Because he is accepting an award he didn’t deserve.If Obama had any class, he would tell the Committee to wait until he actually did something that merited a Peace Prize.
The Prize committee has already made fools of themselves by awarding the Prize to Obama. So we can mock their stupidity. Obama has done the same by accepting, so he gets the same.
Regards,
Shodan
It shows more “class” to accept the award whilst claiming that it’s not deserved and that you’ll try to live up to it, donating the money to Charity X, and moving on without further reference to it. Refusing it is an insult to the Committee and just drags the whole thing out in a more acrimonious fashion.
The Committee jumped the gun and deserve the mockery they have received in the press. It’s an embarrassment to Obama, who may have hoped to win it at some point in the future, but hardly his fault.
Ah, my mistake–I thought you were trying to argue that a large sample size **and **a control group were necessary in all cases. Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, would be retarded.
Side note: controls in experiments aren’t for balancing out smaller sample sizes–they’re for eliminating alternative explanations of experimental results, so that ideally the only difference between the experimental group and the control group is the variable being tested.
But that was never the question. How can I fucking beat this into your head? This was **never **about trying to demonstrate that awarding the prize as an encouragement is statistically likely or unlikely to work–I just wanted to know if it had worked in the past.
Seriously, is it that fucking hard to read what I actually write, instead of what **you **want to see?
Got some problems with your data. First and foremost, no linky-dinky parley vooz. Where did you get this stuff, how reliable is it? Reason I asked, I grabbed one at random (Boston Herald) and googled “Boston Herald Nobel Poll” and got nothin’. Odd.
And that *Washington Times *result strikes me as rather strange, since the Moonie Times loathes and despises Obama and panders to a readership that agrees. Rather odd that their result is so luke-warm…“and 45% of those who voted at the Washington Times”…, seeing as how they hate his guts.
And, of course, being as sophisticated as you are with statistics, you are well aware of the term “self selecting sample”. You know that results can be skewed, depending on the subject, by the intensity of individual feeling. That is to say, people who really don’t like Obama are likely, nay, certain, to be over-represented, because the subject must be motivated to respond to the poll.
But lets just start with that first question: where’d you get this stuff? Did you track it down all by yourself, but in your haste neglected to offer links?
And a minor correction: I don’t disagree that criticism is “widespread”, it would have to be, since the news is “widespread”. As well, approval would be equally “widespread”, that means next to nothing. You are declaring victory over winning a point not in contention.
Yeah, I agree with this. A classy man doesn’t reject a ‘gift’.
Aw, you just made Lê Ðức Thọ cry.
It isn’t supposed to be a gift, it is supposed to be an award. Something you earn.
Maybe affirmative action has inured Obama to the notion that things are just given to you without merit, but it rankles a bit for the rest of us.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, you just stay classy, Shoddy. Nobody else would have even thought about such a cheap shot like “affirmative action”. You duh man!
I don’t know why so many people care. The Nobel Committee gives the award to who they think is deserving. How do you presume to make the judgment they are wrong? I am sure Obama will never win the Shodan peace prize. But those in charge of the Nobel Prize determined he was qualified. Therefore he was.
elucidator, here was our dialog:
So yes, you most definitely disagreed that discontent with the award was widespread. Why you would want to deny that now, why you now say you agree that it is widespread is a mystery to me … oh, right, I remember, its because your contention has been shown to be wrong.
Next, a while back you got upset because I “condescended” to you. I replied to the effect that it was because it seemed you didn’t have the mental horsepower to google.
This is a case in point. I didn’t offer the links because I figured anyone could just google the names and find them. Unfortunately, I neglected to factor your awesome abilities into the equation …
When you said you couldn’t find the two sites you mention above, I thought “Say what? Did I get them off some mystery site? Did I make a mistake? After all, it was very late, maybe I did, wouldn’t be my first mistake, that’s for sure.”
So I just went and googled “poll obama nobel prize washington times”, and hey, guess what? The very first item (if you have trouble finding it, that’s the one on the top of the list) was:
Emboldened by my amazing google abilities, I then googled “poll obama nobel prize boston herald”, and dang, guess what the very first item was?
I take back what I said before. You are not too stupid to google. You are too stupid to be trusted with a computer in any situation. Drop the mouse and step back, don’t make any sudden moves, and nobody will get hurt …
PS - Yes, I know about the issues with internet polls. Why do you think I went to the trouble to point out, not once but twice, that these were internet polls?
Was President Obama ever a beneficiary of affirmative action, or did Shodan just assume he was, since he’s Black and all? 'Cause we all know them darkies can’t get into places like Columbia and Harvard Law on their own merits, without cheating some poor, hardworking white socialite out of a slot.
Well… I wouldn’t dare say he was low class. But… I would dare to say that it wasn’t a classy move to reject a gift. And yeah, I would call it a gift. I mean, an award that is awarded by a group that makes up all the rules for awarding the award…that’s pretty much a gift.
Once again, you are not following the story. Even for judges, not everything that they do is correct. That’s why their rulings can be appealed, because the judges may not have followed the law. We’re not trying to determine whether the Committee thinks Obama is qualified, they obviously think that.
We’re discussing whether the Committee has “followed the law”, whether they made a correct decision, a decision that followed their instructions, which are given in Alfred Nobel’s will. That’s the only way we can know if any prize has been awarded correctly — to look at the rules of the contest.
