A Winner is Carter

[Depth Charge]

I come here today spreading news of a subject that i feel close to.

Jimmy Carter has won a Nobel Peace Prize

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04_history/subs_timeline/a_presidents/photos/carter.jpg


I am a big fan of Carter. I have all his trading cards and action figures. But really folk, 4 things come to my mind when his name is casted in the communicational system which be attached to my listenening receptors... Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Peanuts, and Building Hope.

what did he win for... "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights." More info about this event can be found here (http://http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20021011/ap_on_re_as/nobel_peace_17), and for more info about Jimmy Carter, go to www.jimmycarter.com

So now, let's get this party started! How do you guys feel about ex-pres Carter?

[Psilon]

Good man...and as such is not ruthless enough to be a good leader.

In other words good man, not a good president.

[Joe Wagner]

I honestly believe that there were far more deserving people for this award. After all we're talking about the man that caved under having to deal with Iran while they held Americans hostage and created the worst economy since the Civil War. Considering some of the past winners have been people like Yassir Arafat I wasn't really surprised by his winning - even though far more deserving men and women should have won, IMHO.

-Joe!

[Lucky Bob]

How nice, now could we get on to more important matters, such as discussing why my hair cannot lay back down after hearing this news?

[gtracer72]

Congratulations to Carter.

At my college, another Professor won the Nobel Prize for Econoimcs. Thats cool, I guess. We have 2 now. :D

[Chosen Raven]

It's really to bad Castro's lap dog won the prize.....or is it ? Cosidering recent winners have been people of , shall we say, low moral character, maybe he fits right in :D .

[hello_lola]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
Good man...and as such is not ruthless enough to be a good leader.

In other words good man, not a good president.

You took the words right out of my mouth :) .

[Lucky Bob]

Anyone want to hear something really weird? Rush just brought it out yesterday, but it's been something I've always wondered about.

Alfred Nobel, the guy who the Peace Prize is named after, made his fortune seeling weapons of mass destruction for his day! (Dynamite.)

Check it out! (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101102/content/truth_detector.guest.html)

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Originally posted by luckybob1985

Alfred Nobel, the guy who the Peace Prize is named after, made his fortune seeling weapons of mass destruction for his day! (Dynamite.)


Uhm, no. Nobel originally created dynamite strictly for construction purposes, and that was all he himself ever sold it for. The military got their hands on it on the fomrulas and began using it for mass destruction without his permission, since it was more efficient and deadly than weapons powered by gunpowder. The entire reason there are the Nobel Prizes is because Nobel himself was so miserable and guilt-ridden over the fact his product had been used for such means, and because he'd been branded with such names as the "Merchant of Death", which went entirely against his pacifistic nature. As a way to redeem himself and alieve his concience, he left his entire estate to fund what would become the Nobel Prizes.

And another thing, NEVER use editorials by Rush Limbaugh as pure fact. That guy's one of the most biased radio personalities that ever existed.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Mackenzie Rainelle


And another thing, NEVER use editorials by Rush Limbaugh as pure fact. That guy's one of the most biased radio personalities that ever existed.

And the rest of the media isn't?

[Andy Mancini]

Originally posted by Mackenzie Rainelle
And another thing, NEVER use editorials by Rush Limbaugh as pure fact. That guy's one of the most biased radio personalities that ever existed.
Like luckybob1985 said, I wouldn't say that. Yes, he is a very opinionated Conservative, but there are plenty pundints, talk show hosts, and newscasters that lean the other way (Alan Colmes, Dan Rather, Larry King, Phil Donahue, James Carville, etc). Besides, Mr. Limbaugh is host a talk show. It's his opinions. It's not like CNN or Tom Brokaw who put their own personal biases into the news.

As far as Mr Limbaugh's rant goes, it was more about showing the hippocracy in Liberal thinking than actually making fun of the late Mr. Nobel. It was like the left was trying to hide the fact the profited off of dynamite, by saying he he was an author and a philantropist. The whole rant came about because of the anti-war propeganda being spewed from the Nobel commitee. I'm not saying President Carter didn't deserve the award. I'm just saying that the commitee was just using the award to push their own agaenda, and that is what Mr. Limbaugh is pointing out.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
And the rest of the media isn't?

Note the words "one of the most biased". I never said the media wasn't biased as a whole, but Limbaugh tends to use his show as a way to crucify anything that doesn't go along with what he thinks, including those who occasionally call in to try and defend those beliefs. Using his opnions as fact isn't exactly the best thing.

And yes, I do know about the Liberals using the Nobel Prize to make themselves look better. I don't agree with that, I'll admit it. But I don't take it out on a long-dead scientist.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Mackenzie Rainelle
Note the words "one of the most biased". I never said the media wasn't biased as a whole, but Limbaugh tends to use his show as a way to crucify anything that doesn't go along with what he thinks, including those who occasionally call in to try and defend those beliefs. Using his opnions as fact isn't exactly the best thing.

And yes, I do know about the Liberals using the Nobel Prize to make themselves look better. I don't agree with that, I'll admit it. But I don't take it out on a long-dead scientist.

Ok then, can anyone care to tell who they thought should have won the peace prize.