Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think "Intellectual honesty" is a pretentious phrase. Just what is the difference between intellectual honesty and any other kind of honesty?
It is about as pretentious as anything that makes an effort to specify. It actually has a particular nuance that I find important. In the OP title, well, "honest" may have sufficed.
Furthermore, a lot of the recipients don't deserve the prize, so if we normed worthiness, then President Obama may very well be in fair company.
So? What led you to imagine that they gave it to him for anything he did? My understanding was always that he received it for what we did. His election was a resounding rejection of the centuries of historical racism and intolerance that remain the single greatest blot on our national character. It was a recognition of our accomplishment, not Obama's.
The atavistic hatred and racism that still displays itself in the form of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" (such as that which inspired this thread) does not seriously detract from that accomplishment, since it the last gasp of the antediluvian attitudes that are now firmly relegated to the trash heap of history. The desperate frothing and teeth gnashing could not prevent his reelection... proving that it was not a fluke.
We proved we are a better nation than we used to be, and moved closer to our ideal as the hope of world. I think we deserve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
Now reality is that the only reason he received it is because he's black (racists) and he has the title of President.
That's reason enough. We reasserted our moral authority as a nation by electing a black man as president. It was an historic achievement worthy of international recognition and praise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
Which as of the last 5 years or so he's done nothing to create jobs and everything to destroy them. He's killed more innocents and soldiers since 9/11 and he generally a fawkup.
The Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with job creation, and when you assert that he's "killed more innocents and soldiers since 9/11" I can only offer bemusement. More "innocents and soldiers" than who? Since 9/11? He wasn't even elected President until 7 years after 9/11. What exactly are you talking about?
He has ended our participation in one war and will in short order end another. Not too shabby. But even that has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize he won... unless you are suggesting the Committee has access to a time machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
How's does that grab you. I would post likes but that goes back to the intellectually honest part of the post and moonbats are not there yet.
What does that even mean? You "would post likes?" You're not even making sense.
I don't think anybody really cared one way or the other.
[to be honest]
I care, the million dollar prize money could be given to someone who really wants to do good, and could give them the financial independence to do even more than what they received the award for int he first place.
If Yasser Arafat was worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, surely Obama was.
The bar obviously isn't set very high.
The Nobel Peace Price has become the perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak. Those held up as examples of peace are doing the exact opposite, sometimes behind the scenes, increasingly right out in the open.
He won the Peace Prize because he was not George W. Bush. The Iraq War and the "War on Terror" were extremely unpopular and Obama's election represented a break from the post-9/11 era.
What "break" have we had? We still have troops in Afghanistan, had an unofficial and illegal/undeclared war in Libya. The Banks are still dictating policy to the politicians. Nothing has changed.
I can admit that it may have been an emotional rather than an intellectual decision, by those doing the "deciding". President Obama, of course, had no part in that process, and time may reveal that his presidency was a notable event, both for the fact that a "brown skinned" individual was twice voted to the highest office in the land, despite the widespread perception that the U.S. is a "Caucasion" country, as well as for the wisdom of his behavior in office, despite having his best efforts at "wise governing" thwarted by a group of politicians who have amazingly regressive ideas and thoughts about "how things should be"
Elie Wiesel... and no, I didn't have to Google it (he's a long-time personal hero of mine). Guess I'm one of the 1% in that respect?
Would I put Obama and Wiesel in the same category? No. But I also wouldn't compare them in the first place, since their lives and accomplishments are completely different. Other than that, I don't know enough about why Obama got it to say if it's deserved or not.
Barack Obama had no life accomplishments that made him fit to be President.
In the name of "intellectual honesty" I thought awarding Obama the Noble Prize for Peace was bizarre but what I truly thought was a travesty was "Argo" beating out "Lincoln" for Best Picture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
