33°Quick links: Boys ranch moves assets • GU basketball • WSU basketball • Kendall Yards plan • Swine flu
Of all the editorials published around the country about President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, the most concise is probably this one from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock:
Enough said
What is one to say on hearing that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to … Barack Obama?
How about, for one brief shining moment of national unity, a little simple propriety, for there is no better guide to the perplexed than good manners:
Congratulations, Mr. President!
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2009, The Spokesman-Review
Arch_Druid on October 12 at 10:23 a.m.
Given the thumbs down by OTHER editorials published by the S-R this Monday morning… Obama didn't have the “qualifications” for such a prize. They may as well have reprinted all the reasons why they didn't think he ought to have become president! His lack of qualifications! LOL!
So, I'll agree with Floyd, congratulations Mr. President.
And by the way, beyond meeting the constitutional minimum standards of age and etc, who IS qualified to be president?
Flag as inappropriate
Gary Crooks on October 12 at 11:03 a.m.
Interviewer: “So, have you ever been president before?”
Candidate: “No.”
Interviewer: “I see. We'll take that under advisement.”
Flag as inappropriate
Doug Floyd on October 12 at 7:36 p.m.
To clarify, I posted the comment, but the comment itself came from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The author was probably Paul Greenberg.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 13 at 10:58 a.m.
I'll STILL agree with your posting the comment Floyd. Taking into consideration where you stipulated it had come from.
As for the Cal Thomas editorial this morning, it sounded a lot like what Rhodes or “Richard” would post as to why they'd disagree with why Obama could get the Nobel.
About the only time that Thomas could agree with Obama was when the prez sez he didn't deserve the prize? Speaking of hollow politics! LOL!
Flag as inappropriate
richard on October 13 at 8:23 p.m.
Barack Obama is a bright guy; he realises why he got the award.
The selection of Obama was a not so subtle repudiation of GWBush by the elites who believe they have the “corner” on who is deserving of a Peace Prize.
It was also a recognition of Obama's speeches all around the world, where he apologized for America's role as the only superpower - having upended the vast Communist empire of the USSR.
It was an applause for Obama's promise that the US would relinquish its role as superpower and it would now defer to the UN and to the elites in Europe.
But as far as any accomplishments; we all know there have been none. Other than raising the spectre of “hope” (which is utterly vague and non-defined), which it could be argued was provided by GW Bush to the 26 million Iraqis who lived in terror.
Those at the Peace Committee are deluded by the view that “peace” is the absence of war; when any thinker beyond a 9th grade level knows to be a very shallow view of peace. They refuse to undertand that when tyrannts are allowed to … be tyrannical, there is no such thing as peace.
Flag as inappropriate
Arch_Druid on October 14 at 9:35 p.m.
Uh “Richard,” regarding GW providing “hope” to 26 million Iraqis living in terror, he ended up being responsible for considerable in civilian deaths by at the least 10s of thousands. And a country that isn't “at peace” today long after he departed the White House.
So, your point? Besides having a selective memory loss?
And by the way, before this country can be a “super power,” it needs to be fully functional as an economic power house. GW took this nation down the path of bankruptcy. Sorry.
Flag as inappropriate