First Carter, Now Gore!. The Nobel Prize means nothing any more.

They (Carter/Gore) represent the worst President/Dumbest Vice President the U.S. has ever elected to office.

Now waitaminute!

While I wasn't a fan of his stance on the political and economic issues of the day, Carter was the most morally upright US President of the 20th century, and perhaps ever. His total refusal to play the 'Washington DC' game of lies and deceit made him perhaps the most ineffective President ever, that much is true. And it is also unfair to lay the blame for the economic misery of his term in the White House totally on his shoulders either. Remember, the nation was still pretty much mired in the malaise of the immediate post-Watergate and post-Vietnam time period, as well as the lingering effects from the various oil difficulties with the middle east in the 70s. He is also very far from being ignorant. He received a BS degree in physics from the US Naval academy, and did some graduate work in nuclear physics and reactor design at Union College before retiring from the navy upon the death of his father. Carter had the potential to be a great president, but his honesty and sense of duty got in the way.

Al Gore is not 'dumb' either. He graduated from Harvard with honors in 1969 with a BA in Government. After a short stint in the military, he went to Vanderbilt and took religious studies courses then entered their law school, before dropping out in 1976 to enter politics.

While he is well educated and not 'dumb', he is somewhat the Anti-Carter due to his insufficient levels of honesty. He did, after all, grow up in and around politics. His father was a US Representive and Senator, and his mother was a professional liar ... err... lawyer as well. Another way Al Gore is an anti-Carter is that Gore has the personality of a wooden plank with a superiority complex. Carter has a very warm and friendly personality. Al Gore has the opposite.

While (now) both have won the Nobel Peace Prize, in my opinion one deserves it, and one doesn't. Carter won the Peace Prize in 2002 based on his ongoing work for world peace and humanitarian work, beginning with the Camp David Accords which lead to peace between Egypt and Israel, through his work for Habitat for Humanity (which builds houses for the poor), to his work for the Carter Center which promotes international democracy, health, and other humanitarian work. Throw into the mix the various times since leaving the presidency that Carter has helped break an international diplomatic impasse, preventing war. Carter deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Al Gore? Hah. What has Al Gore done? Basically a bunch of hot air about... well... hot air. His movie contains at least 9 instances of deliberate untruthful statements. It should be renamed 'An Inconvenient Not-Quite-The-Truth'. Has Al Gore done anything else? How does Al Gore's "work" fit into the catagory of the Peace Prize, as established by Nobel's will: "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"?

What drugs were the people on the Nobel Committee on when they decided on Al Gore and the IPCC for the 2007 Peace Prize? And can they share some of it?

What drugs were the people on the Nobel Committee on when they decided on Al Gore and the IPCC for the 2007 Peace Prize? And can they share some of it?

You wouldn't want any of it. It would blind you to the truth, and that would make you become one of them now, wouldn't it?

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

But just think, we wouldn't even be here if Big Al hadn't invented the Internet.

I at first thought as you apparently did that Moor = north african muslims. However, it then occured to me that it was much more likely that 'moorisms' was a reference to Michael Moore...

I thought the spelling of Mooreisms looked terrible.

Well done!

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

---

Account frozen...

Mooreisms - The next wave of suspected 'terrorists'...

Because remember: 'If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Mooreisms - The next wave of suspected 'terrorists'...

Because remember: 'If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists'... ;)

hmmm..a whole new McCarthy era dawns.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The Noble Peace Prize should have gone to the Burmese monks who have
been selflessly resisting violence with non-violence against their
corrupt and oppressive unelected military government.

What climate control has directly to do with world peace is beyond me...

Shame to the Norwegian committee!!!

There is something terribly wrong with Nobel prize. They awarded it to a chemist who invented a type of pesticide which later in many counts ruined nature, unfortunately they do not take back their prize. :D

Al Gore represents worlds' 1/3 pollution causing country and during his power as vice president his country did not join Kyoto agreement and today he gets Nobel prize. The Swedish Nobel prize committee is made of really funny people on earth. :D (I think Nobel prize is from Sweden?)

There is no arguement that the Burmese monks and Ms.Aung San Suu Kyi are best struggler for peace movement and human rights movement.

---

Mandtugai!

First Carter, Now Gore!. The Nobel Prize means nothing any more.

They (Carter/Gore) represent the worst President/Dumbest Vice President the U.S. has ever elected to office.

Now waitaminute!

While I wasn't a fan of his stance on the political and economic issues of the day, Carter was the most morally upright US President of the 20th century, and perhaps ever. His total refusal to play the 'Washington DC' game of lies and deceit made him perhaps the most ineffective President ever, that much is true. And it is also unfair to lay the blame for the economic misery of his term in the White House totally on his shoulders either. Remember, the nation was still pretty much mired in the malaise of the immediate post-Watergate and post-Vietnam time period, as well as the lingering effects from the various oil difficulties with the middle east in the 70s. He is also very far from being ignorant. He received a BS degree in physics from the US Naval academy, and did some graduate work in nuclear physics and reactor design at Union College before retiring from the navy upon the death of his father. Carter had the potential to be a great president, but his honesty and sense of duty got in the way.

Al Gore is not 'dumb' either. He graduated from Harvard with honors in 1969 with a BA in Government. After a short stint in the military, he went to Vanderbilt and took religious studies courses then entered their law school, before dropping out in 1976 to enter politics.

While he is well educated and not 'dumb', he is somewhat the Anti-Carter due to his insufficient levels of honesty. He did, after all, grow up in and around politics. His father was a US Representive and Senator, and his mother was a professional liar ... err... lawyer as well. Another way Al Gore is an anti-Carter is that Gore has the personality of a wooden plank with a superiority complex. Carter has a very warm and friendly personality. Al Gore has the opposite.

While (now) both have won the Nobel Peace Prize, in my opinion one deserves it, and one doesn't. Carter won the Peace Prize in 2002 based on his ongoing work for world peace and humanitarian work, beginning with the Camp David Accords which lead to peace between Egypt and Israel, through his work for Habitat for Humanity (which builds houses for the poor), to his work for the Carter Center which promotes international democracy, health, and other humanitarian work. Throw into the mix the various times since leaving the presidency that Carter has helped break an international diplomatic impasse, preventing war. Carter deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Al Gore? Hah. What has Al Gore done? Basically a bunch of hot air about... well... hot air. His movie contains at least 9 instances of deliberate untruthful statements. It should be renamed 'An Inconvenient Not-Quite-The-Truth'. Has Al Gore done anything else? How does Al Gore's "work" fit into the catagory of the Peace Prize, as established by Nobel's will: "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"?

What drugs were the people on the Nobel Committee on when they decided on Al Gore and the IPCC for the 2007 Peace Prize? And can they share some of it?

In the past I have enjoyed reading your Post. And this one is no different as to enjoyment.

I did serve in the Military under then President Carter, so I have a different perspective on his time as president. I never considered him to be ignorant during his time in office. I was also aware of his educational and military background.

It is not just my opinion that he was a very sorry president, it is the considered opinion of those much better qualified to judge his presidency than I am.

Secondly, I could be wrong about which former president that was the first to publicly critize a serving president but I don't recall President Truman or President Eisenhower speaking out after they left the office.

I find Former President's Carter and Clinton's remarks to be in poor taste, considering that their records were less than spotless.

As you may have noticed I am not as verbose as yourself, but I think I made the point.

P. S. I won't be voting for Mrs. Clinton either. Perhaps I won't vote at all, there certainly doesn't seem to be many really good candidates.

P.P.S. As to former V.P. Gore being Dumb, I do not dispute nor have I ever disputed his educational background. I was refering to some of the dumb things he did.

---

Carter had the potential to be a great president, but his honesty and sense of duty got in the way.

That, and he ate way too many peanuts... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Al Gore doesn't deserve that medal. He had five children. Let's see how many houses and how much land-clearing they and their offspring will need in the next two or three generations.

---

From the NYT opinion pages (link may lead to subscription area, I dunno for sure)

It sums up some of the right wing slime and slander here in this thread as well.

Op-Ed Columnist
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.

And 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.

---

Account frozen...

Gore Derangement Syndrome
By PAUL KRUGMAN

>snip<

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

I wouldn't think anything would, because he's just another former politician. They all have to pick some cause to bandy about on the lecture circuit.

>snip<


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.

That's cute that Paul Krugman of all people says that, but frankly, I don't think "the right" cares. Mostly because that's an overly large generalization, some people love him, very few people hate him, and even fewer, if any, go crazy over him. I mean, it's Al, Mr. Milquetoast himself.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Daddio has his opinion of Al Gore--He deserves the Prize if for no other reason he has created debate, thereby bringing attention to the issue.

---

And what about this 'inconvenient truth'?



Two Houses:


House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas --- add on a pool, a pool house and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.






House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system us es no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".



http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

And what about this 'inconvenient truth'?



Two Houses:


House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas --- add on a pool, a pool house and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.






House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system us es no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".



http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

DADDIO also has an opinion on this as well:--It's all in good fun.

---

And what about this 'inconvenient truth'?



Two Houses:


House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas --- add on a pool, a pool house and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.






House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system us es no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".



http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

DADDIO also has an opinion on this as well:--It's all in good fun.

And do you have an opinion about this 'inconvenient truth'? Or is DADDIO doing all of your speaking for you? Just curious.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

And what about this 'inconvenient truth'?



Two Houses:


House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas --- add on a pool, a pool house and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.






House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system us es no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".



http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

DADDIO also has an opinion on this as well:--It's all in good fun.

And do you have an opinion about this 'inconvenient truth'? Or is DADDIO doing all of your speaking for you? Just curious.

If the facts presented are true and factual, I'd say that that makes Gore
look like a first class hypocrite...not that Bush isn't one either in other
catagories. They're politicians after all...

---

Account frozen...

And what about this 'inconvenient truth'?



Two Houses:


House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas --- add on a pool, a pool house and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.






House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system us es no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".



http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

DADDIO also has an opinion on this as well:--It's all in good fun.

And do you have an opinion about this 'inconvenient truth'? Or is DADDIO doing all of your speaking for you? Just curious.

If the facts presented are true and factual, I'd say that that makes Gore
look like a first class hypocrite...not that Bush isn't one either in other
catagories. They're politicians after all...

I dunno, Snopes is usually pretty reliable.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster