babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Al Gore: Nobel Peace Prize

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Al Gore: Nobel Peace Prize
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 12 October 2007 01:27 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
well, congrats:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Nobel-Peace.html?hp

harping starts later ...

best early one-liner, from the NYTimes comments:
Good for Vice President Gore, but the Supreme Court will probably take the award from him and give it to George W. Bush. ...

and for me, brings this issue back up:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=003252&p=


.

[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 12 October 2007 06:38 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
yeah good for him. Another American 'leader' who did nothing good in office but is rewarded for it anyway.

Keep in mind, Henry Kissinger has one of these too, and I can't think of many people who killed more for a 'peace' prize.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 12 October 2007 08:53 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dumbing down the Nobel prize to another insignificant gong. Whats next? Bill Clinton gets a Nobel gong for advancements to gender relations?
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 12 October 2007 09:01 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It could be worse. I suspect that Gore will 'reluctantly' announce his disappointment with the current crop of presidential wannabes, and enter the race himself. I also suspect he'll win.

Which is neither here nor there, except that he has built a lot of momentum and expectations around climate change action, and if we must have some kind of US president, then I'd prefer it was one who is committed to doing something about climate change.

That said, I'm sure the GOP is already getting ready to steal the next election.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 12 October 2007 09:02 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Henry Kissinger has one of these too, and I can't think of many people who killed more for a 'peace' prize.

Well, to be fair, Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho shared the same prize for negotiating an apparent end the Vietnam war.

Generally, I'd be for prosecuting Kissinger for war crimes; but when the Nobel is given to the leaders of two warring nations, it will inevitably be true that both have blood on their hands.

Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres also shared the prize, for similar reasons.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 12 October 2007 09:08 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Generally, I'd be for prosecuting Kissinger for war crimes; but when the Nobel is given to the leaders of two warring nations, it will inevitably be true that both have blood on their hands.

Especially when we make no distinction between aggressor and victim.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 12 October 2007 09:12 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Well, to be fair, Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho shared the same prize for negotiating an apparent end the Vietnam war.


Agreed... the problem is no one was admitting to the bombing of cambodia which lead to that wonderful Pol Pot regime that worked out for them so well.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 12 October 2007 09:13 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's right.

Wars tend to end when people make peace.

Shouts of "YOU'RE THE AGGRESSOR!" can actually function as a barrier to peace.

It can sometimes be fun for outsiders to want to continue hostilities indefinitely, but often the actual warring parties feel differently.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 October 2007 09:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that's an unfair assessment of unionist's point of view, that he wants to continue hostilities indefinitely.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 12 October 2007 09:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think he wants to continue hostilities until his side wins.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 October 2007 09:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you're wrong.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 12 October 2007 09:32 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, you are the aggressor! Therefore, I can give no quarter and must stoutly oppose your nomination for Moderator of the Century.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 12 October 2007 09:34 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there a Nobel Prize for moderators?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 12 October 2007 09:44 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, Peace Prize.
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 October 2007 09:49 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Has anyone ever told you you're cute when you're obstinate?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
spillunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14242

posted 12 October 2007 10:31 AM      Profile for spillunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyway, this put's Gore in the driver's seat re: climate change. It will force him, if only for legacy's sake, to put his money where his mouth is for once. And so I hope he does run for the presidency now and I hope he gets it.

It's very easy to be an advocate when you don't have to fight off the GOP, sign the budgets, and defend your decisions.


From: cavescavescaves! | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 12 October 2007 10:43 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obviously Al Gore won the Peace Prize for what he has been doing AFTER he left the office of the vice-presidency, not what he did during it. His campaign outside the office was probably a greater contribution to the fight against climate change than the sum of everything the Clinton administration did. I like Al Gore the crusader a whole lot more than Al Gore the politician.

Which is why I hope he DOESN'T run for the presidency. I do hope he endorses a Democratic candidate more progressive than Hillary Clinton.

