Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Oct 12, 2007.
Screwball A$s Holes always walk away with that thing, next year they'll give it to Cindy Sheehan.
This is not any surprise to me.
Bout time someone recognized algore for inventing the internets.
Great, deserving acknowledgement of a true visionary. If we're lucky, he'll enter the presidential race and hopefully restore intelligent leadership to the White House.
-- And that's a bunch of crap. Gore never claimed he invented the Internet. What he did take credit for was pushing to have use of and access to the Internet applied at the level of federal government.
Gore certainly deserves this prize. He is leading the fight against a consortium of business interests, who have the money and tools to manipulate the facts and create the illusion that there are some legitimate questions about the human contribution to global warming. Even extremists like Bush and Pat Robertson are starting to change their tunes.
This award has been irrelevant for a long time. As has algore.
Please explain why you believe this.
He believes it because someone he doesn't like won the award. He probably had more respect when Lech Walesa won. The Nobel Prize is certainly the most respected international prize around. It may not always be perfect, but can anyone think of one that commands broader respect?
Rush Limbaugh peace prize nomenee:bricks:
Don't fukc with...
It's A Prize For Egghead Nuts And Social Left Wing Goops
Well, first, not answering the question, Gore winning it is a joke because his "efforts" have, at best, at indirect effect on peace.
To answer the question, it's become a political tool (see "Gore, Al") as opposed to a statement about peace. Yasser Arafat. Kofi Anna. Jimmuh Carter. Pitiful.
Oh yeah, wasn't this based at least in part on that video thing he did that a British court inconveniently just gutted a couple days ago because of certain factual "inaccuracies" ?
He can't be happy about the timing of that.
Your views represent a relatively small part of the US community, but don't represent those of the world in general. The Nobel Prize is an international award, and doesn't really reflect the views of extremists on either side.
Yup Lombardi! :rocker:
(a mod on a football board has to ask this?!)
So why does algore win it ? Other than "extremists" who think that global warming will result in WW III due to the ravages that will be thrust upon the world from global warming, what does this have to do with "peace". It's a joke.
Don't you think you're being a little parochial? In many parts of the world, water rights and agriculture are key issues in war and peace. While those issues are less important to the more developed parts of the world, in places like Africa and the Middle East, those issues are critical to peace. Hell, even in Australia, the very conservative John Howard has changed his tune on the issue because of the social and economic problems that global warming is causing. Again, BF, it's an international award. Not everything revolves around the issues facing the United States.
Even if you assume that GW is mostly man made it's still a big jump to the freaks who think it will totally change the world as we know it. Not to mention that algore and his carbon offset whackos are a fraud. You know what algore pays some company for carbon offsets ? Less than $10 per ton of CO2 generated. Does that pass the sniff test to you ?
Finding a compromise that works for everybody is almost impossible. Obviously, Kyoto and carbon offsets are not great solutions, but they are better than nothing. Consider that we can rarely get even the Dems and Repubs to work out an agreement on many issues. Finding something that works for everyone is next to impossible. The best thing about Kyoto is that it does make countries focus more on reducing global warming. The best thing about carbon offsets is that they help increase awareness. Besides, what's wrong with a carbon offset that results in the planting of a tree or two?
That said, I share your concern about the wealthy abusing the environment because they have the means to live a more polluting lifestyle. Perhaps we a more progressive income tax and stronger death tax would help prevent that?
Separate names with a comma.