Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
Al Gore and a U.N. panel share the 2007 Nobel for their work to fight climate change.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_peace
Looks pretty main stream to me.
Peace
Jim
.
2007-10-12 00:48:05 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
lestermo...
This is not about politics, this is about our species survival. I have a feeling you're one of those anti global warming people. My advice to you, stop listening to the radio and talking heads. They are not scientist, they only have a political agenda to dumb you down.
.Peace
.
2007-10-12 00:55:02 · update #1
two prize winners
1994: Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat; Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Israel.
• 1993: Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk, South Africa.
2007-10-12 00:58:04 · update #2
According to related news stories, there is a big push to have him run in 2008.
He has less baggage the Hilary and he's one I'd vote for in a heartbeat. Hilary, reluctantly.
Peace
.
2007-10-12 01:05:53 · update #3
Gore, alongside with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (some ignorant conservative hacks fail to recognize that it's a JOINT prize), deserved to win it for efforts at spreading awareness of climate change/global warming. I doubt that this would push Gore into running again for the presidency but I would not be surprised if he is tapped for a Cabinet position (or even another stint at VP) should one of the current Democratic candidates get into the White House.
Funny how such idiotic partisan hacks whine about the Nobel Committee being a "political" entity. However, if Rush Limbaugh had managed to win the Nobel Prize, these rabid right-wingers would be singing a different tune.
2007-10-12 02:01:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore deserves more than these prizes, his first priority would be peace to the world if the votes were counted correctly. Instead, we got Bush The Retard manipulated by a war hungry Senate. This Iraqi war is no different from the Vietnam war and most probably will end in the same way. Don't they teach History in the States anymore ?
2007-10-13 23:57:00 · answer #2 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gore took his message to the world when he was prevented from doing so by the US Supreme Court, in a stolen election. (I recently heard that one justice nearly resigned after that decision, but if she had, she'd only have been giving Bush an early appointee to the court.) The world has thanked him for his efforts when the US will not. Such is politics.
Americans probably want their President to get his Nobel Prize after he leaves the Presidency, not before he gets it, and Gore, unfortunately, is not positioned well to run now that he has the Prize.
This all makes me sad, really, because the environment has suffered so much under Bush. And Gore could do so much with the power of the Presidency to protect our Country from rabid development and exploitation. So very sad.
I am just like you in that I'd vote for Gore in a heartbeat; Hillary (another family dynasty ready to wreck with pay backs, a self-proclaimed pugilist and apparent war hawk), only reluctantly, even though I respect her intellect, energy and confidence.
===
Sunday's NYT has an excellent Thomas Friedman oped on Gore. Here's a snippet and link below:
Mr. Gore lost the presidency, but in the dignity and grace with which he gave up his legal fight, he united America. Then, faced with what to do with the rest of his life, he took up a personal crusade to combat climate change, even though the odds were stacked against him, his soapbox was small, his audiences were measured in hundreds, and his critics were legion. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore stuck with it and over time has played a central role in building a global consensus for action on this issue.
“No matter what happens, sooner or later character in leadership is revealed,” said David Rothkopf, author of the upcoming “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making.” “Gore lost the election and had to figure out what to do with the rest of his life. He took the initiative to get the country and the world to focus on a common threat — climate change. Bush won the election and for the first year really didn’t know what to do with it. When, on 9/11, we and the world were suddenly faced with a common threat — terrorism and Al Qaeda — the whole world was ready to line up behind him, but time and again he just divided us at home and abroad.”
2007-10-12 17:14:34 · answer #3 · answered by Wave 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow, that's basically extraordinary. It falls in line with the two adult males's political techniques although. Al Gore is a rich liberal. this implies he might like easily everyone to make sacrifices, yet he might decide to be on suitable and luxuriate in his life-style. George W. Bush is a rich conservative. this implies he's likely useful. His abode has been designed so as that not in basic terms is it potential powerful, in spite of the shown fact that it probable expenditures little to run and shelter. when you consider that he's useful, he hasn't recommended issues like the Kyoto treaty, when you consider that they don't make financial sense (i.e. you get small income, or none in any respect, for a extensive value). you additionally must point out out what style of destructive impact Gore's particular stay overall performance sequence had on the ambience. he's unquestionably a wolf in sheep's outfits and for the Nobel committee to not see that asserts lots. i assume they definitely do not hire the terrific and the brightest.
2016-10-22 03:19:16 · answer #4 · answered by carvajal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He raised awareness of a REAL PROBLEM FOR THE WORLD. Many neo-cons are haters by nature,and live to discredit anything that doesn't neatly fit into their world view.
Here's a man who WON THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT and was robbed in florida of ten times the number of votes he needed to win the electoral college, too.
People wont to focus on any hypocrasies ( he lives in an energy draining mansion, etc). Well, the rich tend to do that, it doesn't detract from the message of getting away from our oil addiction.
My opinion of him winning?
He took an injustice of our political system (think watergate, kennedie's assasinations' or dictators we put in place, etc) of being robbed of the presidency and instead of rolling around in self pity went out and brought a serious problem to a greater attention and now won the nobel peace prize.
Congrats and way to fight the good fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-10-12 01:27:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
This prize was given by the Swedish. They thought about it and about the problem in question. That is their wisdom. Ask them about that. While consume is going to increase tremendously we all [the Chinese, too] have to think about Nature preservation or satellite new worlds on the Moon or a few nearby planets. And it has to happen quite quickly.
Are the extraterrestrial civilizations coming? [to help us?]
2007-10-12 02:45:51 · answer #6 · answered by Cristian P 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's great! Leave it to the trolls to slam someone who is trying to bring about awareness in the world. And thank God the Nobel committee can appreciate his efforts. What an awesome achievement!!! Congrats Al!!!
2007-10-12 02:07:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
It's wonderful. No one deserves it more. Now, if he only decides to run for the presidency again, maybe he'll win both votes this time.
2007-10-12 01:03:41 · answer #8 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It's a great honor to have an ex-VP win this prize today. I dare say, he's better in his post-political life than he ever was as a Vice President.
2007-10-12 00:52:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
It'll be his first victory since he won the Oscars and the 2000 Election.
2007-10-12 00:51:53 · answer #10 · answered by ck4829 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