|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Great Wall of Whiner wrote: |
Right, because it was Ronald Regan himself all alone who walked into Berlin, parted the seas, and single-handedly united Germany.  |
Yeah, Messiah complex's annoy, do they not?
________
Bucheon Bum: J. Carter mostly lost the election for his perceived weakness and directionlessness during the Iran hostage crisis.
Iran-Contra came only later, when the Reagan administration's NSC subverted Congress's prohibitions re: funding the Contras by selling overpriced arms to Tehran, a transation meant to encourage Iranian moderates and which also bought other hostages' freedom in the meantime.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:28 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shiktang wrote: |
He is the 3rd sitting U.S. president who has recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. Theodore Roosevelt got it, as did Woodrow Wilson for his failed League of nations organization which was a precursser to the United Nations.
Jimmy Carter recieved his much later. |
Based on the peace issue:
Jimmy Carter earned his.
Woodrow Wilson tried and it's also deserved. Overall, his other foolish and evil exploits make him one of the worst Presidents.
Obama had earned nothing yet - not even based on any real hope. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bondrock

Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Location: ^_^
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tristan wrote: |
Am I happy that he won? Yes, I am. As an American, I�m very proud of my president. ...
In the past, any win for the President or another American would have been a win for our country but we�re so divided by our baseless ideologies that we can�t recognize that a message of peace is good for everyone no matter where you�re from. |
Luckily I am not American so I don't have to buy into this "my country, right or wrong BS."
I am not questioning Obama's ability as President or his credibility as a world leader. I am questioning the Norwegian 5's decision. And yes, an armchair pundit like me has just as much right to an opinion as any talking head on TV.
As to the "message of peace".... to me that is the whole problem, the message here is that 'popularity=peace prize'. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Bucheon Bum: J. Carter mostly lost the election for his perceived weakness and directionlessness during the Iran hostage crisis.
|
yeah, i misspoke there. I meant the hostage crisis. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bassexpander wrote: |
I'm sure they hoped to influence his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan...
In any case, I think the main reason he won this award is because he's not George Bush, and the committee feels they should give him an award for that. |
When the Nobel committee begins awarding people the prize based upon what they aren't as oppsed to what they have actually accomplished then all I have to say is - what a sad state of the world we now live in. Maybe the next winner should be Ghadafi because he's not nearly as big of a *beep* as Hugo Chavez? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nominations must be submitted by Feb. 1.
The committee meets and pares down the nominees to 5-20 from the around 200 that are made. (Who nominated someone is kept secret for 50 years.)
Aides do research on the remaining nominees and report back to the committee.
The vote is taken, usually in mid-September. Most of the time the selection is unanimous.
Announcement is made in October.
Anyone arguing that the selection was made in February are misinformed.
Some people posting don't seem to have heard/read the announcement itself:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
I agree. Starting with his first interview, the Cairo speech, the way he handled US policy during the Iranian election demonstrations, the pull out of the missile shield in E. Europe and the decision to talk to the Iranians have all been very positive steps in re-orienting US relations in a new direction. Considering that for quite some time the discussion has been about when would be the best time to attack Iran, it is undeniable that President & Nobel Laureate Obama has significantly changed US policy toward values that a majority of the world--including Americans--shares.
The Norwegian committee made an appropriate and inspiring choice this year.
The best line so far:
"Michael Steele had a Kanye West moment coming out there and saying Beyonce should have gotten the award. He shouldn't have done that." --Pat Buchanan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Nominations must be submitted by Feb. 1.
The committee meets and pares down the nominees to 5-20 from the around 200 that are made. (Who nominated someone is kept secret for 50 years.)
Aides do research on the remaining nominees and report back to the committee.
The vote is taken, usually in mid-September. Most of the time the selection is unanimous.
Announcement is made in October.
Anyone arguing that the selection was made in February are misinformed. |
If he was nominated by February 1st at the latest, then he was selected on the basis of what he did up until that point or else his initial nomination wouldn't make any sense. What he did afterward might have made him more likely to ultimately win the prize, but the fact is that he was originally selected on the basis of what he had been/done by February 1st at the latest and nobody disqualified him from the running early on despite this. And I'm saying this as an American who's relatively supportive of Obama (I'd be just about fully supportive if I were to ignore his fascist drug control policy, although that seems to be a mandatory stance for any US President) and definitely opposed to the general Republican agenda.
At best, you could claim he might have been nominated by someone with no connections to the committee and that he was kept in the running up until the official votes were cast just to see if he might end up making some major strides in international diplomacy or whatever. No matter how the details of the process played out though, what we know is he was nominated by February 1st at the latest and was kept on despite having only just been elected to office. And I'm sure most people read the announcement. It's not very long and it's being posted everywhere. It's unfortunate that this will be abused by Republicans as evidence of his "celebrity" status or, God forbid, popularity with Europeans, but this really did happen based on a nomination made before he did anything as President. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Old Gil

