Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Welcome to the new world where it doesn't matter what you do or didn't do, but feels > all.
There's really room for both.
We as a species, however, are just utter ***at striking balances.
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
There's really room for both. We as a species, however, are just utter ***at striking balances.
[+]
Out of those 3, Jimmy Carter clearly the winner.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Out of those 3, Jimmy Carter clearly the winner. Al Gore got a prize for...being Al Gore though ! YouTube Video Placeholder Since they are giving out Nobel prizes to people who don't actually do anything to earn it, isn't that an insult to those who actually do earn it?
And no Rooks, there is no personal attacks in this post. Nor is there any other sort of rule breaking either. So, I would appreciate it if I don't get banned for making this post. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Since they are giving out Nobel prizes to people who don't actually do anything to earn it, isn't that an insult to those who actually do earn it? And no Rooks, there is no personal attacks in this post. Nor is there any other sort of rule breaking either. So, I would appreciate it if I don't get banned for making this post. I submit that you are personally attacking Nobel Peace Prize winners! How low can you get!? (I don't care.) Though in fairness, Carter actually, you know, did things for it. He wasn't the best president ever, but he's a pretty good guy and does a lot of humanitarian work. Asura.Kingnobody said: » And no Rooks, there is no personal attacks in this post. Nor is there any other sort of rule breaking either. So, I would appreciate it if I don't get banned for making this post. Are you just trying to goad me into suspending you? Do you think that's going to work? What exactly is the point of this?
[+]
What is funny about the Noble peace prize is that the guy it is named for made money creating things to kill people! (dynamite)
Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Since they are giving out Nobel prizes to people who don't actually do anything to earn it, isn't that an insult to those who actually do earn it? And no Rooks, there is no personal attacks in this post. Nor is there any other sort of rule breaking either. So, I would appreciate it if I don't get banned for making this post. I submit that you are personally attacking Nobel Peace Prize winners! How low can you get!? (I don't care.) Though in fairness, Carter actually, you know, did things for it. He wasn't the best president ever, but he's a pretty good guy and does a lot of humanitarian work. Of course he does he grew peanuts. That alone is worth a Nobel prize ! fonewear said: » What is funny about the Noble peace prize is that the guy it is named for made money creating things to kill people! (dynamite) It's not just named for him; he founded it. He founded it as a way to atone for making such a destructive thing.
[+]
fonewear said: » What is funny about the Noble peace prize is that the guy it is named for made money creating things to kill people! (dynamite) What is funny is you not accurately conveying the entirety of the story surrounding the events you're reporting. It's like you work for Fox or CNN or something. Since when do Presidents get judged by whether or not they win a Nobel peace prize ? Is that the standard nowadays ?
Supposedly, he invented it as a more powerful method of blasting rock for the sake of construction.
I don't know all of the applications of dynamite, but I do know it's also used for extinguishing fires in oil wells, etc.
[+]
Fenrir.Atheryn said: » Supposedly, he invented it an a more powerful method of blasting rock for the sake of construction. I don't know all of the applications of dynamite, but I do know it's also used for extinguishing fires in oil wells, etc. I do it is used by Wile E Coyote to catch the road runner.
[+]
fonewear said: » Since when do Presidents get judged by whether or not they win a Nobel peace prize ? Is that the standard nowadays ? Not judging his presidential achievements or lack thereof. Judging the entirety of his work as a human being. Frankly, I think it's great seeing presidents do work after they're in office, rather than just cashing in $200,000 a year on top of their other riches while they engage in leisurely pursuits like terribly painting...
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Frankly, I think it's great seeing presidents do work after they're in office, rather than just cashing in $200,000 a year on top of their other riches while they engage in leisurely pursuits like terribly painting... I find the post-presidency period really interesting. Here you have, by definition, one of most ambitious and successful people alive, with no mountains left to climb. (Unless they want to pull a Taft and aim for the Supreme Court). Seeing what they do with their time and their influence is fascinating. So you criticize a former President for having a hobby. Seems fair and just to me ! Did you criticize him for saving millions of people in Africa from AIDS and cervical cancer ?
[+]
Lakshmi.Rooks said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » And no Rooks, there is no personal attacks in this post. Nor is there any other sort of rule breaking either. So, I would appreciate it if I don't get banned for making this post. Are you just trying to goad me into suspending you? Do you think that's going to work? What exactly is the point of this? Or am I not allowed to do that either? Is this post the post that you will issue that 60 day ban you just threatened me on? Lakshmi.Rooks said: » Ramyrez said: » Frankly, I think it's great seeing presidents do work after they're in office, rather than just cashing in $200,000 a year on top of their other riches while they engage in leisurely pursuits like terribly painting... I find the post-presidency period really interesting. Here you have, by definition, one of most ambitious and successful people alive, with no mountains left to climb. (Unless they want to pull a Taft and aim for the Supreme Court). Seeing what they do with their time and their influence is fascinating. fonewear said: » So you criticize a former President for having a hobby. Seems fair and just to me ! Did you criticize him for saving millions of people in Africa from AIDS and cervical cancer ? GW does good things and he's been a remarkably nonpartisan former president. Frankly I think he gets too much ***for an administration that he was saddled with that didn't even get along within itself. That said, you're the one who criticized me for lauding a former president - albeit one equally worthy of criticism as a president - for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. :p Though to directly address your statement of: fonewear said: » Since when do Presidents get judged by whether or not they win a Nobel peace prize ? Is that the standard nowadays ? I think gauging presidents as those who work for peace as bigger winners than those who start wars isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if it is a massive oversimplification. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Not goading, protecting my own ***. Or am I not allowed to do that either? Is this post the post that you will issue that 60 day ban you just threatened me on? I just find your methodology curious, I guess. And that wasn't a threat; I was stating flat out that by the process, your next suspension is the 60 day kind, and that I'd shown some leniency by topic banning you from Lordgrim's thread instead of following the escalation process. I was trying to be informative. I never really saw much value in threats, anyway; if you have to try and cower someone into doing something, they aren't likely to do it for any reason you'd want. Ramyrez said: » who work for peace prizes as bigger winners than those who start wars Is it wrong that I pictured that choice as a BioWare style dialogue wheel? I'm sure we will have a "war" when Hillary enters office. So don't worry there is going to be plenty of war porn for everyone.
I'm sure Hillary is an expert on foreign policy in the Middle East. Just ask her she will tell you so. See women aren't warmongers we would live in a peaceful world if more women were in charge...or so the feminist mantra goes...
I look forward to Hillary proving me right. fonewear said: » See women aren't warmongers we would live in a peaceful world if more women were in charge...or so the feminist mantra goes... I look forward to Hillary proving me right. Who was talking anything about feminism? Was your axe so particularly dull today that you had to whip it out and grind it? ^^; Everything always goes back to women. It is the nature of the world. Can't talk about men without a woman bitching !
You want to live in a world full of equality have to discuss women even if they aren't the topic at hand. fonewear said: » Everything always goes back to women. It is the nature of the world. Can't talk about men without a woman bitching ! Incidentally, the trend I've noticed on this forum is you can't talk about men without men bitching about women whether they have anything to do with the topic at hand or not...
[+]
That is what equality is all about. Everyone ending up hating each other.
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.