to the Presidency He Won in 2000?
It would solve the Hillary issue....
What a dumb question. It's nonsense.
The Nobel Peace Prized stopped having any meaning after Arafat won it.
Hell Hitler was once nominated for the damn thing.
Anymore it is just a way for the Nobel Committee to make a political statement.
Now the other Nobel Awards still mean something....but the Peace Prize is about as worthless as a Daytime Emmy at this point.
Hitler was robbed! He was nominated in 1939 but they didn't give out any awards that year.
I'll ignore the non-issue raised and instead discuss the Noble Peace prize.
I have looked at it with great doubt since it was awarded to a man who still believes "Israel and the Jews of the Palestine should not exist" and actively attempted to remove them. In this instance, a group was awarded for research into Global Warming (its capitalized now) which might someday cause war if it turns out to be true.
Why not award the peace prize to the man who developed large scale distillation because it might have stopped wars in the middle east? Or to the many men who improved food stocks? Those have definitely stopped wars. The number of causes that might have possibly stopped wars in the future are simply retarded.
As was this award.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Hitler was robbed! He was nominated in 1939 but they didn't give out any awards that year.
If only the State of Florida could have voted for the Nobel prize that year...Hitler would have been a shoe-in!
You're free to have an opinion on the Nobel Peace Prize winners all you want.
But to degrade the award as meaningless is to ignore its history. I most certainly think that other Nobel Peace Prize winners such as Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Desmond Tutu, UNICEF, Amnesty International, Gen. George Marshall, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and last year's winner, The Grameen Bank, were exemplary choices and have proven to be so many times over.
I am with ya, rwarn.
I am a peacenik.
I won't even play tug of war. If it was tug of peace, I would be a champion.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I am with ya, rwarn.
I am a peacenik.
I won't even play tug of war. If it was tug of peace, I would be a champion.
Sounds like it was a tug job this year, for sure.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
to the Presidency He Won in 2000?
It would solve the Hillary issue....
No Axoaxao he should not....
If Hillary gets the nomination I'm hoping for a Gore/Nader Independent ticket.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
If Hillary gets the nomination I'm hoping for a Gore/Nader Independent ticket.
Yet another woman in power that you can't stand. is there a pattern?
With the serious environmental issues and imported product safety crises we are facing as a nation, I think a Nobel prize winning environmentalist and a consumer advocate might be just what the doctor ordered.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
You're free to have an opinion on the Nobel Peace Prize winners all you want.
But to degrade the award as meaningless is to ignore its history. I most certainly think that other Nobel Peace Prize winners such as Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Desmond Tutu, UNICEF, Amnesty International, Gen. George Marshall, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and last year's winner, The Grameen Bank, were exemplary choices and have proven to be so many times over.
And that's why its so offensive! Do you really think Al Gore belongs on the list with those people? The entire pretense for his winning is based on future maybe this maybe that then maybe so this maybe stopped violence and therefor caused maybe future peace!
<cannon fodder wrote:
Do you really think Al Gore belongs on the list with those people?
<end clip>
Yes.
Granted, he's not in the same league as an obvious titan like Mother Teresa (although your opinion my vary). But the Nobel committee says the Peace Prize can be given to people who spearhead humanitarian causes. And Gore's cause is definitely humanitarian.
He's advocating a stance that would cause less air pollution and help wean us off oil dependency to Middle East countries, a number of which use that money to cowtow to terrorism groups.
I don't see a down side to that.
The those were the reasons (though not the only ones) that our family drives fuel-efficient cars, uses compact fluorescent light bulbs, buys Energy Star appliances and has solar panels on the roof of our house. Our electric bill is now only $15 up to a maximum of $40 a month. And we're aiming to drop it some more.
Well then, you are doing far better than Al Gore is in your attempt to save the environment. I wont bother listing his private jet excursions, his SUVs, or his mansion. Perhaps you deserve the Nobel prize?
