians... doesn't matter, they're all trolls! It's true, they all look like those wild haired troll dolls!|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Grrr...
I'm really angry!!!
Grrr...
I'm going to post mean things on the internet to get attention!
Grrr...
I hope I offend someone!
Grrr...
Hmm...it's a little bit too transparent (typing in ALL CAPS is a pretty good giveaway) for me to really give a good grade to your trolling. I'll go with a C+ given that someone responded (me) - but that's somewhat grading on a curve - I've shown I'll respond to just about anything. The rest of the grade comes from trying to troll in a thread that's been pretty mellow and respectful. You show a commitment to stirring up trouble, and that's significant portion of being a successful troll. Anyone can pour gasoline onto an already burning fire, but you've attempted to make the next step and tried to ignite some dry tinder you spotted. Like I said, it was a poor attempt, but everyone has to start somewhere.
If you really want the A, I suggest posting in a more innocent thread, or starting a new thread with a non-obvious title (helps hide it from the mods) and a passive-aggressive message inviting discussion (which is A TRAP!). Another good technique in a thread like this is to bring in a tangential topic, like evolution, to really show you're committed to ideological trolling.
Anyway, good luck with starting a cult of personality. It's harder than it looks, but I'm sure if you practice, and focus, and have some natural charisma, and maybe some money, you too can get a crowd of people to follow you around and worship what you say. Trust me, I've tried and only achieved moderate success, and I'm really really awesome. But, there's always hope (GET IT?).
|
Grrr...
I'm really angry!!!
Grrr...
I'm going to post mean things on the internet to get attention!
Grrr...
I hope I offend someone!
Grrr...
Hmm...it's a little bit too transparent (typing in ALL CAPS is a pretty good giveaway) for me to really give a good grade to your trolling. I'll go with a C+ given that someone responded (me) - but that's somewhat grading on a curve - I've shown I'll respond to just about anything. The rest of the grade comes from trying to troll in a thread that's been pretty mellow and respectful. You show a commitment to stirring up trouble, and that's significant portion of being a successful troll. Anyone can pour gasoline onto an already burning fire, but you've attempted to make the next step and tried to ignite some dry tinder you've spotted. Like I said, it was a poor attempt, but everyone has to start somewhere.
If you really want the A, I suggest posting in a more innocent thread, or starting a new thread with a non-obvious title (helps hide it from the mods) and a passive-aggressive message inviting discussion (which is A TRAP!). Another good technique in a thread like this is to bring in a tangential topic, like evolution, to really show you're committed to ideological trolling.
Anyway, good luck with starting a cult of personality. It's harder than it looks, but I'm sure if you practice, and focus, and have some natural charisma, and maybe some money, you too can get a crowd of people to follow you around and worship what you say. Trust me, I've tried and only achieved moderate success, and I'm really really awesome. But, there's always hope (GET IT?).
You forgot to mention how humble you are as well, Pony-Boy. ;)
|
"Maybe if I make hollow promises and and get hooked up with ACORN and Chicago politicians I can get this done without being put in a rubber room!
This basicly makes the Nobel Prize a farce...and demeans everyone her actually EARNED IT"
This. Let's not forget his ties to the Illini teacher/terrorist and his good buddy Emil Jones of Chicago who hasn't met a lobbyist he didn't take money from...
I would say that's a logical argument for any nation (particularly Iran) to develop nukes.Well, look at the recent history.
Iraq, sits around under a no-fly-zone, unable to do anything to anyone, does not have WMDs (despite having been sold the components, apparently lacking the technical know-how or will to assemble them, leading to incredible frustration on the part of the executives who *know* they sold them the stuff) gets it's butt kicked for no real reason other than to prove that we could (since we know they had nothing to do with 9/11, being hated enemies of that branch of Islam, who are now gloriously rewarded for 9/11 by being handed Iraq, the only sizable Middle Eastern state other than Turkey, and, arguably, Jordan, to hold out against them, on a silver platter).
North Korea, makes all sorts of crazy apocalyptic threats, launches missiles over US allies, and detonates a nuke to prove that they can, and gets strenuously avoided and downplayed by the US.
Saudi Arabia, which gave us Osama bin Laden, 15 of the 19 hijackers and all of the funding for al-Qaeda, also has nukes ('cause we gave them to them, and continued giving nuclear technology to them *after 9/11*), and is politely hand-held throughout the entire war. Wouldn't want to piss off the guys whose oil billions actually funded it, after all.
If you were Iran, would you rather be Iraq or North Korea? Real threats are ignored, while America proves it's greatness by slaying imaginary dragons (and, breathtakingly, rewards terrorism in doing so).
But it's hardly the first time we've rewarded terror. The Arms-for-Hostages deal taught Iran that we'll happily capitulate to terror for short-term political gain. And now we've done it again, removing the secular government of Iraq that had kept them oppressed and out of power for decades, to hand it to the same sect whose extremists blew up the World Trade Center. If I...
My friend's cousin's uncle's bodyguard's neighbor confirmed that Sarah Palin's ghost writer dropped out of college one year before graduating. I found that last part to be highly unlikely. Who would hire someone like that?
This. Let's not forget his ties to the Illini teacher/terrorist and his good buddy Emil Jones of Chicago who hasn't met a lobbyist he didn't take money from...
I hate Obama. RAWR!
|
|
Poor victimized you!Okay, I know there's already a hundred page forum on evooution vs creation, and I know that there are believers on both sides of that talk among gamers, though fellas like me are in a clear minority. I alsom know that believeing in God isn't automatically always going to get you flamed here by fifty people, so it isn't as if I feel I am being put upon.
It's guys like him that keep lawyers like you in buisness. :)
Obama wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Incredibly impressive this. The Nobel Committee made it clear that it was for Obama's intentions, rather then his actions so far, but I'm sure we all hope he can follow through on his intentions and make the world a more peaceful place.US President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel Committee said he won it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.
Mr Obama's spokesman said the president was "humbled" to have won the prize. He said he woke Mr Obama up when he called with the news early on Friday.
I'm so glad I don't watch the news. I had managed to evade that he was given the Nobel peace prize for socializing our country til now. I have to give him credit, though. Not many people have the guts to lie to a camera when they have been previously recorded saying the exact opposite. I guess that just goes to show you that a good majority of people don't care what you actually believe if you say what they want to hear.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The Onion confirmed that Obama has just been awarded the Heisman and will be awarded an Oscar once he announces he is thinking about making a movie.
** spoiler omitted **
The Onion FTW! That's hilarious. I've mentioned this before, but my all-time favorite onion story regarding politics dates back to the 2000 presidential campaign and is all about Al Gore going to PA and telling everyone there how much he hates them. It never fails to make me laugh.
|
I just wanted to add that, I know that the comitee talked about mainly the reason that he was awarded the prize was that he was inspirational, but what I love is that people only consider what he has done as president. I'm no Obama fan, but the prize wasn't awarded generically to the President of the United States of America, it was awarded to Barack Obama, while not the primary reason, could they not have considered what he has done you know, BEFORE he became president, or did Barack Obama not exist before his presidency? He is a primary figure in Chicago working to reduce gang violence, he did vote against the war in Iraq, the guy has credits to his name as a proponent of peace, while I agree that the prize was maybe a bit premature, the fact is Obama may have some merits to claim towards earning a peace prize, although I think it would have been better to wait till later in his presidency say around year 3-4 to see how some of those aspirations of his as candidate/president turn out, and how much is just talk.
The Onion confirmed that Obama has just been awarded the Heisman and will be awarded an Oscar once he announces he is thinking about making a movie.
Ok, I have to admit that's pretty funny. :)
I think this pretty much summed it up for me. I'm going to remain optimistic that this may act as an incentive for him to strive to higher levels throughout the rest of his term.
I hate Obama. RAWR!
This. Let's not forget his ties to the Illini teacher/terrorist and his good buddy Emil Jones of Chicago who hasn't met a lobbyist he didn't take money from...
Reading Danubus' post reminds me of Milo Radulovich, and his dismissal from the air for during the Mccarthy era, for refusing to denounce his father and sister, who may or may not have been communists. Judging people based on past aquantances is hardly and people they have to have a working relationship with is less than useful. I can't help at momments like this, but wonder how much of a point Jimmy Carter might has had.