As for him winning the Peace Prize? Well, its been given to people a whole lot worse than Gore. Despite whatever Gore does in his private life and whatever he did during the presidency, he has helped to generate a small cultural shift in North America.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 12 October 2007 11:01 AM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Note that the co-winner was the IPCC. I thought Sheila Watt-Cloutier would have been a worthy recipient too.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 October 2007 01:35 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Well, to be fair, Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho shared the same prize for negotiating an apparent end the Vietnam war.
Actually, Le Duc Tho, to his eternal credit, refused to accept the award - making him one of the few persons of principle ever to have been offered it!

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152

posted 12 October 2007 02:32 PM      Profile for ghoris     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Few people of principle"? Besides Kissinger and a small handful of others, I submit the candidates are all very deserving. Or do you consider people like Martin Luther King Jr., the Dalai Lama, Mohammad Yunus, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Elie Wiesel, Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, Norman Borlaug, Albert Schweitzer, Shirin Ebadi, Jimmy Carter and Wangari Maathi, and organizations like Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, UNICEF, the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines to be unprincipled?
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 October 2007 03:56 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I consider several of those people to be lacking in principles, if you must know. And that list you cherry-picked is but a small fraction of the total rogues gallery of past recipients.

I also share the following commentator's opinion that awarding a "Peace Prize" to Al Gore is a travesty:

quote:
Without diminishing the importance of global warming and the work done by this year's recipients - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) and Al Gore Jr. - it is highly disputable whether it qualifies as a PEACE prize in the spirit of Alfred Nobel - even if interpreted in the contemporary world situation and not that of 1895 when Nobel formulated his vision.

The concept and definition of peace should indeed be broad. But neither of the recipients have made contributions that can match thousands of other individuals and NGOs who devote their lives to fighting militarism, nuclearism, wars, reducing violence, work for peacebuilding, tolerance, reconciliation and co-existence - the core issues of the Nobel Peace Prize.

It is also regrettable that the Prize rewards government-related work, rather than civil society - Non-Governmentals, making the implicit point that governments rather than the people make peace.

In particular, Al Gore - as vice-president under Bill Clinton between 1993 and 2001 was never heard or seen as a peace-maker. Clinton-Gore had a crash program for building up US military facilities and made military allies all around Russia - and missed history's greatest opportunity for a new world order.

In contravention of international law and without a UN Security Council mandate, they bombed Serbia and Kosovo, based on an extremely deficient understanding of Yugoslavia and propaganda about genocide that has caused the miserable situation called Kosovo today (likely to blow up this year or the next), and they bombed in Afghanistan and Sudan.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 12 October 2007 05:48 PM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by spillunk:
And so I hope he does run for the presidency now and I hope he gets it.

Gore is way too conservative for my tastes. He proved that when chose Joe Lieberman for VP. Plus I don't think he can be trusted on insuring abortion rights. And his wife led the charge to stick warning labels on the records with "dirty words" back in the 80's. I wish both the Clinton's and the Gore's would just go away.


From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 12 October 2007 06:25 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gore wasn't given the peace prize for his political record (thank God).
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 12 October 2007 06:52 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am surprised that the thread is so negative.
Gore got his prize for the inconvenient truth that he has being doing non stop for what? 5 years?
He has spread the word of environmentalism more convinceingly than anyone ever before him despite the opposition has been more fierce and a million times richer than his one man campaign.
I have a copy. It is a very disturbing piece.
And by the way, Gore did a lot of good stuff as a politician. People that believe a good guy can do anything and everything are just a little bit innocent.
And also a one person environmental campaign is incredibly hard.
I made an environmental gaget called the pulser pump 20 years ago (and it still works) and scientists have still not investigated it!
(Even though it oxygenates streams and substitutes for Fosil fuels)
I do not expect the same ignorance with the Mechanical mathematician for making solar cookers but I was wrong before.
Envitonmentalism is very tough if you actually want to achieve something. Gore did very well indeed.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 12 October 2007 07:28 PM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder how much carbon Albert Gore III has spewed with his mansions and private airplanes over that time. And if you took the total amount of carbon emissions and divided it by that amount, what would the multiplier be? I think we have a new measurement for pollution here - The Gore. As in, total carbon emissions for the United States were 214,000 Gore last year. Up 19,000 Gore over 2006.

[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]


From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mayakovsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5171

posted 12 October 2007 09:19 PM      Profile for mayakovsky     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The western left spread hope? Come on, Brian, don't you know how mainstream hope is?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_hFydh-QhPA


From: New Bedford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 13 October 2007 01:01 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do not understand.
quote:
Originally posted by mayakovsky:
The western left spread hope? Come on, Brian, don't you know how mainstream hope is?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_hFydh-QhPA



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 13 October 2007 01:18 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I hate hope. It was hammered into me constantly a few years ago when I was being treated for breast cancer: Think positively! Don't lose hope! Wear your pink ribbon with pride! A couple of years later, I was alarmed to discover that the facility where I re­ceived my follow-up care was called the Hope Center. Hope? What about a cure? At antiwar and labor rallies over the years, I have dutifully joined Jesse Jackson in chanting "Keep hope alive!" – all the while crossing my fin­gers and thinking, "Fuck hope. Keep us alive."

Barabara Ehrenreich, "Pathologies of Hope" (Essay is a little off topic, but it does skewer the myth of "hope")

mayakovsky would prefer to reduce this critique to elitist or hipster pessimism, as if "hope" could stop climate change if we simply do it hard enough and is not, rather, a shiny bauble packaged and sold by Oprah.

Thanks for the "hope," Al! Keep selling those carbon credits!

[ 13 October 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 October 2007 03:53 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
I think we have a new measurement for pollution here - The Gore. As in, total carbon emissions for the United States were 214,000 Gore last year. Up 19,000 Gore over 2006.

But that's okay. He paid for his indulgences in sin credits, so he's allowed to pollute as much as he likes, as long as he's rich enough to pay other people to conserve for him! Ecocapitalism will save the planet!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 13 October 2007 02:29 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He paid for his indulgences in sin credits, so he's allowed to pollute as much as he likes, as long as he's rich enough to pay other people to conserve for him!

Of course he buys his indulgences from himself so it's ultra-efficient.

But more to the point, last time I looked Alfred Nobel's will specifies that the peace prize would go "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 and promotion of peace congresses." That's hardly Al Gore.

Unfortunately the Peace Prize has become a political award that allows the Committee to make a statement as opposed to recognizing someone's true accomplishments.

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: abnormal ]


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 13 October 2007 03:04 PM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:

Unfortunately the Peace Prize has become a political award that allows the Committee to make a statement as opposed to recognizing someone's true accomplishments.

agree 100%


From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 13 October 2007 04:35 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, nice to see your cynical contribution.
If it gets cooking hot in a couple of years, i will have good company. Gore has shown clearly where the off swich on the oven is.
All you do is shoot the messanger.
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:

agree 100%



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 13 October 2007 08:31 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gore has shown clearly where the off swich on the oven is.

There is no "off switch".

More hubris to think that humans can stop a global environmental process (the cause is irrelevant) that is well on its way.

If only we all drove a Prius, built more nukular power plants, then the polar bears will be okay!


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 13 October 2007 09:01 PM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, you could see it as the fallout from global warming causing conflict the world over, and hence, doing something to fight global warming would further the cause of world peace. It's a stretch, but there's some truth to it.

And I hope he does run for President, and win. As far as I know, he's about the most decent person who has any shot at the White House. That's faint praise - anyone who could win these days is absolutely awful, but it's still true.


From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2007 09:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbert:
... he's about the most decent person who has any shot at the White House.
Thus the eternal motto inscribed on the banner of the USian "progressive" voter since practically time immemorial!

Which pretty much explains how the US got into this mess in the first place, and will probably never get out of it.

On the other hand, over 2.5 million Canadians disagree with that logic, and vote NDP.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 13 October 2007 10:30 PM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the other hand, over 2.5 million Canadians disagree with that logic, and vote NDP.

Never said I'd vote for him. Hell, I'd vote Nader or stay home if I were American. However, he's not gonna win. The most optimistic scenario I can see in 08 is Gore winning. If you can see a brighter scenario, I'm all ears. Frankly, I could use something to cheer me up.


