If George Bush Won The Nobel Peace Prize
October 12th 2007 19:39
I'm all for crazy people winning big prizes, makes life interesting. Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace prize was kind of expected, though it doesn't seem to be for his credentials but more for the world to stick it up poor old GWB.
Considering Al Gore did win the prize it has now become apparent that the contest has turned into a farce where liberals just vote for other liberals to stick it up the poor white and rich Christian man.
Looking at it in perspective the question is, if not Al Gore who should have got the award? George Bush? I'm sure many would say GWB should have one every Nobel prize in existence.
If he did win the Nobel Peace prize the question would be, why? Has he brought peace to the world? Alerted anyone to a threat previously unknown? (terrorism is as old as humanity, that really doesn't count), pushed forward any agenda that has actually done some good?
The answer in all cases would be 'no, no, no'. In fact the opposite has happened with this man, fighting a war against international laws yet claiming to be held back by local laws when hurricane Katrina hit. Strange how he was so slow to help Americans in need because of a few beauracratic laws yet was more than willing to defy the international community to destablize a region already on breaking point.
Al Gore on the other hand, well perhaps for greed (or genuine good interest) has been pushing for a change in attitude to our consuming nature. I'm not sure if he's doing it for the right reasons or if he even cares (it feels more like political moves to gain kudos to me) but he is doing something thats good and important. Better that than do something bad even if he cares about it.
To put it simply, if George Bush won the Nobel Peace prize I'd see it as a farce, Al Gore won it and I see that as a statement.
Considering Al Gore did win the prize it has now become apparent that the contest has turned into a farce where liberals just vote for other liberals to stick it up the poor white and rich Christian man.
Looking at it in perspective the question is, if not Al Gore who should have got the award? George Bush? I'm sure many would say GWB should have one every Nobel prize in existence.
If he did win the Nobel Peace prize the question would be, why? Has he brought peace to the world? Alerted anyone to a threat previously unknown? (terrorism is as old as humanity, that really doesn't count), pushed forward any agenda that has actually done some good?
The answer in all cases would be 'no, no, no'. In fact the opposite has happened with this man, fighting a war against international laws yet claiming to be held back by local laws when hurricane Katrina hit. Strange how he was so slow to help Americans in need because of a few beauracratic laws yet was more than willing to defy the international community to destablize a region already on breaking point.
Al Gore on the other hand, well perhaps for greed (or genuine good interest) has been pushing for a change in attitude to our consuming nature. I'm not sure if he's doing it for the right reasons or if he even cares (it feels more like political moves to gain kudos to me) but he is doing something thats good and important. Better that than do something bad even if he cares about it.
To put it simply, if George Bush won the Nobel Peace prize I'd see it as a farce, Al Gore won it and I see that as a statement.
| 44 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty