I'll bet this will fry the right wingers!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/

Hey, Bill Clinton is the one ticked, he got more piece in the White House than anyone, and he didnt get no stinking medal!

Why would it fry the right wingers? The Nobel Peace Prize used to be meaningful, todays it's purpose is to make liberal and socialism statements. It has no meaning any longer.

The Nobel Peace Prize is not meaningful? Like I said, your post is an example of a right winger being fried about it. Sour grapes!!

Noble Peace prize meaningful? It hasnt meant anything since President Roosevelt (teddy) received one.

You want a peace proze to mean something, give it to Gen LeMay, he kept Peace for 20 years.
Give it to Gen Robin (Peace is not my profession) olds, Give it to President Reagon.

Giving it to a washed up politician for a book , which has been certified full of errors, is a joke, which is what the Noble Peace prize has become.

I bet Mr Noble is having a great laugh, at what he started, his dynamite business is doing better than ever.

It is funny how Neocons hate judges unless judges agree with them.

They hate Noble Prizes unless one of their own wins, which would never happen because none of their own promote peaceful responses to conflicts.

I'm just having a hard time making hte connection between a book, that a court has certified has errors, on supposed "global warming", and world peace.

I could understand someone like Lecha Walsa(sp) who helped bring down the iron curtain, or Boris Yeltsen who brought down the old Soviet Union.

Heck I'm suprised the Noble committee didnt give Hitler and Stalin one for averting WWII, when they carved up Poland.

Just beacuse your favorite team doesn't win the playoffs doesn't make the championship ring that much less valuable.

By the way, ask pro-life crusaders if it was meaningless when pro-life Mother Teresa won the award.

Congratulations to our future president. Mr. Gore took on quite a challenge when he tried to educate people about the dangers of global warming back when Bush the first was calling him "Ozone Man". He now reaps his rewards.

Czech Presdident questions Gore as recipient.

http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=15975

Deane_johnson:
todays it's purpose is to make liberal and socialism statements.

Give us some examples.

What has Gore done to further world peace, for that matter what did Mother teresa do for it?

The President of Israel in 1973 should have gotten a Noble Peace prize, because he kept Damascas and Cairo from becoming slag.

President Reagon should have gotten one, because he probably did more for world peace than anyone else in his decade.

General/President Eisenhower should have received several, for his contributions to world peace.

Surprisingly Nwokie, I agree with the Reagan nomination. He destroyed our economy, but he did bring more peace to the world.

Gore wins peace prize.....

Then gets into his Cadillac SUV and heads off to pitch to the next group of wide eyed collegians, and guilt riddled hollywood millionaires.

Sorry, talk the talk, then walk the walk. Take your show on the road to Bejing and Calcutta.

Soon as you get that group on board, count me in.

I like to wait till the parade passes before jumping on the band wagon.

BTW, I made my cuts 20 years ago, with the recycling, and the lightbulb thing, the insulation, and reduced thermostat, water the garden with used bath water, drove a 53 MPG Geo metro till the body fell off. BTW notice no strictly gas car get 50 MPG anymore? Why is that? Not cause they can't just not enough profit in it to keep the STOCK HOLDERS HAPPY!!!

Sorry Al, done my part, no more cuts and I can't afford any more GOVERNMENT MANDATES.

Where's my peas Prize?

Don't forget the private jet he flys off in.

>>>"Give us some examples."

You just got one.

According to Al Gore, global warming is more dangerous than Hitler and Tojo combined, more danterous than the British army in 1776, more dangerous than Robert E Lee and jefferson Davis.

Well, so much for Al Gore for President. Looks like voters have gotten a little smarter.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003658033

So should Gore walk? Please tell me how Al Gore should travel cross country.

Commercial air, Greyhound, Amtrack.

Nwokie writes:
Don't forget the private jet he flys off in.

More bullshit. He flies commercial most of the time, whenever possible. But Vitalogy is right: Al Gore gets under all you righties' skin!!! Burn, baby, burn!!! Congratulations, Al, on winning the prize.

Andrew

It would probably be cheaper for Gore to fly in a private jet than it costs for him to fly with his Secret Service protection, and probably a lot safer with all the Neocon nuts out there armed to the teeth.

oops, my bad, ex VPs don't get Secret Service protection, which is all the more reason Gore should not be flying commercially.

The Nobel Peace Prize still means a great deal, and Oregonians are still mighty proud of Linus Pauling.

We should all be proud of any American synonymous with peace in this current climate of bloodshed.

Big Ups Al!

From Nobelprize.org:

"When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who 'shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.' The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

A pretty wide open criteria for awarding the prize - does his work to promote awareness of global warming build "fraternity between nations"? Perhaps. Anyway, he seems to qualify no more or less than anyone else might. If you don't like it, blame the Norwegian Storting.

>>>"the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.'"

I would read that to mean all three factors should be considered, not the opportunity to pick out one.

As for Gore running...

I don't know if he would win or not. But, it sure would shake things up! All the candidates - Dem and GOP - need to have their cages rattled, and Gore carries the clout needed to positively reshape the debates we need to have about domestic and foreign issues.

You forgot the fourth factor: Al Gore makes a fine lutefisk.

maybe Fox, can start a "Peoples Choice" award, as a replacement for the Noble prize.

"The Nobel Peace Prize still means a great deal, and Oregonians are still mighty proud of Linus Pauling. We should all be proud of any American synonymous with peace in this current climate of bloodshed. Big Ups Al!"

Dr. Pauling won two Nobel prizes. This current climate of bloodshed? Hell, the climate of bloodshed has been going on since mankind's beginning. "Fat Albert" Gore Jr. is no Linus Pauling, not by any stretch of the imagination. Uh, almost forgot, IMHO.

Nevelle Chamberline he must be Gore's hero.

btw, Linus Pauling was a great chemist, but a poor doctor. Quite quite bad actually. Don't elevate him to God status.

Al Gore was a good VP and an EXCELLENT elder statesman (although "elder" isn't quite the right word here -- edselehr, mrs m, help me out!) He's not God, but he has accomplished far more in the last 7 years than Bush has.

"He's not God, but he has accomplished far more in the last 7 years than Bush has."

That's true if you're only counting good stuff.

Good point. Bush, in 7 years, has achieved Mother of all FUBAR accomplishments. No boatload of Democrats could ever screw up the country this bad even if they tried.

Great observation, clipped from the 'net...


Things I Learn From Fox News:

1. Wearing a $5 American flag lapel pin is the highest form of patriotism.

2. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a meaningless political sham.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

"War is Peace", no, war is simply a tool used by nations, it can be for good or bad.
"Freedom is Slavery", No, freedom mea"ns living free, withen some limits, and its worth fighting for. Slavery is giving in to another.
"Ignorance is Strength", Strength is living the way you should, not in fear.

You do know that was an Orwell reference right? 1984? Doublespeak?

Sometimes you just kill me Nwokie!

Yep, I read it in 9th grade, thought it was dumb then, and think it's dumb now. Even if it has become the liberal bible.

War is human nature, always has, always will be.
As the great Gen Robbin Olds said, "Peace is not my profession". As Janis Joplin sang "freedom is just another word, for nothing left to lose", she was wrong, (actually Kris Kristoferson wrote it) Freedom is the first thing you fight for, everything else fills in after that.

War is human nature? Are you saying that you believe that man's basic nature is to fight with others?

Thomas Hobbes believed that man is basically warlike and selfish, and he reasoned that such people cannot be trusted with the power of government; that in the end, they must be ruled much like children must be parented. Either a dictator or monarch would do, he didn't care, just so long as the people were "lead" and not allowed to be a part of the decision-making process.

(It begs the question,"if men cannot be trusted with governmental power, then how can we trust a king?" The king has a selfish nature as all men do, and therefore loves being king. But he must rule well in order to remain king - this is how Hobbes makes the idea of monarchy make sense.)

John Locke - the grandaddy of democracy - felt that men are social and selfless at heart, and therefore can employ democratic principles. (Our selfish nature arises only because of scarcity of resources.) Think about it: to be able to trust in democracy, you have to be able to trust that the voters are thinking of more than just their personal self-interest - just as important to them are the best interests of the entire society.

If you really believe that we are at heart selfish and warring people, then you don't really believe in democracy.

I studied locke, long time ago, and I cant see any reason to believe he was right. Look at what the people of Germany and Japan less than 70 years ago did. Look what the NVA and to a much smaller extent our soldier did 40 years ago, what the various elements in Iraq do to each other.

Look at what happened in the South 60 years ago, and in LA and New York.

People are not totally civilized, maybe in another 200 years, but it certainly won't happen in my lifetime.

We have something approaching freedom, because a group of highly trained and dedicated men and women, see it as their lives work, to protect it.

The army offered the kingship to Gen Washington, he declined, and ever since, it has protected the rights of all Americans.

Interesting thought, if Washington had accepted, Robert E. Lee would have ben the regent, and his oldest son King.

All I'm saying is that if you agree with and believe in American democracy, you are agreeing with a system of government based largely on Locke's theories ("Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is lifted almost directly from Locke). Locke may have been right, or not. But our system of government assumes that he was. And if you agree with that, aren't you agreeing with Locke?

Most constitutional scholars will tell you, the constitution was based on life, liberty and the pursuit of propety. They made sure those wild eyed idealists were elsewhere when the constitution was writter.

And I dont believe in American democracy, we are a republic, our founders were very precise about that, don't trust the masses too much.

Our founders put an awful lot of safeguards in, in case Locke was wrong. Electoral college, 2 houses one representing states the other the people, supreme court etc.

One of the things that will keep this country free, is the military, they take an oath to the Constitution, not a person like many other countries. and not to the people.

Every civilian member of Congress, the President, and (I believe) the Supreme Court justices also swear and oath to the Constitution. Why should that differ in importance from a military oath?

Side question: If a soldier is ordered by a superior to commit an act he/she believes contradicts the Constitution, what should that person do?

Oh, thats a tricky one. A military officer or enlisted, should not obey a non constitutional order, the problem, who gets to decide if its non constitutional. Military officers, and NCO's are taught some constitutional law, to help them make that decision, the penalty for beng wrong can be very high, including your life.

I didnt say the militarys oath was more important than the Presidents or other officials, but the military is the one if things got real hairy, that has the most guns.

Throw into that, there are a lot of constitutional scholars with PHD's and all sorts of education, and they cant always agree what the constitution says, so how do you expect a humble soldier to.

If a humble soldier is not expected to be able to discern constitutional conflicts for him/herself, and only the officers or NCO's have any consitutional training, then it sounds like the soldier is in a position where they in almost every sticky constitutional situation should rely on the orders and constitutional judgement of the commander. The practical effect of this seems to be that an oath to defend the Constitution is an oath to follow the orders of the commander. And since the President is the Commander-in-Chief, it is an oath to follow the President.

So, does a soldier have the right in good conscience to disobey the President (or any commander, I supppose) if he/she feels the order contradicts the Constitution? (I know I just asked this...but clarify it for me once again)

Yes you do, but be prepared to pay a high price.
Remember the courts have ruled the President has very broad powers when conducting foreign policy.

Even basics get a very brief introduction to constitutional law.

And remember NCO's arent the dumb hicks they might of once been. The last NCO position I held, was as a training NCO on a training battallion staff, I had 2 bachelors degrees, the Intelligence NCO had a PHD, and our SGM had a Masters.

The "high price" part is what worries me. If a soldier acts to defend the Constitution in good conscience contrary to orders given, and risks paying a "high price" if doing so, what good is the oath? There is a steep cost (imprisonment, maybe death)for a soldier potentially screwing up his/her personal interpretation of the Constitution. I would think most soldiers would put their personal well being above the oath. You said yourself that you thought Locke was probably wrong, and that people DO essentially look out for Numero Uno.

However, elected officials don't have punishment hanging over their head by doing what they think is right by the Constitution. Congress and the President are constantly interpreting the intent of the Constitution (only when there are conflicts in interpretation does the Supreme Court get involved).

You said you trust the military to best defend the Constitution, but it seems to me that the military is a very big stick that the commanders/executive branch can use to enforce the Constitution as interpreted by them.

I hate to tell you this, but thats the best it gets. Our system is far from perfect, but its probably the best the worlds seen.

Remember there are some very bad people out there, and anothe larger group, that can become very bad, very quickly.

Just look at Nazi germany.

Naziism destroyed Germany from within, then used the mechanisms of national power to reach out in search of world domination (in the name of 'German national security').

I hate to tell you this, but the "very bad people" can come from right here at home, too. In fact, I think the dangers from within are more threatening, since they are so insidious and not fully seen until the rise to full power. (I'm sure Herb would see the threat of 'creeping communism' this way.)

Don't think that America has some sort of natural immunity to despotism, whichever end of the political spectrum it comes from.

I was just using Nazi Germany as an example, of course it can happen here, we have had some of our own very bad examples in the past.

It's a great example, both as a case study of a republic hijacked by men with a personal, perverted mission; and, as an external threat to other countries.

Which to you is the greater threat: attacks to Constitutional, republican democracy from without, or attacks from within?

None of those, complancy is the biggest threat.

And I don't see us ever getting that. You may find this hard to believe, but some people don't like President Bush and his policies, and some people didnt like President Clinton. Even harder to believe, but its true, some didnt Like President Reagon. And astonshingly, I even hear some didnt like President Nixon!