From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2007 10:55 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbert:
Never said I'd vote for him.
No, you just said you hoped he runs for President, and wins.

Some difference!


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 14 October 2007 08:55 AM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Al Gore is not a progressive.
From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 14 October 2007 09:43 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
Al Gore is not a progressive.

Effective political definitions change from country to country, due to the fact realities change. Perhaps Gore would not be a progressive in Canada, but his activities have very much moved American discourse to the left. He is the leading public environmentalist, and he opposed the Iraq war from the start.

However, if you want to have the same standards for Canada and the United States, then since The USA has ten times the population, the literature, etc. then it is more or less their standards that are to be adopted. And then under those standards Harper is a progressive as he supports universal health care, doesn't currently vote for troops in Iraq, etc.

There is of course the choice of judging politicians in the context of the political reality under which they operate.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 14 October 2007 09:59 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
Al Gore is not a progressive.

Nobody who runs for the US presidency (and has a REAL chance to win) is "progressive" by any absolute standards--they all are compromised. All must pay tribute to corporatism, the military-industrial complex and, to some degree, hegemony. The corporate media will make sure a real outsider does not get close to the presidency.
A purist would not vote at all--or give their vote to Ralph Nader.
If there was a race between Gore and, say, Guiliani, there is no question-- I'd vote for Gore.

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 14 October 2007 10:48 AM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When Gore got the nomination he could have chosen anyone to be his VP, and who did he choose ? Joe Lieberman, THEE most conservative Democrat in the U.S Government. Not exactly the instincts of someone even moderately progressive. Plus, he's a pro-lifer that changed his tune for political expediency when it was convenient and let's not forget his uptight wife that led that ridiculous campaign to stick "warning labels" on naughty records.

Gore vs Giuliani, I don't see much of a difference, I'll vote 3rd party...again.


From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 October 2007 01:05 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
...he opposed the Iraq war from the start.
Please, let's dispose of this canard once and for all!
quote:
In a speech February 12 [2002], his first major political address since the US Supreme Court stopped a vote count in Florida and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, declared his full support to the Bush administration’s plans for expanded warfare in the Middle East. Gore called for a “final reckoning” with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
....
Gore specifically solidarized himself with the “axis of evil” rhetoric in Bush’s State of the Union speech....

“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said. “There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.”

Gore made a bow to European criticisms of Bush’s unilateralism, and presented himself as an advocate of a more inclusive style of foreign policy....

But the basic thrust of his speech was to demonstrate how far the Democratic Party’s titular leader would go in identifying himself with the aggressive militarism that now dominates Washington. Gore declared, “I also support the president’s stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union.” The 2000 Democratic presidential candidate thus backed the worldwide campaign of military force, covert provocations and diplomatic bullying that is being waged in the name of the “war on terrorism.” He endorsed Bush’s shift in the focus of this campaign from terrorist groups to governments allegedly engaged in the development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Gore said, “There is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.”

The former vice president recalled that he was among a small group of Democratic senators who backed the first President Bush in his decision to dispatch a huge army to the Middle East and go to war against Iraq over Kuwait. His only criticism of the Persian Gulf War was that it did not go far enough and was ended with Saddam Hussein still in power.

Gore added, “So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit...."

Gore did not spell out what he meant when he said the US had to be prepared to “go the limit” against Iraq. Do his provocative and reckless words imply the destruction of Iraq as a functioning society, through saturation bombing? The invasion of the country and occupation of Baghdad by an American army? Or perhaps the use of nuclear weapons in the event that an air and ground attack should prove insufficient?

Gore also said that Iran was “a much more dangerous challenge” than Iraq in terms both of support for terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction. He did not draw the conclusion that war with Iran was more necessary than war with Iraq, but strongly implied that such a war would be inevitable unless the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Teheran were overthrown from within....

He concluded: “When all is said and done, I hope that when the people of our country next return the White House for a time to the Democratic Party, our leadership then will be big enough to salute the present administration for what it will have done that is wise and good. And to build upon it forthrightly....”

