KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 (from Wikipedia) Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Gore did none of that. Lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannible Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Was he nominated? Wasn't Bush nominated a few years ago? Now THAT was funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 Was he nominated? Wasn't Bush nominated a few years ago? Now THAT was funny. Dude, read the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 from nobelprize.org "Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states." So there's your answer. Anything else you want to parrot from RushLimbaugh.com? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 from nobelprize.org "Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states." So there's your answer. Anything else you want to parrot from RushLimbaugh.com? Nonsense. May be, may be, whatever. And piss off, jizz-gargler, I don't listen to Rush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Copy of Earth in the Balance - $29.50 Ticket to An Inconvenient Truth - $8.50 Listening to neocons whine like bitches about Nobel Peace Prize - PRICELESS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 i guess they did not have a nobel environement prize and they refuse to give it to a man of peace.on principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 from nobelprize.org "Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The Right are just bitter because they don't have anyone who's deserving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Kevbone's mom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 what's with the specious claim tying climate change to war? please. global social responsibility is great, but c'mon. let's talk about someone who actually got the prize for relevant work in the field, like the German chemist for his work on chemical processes on solid surfaces! woohoo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Whatever criteria they use to determine winners has clearly become vague and nebulous enough to render the prize meaningless. Microlending, Green-Belts, and now Al Gore's ruminations on Global Warming. Seems to me that a massive allocation of resources away from programs that could actually do quite a bit more to alleviate human suffering - from economic development, to clean drinking water, to reforestation, to malaria preventon, etc, etc, etc - and into measures which stand to have little or no effect on the ultimate outcome, while diminishing the pool of economic resources available to fund the aforementioned programs could just as easily lead to an amount of conflict and suffering that's just as great as any that might be caused by the warming itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 from nobelprize.org "Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness... I GUESS THAT PROVES THAT JUDGES ARE CHEAP IN ENGLAND TOO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I GUESS THAT PROVES THAT JUDGES ARE CHEAP IN ENGLAND TOO. and what are you, "the decider?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The Right are just bitter because they don't have anyone who's deserving. Reagan was a hell of a lot more deserving than Gore, and the absence of his name from the roster tells you more about the ideological precommitments of the folks in Stockholm than it does about the actual merits of the nominees. Of the people still around, Tony Blair's has accomplished far more in the arena of actually brokering peace than Gore ever has or will. Ditto for Clinton's work in the Balkans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Reagan was already recognized for a lesser-known award: the Nobel Condiment Prize, for his groundbreaking work elevating ketchup to vegetable status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I AM AN OBSERVER, the usual media TECHNIQUE of... " 'A JUDGE IN BLA BLA BLA' as ruled that", flanked by the good old " the government expert' does not equate truth. it is generally used to refute truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrogdortheBurninator Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) what's with the specious claim tying climate change to war? please. global social responsibility is great, but c'mon. you obviously never saw water world Edited October 12, 2007 by TrogdortheBurninator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I know Reagan has practically been sainted for his foreign policy work, but I contend he was largely in the right place at the right time. history is being kind to him. Hell, history's being kind to NIXON anymore..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The Right are just bitter because they don't have anyone who's deserving. Reagan was a hell of a lot more deserving than Gore, and the absence of his name from the roster tells you more about the ideological precommitments of the folks in Stockholm than it does about the actual merits of the nominees. Of the people still around, Tony Blair's has accomplished far more in the arena of actually brokering peace than Gore ever has or will. Ditto for Clinton's work in the Balkans. nobody should get a prize for brokering war . blair american atrocities in the balkans are also undeserving. under clinton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I know Reagan has practically been sainted for his foreign policy work, but I contend he was largely in the right place at the right time. history is being kind to him. Hell, history's being kind to NIXON anymore..... regan was /is an actor. gorbachev ended the cold war. and he did because of his buddhist spiritual beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 you obviously never saw water world shoot, I thought that was something to be proud of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I AM AN OBSERVER, the usual media TECHNIQUE of... " 'A JUDGE IN BLA BLA BLA' as ruled that", flanked by the good old " the government expert' does not equate truth. it is generally used to refute truth. gore citing 'scientists' = noble (err..nobel) judges citing 'scientists' = paid off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gertlush Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 (edited) He won the Nobel prize for a making a movie? Shit, Waterworld was better anyway, where's Costners? latest prize Edited October 12, 2007 by gertlush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 And piss off, jizz-gargler No, No, NO. "Cum gums," not jizz-gargler. Fewer syllables = better rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.