In this case, I say the Committee has totally defied the express stated conditions of Nobel’s will. Under the terms of the will, I say Obama is not qualified. The will says nothing about giving it for encouragement. It says nothing about giving it to the person who has given people “hope for a better future” … but inter alia that’s what the Committee said they gave it for.
The will calls for the prize to go to the person who did the most for peace in 2008. Not had the best vision of peace in 2008. Not had a dream about peace in 2008. Did the most for peace in 2008.
Despite repeated calls, I have not had anyone step up to the plate to tell us about all the wonderful actions for peace that Obama took in 2008, actions that put him ahead of the other well-qualified nominees. You know the people I mean. The people that actually did something, who accomplished things, who did more than having a vision and giving people hope. Oh, and needing encouragement, clearly the Committee thinks Obama needed encouragement. At least that’s what people keep saying, it was given for encouragement … call me totally nuts, but I thought the prize was supposed to go to people who didn’t need hand-holding, people who didn’t need a Peace Prize to encourage them to do the right thing. The BBC reported:
I find nothing in Nobel’s will about giving the Nobel Peace Prize to shore up somebody’s determination to continue on their course. I agree with the course Obama is taking, and someday he may do enough to earn all manner of accolades for his achievements. Giving him an award to encourage him to attain those achievements, however, is not what Alfred Nobel spelled out in his will.
Just curious about those thinking the award to Obama was some ind of huge mistake…
Got any nominations for who did more? What about the idea that 2008 was a lousy year for peace-mongering and Obama was the best of a bad lot?
People keep making this claim, but I don’t understand it at all. If I say “Fred, you are the best kid on the whole team, here’s the prize” and Fred says “I don’t think I am the best kid, Johnny has done so much more than I have” …
How is that an insult to me? How is that “acrimonious”? How is that not showing class?
If Johnny really is the best kid on the team, he deserves the prize, and it shows immense class for Fred to turn down the prize in favor of the person who truly deserves it. I’ve seen it happen twice in my life, someone saying that they didn’t deserve an award and passing it to another person. Nobody said a word about it being an insult. It was seen as the height of good sportsmanship, not as something acrimonious.
What a missed opportunity. Obama could have used the occasion to give a dynamite speech about the difference between dreams and reality, and how we all have dreams but they mean nothing unless we can turn them into reality, and encouraging everyone to work to make peace real in our time. He could have turned his refusal to take an undeserved prize into a huge win for mankind … but hubris never sleeps, so he accepted it.
Lord, I’ve been savaged by a chihuahua!
And once again, intention moves the goalposts to his own satisfaction. “Discontent” and “condemnation” are not quite the same things. Just like “tsk,tsk” is not quite the same as “you scum-sucking pig!”. “Widespread” can be proven by two disparate locations, it can be widespread and shallow, or it can be widespread and deep. If you need any help with this stuff, all you have to do is ask, we’re here for you…
Not quite how its done, don’t you know? One offers the links as one presents them, as bona fides. While I’m sure many of us are flattered by your faith in our capacity, as a general rule we prefer links/cites to be explicit. It presents an unfortunate image, that perhaps your citations are not as strong as you make them out to be.
Like your *Washington Times *cite: in your haste, you neglected to mention that even though 45% of respondents disagreed with the award, 53% agreed. A fact that might have gone unnoticed, as you didn’t seem to have any interest in mentioning it. Heavens, one might even think you were playing a bit fast and loose with the truth! Yes, one very well might!
And this *Boston Herald *thing? Your (recently supplied) link take us to a news story, with a sidebar called the Herald Pulse. Is this the “poll” to which you refer? With results like “20% - Obama also deserves a Pulitzer for his books and an Emmy for the campaign debates”? And this juicy tidbit: “33% - George Bush deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for ousting Saddam Hussein”?
Are you kidding?
And by the by, did you not notice the link on the bottom of your page? The one that says “Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Praised by Many?” Oh, that’s all right, I’m sure it just eluded your attention.
So, what you’re saying is, I recognize that internet polls are crap, but if I say that internet polls are crap, that means they aren’t crap?
I thought he was just assuming that we could do basic math and subtract 45 from 100 to get to a value somewhere around 55% who approved, minus the wishy-washy “I dunno” folks.
The point was about how many people **didn’t **like that Obama was awarded the prize. He quoted the same figure from the other polls he quoted (or made up, whatever). That’s what was being discussed, so that’s the stat that was posted.
Considering that Kissinger & Le Duc Tho won the 1973 Prize for the 1973 Paris peace accird and that Sadat & Begin won the 1978 Prize for the 1978 Camp David Agreement, giving Obama the 2009 Peace Prize for work done in 2009 is hardly as unprecedented as you seem to think.
I’ll take “What is Race-baiting?” for $600, Alex.
Man, you can’t make this stuff up.
You mean to tell me, elucidator, that if less than half the respondents disapprove, it’s pretty likely that more than half of the respondents approve? Thanks for clearing that up. I was trying to hide that from everyone, but boy, you saw right through me.
Next up? elucidator will stun us all by revealing that if more than half of the population is under 45 years old, then less than half of the population is over 45 years old …
I quit, elucidator. I can’t compete with your blinding mathematical insights. I’ll leave you to argue with someone else, I’ve been totally destroyed by your amazing understanding of numbers and what they mean.