Their Nobel Savior – by Jacob Laksin


If wishes were prizes, they might add up to the once-prestigious award that was bestowed on President Barack Obama this morning. In what sounded initially like a send-up of his inflated celerity, Obama – on the job for all of nine months and with no accomplishments of note to his credit – was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for seemingly nothing more than the political aspirations of global unity and “hope” on which he has yet to deliver.

The official rationale for the prize, according to the Swedish Nobel Committee, was Obama’s work to strengthen international diplomacy and eliminate nuclear weapons. But given that Obama has to date done nothing at all to further these goals – and, indeed, may have hindered the latter by indulging Iran in its dogmatic pursuit of a nuclear weapon – this appeared to be little more than high-minded window dressing. Insofar as the Nobel committee cited any tangible accomplishment by the American president, it was to laud him for capturing “the world’s attention” and giving people “hope for a better for future.” In essence, Obama has been honored for his campaign rhetoric.

Obama is not the first sitting American president to be awarded the Nobel, but he is the least deserving. Theodore Roosevelt received the prize in 1906, and Woodrow Wilson won in 1919. Yet both these presidential predecessors had done something to warrant the distinction: Roosevelt was acknowledged for successfully negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese war; Wilson for founding the League of Nations and formulating the Treaty of Versailles. Whatever the long-term merit of these achievements – the League of Nations is now widely considered a failure – they could be considered real contributions to world peace at the time of their recognition. No such claim can be made on behalf of the Obama administration’s policies.

So conspicuously thin is Obama’s in-office résumé that even some on the Left professed shock at the committee’s selection. Writing at The Daily Beast, Peter Beinart pointed out that honoring Obama on the basis of a few speeches was a backhanded confirmation of the conservative critique of his presidency:

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.

Indeed, it seems Obama’s chief accomplishment, in the Nobel Committee’s eyes, is that he is not George W. Bush. Thus, without naming Bush directly, committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said, “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.” Elsewhere, the committee praised Obama for creating a “new climate in international politics,” one in which “multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position.” The message was clear: Obama is not Bush.

Never mind that the Bush administration repeatedly sought multilateral solutions to foreign crises, whether in its fruitless attempt to secure UN cooperation against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or in its commitment to working with European powers to contain Iran’s nuclear program. Never mind, too, that the Bush administration did more than its successor, at least so far, to cut nuclear weapons stockpiles. In the end, its party affiliation was uncongenial to the Nobel Committee, which has devolved into a rubber stamp for the correct (read: liberal) politics. It is no coincidence that, of the three prominent American politicians to win the Nobel in the past decade, all, including Obama, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, have been Democrats.

Even worse than the blatant partisanship of the committee, the Nobel has become a missed opportunity to honor the truly deserving. There was no shortage of such choices among this year’s nominees, who included the likes Hu Jia, the Chinese dissident serving a three-and-a-half-year prison term on trumped-up charges of “incitement to subvert state power”; Morgan Tsvangirai, the longtime foe of Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe who has suffered relentless harassment from the regime’s thugs, and whose wife was killed this March in a suspicious car accident that occurred just days after he had become prime minister in a power sharing deal; and Sima Simar, the Afghan human-rights activist whose campaign to bring attention to the plight of Afghan women, as well as her outspoken opposition to Islamic practices requiring women to be kept in seclusion and to wear the burqa have made her a target for Taliban terrorists. All have done more than President Obama to advance the cause of human rights. All could have used the recognition and financial resources that come with the prize more than the articulate but unaccomplished leader of the world’s most powerful country.

It is, of course, not President Obama’s fault that he was chosen for the award, and he was appropriately humble in his acceptance. “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize,” the president said, observing that he did not view it “as a recognition of my own accomplishments.” And it’s hard to credit the claim that this year’s choice has diminished the award – an award whose past recipients, after all, have included unrepentant terrorist Yasir Arafat. But even by these historically low standards, the 2009 award was unique: It provided a reason to dismiss the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize even for those who like its winner.

  • xyz

    The Nobel committee is making the Nobel less of anything to be proud of. I guess the “Progressives” have taken that over, too. To say that there was no one else in the world who deserved this more is quite a slap in the face of even one mere corporal on the ground in Afghanistan. Sometimes merely living in lalaland and talking pretty words is not enough. In fact, it is downright harmful to those who seek to live in reality and deal with reality on its own terms. As more people become aware how BHO actually won this last election I hope he gets awarded a more apt award. Sleezebag of the year, perhaps?

  • paulneville

    No one gets it. The Nobel Peace Prize is a $1,300,000.00 bribe offered at a point when Obama is considering crucial decisions about Afganistan and Iran. How can a recipiant order an Iraq like surge in Afganistan or decide to use the military option on Iran and accept the prize OR THE MONEY?

  • USMCSniper

    Mmm, mmm, mmm!
    Barack Insane Obama
    He said that all must lend a hand and
    turn our country into banana land.
    Mmm, mmm, mmm!
    Barack Insane Obama
    He said we must be fair today
    and give the lazy half our pay.
    Mmm, mmm, mmm!
    Barack Insane Obama
    He said that we must take a stand
    and take our money from the “man”.
    Mmm, mmm, mmm!
    Barack Insane Obama
    He said red, yellow, black or white
    all commies are equal in his sight
    Mmm, mmm, mmm!
    Barack Insane Obama
    Yes We Can — single payer is our plan
    to devastate the mother land.
    Mmm, mmm, mmm!
    Barack Insane Obama

  • Drac Meas

    What's more, nominations closed on February 1, 2009. Obama had been in office two weeks.

  • sjbn

    You don't get it. Obama's “accomplishments” are more than the duties that he has performed as US Pres. In the past year, which included the presidential campaign, Barak Obama did more to represent the attributes that the Nobel Peace Prize signifies than anyone else in the world. Nothing more, nothing less. Is it a great accomplishment? I don't know. It's been 90 years since a US Pres has done this, but in the meantime, there have been at least a couple of questionable selections. you protest too much

  • wthiglic

    They have changed the name of this so-called prize. It is now know as The Noble Pizza Prize. And, you win a free pizza for having the most Body Odor, and BO wins. He gets a free pizza, no toppings, you must be a bigger Bozo than Bozo to get toppings, Well, if BO keeps going he can win the pizza next year with toppings.

  • PAthena

    President Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize between January 20 (Obama's inauguration) and February 1 (deadline for nominations for the 2009 Prize), twelve days after Obama's inauguration. Who nominated him?
    Who supported his candidacy?

  • Bellerophon

    Paulneville, you got it.

    I wonder how long it will take someone in the press to realize that the prize was awarded less than two weeks after General McChrystal said that he needed a lot more troops in Iraq.

    If Obama increases the troop level and with it the battlefield action then he risks becoming the first man in history to have his Nobel Prize revoked. He is too weak psychologically to withstand that kind of humiliation on a global stage. Everyone outside of the US recognizes Obama's basic insecurity and they all intend to exploit it.

