SNL: Obama not Bush, wake-up call

The world has voted on the republicans foreign policy:

"This prize... is given annually to individuals who have made contributions to world peace,'' Armisen-Obama said. "Well, I won it for not being George Bush...

The republican response? We don't need no stinkin world. Louder please.........our alies are listening.

I havent done anything. I am not George Bush. I would like world peace. Where is my Nobel Prize?
Seems I have the exact qualifications as Obama...

Where I was raised, you had to earn an award...

Which is what the foreign press is saying. Typical is the Times of London, which observes, in an article titled “Prize Fools”: “The Norwegian Nobel Committee is in danger of putting the entire comedy industry out of business.” Elsewhere, in a commentary titled “Pointless Nobel prize reveals how President Obama is lost in his own mystique,” the Times advises: “Scrap the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s an embarrassment and even an impediment to peace.”

For more on the chuckling throughout the world, see www.pajamasmedia.com.

About time for Obama to quit Bushing and put the load on his own shoulders, possible he isn't strong enough, any way will be interesting.

I am dead serious as I ask this of my fellow posters-what did he did to deserve this? I am being totally serious-what did he do? Please someone give me some actual deeds that warranted this.

The only funny bit SNL did with Obama in it was about 1 year ago--if you recall, the costume party.

Where the tall guy wearing the Obama mask pulled it off and....

it was Obama.

SNL can't satirize Obama because one can't satirize someone who is his love-object.

As Sigmund might say.

wow, those SNL comedians are relentless on Obama.

It must be racism. :)

This just in. The University of Chicago wins again! Frank Devorski, a 48 year old Regenstein Library maintenance technician, has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. In 2008, Devorski mixed bleach and water to create an effective sanitizing solution for library bathroom toilet seats and urinals.

What about congratulating me? I must have finished second in the voting; as I have qualifications for the prize that are equal to President Obama's.

C'mon MIke T. You don't remember the Beer Summit?

Part of the reason republicans hate SNL is that they don't understand satire. To them SNL is another news outlet which is why the show drives them crazy.

oh man it's pretty funny watching all you obama haters getting all riled up.

liberals agree it's unwarranted and obama himself said “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but a recognition of the role of American leadership”

so rather than just repeat what all the world including obama is saying, maybe you should recognize that it's an affirmation of just how horrible the last 8 years under GWB were. he set us back so far, that the international committee is willing to throw accolades at us just for simply moving away from arrogance and towards diplomacy.

although i am an obama supporter, i must admit that his diplomacy has been less than stellar. but it's still better than the mistakes of GWB.

The Times' article is by Bronwen Maddox, not the Times' editorial board. And she's a nut who doesn't know Sweden from Norway. Here's a pertinent comment:

"Ola Hellberg wrote:
This Bronwen Maddox-article is just plain stupid. She twists the question around 180 degrees and somehow it becomes Obama's fault that he is awarded the Peace Prize. He must be sinister indeed... And the rhetorical nonsense where Obama is linked in guilt-by-association with evil Swedish commies is just plain funny. It's as if I had blamed the Canadians for the state the world is in, because they elected George w. Bush... Take a geography lesson please; there is a difference between Norway and Sweden and neither of them are Communist!"

Ornery is the wrong name. Try "Idiot Wingnut".. SNL slams Obama just about every show. But as i have said many times before, don't try and confuse wingnuts with facts.

Did Silva watch and comprehend the skit? I'll explain for him then. The decision to accept payment in one lump sum or as an annuity was for winning the lottery Powerball, not the Nobel. That was the satire, Obama wins things that are not based on merit but rather luck- and not being George Bush.

What did he do to get this award? Promote world peace? how unique! Get real Nobel you're losing your credibility. Hope you'll do more research next time.

mike t,

mostly, he has cooled the temperature of the world's opinion of the USA, which unfortunately I agree we needed that to happen.

If any person has done more to advance some measure of calm, reason and peace in this troubled world lately, it's President Obama. He has already done more to heal the open wound between the West and Islam than anyone else on the planet. The issue is not Barack Obama. It’s what the president represents internationally: a symbol of an America that is willing, once again, to drive the international system forward, together, toward the humane positive-sum goals of peace and disarmament. The fact that Obama hasn’t gotten the planet there misses the point entirely. It’s that he’s beginning, slowly, to take the world again down the path.

