PDA

View Full Version : Greenpeace 0, Commodity traders 1


BigOlChiefsfan
02-17-2005, 01:45 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1487741,00.html

Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders
By Laura Peek and Liz Chong


WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”

Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. “The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims,” a spokesman said.

Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. “The violence was instant,” Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said.

“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.” When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open.

Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others.

They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts “open outcry” trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.

But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. “They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”

Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion.

A spokeswoman from IPE said the trading floor reopened at 3.10pm. “The floor was invaded by a small group of protesters,” she said. “Open outcry trading was suspended but electronic trading carried on.”

Eighteen police vans and six police cars surrounded the exchange and at least 27 protesters were arrested. A small band blocked the entrance to the building for the rest of the evening.

Richard Ward, IPE’s chief executive, said that the exchange would review security but denied that protesters had reached the trading floor. However, traders, protesters and press photographers confirmed to The Times that the trading floor had been breached.

Mr Ward would not discuss whether he would press charges, and said he would not know until this morning if there had been any financial loss.

Greenpeace later started a second protest at the annual dinner of the Institute of Petroleum at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Park Lane, in Central London. Greenpeace claimed that five campaigners had got into the Great Hall. About 30 protesters were outside the hotel, some blocking the front entrance by sitting down and locking themselves together, while others sounded klaxons and alarms. Climbers scaled scaffolding to unfurl a banner reading, “Climate change kills, oil industry parties”.

alanm
02-17-2005, 01:51 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :thumb:

Brock
02-17-2005, 01:59 PM
Haha, that's fuggin funny. Get a job, you worthless scumbags!

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:02 PM
Awesome. If only we had some way to administer just one asskicking to all these morons the world would be a nicer place.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:07 PM
And they say fascism could never happen here...

You guys make a left wing conspiricy nut glow with pride.

Now I know what kind of person could have shot MLK, JFK, Ghandi.....

Bwana
02-17-2005, 02:11 PM
This warms my heart! Any day that some bunny kissing tree hugger takes a beating, (more than one is a true bonus) it's a good day. ROFL

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:11 PM
And they say fascism could never happen here...

You guys make a left wing conspiricy nut glow with pride.

Now I know what kind of person could have shot MLK, JFK, Ghandi.....

I'm not going to kill anyone. I just think that people who burst into places of commerce and try to forcibly take over, people who lay down in the road to stop traffic, people who chain themselves to trees, etc., all these people who are a stick of dynamite away from being common terrorists, could use a good ass kicking.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:16 PM
So you agree with Dick Cheney, Mandela is a terrorist?

Ghandi was a terrorist?
The people that sat at lunch counters were terrorists?

But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. “They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:18 PM
So you agree with Dick Cheney, Mandela is a terrorist?

Ghandi was a terrorist?
The people that sat at lunch counters were terrorists?


I said that they were a stick of dynamite away from being common terrorists. Didn't get a fantastic grade in reading comprehension did you, skippy?

Now, shouldn't you be out setting SUV's on fire or sabotaging logging trucks?

Saulbadguy
02-17-2005, 02:20 PM
On one hand, you have a bunch of morons who have nothing better to do than protest.

On the other hand, you have a bunch of morons who can't restrain themselves from attacking people.

:shrug: Oh well. Arrest them all.

Bwana
02-17-2005, 02:21 PM
“They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

They went in looking to cause problems........they found them.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:23 PM
Why is is that every conservative on this board has such an incredibly short fuse?

Why do you guys resort to ad hominem attacks so quickly?

You guys control the whole government, and you're kicking dem ass all over the country, or so it seems...

Shouldn't you guys be a little happier?
What the hell are you still so bitter about?

Bwana
02-17-2005, 02:24 PM
Hey, I'm a happy boy, I just don't care for tree huggers.

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:28 PM
Why is is that every conservative on this board has such an incredibly short fuse?

Why do you guys resort to ad hominem attacks so quickly?

You guys control the whole government, and you're kicking dem ass all over the country, or so it seems...

Shouldn't you guys be a little happier?
What the hell are you still so bitter about?

I'm not bitter. I think this story is funny.

See, the environmentalist wackos and by extension, the rest of liberalism, know that they have been rejected wholesale on the national level by the majority for several elections in a row. They know deep down that they are the minority in a majority-rule society.