It's guys like him that keep lawyers like you in buisness. :)Poor victimized you!Okay, I know there's already a hundred page forum on evooution vs creation, and I know that there are believers on both sides of that talk among gamers, though fellas like me are in a clear minority. I alsom know that believeing in God isn't automatically always going to get you flamed here by fifty people, so it isn't as if I feel I am being put upon.
Along with the scientologists...though they often keep it in house.
|
|
I just wanted to add that, I know that the comitee talked about mainly the reason that he was awarded the prize was that he was inspirational, but what I love is that people only consider what he has done as president. I'm no Obama fan, but the prize wasn't awarded generically to the President of the United States of America, it was awarded to Barack Obama, while not the primary reason, could they not have considered what he has done you know, BEFORE he became president, or did Barack Obama not exist before his presidency? He is a primary figure in Chicago working to reduce gang violence, he did vote against the war in Iraq, the guy has credits to his name as a proponent of peace, while I agree that the prize was maybe a bit premature, the fact is Obama may have some merits to claim towards earning a peace prize, although I think it would have been better to wait till later in his presidency say around year 3-4 to see how some of those aspirations of his as candidate/president turn out, and how much is just talk.
I refer you back to the OP and the announcement by the Nobel Committee. While it isarguable that Obama did things tha could be judged worthy o a Peace Prize prior to becoming president, the comittee was very clear when they announced the award that the gave it to him not bsed onwhat he hs done, but hat he has said he is going to do. So anything that heay have done to earn it i null andvoid beause the people making the award said themselves that the award was not given based on anything he ha done, but based on what he has id he is going to do in the future.
I refer you back to the OP and the announcement by the Nobel Committee. While it isarguable that Obama did things tha could be judged worthy o a Peace Prize prior to becoming president, the comittee was very clear when they announced the award that the gave it to him not bsed onwhat he hs done, but hat he has said he is going to do. So anything that heay have done to earn it i null andvoid beause the people making the award said themselves that the award was not given based on anything he ha done, but based on what he has id he is going to do in the future.I just wanted to add that, I know that the comitee talked about mainly the reason that he was awarded the prize was that he was inspirational, but what I love is that people only consider what he has done as president. I'm no Obama fan, but the prize wasn't awarded generically to the President of the United States of America, it was awarded to Barack Obama, while not the primary reason, could they not have considered what he has done you know, BEFORE he became president, or did Barack Obama not exist before his presidency? He is a primary figure in Chicago working to reduce gang violence, he did vote against the war in Iraq, the guy has credits to his name as a proponent of peace, while I agree that the prize was maybe a bit premature, the fact is Obama may have some merits to claim towards earning a peace prize, although I think it would have been better to wait till later in his presidency say around year 3-4 to see how some of those aspirations of his as candidate/president turn out, and how much is just talk.
I think the exact wording was 'what he is aiming to do' If aims are to be acceptable, aiming to close down GBDC is a pretty big aim.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me. It would be a little like me blaming Sarah Palin for the fact that her crazy witch denouncing paster supports her.
|
|
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.
I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are. Lets put blame where blame belongs and this time it des not belong with President Obama.
I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are. Lets put blame where blame belongs and this time it des not belong with President Obama.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.
It isn't the first time it has happened ;)
Others have already pointed out that the nobel is already pretty cheap(on some occations.) At the end of the day, it is a privately awarded prize. Should it really matter that much? The other nobel prizes are slightly different as they seem to be a little more consistant. This is partly due to the nature of the sciences and even literiture, in that it is more universily judged on what you achieve than what you try to achieve.
I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are. Lets put blame where blame belongs and this time it des not belong with President Obama.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.It isn't the first time it has happened ;)
Others have already pointed out that the nobel is already pretty cheap(on some occations.) At the end of the day, it is a privately awarded prize. Should it really matter that much? The other nobel prizes are slightly different as they seem to be a little more consistant. This is partly due to the nature of the sciences and even literiture, in that it is more universily judged on what you achieve than what you try to achieve.
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.
I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are. Lets put blame where blame belongs and this time it des not belong with President Obama.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.It isn't the first time it has happened ;)
Others have already pointed out that the nobel is already pretty cheap(on some occations.) At the end of the day, it is a privately awarded prize. Should it really matter that much? The other nobel prizes are slightly different as they seem to be a little more consistant. This is partly due to the nature of the sciences and even literiture, in that it is more universily judged on what you achieve than what you try to achieve.
