NationStates Jolt Archive

The Daily Show nailed it last night (just watched it today on dvr because I work for a living ;) ) He just points the spotlight on their rabid frothing at the mouth over this. Frankly it's hilarious.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=118580&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

Now this is nothing that shocks me because Fox News is so partisan. It's like ABC running a liberally biased news piece. The difference between most of the people on NSG and the "Busheviks" is the ability to admit bias comes in all forms. To them Fox news truly is what their branding geniuses in marketing wanted it to be, "Fair and Balanced." We all know that's utter shite, but some won't admit to it. So I suppose I just present this as a funny ha ha over how crazy this has made them. I also post it once again to show that your head is clearly not where it should be if you think this network is impartial to political parties.

Aye.
Dry =/= water.

I'm not really a fan of the Fox News style but really....Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize?

Seriously.

Didn't need a crystal ball for this one...

That wasn't Fox News' news. That was their commentary pieces by Hannity mostly, the Beltway Boys, and the panel on the Special Report.

Not one clip did they show was FNC's actual news reporting.

I'm not really a fan of the Fox News style but really....Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize?

Seriously.

What the hell does Global Warming have to do with peace?

Make a new prize for Environmental Science to ensure this bullshit doesn't happen again.

That wasn't Fox News' news. That was their commentary pieces by Hannity mostly, the Beltway Boys, and the panel on the Special Report.

Not one clip did they show was FNC's actual news reporting.

With only 15 minutes of actual reporting between right wing commentators it's hard to come across...

Well I can see that stopping the effects of climate change would prolong peace rather than the alternative, which would be fights over resources - land, food and water - if the location of these resources changes due to the weather.

If it's the major issue of our time, then I can see a person who struggles for change as deserving of recognition.

So I can see the argument for Al Gore.

Yet I feel that there are people who are risking their lives to struggle for peace, whereas Al Gore is risking nothing and gaining everything - the charge of flying around in a private jet sticks here.

My vote would have gone to Morgan Tsvangirai, not just for the beatings he's taken for his cause, but also for the spotlight it would put on Zimbabwe and Mugabe, where people are really suffering. I'd vote for Aug San Suu Kyi if she hadn't won it already - essentially people who are struggling for peace rather than basking in plaudits.

There is normal bias then there is conservative pundit bias. It is like the difference between a punch in the face and death by dismemberment.

With only 15 minutes of actual reporting between right wing commentators it's hard to come across...

Most commentators come on AFTER 6PM EST.

All before then is mostly news.

The Daily Show nailed it last night (just watched it today on dvr because I work for a living ;) ) He just points the spotlight on their rabid frothing at the mouth over this. Frankly it's hilarious.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=118580&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true


A video player that doesn't suck. (http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118580)
I'm sorry, but trying to get motherload to work is painful. damn thing tries to skip on to the next video whenever the stream stalls.

The problem is, whatever you may think of Fox (I happen to find their sensationalism distasteful anyway) the fact is that those who award the Nobel Peace Prize have revealed themselves as a bunch of political partisans themselves. Either that, or they've become so incompetent that the meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize has become completely irrelevant.

...mind you, arguably that has happened already when they awarded one to Arafat.

Al Gore gets a share in the prize for his movie, which was found to contain so many factual errors (9 at last count) by a British court that it can't even be shown in classrooms there without a disclaimer making it clear that this movie is merely a propaganda piece.

And for this, Gore gets one of the most well known awards in the world.

No matter what you believe concerning Global Warming, the fact is that there are a great many more deserving candidates for this prize than Gore, and the fact that he got it raises questions in my mind over exactly how it came to be that he won it in the first place, even IF his movie were 100% scientifically accurate.

...mind you, arguably that has happened already when they awarded one to Arafat.

Do you have any idea why he was even awarded it? Obviously you don't.

The Oslo accords would have brought peace between Israel and Palestine. It was the only agreement that actively acknowledged Israel's right to exist which had a chance of passing. And Arafat was key to having it signed.

