Incredible - WikiLeaks nominated for Nobel Prize
 

- Read More...

:D

Well done Julian, a man before your time!

Unlike Obama, he does not kill people :2 cents:

What happened to those leaks about some banks? Did I miss it?

if they can give it to Obama, why not?

well, Kissinger got it and he was the head behind what was known as Plan Condor, which together with School of the Americas ended with the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people by using intermediary mass murderers like Pinochet, Videla and Stroessner with full operative support and equipment provided by CIA. So if a mass murderer like Kissinger got a PEACE (???????) Nobel Prize, this guy could easily be nominated semi-God

So... you're saying what his site allows is bad?

.

indeed incredible

:2 cents:

watched him on 60 minutes last night, very intersting

Nowadays, this award means as much as the MTV movie awards. Once Arafat and Obama got one, you knew it was irrelevant. Also, lol@Assange and "Peace" in the same sentence.:1orglaugh

Cool.... this is exactly what the Nobel Peace Prize is all about. The award is given out for those "engaged in or making an effort" - not goals, achievements, or what was or will be accomplished - related to world peace, in many various forms.

His efforts greatly help people around the world see the injustices that are happening all around them, from the Gov's to Corps. If this gets those people to stop, think twice, maybe not do something because of the possible exposure - then it without question promotes a level of peace, from people to countries.


While Obama getting it, and continuing wars is funny - that's not why he got it - and the war actually makes no difference. He got it because he was engaging other Countries that were/are greatly against us, and turning not only the Country around but the people too... I know you anti-Obama haters will never accept it, but that's how bad Bush "really" did made it - so bad, Obama got an award for making it better.

he should get it for real

yay wikileaks! haha haters! :upsidedow

Exactly how did Obama make it better? That's what I love about Obama followers. They don't have actual facts to back up their bullshit so they turn to meaningless rationalization. Obama is as bad as, if not worse than Bush. But of course, since you support Wikileaks, you continue to prove that you see the world ass backwards.:1orglaugh

Guess some thought about it for some time now. Surprising for the masses.

To answer your very simple question. Global opinion of America greatly improved after Obama spoke, and like it or not, Bush is the reason it was so low.

So let's look at what the actual facts are..... The award is nominated by others based on his actions. The actions 'they stated' was based on the "fact" that global opinion of our Country improved, and it is a fact that it was down because of Bush's actions. It is a fact, that before Obama spoke around the world, the world's opinion on us was mostly hate/disgust.. and afterwards it greatly improved - like it or not, chump - he helped bring a level of peace to our Country and the globe.

So it truly makes no difference what your lame nobody ass thinks, and it makes no difference what you think, I think... like it or lump it chump, the facts stand.

I'm not surprised... :upsidedow

Wow, I guess I assumed with your lawyer schooling, supporter of the first amendment rights even towards porn, but yet don't support porn - would greatly support Wikileaks, freedom of speech, press, etc.

So what is your brilliant rational reason for pretending like it's a bad thing to support Wikileaks?

Here's a quoted reason why Obama got it "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

It's not about making peace, it's about his efforts to improve them.

LMAO, yeah, They love us, you have got to be kidding me?

They gave him that on hope, that thing he gave everyone when he ran for president, he let everyone down.

Hope And Change:2 cents:
Hope we have change in our pockets after he's done

Well... It was a YEAR AFTER he was elected that he got the prize. After he went around the world and spoke, after he started talking about the reduction in nuclear arms around the globe.

So no... it wasn't on hope and change, it wasn't on anything he said during his election. It was the action HE ACTUALLY TOOK.

Nice spin, but he was nominated in feb of 09, a month after taking office, so your reasoning "FAILS!"

Reagan did 100 times more for peace than Barry will ever think of doing.

Deadline expired - that sucks.

Arafat was a self admitted terrorist, Obamo farted and he got this thing... ridiculous, used to mean something.

Why do people say "he" when Wikileaks is "they"?

Anyway, the nominations are suggestions sent in by individuals. Nothing sensational about that, Hitler and Stalin were also "nominated" once upon a time :)

good for them ;)

The Nobel Peace Prize is a fucking joke these days.... 'nuff said

:disgust:disgust:disgust

assange for the win!!

So AFTER he was elected, AFTER he took office, AFTER he started flying around the world? That's not a spin, he was "nominated" do to his actions (not what he said) and won because of the actions HE DID TAKE!

All Presidents do some stuff for Peace... Reagan didn't change the worlds view on something, he didn't start the fall of Russia, he DID create a major arms build up (not peace).. He took the complete opposite direction of Obama...

What exact "action" did he do in that first month that warrants a Nobel peace prize?

After President Reagan's military buildup, the Soviet Union did not further dramatically build up its military; the enormous military expenses, in combination with collectivized agriculture and inefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy. At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, which resulted in a drop of oil prices in 1985 to one-third of the previous level; oil was the main source of Soviet export revenues.That's what brought down the USSR and ended the cold war.


BTW, there was no fall of Russia, it was the USSR

And you're correct, he took a complete opposite direction of Obama, Reagan did things that worked. You can find all the faults you want, Barry is no where near the "leader" that Reagan was.

Barry had help, from a VP that said
"there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

to a speaker of the house that said
Bipartisanship is nice, but it cannot be a substitute for action, not having it cannot prevent us from going forward.

Thanks for the morning humor thedoc. I'm sorry you took too many chairshots to the head. Nothing else explains your incessant stupidity. :)

I'm still trying to figure how the fuck did you get to that conclusion :Oh crap

Just for 101 reading comprehension :
Peace price to genocide = really bad
Peace price to anyone not guilty of genocide = way better than above

The above being said, I don't think WikiLeaks or Assange deserve a Nobel prize, I could mention at least 10 organizations doing more for peace, and that without researching, so I assume there might be hundreds more deserving. Now, if you want to consider nobel prize to the "best politics and mass media mix", then yes, go for it

It is safe to presume that you have not traveled to any foreign countries since Obama was elected.

I was blown away on our last trip to Europe at how many people wanted to discuss politics with me, solely because I am an American.

I did not meet one person that spoke in favor of Obama. Reagan and Bush were both put up at the god level for most of these people. I was pretty surprised how many were pro-Bush, but was amazed at how many different people came up to me and expressed how much they liked Reagan.

i am always surprised how you manage to meet totally different people than the people i know :winkwink:

and i have yet to meet one person who liked Bush - and most are too young to have an opinion about Reagan