Joined: 26 Sep 2009 Location: Got out! olleh!
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
In short, there has to be a successful 3rd party candidate or some crisis that the President screws up in order for him to not be re-elected. |
Funny you mention this, Clinton-BushII was the first back to back 8 year presidency since the Founding Fathers. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, it's just worth noting. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
If he was nominated by February 1st at the latest, then he was selected on the basis of what he did up until that point or else his initial nomination wouldn't make any sense. |
I don't think that is necessarily true. It looks as if he was selected on the basis of his campaign themes--changes in policy toward the UN, actively pursue diplomacy first, multilateralism, nuclear containment and disarmament and so on. I think 'do' is the wrong verb in your sentence. It looks to me like he won the prize for starting the re-orientation of US policy on a variety of fronts, not for the results that may or may not happen in the future. Maybe the key part of the announcement is: "given its people hope for a better future", and hope is never a bad thing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
If he was nominated by February 1st at the latest, then he was selected on the basis of what he did up until that point or else his initial nomination wouldn't make any sense. |
I don't think that is necessarily true. It looks as if he was selected on the basis of his campaign themes--changes in policy toward the UN, actively pursue diplomacy first, multilateralism, nuclear containment and disarmament and so on. I think 'do' is the wrong verb in your sentence. It looks to me like he won the prize for starting the re-orientation of US policy on a variety of fronts, not for the results that may or may not happen in the future. Maybe the key part of the announcement is: "given its people hope for a better future", and hope is never a bad thing. |
It's a very bad thing when it's false hope based on lies and propaganda. Then it's a terrible thing. Obama is a liar, a puppet of Wallstreet and a horrible president. He is set to be even worse than Bush. This is based on his actions, not merely on his words (nearly all lies). Sadly you base your opinion of him on words alone.
There is no hope with Obama, only falsehood and lies. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Old Gil

Joined: 26 Sep 2009 Location: Got out! olleh!
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visitorq wrote: |
There is no hope with Obama, only falsehood and lies. |
There is no factual basis for your opinions, only anger and paranoia. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Konglishman

Joined: 14 Sep 2007 Location: Nanjing
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Old Gil wrote: |
visitorq wrote: |
There is no hope with Obama, only falsehood and lies. |
There is no factual basis for your opinions, only anger and paranoia. |
I could not have said it better myself. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
snoopdrew

Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Bundang, South Korea
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, ought to be proud that their president won a nobel peace prize.
I think it's a bit early too, but that alone doesn't mean he should refuse it. He accepted the award with grace and humility and used it as a call to action for all nations to come together. The award will heighten expectations for Obama's progress on world peace (sorry to sound like a beauty pageant), but who doesn't want that?
So what if the motivations of the nobel prize committee might be influenced by their disdain for bush? That doesn't take away from what Obama has done in his first year in office, nor is that relevant in the sense that one of the criteria used to give an award that people are overlooking, is as obama stated, to provide momentum to a worthy cause.
And so what if the motivations of the nobel pize committee might be to influence US foreign policy? Do you think Obama and all the brains working for him are going to start inviting European leaders to cabinet level meetings? Not... You could tell from Obama's acceptance speech that he was rooted in his family and day to day activities.
Speculation about intentions of the nobel committee does not diminish what Obama has done and will do. If he can instill hope to all corners of the earth and bring an attitude of openness and dialogue in one year of work what Bush couldn't do in eight, then I'm very excited to see what he'll do in the next three. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Old Gil wrote: |
visitorq wrote: |
There is no hope with Obama, only falsehood and lies. |
There is no factual basis for your opinions, only anger and paranoia. |
You're just to lazy to go and check the facts. That Obama has broken nearly every promise he made is a FACT. This is not debatable.
Obama has already sold our country out to the international bankers (even in his short time in office) than Bush did in 8 years. Tens of trillions of dollars and counting. This is also an indisputable fact.
Stop being so lazy and go look it up. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bucheon Bum wrote:
Quote: |
And before Carter, what President was voted out of office?? hoover? Oh ford, but he wasn't elected in the first place.
|
Well, Lyndon Johnson opted out of seeking a second term, I'm assuming because he calculated that he would meet the same fate that eventually befall Humphrey.
Truman also opted to quit rather than seek a second term, even though the fine-print in the recently-enacted "No Two Terms" clause would have allowed him to run. (Yes, I had to wki that.) Presumably, he didn't think much of his own chances of winning. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|