It would have worked too, if some idiot orthodox Jew (who was also a right winger) didn't take it into his head to assassinate Israel's prime minister. And because Rabin was killed, right wingers in Israel won the elections, and ended up stymieing the entire peace process and dropped them back into war.

Do you have any idea why he was even awarded it? Obviously you don't.

The Oslo accords would have brought peace between Israel and Palestine. It was the only agreement that actively acknowledged Israel's right to exist which had a chance of passing. And Arafat was key to having it signed.

It would have worked to, if some idiot orthodox Jew (who was also a right winger) didn't take it into his head to assassinate Israel's prime minister. And because Rabin was killed, right wingers in Israel won the elections, and ended up stymieing the entire peace process and dropped them back into war.

They awarded it to someone who planned and was involved with the killings of the Israeli athletes at the '72 Olympics.

Being a terrorist and then attempting to make peace doesn't make you good at all.

They awarded it to someone who planned and was involved with the killings of the Israeli athletes at the '72 Olympics.

Being a terrorist and then attempting to make peace doesn't make you good at all.Arafat got it for being a peacemaker, not for his winning personality, rugged good looks or whatever. Being a violent criminal doesn't stop people from becomming peacemakers. In fact, if there's a rule of thumb there, it's the opposite.

They awarded it to someone who planned and was involved with the killings of the Israeli athletes at the '72 Olympics.

Being a terrorist and then attempting to make peace doesn't make you good at all.

Good? Who the heck said anything about good? If the requirement of the Nobel prize be that the person be a moral saint, there wouldn't be anybody holding it. Ever.

The entire idea behind the prize is to award those who have gone above all others to promote peace. That's entirely what the Oslo accords were about. And that's what the award was for.

The Nobel prize was never, and is never, some kind of indicator that you've descended from a cloud in a silver chariot come to lead everyone to the promised land.

Now this is nothing that shocks me because Fox News is so partisan. It's like ABC running a liberally biased news piece.

You mean the network that canceled Bill Maher for criticizing George Bush?

Owned by the company that refused to distribute Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11?

Let me say this one more time.

There is no liberal media.

That wasn't Fox News' news. That was their commentary pieces by Hannity mostly, the Beltway Boys, and the panel on the Special Report.

Not one clip did they show was FNC's actual news reporting.

FOX Reports News?

FOX's hard news (unlike other news shows, 'hard news' refers not to the objective nature of the reporting, but the erections it causes in the executives) is the most editorialized and partisan in existence. The only reason the Daily Show didn't use it is because it wasn't funny.

Do you have any idea why he was even awarded it? Obviously you don't.

The Oslo accords would have brought peace between Israel and Palestine. It was the only agreement that actively acknowledged Israel's right to exist which had a chance of passing. And Arafat was key to having it signed.

It would have worked too, if some idiot orthodox Jew (who was also a right winger) didn't take it into his head to assassinate Israel's prime minister. And because Rabin was killed, right wingers in Israel won the elections, and ended up stymieing the entire peace process and dropped them back into war.

So that wipes Arafat's slate clean huh?

I'd definitely say Global Warming is a threat to peace.

So that wipes Arafat's slate clean huh?

No, but it was worthwhile to award it to him nonetheless, because he would have succeeded in peace. Yassir Arafat only fought afterwards against new Israeli aggression that should not have happened.

So that wipes Arafat's slate clean huh?

No damnit. Did you bother to read my later post? The Nobel prize doesn't wipe your slate clean. It doesn't proclaim you to be some messianic entity come to lead you to the promised land. It doesn't mean you're some flower child. It just means that you've done something that brought or would bring a whole lot of peace to the world.

You could be a hybrid between Hitler and Skeletor who's piss is pure liquid malevolence and still qualify if you did something that promised to bring about greater peace to the world.

You could be a hybrid between Hitler and Skeletor who's piss is pure liquid malevolence and still qualify if you did something that promised to bring about greater peace to the world.

Within limits though. To continue the Godwin: you would not get it for wiping out the Jews, even though that might create a more peaceful middle east.

