TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush and Blair under consideration for Nobel Peace Prize?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush and Blair under consideration for Nobel Peace Prize?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I hope that it's a joke - my local paper had a report this morning that Bush and Blair are being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize because they ousted Saddam Hussein. What about this being an invasion, a war of aggression, a preemptive strike? And what about the fact that thus far no WMDs have been found? Maybe I shouldn't get upset - they both have about as much blood on their hands as Arafat, and he got it, too. Sorry, Bush fans, but I believe there should be some adherence to international law.
post #2 of 18
I know that the committee does not make such recommendations lightly. We are being subjected to the news we are allowed to see by the media. Perhaps the committee is privy to the truth?
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
Is there any one "truth" in this day and age? The Ten Commandments include "Thou shalt not kill", which some people use to argue against the death penalty, and others to support it.
post #4 of 18
Let us all keep our cool. A right wing idiot made such a nomination, which was his right, and as he has done before, but it will go nowhere -- as before. The "committee" did not make the nomination, nor are they being "considered."

But, we three here on the beach are truly heartened by the response this got on the list. Cat people are smart -- it is the cats that do it.

Cheers,
post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by James Brown
Let us all keep our cool. A right wing idiot made such a nomination, which was his right, and as he has done before, but it will go nowhere -- as before. The "committee" did not make the nomination, nor are they being "considered."

But, we three here on the beach are truly heartened by the response this got on the list. Cat people are smart -- it is the cats that do it.

Cheers,
That's a relief!
Anyway, I agree what you said about "cat people" James Brown!
post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by James Brown
Let us all keep our cool. A right wing idiot made such a nomination, which was his right, and as he has done before, but it will go nowhere -- as before. The "committee" did not make the nomination, nor are they being "considered."

But, we three here on the beach are truly heartened by the response this got on the list. Cat people are smart -- it is the cats that do it.

Cheers,
What a relief. I think I'd better ask the editor where the story came from. I kept thinking, "It's Groundhog Day, not April Fool's!"
post #7 of 18
Just a guess, but I would bet that there are quite a few Iraqis who would agree with the nomination...

But I already know that's irrelevant. IF any good ever comes out of anything Bush ever does, it's purely coincidental or simply for political ambitions. His entire motivations are questionable at best, unscrupulous the majority of the time. Isn't that right? How SO MANY people were brainwashed into voting for a wholly evil man, I guess I will never understand. Oh wait, that's right....he didn't get elected, he was appointed or took over by a coup.

All sarcasm aside, did any of you really think he would possible get this? Nominated or not, was this even in the realm of possibility? Most European nations hate him, the UN isn't too happy with him, etc. Even as one of the few on this board who doesn't hate the man personally as well as politically, I can see very well that Bush and Blair would not even come close to getting that.

Bowing out of yet another Bush Bashing thread....
post #8 of 18
Already got the news on WPAB radio... I could not believe it... We had always made jokes of those two mentally retarted people getting the peace prize... so it was like "be careful what you wish for".

The right wing idiot who nominated those two was a Norwegian minister, from what I have got here... anyone can postulate anybody else in the Nobel Prizes. And the Nobel foundation has to then, by their rules to check that candidates dossier to see if he deserves it.

the Nobel Foundation is composed of smart people, so I doubt they will give the prize.

Now, if an illegal preemptive war of aggression, an invasion, made on trunked up reasons against a country which posed no threat at all deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, we might as well, give the Nobel to Osama Bin Laden.
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by jcat
What a relief. I think I'd better ask the editor where the story came from. I kept thinking, "It's Groundhog Day, not April Fool's!"
jcat:

The nomination was made, but just a nomination. A rabid right-wing Norwegian member of parliament did indeed nominate Bush and Blair. He has done this before, and his nomination will be ignored by the committee once again, as before. If he had nominated Mickey Mouse the nomination would receive more attention. The committee has already expressed its disapproval of the little Bush/Blair war on weapons of mass deception.

Cheers,

Jim, on a Texas beach with Ann, Miss Kitty, and, soon, Samwise
post #10 of 18
I have got some new developments that took place in Puerto Rico regarding the subject.

The press asked in a press conference to the governor of Puerto Rico, Mrs. Sila MarÃ:censor:a Calderón her opinion on the Nobel Prize joke of Bush and Blair and she answered "Tony Blair? Who is Tony Blair?" The reporter answered that it was the Prime Minister of the UK, and then she "Oh, Tony Blair... well,.... that is something that the Nobel Prize committee has to decide" still with the glassy look of confusedness.

