English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-10-12 12:34:56 · 25 answers · asked by REAGAN REPUBLICAN 2 in Politics & Government Politics

To all of you fools who respond sour grapes i could care less who wins the nobel prize check out the hypocrite Al Gore who lives in a palatial mansion and who has a olympic sized heated pool,how big is his "carbon footprint" you all have been duped by an condesending lib

2007-10-12 12:53:56 · update #1

25 answers

You forgot to mention that Hitler was nominated, but did not win.

2007-10-12 12:36:49 · answer #1 · answered by Dina W 6 · 5 0

Just remember, Henry Kissinger set the bar among it's lowest points when he accepted the Nobel Prize for Vietnam War Negotiations.

His North Vietnamese counterpart had the good sense to decline the award. Kissinger was unable to muster the same restraint.

2007-10-12 19:21:04 · answer #2 · answered by Bye for now... 5 · 0 0

The "peace prize" has always been total boolschit.

The proof is in the massive amounts of peace that aren't breaking out everywhere one of the traveling saints who has won the award deign to travel.

The other awards, especially for the hard sciences where the reuslts are verifiable and obvious to all concerned, are very much appropriate.

When they start to require an opinion, as in the prize for literature, things become a little more hazy.

But giving an award for something that has not occured is just feeding the publicity whores.

2007-10-12 12:43:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Not irrelevant at all.

It is a private committe that decides who they wish to honor, just like the Football or Baseball Hall of Fame.

Is the Bseball Hall of Fame irrelevant because they won't allow Pete Rose to be considered for entry? If they reverse on that, then is it irrelevant? Would the homor accorded to past or future entrants be diminished somehow?

Maybe next year someone you like will win.

Or maybe you will be on the committee someday and you can be sure to never choose anyone that someone somewhere might be upset about, because of course universal agreement is more important then anything else.

BTW, you do know who the Peace Prize is named for, and how he came by his money, don't you? If not, maybe you should look it up, you might be very surprised! :)

2007-10-12 12:42:34 · answer #4 · answered by Barry C 7 · 1 1

Hmm....i ask your self what replaced his techniques? [ at the same time as in many situations seen a climate skeptic, John R. Christy turned right into a co-drafter of the yankee Geophysical Union's December 2003 position reality on climate replace, which concludes that: "Human events are steadily more desirable replacing Earth's climate, and that organic impacts on my own can't clarify the quick advance in floor temperatures talked about in the course of the 2d 1/2 of the 20 th century." ] those fossil gasoline childrens, i think.

2016-10-09 02:58:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

About as irrelevant as a jar of warm piss. Giving Al Gore any kind of prize is a comment on the way the world is slanting.

I knew him when he was eight or nine years old. He was a whinny little sh** then and has not changed one iota. His daddy used to pay my daddy five bucks to vote for him. My daddy, being poor, always took the five bucks but voted against Big Al.

It is in the blood. Al Gore is bad news. May a woodpecker take residence on his head.

2007-10-12 12:49:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Nobel Peace Prize was an attempt to make people forget what Alfred Noble Invented. If he was sincere why did he not give any money to set it up before he died?

2007-10-12 12:39:45 · answer #7 · answered by phillipk_1959 6 · 0 0

It is a pretty sad world we live in indeed, when the the "term" even bespeaks the mention of such a Nobel prize!
How crude! How sad!
Have we forgotten what the award is all about?
It sure isnt about false statements to try to win yourself a place in the world.!

2007-10-12 12:44:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Didn't Al Gore invent the Nobel Peace prize?

2007-10-12 12:37:52 · answer #9 · answered by bill f 1 · 3 3

Carter deserved it the year Arafat won. The deal that Carter actually did win it for had already failed when they awarded him. And Al Gore...don't even get me started. It's not even the right category! Of course, if they'd put it in a scientific category, the scientific experts would have laughed him out of the room. I guess that's the only way the crackpot nomination committee could slip it in.

2007-10-12 12:39:18 · answer #10 · answered by Souris 5 · 2 2

war has everything to do about natural resources, like water in sudan. If you don't see the relevance between peace and global climate change im afraid you have your head up your ****. You are fine to diagree if you don't think it's a problem. I know its a passion of Al Gore's and that is why he and this coucil very much deserve it. The peace prize! I think its awsome of the committie for pointing out this relationship.

2007-10-12 13:08:02 · answer #11 · answered by bmw2002driver1971 2 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers