Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Re: Nobel Prize is meaningless. I disagree. This is one of the most prestigous awards in the entire world. To simply disregard it because someone disagreeable once won is a little bit of an overreaction, imho.


Once? Ha...

This is another award like am Oscar or a good review from the New York Times. Often, the majority of people disagree with the group's decision. When people giving the award have an agenda, they ignore things like for example, actual movie revenues, book sales and in the case of the Nobel, facts.

Gore doesn't do his own research, which is obvious when he's in a debate on the subject against REAL scientists. He is simply traveling around and reading a bunch of lines handed to him so he can make a ton of cash in speaking fees. If he was really concerned about the Earth, he'd practice what he preaches. He burns more energy in his private jets and huge homes that he never visits in one week than all of us combined do in a year, let WE are supposed to give up our cars and buy $10 lightbulbs that will poison the Earth when we have to throw them out (high mercury content).

Once? Ha...

This is another award like am Oscar or a good review from the New York Times. Often, the majority of people disagree with the group's decision. When people giving the award have an agenda, they ignore things like for example, actual movie revenues, book sales and in the case of the Nobel, facts.

Gore doesn't do his own research, which is obvious when he's in a debate on the subject against REAL scientists. He is simply traveling around and reading a bunch of lines handed to him so he can make a ton of cash in speaking fees. If he was really concerned about the Earth, he'd practice what he preaches. He burns more energy in his private jets and huge homes that he never visits in one week than all of us combined do in a year, let WE are supposed to give up our cars and buy $10 lightbulbs that will poison the Earth when we have to throw them out (high mercury content).

I still think a worldwide recognition of those making positive contributions in keys areas is worthy of respect. The fact that there have been less than admirable selections at times is inconsequential. The fact that there have been despicable nominees in not surprising as anyone can be nominated provided they have the right backing. That speaks to nothing regarding the quality of the award.

Regarding Gore doing scientific research... that's not his job nor is it a reasonable expectation of him or any other politician. His role is to bring attention, key discussion and make associated policy. I don't care if he can't brake down the molecular construction of ozone, as long as he can implement effective policy that limits the destruction of said layer.

I'm sure everyone's heard by now. I think this is pretty impressive. My question is, if he did decide to run do you think that he would be able to win over enough republicans to win an election? I am a registered republican (put down the eggs, dmek) but I think I would have to seriously consider voting for him pending some research.

*let's keep this civil. no need for namecalling or hyperbole. There's plenty of that on TV.

So if I'm reading you right, you're assuming that he's a lock to win the Democratic nomination should he run. And what you're asking is can he convince enough Republicans to switch over and vote Democrat.

It had been rumored a few months back that he was going to enter the fray in September, win the Democratic nomination, and name Barack as his VP candidate. I think, however, that a.) he's a little late to the party and can't assume that he'll get even the Dem nomination, and b.) he can probably offer more to his causes by continuing to work in the private sector.

Woah, SS, I am making no such assumptions. I do not know if he would win the Democratic nomination. I'm asking whether or not he could engender enough trust within both parties to make him the most attractive democratic option. If that is the case than he would subsequently be the best choice to represent the democrats in the upcoming election.

I don't think he's too late. I think the last few elections we've seen this trend of starting the whole process earlier and earlier. What happens sometimes is that the over-saturation of the public with all of this exposure can have a negative effect on a candidates campaign. Coming in a little late can help negate that effect.

Your point about have more benefit in the private sector is a good one.

Re: Nobel Prize is meaningless. I disagree. This is one of the most prestigous awards in the entire world. To simply disregard it because someone disagreeable once won is a little bit of an overreaction, imho.

Re: Gore's green lifestyle. Not the first time I heard this arguement. I can't say what the guy does or does not do in his private life. I have heard him say that he is in the process of getting his properties equipped with the "greenest" gear possible but that it takes time. Truly, I don't care if he doesn't live the ideal environmentalist lifestyle, as long as he has continues to bring attention to important issues and focus on fixing said issues.

Re: Considering Gore making me a democrat. I am registered as a Republican because I share some very important ideals with the party. I am for less government as opposed to more. I have some personal conservative values. But I am tired of divisive government. I want a candidate that everyone can at least follow if not completely believe in. I am not saying Gore is that person, I'm saying it's blatantly irresponsible to refuse to consider someone based on their affiliation. Simply registering as a republican does not require me to "put the blinders on" and vote the party way all of the time. Doing just that on both sides is what has screwed this country up as bad as it is right now.

I am so tired of extremism. You can't just be a moderate, open minded person. If you're a republican, you've got to be ultra-conservative right wing. If you're democrat, you have to ultra-liberal left wing. It seems like this country is being ruled by the margins and the vast majority of us in the middle are left out of the loop. It's a shitty situation we find ourselves in and without ranting too much more, I guess the point of this thread is this: Do you think that Al Gore is someone that a majority of Americans can get behind and if not, who do you think is?
So what your saying that Gore can preach to the world about this issue but its OK if he does not follow his own advise? So then why should I listen to what he has to say if he does not follow his own advise?

I'm saying that if he brings up a topic and starts enough discussion to the point that you ask yourself that question, it's a positive. As positive as if he were "walking the walk?" No. But I'm not certain that what's been said regarding his personal habits is entirely true. There's alot of misinformation out there on both sides.

Woah, SS, I am making no such assumptions. I do not know if he would win the Democratic nomination. I'm asking whether or not he could engender enough trust within both parties to make him the most attractive democratic option. If that is the case than he would subsequently be the best choice to represent the democrats in the upcoming election.

Ok, I guess when you wrote "win over enough Republicans" I misunderstood you.

No worries. I could have stated it more clearly.

I still think a worldwide recognition of those making positive contributions in keys areas is worthy of respect. The fact that there have been less than admirable selections at times is inconsequential. The fact that there have been despicable nominees in not surprising as anyone can be nominated provided they have the right backing. That speaks to nothing regarding the quality of the award.

Regarding Gore doing scientific research... that's not his job nor is it a reasonable expectation of him or any other politician. His role is to bring attention, key discussion and make associated policy. I don't care if he can't brake down the molecular construction of ozone, as long as he can implement effective policy that limits the destruction of said layer.
Its his job to make sure that the facts that he presents are correct. If he is pushing for the US and World to change things then I would hope that he has had people check his facts to make sure that they are correct. Thats what makes his film and what he says so funny is that people just say its so serious that they do not even care if it is bassed of sound science.

Its his job to make sure that the facts that he presents are correct.

Absolutely agree. Sometimes you can nitpick things to the point that you miss the overall message, but yes, it's his job to make sure his facts are just that, facts.