This is worser than the Bush bloopers....
post #11 of 18
I'm a little confused:

Are you all saying that the freeing of the Iraqi's from a horrible dictator would not qualify bush/blair for a nomination? I'm not saying they deserve to WIN, but I don't think there is anything absurd about them being nominated.
post #12 of 18
ok I brushed off the american comment you made in another thread (2.0) , but the mentally retarded comment is a little much for me regardless about how you feel regarding the nomination its no reason , to speak like this . I think challenged ppl would make better nobel winners not less , Im hoping you understand why that comment want called for




Quote:
Originally posted by yoviher
Already got the news on WPAB radio... I could not believe it... We had always made jokes of those two mentally retarted people getting the peace prize... so it was like "be careful what you wish for".

The right wing idiot who nominated those two was a Norwegian minister, from what I have got here... anyone can postulate anybody else in the Nobel Prizes. And the Nobel foundation has to then, by their rules to check that candidates dossier to see if he deserves it.

the Nobel Foundation is composed of smart people, so I doubt they will give the prize.

Now, if an illegal preemptive war of aggression, an invasion, made on trunked up reasons against a country which posed no threat at all deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, we might as well, give the Nobel to Osama Bin Laden.
post #13 of 18
OMG! Sorry, I did not thought this would be seen like that. I did not mean to sound rude in the least bit against mentally challenged people, on the contrary, I have always seen cases of such people who superate themselves as a great and good thing (who would not), and I have nothing against such people.

Calling someone "Retardado Mental" in Puerto Rico is a very common set of words for calling someone a nitwit. But they are never meant to insult or prejudice such people. So I thought automatically that it would be seen the same way that it is seen here. Sorry.

As for the words at the 2.0 topic, it was never meant as an insult or something like that... I just was thinking of how the woman thought it was a very common American name and then the fact that it is, of the list of bad words, one of the most common the US.... and the joke came to my mind as a sarcasm like "yeah, very American name". I never meant to offend anyone... Again, am sorry.
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by dtolle
I'm a little confused:
Since your statement quoted above was followed by a question, and since I am obviously one of those to whom the question was addressed, I will exercise my privilige of reply.

I will take the liberty of quoting Winston Churchill, who responded this way to an opponent whom you, unintentionally, I am sure, quote:

"We finally find ourselves in agreement about something."

Jim
post #15 of 18
Just a note, regarding "Thou shalt not kill": a more literal and correct translation, of that passage should be "Thou shalt not MURDER". There ARE instances, in which killing is justified: self-defense, legal executions and (IMO) rapists and child molestors.

Lord knows, the Bible is full of enough instances, whereby God Himself killed people: Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharoah's army, and the firstborn children of Egypt, to name a few.
post #16 of 18
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the clarification. Today I got an email from our paper's editor, explaining that part of the story (the important part about who nominated the BBs) was not printed because of warning strikes that have intermittently been screwing everything up for the past week and a half. I had noticed the newspaper was sloppier than usual. The national papers I read ignored the story - I guess they figure the BBs don't stand a chance.

Cindy, as a lapsed Catholic, I never did much Bible reading. I have heard "Thou shalt not kill" used both by people who favor the death penalty (and often are very pro-life, which confuses me) and by those who are against capital punishment (many of whom are pro-choice). At least I'm not the only inconsistent person around!
post #17 of 18
Do not worry Jcat, I am anti death penalty and pro-choice.

It just lies on wether or not you think abortion is killing.

The people who are pro death penalty and pro life argue that its killing convicted criminals who have done such bad things that they do not deserve to live and so on, meanwhile unborn babies have not done a thing.

The people who are against the death penalty and pro choice (like me) find the death penalty as legalized murder and killing someone else for having killed as lowering yourself to the same level as the offender. And at the same time think that abortion is not killing. In my case I tried thinking a bit the rationale of the pro-life people, but no matter how hard I try to reason it, I simply don't see it as killing. On the contrary, as giving a woman the right to decide.
post #18 of 18
I'm pro-death penalty AND pro-choice. While I deplore the use of abortion, as a means of birth control, I believe that it is a personal and medical decision. ALL options should be presented, however before an irrevocable decision is made.

If not for a therapeutic abortion, I wouldn't be alive. My grandmother developed toxemia, during her first pregnancy and slipped into a coma. The only way (this was 1935) to save my grandmother was to abort the baby. Granny recovered and, a year later, had my mother. Without the TAB, Granny AND the baby would have died.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush and Blair under consideration for Nobel Peace Prize?