    Sarkozy isn't fooled, neither is Merkel. Only the US press remains under the spell of this man who isn't anything, never was anything and never will be anything.

    If fact checking an SNL skit doesn't prove how stupefied the press is, then what will?

  • therealend

    I worked last night and saw this announcement at 4AM. I honestly thought I mis-read the news caption. This is so absurd it's funny. (to me anyway) But altogether, this has been such a strange year that I guess I shouldn't have been surprized. Pigs will be flying soon. I can just sense it.

  • gres

    Just “PHUCK BARAK”

  • corrrine

    To be put in the company of Arafat is no honor, regardless of the money; The things that are highly esteemed among men are an abomination to God.

  • Grantman

    Some of the analysis yesterday was that the Nobel committee had emasculated the President to prevent him from increasing troop strength in Afghanistan or taking any kind of military action against Iran.

    I don't think the award will be revoked as Bellerophon notes below, but the next few weeks will be interesting as The One™ figures out what to do and how to continue to vote 'present.'

    Welcome to the real world, Mr. President.

  • bhaack

    Like the US dollar, the Nobel Prize is diminishing in stature. It is clear that the Nobel Prize committee has Bush derangement syndrome. Since being elected president a Nobel Prize has been awarded to Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Paul Krugman and now Barrack Obama. If Roman Polanski denounces Bush loudly enough between now and February 1st perhaps he can win one next year.

  • CM

    I agree with the author about the nomination of Obama, but it was not the Swedish Nobel Committee but the Norwegian who chose Obama.

  • Jaysonrex

    Without being paranoiac (at least in my opinion), the true reason for awarding Obama the ADVANCED Nobel Peace Prize looks very much like a 'down payment' for services to be rendered by the current U.S. Administration, in the near future, to the special interest groups that financed the deal.

    A thorough investigation of each member of the Nobel Peace Prize Selection Committee is certain to reveal a number of very interesting details – mostly of a pecuniary type.

    It is common knowledge, even among the most ignorant individuals, that foreign crisis and problems (and there are many) cannot be solved by nice speeches and much less by civilized exchange of ideas.

    Try talking Iran into giving up its nuclear dreams or North Korea, for that matter. Try to convince Palestinians and their many Muslim allies to recognize reality – in the
    form of a fabulously successful and democratic State of Israel. Or solving the Iraq
    and Afghanistan deadlock through peaceful means. Or dealing with African massacres of civil population in an efficient way, by ending them once and for all through “negotiations” – the same approach that has been used for decades while the body count of civilians has been going through the roof.

    A Nobel Peace Prize laureate that is the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth CAN NOT or SHOULD NOT use “other” methods, incompatible with his “advanced recognition”. Therefore, the status quo will be maintained in all these areas for the forthcoming four or eight years – which is the purpose of this highly ridiculous 2009 Nobel Peace Prize exercise.

  • therealend

    And now, anyone (the RNC in particular) who criticizes this awarding is an Al Queda sympathizer or worse, so says the DNC. Considering that conservatives (or other than leftists even) have been labeled everything else (Nazis, angry mobs, unAmerican, racists, etc, etc.) I guess it's time to play the ultimate trump card of trump cards and call us all terrorists. What insight and keen analysis!

  • Rick

    The dumbing down of America!

  • johana1234
  • ADoerfler

    I think it is more than “he is not George W. Bush” – I think it is a committee made up of communists/socialists/statists who want to push their agenda. Only this award to BO exceeds the silliness of last year's award to Gore.

  • The_Inquisitor

    Thanks Sniper. Great post.

    mmm, mmm, mmm What a great propaganda tool that is. It's even better than “I was for the war before I was against it.”

  • MaryAnn

    That Obama was awarded the prize has nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with Europe's envy and hatred of America. Obama, like the Europe, would see America weakened economically and militarily to the status of a 3rd world country; because we are, after all, just one among many. The prize is an affirmation of Obama's “hope and change” for America. The “hope and change” that Europe and America's leftists can all get behind.

  • USMCSniper

    Good analysis which us almost the same as Laura Ingraham's.

  • debbyvc

    I say we more then likely can follow the Georgie “porgie” Soros money trail on this one….What Georgie wants Georgie gets..He did move the Obama's to the East Side right into the White House..
    Well we're movin on up,
    To the east side.
    To a Big White House in D.C..
    Movin on up,
    To the east side.
    We finally got a piece of the pie.

    Fish don't fry in the kitchen;
    Beans don't burn on the grill.
    Took a whole lotta tryin',
    Just to get up that hill.
    Now we're up in the big leagues,
    Gettin' our turn at bat.
    As long as we live, it's you and me baby,
    There ain't nothin wrong with that.

  • bludimon

    Just like the Swiss to be on the side of extremists, such as with the Nazis during WWII.

  • josephwiess

    In my opinion, honoring Obama for apologizing all over the place and making the United States of America look like sissy boys, sends the wrong message. George Bush should have gotten the peace prize, if only because he kept the terrorists from striking New York again, or because he led the coalition that put an end to Saddam's terror, or because he had the balls to stand up to North Korea and China, and Iran.

    To give it to Obama, is insulting the rest of the people who have legitimately been awarded the prize (With the exception of Carter, who's a putz.)

    What's next? Is Yassar Arafat going to get it, even as he lobs missiles into Israel, or is the Iranian President, who's threatened to destroy Israel, or is North Korea, even though they torture people, or is China, even though they imprison people for just speaking out?

    As of today, the Honorable, Nobel prizes are useless as the United Nations, and the only thing important, I guess, is the million dollar prize that comes with it.

    Nobel would be rolling over in his grave.

  • cntin

    Excellent piece of work Here! Thank you USMC Sniper!

  • JeromefromLayton

    Well, if the Brits can lump Michael Savage in with skin heads and Islamic terrorists, why not lump Barry O in with Yassir Arafat?

  • dcw

    So the President is awarded the Peace Prize!
    Whats next the Congressional Medal of Honor
    for being the first Black Commander in Chief?
    Cant wait to hear his war stories.

  • AlFranken1

    According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “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.”

    let's see– troop reduction in Iraq, the meeting in Cairo, and his peace negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.

    Norway is a neutral country!

    Sorry to have to blow your conspiracy theory out the door.

  • AlFranken1

    According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “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.”

    So which “Sleezebag” on the Republican side would deserve this prize more than Obama?

    Glen Beck?

    Bla hahahahahahaha

  • chiefjgmac

    It is ok though to be in the company of Carter and Gore???

  • AlFranken1

    Listen here dumb ass, there are no plans to attack Iran — not by Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush jr, or Obama.

    Also, Norway and the committee that nominates the candidates are neutral and they went through a great deal of trouble to make it that way.

    Anything and everything is subject to some FPM jackoff conspiracy theory when it doesn't involve any conservative jackoff in office.