Within limits though. To continue the Godwin: you would not get it for wiping out the Jews, even though that might create a more peaceful middle east.

I think the Nobel peace prize is limited by achievement of peace not through total slaughter. Sure, you could get complete peace by sterilizing the planet. But I doubt that would put you in line to win. Goals and methods matter, but what you did before or after the event to bringing about that peace, unless it was a pretext to get people to lower their guard before you whacked them, doesn't matter.

No damnit. Did you bother to read my later post? The Nobel prize doesn't wipe your slate clean. It doesn't proclaim you to be some messianic entity come to lead you to the promised land. It doesn't mean you're some flower child. It just means that you've done something that brought or would bring a whole lot of peace to the world.

You could be a hybrid between Hitler and Skeletor who's piss is pure liquid malevolence and still qualify if you did something that promised to bring about greater peace to the world.

I see I'm not the only one whose become a fan of Zero Punctuation ever since someone posted it here.
you have had a look through his archives, right? Some of his other shit is even funnier.

I'd definitely say Global Warming is a threat to peace.
No it's not and nobody cares what you believe. You fail at life, lol.

ahahaha "mandellacatessen" :p :P

What the hell does Global Warming have to do with peace?

I think I am going to have to step in to explain this.

Okay, first of all, what happens when you get global warming? That's right - ice melts, sea levels rise and livable land mass decreases. Deserts expand, summers become warmer and winters shorter. It messes with so many of our natural resources and our living space that war is in fact the result in some cases.

Want proof? Look at Darfur. Genocide because of many years of drought.

Second of all, while I don't think Gore was the optimal recipient, he is not undeserving of the prize.

No it's not and nobody cares what you believe. You fail at life, lol.

Yes it is, read above.

I see I'm not the only one whose become a fan of Zero Punctuation ever since someone posted it here.
you have had a look through his archives, right? Some of his other shit is even funnier.

Heh, I was the one who posted the links. Beware Peggle. He has suffered the dark side of it. You have been warned. :p

No it's not and nobody cares what you believe. You fail at life, lol.

Apparently many care because the most prestigious prize in the world was given to the guy who said the opposite of what you did.

And to paraphrase Maggie. Being funny is like being even the slightest bit aware of what's going on in the world. If you have to say you are, you aren't.

I think the Nobel peace prize is limited by achievement of peace not through total slaughter. Sure, you could get complete peace by sterilizing the planet. But I doubt that would put you in line to win. Goals and methods matter, but what you did before or after the event to bringing about that peace, unless it was a pretext to get people to lower their guard before you whacked them, doesn't matter.

You mean that you don't have to give back the Nobel Prize for chemistry if you later let your kids use fireworks unsupervised?

Stewart [Holding Pocket US Constitution]: "What is this?"
Kucinich: "It is a pocket U.S. Constitution."
Stewart: "Did you shrink this yourself?"
Kucinich: "No, George W. Bush did."

You mean that you don't have to give back the Nobel Prize for chemistry if you later let your kids use fireworks unsupervised?

You can get it for chemistry? You're going to have to elaborate on that.

You can get it for chemistry? You're going to have to elaborate on that.

There's a Nobel Prize for Chemistry, a Nobel Prize for Physics (which this year went to a pair of research who discovered a phenomenon called giant magnetoresistance), a Nobel Prize for Economics (something to do with game theory this year), etc.

And...?

Fox News, while questionable for a long time, could be counted as a legitimate news source, right up until the beginning of the Iraq War, when it suddenly jumped the shark. Nowadays it just is pretty lame.

There's a Nobel Prize for Chemistry, a Nobel Prize for Physics (which this year went to a pair of research who discovered a phenomenon called giant magnetoresistance), a Nobel Prize for Economics (something to do with game theory this year), etc.

There isn't one for Mathematics, IMS. Supposedly because Nobel's wife ran off with a mathematician. I doubt it's true, but it's a funny thought. Snopes has something on it, I believe.

