He was nominated for it, believe it or not.

Discuss.

Nobel Peace Prize. I thought they said Nobel Putz Prize. I was in favor of his being awarded the latter.

He was nominated for it, believe it or not.

Discuss.
inventing the internet?:comphit:

inventing the internet?

Another lie spread by the RightWing Disinformation Ministry.

He never made that claim.

To what region has he brought peace?

Not for inventing the Internet, but for the movie "An Inconenient Truth" which is an expose of the dangers of global warming, dammit.

Another lie spread by the RightWing Disinformation Ministry.

He never made that claim.

True, and what he DID say (that he created the Internet) is true.

Gore sponsored the legislation that privatized ARPAnet and thus created the Internet.

Another lie spread by the RightWing Disinformation Ministry.

He never made that claim.
that was a joke:rolleyes:

Good for Al Gore!

I don't know if they can award the Nobel Peace Prize to a group, but if they can I would like to see it go to the Amish in Penn.

True, and what he DID say (that he created the Internet) is true.

Gore sponsored the legislation that privatized ARPAnet and thus created the Internet.
Al Gorda privatized a government project! damn him!

Al Gorda privatized a government project! damn him!

Yeah, that damn "liberal" eh?

Not for inventing the Internet, but for the movie "An Inconenient Truth" which is an expose of the dangers of global warming, dammit.
is there a Nobel Prize for partisan entertainment?
"the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" doesn't seem to fit.

Yeah, that damn "liberal" eh?
wrong way:slap:

is there a Nobel Prize for partisan entertainment?


Are you using the term "partisan" to indicate politcial affiliation, or the broad way Dark uses it, to indicate that he takes a position on something?

wrong way:slap:

???

Are you using the term "partisan" to indicate politcial affiliation, or the broad way Dark uses it, to indicate that he takes a position on something?
I used it in reference to political affiliation, which I explained to you, but apparently you're just going to stick to your false conclusions about what I said. How come you can make inferences into others' words but if anyone infers something about something you say, you attack them?

???
privatization is a conservative trait...normally.

Are you using the term "partisan" to indicate politcial affiliation, or the broad way Dark uses it, to indicate that he takes a position on something?
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

I used it in reference to political affiliation, which I explained to you, but apparently you're just going to stick to your false conclusions about what I said. How come you can make inferences into others' words but if anyone infers something about something you say, you attack them?
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/4558/beatdeadhorse5rp5wm7.gif

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/4558/beatdeadhorse5rp5wm7.gif
What is that supposed to mean? I'm not letting this go. Dharma's hypocrisy is getting to me severely.

What is that supposed to mean? I'm not letting this go. Dharma's hypocrisy is getting to me severely.

It means you're going to have a tough time getting through to dharma, dammit.

What is that supposed to mean? I'm not letting this go. Dharma's hypocrisy is getting to me severely.
everyone knows he's like that.

It means you're going to have a tough time getting through to dharma, dammit.
like digging out a trapped coal minner with a plastic spork.

like digging out a trapped coal minner with a plastic spork.

LMAO that made me chuckle... good one mike

I really don't care about Al Gore getting a peace prize.. I highly doubt he'll get it.. but if he does yayyyyy Al Gore..

LMAO that made me chuckle... good one mike

I really don't care about Al Gore getting a peace prize.. I highly doubt he'll get it.. but if he does yayyyyy Al Gore..
...try the fish, and don't forget to tip your waitress.:banana:

come to think of it, Al doesn't look like he has much competition this year.

I used it in reference to political affiliation, which I explained to you, but apparently you're just going to stick to your false conclusions about what I said. How come you can make inferences into others' words but if anyone infers something about something you say, you attack them?

Now you are just babbling.

I asked you specificly if you were referring to politcial affiliation and you said NO. You said that you were talking about ideological affiliation.

"Liberal" is not a politcial party.

He was nominated for it, believe it or not.

Discuss.


I think it's a good thing. You know, he's been campaigning hard to combat global warming for at least 15 years, despite political repercussions and the fact that he's campaigning in a country that's been hostile to the possibility of global warming from the start. Considering the consequences of global warming, I think that's an effort worth endorsing with a Nobel Peace Prize.

"Liberal" is not a politcial party. Dharmabum

Oh, it isn't. Maybe you had better tell that to the members of the Liberal Party. I am sure they would be interested in knowing they don't exist.:bike:

actually Gore wants to go to war against carbon dioxide emissions, so he is a war monger and has no right to the peace prize. If he was campaigning to save all the carbon dioxide molecules from annihilation he may be qualified, but as it stands he wants to destroy them so in my book he is waging a war on global warming.

Considering the consequences of global warming, I think that's an effort worth endorsing with a Nobel Peace Prize.

I don't think that has anything to do with peace, though. Although I suppose the Nobel committee might have a much broader definition than I do.

I don't think that has anything to do with peace, though. Although I suppose the Nobel committee might have a much broader definition than I do.