From the standpoint of American politics, Gore’s remarks demonstrate the politically moribund and intellectually debased character of liberalism. As he did during the election campaign, when he sought to ignore the right-wing campaign that led to Clinton’s impeachment, and as he did during the post-election crisis in Florida, Gore seeks to tranquilize the American people about the dangers to their democratic rights....


how quickly some people forget

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 14 October 2007 01:14 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What are wars about? Today they are about oil.
But if you burn oil, you are frying your grandchildren. That is the logic of him getting the peace prize.
Would you fry your grandchildren?
Think carefully before you buy that new SUV
And the off swiches do exist.
It is a button on the elevators in mines and the drill controls in oilwells, and your tv and light switches.
Sure there is a lag between turning it off and cooling but all the more reason to turn off now.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 14 October 2007 02:19 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
originally posted by Brian White:

I made an environmental gaget called the pulser pump 20 years ago (and it still works) and scientists have still not investigated it!
(Even though it oxygenates streams and substitutes for Fosil fuels)


If it worked in the first place it will still work. However, if you've got a patent, please post the details here so we can form our own opinion. If you don't and want to share it with humanity, please do the same. Or is this another "I bought a car with a 200 mile per gallon carburator but the oil companies bought it back" story?


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 14 October 2007 04:29 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
When Gore got the nomination he could have chosen anyone to be his VP, and who did he choose ? Joe Lieberman, THEE most conservative Democrat in the U.S Government.


The Cheney-Bush presidency is an anomoly.
Almost all vice-Presidents have no real power in government and are, in fact, seldom heard from except as substitute ribbon-cutters etc. Gore obviously chose his vice-president for the same reasons that most presidential candidates chose theirs: to sew up votes in demographics that they would not normally appeal to.
Cynical or realistic-- take your pick.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 14 October 2007 06:26 PM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:

The Cheney-Bush presidency is an anomoly.
Almost all vice-Presidents have no real power in government and are, in fact, seldom heard from except as substitute ribbon-cutters etc. Gore obviously chose his vice-president for the same reasons that most presidential candidates chose theirs: to sew up votes in demographics that they would not normally appeal to.
Cynical or realistic-- take your pick.


I don't buy that argument at all. The choice of a running mate is very important and sheds a lot of light into what type of a President a given candidate will be. Gore choosing Lieberman to sew up the Jewish vote or the Connecticut (or New England) vote, as you suggest, makes no sense either as both Jews & New Englanders vote overwhelmingly Democratic anyway. Gore chose Lieberman because Gore is a conservative Democrat and he always has been. If he were truly a progressive Democrat there were dozens of qualified applicants that were available for him to choose from. Gore chose not to because he's not the least bit progressive.


From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 14 October 2007 07:45 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:


I don't buy that argument at all. The choice of a running mate is very important and sheds a lot of light into what type of a President a given candidate will be. Gore choosing Lieberman to sew up the Jewish vote or the Connecticut (or New England) vote, as you suggest, makes no sense either as both Jews & New Englanders vote overwhelmingly Democratic anyway.



That is not what I suggest, and I'll assume it's merely out of ignorance that you say that I did.
The one true statement you make is the Jews traditionally have voted Democrat.
Lieberman does NOT represent "the Jewish vote" which is more liberal than the average American. He is a supporter of the pro-Israel lobby which includes the powerful Christian Zionist movement. You seem to want to obscure the difference, though I havn't read enough of your posts yet to guess why.
ETA:
New England? Last time I looked the presidential race was a national campaign.

[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 14 October 2007 07:59 PM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The President is elected by an electoral college, which is like 50 separate state-wide mini elections. The six New England states usually tend to vote Democratic (at least in recent Presidential elections). If Lieberman is a member of the "pro-Israel lobby" which includes the "Christian Zionist Movement" as you say, why then would Gore choose Lieberman as his running mate if he (Gore) wasn't sympathetic to those views himself ?
From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 14 October 2007 08:43 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is getting--circular.
I explained before about selection and political expediency and you "don't buy it".
So be it. My write-in vote for the Dalai Lama is in the mail.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 14 October 2007 09:40 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:

Gore vs Giuliani, I don't see much of a difference, I'll vote 3rd party...again.


