Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

pudge's Journal: Al Gore Won the Nobel Peace Prize 17

Journal by pudge

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Ahem. Allow me to elaborate.

Whatever you think of the science of climate change, the fact is that this is the first time the Nobel Peace Prize to someone for doing something the effect of which on peace is purely hypothetical.

I would laugh even if this was about climate change. His movie was scaremongering propaganda. But even if it was entirely accurate and fair, it would still have nothing rational to do with "peace." We don't even have a very good idea of the overall effects climate change will have on the physical world, let alone any economic or political effects it may have.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Al Gore Won the Nobel Peace Prize

Comments Filter:
  • He's not even the worst winner, either. Yasser Arafat, anyone?
    • by FortKnox (169099) *
      I came to say this. If Arafat winning the nobel peace prize pretty much disgraces the award and all future winners mean nothing...
      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        I came to say this. If Arafat winning the nobel peace prize pretty much disgraces the award and all future winners mean nothing...
        I don't disagree, but at least Arafat's had something tangible to do with peace. I think the Nobel committee was trying to encourage peace by giving the prize to Arafat. BUt this has nothing demonstrable or tangible to do with peace at all.

  • The other Nobel prizes typically seem to go to deserving people. But the Peace Prize is such a joke, it was obvious from the start who would win once the news came out that the clown was nominated.
  • for re-election.

    Now, the question is, will it be Obama, Clinton, or Richardson that runs as his VP?
    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot
      Will.

      Will.

      Will.

      There is far more evidence that Rossi was properly elected Governor than there is that Gore was properly elected President.

      I do not say "re-elect Rossi," but I'd have a lot more justification for doing so than you have for saying "re-elect Gore.

      Do you really want to play this game? You'll lose.

      • I was at the recount. In fact, I was one of the friendly guys who talked with the Red Bushies and the Libertarians there.

        You know that President Gore will win re-election in a landside.

        That place in your mind that is terrifying to you? Look at it - you'll see me staring back at you.
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          I was at the recount. In fact, I was one of the friendly guys who talked with the Red Bushies and the Libertarians there.

          What's that got to do with anything? You think that you being there proves the recount was accurate?

          First, it doesn't.

          Second, I never implied it was inaccurate. Think on. What I said is that the evidence Rossi was the proper victor is greater than the evidence than the evidence that Gore was. And it's true. That doesn't mean the recount was wrong, it means many of the votes were wrong. The Gore recount was correct too, though there's questions about the votes.

          You know that President Gore will win re-election in a landside.

          Since that is literally impossible -- be

          • Lol. What color is the sky in your world, kool-aid drinker?

            Reality has a strong liberal bent.
            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot
              OK. I am done warning you.

              It's not just that you ignore facts (the evidence for Rossi is stronger than the evidence for Gore) or that you refuse to back up any of your claims (I won't bother to list them, since you NEVER back them up), or that you give absolutely illogical arguments ("I was there!"). It's also that you engage regularly in personal attacks.

              So you're foe'd. Buh bye.

    • by ncc74656 (45571) *
      Um...in order to run for re-election, don't you have to have been elected first at some point in the past? Last time I checked, Al Gore lost in 2000. Multiple official and unofficial recounts confirmed that Al Gore lost in 2000. Because Al Gore lost in 2000, the only way he could run for reelection to any office would be if he were running for senator or vice-president...fat chance of that happening, as his oversized ego would asplode.

      (I can't believe I'm letting myself be trolled like this. :-| )

      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        (I can't believe I'm letting myself be trolled like this. :-|
        Yeah. I gave him a lot of rope, and then when I finally Foe'd him, he said it was because I didn't want my views to be challenged, that I Foe people who disagree with me. Typical troll.

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." -- John Wooden

Working...