Yeah, I'm assuming efforts to alleviate suffering and disastrous consequences for areas of the world are within the purview of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Al gore deserves a peace prize for fighting global warming about as much as that one fat dude who made Farenheit 9-11 deserves an Oscar for "best documentary"

Al gore deserves a peace prize for fighting global warming about as much as that one fat dude who made Farenheit 9-11 deserves an Oscar for "best documentary"
Moore won it for Bowling for Columbine, not F9/11. FYI.

Now you are just babbling.

I asked you specificly if you were referring to politcial affiliation and you said NO. You said that you were talking about ideological affiliation.

"Liberal" is not a politcial party.

Yes, I was talking about ideological affiliation. Political ideology. I was NOT referring to parties, although Frogger pointed out that there is in fact a Liberal Party. So perhaps I was. Anyways, you ARE partisan. You are partisan towards liberal ideas in general, and against conservative ideas in general. I would say that I am not partisan (politically), because neither conservative nor liberal ideas have an inherent advantage to me.

Moore won it for Bowling for Columbine, not F9/11. FYI.
A better movie if you ask me.

A better movie if you ask me.
Better? Yes.

But they were both god awful.

Yes, I was talking about ideological affiliation. Political ideology.

I have never denied that I am liberal but I am not a partisan for any political party.

You know, he's been campaigning hard to combat global warming for at least 15 years,
When he was the second most powerful man on earth, and really could have done something about it, he seemed to take a little time off from the project.
And when he ran in 2000, his advisors told him to stay away from the topic.
So he did.

Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, in part, for bringing peace to North Korea.

That worked out.

Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, in part, for bringing peace to North Korea.

That worked out.

It did work out fine, until Shrub's idiotic "axis of evil" comment pissed them off and they restarted their enrichment program.

When he was the second most powerful man on earth, and really could have done something about it, he seemed to take a little time off from the project.

He signed us onto the Kyoto Protocol, for which Congress forcefully rebuked him (I believe Congress voted unaninimously against joining Kyoto, sadly). That maneuver pushed him into the realms of extremism in the eyes of the American public. I'm not sure what more you want of a single person without commiting political suicide.

And when he ran in 2000, his advisors told him to stay away from the topic.
So he did.

Can you blame him? It's the same reasoning why McCain is nicer to the religious right now. To get elected, sometimes you have to pander to people or ideas you don't necessarily like.

When he was the second most powerful man on earth,
That's a laugh.

I have never denied that I am liberal but I am not a partisan for any political party.
You just do not get it, do you?

I was NOT talking about a political party. Parties and ideologies are not the same thing. You are partisan towards LIBERAL ideas and people. OK?

You just do not get it, do you?

I was NOT talking about a political party. Parties and ideologies are not the same thing. You are partisan towards LIBERAL ideas and people. OK?

I think you two are in agreement, but don't stop :corn:

It did work out fine, until Shrub's idiotic "axis of evil" comment pissed them off and they restarted their enrichment program.
yeah, that's why they managed to pull a nuke & ICBM out of thin air.

It did work out fine, until Shrub's idiotic "axis of evil" comment pissed them off and they restarted their enrichment program.

Heh, funny that you believe that one line from Bush can make them turn from being a peaceful society to building nukes.

Honestly, I hate Bush, but his comment didn't make them start attempting to make nukes. They were doing that anyways.

Can you blame him? To get elected, sometimes you have to pander to people or ideas you don't necessarily like.I agree. That makes him a typical politician. But to push your Nobel-prize-winning-issue on the back burner should have soured the Nobel Committee on his nomination somewhat.

But to push your Nobel-prize-winning-issue on the back burner should have soured the Nobel Committee on his nomination somewhat.It is possible that the committee has some small understanding of political realities in America and what it takes to win elective office here.

It is possible that the committee has some small understanding of political realities in America and what it takes to win elective office here.
Hah! You're so subtle, Sedan. :D

Heh, funny that you believe that one line from Bush can make them turn from being a peaceful society to building nukes.

Sorry, but North Korea has never been "a peaceful society." Almost immediately after its creation in 1948, North Korea attacked South Korea which began the Korean war. Since the cease fire of the Korean War in 1953, the North Korean government has been at odds with the United States, Japan and South Korea; it is still technically at war with South Korea. NK has always placed massive emphasis on its military might, and takes great pains to show off its huge fighting force to the world on regular occasions.

Since 2000 its relations with the U.S. have greatly deteriorated, due at least in some significat part, to Mr. Bush's determination that NK was a part of the "axis of evil" and an "outpost of tyranny."

No, that one line didn't turn them nasty and aggressive, but it did piss them off enough to start rattling their nukes at us. The "axis of evil" fearmongering was just one more astoundingly stupid (and potentially deadly) move by Mr. Bush, no matter how you look at it.

North Korea wont do a damn thing, they cant. No matter how much posturing they do, China still has them by the balls, and the rest of the world is against the regime in charge.

Heh, funny that you believe that one line from Bush can make them turn from being a peaceful society to building nukes.

Honestly, I hate Bush, but his comment didn't make them start attempting to make nukes. They were doing that anyways.