And how did that go for you last time?

You may be right, but a great many Iraqis are dead too.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jabberwock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14147

posted 15 October 2007 10:28 AM      Profile for Jabberwock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
What are wars about? Today they are about oil.
But if you burn oil, you are frying your grandchildren. That is the logic of him getting the peace prize.
Would you fry your grandchildren?
Think carefully before you buy that new SUV
And the off swiches do exist.
It is a button on the elevators in mines and the drill controls in oilwells, and your tv and light switches.
Sure there is a lag between turning it off and cooling but all the more reason to turn off now.

And in the future, we will fight wars over water.

A sick planet will lead to a hell of a lot more conflict.


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 October 2007 04:03 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
My write-in vote for the Dalai Lama is in the mail.
That spiritual fraud artist already won the prize in 1989.

He goes around preaching his message of reincarnation, anti-homosexuality, and anti-abortion, though he says sex with prostitutes is OK. This ambassador of peace, who once accepted money from the CIA and from the Aum Shinrikyo cult of Japan, refuses to condemn nuclear weapons testing in India, the country where he sought refuge in 1959.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 16 October 2007 09:12 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
That spiritual fraud artist already won the prize in 1989.

He goes around preaching his message of reincarnation, anti-homosexuality, and anti-abortion, though he says sex with prostitutes is OK. This ambassador of peace, who once accepted money from the CIA and from the Aum Shinrikyo cult of Japan, refuses to condemn nuclear weapons testing in India, the country where he sought refuge in 1959.



My comment was a mildly ironic one, aimed at the folly of voting for a "pure" 3rd party candidate. I could have said "Ralph Nader" but a lot of people don't find his support from the Republican
party ironic.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 16 October 2007 09:41 AM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In 2000 Nader attracted both Republicans and Democrats that were disgusted with their respective parties. I voted for him myself and, if he were to run in 2008, I would again if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.
From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 16 October 2007 10:17 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
In 2000 Nader attracted both Republicans and Democrats that were disgusted with their respective parties.

The reality of Republican crossover "disgust" is greatly exaggerated--as you may already know.
The number of Republicans who have "converted" to Nader is tiny compared to the support from Bush-supporting Republicans who managed to get him on ballots and give him money.
This is a win-win strategy for the Republicans:
1) there is zero chance Nader can win
2)it siphons off primarily disenchanted Democrat votes allowing Bush to win.


"Republican support for Nader, or at least for his appearing on the ballot, is exploding all over. The Wisconsin chapter of the Citizens for a Sound Economy plans to work to get him onto that state's ballot. According to an Arizona Democratic attorney quoted in The New York Times, 46 percent of the signatures filed by the Nader campaign in that state belong to registered Republicans. Arizona Naderites are being represented by Lisa Hauser, an active Republican attorney and counsel to former GOP Gov. Fife Symington."

Nader Republicans


"... Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, calls such charges ridiculous, adding: "It's unfortunate that Democrats seem determined to disenfranchise voters who want an opportunity to cast votes for Ralph Nader.''

Still, other Republicans acknowledge that many in the party have mentioned that a donation to Nader may boost Bush, particularly in states where the vote is expected to be close.

"Republicans have no problem with it, if the goal is to keep President Bush in office,'' said Hoover Institution research fellow Bill Whalen, a veteran GOP strategist. "It's not pretty. But putting a guy (in the White House) you don't like is not pretty either.''

Whalen said the Republican National Committee or the Bush-Cheney campaign can't technically condone such donations, but "you absolutely want your activists to get out there and help Ralph run'' because of the effects he had on the 2000 election.

"Do the math,'' Whalen said.

Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in "bundled'' contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31.

Bundling is the practice of gathering contributions together for maximum influence."

