|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-10-2009, 03:18 AM
Quote:
[♥<--Nan's heart!] 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 03:23 AM
Quote:
I am not in the least impressed that Obama won the prize. It makes it painfully clear to the world that Obama is a man of words, and not a man of action. It demonstrates that the Peace Prize committee is what it is, a committee of ideologues appointed by the government of a socialist leaning country which selects winners according to political ideology rather than genuine merit. I don't care about Obama's healthcare proposals, promises to end wars, etc. All of these things have yet to happen, and it becoming increasingly likely that they won't. Obama's words are strong, but his inability to put them into action demonstrates that he is, in reality, weak. Despite his party holding majorities in both houses of congress, he can't get anything done. Compare this to Reagan, who had to deal with having his party holding a minority in the congress, yet still having no difficulty getting his policies passed. Taxes will not increase because the promised policy changes will not be enacted. With the economy in it's current condition, they cannot be afforded. Despite howls to tax the rich to help the rest of us, it's obvious that the administration knows that this will only hurt the economy further, and make implementing expensive new policies even more difficult. It's beginning to look like Obama is a lame duck in the first quarter of his first term. This "Peace Prize" did not help him at all, it was the last thing he needed. It raises expectations which he can't possibly deliver on, and if he loses his re-election bid in 2012, this will be one of the causes.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 03:29 AM
Quote:
But a lot of hypotheticals, Sangetsu. Like I said, I found the prize surprising, as the president did himself. If this prize makes him feel more responsibility toward world peace, is that a bad thing? No one knows exactly what the committee was thinking, but let's just hope something positive can come from it. He has over 3 years left in his presidency and that hopefully enough time to make more positive change.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 03:37 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 03:47 AM
Quote:
Read this Fox News article for a more accurate story... British Court Rules Al Gore Film Exaggerated Climate Claims - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC.” In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).” The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 04:04 AM
Quote:
I honestly don't know too much about the prize, but seems most people who do receive them or are nominated for them, are people who have helped others in some way or form, although, I'm sure most of what he did was on a local level prior to his Presidency.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 04:25 AM
Quote:
Obama does have 3 years left in his term (if he is unlucky), but the final three years are usually determined by the results achieved during the first year. If there is going to be any change, he'd better get about it soon, or it will be too late. Obama's presidency is becoming an example of the current political system in America. The presidency is no longer what it once was. We no longer elect strong men to be president. In fact, we don't really have much choice in who we "elect" at all. Our candidates are chosen for us by the "powers that be". Any person with strength and genuine integrity will not sell his soul to those powers, so such a person cannot be elected. That is why so many of our "leaders" are people with good hair, eloquent voices, and no conscience. There are not really 2 political parties in America anymore. Those only exist in the minds of the people, who need to think that there is someone who actually represents their interests. The majority of people are essentially stupid, and their stupidity has allowed things to progress to the point where we are at now. Obama promised change, just like other politicians promised other things, and, as most people are stupid, he and the others were elected. If it weren't for the inherent stupidity of people, these politicians would not be reelected. But people love to be lied to, again and again. If it were otherwise, and people actually had the sense to care, then we would get change. In fact, if such were the case, there probably wouldn't any need for change in the first place, would there? As an example, to those Americans here, can you tell me the name of the Vice President? Can you tell me the names of your local congressman, and the 2 senators from your state? Can you tell me the names of your city's mayor? Or your council members? If you can't, then you are stupid, and you are part of the reason that we now need change. The people I mentioned above make the choices which affect your lives every day, and if you haven't taken the time to even learn their names, let alone their backgrounds, then you deserve what you get. If you really want change, then you'd better start with yourself.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 04:38 AM
Sangetsu, your opinion is your right, for sure, but what do you mean by he has "3 years left in his term (if he's unlucky)".
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 04:43 AM
Quote:
Section 8.4.2.1 of the 1996 IPCC report (upon which some of the facts for Gore's movie were based). new: "Implicit in these global mean results is a weak attribution statement--if the observed global mean changes over the last 20 to 50 years cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, some (unknown) fraction of the changes must be due to human influences". deleted: "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." Section 8.4.2.3. new: "To date, pattern-based studies have not been able to quantify the magnitude of a greenhouse gas or aerosol effect on climate. Our current inability to estimate reliably the fraction of the observed temperature changes that are due to human effects does not mean that this fraction is negligible. The very fact that pattern-based studies have been able to discern sub-global-scale features of a combined CO2 + aerosol signal relative to the ambient noise of natural internal variability implies that there may be a non-negligible human effect on global climate." The "peer reviewed" IPCC report contained the deleted paragraph in the middle. The "new" paragraphs were added to the report without the knowledge of the reviewing scientists in order to make the report conform to the standards mandated by "policy makers", which was to suggest that Co2 and man were the causes of global warming, even though the reviewing scientists said that this might not be the case. Changes to Chapter 8 Gore got a Nobel Prize for lying.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