Listen. You may like his cause more than I do. That's not the issue. My take is this is a purely political "win" for the very popular cause of Global Warming. Many more fields have done more to advance peaceful life for billions of people in the here and now.
- Genetic work with rice that enables many S.E. and African countries to be self sufficient in food.
- AIDS work in both vaccines, treatment, and prevention.
- Malaria medication
- Water purification system that can be human powered at a reasonable cost
- Heating equipment made in African villages that is both affordable and burns renewable fuels (instead of lung choking coal in the homes)
- Scientist in charge of the new Tsunami warning center
The list goes on and on. Things that actually matter today. Not things that might hypothetically solve a possible problem that may have resulted in problems sometime in the future.
Martin Luther King received the same treatment as Al Gore by some after he won.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/10/15/national-review-attacked-marti/
I don't deny that those people you mentioned perhaps ought to get a Nobel. Perhaps you should nominate them. (And I'm not being flippant.)
As for Gore's alleged hypocrisy, if we waited to be perfect, then nothing would get done. He uses CFLs, carbon offsets and recently had solar panels installed on his house after fighting with his neighborhood association for years over that issue.
Heck, I got a 1966 GMC pickup that I use twice a month to haul big stuff in. Because I drive a 10 mpg vehicle, does that make me a hypocrite?
Overall, Gore's value is raising the awareness of this issue more than anyone else.
I'm not directly comparing him to MLK. But it's well-known that King had problems with his marriage. Should that have invalidated his moral and right stance during the civil rights movement? Of course not.
Just because there are failings (imaginary or not) doesn't mean we ignore the greater issue that's being raised.
And, no, I don't deserve the Nobel Prize. You're smarter than that; don't bring up such nonsense. I'm just a person who has the wherewithal to do the things that I should be doing in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Martin Luther King received the same treatment as Al Gore by some after he won.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/10/15/national-review-attacked-marti/
Are you seriously comparing Dr. King to AlGoRe?
Again... King was addressing a real concern of real people that really was happening and had been happening. Gore is potentially solving a problem that might exist and therefor might cause problems in the future. Someone, for the love of god, acknowledge that you at least see the difference there?
It's OK if you *believe* it might exist.
You can choose to believe the world is flat, too. There's plenty of evidence that suggests it's not, however.
Regardless, I'm looking at a bigger picture of reducing air pollution and reducing consumption of oil from the volatile Middle East. Are these things not desirable?
Again, I don't see a down side here.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It's OK if you *believe* it might exist.
You can choose to believe the world is flat, too. There's plenty of evidence that suggests it's not, however.
I think CF's position is a reasonable appraisal of the situation vis-a-vis global warming as evidenced (//%22http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html%3Cbr%20/%3E%22) by one of the world's foremost meteroligists yesterday. Comparing this to flat earth deniers is just a red herring.
quote:
Regardless, I'm looking at a bigger picture of reducing air pollution and reducing consumption of oil from the volatile Middle East. Are these things not desirable?
Again, I don't see a down side here.
How about expending massive amounts of capital trying to remedy issues and events that we may have no control over or any ability to change whatsoever? That seems like a significant downside.
If Algore was not in a position to gain financially from green technologies, carbon credits and the like, and didn't seem disingenuous in his personal actions I might not disagree about this award. I see very little altruism in his actions.
I see a person who likes standing at the forefront taking credit for an entire movement and someone who has positioned his investments to ensure that he will profit from it. Good for the ego, good for the bank account.
Impossible to draw any similarity between Gore and MLK or Mother Theresa.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If Algore was not in a position to gain financially from green technologies, carbon credits and the like, and didn't seem disingenuous in his personal actions I might not disagree about this award. I see very little altruism in his actions.
I see a person who likes standing at the forefront taking credit for an entire movement and someone who has positioned his investments to ensure that he will profit from it. Good for the ego, good for the bank account.
Impossible to draw any similarity between Gore and MLK or Mother Theresa.
Manbearpig?
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/Derurasu/manbearpig.png)
Live in fear.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/Derurasu/manbearpig.png)
Live in fear.
