Are you really going to tell me that Gore made the situation more popular? Or that Gore motivated people to actually do something about it? Please, give me a break. Even Gore's own people, the rich and wealthy aren't really doing anything to change their way of life to adapt to global warming. Most of them still roll around in SUV's the size of a tibet family hut. The documentary opened in the U.S but nobody went out to see it, more people saw michel more's medical opinion than Gore's documentary. The problem with Gore's documentary is that almost everybody who has the slightest idea of science can highlight the issues and solutions to global warming. Then there is the notion that global warming is a natural occurance, occuring every few hundred years as a natural process of our planet, the only difference is that human polution is expediting it. So its not as if we can avoid global climate change, we can only stall or expedite it. The Earth has been through numerous ice and volcanic ages even without us. And yes, G.W deserves a recognition too because certain parts of the Middle East is filled with religious tyrants. He might have misled himself about the WMD but many Iraqis and neighboring states now have the chance to taste democracy; nobody said anything when Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90's. Plus we must remember that G.W went into the war after 911, so if he doesn't deserve an award for the pursuit of democracy he at least deserves one for the defense of democracy. Hey, I am only telling the nobel board to practice what they preach. Without G.W I would have never been aware of the tyranny in the Middle East.
Gore gets Noble peace prize for film etc.
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Obviously.
Look at the ice core record, what you are saying is not true.
Not yet. Bush created an Islamic republic that is constitutionally bound to the Koran.
The Gulf War was nothing?
Not at all, Iraq didn't attack us. Afghanistan was not invaded to install a Democracy, but rather to find those responsible for attacking us. I guess that turned out to be a failure too.
George Bush is a religious tyrant and a war criminal. He should be brought before the International Criminal Court along with Rumsfeld and Cheney to answer for their crimes.
Is there any evidence that he had made it more popular or are you just guessing? Here is my own evidence, nobody including the wealthy appear to be in a hurry to do something about it. A lot of people don't even know that the issue of global warming has started since round 1960, and there has been countless committees and meetings ever since, all on the effort to create awareness and cause a change. Primary and secondary energy companies have known about global warming for eons, they should know because they and their likes sponsore scientific researches.
Are you trying to say that ice core records show there was never an ice age?
Why am I not surprised.
but it meant alot to kuwait
Well, somebody did the attacking and I am sure the U.S would not have wasted resources by attacking Iraq if it wasn't a threath in some way. I'm pretty sure not everybody in the U.S is completely dumb.
It always amazes me how people can flip flap, Sen Hillary Clinton and everybody like you were constantly sobering during 911, and those that did not sober were in fear of uncertainty. All everybody wanted at that time was investigation or retaliation, there's nothing more scary than not knowing who your attacker is. Any American President would have done the same thing G.W did, just maybe not at the same magnitude. I gurantee you, if you had asked Saddam if he prefered or condoned the attack on America he would have answered in favor of the attack, hence not making him any different from the attacker. Americans always think nothing can happen to them because of their relative distance from the rest of the super powers, which is why they easily forget when they are surprisingly attacked, ala Peal Habor. I bet Americans wouldn't be so considering if they were smack in the middle of the action somewhere in Eurasia.
“Because we understand how heat moves in ice, [and] we know how cold the ice is today, we can calculate how cold the ice was during the Ice Age,” - Richard Alley. Forensic Geologists. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Why would Bush care about the nation's resources? He delivered them to contractors like Cheney's Halliburton very efficiently. Iraq was not a threat, and Bush knew it.
Bush knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9.11 and he said so. It's not even a matter of thinking Iraq had anything to do with it, they all knew it didn't.
The issue of global warming didn't just "start". Al Gore was one of the most important people "starting" it. And the energy companies denied it, interfered with the "starting" of it, spent millions to slander and attack Al Gore and others who attempted to make them them pay attention to it, spent millions sponsoring biased and inaccurate "research" to obscure and confuse the issue, and might very well have kept it buried to this day if Gore and a couple of others hadn't shoved it up their collective ass with thirty years of hard political work.chatha said:
Hence the Prize.
No, not everybody in the US was, or is, "completely dumb". A hell of a lot of people tried to prevent W from invading and occupying Iraq, and only a serious and overwhelming campaign of lies and propaganda (including a twenty year campaign of packing the Supreme Court with ideological allies, and a concerted effort to bypass and corrupt the major US intelligence agencies) won the day for W&Co and the rest of the Reaganites.chatha said:
You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.
