|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 04:46 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 05:03 AM
Quote:
However, if you would like to send links corroborating your statements, I would be happy to read them. The IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 1997.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 05:22 AM
i heard a good joke on jimmy fallon earlier.
"President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning (applause)...hopefully he can catch up on that after these 2 wars were in." Well the Nobel Peace Prize was going to be devalued eventually anyways..
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 05:36 AM
Quote:
According to some it was devalued when Gore won it. Others say when Jimmy Carter won it. Others say when Martin Luther King Jr. won it. Time will tell...
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 06:04 AM
I'd say Carter.
I understand Gore; atleast he was trying to prevent Global Warming (while flying jets everyday) and making people aware of it. They call it "Climate Change" now though since you know..the world isnt "warming" anymore. But I still give it to him; he made an effort while making millions in the process. And MLK..psh you should'nt even put him on the same list as Obama, Carter, and Gore. It's degrading towards him and shows what the Nobel Peace Prize use to actually represent. Not recieving it just cause your name is Obama.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 06:19 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 06:27 AM
Quote:
The link "Changes to Chapter 8" itemizes the changes to the 1996 IPCC report which changed the gist to indicate that global warming was man-made. The original "peer reviewed" report said no such thing. It was the edited report which won Al Gore and the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. Subsequent reports have actually backpedaled slightly from the claims made in the 1993 and 1996 reports, but are still authored according to the wishes of policy makers (who write the checks for grants and other research). What this has to do with Obama is the simple fact that Peace Prize winners are chosen primarily for their politics, which the Nobel committee seems to think is more important than doing genuine good.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 07:09 AM
Quote:
Nobel Peace Prize winners are chosen based on their politics? Shocking.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 07:49 AM
Quote:
Politics results in war as often as it results in peace. The award should go to those who have actually done something to make the world a more peaceful place, not those who merely say it should be. What happened to Mother Theresa when she won and was invited to the award ceremony? She said "thanks, but no thanks". She wanted the money that would have been spent on the ceremony to be given to the poor, just as every penny of her prize was spent. None of our politicians (and I'll include Obama) have 1/10th the courage that mother Theresa had, and less than 1/100th the integrity. Mother Theresa exemplifies the type of person deserving of such an award. There are many like Mother Theresa around the world, but since words now speak louder than actions, and these people don't often speak, we seldom hear about them. As for the link between the IPCC, Al Gore, and Obama, the only link is that they all won Nobel prizes for doing nothing.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-10-2009, 08:37 AM
Quote:
Read my first post on this thread. It was easy to predict how it would go down. Like I said, the honorable thing is to say "Congrats" and be happy our American president received this recognition, but that is not the state of the country today. Every turn is worthy of criticism and disdain, right? He fought to get the Olympics...he's an a-hole. He didn't get the Olympics...he's an a-hole. He got the Nobel Peace Prize...he's an a-hole...I am done.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
