jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (25 posts)

Who should have not won the Nobel peace prize, Al Core or Obama?

  1. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 7 years ago

    The greatest threat to mankind is Nuclear war and the lack of protection for our natural environment.

    I'm happier to see Al Core get a Nobel peace prize, than to watch Obama get one for raising the war budget to the highest level ever.

    What do you think?

    1. jmlares profile image58
      jmlaresposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. Obama shouldn't have won the Nobel Peace Prize. He did brought a sense of relief when he was put into office, but come on, look who he was against in the end. He also wanted to bring in lots of change, with things this country isn't ready for.

      Of course everyone wants free healthcare, but also everyone wants to go to Harvard/Yale to become a doctor. What's the point in that when by the time you'd be able to practice, everyone will have set wages that are below what the average white collar worker makes now?

      I think we all saw too much potential in Obama, thought he knew what he was doing, but in reality he's far from being perfect and everything he's putting forth is getting overridden by the checks and balances system. Even before Republicans became the majority, most of the Democrats weren't too sure about it either. At least that's what I make of all the news I hear/read/and watch.

      As for the war, well, you can't just pull out of it. I think it's going to take another good 5-10 years before it finishes.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        That makes it a tie, so far.

        I think Obama has good intent, it's just the puppeteers are too strong.

  2. Mikeydoes profile image76
    Mikeydoesposted 7 years ago

    Al Gore, that is an easy one.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      One vote for Al Core

  3. WalterDamage profile image58
    WalterDamageposted 7 years ago

    Well, Obama has done nothing to earn the prize except talk a lot....and how can he be up for a peace prize when he is increasing troop levels in Afghanistan?  If he were half a man he would have refused the Nobel Prize and suggested they give it to someone with actual accomplishments.

    As for Gore, same problem, what exactly has he done beside perpetuate the global warming myth and line his own pockets in the process?

  4. Wayne Orvisburg profile image74
    Wayne Orvisburgposted 7 years ago

    Al Gore. Shouldn't have gotten an Oscar either.

    The rumor is he beat out a lady that helped smuggle children out of concentration camps for the Nobel. Of course, it's a rumor, but still.

  5. Shadesbreath profile image85
    Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago

    Neither of them should have gotten it.  They should have given it to someone who actually deserved it.

    1. profile image0
      SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Check the ceiling of your house for cracks, Shades, because I agree wholeheartedly with you.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image85
        Shadesbreathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        LOL Cheers, SirDent.

    2. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed! smile

  6. rotl profile image61
    rotlposted 7 years ago

    I don't think Obama should have won it. No president presiding over two wars should even be considered.

    Not sure about Al Gore either.

    But this also illustrates a larger point in my opinion. There are not a lot of worthy candidates in the world these days. Not a lof of MLKs or anything even close in the world today.

  7. Aficionada profile image90
    Aficionadaposted 7 years ago

    Interesting, isn't it, that so many of us who are so very different in other respects are so totally in agreement on this?  Neither one should have won!

  8. profile image0
    Toby Hansenposted 7 years ago

    Neither. Gore is a climates terrorist, and Obama has not done enough (yet) to win a peace prize. Maybe the Norwegians should have waited until after Obama pulled the US Army out of Iraq, Afghanistan, the DMZ, etcetera before they gave him the award.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Winning a Nobel peace for killing poor people and burning villages is no prize to me. War solves nothing and a faction of the war budget would solve the worst killer of all, poverty.

      On the other hand, who is doing much about the environment, do you trust the politic or the rich will to do anything about it for us?

      Global Warning is real; I have lost 80% of my ice and snow sculpture business over it. In Vancouver the most dangerous Olympic ever was due to warming. In the pass 25 years ice has melted the size of Alaska and Texas combined in parlor region. Floods are the largest natural environment killer of all.

      What natural abuse will it take to convince people its real, maybe 100 million deaths in a few floods, should do it?

  9. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Once Henry Kissinger won it during the Vietnam War it was all over.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      In 1973, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, "intended to bring about a cease-fire in the Vietnam war and a withdrawal of the American forces," while serving as the United States Secretary of State.

      Unlike Tho, who refused it because Vietnam was still at war, Kissinger accepted it.

      On January 13, 1977, Kissinger was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Gerald Ford.

  10. Milla Mahno profile image72
    Milla Mahnoposted 7 years ago

    Neither of course.

  11. profile image61
    foreignpressposted 7 years ago

    If one had to choose between them, then it would be Gore. Obama had done absolutely nothing to justify the Nobel. At least Gore had been around awhile.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It seems most people here; think both of them should have not gotten the Nobel Prize. But some may consider Al Core to win it.

      I for one, think Al Core deserved it, because some day, it will be our Health that will becomes the bottom line rather than money.

      1. rotl profile image61
        rotlposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Are you calling him Al Core (vs. Gore) on purpose? I just wasn't sure if there's some joke there that I'm not getting.

  12. profile image59
    C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago


  13. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago

    "Who should have not won the Nobel peace prize, Al Core or Obama?"


  14. Flightkeeper profile image73
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    I think that whole Nobel peace prize should be trashed.  Or at least the committees.  A lot of the picks are basically for political or politically correct reasons and have nothing to do with the winner accomplishing humanitarian goals.

  15. thisisoli profile image73
    thisisoliposted 7 years ago

    Neither should have gained it. I think it is an insult to the Nobel Prize system that people who genuinely have helped the world have been overshadowed by these people.