Republicans


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 October 2007 09:20 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Al Gore joins a long list of past "ignoble" recipients like warrior presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and supporter of rogue regimes Jimmy Carter. He's also among the likes of genocidists Henry Kissinger and three former Israeli prime ministers - Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin - along with former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who never met a US-led war he didn't love and support. So much for promoting peace and what this award is supposed to signify.
Nobel Hypocrisy

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 20 October 2007 07:22 AM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is a whole faction, albeit small, of the Republican Party that rejects the corporate driven agenda of the party apparatus. It's loudest voices are probably those of columnist Pat Buchanan and CNN host Lou Dobbs.
From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 20 October 2007 07:44 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Al Gore joins a long list of past "ignoble" recipients like warrior presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

Woodrow Wilson was an academic with no military service and tried to keep the United States out of World War I. He received his Nobel Prize for helping to found the League of Nations, and destroyed his health trying to sell it in the US.

Theodore Roosevelt won his Nobel Prize for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. It is true that he is the only person to receive both the Nobel Peace Prize and their country's highest military decoration (long posthumously), but he was also a progressive (for the time) and a conservationist.

I wouldn't call either Nobel Prize particularly ignoble. There are certainly far less worthy recipients and more worthy omissions (such as Gandhi) though.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 21 October 2007 08:56 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The fact that you would defend Wilson and “carry a big stick” Roosevelt says a lot about your political judgment. And it’s not complimentary.

These men were the architects of “Pax Americana”; the “peace” they promoted was a form of peace based on imperialist exploitation and fear of American military power, which they did not shrink from wielding.

quote:
Every time we go to Nicaragua we learn more about a sordid and absurd episode in America’s history. This, too, has Wilson’s DNA on it. Marines were sent into Nicaragua in 1916. The country became almost a protectorate of the United States – despite the fact that it was a sovereign nation.

Wilson did not stop there. Soon he had U.S. soldiers all over the diarrhea belt. He sent them into Haiti and the Dominican Republic, too. In Mexico, he backed one party…then, a splinter faction…and then, when the splinter group began killing people on both sides of the border, Wilson sent a force of 6,675 Punitive Expedition down to the Rio Grande to hunt down and kill the splinter himself – Pancho Villa.

From humbug, to farce, to disaster; in the end, the effect of these interventions was just the opposite of what Wilson had hoped for. Instead of increasing America’s friends in the region, the number of her sworn enemies multiplied. For the next two generations, in many Latin American countries, "Yanqui go home" was practically the national anthem.


Source

quote:
Take another presidential hero, Theodore Roosevelt, who is always near the top of the tiresome lists of Our Greatest Presidents. And there he is on Mount Rushmore, as a permanent reminder of our historical amnesia - forgetting his racism, his militarism, his love of war. Why not replace him as hero - granted, removing him from Mount Rushmore will take some doing - with Mark Twain? Roosevelt had congratulated an American general who in 1906 ordered the massacre of 600 men, women, children on a Philippine island. And Twain denounced this, as he continued to point to the cruelties committed in the Philippine war under the slogan "My country, right or wrong".

As for Woodrow Wilson, also occupying an important place in the pantheon of American liberalism, shouldn't we remind his admirers that he insisted on racial segregation in federal buildings, that he bombarded the Mexican coast, sent an occupation army into Haiti and the Dominican Republic, brought our country into the hell of World War I, and put anti-war protesters in prison. Should we not bring forward as a national hero Emma Goldman, one of those Wilson sent to prison, or Helen Keller, who fearlessly spoke out against the war?
Howard Zinn

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 21 October 2007 09:25 AM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone who thinks Woodrow Wilson is some sort of progressive hero really ought to read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen - in the first chapter he discusses Wilson. Wilson was a rabid white supremacist and his "red scare" made McCarthyism look rather tame.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
I AM WOMAN
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14593

posted 21 October 2007 09:38 AM      Profile for I AM WOMAN     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed. Wilson was a horrible President. But, I thought TR was one of our best.
From: tall building | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 21 October 2007 08:59 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The specific accomplishments that Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson were honoured for were relatively legitimate. Overall though they were less than admirable characters, so I agree that their Nobel Prizes were rather ignoble. I had forgotten how much of a warmonger Roosevelt was while he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Wilson was quite racist even for his era.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 21 October 2007 10:31 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is on the internet.
use it if you like. Nobody has a patent on it.
By all means, form your own opinion.
Spare me the 200 mpg car stuff though.
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:

If it worked in the first place it will still work. However, if you've got a patent, please post the details here so we can form our own opinion. If you don't and want to share it with humanity, please do the same. Or is this another "I bought a car with a 200 mile per gallon carburator but the oil companies bought it back" story?