  • MaryAnn

    Obama is continuing Bush policies in Iraq, he has continued rendition, gitmo is still open (thank God), his speech in Cairo was a big suck-up to to Iran-which was roundly ridiculed and rejected and his”peace” negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are nothing more than a rejection of Israel which will lead to another crisis. The only thing Obama can do reasonably well is read a telepromptor, as long as it's loaded correctly.

  • AlFranken1

    Are you sure it was Soro's money that got Obama elected?

    Maybe it had more to do with the fact that Americans fired the Republican Party over the mishandling of the Iraqi and Afghanistan war, the Federal budget going through the roof top and the stock market crash in October 2008 under Bush's watch, or the massive corruption scandals by Republican congressmen!

    Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the Americans getting tired of being lied to from a bold face liar with a shitty grin on his face?

    Your racist smug tone and lyrics basically underlines everything I stated

  • AlFranken1

    According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “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.”

    In stating the scope of award, maybe you can suggest a better candidate sense your piggy's might take off sooner than later.

    Really, if you know someone that fits that scope better than Obama — please share it!

  • AlFranken1

    Swedish, Norwegian — what's the difference to Ladkin?

    If you are other than a Jew/conservative, you must be a socialist therefore you must be a communist and therefore you must hate Israel and therefore you are a terrorist.

    Sweden and Norway are neutral countries and one of them honor's peace — that, in Ladkin's book makes them terrorists.

  • Sarah B.

    I'm not sure who put up the money, but I do bekieve that they hired “Acorn” to make sure all the living and non-living got the opportunity to vote a few times, like they did in the Al Franken case. Just my opinion.

  • etyetydfghfghdfg

    Nobel – to stop him from sending troops to Afganistan…heck, withdraw from it and Iraq, give up on Iran – BECAUSE it is PEACE prize…..Shame!!!
    If he had some honor left, he has to refuse it!

  • AlFranken1

    NO — he isn't continuing Bush's policies. Obama was elected by the American people to discontinue Bush's policies: Obama's policies are to open dialog with all sides regardless of varying opinions. Bush's policy was not to negotiate with “terrorists” in which who is a terrorist is subjective. Sense Bush was a puppet to Israel/oil mongers within his party — labeling all who don't have Israels best intentions as a priority must be a terrorist sponsoring state. So your opinion of the Cairo speech of being a “suck-up” is a unsubstantiated claim distorted on thin air theories of nothing.

    Rejection of Israel? hardly! putting American interest before Israel's is not rejection but rather asserting our national interests. Thank God for that!!!

    We don't need to fulfill prophesy — God will take care of that.

    As described in prophecy, which we can't control, it will be Russia from the North and China from the East that will fill the valley with blood.

    So stop playing God and put U.S. interest first. It may be another 10000 years before the return of the Messiah.

    Israel can take care of itself — it has a nuclear arsenal and no M.E. country is interested in suicide.

    Regarding Obama being telepromptor, that is a lot more than I can say about George W. who can't even speak or think right in front of the camera regardless.

  • AlFranken1

    Neither party has a shortage of PAC money.

  • USMCSniper

    AlFranken1 and bubba4 want Obambi to be elected the President of The World because they both have tingleleg for Obambi. These two guys are too stupid to even suspect that they are stupid. What a couple of pussafied panty waists these two girlymans are.

  • xyz

    Mr. Franken,
    How has Obama done any of what you state above? The most or best work between nations? I few months Obama has accomplished that? I must have sneezed during that and missed it. Telling the rest of the world that America is not a Judeo/Christian nation? That's news. Even the atheists think it is. Telling the Muslim world that we would never go to war against Islam? I work very hard to do just that. I am at war against Islam. I cannot think of a more disgusting excuse for man's relationship to a god than that. I'm not going to offer any examples since you obviously have access to the internet. The ABOLITION or reduction of standing armies? No. The armies are still there in the world. There has been no reduction unless you are specifically referring to the “gradual” pull out taking place in Iraq, but that is it an abolition or reduction of a standing army? No. That's a removal from a place in a time frame. He is pretty much following the policy and time frame laid out before he was in office. Not much new there. Holding and promoting peace? How does extending an olive branch to the Palestinians or Iran promote peace? All it says to me is that he is giving permission, to these others who brag about their love of war and death, by being so complacent about the status-quo. If you really want to insure peace you take the Palestinians and Iranis to task on what needs to be done so there will be peace, except that's not what they want. They've made that more than clear. What good does holding a peace conference do with people like that? Or, does merely going through the motions satisfy your requirement?
    The part where you say, “Really, if you know someone that fits that scope better than Obama …” Just about anyone. The qualifications are that one needs to be in reality instead of the land of wishful thinking. If all anyone had to do is sit down and prove that, hey, we're not bad guys after all and WE really want to be friends and we can work this out through negotiation, blah, blah, blah then there would already be peace on earth. When you are up against brain-washed-from-birth religious fanatics who follow a necrophiliac god that demands that they kill, kill, kill until there is no religion but Islam your chances of getting through to them are between nil and zero. You, buddy, are in the land next to brain cell 32 and 31 and 33 have died. Are you one of those guys who after all is said and done and everything you are being warned about happens that goes, “But, I didn't even see it coming” or are you just practicing Taqiyya? Maybe you want all the s*** to hit the fan because you are an anarchist?

  • trevormerchant



    I haven't read all comments so this may already have been pointed out: The “Nobel Peace Prize” is awarded by a NORWEGIAN committee in Oslo, that is unconnected (except by endowment) to the Swedish committee which determines the other awardees. I understand that currently, this Norwegian Committee consists of current and/or past members of the Norwegian Communist Party and/or its Marxist successors. They do not represent “World Opinion”. They are dedicated to forming, influencing, and controlling it. An examination of recent era awardees suggests that Obama is in some pretty dubious company chosen by these left wing radicals. (Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, etc.)

  • xyz

    How about the Nobel Piss Prize – because it aint even worth that much : D

  • AlFranken1

    Stupid is making 3rd grade name calling — that is the level of your intellect. In the short time you have been trolling here, all you can do is copy/paste boring articles and make remarks with substance or clarification.

    Another thing change your screen name, you're an embarrassment to the Marine Corp,

  • xyz

    You are not an embarrassment to Al Franken.

    You should re-read your post before you hit send STUPID!!! Tell you what – Why don't you and Bubbles pour yourself a cold one and jumped into that nice hot Jacuzzi together? We'll call it Slugovian Stew. No meat, no potatoes, no veggies, just a couple of stewed dicks. Limp ones at that.

  • AlFranken1

    “How has Obama done any of what you state above?”

    I’m not sure that he has done all stated above but he has done the context of the scope as a Senator, Presidential Candidate, and President: As a Senator, he was one of the leading Senators of investigating the torture tactics directed by the Bush Administration, and troop reduction in Iraq among other things. As a Presidential candidate, it was the help of his constituents that promoted his platform as a candidate of delivering his foreign policies regarding the M.E.. As a President, he has delivered on his promise with his meeting in Cairo, and reduction of forces in Iraq.