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.
I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
Hand back the prize, probably only giving his detractors more to moan about...or accept it, looking a little bemused, and quietly put the prize money to good use and share a quiet joke with friends about how much glen beck looks like he is about to explode at all this.
I know which i would choose if i where Obama.
Maybe if he has immediately, before even a note of fuss has been raise, turned it down, that would have been a huge win for him. But come on, he's human, very few people could do that. The momment has passed, he'd just look like he was buckling to the squaking of the right wing media and some people who think the Internetz are serious business. He's damned if he keeps it now and damned doubly so if he doesn't now. Which i have no doubt at all your bright enough to realise. He could ofcause also wait exactly one year until every one has almost forgotten it, and mostly forgotten it, then return it explaining that he wished to return it, for the right reasons, not for the jabbering of the mad ventriliquits puppets who host faux news.
|
I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.
The Nobel Prize has been a joke for years anyway. You can't make tin plating any cheaper than giving it to a mass murderer, can you?
The main questions are:
Will he keep getting the Nobel Peace Prize every year of his presidency?
Will the next president the americans vote up get it too, on the basis of his/her election promises?
If he/she doesn't get it, will America declare war on Norway, blaming unconfirmed reports of lusekoftor of mass destruction?
The Nobel Prize has been a joke for years anyway. You can't make tin plating any cheaper than giving it to a mass murderer, can you?I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.
Well a world without people is a world without woe...
But on a more serious not, i can imagain situations where some one who engages in mass murder expecially in conflicts where both sides behave atrociously, could be some one who also does most to bring about peace. This isn't support for any specific recipiant, just a point.
I mean, any leader of a para-military organisation is going to have blood on their hands, but it doesn't prevent them form potentially leading the organisation away from violent means. The IRA is an example of this.
Yay! Vindication for being correct on the Norwegians. ;)
Also: read this!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR200910120 2391.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
|
|
The Nobel Comittee defends it's decision. Two bits I found interesting:
"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will. "Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," (Thorbjoern) Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"
Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
Okay so as I read it, they say they followed the standards, but the things they single out are things President Obama has done in 2009, yet Alfred Nobel specified that the award in 2009 should be based on actions in 2008. I guess the comittee members need to go back and read the dude's will again.
|
|
Dirty norweges I've been warning you about this for years, yet none of you would listen, it's obviously an attempt to forment dissent in americans because a country divided over whether or not Obama deserves it is a country not paying attention when the innevitable attack comes. Dirty Norweges with their nefarious plots for world domination.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
+1 for funny joke.
-1 for watching Leno and being under the age of 70.
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
+1 for funny joke.
-1 for watching Leno and being under the age of 70.
I didn't watch it, read the joke later. :P
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I didn't watch it, read the joke later. :P
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
+1 for funny joke.
-1 for watching Leno and being under the age of 70.
Sure you did. And I bet it's just a coincidence that your posts frequently reference Matlock too. The jig is up, you're typing this from the rec room at your retirement home, aren't you?
|
|
Sure you did. And I bet it's just a coincidence that your posts frequently reference Matlock too. The jig is up, you're typing this from the rec room at your retirement home, aren't you?I didn't watch it, read the joke later. :P
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
+1 for funny joke.
-1 for watching Leno and being under the age of 70.
Funnily enough when I was in highschool in 2000 I was nicknamed matlock.
|
|
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
+1 for funny joke.
-1 for watching Leno and being under the age of 70.
Hey, some nights it's the only thing worth watching at 10 pm, except p0rn.
|
|
Funnily enough when I was in highschool in 2000 I was nicknamed matlock.Sure you did. And I bet it's just a coincidence that your posts frequently reference Matlock too. The jig is up, you're typing this from the rec room at your retirement home, aren't you?I didn't watch it, read the joke later. :P
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
+1 for funny joke.
-1 for watching Leno and being under the age of 70.
Even more funny, when you were in high school in 2000 I was having my ten year reunion, oh wait...
|
|
The Nobel Prize has been a joke for years anyway. You can't make tin plating any cheaper than giving it to a mass murderer, can you?I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.
Indeed! Kissinger's award really means the Peace Prize is a bit of a joke, doesn't it?