Heh. Trey Parker and Matt Stone come up with some seriously funny stuff...
Let's put it this way, iplaw:
I'll trust the track record of the Nobel Peace Prize over yours any day.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/Derurasu/manbearpig.png)
Live in fear.
Are you serial?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Let's put it this way, iplaw:
I'll trust the track record of the Nobel Peace Prize over yours any day.
What does this response have to do with my comment?
In response to your statement, the Nobel Prize has become increasingly irrelevant over the last couple of decades. Giving "peace" awards to terrorists is almost as rediculous as giving China a place within the UN council on human rights.
Although both actions make just as much sense as giving an award to a politician with no scientific education for making a movie regarding complex geophysical phenomena like climate change, then ignoring a worldclass meterologist and other scientists when they question the hack politician.
I don't really care that he won the award, but comparing (as some have) Gore to Dr. King is absurd.
As I've said, I'll take the track record of the Nobel Peace Prize committee over someone who is "a half-trillion dollars is worth this quagmire in Iraq" Baghdad Bob like iplaw.
When you actually have some credibility and common sense, then I might consider your beefs.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
As I've said, I'll take the track record of the Nobel Peace Prize committee over someone who is "a half-trillion dollars is worth this quagmire in Iraq" Baghdad Bob like iplaw.
When you actually have some credibility and common sense, then I might consider your beefs.
Again, what does that statement have to do with anything other than giving you an opportunity to throw out a few pathetic ad hominems? As usual, zero substance.
You do realize that stellar "track record" includes nominating Adolph Hitler for a Nobel....
He was NOMINATED. Anyone can be NOMINATED. The key was that he didn't win.
It still doesn't change the fact that you have no credibility.
Don't you have some briefs to file?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
He was NOMINATED. Anyone can be NOMINATED. The key was that he didn't win.
It still doesn't change the fact that you have no credibility.
Don't you have some briefs to file?
Yeah. He was nominated by a "committee member." A committee you praise the track record of... a committee that actually gave a wanton terrorist responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of Israelis a "peace prize."
Got anything else or are you just happy with the opportunity to get in a few ad hominems?
<iplaw wrote:
Yeah. He was nominated by a "committee member." A committee you praise the track record of... a committee that actually gave a wanton terrorist responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of Israelis a "peace prize."
<end clip>
Which is why the Nobel is a committee -- so that one person who makes a mistake doesn't screw everything up. Therefore, Hitler doesn't win.
When Arafat won, it was a shared prize with Israel's prime minister and Israel's foreign minister because they'd just hammered out a historic peace settlement. It was thought at the time that Arafat had a change of heart, like Anwar Sadat did years earlier.
It's always easy to be critical of the prize in retrospect, but the peace deal was widely praised at the time.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee is not clairvoyant. It cannot predict the future or Arafat's later intentions.
The Israelis later killed untold numbers of Palestinians, too. It's not like Israel has clean hands in this.
In the big picture, the Nobel Peace Prize has made indisputably many, many terrific selections. It has one bad nominee and three that appeared good at the time but turned sour.
Again, its track record is much better than yours.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<iplaw wrote:
Yeah. He was nominated by a "committee member." A committee you praise the track record of... a committee that actually gave a wanton terrorist responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of Israelis a "peace prize."
<end clip>
Which is why the Nobel is a committee -- so that one person who makes a mistake doesn't screw everything up. Therefore, Hitler doesn't win.
When Arafat won, it was a shared prize with Israel's prime minister and Israel's foreign minister because they'd just hammered out a historic peace settlement. It was thought at the time that Arafat had a change of heart, like Anwar Sadat did years earlier.
It's always easy to be critical of the prize in retrospect, but the peace deal was widely praised at the time.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee is not clairvoyant. It cannot predict the future or Arafat's later intentions.
The Israelis later killed untold numbers of Palestinians, too. It's not like Israel has clean hands in this.