There isn't one for Mathematics, IMS. Supposedly because Nobel's wife ran off with a mathematician. I doubt it's true, but it's a funny thought. Snopes has something on it, I believe.

Bah, screw the Mathies anyway. We Physicists can do anything they can do, but better. ;)

There's also a Nobel Prize for literature, which I was a bit surprised at.

They awarded it to someone who planned and was involved with the killings of the Israeli athletes at the '72 Olympics.

Being a terrorist and then attempting to make peace doesn't make you good at all.

tell that to Nelson mandela.

I think the Nobel peace prize is limited by achievement of peace not through total slaughter. Sure, you could get complete peace by sterilizing the planet. But I doubt that would put you in line to win. Goals and methods matter, but what you did before or after the event to bringing about that peace, unless it was a pretext to get people to lower their guard before you whacked them, doesn't matter.

Henry Kissinger, anyone?

Bah, screw the Mathies anyway. We Physicists can do anything they can do, but better. ;)

There's also a Nobel Prize for literature, which I was a bit surprised at.

Surprised at? Your primary schools really are as bad as we hear...

tediusly predictable reaction to the corporatocracy being made visible for the two bit whore that it is, instead of the innocent sexiness it has been portrying itself as.

reguardless of gore's past sins, which exist, but are mostly impertinant to the context.

no human indevour is infallably isolated from human politics. please note however, that the prize for doing the work, the most regourusly conservatively scientific work ever, on the realities of global climate chainge, went to the u.n. agency that DID the actual work. gore's part was for his work in publicising theirs.

the awarding organization was completely and unambiguously clear about that, whatever muddiness you may have gotten out of the corporate media.

=^^=
.../\...

Surprised at? Your primary schools really are as bad as we hear...

Is there also a Nobel Prize for art, then? It only makes sense...

And when you've got something intelligent to add to the conversation, I suppose we can pick this up and actually discuss it like adults.

Is there also a Nobel Prize for art, then? It only makes sense...

And when you've got something intelligent to add to the conversation, I suppose we can pick this up and actually discuss it like adults.

That'll be a day when Fassitude can debate something like an adult :D

That'll be a day when Fassitude can debate something like an adult :D

That was completely unnecessary, and I find the smugness you show in saying this to be an amusing parallel to Fass' anti-American rants.

Both of you need to grow the hell up if you're going to keep posting here.

That was completely unnecessary, and I find the smugness you show in saying this to be an amusing parallel to Fass' anti-American rants.

Both of you need to grow the hell up if you're going to keep posting here.

Oh please...I've said far worse than that. :D

Oh please...I've said far worse than that. :D

You've a history of this kind of thing?

Oh please...I've said far worse than that. :D

That's your idea of a defence?

You do realise, admitting to flaming/flamebaiting might be considered tactically less-than-advisable...?

That's your idea of a defence?

You do realise, admitting to flaming/flamebaiting might be considered tactically less-than-advisable...?

Oh yea I know but comeon...its Fass :D

for people that seem to hate fox news so much, you sure do give it attention and publicity.

There's a Nobel Prize for Chemistry, a Nobel Prize for Physics (which this year went to a pair of research who discovered a phenomenon called giant magnetoresistance), a Nobel Prize for Economics (something to do with game theory this year), etc.

Well then, in answer to your original question. Yes, you could get the award, assuming that whatever you did fell under their criteria and that it wasn't falsified.

for people that seem to hate fox news so much, you sure do give it attention and publicity.

Ironic isn't it?

for people that seem to hate fox news so much, you sure do give it attention and publicity.

That doesn't even make sense.

If some people believe that Fox is a subversive element, leading the masses with it's lack of objectivity, and corrupting morals with it's propaganda... it makes sense they WOULD give it 'attention'.

They wouldn't watch it because they LIKE it, but because they would need to know what the latest excess might be.

Know thy enema, or something like that.

That doesn't even make sense.

If some people believe that Fox is a subversive element, leading the masses with it's lack of objectivity, and corrupting morals with it's propaganda... it makes sense they WOULD give it 'attention'.

