After their tenure in office Nixon wrote books, Ford played golf, Reagan, well, he was sick soon after he left office, Bush, the other won, hunkered down in Maine. Carter has spent the balance of his career helping hundreds of causes, Clinton established a vital world reknown Aids organization and encouraged America's youth to become involved, Gore, an activist for conservation. Um, why do you think there is such a vast difference in how ACTIVE on behalf of causes Democrats are when compared to Republicans?
2007-10-12 02:02:26 · 16 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course not.
Democrats go into politics as public service, and continue after they leave office.
Republicans go into politics to serve themselves.
note: Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive, not a typical Republican. All Republican recipients except Kissinger were connected to this administration.
Kissinger is in a unique position for having to watch what country he travels to for fear of being arrested for war crimes - evidenced by declassified documents from Nixon & Ford administrations.
The MLK claim by Republicans is undocumented conjecture from selecting out of context snippets from his speeches and going back to the Civil War Republcian party.
13 visible answers out of 14 all of a sudden.
Somebody hiding from me?
2007-10-12 02:10:17 · answer #1 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
G W Bush get a Nobel? What have you ever been smoking-the guy is a scumbag, a shithead and he could be locked in a container like Houdini yet with a load of **** in it and dropped interior the own depths of the sea-wait, Bush might poison our seas, he exhudes scum. perhaps we are in a position to shoot him into the sunlight? he isn't religious, he's a money grubbing megalomaniac and he could be subdued previously he screws each thing up! each workplace in capitol Hill has been offered by potential of his lackeys when you consider that he have been given there, none have been shown like they could be-the human beings interior the places of work are basically stand-ins who have not qualified for the roles, as a results of fact in the event that they did stand previously congress, they could be booted out so complicated, the **** from the kick might persist with the pants of the congressmen! Bush isn't any international chief. He manipulates each thing so he and those around him can income the main from it and basically like another 2 bit dictator from some tin pot republic, while he has gotten what he needs, he will go away-yet with us, our regulations, he would be secure. He has used this united states of america and manipulated all that's correct sources so he could have what he needs. he isn't cool, Nor exceptionally religious and he could under no circumstances additionally be considered for a Nobel, on the grounds that could desire to be the terrific travesty to this international, an insult to the spirit of the award itself and what it stands for. fact.
2016-10-22 03:25:53 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The very first American to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize was a Republican politician: Teddy Roosevelt. He won it for helping to mediate an end to the Russo-Japanese war.
More recently, Henry Kissenger shared the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the Vietnam Peace Accord.
So, clearly, the answer is yes.
2007-10-12 02:08:33 · answer #3 · answered by Teekno 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Lets get real here! Republicans are for the rich and powerful! They are war mongers! They call Democrats bleeding hearts, and tree huggers. Who would care more about Peace a bleeding heart? Or a war monger?
2007-10-12 02:52:28 · answer #4 · answered by pkvan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. He was the US Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford.
He was a Republican.
Also, believe it or not, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. If you don't believe me, check the link.
2007-10-12 02:15:33 · answer #5 · answered by Cold Hard Fact 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Let's see...
Carter is probably just trying to help the people he made destitute during his administration.
Clinton, well, Clinton likes sex so it is only natural he would start an organization that he may someday need.
Gore may be an activist, but he's also a hypocrite. He's kind of like a fat guy with a Big Mac in his hand telling us that we have to diet.
2007-10-12 02:09:25 · answer #6 · answered by Gus K 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
As long as Carter kept his mouth shut he was doing good in the world as an X President. Hos mouth negated his good.
Many Republicans do good quietly. Most aren't Glory hogs. Many are just the little person doing their life.
2007-10-12 02:22:48 · answer #7 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Carter has spent the balance of his career meddling in world affairs to the detriment of mankind, providing support for tyrannical dictators and generally making a mess of things
2007-10-12 02:08:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
This is ideologically improbable, since Republicans are guided by self-interests rather than altruism.
Why anyone would choose a Republican for public service (i.e. elect them) is the most oxymoronic phenomena in the modern world.
2007-10-12 02:08:37 · answer #9 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Absolutely. If and when social darwinianism, "survival of the fitest", is more fully recognized to be in the best interest of mankind.
Serving social darwinianism... to be the best manner of serving mankind.
2007-10-12 02:25:26 · answer #10 · answered by roostershine 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