Atticus Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Linky Linky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That's ridiculous. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That's ridiculous.While I'd consider myself a strong liberal, I agree completely agree with Ikol on this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 It's just as ridiculous as Bush having been nominated for the same prize ... what was it, last year? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Phillips Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Except, of course, that she's campaigned for peace. Disagree with her tactics or her choice of associations (hello, Hugo Chavez!), but she has dedicated her life to campaigning for the end of a war she thinks is unjust. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Basil II Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Except, of course, that she's campaigned for peace. Disagree with her tactics or her choice of associations (hello, Hugo Chavez!), but she has dedicated her life to campaigning for the end of a war she thinks is unjust. -Robert. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Except, of course, that she's campaigned for peace. Disagree with her tactics or her choice of associations (hello, Hugo Chavez!), but she has dedicated her life to campaigning for the end of a war she thinks is unjust. Campaigning for peace and doing something to achieve it are two different things. Protesting the Iraq War does nothing to make the world more peaceful (not like the prewar situation was peaceful anyway). And regardless of whether she is on the side of peace, can you honestly say that any of her actions have had any effect on making the world more peaceful? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 It's just as ridiculous as Bush having been nominated for the same prize ... what was it, last year?Seriously? Now that is ridiculous. Either way I think there are much better candidates out there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 her actions might be evaluated on november 7th. in a democracy, actions matter. you say her actions haven't made iraq less peaceful, but at this point, war support is a minority in part because of her and other protesters. the fact that our government flagrantly has distain for popular opinion (the basis of democracy itself) has been highlighted by sheehan's actions. that will likely cause a shift in congress in a few weeks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 huh... Bono is usually nominated... Didn't Jimmy "Worst President Ever" Carter win? The nobel peace prize people had said something along the lines as Jimmy Carter was chosen as an insult to George Bush... Something like that... Crappy houses gets you the nobel peace prize... ? Kind of seems like the nobel prize used to serve a purpose, now it's just the 'international middle finger' to the United States... ... that's not a crazy right wing theory by the way... just a late night off the top of the head theory... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jhc Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Kind of seems like the nobel prize used to serve a purpose, now it's just the 'international middle finger' to the United States... You know, before today every single 2006 Nobel was won by an American. So I'm not putting a lot of stock in your theory However, there's no doubt in my mind that the only reason Sheehan has gotten this far is eactly to "stick it to Bush". She's not a credible contender for the prize. Cindy Sheehan has suffered a tremendous loss, and for that reason I don't think too badly of her when she makes a complete ass out of herself. But her efforts have done exactly zero to advance peace, and she seems more inclined to do and say anything that would piss Bush off rather than make a truly sincere effort to bring the troops home. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jimmyjimmy Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 huh... Didn't Jimmy "Worst President Ever" Carter win? The nobel peace prize people had said something along the lines as Jimmy Carter was chosen as an insult to George Bush... Something like that... Crappy houses gets you the nobel peace prize... ?Kind of seems like the nobel prize used to serve a purpose, now it's just the 'international middle finger' to the United States... ... that's not a crazy right wing theory by the way... just a late night off the top of the head theory...During Carter's post Presidency he has been involved in hundreds of domestic and international humanitarian endeavors. He has been asked to represent our nation abroad as a US special envoy by three succeeding Presidents and has been present in the capacity of an election monitor in some of the worlds most scrutinized elections though his work with the Carter Center. He has worked to provide better basic health care for the peoples of Latin America and Africa and has generally worked to increase the focus on fundamental human rights throughout the Western world. Your theory could use some serious work.The Carter Center Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Thank you Jimmy. I was just about to post something similar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Campaigning for peace and doing something to achieve it are two different things. Protesting the Iraq War does nothing to make the world more peaceful (not like the prewar situation was peaceful anyway). And regardless of whether she is on the side of peace, can you honestly say that any of her actions have had any effect on making the world more peaceful? I don't really care too much about Ms. Sheehan, but I can see why she might've been nominated. Did she, or did she not mobilize scores of people in the name of peace? Did she, or did she not bring Iraq war protests into the public eye? If you would have the winner "achieve" peace, how could Ms. Sheehan do it? Do you think that if a person has an uninterested government, and no chance of "achieving" peace, she should just not bother even trying? What did Eli Weisel do to "achieve" peace to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Didn't Jimmy "Worst President Ever" Carter win? Yeah... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Jimmy "Worst President Ever" CarterHe didn't really deserve that epithet back then, and given who's been in the White House the last five and a half years, he certainly doesn't deserve it now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Jimmy! Jimmy! Jimmy! Jimmy! anyway... No.... my theory does not need serious work... it may need more examples, so a little work... but... Jimmy Carter was not given the nobel peace prize based on the script you cut and pasted from the jimmyworstpresidentevercarter.com website. The nobel prize committee said it was, in so many words, to spite Bush and the current American philosophy on the world. Just cause jimmy says he did it, doesn't mean he did... He has been a tool for the last 3 presidents, doesn't mean he has been a useful one. Worst president in the last 50 years, hands down! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Worst president in the last 50 years, hands down!You're on crack. Go find yourself a tandy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 So the guy from Bangladesh who won....how does that spite the United States (or Bush)? Your theory is pretty half-baked. I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a Nobel Peace Prize finalist. I don't think there is some bracket system between the nominees and the winner. Sheehan was nominated, as was Bush before, and it's pretty insignificant. Nominations for the Prize may be made by a broad array of qualified individuals, including former recipients, members of national assemblies and congresses, university professors, international judges, and special advisors to the Prize Committee. In some years as many as 199 nominations have been received. The Committee keeps the nominations secret and asks that nominators do the same. Over time many individuals have become known as "Nobel Peace Prize Nominees", but this designation has no official standing [2]. Nominations from 1901 to 1951, however, have been released in a database. When the past nominations were released it was discovered that Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939, though the nomination was retracted in February of the same year. Other infamous nominees included Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini. Man, that prize is sure going downhill. If only we could go back to went it meant something and all the nominees were worthwhile...like Joseph Stalin. Being nominated doesn't mean much, folks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Being nominated doesn't mean much, folks. Jorge is right. Just ask Susan Lucci. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a Nobel Peace Prize finalist. I don't think there is some bracket system between the nominees and the winner. Sheehan was nominated, as was Bush before, and it's pretty insignificant. Being nominated doesn't mean much, folks. Thank you. Jeez, folks. So, someone somewhere nominated her. Its as simple as that. This reminds me of when I was a junior in college and I sent a letter to the NCAA and the NBA informing them that I was forgoing my senior year of eligibility and declaring myself for the NBA draft. Even though I didnt play college basketball (except pickup games and intramural games). Anyone can declare themselves for the NBA draft and say that they went "undrafted". True story. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Thank you. Jeez, folks. So, someone somewhere nominated her. Its as simple as that. This reminds me of when I was a junior in college and I sent a letter to the NCAA and the NBA informing them that I was forgoing my senior year of eligibility and declaring myself for the NBA draft. Even though I didnt play college basketball (except pickup games and intramural games). Anyone can declare themselves for the NBA draft and say that they went "undrafted". True story. I repeatedly violated NCAA rules when I was in college. I sat out my senior year due to accumulated major rules violations. Well ... that, and not being a member of any actual team. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I repeatedly violated NCAA rules when I was in college. I sat out my senior year due to accumulated major rules violations. Well ... that, and not being a member of any actual team. Well, I was a member of the University of Michigan basketball team, but I put an asterisk next to it and in small print at the bottom of the page, I disclosed that it was a UM intramural team. My hope was that someone might read it too quickly and that I would get printed in the newspaper as one of the many underclassmen who had declared themselves eligible for the draft. Me and Jalen Rose, ya know? So, anyway, my point in all of this, other than to give myself a good laugh remembering the good ol days, is that I dont think anyone should put too much credence in the fact that CIndy Sheehan is nominated for the nobel peace prize -- whether you think she is deserving or otherwise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I don't really care too much about Ms. Sheehan, but I can see why she might've been nominated. Did she, or did she not mobilize scores of people in the name of peace? Did she, or did she not bring Iraq war protests into the public eye? She claimed to be mobilizing people in the name of peace. On the other hand, she sides with dictators and calls the terrorists in Iraq that are preventing peace (and who also killed her son) freedom fighters. If you would have the winner "achieve" peace, how could Ms. Sheehan do it? Do you think that if a person has an uninterested government, and no chance of "achieving" peace, she should just not bother even trying? What did Eli Weisel do to "achieve" peace to win the Nobel Peace Prize? I think these guys came a lot closer than Sheehan. http://reuters.myway.com/article/20061013/...L-PEACE-DC.html Being nominated doesn't mean much, folks. It means that someone out there thinks she should win one which is not surprising but is in fact ridiculous and a little scary. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jhc Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Did she, or did she not mobilize scores of people in the name of peace? Did she, or did she not bring Iraq war protests into the public eye? no, and no The largest anti-war protests happened well before her involvement, and most of the protests from 2005-present had nothing to do with her Do you really think the way and the movement against it here somehow below the American radar before she got involved? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 [quote name='sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.