In the big picture, the Nobel Peace Prize has made indisputably many, many terrific selections. It has one bad nominee and three that appeared good at the time but turned sour.
Yes, but more than enough proof that they CAN and DO err which was the ENITRE point in the first place. Gore's award may well be one of those that we look back upon and laugh at.
quote:
Again, its track record is much better than yours.
At what? Nominating people for rediculous awards? I agree.
Or is this just a pathetic attempt at a cheap shot? I don't think you want me rehashing your previous posts to highlight issues with your credibility...or you could just knock off the ad hominems. The choice is yours.
Just as a point... Hitler was nominated and then retracted when, unfortunately, the war he started in Europe precluded the Swedish Academy (The Norwegian Parliament appoints the committee for the Peace Prize, but the Swedish Academy Awards it) from assembling to grant any awards in 1938. Ironic no?
Also nominated: Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini.
And lets not forget Yassar "kill the Jews" Arafat.
- Theodore "The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages" Roosevelt
- Charles Gates Dawes: responsible for "allied reparations committee" after WWI. Which in large part led to WWII. GJ!
- Shimon Peres: "When you win a war, your people are united and applaud you. When you make peace, your people are doubtful and resentful."
- Yitzhak Rabin: Assassinated how many people again? (There has been 5 awards for peace in the middle east. Glad we got that fixed!)
- Lê Ð#7913;c Th#7885; and Henry Kissinger: Supposedly for "ending" the Vietnam war. Though both had a large part in participation in it. Does Bush get an award when we eventually leave Iraq? (Tho turned it down btw).
- Al Gore got one, Ghandi did not.
Look, it's the only "spot on" award given by the committee. It is not for past acts, its for whatever is the most popular act during that moment to whomever is the highest profile. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes - not so much. Yay for Al for winning one, but IMHO it is more for sport than achievement when compared to the other Noble Awards (guy who invented modern memory for today's electronics got one... Al got one for raising awareness of a potential problem everyone knows about).
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
He was NOMINATED. Anyone can be NOMINATED. The key was that he didn't win.
It still doesn't change the fact that you have no credibility.
Don't you have some briefs to file?
Weak very weak....
What does climate change have to do with peace?
quote:
Originally posted by HazMatCFO
What does climate change have to do with peace?
They are fighting in Georgia and elsewhere over water.....just wait until countries are at war over water, clean air, space, and food along with oil.
**Sniff Sniff**
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by HazMatCFO
What does climate change have to do with peace?
They are fighting in Georgia and elsewhere over water.....just wait until countries are at war over water, clean air, space, and food along with oil.
EVERYONE PANIC!!!!!!
No need to panic....but be fearful. No need to panic just yet. Wait for 4 years of Mista 911....then things will be so screwed up that every American will live in total fear. That's Mista 911's will. Hillary? Same deal. I still wonder if America will vote for a bald man over a bad institutional democrat. Be afraid. Tis the season you know.....BOO!
**Sniff Sniff** Obama is that you or are you wearing ax body spray....
Q Dana, back to the meeting with Al Gore. I wonder just about the President's reasoning for inviting the former Vice President. Does he want to hear from the former Vice President about global warming, or does he view this as an opportunity maybe to make amends, or to reconcile the past? What is his thinking about what --
MS. PERINO: I didn't ask the President his psycho -- I didn't psychoanalyze the President to find out why he decided to invite Al Gore to the White House. There is an annual event in which the President invites the Nobel Prize winners -- American Nobel Prize winners to the White House. Al Gore happens to be one of those recipients this year. And I believe it was a presidential, gentlemanly and a friendly thing to do to invite Al Gore to the White House. They have a private meeting, and I'm not going to intrude on that. Obviously, President Gore -- Vice President Gore will bring up anything that he wants to bring up. But just remember --
Yes, the official Bush spokesperson finally let the truth slip out: President Gore.
I only wish President Al had called the D.C. police while he was in the Oval Office and had Bush evicted as a squatter.