This country is too divided, to get complacent, and we had our civil war, although I dispute that title for it.

We will have many changes in administrations, and there will be a lot of back and forth policy changes, but I ing permantly in charge.dont forsee aeither side be

"None of those, complancy is the biggest threat."

I agree. And I would categorize that as a threat from within. I think that's why many are not as riled up by the threat of terrorism as they are by the shenanigans happening in Washington.

"not as riled up by the threat of terrorism as they are by the shenanigans happening in Washington."

The one-two punch from Al Gore (Oscar, Nobel) has people thinking about what could have been

ps, is your edsel on display at the swap meet?

Nope...but the Edsel car club has a display. You'll see a gorgeous '58 Villager wagon inside an amazing mockup of an Edsel dealership. Come on down!

I need to get to bed - I have a 6:30am duty time at the Expo center.

I was already there! I don't remember the Villager wagon . . . I was probably thinking how I could come up with the cash for the one of the two '69 Road Runners there.

Okay I finally have figured out this climate change or global warming deal.

It's Mother Earth right? It's a hot flash. She's going through menopause. Give her a few years and things will be normal again.

Did anyone see the Science section of the Oregonian today? They showed photos of a glacier on Mt Hood and one somewhere in Central Oregon, in 1937 and 2007. One thing is clear, the temperature is going up and the glaciers are melting in our part of the world.

Historically Glaciers have grown and receded. Thats not news. The question is, are they receding because of human conduct, and is it good or bad.

Yes.

Bad.

There.

Ok, why is it bad? Would it be better if the earth was getting colder? staying the same? why?

Because it will kill us.

Think so? wouldn't more die, if the earth was getting a little colder? Or if it stays the same, there will be less land for food production, little warmer, more land is available for agricultre more food fewer starve to death.

Little warmer, we have a northwest passage, which greatly reduces transportation costs, more food is available cheaper to more people.

Yeah. It's not a transportation issue or a cheap food production issue. There is plenty of food in the world. Lots of roads too.

So, yes. I think so. Can you think of anything bad that would happen by the Earth warming up?

Considering the earth has gotten warmen then colder then warmer etc for millions of years, not a lot.

The demo/libs are using a lot of pseudo science and out right lies, beginning with their hero Al (love story, internet inventer, loser to george Bush, etc) gore.

Considering the earth has gotten warmen then colder then warmer etc for millions of years, not a lot.

The demo/libs are using a lot of pseudo science and out right lies, beginning with their hero Al (love story, internet inventer, loser to geeorge Bish, etc) gore.

And good luck, driving a few thousand tons of produce from california to Europe.

Gore did not lose to Bush. He lost to the Supreme Court.

As a history major who took geography and geology courses, I believe there is a climate change that is natural but being hurried up by man to long-term detriment of the next few generations.

No fool can deny that deforestation of the Amazon rain forest does not have an effect on the environment. Any grade school student can set that fool straight.

corrected version:

Gore did not lose to Bush. He lost to the Supreme Court.

As a history major who took geography and geology courses, I believe there is a climate change that is natural but being hurried up by man to long-term detriment of the next few generations.

No fool can deny that deforestation of the Amazon rain forest does not have an effect on the environment. Any grade school student can set that fool straight.

Gore did not lose to Bush. He lost to the Supreme Court.

As a history major who took geography and geology courses, I believe there is a climate change that is natural but being hurried up by man to long-term detriment of the next few generations.

No fool can deny that deforestation of the Amazon rain forest does have an effect on the environment. Any grade school student can set that fool straight.

Has the deforestation of the rain forest affected teh earths climate? Possible, but so did the deforestation of Large areas of North Africa and Europe. Centuries ago.

More of the liberal revisionism, Gore lost all of the conceived possible ways the Florida ballots could be counted, except for one.

Supreme court did not annoit President Bush, the voters did, some of them by being so stupid, they couldnt read simple ballot instructions.

Than God, a lot of demos are illeterate, but wont admit it and take some of the free reading classes offered.

"Than God, a lot of demos are illeterate"

Bwhahahahahaha. Brilliant!

Mocking a veteran is classic leftist arrogance.

While liberals were in school learning how to spell, Nwokie was defending your ability to learn English. Otherwise, you might now be spewing such eloquent leftist smarm in German, Japanese, Russian, or more recently, Farsi...whilst wearing a burkha, no less.
Spin that, ingrates.