They wouldn't watch it because they LIKE it, but because they would need to know what the latest excess might be.

Know thy enema, or something like that.

if that is the point you want to make that they are just getting to know their enemy then maybe they should actually watch fox news and not just the clips it shows on the daily show.

Well then, in answer to your original question. Yes, you could get the award, assuming that whatever you did fell under their criteria and that it wasn't falsified.

My original question? :confused: I believe that was my first post in this thread. I think you mean Domici :p

No damnit. Did you bother to read my later post? The Nobel prize doesn't wipe your slate clean. It doesn't proclaim you to be some messianic entity come to lead you to the promised land. It doesn't mean you're some flower child. It just means that you've done something that brought or would bring a whole lot of peace to the world.

You could be a hybrid between Hitler and Skeletor who's piss is pure liquid malevolence and still qualify if you did something that promised to bring about greater peace to the world.

Don't assume I'm not reading your posts just because I don't agree. The fact is, the Nobel Peace Prize isn't just about peace as opposed to conflict. It's about recognizing efforts on the part of people to bring about better lives for people in general, and not necessarily ending/preventing wars.

If Hitler had sued for peace in 1944 instead of carrying on the war, would you have nominated him for the peace prize for that? For stopping a war he helped to start?

I doubt it.

for people that seem to hate fox news so much, you sure do give it attention and publicity.

Because you are not allowed to discuss things you dislike? That's like saying people should ignore genocides because they are distasteful. Granted, it's a fairly large leap of degree but it's the same logic being applied. o.O

Because you are not allowed to discuss things you dislike? That's like saying people should ignore genocides because they are distasteful. Granted, it's a fairly large leap of degree but it's the same logic being applied. o.O

not really the same thing at all. people that talk out against genocides actually lead to trying to take action to stop the genocides. genocides don't thrive on publicity and advertisers advertising on their network like fox does.

point is their is at least 1 post a day about how someone doesn't like something that was said on fox news which just get a rally call for more people to join in and discuss fox news. there should be a fox news forum on this site.

not really the same thing at all. people that talk out against genocides actually lead to trying to take action to stop the genocides. genocides don't thrive on publicity and advertisers advertising on their network like fox does.

point is their is at least 1 post a day about how someone doesn't like something that was said on fox news which just get a rally call for more people to join in and discuss fox news. there should be a fox news forum on this site.

But unless this causes people to actually turn their TVs to fox news, it doesn't matter.

In fact, after the things I've heard, I refuse to go to fox for my news. I'm sure many feel the same.
When I want to laugh at their stupidity, there are plenty of people willing to repost the choice bits of it somewhere it doesn't benefit them.

foxes are little furry creatures i have a great deal of love and respect for.

for the corporatocracy to have one of its propiganda organs bearing the same name, even if it is named after a human possessing this name, is a blasphemous obscenity.

=^^=
.../\...

You know, now that I think about it, it seems republicans have a serious case of sour grapes when it comes to the Nobel Prize. "what?! Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize?! Well, it's not that great anyway..."

They didn't seem to have their hearts set on discrediting it when they were trying to secure it for bush a few years ago (yeah, that's a laugh.)

Fox News throws a hissy fit over Gore's nobel prize , no wonder I would too.

Just some curiosa knowledge.

The Economics prize is not part of the Nobel prizes, though treated as one.

the testament is written in part as follows
"The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

Unlike the physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace prizes, a prize for economics was never requested by Alfred Nobel in his will. The award was established some 70 years after his death by the Bank of Sweden on its 300th anniversary in 1968.

Is there also a Nobel Prize for art, then? It only makes sense...

The Nobel Prizes exist for the areas that Alfred Nobel decided in his will: Medicine/Physiology, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace. That is all they exist for, because that was the areas he wanted to honour. No new prize categories can be added.

(The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel Prize at all, but is as the name says a prize in his memory awarded by the Central Bank of Sweden, which it instituted for its tricentennial seven decades after his death.)