    Most of us understand that the Iraqi war was a huge mistake and fallacy. By reducing our forces in Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan, we are fulfilling our intent for 9/11 — to fight terrorists.

    Regarding today’s policy in Iraq, that isn’t an extension of the Bush Administration, it is the extension of the American people through representation and these people voted Obama in. Bush gets no credit for Iraq. The only thing he gets credit for is running up our Federal Deficit on a wasteful war and giving 700 billion dollar bonus to the crooks who destroyed our economy. At least Obama’s stimulus is an investment in the American people. What is Bush’s? Oil? Putting Iraqi construction workers to work? Thanks a lot Bush!!!

    “The most or best work between nations? I few months Obama has accomplished that? I must have sneezed during that and missed it.”

    Obama and his Administration and the people that helped get him elected have created a framework of lasting peace. That is a huge accomplishment

    You have been “sneezing” the entire Bush Administration. What you refuse to see is the huge difference between the two administrations. Bush was extremely ineffective and he made the M.E. more dangerous than it ever has. You can’t just focus on Obama you have to look at how Bush destroyed it and where we are today.

    “Telling the rest of the world that America is not a Judeo/Christian nation? That's news. Even the atheists think it is.”

    Everyone knows that this is a Judeo/Christian nation especially Obama! We are in the business of stabilizing the M.E. and disarming the terrorist with the destructive rhetoric that Bush “””gave””” our enemies such as proclaiming a “crusade”…

    If I told your Children that Santa Clause is coming would you tell me that Santa doesn’t exist? It doesn’t matter if Santa exists, it is about Children enjoying the innocence of their childhood and the excitement of the most special morning. When they grow up and become intellectually and emotionally mature, they will be able to absorb the real meaning of Christmas and the purpose of giving.

    So why to you have a problem with us giving rhetoric to the Middle East people for the purpose of disarming hatred towards us?

    I think this strategy is way too deep for you to understand. Maybe you should read the “Art of War” from Sun-tzu in which the best war won is the one in which you don’t need to go to battle.

    That brings my main point about you:

    “Telling the Muslim world that we would never go to war against Islam?”


    “I work very hard to do just that. I am at war against Islam.”


    “I cannot think of a more disgusting excuse for man's relationship to a god than that.”

    Those statements make you the enemy! Your not interested in peace and your just as much a fanatic as those men who strap bombs on children. You would have to, and probably willing to, go that far to beat them at their own game.

    You are a stupid fool that is more dangerous to your own children and grandchildren than any terrorist could be!

    For you to attempt to understand my country's policy and strategy is beyond you. It would be like trying to explain to a Nazi that Jews are humans or explaining to a skinhead that Blacks are not the enemy. Essentially, we would have to go and kill you just like we killed the Nazi’s or put you in prison just like the thousands of skinheads already there.

    Why do even waste your time trying to figure out the Nobel Peace Prize?

    It’s not in your nature?

    The only thing you would understand is a bullet in your head.

    “I'm not going to offer any examples since you obviously have access to the internet.”

    Because you don’t have any examples – be honest. There isn’t many candidates for Nobel Peace Prize.

    “The ABOLITION or reduction of standing armies? No. The armies are still there in the world.

    There has been no reduction unless you are specifically referring to the “gradual” pull out taking place in Iraq,”

    You are taking the entire paragraph out of context. Bad manipulative Christian Pastors do that with Bible verses — they take one verse and put what they want it to mean by adding and subtracting Christ intentions before and after his words.

    You have to take the life of Christ into context with his words. Adolf Hitler was very good at twisting the words of Christ.

    Your evil intentions are obvious.

    “but that is it an abolition or reduction of a standing army? No.”

    It is the fermentation of reduction of armies through his actions and policies. Huge distortion on your part.

    “ That's a removal from a place in a time frame. He is pretty much following the policy and time frame laid out before he was in office.”

    The Democratic policies before he became elected along with this election platform put these policies in place. You think Bush would have done it on his own or the Democratic congress would sign a spending bill without these conditions of withdrawal? GET REAL!

    It was the facilitation of his campaign and his work as a Senator that made these policies possible As a President, he has put these policies into action.

    “ Not much new there. Holding and promoting peace? How does extending an olive branch to the Palestinians or Iran promote peace?”

    Again, this isn’t possible for you to understand. You simply will refuse to admit that their land was taken from them. Idiots like you use the ancient idea that these people don’t even exist and bla bla bla.

    I’m a Christian man and like many others, we realize that the British Mandate was a huge mistake. If we didn’t create the state of Israel, there would be peace in Israel and Arabs and Jews would be co-existing together peacefuly in this land of Palestine. But no, we had to give to a bunch of greedy Jews who want more!!

    “All it says to me is that he is giving permission, to these others who brag about their love of war and death,”

    That is a stupid statement

    by being so complacent about the status-quo. If you really want to insure peace you take the Palestinians and Iranis to task on what needs to be done so there will be peace, except that's not what they want. They've made that more than clear. What good does holding a peace conference do with people like that? Or, does merely going through the motions satisfy your requirement?
    The part where you say, “Really, if you know someone that fits that scope better than Obama …” Just about anyone. The qualifications are that one needs to be in reality instead of the land of wishful thinking. If all anyone had to do is sit down and prove that, hey, we're not bad guys after all and WE really want to be friends and we can work this out through negotiation, blah, blah, blah then there would already be peace on earth. When you are up against brain-washed-from-birth religious fanatics who follow a necrophiliac god that demands that they kill, kill, kill until there is no religion but Islam your chances of getting through to them are between nil and zero. You, buddy, are in the land next to brain cell 32 and 31 and 33 have died. Are you one of those guys who after all is said and done and everything you are being warned about happens that goes, “But, I didn't even see it coming” or are you just practicing Taqiyya? Maybe you want all the s*** to hit the fan because you are an anarchist?

    The only antichrist here is you! Christ represents peace.

  • apbushey

    This is nothing more than the trashing of America, trying to bring our country on a par with the third world. Obama is getting an award for dinegrating his own country just like the the other nitwits: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter et als. Obama has been bad -mouthing his own country for months, long before 1/21/09.

  • xyz

    Mr. Franken,

    Your last diatribe to me only proved what I was saying. I was wrong about only one thing. Brain cell #32 is indeed deceased. You and bubbles are in the land of make believe. On another blog I saw where you criticized someone for merely ranting and using name calling. I believe ranting and name calling is what I just saw. Trying to hold an intelligent discussion with you would be like making peace in the middle east. You are beyond merely stupid and uninformed, you are rabidly dangerous. You see one and one and somehow you managed to come up with three. You really are too stupid for me to say another thing to you. It is a waste of time. Say hello to Bubbles for me. Maybe you can wash each others' backs since you bathe together. By the way, just a warning, I'm told that Bubbles pees in the tub.