I am not saying those words were the only reason, but the words Bush spoke reflect the attitude of aggression toward N. Korea that caused them to take a more hostile stance toward the U.S.

June 15, 1994: Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter negotiates a deal with North Korea in which Pyongyang confirms its willingness to “freeze” its nuclear weapons program and resume high-level talks with the United States. Bilateral talks are expected to begin, provided that North Korea allows the IAEA safeguards to remain in place, does not refuel its 5-megawatt nuclear reactor, and does not reprocess any spent nuclear fuel.

November 28, 1994: The IAEA announces that it had confirmed that construction has been halted at North Korea’s Nyongbyon and Taochon nuclear facilities and that these facilities are not operational.

January 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President Bush criticized North Korea for “arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.” Bush characterized North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, as constituting an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

December 12, 2002: North Korea sends a letter to the IAEA announcing that it is restarting its one functional reactor and is reopening the other nuclear facilities frozen under the Agreed Framework. The letter requests that the IAEA remove the seals and monitoring equipment from its nuclear facilities. A North Korean spokesman blames the United States for violating the Agreed Framework and says that the purpose of restarting the reactor is to generate electricity-an assertion disputed by U.S. officials.

You are partisan towards LIBERAL ideas and people.


No shit. I never denied that.

So what?

No shit. I never denied that.

So what?
Then why the argument with me over it? That's what I kept on saying, and you kept on arguing with me and (apparently deliberately) misconstruing my argument. So now suddenly you agree with me... Odd...

Oh and BTW, dharma, you never denied being a liberal?


If you aren't a liberal, I extend my most sincere apologies for assuming that you were.


Thank you.


What was that then?

Then why the argument with me over it?


Why the fuck are you still arguing with me about this?

Yes, I have convictions based upon my values. (which you define as "partisan")

Get over it already.

Why the fuck are you still arguing with me about this?

Yes, I have convictions based upon my values. (which you define as "partisan")

Get over it already.
Why do you have to use that word? I thought you were complaining about how vulgar everyone was to YOU.

Anyways, if you hadn't claimed NOT to be a liberal, and then said that I had claimed something I didn't, and then called me a conservative... Well there never would have been an argument.

I'm sorry that I didn't realize that you actually agreed with me, even though you were calling me an idiot and saying that I was wrong.

Why do you have to use that word? I thought you were complaining about how vulgar everyone was to YOU.

Yeah and look where it got me, attacked on all sides and you whining at me to be nicer.

As I explained I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative. You are the one trying to label me while whining when I do the same thing back to you.

Quit being such a hypocrite.

Yeah and look where it got me, attacked on all sides and you whining at me to be nicer.

As I explained I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative. You are the one trying to label me while whining when I do the same thing back to you.

Quit being such a hypocrite.
OK, fine, I'll let you label me. I'll even go along with it. Look, I'm a conservative! Never mind that I'm pro-welfare, pro-environment, pro-choice, anti-war, etc. So just so everyone knows now, that means I'm a conservative. The most conservative Republican ever!

Sounds really accurate, right? :rolleyes:

OK, fine, I'll let you label me. I'll even go along with it. Look, I'm a conservative! Never mind that I'm pro-welfare, pro-environment, pro-choice, anti-war, etc. So just so everyone knows now, that means I'm a conservative. The most conservative Republican ever!

Sounds really accurate, right? :rolleyes:

About as accurate as your blanket label that I am a "partisan" and a "liberal" dispite the fact I am pro-fair market capitalism, for balanced budgets and against out of control spending.

You are the one who started handing out labels.

About as accurate as your blanket label that I am a "partisan" and a "liberal" dispite the fact I am pro-fair market capitalism, for balanced budgets and against out of control spending.

You are the one who started handing out labels.
And? What's wrong with labels? Everyone labels everyone else. If someone called me a liberal, I'd say "Well, yeah, OK, I guess that's fair.", since I do lean towards the left a lot, although I consider myself a moderate. I was just pointing out how I'm liberal on about 75% of subjects. You, on the other hand, are liberal on about 90% of subjects, or maybe 85%, but definitely more than I am. So if I had to give you a general label I'd say liberal. There are very few people who are on the left or right on EVERY subject. You call people like Prae or Decka or Darth ultra-conservatives and rightwingers, despite the fact that they probably don't have a conservative viewpoint on everything.

So what are you saying, that we should call everyone a moderate unless they believe in 100% all the same viewpoint on every issue?

And? What's wrong with labels? Everyone labels everyone else.

So quit your whining.

You are the one who admitted you cannot let it go.

You, on the other hand, are liberal on about 90% of subjects, or maybe 85%, but definitely more than I am.

And what the hell makes you think you know me so well? You didn't even know I am fiscally conservative.

Oh, so you're a fiscally conservative fucktard.

Oh, so you're a fiscally conservative fucktard.
Stop that. Can't you be civil?

I can be civil if I care to. I don't always care to.

Oh, so you're a fiscally conservative fucktard.

Whatever happened to "You have to have a point to go with the insult"?

Rules were meant to be broken, you know.