Coffeehouse Thread

34 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

The Perfect Pair of Noble Peace Prize Winners and Presidential Candidates

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    raymond

    If Rush Limbaugh Noble Peace Prize nominee wins the Peace Prize this Friday, October 12, 2007, Rush promised today on his radio show to run for President of The United States of America in 2008.





    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

    If Al Gore Noble Peace Prize nominee wins the Peace Prize this Friday, rumors are flying that Al Gore will run for President as well.

    poster

    http://www.draftgore.com/


    This presents the Nobel Peace Prize Committee with an excellent opportunity to influence the direction of USA for at least the next four years by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to both Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore.

    http://nobelprize.org/

    There is ample precedent for this if one looks at past winners of both the Nobel Peace Prize and other Nobel prizes.

    Nobel Peace Prize Winners 2006-1901

    http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_list.html

    http://nobelprize.org/nobelweb/index.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

    If both win, American conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats will be celebrating Columbus Day in a very big way this year.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

    In the spirit of Republican and Democratic Party unity may I suggest to Rush and Al that you offer the Vice-President spot on your ticket to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, respectively.

    Good luck Rush and Al.

    We all look forward to a spirited Presidential campaign and debate.

    God Bless America

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USMGOy6ygDg


    Cool

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    ReadMe.txt

    Channel 9 Doctrine

    1. Channel 9 is all about the conversation.

    In not a single post have you started a conversation.

  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

    ZippyV wrote:
    

    ReadMe.txt

    Channel 9 Doctrine

    1. Channel 9 is all about the conversation.

    In not a single post have you started a conversation.



    LOL

    but its true. There's never a decent question provoking conversation. Ever.

    Get a freakin' blog.

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    PerfectPhase

    On the subject of Noble Prizes, seen the prize for Physics when to the people that discovered GMR, used in harddisks.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7035247.stm

  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

    HDDs will never truly die out then...

    Or will they?

    Thats a conversation starter

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    raymond, the Rush Limbaugh nomination is a complete sham.  I guarantee he cannot win it.

    Besides, what exactly has Limbaugh done ever that contributed to society?  He's been nothing but detrimental.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    DoomBringer wrote:
    raymond, the Rush Limbaugh nomination is a complete sham.  I guarantee he cannot win it.

    Besides, what exactly has Limbaugh done ever that contributed to society?  He's been nothing but detrimental.

    Do you ever expect an answer from raymond?

  • User profile image
    Dharma Punk

    raymond wrote:
     If Rush Limbaugh Noble Peace Prize nominee wins this Peace Prize this Friday, October 12, 2007, Rush promised today on his radio show to run for President of The United States of America in 2008.


    ...and ham will airmail itself.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    I'd nominate Rush for the Ignoble price.

    ... or if they have an Ignobel price, I'd nominate him for that, too.

  • User profile image
    raymond

    Dharma Punk wrote:
    
    raymond wrote:
     If Rush Limbaugh Noble Peace Prize nominee wins this Peace Prize this Friday, October 12, 2007, Rush promised today on his radio show to run for President of The United States of America in 2008.


    ...and ham will airmail itself.



    Hot Air Man?


  • User profile image
    raymond

    DoomBringer wrote:
    raymond, the Rush Limbaugh nomination is a complete sham.  I guarantee he cannot win it.

    Besides, what exactly has Limbaugh done ever that contributed to society?  He's been nothing but detrimental.


    The Doctor of Democracy deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100907/content/01125100.guest.html">http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100907/content/01125100.guest.html

    Listen to his show if you dare to find out what he has contributed to expanding freedom, free enterprise and peace throughout the world.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html">http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

    Tens of millions listen to his radio show every day and have done so for nearly twenty years.

    The Rush Limbaugh Show is the number one talk radio show in the USA.

    "...The Rush Limbaugh Show airs on approximately 590 AM radio affiliate stations nationwide, including radio stations that simultaneously broadcast audio streams on the Internet. Limbaugh also hosts his own Internet streaming audio and video broadcast at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com" href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/" rel="nofollow"> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com. This broadcast is ostensibly restricted to members of Limbaugh's “Rush 24/7” service, but can also be heard live through various radio stations online such as New York's WABC. One can listen on this site almost 24 hours a day: http://streamingradioguide.com/streaming-radio-stations.php?formatid ..."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show

    Yes I agree with you DoomBringer about Rush being detrimental-- to statists and collectivists everywhere.

    The Liberal Progressive Democrats in America consider Rush to be detrimental to achieving socialism and the welfare state in the USA.

    They fear him greatly as we saw last week in the Media Matters unsuccessful smear campaign of Rush.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm84gOXkZaY

    Rush does not expect to win, neither should Al Gore given recent events in Great Britain. 