  • AlFranken1

    The best thing you can do for yourself is to not respond to me because I am way out of your league and I'll wipe my *ss with your face if you do.

  • AlFranken1

    So how does this caveman response equal my response to your ignorant response? Like I said, you better shut up before I wipe my *ss on your face

  • AlFranken1

    It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

  • SAM000

    Peace price for the whom?
    Peace price for the man who lies down against the world threat?!
    Peace price for a cowardice that shakes the bloody hands of the Religious Hitler?!
    Peace price for a man who has no consideration for his boys and great consideration for the killer of his boys?!

    Nobel Committee has missed Chamberlain.

    What remains from the US CREDIBILITY?

  • Coupal

    If I were Obama I would be embarrassed. He should give it back and tell the Nobel committee that he will accept it when he has actually DONE something to deserve it.

  • xyz

    It doesn't. Your only equal is Bubba.

  • xyz

    Yes you are, thank the little pink fairies. Decent folk wouldn't allow you near my league. Go talk to Bubba.

  • fedupwithnobels

    They lost me when they chose Al Gore over Irena Sendlerowa — a polish woman that saved 2500 jewish kids from extermination by the Nazis. This prize has been totally devalued by the morons who make the award.

  • Louise

    According to Louis Farrakhan, the Messiah is here and his name is Obama. As for childish insults, you are still Bush bashing long after it's fashionable. Obama did expand Bush's Patriot act so I guess you think it's OK now. Hypocrite.

  • Louise

    Obama received millions in undisclosed foreign donations.

  • AlFranken1

    It is fashionable to bash Bush for as long as we are suffering from his actions. We are still in the middle of the worse recession in my lifetime and this mess was created under his watch. He and his Treasury Secretary and their conservative policies are the ones that drove this market crash. It is the greedy underwriters who gave loans to anyone who would apply so that they may sell them on the international market. It is Bush and his policies that turned a blind eye to it.

    Screw the working man who actually builds something of value — who wakes up in the morning to the cold or hot day and earns an honest living building something like a school or a church or something that is concrete in substance that people can enjoy and seek shelter for the rest of their lives and their children lives.

    No– that quality if forever gone. The trade, the skill, the honor all washed away by the tide of capitalist greed. All given to Mexican laborers who all live together in one house for 30 dollars a day building crap out of level and out of square. Manufactured in sweat shops while smoking dope.

    Those are the elements your greedy politicians have created.

    Regarding Louis Farrakhan, who cares what he thinks!

    I care about what he thinks as much as Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, or any other freaky fanatic.

    You are the one making a gross assumption about who I am.

    It is you that can't comprehend past my screen name.

    Maybe if my screen name was Fred Flintstone you would accuse me of being a stoneage fat man or something. Maybe you would complain my dog Barney or some conspiracy between the dogs name and Barney Frank — and therefore I must be a liberal


    If Obama expanded Bush's Patriot Act then shame on him. That would make both of them Communists like Chairman Mao.

    We can call both of them Chairman Bush and Chairman Obama.

    Spying on ordinary Americans. Diluting our privacy.

    I would have to do some research on your claim but you certainly won't reveal your source.

    That isn't something a FPM'r does.

    They just talk sh*t all day without any citation or substance —

    just f*cking bla bla bla bla.

  • AlFranken1

    Good for him. If I were him, I would invest it in bonds because this economy is going to suck for quite some time. Thanks to your President Bush.

  • AlFranken1

    Pink Fairies? You're a pink fairy? Like in a pink too too and walking around like a faggot with a limp hand.

    Is that the league you're in? Like in West Hollywood?

    no faggot — I mean intellectual league. My abilities to debate the current issues is far beyond your abilities to absorb and decipher.

    You are in kinder garden and I'm in an Ivy League University.

    You are a Hick in which your Mother and Father are brother and sister in mountains smoking dope and making moonshine where as I am experiencing multiple cultures and have a reality check on life.

    Go back to circle jerk you fairy.

  • AlFranken1

    Your screen name is starting to make sense.

  • AlFranken1

    It has everything to do with Bush. The world is so relieved to see him go that this is the only way they can express their gratitude. It is Ironic that Adolf Hitler was once considered for this award and how the people who nominated him were shunned.

    I don't think Obama deserved this award. He certainly didn't do anything special to deserve it.

    This award has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with our actions in the past 9 years.

  • Louise

    Maybe I can enlighten you
    Some of the credit for the economic crash goes to those in congress who were lobbied by Fannie and Freddie to ignore and reject regulation attempts in 2004. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters are an example. As banks were under pressure to make these horrific loans they were bundled and sold to greedy speculators all over the world as derivatives. When the housing market crashed these trillions in derivatives became worthless.
    As for Obama expanding Bush's Patriot Act see
    I hope you can open your bitter mind and see the real corruption happening now that will take down our country if we aren't vigilant. Obama will do what his masters tell him but who are his masters?

  • AlFranken1

    Bush? You think Bush should get it?

    He is the reason we got attacked in the first place.

    He is the one that turned a blind eye.

    We haven't got attacked again because of Congress not Bush.

    Bush was negligent his whole time in office.

    what a shmuck you are!

  • Louise

    And thanks to your president Obama who has tripled Bush spending and put us in an unsustainable debt spiral.

  • Louise

    And it can be a decision seen by many as a questionable choice:

  • Devoted

    “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize,” the president said,

  • therealend

    Sure, the man who has established schools for girls in Afghanistan and Pakistan at risk to his own life. How's that? Or the woman who lost to Al Gore Jr who rescued people from the Nazi's. Or the Human Rights activists in the PRC? To name a few.

  • MizPris

    When one considers the nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize must be submitted as of Feb. 1st. It's a stretch to believe this was a surprise to Obama. He was at that time, President for 11 days!

    His only accomplishment at that time was being elected. IMO, this was a done deal. A set up. Everything about this administration is a con, and the only folks who don't get it, are those with stars in their eyes, and dribble running down their chins.

    My advice? Don't listen to what Obama says, watch what he does. So far, it ain't pretty.

  • AlFranken1

    Well that is an above average FPM post. I'm impressed

  • AlFranken1

    according to Wikipedia, typically the nomination is due by February but that isn't always the case. I don't when his was.

    But the rules really don't spell out like some sort of beauty contest.

    I believe they voted for Obama for the symbolic direction the U.S. is going.

    Bush was viewed as a tyrant and a criminal through the eyes of many across the world.

    So as you look at certain people and class of people as terrorists, they also look at us in the same manner. They see us as terrorists. As terrorists going to their country and killing their families.

    So mass delegates that make up the nomination are educated and objective to all points of views — similar to what Jimmy Carter has.

    We obviously wouldn't go to FPM for any suggestions because their view is extremely subjective.

    So it really isn't so much about who it is but rather who it isn't — you should at Feb 1 more at how close it was to January 20th — Bush's last day in office

  • AlFranken1

    Don't forget that Bush was the first to run up our deficit even before his $700 billion dollar bonus to the criminals who sold those derivatives.