Hope this answers your question, mike t.

SNL Obama skits much more funnier when they punctuate reality not Obamatopia.

My thoughts on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQyr8yIIJ-A

it's impossible to reason with people who just don't get it .. so why bother .. even if you explained it detail by detail why Obama should receive the prize and what it symbolizes they would be too dumb to comprehend .. it's best to ignore such ignorance .. i mean you wouldn't pay attention to the crazy guy on the street when he starts rambling about this or that .. if anything it just illustrates their ignorance and we (the enlightened massess) should pity their ignorance .. the times they are a changin!

SNL is good but what I find funny with Obama lovers is, how they think CNN doing a fact check for skit on SNL is right.

And Joe the Bummer tell that to our troops because of the way Obama is doing things. The war in Iraq has been won because Bush did not let the democrats have their way. We can do it in Afghanistan but, Obama and the democrats will not have it.

2010 is coming at the democrats fact.

The war in Iraq has been won because Bush did not let the democrats have their way.....

Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 12, 2009 12:25 AM

Oh really? The war is won? When did that exactly happen? Seems to me we're still there and it was Obama who reduced the troops not Bush. Come on bring it on. Give me all the details on how we 'Won' the war in Iraq.

CNN doing a fact check for skit on SNL is right.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 12, 2009 12:25 AM

Did Faux News fact check that Obama is a racist?

Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 12, 2009 12:25 AM

Bush lost the war on terror and Iraq. Because there was no justification to go into Iraq in the first place. No WMD's, No direct attack on the US, not even any credible threat.

Bin Laden played Bush for the fool that he is. He attacked the US when Bush was in office because he knew that is when we were most vulnerable. He also knew, with such a small minded, cowardly person like Bush in office, he could bully Bush into launching unwarranted campaigns like Iraq.

Nothing gave aid and comfort to AlQaeda and the Taliban like the invasion of Iraq. Bin Laden could not have made a better recruiting tool.

Not to mention opening up Iraq's borders, which AlQaeda was previously kept out of because their tribes were enemies of Sadaam.

Mistake, after mistake, after mistake from Bush strengthened AlQaeda.

As much as I didn't like the Bush administration, I would have had no problem if he had just sent everything into Afghan/Pakistan. Where AlQaeda really was. We could have finished them off in no time.

But he diverted so much man power and money into the unjust Iraq war, AlQaeda was actually able to expand their safe havens under Bush.

You republicans really need a reality check. Bush was a disaster.

Scot S. Blakeley try pulling a CNN and do a little fact checking. Even the MSM can not re-write history on the time line. And lets see, how long did we (the USA0 keep troops in Japan and Germany after WW2. Oh that right they are still there. You liberals are a funny lot.

syj I would never say Bush did every thing right like a lot of left wing nut-sack are doing now for Obama. But can you tell me why for Clinton to said there were WMD but, not Bush? And how it was OK for Clinton to fire all the AGs but, once more it was not right if Bush fired 98 of them? Oh I know Clinton is on the left.

Seeing you in 2010. Do you think Pelosi quit once she is no longer the leader?

"I havent done anything. I am not George Bush. I would like world peace. Where is my Nobel Prize?
Seems I have the exact qualifications as Obama..."

Posted by: city guy

You don't have the exact qualifications. You didn't win the election. And, you are not chosen by the majority of the American People. If you ran for President, you'll run just behind Home Simpson. Collecting exactly one kudo point.

Secondly, they have already awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. So, why the big fuss? hahaha. . .

Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 12, 2009 6:17 PM

I didn't say anything about the "information" re: WMD's. But it is true that there weren't any "after the fact". But could it be that Clinton didn't invade Iraq because 1) He wasn't 100% sure about the information. Or 2) Even if the info was correct, simply having WMD's would not warrant an invasion.

And before you make any referrences to areas Clinton DID invade. I didn't like his actions in Somalia or Bosnia. They weren't our business, either. So there, I do not ALWAYS agree with "liberals" as you imply.