And when you've got something intelligent to add to the conversation, I suppose we can pick this up and actually discuss it like adults.

Adults tend to have a certain basic level of education, so I'll take your admonishment to behave as an adult cum grano salis and a side of oh, so intelligent irony, kid.

Stewart [Holding Pocket US Constitution]: "What is this?"
Kucinich: "It is a pocket U.S. Constitution."
Stewart: "Did you shrink this yourself?"
Kucinich: "No, George W. Bush did."

I think that was Colbert.

tell that to Nelson mandela.

I assume you're speaking as a historian here?

I assume you're speaking as a historian here?

I assume that you have a point to make?

I assume that you have a point to make?

I believe I've already made it.

Edit: I had intended to explain further, but Firefox crashed. Anyways, I am (admittedly snidely, which I apologize for) calling into question your credibility on this issue as your statement about Nelson Mandela was false. He was a peace activist turned terrorist, not the other way around.

I believe I've already made it.

Edit: I had intended to explain further, but Firefox crashed. Anyways, I am (admittedly snidely, which I apologize for) calling into question your credibility on this issue as your statement about Nelson Mandela was false. He was a peace activist turned terrorist, not the other way around.

It was the turned terrorist that I was referring to however I will give him credit that he went back to being a peace activist and told the terrorist organization he belonged to stick it when he admitted that his group violated Human Rights. :)

It was the turned terrorist that I was referring to however I will give him credit that he went back to being a peace activist and told the terrorist organization he belonged to stick it when he admitted that his group violated Human Rights. :)

.....but he never renounced armed struggle, did he?

for people that seem to hate fox news so much, you sure do give it attention and publicity.

You don't think it strange that someone on a national news channel can proclaim that a former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner is "crazy"?

Talk about lack of respect. I shouldn't be surprised, but I actually are.

Stewart [Holding Pocket US Constitution]: "What is this?"
Kucinich: "It is a pocket U.S. Constitution."
Stewart: "Did you shrink this yourself?"
Kucinich: "No, George W. Bush did."

That was Colbert, you lier.

Is there also a Nobel Prize for art, then? It only makes sense...

And when you've got something intelligent to add to the conversation, I suppose we can pick this up and actually discuss it like adults.

Isn't adultery overrated in modern society?

What the hell does Global Warming have to do with peace?

Make a new prize for Environmental Science to ensure this bullshit doesn't happen again.

It's quite relevant to world peace. We either A) raise all of humanity's awareness to the problem so as to foster global co-operation and consensus to collectively avert catastrophic climate change, thereby advancing the cause of peace; or B) do nothing, watch the planet become uninhabitable (to us) as it becomes too flooded for us to live on, or too hot for us to live on, and then once we're all dead... there's peace. Quiet, warm, splashy peace.

Don't assume I'm not reading your posts just because I don't agree. The fact is, the Nobel Peace Prize isn't just about peace as opposed to conflict. It's about recognizing efforts on the part of people to bring about better lives for people in general, and not necessarily ending/preventing wars.

The Oslo accords would have certainly done quite a bit in improving the lives of people in general around the Middle East and possibly elsewhere if they had worked. Less extremists running around I would imagine.


If Hitler had sued for peace in 1944 instead of carrying on the war, would you have nominated him for the peace prize for that? For stopping a war he helped to start?


Hitler would have to do a lot more than just sue for peace. If his peace was another attempt to buy time and build up forces for another attack, that can hardly be called working for the general betterment of humanity can we?

As I said before, goals and methods count. But not actions before or after that aren't related to the reasons for the prize. Or any for that matter. Take Wernher von Braun for example. Despite being part of the SS with the rank of Sturmbannführer, he still won national awards for contributions towards science. In the United States no less.

And it wouldn't have been stopping the war that would make him eligible for the prize anyway. It'd have to be a way of ensuring that the peace would last. Real peace. Not Orwellian style peace.

And no, it doesn't count if he conquered everyone and started a Pax Germanica.