You make a good point but some energy companies and NGO's have been creating awareness of Global warming before Gore's movie came out, an exmaple is the IPCC, which was established in 1988, which was a co-recipient of the prize with Al Gore. The arguement could be that energy companies knew about the pending movie so they started creating global warming awareness but there is no evidence to proof that, plus everybody already knew about global warming before Al Gore, everybody knew since the 60's. From 1995-1999 if you opened any reasonable textbook, you would learn about global warming. Even when Al gore was VP he never took time out to go on a global warming awareness tour, so he must also have been informed enough to now go on an awareness rampage. Like I said, global climate change is a natural phenomena, the volcanic, ice, and a other ages are a result of natural process. If Gore deserves a nobel (and someone should probably look this up but even the scientists that actually went to the arctics to discover global warming didn't get a prize) then we should give it to other people like Tony Blair for his relentless pursuit of democracy in the Mid East and creating awareness of the nature of the Mid East. And for Preseident Bill Clinton for his endless pursuit of peace between Palestine and Isreal.
Why G.W invaded Iraq will always be a mystery but I am pretty sure there was a reason, however seemingly irrelevant. I was one of those people that used to question why G.W invaded Iraq but that was just because I was listening to other people, I wasn't thinking on my own. Now, if Bush had ousted Saddam himself without an all out Middle age style invasion nobody would have complained, but like every other country Saddam had followers, and so did G.W. Okay, lets say we aren't giving the peace prize to G.W, what about the people that are actually doing somehting about global warming, the people inventing alternative energy and alternative lifestyle, the comapnies that work tirelessly over new ways to curb global warming? Why didn't they get a recongnition also? Wasn't Al Gore's son caught on a California freeway driving a...oops...combustion engine sports car? I really commend Mr Gores effort, don't get me wrong, but I think they gave him that award to actually create more awareness, not that he created so much awareness himself.
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Bill Clinton probably will get one.
LOL. Such hyperbole.
What will you do if we ever really get a fascist government? You'll be like the boy who cried wolf. No one will believe you until the death camps are going full steam. Then it will be too late.
If only you hadn't shot your wad early, people might have listened.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Don't even say you believe in the constitution, because you don't care, and that's unpatriotic. You're all ready to salute the flag, while Cheney/Bush destroy everything it means to be free. They are ghouls, standing over the surprisingly lucid Ashcroft in his hospital bed, seeking the justification to torture people and spy on Americans at whim. The shame is truly on us, for not impeaching these criminals yet. I don't even expect you to understand the problem.
I don't support the constitution? Please.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Obviously, you don't. Is it constitutional to sign a law, and then write a signing statement that means you don't intend to follow the law you just signed? Is it constitutional to spy on Americans without a warrant? You're such a hypocrite. If they subverted the constitution about your precious guns, you would care.
The camps are already here, hidden in Cuba, of all places, in order to get around American law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The camps are already here, hidden in Cuba, of all places, in order to get around American law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
90% of what the federal government does these days is unconstitutional. Remember the 10th ammendment? All powers not specifically granted to the federal government remain with the people or the states? Back when they decided to build the interstate highway system, they at least went thru the pretence of pretending it was for national defense (a legitimate function of the federal government). Nowadays, the federal government is involved in damned near everything when the constitution never granted it the power to do these things.
I don't hear you bitching about social security, medicare, Dept of Education, EPA, etc etc etc. Those should all be state issues, the constitution never granted the power to the federal goverment to withhold income for a pyramid scheme retirement plan!
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I would think that all those things are vital to the nation's commerce. The prtection and regulation of anything affecting interstate commerce is one of their powers. Besides the states also have envirnomental laws, education departments,and medical programs (as I understand it SCHIP and many medicare/medicaid programs are run by the states and paid for by the feds).
Old people not having enough money to engage in commerce is a concern related to commerce, so regulating it seems okay to me.
As for signing statements, they are not terrible in the abstract. Sometimes the President signs a law that looks constitutional whne read one way, and not the other, so the signing statement clarifies that. What's disturbing about Bush's use of it is that he has fundamentally different and limited views of Congress's power to regulate the armed forces and in areas otherwise related to national security, but he signs laws related to them anyway. His signing statements just purport to give him borad powers to ignore th law and do things like torture people, if he feels it's necessary. For minor clarificiations, I think signing statements are great. When it comes to fundamental disagreements about the separation of powers and checks and balances, signing statements are not a good tool to be using.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Nonsense. "Promote the general welfare" is in the constitution.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
That's in the preamble...not a power granted to Congress. Personally I think the preamble is hortatory. The preamble to the Articles of Confederation purported to be "perpetual," and yet by 1787, Congress was talking about thgrowing the document out.
"Promote" and "control" are two different things, Spider.
What amazes me is that almost everyone here seems to think that the federal government is fucked up, yet they defend it in issues like this.
I don't think the federal government can stick it's finger in it's own ass ...even with full instructions and a blueprint!
Baron Max
Of course not. - Where do you think they keep the blue prints.
(Finger can not go into already filled space.) I am sure that is where they got the alcohol from corn plan's blue print as that sure stinks.
It's in the preamble and was not meant to be a blank check.
The Nobel Prize is as discredited as the US Government, so one must adore the irony of the former awarding their sacred prize to a former corrupt official of the latter.