The Nobel committee f**ked up hardcore. There is no chance in hell Obama deserved the award. In my opinion Obama should've gracefully declined the award and said that maybe someday he will live up to its lofty title.So yeah, there is irony involved, but its not a reason to bash Obama. It was his only chance to win this prestigious award (lets be honest, he's not gonna get it after a decade of warring) and lets see any of you turn it down.
I don't blame Obama, I blame the ones who awarded him with it in the first place. If someone offered me a peace prize, I'd snag that sucker ASAP. God knows I won't get a second chance. Screw deserving it.
If he would of refused the award, the GOP would of criticized him for that as well.GOP: "SEE? He denied a peace prize! That means he is not peaceful!"
If anyone thinks that Obama will bring our troops home and end these wars, then they are a being quite foolish in my opinion. Obama said it was time to come home in 2004, but now he wants 4 more years and we should come home in 2012? Yet, they continue to say we are working to come home, but all plans suggest leaving 50,000 troops as "peace keeping forces" in Iraq? In my opinion, Obama is just doublespeak wordplay with the same result as Bush. He is just more of the same and soon the real peace activists that support him will realize this and vote for a real change.As usual, my viewpoint on a peaceful foreign policy is represented succinctly by Ron Paul. Despite the usually successful fear based reasoning used by the FOX "interviewers," he mops the floor with them. <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtlME2Ef_vA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtlME2Ef_vA</a>News Anchor: So what would you suggest, Congressman?Ron Paul: I’d suggest coming home.News Anchor: Give up? Throw the towel in? Let the Taliban take over? Let Al Qaida re-establish itself in Afghanistan? You think that’s a good idea?Ron Paul: Yeah, I think it’s a good idea that people have self determination. We yell and scream about the Taliban, but when we were defending the Mujahedeen, we called them freedom fighters and we allied ourselves with them and then we left. But when they were fighting the Soviets they were all good. But the Taliban means they don’t want occupiers. There is a total of 100 Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and what we’re doing is we’re following this precept of perpetual war for perpetual peace. And to me it’s perpetual bankruptcy and then you wonder why the price of gold is going up? It should be self-explanatory.News Anchor: Congressman, let me ask you. From what I just heard that in the last 3 seconds, you think this is a war that is not winnable? You think we’re just basically putting lives in harm’s way in the next 18 months as we have this troop surge? Or is this actually a winnable war?Ron Paul: I think they essentially admit that. They don’t expect to have a military victory; they don’t even claim it, they don’t even know what a military victory is. And they claim they’re not even in nation building. They claim that we’re in there for national security to destroy Al-Qaida. But our very presence is the motivation for people to join Al-Qaida or the Taliban. They are the people who want to defend their homeland and they’re sick and tired of the West, including many countries including us, who are in that region of the world and we have puppet dictators and we invade their countries and we occupy their countries. And in the name of fighting the Al-Qaida after 9/11, we went to war in Iraq, and that never made any sense. And the people over there are not going to all of a sudden become lovers of the United States and we inevitably will just bankrupt our country.So I would say, yes. Don’t stay just to save face. How many more people have to die for us to say, “Oh we can’t surrender”? This whole idea that a president has to be strong and yet the strength that we need is a president to finally resist the pressure by the special interest: the military industrial complex, the bankers and all the people who want these wars, and say no. That’s what we need. We don’t need somebody that will just go along with the advisor and say, “Oh no, we have to leave, it’s in the national security interest and the whole world will end if we all of a sudden don’t have a policy that defends this country”, instead of bankrupting this country. Actually, you know, Osama Bin Laden’s goal was to get us to do exactly what we’re doing.News Anchor: Congressman, if I recall correctly, you were against the surge in Iraq. The surge proved successful. Are you willing to admit you were wrong?Ron Paul: Well, I don’t see any success.News Anchor: You don’t?Ron Paul: There is no stability and a little less killing, but how did we do it? We armed the Sunnis. The civil war is going to continue. We haven’t left there; we can’t leave. If you think all our troops are going to be home next year, you’re kidding yourself. That is going to last, there is still a time bomb there, there are still people who are just vying for power and to claim that we’ve had a major victory over there, at what expense? A trillion dollars and thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded? How much do you want to pay for this nation building? Even if you argued the case that, “Oh yes, tomorrow is going to be perfect and we’ve had success” I would say, “You paid too much”.News Anchor: Alright. Congressman, always good to hear from you. Thank you.
