...about the fact that Al Gore was one of this years recipents of the Noble Peace prize. They don't believe in peace...why do they care?
2007-10-12 07:28:07 · 26 answers · asked by chef.jnstwrt 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Websters Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines mad as an adj...1. mentally disturbed or deranged; insane; demented. 2. enraged or irritated...etc...
(it gets uglier)
point proven within a matter of minutes
2007-10-12 08:16:50 · update #1
more like jealous that Limbaugh didn't win, even though he had zero chance to win.
Edit: I just read your definition of Mad - appears you are right, they are mad, not jealous. Well, maybe a little jealous.
2007-10-12 07:31:02 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 11⤊ 6⤋
my question would be Why aren't the republicans more angry at bushs inept leadership and these links for instance...
The energy department says it's going to be a colder than normal winter so oil prices are already rising WOW what a shock!
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071009/oil_prices.html?.v=17
But wait this article, released the very same day has NOAA, national oceanic atmospheric association, The governments own weather experts say the winter will Be warmer than normal!
I guess the bush administration needs a good lie to raise oil prices to make sure they make as much as possible in the next year!
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-10-09-winter-prediction_N.htm?csp=34
Why isn't every body more angry? Doesn't anyone pay attention?
2007-10-12 14:55:03 · answer #2 · answered by ReBelle 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I'm not mad, never have been. The "Nobel Peace Prize" has been a joke ever since it was awarded to that wonderful, peaceful man, Arafat, who vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Oops, did I say that out loud?
2007-10-12 16:18:34 · answer #3 · answered by Princess of the Realm 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Republicans that have 2 brain cells to rub together realize their day in the sun is OVER if they follow the current course.
Others just try to trivialize the rest of the world.
2007-10-12 15:21:09 · answer #4 · answered by mrrosema 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Pure jealousy!
When whole world is laughing at their leader, bush0 that is,
then AL GORE and Noble peace prize NOT limbaugh gives more than enough reason to get frustrated and mad!!
Poor cons!
ADD: it's so hilarious to read some of these " cons responses"!! and so easy to see their anger and madness to wards AL GORE! (proves the point. Not?!)
It's too much for cons to handle that, why "O" why AG didn't destroy the country as their leader has done!! HA!!
2007-10-12 14:36:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
I'm not surprised he won, but I'm disappointed because I don't feel he's done anything to achieve peace. Climate science and peace are not even related. I see this as a largely political / popular move to strengthen the global warming argument. It just further abstracts the truths and facts to posture the promoters and avoid the important questions and issues.
Edit: just look at avail_skillz's answer to prove my point.
2007-10-12 14:43:02 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I am not mad, I am actually happy that he is an American, winning it. I don't see where it ties to World Peace, but hey, it's still an American winning a piece of it. I think that is better than say Hugo Chavez winning it. "No body holds peace more dear than the soldier doing the fighting." The majority of those individuals are republican, so republicans do indeed care.
2007-10-12 14:39:06 · answer #7 · answered by libsticker 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Republicans could give a poop about Al Gore.
2007-10-12 15:01:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
There are a few reasons it annoys me - but I would not say it makes me mad.
1st the Nobel organization is so liberal anyway it was no suprise; only shock was that they even accepted Rush's nomination which might have been done to appease the thoughts of their left wing leaning.
2nd and a big annoyance for many of us is that Al Gore is a hipocrite. He flies around in his jets, lives in his wasteful house, and tells us we shouldn't. Even worse are the 11 known innacuracies of his "movie" and the fact Global Warming could very well be a natural occurance with little impact by man at all.
3rd and finally the Nobel Peace prize for publishing or producing a movie that is pure propoganda - maybe they should have been one to the producers of the Green Beret's movie in the 60's.
2007-10-12 14:32:47 · answer #9 · answered by netjr 6 · 6⤊ 10⤋
It wasn't the message, but the alarmist presentation and blatant innacuracies in certain parts of the movie that were overlooked during the voting process.
2007-10-12 14:33:12 · answer #10 · answered by dkappa95 4 · 5⤊ 6⤋
They thought it was the "we exhausted all possible means of finding a peaceful end, so we will go to war" prize, and they are mad Bush did not win.
2007-10-12 14:31:52 · answer #11 · answered by Kevy 7 · 11⤊ 6⤋