Meet the People Who Were Passed Over For Obama

FrenchAffair

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2005
1,180
110
Dubai, UAE
✟1,888.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
FrenchAffair-

What do you mean by make up for Bush haha? Obama's view of the world leans towards the european like view more than american. What do you think Obama is apologizing for in your opinion?

The crimes and terror America has projected though out the world for the past 60+ years.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
and in this case, you and I will have to part ways. I do not believe apologizing is an act of cowardice, whether you really believe you have something to apologize for, or if you're being the bigger person.

I don't necessarily agree with why he's apologized, but let's be realistic...we have a reputation as a bully nation. Yes, a bully nation that is quick to help other countries, but still a bully. We DO have much to apologize for and it is not cowardice to admit such, nor is it cowardice to do so.
Very true.

And I'll add (this is directed at you, Salida): Admitting wrongdoing is not cowardly; denial is. Denial is the domain of alcoholics, drug abusers, wife beaters, cheaters, liars, thieves. It takes no courage whatsoever to deny wrongdoing. It takes no courage to continue in one's destructive ways. It does take courage to admit wrongdoing. In doing so, one realizes the changes he needs to make. He comes to grips with his flaws, and begins to take steps - sometimes difficult - to correct the problems.

No, Salida. You are wrong. Apologizing is not cowardly. It is brave. It is truth. Admit it - if you have the courage to do so.
 
Upvote 0

blueapplepaste

the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Jun 7, 2005
7,290
788
41
Texas
✟18,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Stacco- Are you claiming that Obama winning the NPP is fake, hahaha. This is world news not just american- are you joking or serious? So you don't believe Obama won it? Thanks for the good laugh today.

Holy reading comprehension Batman!!!!!

In no way, shape, or form was he suggesting Obama didn't win the NPP.

He's claiming, and rightly so, that your "list" is 100% demonstrably fake. We won't know until 2059 who was passed over for Obama.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Holy reading comprehension Batman!!!!!

In no way, shape, or form was he suggesting Obama didn't win the NPP.

He's claiming, and rightly so, that your "list" is 100% demonstrably fake. We won't know until 2059 who was passed over for Obama.

Hmmm...

I found THIS while searching on that, because I heard somewhere that a person who nominates someone can tell.

The names of nominees are kept secret by the institute for 50 years. But those who are entitled to nominate are allowed to reveal the name of the person or organisation they have proposed, if they wish to do so.

It's an interesting read. But I don't how to verify the source. This quote is used a few different sites, and it seems that as early as February some people were saying Obama was on the list.
 
Upvote 0

Staccato

Tarut keeps on dreaming
Supporter
Sep 9, 2007
4,479
304
From Colorado, currently in the UK
✟51,802.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Stacco- Are you claiming that Obama winning the NPP is fake, hahaha. This is world news not just american- are you joking or serious? So you don't believe Obama won it? Thanks for the good laugh today.
I'll say it again, in a more verbose and frankly ridiculously over-explained way. Maybe you'll get it this time.

Obama won the NPP. Your claim that I said his victory was fake is either a pitiful attempt to make me look foolish or indicative of your not having actually read my post. The list of people you have, in your OP, who you say were "passed over" by Obama? It's fake. The other people who were up for the NPP, the people who aren't Obama but were up for consideration, that list isn't realeased for 50 years. I'll say it again: because the nominees for the NPP, other than the winner, are not released for 50 years, your list is fake.

So the list of people you have in your OP is just a list of random people plucked out of thin air.

Did you get all that? Ask me again if you want it rephrasing.
 
Upvote 0

Staccato

Tarut keeps on dreaming
Supporter
Sep 9, 2007
4,479
304
From Colorado, currently in the UK
✟51,802.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Posted by Staccato:

"The list of people you have, in your OP, who you say were "passed over" by Obama? It's fake."

Hu Jia was on the list, as stated in the OP. So was Ingrid Betancourt. So it isn't completely fake.
Really? Can you give me a link to the official list of nominees for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to show me?

Oh wait, no, you can't, because the nominations aren't released for 50 years.

Seriously, it's there, on the front page, in big, bold letters:
Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting qualified people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.
Are the nominations made public?
The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize.
Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize

All these names you hear, of people, of organisations, that were in the running? Rumour, opinion and hearsay.
 
Upvote 0

Gawron

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2008
3,152
473
✟5,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Those who submitted nominations are not under a gag order, as has been established. They are free to talk all they want to about it, if they so desire.

But to use your argument, where is your link to the master list to prove these two were not on it? Your claim that the OP list is fake can't be substantiated due to the very same restriction you cite against others.
 
Upvote 0

Staccato

Tarut keeps on dreaming
Supporter
Sep 9, 2007
4,479
304
From Colorado, currently in the UK
✟51,802.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Those who submitted nominations are not under a gag order, as has been established. They are free to talk all they want to about it, if they so desire.
Those who submitted nominations? Do you know how many people are eligible to do so?
Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting a qualified and select number of people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later, but the Nobel Peace Prize committee does reveal the number of nominees each year. 205 names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. The Nobel Committees in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and the Prize Committee for Economics each usually receives 250-300 names every year, but this is the highest number of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize ever. The last record was in 2005 when the Committee received 199 nominations.
Yes some of them probably talk. And yes, most of their nominations will not get past the first stage of selections to the short list. Someone could (and has!) nominate Stalin, or Hitler. Doesn't mean that their nomination wasn't discarded at the first hurdle.

But to use your argument, where is your link to the master list to prove these two were not on it?
It is possible that those two may be on it, given the volume of nominations. However it is equally likely that such a guess is unsubstantiated:
What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.
If you throw enough mud at a wall...

Doesn't change the fact that the OP's list is fake and has no corroborating evidence.
Your claim that the OP list is fake can't be substantiated due to the very same restriction you cite against others.
Evidence doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is not upon me to prove the list is fake, but rather upon the OP to prove it is genuine. For all the reasons I have listed prior, such proof is exceptionally unlikely to be forthcoming.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Yes some of them probably talk. And yes, most of their nominations will not get past the first stage of selections to the short list. Someone could (and has!) nominate Stalin, or Hitler. Doesn't mean that their nomination wasn't discarded at the first hurdle.

If I were eligible, I'd probably nominate my cat.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,556
71
✟318,590.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No. The nominees for the NPP are not released for 50 years. As it is currently not 2059 or later, the list is fake. Have the decency to admit you made a mistake please.

Have you bothered to consider that there are other means to determine that someone has been nominated. Specifically being told by the party who nominated them! As far as I can see the list given does not claim to either be complete or be a list of finalists. Just because the Nobel organization does not release information it does not mean the information is not available.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Have you bothered to consider that there are other means to determine that someone has been nominated. Specifically being told by the party who nominated them! As far as I can see the list given does not claim to either be complete or be a list of finalists. Just because the Nobel organization does not release information it does not mean the information is not available.

^^THIS^^

If y'all read the article I posted earlier, it does actually say that those making the nominations can come forward about them at any time. It was somewhat "public" news even in February that Obama was on the list. Someone leaked.
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What is wrong with apologising for American errors and admitting that the US is not perfect?

It's bad form. It's common sense that the US is not perfect. It goes without saying, and it's a negative, so why bring it up? A man's wife isn't perfect, but he doesn't go around giving speeches about how sorry he is that his wife makes mistakes and such. It's really disrespectful.
 
Upvote 0

SOAD

Why do they always send the poor? (S.O.A.D.)
Jul 20, 2006
6,317
230
✟7,778.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It's bad form. It's common sense that the US is not perfect. It goes without saying, and it's a negative, so why bring it up? A man's wife isn't perfect, but he doesn't go around giving speeches about how sorry he is that his wife makes mistakes and such. It's really disrespectful.
Cool. Since God knows I am not perfect, why should I admit, then ask to be forgiven for my sins?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
It's bad form. It's common sense that the US is not perfect. It goes without saying, and it's a negative, so why bring it up? A man's wife isn't perfect, but he doesn't go around giving speeches about how sorry he is that his wife makes mistakes and such. It's really disrespectful.
You and your wife have a personal relationship. Obama and I don't. These "apologies" have been direct, minimal (How many times has he apologized, anyway?), and for the purpose of fostering diplomacy. I don't take it personally when Obama "apologizes." It's foreign policy. The rhetoric is designed to better our interests throughout the world, and if it works, it won't matter that some Americans took offense.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,934
17,415
Finger Lakes
✟7,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's bad form. It's common sense that the US is not perfect. It goes without saying, and it's a negative, so why bring it up? A man's wife isn't perfect, but he doesn't go around giving speeches about how sorry he is that his wife makes mistakes and such. It's really disrespectful.
A man doesn't really represent his wife. A better analogy would be for a man (or woman) to apologize for his/her family after this family has behaved badly.
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Cool. Since God knows I am not perfect, why should I admit, then ask to be forgiven for my sins?
That's totally different. The rest of the world != God.

You and your wife have a personal relationship. Obama and I don't. These "apologies" have been direct, minimal (How many times has he apologized, anyway?), and for the purpose of fostering diplomacy. I don't take it personally when Obama "apologizes." It's foreign policy. The rhetoric is designed to better our interests throughout the world, and if it works, it won't matter that some Americans took offense.
Brown-nosing does not do anything except make our enemies think we are weak. If he wants to improve domestic relations he could start by not blowing off, slighting, insulting, and cold-shouldering our allies in the former Soviet Block.

A man doesn't really represent his wife. A better analogy would be for a man (or woman) to apologize for his/her family after this family has behaved badly.
OK, well, I hope you understand what I mean.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Brown-nosing does not do anything except make our enemies think we are weak. If he wants to improve domestic relations he could start by not blowing off, slighting, insulting, and cold-shouldering our allies in the former Soviet Block.
That's your opinion, and your welcome to it. As I said, if the method works, it won't matter that you held this opinion. Time will tell.

We haven't been attacked since Jan. 21st, so as Republicans used to remind us, something must be working.
 
Upvote 0