Nah, you definitely sound smug. And you really don't need to use all that flowery language, it just makes you sound more smug and full of yourself. It sounds as though you are being intentionally condescending, and that you think very highly of yourself and wish others to know that you do. That is the definition of smug. Also your retort was unnecessarily long, and you really haven't said anything new.
o76923Dec 13, 2009
The Nobel committee f**ked up hardcore. There is no chance in hell Obama deserved the award. In my opinion Obama should've gracefully declined the award and said that maybe someday he will live up to its lofty title.So yeah, there is irony involved, but its not a reason to bash Obama. It was his only chance to win this prestigious award (lets be honest, he's not gonna get it after a decade of warring) and lets see any of you turn it down.
nmanguyDec 13, 2009
I don't blame Obama, I blame the ones who awarded him with it in the first place. If someone offered me a peace prize, I'd snag that sucker ASAP. God knows I won't get a second chance. Screw deserving it.
jt114881Dec 13, 2009
If he would of refused the award, the GOP would of criticized him for that as well.GOP: "SEE? He denied a peace prize! That means he is not peaceful!"
foontalaDec 13, 2009
If anyone thinks that Obama will bring our troops home and end these wars, then they are a being quite foolish in my opinion. Obama said it was time to come home in 2004, but now he wants 4 more years and we should come home in 2012? Yet, they continue to say we are working to come home, but all plans suggest leaving 50,000 troops as "peace keeping forces" in Iraq? In my opinion, Obama is just doublespeak wordplay with the same result as Bush. He is just more of the same and soon the real peace activists that support him will realize this and vote for a real change.As usual, my viewpoint on a peaceful foreign policy is represented succinctly by Ron Paul. Despite the usually successful fear based reasoning used by the FOX "interviewers," he mops the floor with them. <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtlME2Ef_vA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtlME2Ef_vA</a>News Anchor: So what would you suggest, Congressman?Ron Paul: I’d suggest coming home.News Anchor: Give up? Throw the towel in? Let the Taliban take over? Let Al Qaida re-establish itself in Afghanistan? You think that’s a good idea?Ron Paul: Yeah, I think it’s a good idea that people have self determination. We yell and scream about the Taliban, but when we were defending the Mujahedeen, we called them freedom fighters and we allied ourselves with them and then we left. But when they were fighting the Soviets they were all good. But the Taliban means they don’t want occupiers. There is a total of 100 Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and what we’re doing is we’re following this precept of perpetual war for perpetual peace. And to me it’s perpetual bankruptcy and then you wonder why the price of gold is going up? It should be self-explanatory.News Anchor: Congressman, let me ask you. From what I just heard that in the last 3 seconds, you think this is a war that is not winnable? You think we’re just basically putting lives in harm’s way in the next 18 months as we have this troop surge? Or is this actually a winnable war?Ron Paul: I think they essentially admit that. They don’t expect to have a military victory; they don’t even claim it, they don’t even know what a military victory is. And they claim they’re not even in nation building. They claim that we’re in there for national security to destroy Al-Qaida. But our very presence is the motivation for people to join Al-Qaida or the Taliban. They are the people who want to defend their homeland and they’re sick and tired of the West, including many countries including us, who are in that region of the world and we have puppet dictators and we invade their countries and we occupy their countries. And in the name of fighting the Al-Qaida after 9/11, we went to war in Iraq, and that never made any sense. And the people over there are not going to all of a sudden become lovers of the United States and we inevitably will just bankrupt our country.So I would say, yes. Don’t stay just to save face. How many more people have to die for us to say, “Oh we can’t surrender”? This whole idea that a president has to be strong and yet the strength that we need is a president to finally resist the pressure by the special interest: the military industrial complex, the bankers and all the people who want these wars, and say no. That’s what we need. We don’t need somebody that will just go along with the advisor and say, “Oh no, we have to leave, it’s in the national security interest and the whole world will end if we all of a sudden don’t have a policy that defends this country”, instead of bankrupting this country. Actually, you know, Osama Bin Laden’s goal was to get us to do exactly what we’re doing.News Anchor: Congressman, if I recall correctly, you were against the surge in Iraq. The surge proved successful. Are you willing to admit you were wrong?Ron Paul: Well, I don’t see any success.News Anchor: You don’t?Ron Paul: There is no stability and a little less killing, but how did we do it? We armed the Sunnis. The civil war is going to continue. We haven’t left there; we can’t leave. If you think all our troops are going to be home next year, you’re kidding yourself. That is going to last, there is still a time bomb there, there are still people who are just vying for power and to claim that we’ve had a major victory over there, at what expense? A trillion dollars and thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded? How much do you want to pay for this nation building? Even if you argued the case that, “Oh yes, tomorrow is going to be perfect and we’ve had success” I would say, “You paid too much”.News Anchor: Alright. Congressman, always good to hear from you. Thank you.
greatbigjerkDec 13, 2009
There's a good reason for that, Family Guy is terrible.
crossfox17Dec 14, 2009
Nah, you definitely sound smug. And you really don't need to use all that flowery language, it just makes you sound more smug and full of yourself. It sounds as though you are being intentionally condescending, and that you think very highly of yourself and wish others to know that you do. That is the definition of smug. Also your retort was unnecessarily long, and you really haven't said anything new.