P2P-Zone - MTV Awards, Oscars, Nobel Peace Prize…

P2P-Zone (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/index.php)

- Political Asylum (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/forumdisplay.php?f=34)

- - MTV Awards, Oscars, Nobel Peace Prize… (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/showthread.php?t=24257)

MTV Awards, Oscars, Nobel Peace Prize…

Are all funny to me and in the same group. Now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for being a hypocrite, making a movie with bad science and lies, flying around in private jets, big limos, polluting the environment more then most do, this prize has lost all creditability and it is all about politics, not achievement. Maybe Michael Moore will win one next year!! The academy award I understand Al winning. That is all about politics, the winners are the people who suck up the most and bash the GOP, it has nothing to do with acting ability.

Anyways…..

Some other thoughts

Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize's coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week.

Al Gore has been "working" for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore's paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves?

How ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I'm embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I'd be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize.

Emily McGue of Columbus, Ohio

I think it is absurd that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness about something that is not even true. Global warming may be happening, but is not because of us. There are many scientists out there who would love to agree with me. If you are going to give recognition to someone for promoting the awareness of something that isn't even true, you might as well just hand out a half-million dollars to some random person walking down the street, they would be more deserving.

Mark McCord of New Richmond, Wisconsin

This just means the Nobel Peace Prize no longer stands for peace, it stands for propaganda, fear and political agendas.

Can anyone here really say he desevres this???

What kind of peace did that fuckwad bring anyway; morons torching SUV dealerships and vandalizing Humvees because of the bullshit he fed them while he produces more CO2 than twenty average americans at the very least. He would end up like Mussolini, a pinata swinging from a fucking lamp post, if the idiots would judge him by his own rhetoric.

Even though I do enjoy my dick being sucked ...

I would not let 'big' Al in the same room as I :BANIT:

The guy is a creepy hypocrite.

what did you expect?

HAHAHA.. have a fucking cry you big babies...

The thing that cracks me up about this one is this scammer won it for a 'powerpoint' presentation :BL:
How about Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan also winning it a few years back, I would of thought all credibility of this peace prize was already shot to pieces. Every few years someone representing the United Nations wins it. Par for the course.

You bitches complain on queue every year who ever wins it... :hflag:

Brewster the Rooster

Whitey was in the fertilized egg business. He had
several hundred young layers called pullets and eight or ten
roosters, whose job it was to fertilize the eggs.

Whitey kept records and any rooster that didn't perform went
into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful
lot of Whitey's time so Whitey got a set of tiny bells and
attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone
so Whitey could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.

Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report
simply by listening to the bells.

Whitey's favorite rooster was old Brewster and a very fine specimen
he was, too. But on this particular morning Whitey noticed old
Brewster's bell hadn't rung at all! Whitey went to investigate.

The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The
pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.

BUT, to Whitey's amazement, Brewster had his bell in his beak,
so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and
walk on to the next one.

Whitey was so proud of Brewster, he entered him in the county
fair... and Brewster became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result...

The judges not only awarded Brewster the "No Bell Piece Prize" but
they also awarded him the "Pullet Surprise" as well.

Clearly Brewster was a Democrat. Who else could figure out how to
win two of the most politically biased awards on our planet by
being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them.

actually, he was awarded the prize for his ability to make wingnut heads explode on contact - they just can't actually come out and say it like that :BL:

Quote:

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 15, 2007
On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

.. at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op...070&emc =eta1

Lol, so anyone who criticizes Gore is "insane". No need to defend his numerous lies and hipocrisy with that argument; as if they were defensible anyway.

Wouldn't you trust, admire, emulate the person who invented the WWW?

Hahahahahahahahahaaa...

He is just a step below the hilery creap.
(Now that is one power hungey BITCH)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicobie (Post 258541)

Wouldn't you trust, admire, emulate the person who invented the WWW?

Hahahahahahahahahaaa...

He is just a step below the hilery creap.
(Now that is one power hungey BITCH)

no problem here, i'd vote for him over anybody currently running:W:

But he's not "currently running" so you're going to have to write his name on the ballot.

I'm not sure liberals are up to that kind of intellectual challenge.

When people will believe anything just because it was on the news.

Am I wrong or didn't Ghore have to share the prize with a few thousand real scientists?

Note: real means academic credentials not real science.

And isn't it funny that Ghandi never won the peace prize?

Yep, the IPCC also won the prize this year, so technically Gore wasn't the only politician who won; the panel counts hundreds of non-scientists among the authors of its reports.