Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

http://alternet.org/blogs/video/65111/

CAN YOU SAY BIASED???

_________________

New York Times Begins Smear Campaign Against Al Gore After Nobel Prize

link

As if we needed more evidence that the Nobel Peace Prize is worthless....

_________________

Ok, first, it's a morning show. I don't care weather it's on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, or Fox, morning show's arn't real news, they're all biased. Second, the majority of the quotes in this article are from bloggers, and no blogger is supposed to be unbiased, in fact the reason why their bloggers is to express their own opinion.
From these two reasons, it's quite obvious that saying the Fox is releasing a smear campain on Gore is an uneducated bunch of lies.

_________________
(THE ABOVE USER HAS BEEN BANNED)

^The Colbert Report reruns in THE MORNING you LIAR

_________________

No, Colbert runs a few times a day.

I'm not surprised. It's FOX. and Gore. Though I don't think pulling a Chicken Little about the environment deserves a freakin' Nobel Peace Prize. The scientific community (which Mr. Gore is so synonymous with...) is still mixed about global warming. If it turns out that the Earth was saved thanks to Gore, then he should get his prize then. Or a retroactive one.

He had no competition.

Nobody stopped the slaughter in Darfur.
Nobody is stepping up to the Junta in Myanmar.
Nobody put a muzzle on Hilary Clinton.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Wait, what's the correlation between "peace" and "global warming" again.

Wait.

There isn't any.

_________________

All my childhood promises... Shattered by this truth...

Okay, enough of that.

Him getting this has got to be the biggest load of crap I've heard of in quite a while.

Although, I'm not entirely sure if him getting the smear campaign is right, it should be against the nobel peace prize for giving it to someone that hasn't done anything to promote peace.

_________________

The Nobel Prize isn't so much a "peace prize" as it is a "great strides in science, art, literature, etc" prize.

ALSO: You do know that Alfred Nobel was the man that created dynamite, right?

_________________

You guys, Al Gore deserved it. Creating the internet is totally a "great stride in science, art, literature, etc".

Actually, there are a number of Nobel Prizes given, including one for peace, which was the one Gore won. And Nobel created dynamite to be used for demolition and mining and stuff, not for war.

_________________

Yes. There are prizes for physics, literature, etc...
Rumor has it that the Peace prize was created as a result of Nobel's guilt for the destructive use of one of his inventions (dynamite).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The rationale for the peace prize here was that global warming will cause (and maybe already is causing) wars over water. Dunno if that's true, just saying. Also, this isn't the first time they gave someone the Peace Prize for their work with environmental stuff.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

I know that, I'm not an idiot.

_________________

Does peace have to mean peace between people? And who made a more worthy accomplishment? Not to say Gore's thing was completely worthy of a peace prize, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who would have deserved it more at this point in time.

_________________

What did Gore accomplish? He made a film about how we're all going to die from global warming, then flew around in a private jet (carbon footprint, lol) talking about it.

_________________

If all the stuff he's talking about (as in stuff we should do) actually happens, you know, it'd be great.

I don't know, I'm not so smart. Someone like Ace or Inverse should do this stuff.

_________________

...War....Over water?


Hrmm....

Lets see.... Water.

A resource that surrounds us, is in the air, will always go back to being water if tampered with...

Can be made out of purified liquid mud....Can be made out of two common elements....can be made out of purified sea water/lake water/streams/almost any body of water....

The universal solvent...is used to make most drinks, and most other liquids....Is a base component in almost every food....

Is wet....Can be frozen...can be turned into a gas....

covers more than half of the planet.... We are around 80-90% water....


I don't get it, how can countries be fighting over something so basic and primitive that can be made and found so easily? Its every where, its free if you find it yourself...The only thing you have to pay for is getting it to you....

The world these days, you can start a war over anything, even something that is readily available...


Also, What the heck does Global Warming have to do with water? Other than the fact of the melting ice caps, I see no problem.

