Forums | MacLife

user wrote:

bratboy wrote:

That prize was for three people, including Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (who was assassinated for his part in the accords).  I don't see how excluding Arafat would have been productive.

I don't see how including a known terrorist was productive.
And that's the point of those who blog about it - the nobel peace prize is worthless.

It was a nice idea, but it doesn't work.

I don't see how including a known terrorist was productive.

Are you speaking of Kissinger?

Last edited by jerwin (2007-10-13 11:57 am)

btw - that awarding of the peace prize IMHO was a weak attempt to try and use the peace prize itself to make a gesture of peace, rather than awarding it to someone who really dedicated their lifes work to peace.

A dumb thing to try to do - it really weakened the value of the prize.

Last edited by resedit (2007-10-13 12:04 pm)

resedit wrote:

I don't see how including a known terrorist was productive.
And that's the point of those who blog about it - the nobel peace prize is worthless.

It was a nice idea, but it doesn't work.

Do we also get to call the Israelis "terrorists?"

JakeTheTall wrote:

Well, for the six years that the Carter-brokered agreement was in force, NK didn't make any nukes.  It was only after President Bush ditched the agreement that NK detonated a nuke. 

Seriously, if someone could make an agreement or framework that could withstand President Bush and American NeoCons, they should get the Nobel Peace Prize in perpetuity.

I do not have a problem with Carter getting the prize.
Certainly from a Christian perspective - he is the most "christian" president in my lifetime. I don't think his politics were good, but he is a good man.

I don't however buy that N Korea suddenly started up when Bush became President. That's the claim of the left, I don't buy it.

Tallgeese wrote:

Daddyo wrote:

The peace prize, what an honor - If Yasser Arafat
were still alive they could have a drink together and talk about their accomplishments. Whats next, give Brittany Spears the mother of the year award?

So you're saying that Gore's actions were counterproductive to world peace?

I'm saying what the hell has Gore done to promote world peace?

Daddyo wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Daddyo wrote:

The peace prize, what an honor - If Yasser Arafat
were still alive they could have a drink together and talk about their accomplishments. Whats next, give Brittany Spears the mother of the year award?

So you're saying that Gore's actions were counterproductive to world peace?

I'm saying what the hell has Gore done to promote world peace?

Did you read the citation?

[Tycho?] wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Just what we need to do, elect a liar.
http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

You're right, he made it all up because....


...


?

• HUGE speaking fees.
• People pay attention to him again.
• If he is think of running, he's got a free media campaign already moving.
• When he's proven wrong in 10 years, all he has to say is "I meant well" and all is forgiven. There's absolutely no accountability, so why not?

If he really gives a damn, he should be living in a thatch hut, growing his own organic food and walking everywhere he goes. In some ways, I think he's more hypocrite than liar.

jdbaum wrote:

If he really gives a damn, he should be living in a thatch hut, growing his own organic food and walking everywhere he goes. In some ways, I think he's more hypocrite than liar.

Yeah, you'd love that.

We're all aware of the relevant section in the conservative "How to deal with environmentalists" flow chart.

Does the target live in a mud hut and use no electricity?
YES: Those environmentalists want to stop progress and make us all live like cavemen!
NO: Those environmentalists are all hypocrites!

and we can also presume those declaring hypocrisy regularly listen closely to the message of those shouting on the street corner that the end is nigh?

those street corner folks don't waste gas traveling here and there -- they use mass transit, they don't spend resources heating the sections of their refrigerator box that the protection services folk hang out in, nor do they entertain foreign dignitaries in their refrigerator boxes.

they would seem to be the pinnacle of environmental information resources, yet no one listens to them.

Last edited by [MA] Flying_Meat (2007-10-14 3:11 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

jdbaum wrote:

If he really gives a damn, he should be living in a thatch hut, growing his own organic food and walking everywhere he goes. In some ways, I think he's more hypocrite than liar.

Yeah, you'd love that.

We're all aware of the relevant section in the conservative "How to deal with environmentalists" flow chart.

Does the target live in a mud hut and use no electricity?
YES: Those environmentalists want to stop progress and make us all live like cavemen!
NO: Those environmentalists are all hypocrites!

Ok, maybe "thatch hut" was a bit of hyperbole...how about just an environmentally responsible house like Bush has in Crawford instead of a sprawling, energy sucking mansion? How about webcasting his speeches from home instead of using more jet  fuel per year than most citizens use in a lifetime? Do as I say, not as I do. If that's not the definition of hypocrisy, what is?

jerwin wrote:

and why do you say that? The choice is not between a high standard of living and utter poverty, but instead between a hotter world and a more livable one.

Not poverty, responsibility. Gore is directly and massively contributing to the very problem he preaches against! He should live like he wants us to live. He doesn't have a right to pollute, just because he "raises awareness" of pollution.

Gore tried to convert his house to all-solar, but his neighborhood association had rules preventing him from doing so.