Uncategorized

Untitled Post

39 Comments

Barack Hussein Obama was sworn into the office of the President of the United States on January 20th of this year.

The Nobel Committee ceased taking nominations on February 1st. Same year.

Now, check my math, but I believe that is about eleven (11) days — more or less.

Prior to being President, Barack Obama had a fairly normal run as a Federal Senator — some more lustrous, some less so — and before that he was a State Senator and a “community organizor”.

*blink, blink*

Eleven days.

LawDog

Tab 'A' goes bloody where?!
Oy!

39 thoughts on “Untitled Post”

  1. Mahatma Gandhi was nominated five times over a life time of dedicated service to freedom and peace…. and was turned down every time.

    Obama getting a Nobel prize is like the Renault Alliance winning car of the year. It takes farce to new highs…. or is that lows?

  2. When I saw the headline this morning, my first thought was "Is it April 1st?" My second thought was "That's amazing, they've managed to make the award to Al Gore look reasonable in context."

  3. To be fair, they didn't have to make the final decision based on the first 11 days; it was made earlier this month.

    That said, somebody still had to nominate him that early, and I can't say I think he's earned it even after nine months.

    It definitely took a couple minutes for this being reality to penetrate my sleep-addled brain this morning. The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense.

  4. In other news, the Pulitzer prize for journalistic excellence goes to The Onion.

  5. It interesting that Sweden is a socialist country. Scratches head and wonders if that has anything to do with it?

  8. As the Scowegians would say:
    "De hoppet haien." (They jumped the shark.)

    Gerry N.

  9. Heck, I commented on that one this morning. for my reaction to this and other things [such as selling Hummer to the chinese which I've still got to write an entry for..]hop on over to my blog. I don't feel constrained to use civilized language on my own blog most of the time so you've been warned.

  10. Yasser Arafat won one of these. if that doesn't say it all, nothing does.

  11. Oh, great. A closet Moslem racist who has brought the country closer to civil war than anyone since Abraham Lincoln, and he gets the Nobel Prize-based on what? Pie in the sky?
    Wow. Right when someone has 'proven' that Michelle has a white planter and a raped slave ancestors (NOT!)
    Massa im de cold, cold ground.
    Read The Prize.
    LM

  12. deadcenter hit the nail on the head: Yasser Arafat is a Nobel laureate. Also, Hillary Clinton has a Grammy, if you want more reasons to be disgusted in awards ceremonies.

    But just to clear up some things:
    1) it's Norse, not Swiss, who pick the Nobel winner.
    2) Ghandi was actually a racist ass. I am talking freely admits-Klan-level and proud of it racism, not this "we don't think he does enough to condemn what some school kids did" kind of racism.

    The Nobel criteria is "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

    Now, unless you fight off an alien invasion or something I just don't see anyone pulling that off in 11 days.

    (now for the devil's advocate stuff)

    Bush was universally hated on an international stage, so his departure certainly helped "fraternity between nations" in that 11 days. Sorta. If "the other guy left, and you took his place, so yay!" is enough to qualify, then there ya go.

    The abolition or reduction of standing armies bit . . . Obama promised to pull out of Iraq, but did not deliver. And shows no signs of really doing so. And his "reduction" strategy for Afghanistan is to first flood the place with more troops. No matter which stand you take on those two wars, you have to admit he has NOT reduced standing armies.

    The final way to qualify is "holding and promotion of peace congresses." Which is, in theory, what the UN is. Obama did pay our back bills to the UN, and attend some meetings but that's it.

    Lastly, according to wiki, you don't have to actually DO what you are being nominated for, you just have to be working on it. "Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace." So, on that note, I am planning to be the next rock & roll superstar as soon as I learn how to play guitar, so MTV should send me a lot of money.

  14. To put this into context folks…
    Yasser Arafat was awarded this same medal.
    Yes, the terrorist leader, Yasser Arafat.

    All it takes is a hatred of America to win this thing nowadays.
    Obama was the just the obvious choice, I guess.

  15. Hmmm… From the Nobel site- The Nobel criteria is "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

    And the answer is…

    (Crickets)

  18. The short time between Obama's inauguration and the close of Nobel nominations is a red herring.

    Obama could have easily been nominated the previous November, when he won the election.

    Or the previous September, after he won the Democratic nomination.

    Or the previous July, when it was obvious he'd locked the Democratic nomination.

    Or the previous February, when he started making progress as a candidate.

    The point is, pretty much anyone can nominate anyone else for a Nobel. All it takes is a letter to the Nobel committee.

    Bitching about nominations is like complaining about birth certificates – it reflects more on your inability to reason than on Obama's fitness for a Nobel.

  19. Who cares? It's not like the Nobel prize is a contest or anything. It's an award, pure and simple.

    Look at it as a property rights issue. The Nobel folks decided to give Obama the award. It's their property, they can do with it as they will.

  20. WHEN he was nominated has nothing to do with it. The fact that he's woefully unfit, even with Nobel's loose interpretation of their own criteria, has a lot to do with it. However, as Pawpaw says, it's their football. The fact that it stinks on ice before the world is irrelevant.
    LawMom

  21. Nobel Peace Prize: Special Olympics gold medal for libtards and terrorists.

  22. Oh Anonymous,

    **Bitching about nominations is like complaining about birth certificates – it reflects more on your inability to reason than on Obama's fitness for a Nobel.**

    Oh you poor soul. Way wrong blog for that.

    I'm gonna get popcorn. This is likely to get good.

    Mr Fixit

  23. Well, Anonymous, you are comparing Lawdog's opinions with Obama's qualifications to reign?
    Such flattery must not go unpunished!
    Let's do a little linear logic here: in geometric progression, in essence what you are saying is questioning Obama's birth certificate is irrelevant.
    Which makes the location of his birth of no consequence.
    The Constitution requires that the president of the US of A be born in the aforementioned US of A.
    Therefore, the Constitution is irrelevant.
    This renders the ability to reason of no consequence.
    Wow. That just about sums up Obama's presidency in a nutshell (or the White House, if you prefer; they seem to be synonymous)
    So, congratulations, Anonymous, undoubtedly you have proven your point.

  27. Best quote I've read so far on the "Peace" Prize thing:

    Quote from my daughter: "all that's been on the news all day is President Obama winning that stupid prize!"

    Anything that makes a geeky scientific-minded 7 year old girl lose faith in the Nobel Prize program… is made of the despair that's left when people lose their hopes and dreams.

    Yeah. That pretty much sums it up for me, though I haven't had any respect for the insufferable twits who pick the "Peace" Prize since… oh, since Arafat won the thing, at least.

    I dread what Obama is going to do to this country in four years. (Well, hopefully, the 2010 elections will usher in a new Congress which will put a crimp in his style.) But I think we need to just drop the birth certificate thing. Not because it wouldn't matter if it were true — it definitely would matter. If it were true. But it isn't. That birth announcement in the Honolulu papers ended all rational doubt on the subject, in my considered opinion.

    Alas. It'd be so convenient if he weren't born in the U.S. But at this point, harping on this non-issue serves only one side — and it isn't our side. It only makes our side look ridiculous to those who might otherwise be swayed.

  28. I think he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express sometime in that 11 days.

  30. This is another example of socialist left wing types stroking each other. They think it makes them look good, openminded, and wise.
    Obama started his Presidency critizing the USA to all who would listen. He thinks that will make these other countrys love us, or maybe just him. When Chavez gave his speach at the UN denouncing the USA, Obama's only responce was that he was only 7 years old at the time these alleged abuses occured.
    Obama dosn't get it!! Its not about him!!
    Most of the countrys on this planet don't like us, and never will. We should not seek their approval and make them like us.
    We can and should make them respect us or in some cases fear us. This is the only language some of these people understand.
    Paul in Texas

  31. To Old Sarge: Socialism is a form of economic organization, not government. Therefore, Sweden has a constitutional monarchy as a form of government. As a form of economic organization, Sweden is not ever considered to have been a socialist country. Please see the following website for clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

    To Paul in Texas: You said that "Obama started his Presidency critizing the USA to all who would listen." My question to you is: was he criticizing the USA or elements of its government? If he is criticizing the USA by his comments, then so are you by criticizing the government. As far as your comment "We can and should make them respect us or in some cases fear us." – is this really what you think? Do you earn respect by fear? In that case, go back to beating your wife and kids and stay out of politics. You can't make someone respect you – you have to earn it. Try setting an example for other instead of making an example out of others. You'll get a lot farther in life.

  32. Look at the math:
    He had no experience for his State Senate seat,
    Trace elements for his Federal seat,
    Certainly nothing even close for his bid for "Leader of the Free World". Yet here he is.
    Is this not the perfect trifecta for nonfeasance?
    BH0 was created out of whole cloth, the perfect Rorschach candidate if you will.
    George Soros is a lot smarter then we give him credit for, everything he said he wanted ten years ago, is coming true; and we thought he was just a crazy old man.

  33. To: MONYMOUSE
    I cannot agree with your assesment and statements.
    Obama was critizing the free market
    and independent spirit which has made the USA great. He did not balance his negative comments with any of the positive things the USA has done.
    It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and critize those who try to accomplish something.
    Sometimes we try and fail, but at least we tried.
    We did succeed with Hitler, Tojo,
    Musssoline and Saddam.
    Every time there is a natural disaster we are the firstest with the mostest to help.
    Many of the governments in the world today are totalarian regiemes
    who belive the people exist to serve them. These governments actively blame the USA for their low standard of living. Divert the peoples attention from their own failings.
    They mistake being reasonable for being weak, and by their own nature only respect strength.
    Beating my wife??? Attacking the messenger rather than the message
    does not change the reality of living on this planet. I have no intention of using lawdogs blog as a debate forum so do not bother to respond.
    Paul in Texas

  34. I would be interested in knowing the name of the boot-lick "academic" who nominated him.

  35. Once again, we have a glaring example of how politics in general here in these United States has become all about the P.R. and absolutely nothing about substance. Our president was given the prize simply because socialist governments love fellow socialist governments. And unfortunately, while President Obama may be, personally, a good man/father/husband/neighbor, his politics are the politics of the welfare state. Hence, the worldwide socialist love fest.

  36. I know this is old, but…

    Lib-tards have been handing out "ribbons" "Trophies" and "Prizes" for just showing up, and having high self-esteem (deserved or not) for many years.

    Dear Reader just got the GRAND PRIZE for existing and feeling really (REALLY) good about himself.

    How is this a surprise?

    DD

  37. Breaking news:
    Barack Hussein Obama has just won the Heisman Trophy after having watched a college football game.
    LawMom

  38. I liked the guy, and I felt it was a time to change the way things were being done. I was unhappy with the direction America was taking in many ways, and when Obama won I spent silly money on champagne.

    So be it.

    But when I heard about him getting the Nobel Peace Prize… er… no. No, you don't win these things on credit – or you shouldn't – but he apparently did. It makes no sense, and it's a Bad Thing.

    Not happy. Also, getting used to being not happy.

  39. Which is to say that the difference between George W. Bush and, basically, any normal, decent human being is equivalent to the difference between a normal, decent human being and a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Obama accomplished as much for world peace by simply not being George Bush as every other winner accomplished by making a substantive contribution.

    Seems about right.

Comments are closed.