Unless Germany is vying for control of Antarctica...
[size=0]And yes, I do sometimes sit naked on a block of stone and think.[/size]

_________________

I did know this. However, Nobel used it for strictly nonviolent purposes and blowing stuff up so that you could mine railroads through it and stuff.

So you've got yourself an irrelevant comparison there, pal.

_________________

Not only that, but the question still remains: what contribution has Al Gore made to either the science or the politics relating to global warming? None that I can see.

_________________

Science? None at all, save proving that shouting "consensus" over and over can, apparently, make one.

Politics? He's done a LOT. Look at all of the alarmism he's caused. We've got senators proposing raising our gas prices by $.50/gallon for "carbon taxes" and electricity bills by 50% with the same carbon tax.

We've got children being indoctrinated by schools to believe that the planet is going to go kablooey if they don't walk to school, and we've got polluters being totally ignored since they don't emit the evil carbon dioxide, instead emitting things that cause cancer, asthma, etc.

I'd say he's been pretty successful.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

^This is the story of my life.

Seriously, last year in 6th grade we had to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" as part of my teacher's crazy curriculum.

When I challenged it and brought in packets from Junkscience and other sources opposing the film, my teacher's like "These are the facts, hon."

Actually, nope. The teaching on the subject really needs to be less biased and open to interpretation than just showing the left-wing propaganda machine and giving no footnotes or explanation.

As for the Nobel prize, let's see if Gore stands the test of time well enough to grant him that. But now, considering Arafat (one of the most corrupt human beings of all time) has got the award, having a Nobel basically doesn't improve your status as a human being at all.

It's all politics, as Lahi pointed out.

Also, "o wel hii invntd intarblog" jokes are getting really old now. Please, spare us your convulsion-inducing comic genius.

_________________

In all fairness, he deserved SOMETHING after losing the election back in 2000. I mean, come on, he's the guy that should have won and everyone knows it. This is just a "Hey, man, buddy, pal, yeah....We're sorry we didn't vote for you, but here's a little something to make up for it."

I mean, seriously, its not like the Nobel Peace prize means anything anymore. We've become completely detached from everything, so not even something with a simple meaning like a PEACE PRIZE even means anything at all.[size=0]lol, redundancy [/size]

_________________

Bush won Cola, get over it.

_________________
(THE ABOVE USER HAS BEEN BANNED)

COLA's probably right... not about how Gore "should have won" (whatever that means), but about how the Nobel Prize Committee is made up of rabid Bush-Haters who really feel that Gore should have been president seven years ago.

Some people really know how to hold a grudge.

_________________

We're kinda straying off-topic, but since the thread's about Gore more than anything else, I guess it's not too far off. I'm gonna keep my eye on this and makes sure it doesn't get derailed, though.

First, "whatever that means" is pretty well-understood. Gore won the popular vote, plain and simple. It's not as if the idea that Gore "should have won" is something that was just made up and pulled out of somebody's rectum. I do think that whether or not he lost the election should have nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize. Does he deserve it? I don't really know, but if they think he deserves one I think it's not worth arguing about.

But since you want to turn this into an election issue, I guess I'll go there (for now). It isn't as if people are just being like, "My favorite candidate lost, whine whine whine." It's not as if, in the end, it made little difference whether Bush or Gore won. He started a war, for God's sake. Regardless of your own personal opinion, it should not be difficult to comprehend why people might think Gore might have made a better president, and that people still think that probably goes beyond a mere "grudge".

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

He got an Oscar. Americans seem to care more about those than the Nobels.

Which, in recent light, may not be an unjustified preference.

At least some talent in the field of acting is required to get an Oscar.

However, you can be a worthless scumbag like Arafat and still get a Nobel.

???

Profit!

_________________

But Gore won for a documentary, though. Yet he did act like a scientist.

Jesus frickin' Christ. I know Nobel used it for nonviolent things. As I've already pointed out, I'm not an idiot.

I wasn't comparing it to anything, I was just putting out a fun fact.

But apparently those are not allowed, and only serious debates can be posted here.

_________________