Skip to comments.Tough Poll (Vanity)
Posted on 02/15/2010 9:07:54 AM PST by chopperman
Which Nobel Peace Prize Recipient was the Most Inappropriate?
1. Yasar Arafat 2. Al Gore 3. Barack Obama
You’re right, but I think I’d have to go with Arafat if really pressed.
I would add Mikael Gorbachev as well.
The thing is a joke anyway.
4. All of the above
The entire Nobel Prize process has been manipulated into insignificance for over 20 years.
I’d put them in the order listed, but it’s a close race.
Obama’s was definitely the funniest.
Don’t forget Woodrow Wilson who may have the corner on unintended consequences in international affairs by setting up the League of Nations which became the UN soon to become the Government of the One World.
this seems like a trick question. they’re all inappropriate.
Let’s see, the first is a war criminal (anyone but me remember “cold river”?), the second is a huckster, and the third is yet to be determined just how much of either he is. Probably mostly huckster, but he could be a seriously committed communist or even a muslim “doing what he has to.”
Their premature adulation for Bambi removed what little credibilty they still had.
In the words of Obama, this is a “false choice” :).
How soon do you need to know?
I have to think this over.
Yasar Barack Al Arafat Gore Obama
Al Gore. Global warming has nothing to do with peace. (However, it’s great for lining his pockets.)
Arafat and Obama at least have a tenuous link to the purpose of the prize.
I’ll go with that order.
Arafat ... easy decision.
— Obama hasn’t done anything. He’s undeserving by sheer lack of accomplishment ... but lack of accomplishment does not beat counterproductivity.
— Gore was a proponent of a hoax — his impact is mostly economic and in his contribution toward the global slide to totalitarianism. But, I do believe he genuinely bought into his BS, and he’s being debunked. His counterproductivity was mostly well-intentioned (as most liberalism is), and the fact that he’s losing credibility fast erodes his impact.
— Arafat was a terrorist sympathizer, and was likely personally responsible for many deaths of soldiers and civilians that were on the RIGHT SIDE. The most pressing issue war we currently fight is that with the forces of radical Islam and middle-eastern tyranny. Arafat was a major player in the wrong side of that conflict ... and he knew what he was doing. He was an enemy leader in a war we still fight to this day, and his counterproductivity was intentional, and malicious (to an even greater extent than either Gore or Obama).
I think it should go to Tiger Woods........
Ohhhhh....You spelled it “peace”.....My bad...
Brilliant question! I went with the majority reflexively . . . giving the peace prize to a homosexual pedophile and terrorist killer and torturer seems at first glance to be the most inappropriate. However, Arafat’s terrorism did have an impact on “peace” in a direct way. Gore’s falsehoods and self-enrichment through environmental activism did not in any rational way directly affect “peace” at all. My vote is Gore. Followed by a call to prosecute him for enriching himself through fraud.
“Al Gore. Global warming has nothing to do with peace. (However, its great for lining his pockets.)
Arafat and Obama at least have a tenuous link to the purpose of the prize.”
I’m going to have to go with “yes”
I believe Al Gore got the Nobel prize for Science, not for Peace. Different prize. So he can get teh vote for most inappropriate Science Prize, Arafat gets the one for most inappropriate peace prize. Obama gets special mention for most stupid peace prize.
Why, it’s a DEAD HEAT
Yasar Jimmah Barack Al Arafat Gore Obama Carter
Pretty mush a tie.. all were/are a$$holes.
Those three belong in the same dustbin, so all three were appropriate.