Herb

Hey, Herbster, I'm a veteran, and Sgt. Nwokie was mocking me. And he even made my case. The deserts were partially natural and man-made and that changed the climate, just like what is happening in the Amazon will also do.

"Than God, a lot of demos are illeterate"

Why does that remind me of this:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm

Okie was in WWII?

P.S. You forgot Vietnamese. And Cuban-Spanish. And Korean. Oh wait, my own Dad protected me from that one.

I don't see whats funny about it, its true, if the small percent of demo voters in florida, that had problems filling out ballots, (ballots that 3rd graders had no problem using), Gore would have won.

The demos need to take some of their campaign money, and teach classes on how to fill out ballots. That would probably win them some elections. See aren't I a nice guy, giving the demos some free, good advice.

okie said: "Little warmer, we have a northwest passage, which greatly reduces transportation costs, more food is available cheaper to more people."

Oh God, he doesn't get it. Hundreds of millions of lives lost elsewhere and he's thinking about cheaper transportation cost. For the sake of the planet, God needs to call you home early too.

What lives lost elsewhere? If anything more will be living. Fewer starving, fewer freezing, Oh, I get it, your talking about that idiot notion the sorlds seas will rise so much and drown everyone. Put an ice cube in a glasss, and fill it with water, see how much overflows when it melts.

Nwokie, can you think of anything bad that would happen if the Earth warmed up too much? ( On the kind of scale we are talking about ). What's the worst that could happen?

A couple of degees warmer, thats not as bad as what would happen if the world got a few degrees colder.

"Put an ice cube in a glasss, and fill it with water, see how much overflows when it melts."

That's a naive response. Glaciers, both alpine and continental (such as those found in Greenland and Antarctica) are on land, and that's what is going to melt and raise the ocean levels. Climatology 101.

Nwokie, that's not at all what I asked.

If we were doing things that are making things colder, I would want to fix that too.

There.

Now cold is no longer, and never was, the issue.

With a few degrees warm up, the current hotter climates on Earth would find itself nearly unable support large populations -- hundreds of Millions will have to move elsewhere. Most will just die. The dead from the rising seas are just bonus deaths not included in this total.

"...bonus deaths..."

Morbidly hilarious.

Considering thers is absolutly no scientific evidence to that, it makes for great science fiction.

The earth has never maintained a constantant temperature over a few years.

Mocking ANYONE that doesn't think as YOU is classic EXTREME RIGHT arrogance.

" Considering thers is absolutly no scientific evidence to that, it makes for great science fiction. "

100% false.

If I could prove to you, using scientific evidence, that with a few degrees warm up, there would be forced migration of millions, deaths and food chain changes - would you then support fixing global warming?

Yes or No.

Conversely, mocking ANYONE that doesn't think as YOU is classic EXTREME LEFT arrogance.

there isn't any proof of that. The earth has changed several degrees over the past centuries, and nothing like that has happened.
Most of the worlds meterologists disagree with you.

The only constant about the earths temperature, is thats its going to change.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, don't like the weather, wait a few decades, it will change.

I'll take that as a " No. "

OK. Thanks for not making me waste my time any further on you.

You have a real problem answering direct questions, Nwokie. Makes it hard for me to engage with you on any meaningful level.

"nothing like that has happened."

Yeah, right. There has never been any famine anywhere on the planet that hasn't been caused by a gradual temperature change. The only problem is now it all occurring upwards and at an unprecented accelerated scale -- the likes of which has never occurred in recorded history.

Like I said before, your absence from the planet will benefit everybody if you continue to remain ignorant.

Climates have changed over the years. Yes. And you know what happened during those times? Those times of less-that-we-are-predicting-and-seeing-now? Species died. There were countless adverse effects because of that temperature change. There was loss of life and major changes. And that was over longer time and more gradual changes.

This is shaping up to be a GREATER change - MUCH faster. How do you think it will effect various species - including our own - if that happens? All good things? No. A FEW good things - MANY bad things.

Hey EYE!
Too bad I'm not a LEFTIE!

I know you aren't, Trix. My point was that extremists on both sides can be equally arrogant!

http://www.youtube.com/swf/cps.swf?video_id=DRaeEIN5Sh8&eurl=http%3A//www.heartl and.org/&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/DRaeEIN5Sh8/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJu YUYPEaxeE34PZ4iYXazO&rel=1&border=0

Have you actually looked at that one lately, Bozo?

It's the best thing he's posted lately.

100

You, my friend, win a Noble prize!

(while LMAO @ Randy)