People.....I am astounded.

He deserves this for one major accomplishment.

2 words.... say it with me...


BEER SUMMIT!!

I guess it all comes down to how you shall interpret the will of Alfred Nobel. He wrote:

...och en del åt den som har verkat mest eller best för folkens förbrödrande och avskaffande eller minskning av stående arméer samt bildande och spridande av fredskongresser.

Or, for those of you who don't understand Swedish:

...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

If you are about to follow it word by word, then their has been alot of errors in the past. For instance, it clearly says that a person is to be awarded the prize. Yet, 16 times the award has gone to some sort of organization.

Any thoughts?

Glenn Greenwald took the words right out of my mouth:

Done! :haha:

Obama by no means deserved the Peace Prize. But it shouldn't affect his credibility, as he had nothing to do with it.

Uh, like him or not, he did broker the Camp David Accords, found the Carter Center, and actively pursue peaceful resolutions to conflicts around the world.

Gotta love Fox. :roll:

"Yes, weekend!"
(free until Monday)

I'll drink to that ! :rock:

:har: Well played!

February 1st is merely the deadline for submitting nominations for the prize. The committee didn't base their decisions on those 12 days alone, though the person who nominated him did (or on some other previous period of time).

I think in a sense it does. People who've done nothing but fawned over Obama are now talking about how he hasn't really done anything.

While this clearly is a decision that Obama has nothing to do with, it is indeed refocusing the discussion and showing the man in a different light.

Sometimes, not doing something is better than doing stupid escalating things. Just for a contrast.

Although, that does not mean that Nobel Prize committee's decision is the right one.

Carter is not perfect and some calls he made imo were wrong assessments, but all in all he is as much underestimated a president like Kennedy and Reagan are overestimated. Kennedy and Reagan were just better stage actors and more competent in selling themselves.

Reagan also was less hampered by moral scruples although he loved to talk about morals - this shine was what made him popular, while his deeds repeatedly left much to wish for in moral integrity. Carter, probably for religious reasons, I am not sure, is more serious about his morals and acting according to them, and promptly finds himself in a situation of being refused at home. Interesting contrast. :hmmm:

You are right on that I mean carter then gore now
o b a m a

I couldn't disagree more.

Being hampered by "moral scuples" or not has little to do with the policy decisions implemented and the results derived from such decisions. Okay, so you think Reagan acted immorally while Carter did not, fine. If our lead policy makers are judged by their moral impetus in the moment then perhaps you're right (although Carter's original position of preventing the deposed Shah from entering the US for medical purposes raises serious questions about that). However, if those same policy makers have their morality judged by the result of their decisions, Reagan stands far ahead of Carter in every conceivable way.

In the end, that's nothing more than making tough decisions, and sometimes presidents are unfortunately torn between two distasteful avenues. Carter tended towards taking the short term moral high ground. Reagan tended towards the long view. Carter was hampered and weakened by this supposed morality while Reagan was empowered.

It always seems to boil down to one simple query. What is more moral - doing what feels to be morally right in the moment but will lead to disasterous results later or doing what feels to be somewhat immoral but will lead to moral prosperity later?

In the end it seems as though history has judged quite correctly - Carter was completely ineffective in forming policy that would positively impact future world events while Reagan's policies were instrumental.