    If you look at this chart:

    you will see that Carter and Clinton kept the deficit low where as Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Jr. escalated the deficit tremendously.

    I obviously not making this up and under Clinton, the deficit decreased.

    If a Republican was in office instead of Clinton, our deficit would be going up twice as much as it is now because we wouldn't be getting any tax revenue for our budget to get us out of this mess.

    Everyone agrees that we have to have stimulus spending — all other nations our doing it and Europe is depending on us to do it.

    Allen Greenspan agrees everyone.

    all that is is just political rhetoric.

    The huge difference between Obama's plan and the Republicans is that we are investing in our infrastructure and not fattening the bottom line of the bankers like Bush's 700 billion dollar hand out.

    So blaming Obama for tripled spending is like blaming your doctor because you went out and got AIDs for your promiscuous behavior.

  • AlFranken1

    A pretty good article that is somewhat objective and neutral:

    Let me highlight one paragraph in your article:

    “The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.”

    That brings the Reverend King to mind:

    “In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other non-violent means. By the time of his death in 1968, he had refocused his efforts on ending poverty and opposing the Vietnam War, both from a religious perspective. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. national holiday in 1986.”


    There is no question in my mind that Obama represents an extension of his achievements.

    If you ever go to a baseball game on Jackie Robinson Day, you will witness his contribution to the game through the people who have directly benefited from his bravery.

    Obama and the people who will follow him directly benefited from this prior Nobel Prize Winner.

    If you want to fail to acknowledge that or dismiss it, then you speak volumes for the Republican party and those who spew your venom.

  • LucyQ


  • therealend

    Those 11 days included at least one weekend, so it's only 9 or so productive days.

  • therealend

    Correcting myself: there were 2 weekends in that period, making it seven productive days of this administration with which the committee based their selection.

  • LucyQ

    Pris, you are simply an extremist who thinks that those who don't agree with you are either communists, terrorists or not playing with a full deck. According to your extremist fringe, a prez who lied us into war is a wonderful prez compared to one who wants health care for all Americans.

    Your extremist side is becoming more and more like extremist Muslims, enjoying the sacrifices of their young who are getting killed and disabled for what?

    I think the committee that hands out the Nobel Peace Prize should do it on merit, what someone has already accomplished, not on what he hopes to accomplish.

  • therealend

    One last correction: there would be at most seven productive days of his presidency to grade him on because what if he was nominated on Jan 22nd? What a strange year this has been so far!

  • AlFranken1

    another way to look at, Obama is being bipartisan — which your constituents love to question.

    Thanks for going to bat for Obama!

    Doesn't happen that often here at FPM

  • AlFranken1

    Regarding congress lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, that was under a Republican Congress.

    You're cherry picking

  • MizPris

    AF, Bush wasn't a pushover for the internationalists. He knew his role was to represent America, not to punish, and to apologize for, America.

    Bush didn't march to the internationalist's drum. Obama does, and that's why they like him. They also see him as weak. He's a pushover. They must love that. Your comparison to Carter is perfect. We all know what a peacemaker he was. He ushered in legitimacy for Islam in the person of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Now, Obama, like Nero fiddling while Rome burns, can't make a decision to approve a surge in Afghanistan, while we have troops over there who need this decision to be made quickly and who need more numbers to fight this war to win.

    Funny isn't it, that Obama has no problem with being dictatorial here at home, but bows and scrapes to our adversaries and the feckless, shallow body called the UN.

    When it comes to international affairs, I'd rather be respected for my strength, even feared, than be loved. It's a grown up game of hardball, not a child's game.

    Btw, Wikipedia has been discredited, I wouldn't use them as an info bible if I were you. If they're happen to be right, then Feb. 1st is a deadline, but, maybe isn't a deadline? How perfect. The international crowd can't even get that right!

  • AlFranken1

    Lucy Clueless is testing her keyboard again. Too many bong hits again

  • Louise

    Huh? You make absolutely no sense. I think you just like throwing the word “extremist” around. That's how Obama tries to cause division in our own country. You sound like a extremist nut.

  • AlFranken1

    It is bad practice to write in caps. It is very difficult to read and hard on the eyes. Caps are reserved for the first letter on names and titles and to emphasize.

    Some people use caps only to disguise their poor punctuation so I feel for you if that is the case.

  • Louise

    You prefer to ignore reality because you're blinded by hate and possibly a faulty education. I feel sorry for you.

  • AlFranken1

    Unlike you, Wikipedia cites their source:

    Let us put a microscope on your last claim first — and then we will use this correction as grounding to dispute the balance of your Crapolla:

    under the description of “Nobel Peace Prize” on Wikipedia, the following statement that I cited is as follows:

    “Nominations must usually be submitted to the Committee by February 1 of the year in question. Nominations by committee members can be submitted up to the date of the first Committee meeting after this deadline.[6]” Notice note #6 — click on that and it takes you to the official Nobel Peace Prize website —

    ( ^ a b “Who may submit nominations?”. The Norwegian Nobel Committee. Retrieved 2009-09-10.)

    After listing the possibilities of who can submit a nomination, they describe the rules of the time frame as follows:

    “The Nobel Committee makes its selection on the basis of nominations received or postmarked no later than February 1 of the year in question. Nominations which do not meet the deadline are normally included in the following year's assessment. Members of the Nobel Committee are entitled to submit their own nominations as late as at the first meeting of the Committee after the expiry of the deadline.” Notice the part that states: “Members of the Nobel Committe are entitled to submit their own nominations 'AS LATE AS AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE DEADLINE”

    you: “Btw, Wikipedia has been discredited, I wouldn't use them as an info bible if I were you. If they happen to be right, then Feb. 1st is a deadline, but, maybe isn't a deadline? How perfect. The international crowd can't even get that right!”

    So who should I discredit?
    The one who cites the source with precision or the one who makes a gross assumption based on a unsubstantiated claim?

    That might be a tough one for someone who comes from a defected intellectual gene pool such as FPM.

    Coming from the same source is the remarks of “feckless, shallow body, that doesn't march to the internationalist drum…”

    These opinions are obviously in the eyes of the beholder and in this case filled with a bias agenda.

    I appreciate the bold assertiveness taken post 9/11 and most of it was justified: The Iraqi war and the fallacies that build up to it sent a clear message to Osama Bin Ladin: “We will turn it into what ever is in our best interest no matter how false it is”. — that is nothing new.

    We have done that in the past effectively.

    regardless of your perspective of the debate in congress and your lack understanding of how a democracy works with our checks and balances, Both Democrats and Republicans know to decipher the difference between putting national interest first and the partisan politics — they are both competitive by nature.

    The conclusion is within you, like most on this website, can not decipher the difference and are therefore subjected to being taken advantage of by propaganda machines like FPM.

    If you study this string, you will see I make a hobby out of beating up this intellectual gene pool.

