I honestly can't see how a President can win the NPP.

Here is my breakdown.

1st
No matter what choice a Pres makes on any minor or major issue someone gets the shaft.
Example: Stay in Afghanistan more troops die. Pull out of Afghanistan many more Afghanis die.

2nd
Most decsions don't come down to the just 1 man. We live in our so called Demo-crazy for just that reason other wise we would be the United Dick-tatorship of America. So with that in mind any positive effects can't be singly placed upon the guy sitting in the high seat just because his minions sold more cookies than the other guys. He probably didn't even know what kinda cookies where being sold.

I believe in these awards but like most systems of public recognition its seem to be diluted by the popularity vote on too many occasions.

My recent headline favorite was " Obama to give out his first medal of Honor." Given (posthumously) to some guy that didnt even make it into the headline cause there was no room for it since the sentence already contained Obama. It was that anonymous soilders first and last Medal of Honor too.

Don't get me wrong I dont hate the current Pres. I'm just completely meh...maybe if he hadn't been handed a burning house he could have done great things, but right now he has won the Prize for what? Damage Control?

wat

I don't think anyone doubts that Obama has done things in the right direction and that it doesn't take courage or balls to simmer hostility with nations that both burn our flags and are current allies. All of these nations are stakeholders to America. Is this the first step in gaining peace? Absolutely. Trying is something that a lot of people don't even attempt because of the sheer nature of what it requires someone to do, especially when its between whole countries that see eye-to-eye in very little things.

This is however, about the award that was given. It might be unfair, especially on my part, to say it's a fluke and that he's done "nothing", but I just feel it's so premature that it's absurd. I have never once gotten an honor role certificate before I had the grades to prove I was an A student, even if I made A's for years in a row. Obama has done a lot to change the international climate, but these things have more to do with him NOT being our now ex-president. I feel this award was given as a act of positive reinforcement to inspire future change than an award for results of the past. What bothers me is that it leaves a huge void to be filled with unknown factors, mainly consisting of yet-to-be-determined future outcomes of the things he's getting awarded for now.

I've noticed that threat.

Quaint is the term I'd use to describe the way "global warming" has now become just "climate change." If it's just a meaningless distinction (i.e, still global warming), I'd point to decreasing world temperatures over the past decade in direct contrast to all the "consensus" predictions. However, I think the more likely reason for the change was to keep envirosocialists from looking like idiots in case the damn carbon emissions didn't begin killing us as fast as An Inconvenient Truth made it sound. And by that definition, it doesn't matter whether it's global WARMING or global COOLING (as was the panic back in the 1970s); as long as the earth's climate does anything but sit perfectly still, the green movement is right! Hmm... what's another way to describe a belief that can't be proven or disproven...?



Correction: He's promised to make us the good guys again. But if there's one thing we've learned about politicians, it's that making promises is certainly a cost-effective way to get votes. And apparently peace prizes, too!

Heh...It is funny how just the other day I was watching a clip about all the things obama promised to do, and hasn't done yet. He can't even get a health care bill out with the majority of the house being his own party (of course, its no surprise, when have the democrats ever been able to do anything). He has yet to shut down the prisons, sorry but "On the way there" doesn't deserve you a NPP. However, Al Gore made a slide show of other peoples information, and didn't give credit to anyone, and acted like he made all the information himself, and won the prize. So it doesn't really mean much. He will prolly just throw the 1mil away on something useless, maybe he will give it to a bank firm that was responsible for our economic situation.

I support the War in Afghanistan, but how can you win a "Peace" when you are the Leader of a Country that is in the two biggest wars going on in the world currently? That is just illogical, and doesn't even make sense. Is it no longer about peace? Or is it just about sucking up to the french? I mean...who cares if we look good to them.

All Obama has done is put out the fires that Bush made.

Al Gore at least had his own agenda.

Maybe read the thread before replying? People were talking about Al Gore, so, wtf are you talking about?

French. Well Europe had the biggest problem with us, and so did the french, of course them and Germany were trading with Iraq before we attacked them, so who were they to say we were doing something wrong.

I've read every post in this thread. I was asking what you were talking about when you said:



I taken issue with Al Gore over many things but it's inaccurate to say he didn't give anyone credit for the content of his climate change presentation or for winning the Nobel. It was awarded jointly to the IPCC and Al Gore. I remember watching the lecture he gave when he accepted it and distinctly remember him thanking the scientists he shared the award with.
As far as the info in his slide show, all of it is credited to the sources. It's fucking science man, that's how it works! Did you even watch an Inconvenient Truth? If so, what gave you the idea that Al Gore was claiming to be some kind of super-scientist who did all of that research on his own?

I don't understand why people are critical of Al Gore winning, along with the IPCC he was a major catalyst for getting the world to come together and start taking global warming seriously.



Europe had the biggest problem with us about what? So did the French? Are the French not European?

Re: Trading with Iraq, this really hurts my brain. There were many companies trading with Iraq before the US attack. Some were from France and Germany, along with many other countries (America included!). So who were France and Germany to say we were doing something wrong? They were two of our major allies. They asked that we don't attack until the UN inspectors had finished searching for WMD. They pointed out that the evidence of WMD was lacking. They warned that the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq would be incredibly difficult. They were right about everything. France and Germany were right, America was wrong.
You think Chirac or Schroeder really gave a shit about a few random companies trading with Iraq? Bush offered them massive corporate welfare if they signed up, the only way French or German business could get in on "reconstruction" or post-invasion oil contracts was to support the American timetable. Not even the Russians took the offer and they had the most money to lose. This argument that business interests motivated French and German opposition to the US attacking Iraq is painfully stupid.