    I said a long time ago that Al Gore's film,  An Inconvenient Truth, was political propaganda and should not be shown in government schools in the United States unless clearly labeled as such.

    Guess what-- the British courts agree:

    "Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

    The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock.  Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

    In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

    The inaccuracies are:

    • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.  The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
    • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming.  The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.  The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    • The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously.  The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
    • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
    • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim."

    http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html


    Court finds truth inconvenient for Gore   

    http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

    British judge says Al Gore's film promotes 'partisan political views' but can still be shown

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/02/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Gores-Documentary.php

    Teachers to warn pupils about 'Truth' bias

    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/10/03/teachers_to_warn_pupils_about_truth_bias/6597/

    Right on. Smiley

    Have A Happy Columbus Day.

    Cool

    Solar Skeptic and Growing Globalist



  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Do you know what else I heard?  It turns out that Transformers: The Movie was riddled with innacuracies!!!!

    Cars cannot, in fact, turn into giant robots!


    Give it a rest, Raymond.  The only person who brings up Al Gore in these threads is YOU.  Nobody (but you and Rush, apparently) believes that Al Gore or his movie are factual, 100% peer-reviewed science. 

    Your efforts to tear down a PR fluff piece are laughable at best, and show you to be rather uneducated at worst.  After all, you don't really think Al Gore is a scientist, do you? 

    Do you?

    So let's not derail this thread off on any more tangents. 

    You made your point:  Rush Limbaugh is an idiot who wishes to mock the democratic process that is used to elect our political leaders.

    Stick to the topic.

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    A simple examination using critical thought demolishes Rush.  For instance, his claim that the majority of people earning minimum wage are kids (therefore, raising it is a bad idea).  However, US Census data directly contradicted him.

    I could go on, but you're too busy worshipping at the altar of idiocy.

  • User profile image
    raymond

    DoomBringer wrote:
    

    A simple examination using critical thought demolishes Rush.  For instance, his claim that the majority of people earning minimum wage are kids (therefore, raising it is a bad idea).  However, US Census data directly contradicted him.

    I could go on, but you're too busy worshipping at the altar of idiocy.



    He and I favor local labor markets to determine what wage or salary a person can earn and an employer can offer and the repeal of all minimum wage laws.
     
    If you double the minimum wage, businesses that depend upon hiring young workers would have to lay many of their employees off, even though they would be willing to work for less.

    Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2005

    According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2005, 75.6 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 60.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 479,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Another 1.4 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 1.9 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2005 data.

    • Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent. (See table 1 and table 7.)

    • About 3 percent of women paid hourly rates reported wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with under 2 percent of men. (See table 1.)

    • Less than 3 percent of white hourly-paid workers earned $5.15 or less. Among black, Asian, and Hispanic hourly-paid workers, about 2 percent earned the Federal minimum wage or less. For whites and Hispanics, women were twice as likely as men to earn $5.15 or less. (See table 1.)

    • Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely to earn the minimum wage or less than married workers. (See table 8.)

    • Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, 2 percent of those who had a high school diploma but had not gone on to college earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 6.)

    • Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were more likely than their full-time counterparts to be paid $5.15 or less (about 6 percent versus 1 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)

    • By occupational group, the highest proportion of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage occurred in service occupations, at about 8 percent. About three in four workers earning $5.15 or less in 2005 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and service jobs. The proportion of hourly-paid workers whose earnings were reported at or below $5.15 was lowest for persons employed in management, professional, and related occupations and natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (less than 1 percent for both). (See table 4.)

    • The industry with the highest proportion of workers with reported hourly wages at or below $5.15 was leisure and hospitality (about 14 percent). About three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in the food services and drinking places component. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)

    • Among the states, Oklahoma and West Virginia had the highest proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below $5.15 (at about 4 percent). Alaska, California, and Washington had the lowest proportion earning the minimum wage or less (less than 1 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing minimum wage standards that exceed the Federal level of $5.15 per hour. (See table 2 and table 3.)

    • The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979, when data first began to be collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)

    Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics' data on minimum wage earners are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationwide sample survey of households that includes questions enabling the identification of hourly-paid workers and their hourly wage rate. Data in this summary are 2005 annual averages.

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

    Since Rush pays close attention to what Thomas Sowell writes and reflects this in his comments on the air, suggest you read this article:

    "...  Minimum wage laws have been aptly described as “anathema to economists.”2 Even though 88 percent of academic economists supported the “war on poverty,” 61 percent of those same economists opposed the minimum wage law.3 In short, this is not opposition based on philosophy or political leanings, but on economic analysis and on the mounting factual evidence that the law increases unemployment among the very people intended to be benefited. Moreover, economic research has also revealed a disturbing correlation between teenage unemployment rates and teenage crime rates.4 In view of this, this seems like a particularly inappropriate time to stop looking at the evidence by putting in an escalator clause that will give the law a life of its own, independent of its effects on people...."


    http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

    My education is in economics and I could not agree more.