    Xyz waves the white flag with name calling after I break down his claim with viable disputes, MaryAnn’s, USMC Sniper — all losers.

    You’re the latest kill on the side of my plane.

    Cheers Priz

  • AlFranken1

    In your defense, I like this you tube better because it is saying directly what your you tube is trying to say but without the lame sound bites:

    So lets say that the Democrats are responsible for the irresponsible lending practices of qualifying low income families verses the private market selling derivatives through the private sector.

    Sure– the Republicans can point the finger to public financing mechanisms just like the Democrats can point the finger at the deregulation of the lending practices by Greenspan as well as his policies of lowering the interest rate and flooding the market with money thus causing an over supply of housing. So why did the market crash?

    We can say it started with Clinton but it was finish by Bush.

    This all happened on Bush's and the Republican party's majority in the house. Why didn't they stop it?

    They had the purse strings, the votes, the filibuster in the Senate.

    Can you name the bills proposed to the house that would regulate Fannie Mae as well as the private sector?

    Let us use an allegory to make my point clearer:

    You can be George W. and I will be Pelosi.

    George: “Hey Pelosi, hop on the bike of my motorcycle and let's go for a ride!”

    ( Pelosi jumps on and they zoom away and up comes a creek with a ramp to jump it)

    Pelosi: “give it the gas George and jump the creek!”

    ( now George has control of the accelerator — that being Chairman Greenspan — as well as the brakes and gears — that being the Republican controlled house and Senate)

    Goerge: ” gee wiz Nancy i don't know I think we will crash”

    Pelosi: ( Pelosi grabs the accelerator with her right hand and man handles the left handle bar with her left hand and forces George to jump the creek but only to crash on the other side).

    The end

    is that what happened Louise?

    I guess Pelosi must have been wearing the pants and twiste George W's arm when he signed the $700 billion bonus to the same bankers that sold those derivatives qualified by anyone who had a pulse.

  • SAM000

    3 successive Nobel Peace prices to keep the Islamic Regime of IRAN on power in spite of the deadly riots.

    1 – Shirin Ebadi ( for white washing the Regime's crimes)
    2 – Mohamad El-Bradeii of IAEA ( for minimizing the regime's nuclear threat)
    3 – President Barak Obama (for offering enough time to Ahmadinejad to finish his nuclear arsonal, and for encouraging and backing the regime against the Iranians who riot to uproot the Islamic regime)

  • USMC(Ret.) Proud FEMALE Marine

    Finally! I was wondering when you were ever going to start with the racism canard, AlFraken1! What took you so long, you sly dog?

    How dare you tell a U.S. Marine they are an embarrassment to the corpS? (notice the S at the end of corps, dumb shit? I typed it nice and big for you- you don't even know how to spell it, you wanker). I'd love to see your pinko, leftist, baby-face tell that to a Marine's face, especially mine. They're the ones out there dying for your right to be a moron because you're too much of a pu**y to fight for your country. You hide behind your anonimity to spew your hatred because no one can know where you are to come and kick your light-weight ass.
    Also, you might want to look into what George Soros did to Greece. And no, he's NOT Greek.

  • Fritz Becker

    Three problems with your talking points: The closing date for Nobel Prize nominations was on February, 1st, Mr Obama was sworn into office a mere 12 days before that so none of what you mentioned had had a chance to occur. Second even if the closing date was not on the first of February those speeches and meetings still have not bared any results; Iran is as hateful as ever as ever, El Queda still wants to blow you up, the the soap opera in Israel is still ongoing. As for the troop reductions in Iraq, the first of those took place in the fall of 2008, in other words they were already set into motion before B.O took office. But apparently temporal logic and results don't matter, only good intentions.

  • Fritz Becker

    Also, while you keep insisting that Norway is a neutral country, point in fact it is not. Sweden and Finland are neutral militarily, Norway is a member of NATO. In any case whether Norway is neutral or not is irrelevant, neutrality, or alliances are foreign policy and that policy is decided by government, the Nobel committee is not the government of Norway.

  • AlFranken1

    you completely missed the boat.

    all I'm willing to do is suggest you read my other comments before we discuss/correct your understanding

  • AlFranken1

    Now USMC is hiding under his fat moms dress.

    Listen here you fat dike! If you talk to me like that in public I would punch you in face just like as you were a dude.

    Then I would throw your silly fat ass over the balcony.

    not just any punk ass bitch or just plain puck ass can talk tough on-line but a coward at that!

    Even if he was a marine, he has to be a faggot at that.

    I have been reading his crap for months and I know retard when I see one.

    You, on the other hand, have never heard from in my life.

    For all I know at this point, USMC Sniper cross dresses in his mama's Salvation Army suite every Sunday night.

    You Freak!

  • andreas

    Actually, it is the parlament of Norway that decides on the Peace Price. Being a Swede I have so munch other nonsens to be internationally embarrassed about so I will have any part of this.

  • 301

    I guess you are correct Al. No sleazebag republican deserves this award more then the biggest sleazebag democrat, Barack Hussein Obama..mmm……..mmm.

  • AL.

    Life can be so cruel, you leftist slug, one day or another, you will feel it.

  • WFB2

    You're working way too to hard to legitimize the illegitimate. The more you try the more you prove that this “award” is all about hating Bush. How inspiring! Obama's a fraud as is this hollow “igNobel” bit of lefty sychophancy. You and your election-stealing namesake fit right in the same sinestral slime pit.

  • sprinklerman

    Mr. Franken,
    The US is not a Democracy.

    Checks and balances in our government is not meant to mean a two or multiple party system, but in the manner in which the different branches of our Federal Government has been defined in our Constitution.

    And as such an intellectual, you should know how to spell “since”.

  • Smarter_than_Al

    So Obama gets the prize for being black?

    And going over your previous drivel:

    1. If the prize should be awarded “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.”, then how does Gore get one for working on “global warming”

    2. There are always plans to attack potentially aggressive countries/factions. US policy is to be as prepared as possible for action, whether you agree with it or not. So, Obama is as prepared to attack Iran as Bush, Clinton, etc. Whether he knows what to do about it is another story. Guess we will just have to see as Iran's nuclear program continues.

    3. Nice to see you have joined in the 3rd grade name-calling. Couldn't resist, could ya?

    If BO actually does something worthwhile and EFFECTIVE towards establishing peace, then let them award him the prize. But if the only real reason is because he is not Bush, then doesn't Bush deserve it for not being Clinton? Bill Clinton, the president who ordered US military action in more countries since WWII?

    And the financial problems you go on about go back far beyond Bush. Every president, including your beloved Clinton, has contributed to this mess in their own way. Obama, with cap and trade and Obamacare will just be the latest crap on the dungheap. And by far the worst. Period.

    And while you will continue to embarrass yourself in here, you hypocrite, make a decision. Put away the f-bombs and vulgar name-calling, or stop berating others for using them against you. But then, you are just following current Demo-policy.

