(10-15-2009 01:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Absolutely nothing that will be more politically beneficial (or truthful) than a well-written speech turning down the award would have been, that's for sure.

Oh, I don't know... I don't like the guy's policies and think his party is out of touch with realit (though obviously so is most of the country)... I think he can make a better acceptance than rejection speech. I think a rejection speech would be quickly forgotten if it were played much... and would be portrayed as American arrogance,

I think he can accept it on behalf of America and all of the good that we have done in the world.... and use the opportunity to put this anti-American BS to rest.

(10-15-2009 07:41 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  ...the planted kid in New Orleans "Town Hall" today that asked Obama "Why do people hate you?"

This REALLY irritates me...
There are plenty of people who disagree with him... but there aren't really that many people who HATE him. He hasn't read that quote in the paper... OBVIOUSLY someone is telling this kid that people hate Obama... and I'm willing to bet they aren't saying its because they think he has bad ideas.

[/quote]

Why turn down the Nobel? It has usually been give to people who really do not do anything that would advance peace but is given to the sort who are papering over controversies that will erupt again later. The real peacemakers are those who get rid of the dictators who caused the problem to begin. I am wondering why they did not give a Peace Price to Neville Chamberlain and Hilter for signing the Munich Accord to bring us "Peace in our time", although Churchill did more for peace by standing up to Hitler. The Nobel Peace Prize goes for form over substance.

(10-20-2009 04:58 PM)75src Wrote:  ...although Churchill did more for peace by standing up to Hitler. The Nobel Peace Prize goes for form over substance.

Indeed. Note that the Peace Prize is awarded by Norwegian politicians, and the best-known pacificist politician in Norwegian history is Vidkun Quisling.

Unlike Scandinavian politicians, real historians and political scientists know that the men who did the most for peace in 20th century Europe were Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and George Marshall. And you could make a case that in the entire history of modern Asia, no one did more to secure peace in that continent than Douglas MacArthur.

But that's not how the Nobel Peace Prize works.

Marshall did receive the Prize and, I think, should have shared it with MacArthur. Truman was humble enough to steer credit to Marshall (who did a tremendous amount in his own right). Ghandi should have receive it. Also Eleanor Roosevelt. Someone made the case for Herbert Hoover for his post WWI relief work.

And Churchill did get the Literature prize for his speeches.