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 21 October 2007 10:34 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was told that the bush campaign funded nader's campaign in swing states because they knew he took more democrat votes than republican ones.
And it worked! Bush won because he funded nader!
quote:
Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
In 2000 Nader attracted both Republicans and Democrats that were disgusted with their respective parties. I voted for him myself and, if he were to run in 2008, I would again if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 22 October 2007 05:39 AM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Al Gore's 'Errors': The Verdict

quote:
The confusion was inevitable. Two days before Gore shared in the Nobel Peace Prize last week, a British high court judge ruled that Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, contains nine "errors." The court also observed that the film was "political."

News stories reported that the judge found the movie to be "riddled" with errors. Some accounts said the judge found nine mistakes, others said 11. Climate change deniers, who have found themselves increasingly ignored over the past year, tried to use the judgment to rekindle a debate over whether there is such a thing as man-made climate change.

For Gore's supporters, the decision became what ABC News called "an inconvenient verdict."



From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 22 October 2007 06:39 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
why was a film in court in a democratic country?

The legal proceedings were started by a fellow named Stuart Dimmock ... a Dover resident, a truck-driving father of two and a school governor, who objected to British schools showing Gore's movie in classes. Dimmock wanted the court to ban the film from schools on the grounds that it amounts to "political indoctrination."

at a minimum, the Gore film is not neutral;
if you want to open wide that door and show films with a distinct ideological slant in public schools, then intelligent-design, here we come !!

weren't people here cheering when a US judge ruled that was politics not science, hence not teachable in public schools?

the plaintiff here says essentially the same thing

[ 22 October 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 October 2007 09:28 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Tyee doesn't get it.

The reason the judge repeatedly put single quotes around the word 'errors' was to indicate that they were alleged errors. He did not make a finding that they were in fact errors. It was not necessary - or appropriate - for him to resolve scientific disputes in order to deal with the case.

Read the judgment.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 October 2007 07:55 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gore’s efforts aren’t Nobel enough
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
david henman
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14695

posted 01 November 2007 11:08 AM      Profile for david henman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...it's very simple: Al Gore is not a conservative.

were he a conservative, other conservatives would be falling all over each other to proclaim him the king of the global warming movement, and claiming the global warming movement as a conservative cause.

the fact that Al Gore is one of those dreaded liberals drives conservatives absolutely crazy and, thus, we get proclamations like "global warming is a liberal conspiracy" from
Stephen Harper and many others.

a conspiracy theory from conservative "realists"? my irony meter just exploded!

it's pretty obvious that the mistake Al Gore made was listening to scientists.

he should have listened to conservatives.

after all, what do scientists know about...you know...science.

conservatives, on the other hand......

-dh

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: david henman ]


From: newmarket | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 04 November 2007 06:45 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So who do you nominate?
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Gore’s efforts aren’t Nobel enough

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 April 2008 04:54 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gore Launches Ambitious Advocacy Campaign on Climate

Monday, March 31, 2008

excerpt:

Former vice president Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign Wednesday aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a move that ranks as one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.

excerpt:

The new effort comes at a time when the three remaining major party presidential candidates -- Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- have all endorsed federal limits on greenhouse gases, virtually ensuring that the next occupant of the White House will offer a sharp break from President Bush's climate policy.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 April 2008 05:00 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama would consider Gore for cabinet-level post

excerpt:

At a town-hall meeting, Mr. Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice-president for his cabinet to handle global warming.

“I would,” Mr. Obama said. “Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now.”

Since leaving the White House, Mr. Gore has gone on to become one of the world's leading voices for combatting the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. His work earned him a share of the Nobel last year.

excerpt:

Mr. Obama said he would use Mr. Gore to help forge a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions designed to lower pollution.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca