And ralph124c wins the “Doobie” award for most egregious failure to pay attention.
The prize is a personalized waterboarding session by the vice president Cheney himself.
Ohh, wait, Dick Cheney isn’t VP anymore, and America doesn’t torture people anymore.
qauck, qauck!
Well, when that happens sometime in the future, get back to us. Thanks for the lecture, though. We’ll give it all the consideration it is due.
I doubt that.
I think they were rewarding the change in tenor. Obama made many speeches discussing what he wants to do. He has shown a desire to not be unilateral like Bush. he shows more respect for other nations and the UN. Obama is not a blank slate. he has written a todo list on it and other countries appreciate the change.
You doubt what? I was commenting on that notion that Obama is the son of a goat herder.
Do drop back when you finish first6 form, now. 
You were? Gotta say, Big John, that interpretation never occurred to me, either.
Whether he deserves it or not, Obama is viewed as strongly internationalist by many Europeans. If a White guy had that attached to him, and had come to the presidency after Bush, I would expect he would be treated much like Obama. That’s why I mentioned Kucinich earlier. He’s actually more “internationalist” than Obama.
My bad, then. I should have quoted only that last sentence to make it more obvious.
Even Homer nods.
At least it was just about herding goats…
Ehhh…check out the Irish, English or Dutch messageboards, most people think it was a bit premature.
In the intervening seven minutes, I’ve done an exhaustive survey of 1300 European message boards. You’re wrong.
I don’t think the Nobel committee can be accused of being idiots. It appears to me that they’ve decided to try a preemptive peace campaign against the world’s biggest threat to peace by deciding to give newly-elected US Presidents the Peace Prize in the hope that it’ll restict the amount of carnage the new Nobel Laureate inflicts on the rest of the world during his term.
Please unwooshify this for me. One cannot do an exhaustive survey of one board in 7 minutes, let alone 1300. I mean, I realize this is likely joke, but I’m hoping there’s something I’m missing that would actually make it funny.
Look. We’re intellectuals on this board. We should be able to comprehend how we can both be happy for Obama’s win, but disagree with it. This is the opinion of almost everyone I talk to in real life.
I honestly thought the Peace prize what it Nobel said it meant, that someone had accomplished something. I don’t think Obama has accomplished anything extraordinary enough to be singled out like this. Let’s take the Rachel Maddow quote one by one:
There was no way a Republican was going to win after Bush. Even we slow Americans figured out he was bad.
He persuaded us? Hardly. That idea is hardly new, and hardly uncontroversial still. Just because we elected the guy doesn’t mean we agree with everything he stands for. And since it can’t happen in the short time of his presidency, it’s irrelevant. The next guy (or gal) may have a different policy.
As did every other viable candidate in the election. Even McCain supported talking to the international community.
He made a declaration that the people of the United States wanted him to make. That makes him a good President, but no more than several others.
Of course they have the right to give it to him, despite all this. And maybe it will actually do some good. But, while I’m glad our president has such a great reputation overseas, I disagree with the decision that that is enough.
This just in! Obama awarded Heisman Trophy after watching college football game! Highlights at 11:00!
Good. I’m sick of the Heisman going to nothing but quarterbacks.
Another ‘Obama Derangement Syndrome’ thread. Oh, goodie.
By this rationale, nothing could ever cheapen anything ever. Hell, applying this logic to the U.S., Bush never destroyed our reputation with the rest of the world, because it was our reputation.
So, how well has that worked out in the past? (Serious question here, 'cause I don’t know enough about international politics to comment.) What did Henry Kissinger do after 1973? Mikhail Gorbachev after 1990? Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres after 1994?
That is not the same thing at all. A committee gets together with a set of ideas and decide to give out prizes based on those ideas. It is their game. People learn to respect those choices, based on the ideas of the committee. People respect and covet the prize, and admire the winners. Based on the ideas of the committee.
That has zero to do with our reputation as a nation.
If people really and truly lose respect for the prize, then who they give it to would be a non issue…not even news. If the prize were cheap, no one would even be talking about it at all. The prize is valuable, and they gave it to who they wanted to, based on their own ideas.