    Cool

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    ScanIAm wrote:
    

    Do you know what else I heard?  It turns out that Transformers: The Movie was riddled with innacuracies!!!!

    Cars cannot, in fact, turn into giant robots!


    Give it a rest, Raymond.  The only person who brings up Al Gore in these threads is YOU.  Nobody (but you and Rush, apparently) believes that Al Gore or his movie are factual, 100% peer-reviewed science. 

    Your efforts to tear down a PR fluff piece are laughable at best, and show you to be rather uneducated at worst.  After all, you don't really think Al Gore is a scientist, do you? 

    Do you?

  • User profile image
    raymond

    ScanIAm wrote:
    


    Do you know what else I heard?  It turns out that Transformers: The Movie was riddled with innacuracies!!!!

    Cars cannot, in fact, turn into giant robots!


    Give it a rest, Raymond.  The only person who brings up Al Gore in these threads is YOU.  Nobody (but you and Rush, apparently) believes that Al Gore or his movie are factual, 100% peer-reviewed science. 

    Your efforts to tear down a PR fluff piece are laughable at best, and show you to be rather uneducated at worst.  After all, you don't really think Al Gore is a scientist, do you? 

    Do you?

    So let's not derail this thread off on any more tangents. 

    You made your point:  Rush Limbaugh is an idiot who wishes to mock the democratic process that is used to elect our political leaders.

    Stick to the topic.



    Please tell this to you local board of education and the government school teachers that are showing Al Gore's movie in the classrooms all across the USA.

    They believe what he is saying is true.

    Al Gore's biggest whopper or lie is the 20 feet sea level rise by 2100.

    This is a marked contrast to the 2 feet maximum prediction of the Unitied Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report of February 2007 projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23 inches) by 2100 with temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8 Farenheit).

    Sea Level Rise Projections to 2100

    This graph shows projected changes in sea level between the years 1990 and 2100 under six different emissions scenarios. Under the lowest emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 3.5 inches by the end of the century; under the highest scenario it is projected to rise 34.6 inches. The sea level rise projected under each of the other scenarios falls between these two extremes.

     Past and projected global average sea level. The gray shaded area shows the estimates of sea level change from 1800 to 1870 when measurements are not available. The red line is a reconstruction of sea level change measured by tide gauges with the surrounding shaded area depicting the uncertainty. The green line shows sea level change as measured by satellite. The purple shaded area represents the range of model projections for a medium growth emissions scenario (IPCC SRES A1B). For reference 100mm is about 4 inches. Source: IPCC (2007) 

    Note that these estimates assume that ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica will continue at the same rates as observed from 1993-2003. The IPCC cautions that these rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if ice flow were to increase linearly, in step with global average temperature, the upper range of projected sea level rise by the year 2100 would be 19.2 to 31.6 inches (48-79 cm or 0.48-0.79 m). But current understanding of ice sheet dynamics is too limited to estimate such changes or to provide an upper limit to the amount by which sea level is likely to rise over this century."

    http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc.html#ref

    "17. Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 cm.

    Sea level change is difficult to measure. Relative sea level changes have been derived mainly from tide-gauge data. In the conventional tide-gauge system, the sea level is measured relative to a land-based tide-gauge benchmark. The major problem is that the land experiences vertical movements (e.g. from isostatic effects, neotectonism, and sedimentation), and these get incorporated into the measurements. However, improved methods of filtering out the effects of long-term vertical land movements, as well as a greater reliance on the longest tide-gauge records for estimating trends, have provided greater confidence that the volume of ocean water has indeed been increasing, causing the sea level to rise within the given range.

    It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm. Other factors are more difficult to quantify. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests that there has been a net positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past changes in sea level because of insufficient data about these ice sheets over the last 100 years."

    http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm



    I am still hoping the Nobel Prize Committee selects Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Wink

    Cool

    PS

    LOL

    Al Gore Debates Global Warming

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU







  • User profile image
    Dharma Punk

    raymond wrote:
    Listen to his show if you dare to find out what [Rush] has contributed to expanding freedom, free enterprise and peace throughout the world.


    I'd wager the monks in Burma have done more for freedom and democracy in just a few days than Rush has done his entire career.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    I find it amusing Raymond is telling people to listen, something he is incapable of doing.

    You're a really tiresome arsewipe with this constant political bullcrap Raymond.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.