2007-10-12 10:40:40 · 19 answers · asked by wyldfyr 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First answer seems to prove my point. Why didn't you acknowledge that Arafat shared the prize with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin?
2007-10-12 10:46:35 · update #1
sour grapes
pl.n. Denial of the desirability of something after one has found out that it cannot be reached or acquired: The losers' scorn for the award is pure sour grapes.
2007-10-12 10:52:42 · update #2
I don't denigrate the original thought behind it. I denigrate what it's become.
2007-10-12 10:44:39 · answer #1 · answered by amazin'g 7 · 4⤊ 9⤋
No, it's because the Cons(the only ones complaining) think Rush or Bush should have been given the award. Had Rush or Bush won the award they would be holding the award up with Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa, both past winners......but since it was the "evil Al Gore"(btw, what is Gore evil for again?) they instead bring up Arafat and Stalin.
Al Gore is only hated because if the Cons/Reps were to acknowledge anything he said, they would be forced to consider other ideas and opinions of his. Gore could say the sky is blue, and the Cons would argue it's green. The Conservative opinion can be determined by whatever is opposite of any Democrat stance. It's pathetic how childish the Conservative party has become. I would be embarrassed to have anything to do with the Conservative party.
2007-10-12 10:54:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Al Gore has done more for the long term peace of this world than anyone else recently. climate change is going to be the next reason for a world war as we fight over land (as displaced refugees from all nationalities struggle to survive after floods), fresh water, crops, and fight disease. Drinking water will be the new oil. Transportation of crops and essential goods will be the greatest bartering tool in world trade. Food will become more scarce and luxury goods will disappear. Financial wealth will mean little - it will be the ability to survive on our wits that will count.
Al Gore has pointed the world in the right direction to prevent Armageddon.
2007-10-12 11:10:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋
I don't think so. I think that by awarding it to a group of scientists "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" they have turned it away from its original aim of giving recognition "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". It just doesn't fit. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that human influenced global warming is a real phenomenon and must be addressed. But using the Nobel peace prize to do it is like awarding the Heisman trophy to a particularly skilled baseball player. I think it's such a poor fit that it destroys the credibility of the prize itself by pushing a political agenda that has nothing to do with peace. Pointing that out isn't sour grapes, it's claiming that the emperor doesn't have any clothes.
2007-10-12 11:03:28 · answer #4 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 2⤊ 7⤋
The bile and vitriol have been repulsive, all day long.
There are a lot of people here on Answers who have shown themselves to be among the most unattractive human beings one could ever imagine outside of prison.
[ASIDE] Dead Marxist - exactly how far up Bush's @ss do you live?
2007-10-12 10:56:12 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 8⤊ 3⤋
Hitler did the same thing when a pacifist anti-Nazi got the prize. In fact, he forbid German citizens receiving the prize.
It's nothing new really.
2007-10-12 11:39:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
The Nobel prize is a disgrace and I've been saying that all my life.
It's all about politics. The list of winners of the "peace" price is full of warmongers. The only reason why they get it is that it was politically "convenient" at the time. This one is not a surprise.
You can check the list of winners of the literature prize too. Now the literary quality is not an issue. You just have to be in the right political side at the right moment. Victims, minorities, oppressed, whatever sounds politically right is entitled to be awarded. Not for the quality of the work, as a form of "political compensation".
It's insane.
2007-10-12 11:00:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 8⤋
You know it is! Some of these people have said that they would like to see Rush Limbaugh win the Nobel Peace Prize (for what, I don't know).
2007-10-12 10:48:10 · answer #8 · answered by tangerine 7 · 10⤊ 4⤋
Of course. Next the wingnuts will be demanding that Nobel prizes be awarded for the top person in the fields of tractor pulls, country music, bass fishing, square dancing, snake handling and stock car racing.
2007-10-12 10:49:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 6⤋
They denigrated it by giving it to a documentary film maker.
Tell me, do you really, from an apolitical standpoint feel that Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? Really?
Gawd you poor brainwashed people, do you believe in flying monkeys as well? MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST IT IS MARXIST POLITICS NOT SCIENCE DO SOME DAMN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH!!
2007-10-12 10:48:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 7⤋
Nobel Peace Prize clearly has lost all merit. Maybe next year, Al Gore will get the Superbowl Trophy.
2007-10-12 10:48:59 · answer #11 · answered by Fred Head 4 · 4⤊ 9⤋