  • Smarter_than_Al

    Clinton's biggest contribution to the economy was to put our debt on short-term loans. He got a much better interest rate for doing so, as rates were so low then.

    Problem is, his lack of vision never made clear that interest rates just might go up for a change. So, instead of using long-term debt to make it more manageable, he took the glory of saving some interest payments, and passed on to future presidencies the problem of dealing with rising interest rates.

    Not saying that is the problem, just saying that Clinton does not deserve the credit.

  • Smarter_than_Al

    Holy crap.

    A framework for lasting peace? Just how naive are you?

    Do you have a machine that does your writing for you, just spewing out the latest party line along with spiteful invective? Clearly no thought goes into this, as all you can do it antagonize anyone who disagrees with you.

    There are some liberals I can respect. I won't always agree with them, but we can have the occasional healthy debate. But until you can come up with some rational arguments instead of the vomit your bring forth, your flaming here is no longer worth my attention.

  • xyz

    Franken and Bubba are not worth anyone's time, but it seems they dominate this web site. Count them up – to and from and about them. They are loving the attention. For some people it's not about what kind of attention they get, just so long as they are getting it. I've decided they aren't getting any more from me. It seems to act as a reward for them and encourages their base behavior. It would be nice if we could get a high level dialogue going here but it keeps dropping down to the level of those two.

  • AlFranken1

    First of all, I'm not a liberal. I have this screen name to incite and provoke dialog with stupid lazy republican parrots that think themselves. If carefully read everything I post, you would see that I'm not affiliated with any party — i'm a swing voter that votes issues that doesn't trust either party and despise all fanatics.

    About being cruel — yes it is a cruel world.

    One thing I learned about jerks who give themselves a screen name that holds themselves up on soapbox as some sort of hero are more often than not — not what they pretend to be.

    I personally know combat veterans and I'm not one of them

    They don't act the way these clowns do.

    Serving in the military doesn't give you a special place in the world of debate and i can treat them the same as anyone else and especially if they talk down to me as if they have some sort of authority.

    They don't — they are wanna be ass wipes.

    I know what cruel is — and my behavior towards people on this website is not cruel.

    Another thing, Is it Jesus that said that if you gloat what you have given you have received your award in full?

    What does that tell you about someone who gives them self this war hero screen name?

  • AlFranken1

    ha ha

    Smarter than Al?

    Let me guess. you are a young Republican studying Political Science at some Christian College that is volunteering your weekend evening monitoring this website while doing your homework while popping your pimples.

    I'm extremely honored that you picked such a rebellious name towards my cause — as if you are going to take me on in a Colosseum with tigers and lions with an array of weapons.

    I carefully read your responses and have came to the conclusion that you are either a dumb white trash or someone that lives by their principles and is eagerly ready to defend it.

    If it is the latter, I salute you.

    Your response to my reasoning to Obama getting the prize and you thinking i meant that he got it for being black makes me wonder what intellectual level you are right now.

    I'm a little confuse because of your ambition but you seem to have some innocence in your experience in life.

    It is too early to tell if you are just trailer trash so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm usually here on this website Friday through Sunday and I pick one subject Friday morning and research it.

    Then I proceed bitch slapping anyone who parrots the Bullshit on this site.

    Sense I get easily bored I more than welcome a new challenge.

    Smarter than Al and Al Franken — This coming Weekend

    Ring side seats

    After i have my way with you, will Horowitz take me on in a debate via You tube?

    Na — too much of puss probably.

    He just likes to give sound bites of calling people anti semitic.


  • AL.

    You can say what you want, you can know who you want, sunshine. That changes nothing… One day or another….

  • Smarter_than_Al

    Sorry Al,

    No poli sci major here, no Christian College, not a Christian, period. Approaching middle age, so probably older than you, considering your writing style, violent tendencies, and general vulgarity. Straight teeth, full head of hair, decent physical shape, a real house, a real job that lets me pay the mortgage. A family that loves me. A job that has me traveling the world, experiencing different cultures and people, while still reminding me how well we have it here at home. Smart enough to have been a Conservative long before I went to college, and focussed enough to maintain my political affiliation through all the liberal indoctrination going to college implies.

    Lemme guess… you are about 30, wondering which hamburger it was you wrapped with your BA (sociology, perhaps?), and with nothing better to do with your weekends than find some safe place to yell at people. Big-city East Coast boy, perhaps? Lot of anger out that way.

    Problem with internet forums… too often they have people like you, angry at the world, yelling down anyone with a differing opinion, thinking that the sheer volume of your words make you more correct. Generally there are a small handful, on both side of the debate, who have something intelligent to add without swearing or berating their opponents. But you get to drown them out with your drivel, and turn away the people looking for respectful discourse.

    Obama may well do something to earn a Nobel Peace Prize. What people are trying to say, and what you don't seem to grasp, is that when he was nominated, he hadn't done a single thing. The junior Senator from Illinois didn't do much more than show up when he was in Congress, and in his 12 Presidential days before the nominations deadline, his time was spent deciding which fabric looks best for the new carpeting and trying to find a suitable dog.

    Even if he had brought peace to the Middle East in March 2009, he is not eligible to win in 2009. Maybe in the next 12 months, he will do something to earn it. I, for one, am not counting on it, since he has so many domestic issues to be concerned about, and rightly so.

    So put away all this junk about peace congresses and what is written in Nobel's will, since anything Obama that falls within those guidelines came after the 12 days.

    If, as you say above, it was awarded as an expression of gratitude from the Europeans, I agree with you 100%. Only problem with that is, it has nothing to do with Nobel's will, or peace, or anything else except politics. So, let's call it what it is:

    Barack Obama has just won the innaugural Nobel Liberal Prize.

    If he was not elected President, would he have won? Would he have been nominated? Not a chance.

    This is why the selection committee is a complete joke. You mention Americans electing their first black President. You mention the removal of the Bush administration. Where are those in Nobel's will?

    Where in Nobel's will does it say anything about the environment? Do you think, just a little, that Gore's award was also political, and again nothing to do with peace? You can take that to the bank.

    The Norwegians get their revenge on America! Perhaps the Marshall Plan wasn't enough for them.

    I see Obama plans to donate the prize money. Great news for abortion clinics and the various alternative-gender groups that helped him become what he is today. Or maybe the money will go to groups actively more deserving than Obama for promoting peace.

    So enjoy your weekend, Al, and have fun calling me chicken for not showing up, and bleating the same ol' garbage to anyone here who will read it. Will that be light beer or a white wine spritzer with your leftover pizza?

    I have a job to do, a home to work on, a family to care for, money to spend, and a couple sports events to enjoy.

    As for you having your way with me, sorry, my door doesn't swing that way.

    Hey, if all you get from this is the understanding that more people might want to talk to you, in real life let alone on the Internet, if you communicate civilly and have real discussions rather than threatening and yelling at someone's comments, the world will be a better place. Maybe I'll get nominated in 2010! Peace on the Internet! Millions of people free to talk in public forums. Woo hoo!