So that's why you see things like Greenpeace trying to storm office buildings, and liberals trying to reform the country with an activist judiciary. Using the proper channels suits liberals just fine when they can. But when people with sense refuse to swallow their agenda, they're more than happy to try and stuff it down our throats.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:28 PM
Yeah, the timber companies are way more interested in keeping the old growth forests where the best hunting and fishing are, right?

If was up to the money men, the trees would already be in Japan, wouldn't they?

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:29 PM
BTW, part of the reason liberalism doens't fly is because of this victim mentality. Just in this thread, it was "Oh, these poor protestors" and now "Stop it, you're being mean to me with those ad hominem attacks you big meanie". If liberals didn't spend their lives walking around and acting like a gigantic pantywaste then people might be more receptive.

Brock
02-17-2005, 02:31 PM
Yeah, the timber companies are way more interested in keeping the old growth forests where the best hunting and fishing are, right?

If was up to the money men, the trees would already be in Japan, wouldn't they?

and if it were left up to nut jobs such as yourself, they'd have all burned to the ground by now.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:31 PM
I admit that it has a great sense of irony.

But I still have to point out that acceptance of brutality by Bush republicans.

Might makes right, dressed up in moral christianity.
It's the hypocrisy that drives me crazy.

Like Jeff Gannon.
You conservatives don't seem very willing to discuss the issue.

Saulbadguy
02-17-2005, 02:32 PM
BTW, part of the reason liberalism doens't fly is because of this victim mentality. Just in this thread, it was "Oh, these poor protestors" and now "Stop it, you're being mean to me with those ad hominem attacks you big meanie". If liberals didn't spend their lives walking around and acting like a gigantic pantywaste then people might be more receptive.

The protestors should be arrested, and charged with disorderly contact, trespassing, etc.

The people who attacked them should all be charged with assault & battery.

Perhaps the protestors will think twice about trying to disrupt business, and take it outside and do there thing peacefully, and perhaps the traders will think twice before putting their hands on someone.

JMO.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:33 PM
Brock Landers
Another satisfied Chiefs fan



Joined: Aug 2000
Location: Kansas
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Lefty_the_Right
Yeah, the timber companies are way more interested in keeping the old growth forests where the best hunting and fishing are, right?

If was up to the money men, the trees would already be in Japan, wouldn't they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and if it were left up to nut jobs such as yourself, they'd have all burned to the ground by now.

__________________


Care to explain your logic?

Saulbadguy
02-17-2005, 02:34 PM
You need to learn how to quote properly.

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:34 PM
I admit that it has a great sense of irony.

But I still have to point out that acceptance of brutality by Bush republicans.

Might makes right, dressed up in moral christianity.
It's the hypocrisy that drives me crazy.

Like Jeff Gannon.
You conservatives don't seem very willing to discuss the issue.

They frigging broke into a building they were not authorized to be in and they got their asses kicked! I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. But I guess you are probably the type to shed tears every time a burglar breaks into a house to kidnap a child or rape someone and gets shot.

HC_Chief
02-17-2005, 02:35 PM
hah, I hate hippies... always lol when I hear of them getting their ass kicked for, well, being stupid hippies :D

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:37 PM
The protestors should be arrested, and charged with disorderly contact, trespassing, etc.

The people who attacked them should all be charged with assault & battery.

Perhaps the protestors will think twice about trying to disrupt business, and take it outside and do there thing peacefully, and perhaps the traders will think twice before putting their hands on someone.

JMO.

Right. If someone breaks into my house, I'll ask them if they would like some coffee and wait for the cops to swing by in 20 minutes or so and remove them.

They had no idea what these people's intentions were. How did they know they didn't intend on taking them hostage or firing the building?

If the dipshits don't want to get beat down they should probably cease breaking into places.

mlyonsd
02-17-2005, 02:39 PM
I would think if one was a protester they would expect to get their nose bloodied once in a while. What a bunch of pussies.

Bwana
02-17-2005, 02:40 PM
Yeah, the timber companies are way more interested in keeping the old growth forests where the best hunting and fishing are, right?

If was up to the money men, the trees would already be in Japan, wouldn't they?

What really turned me off on the huggers was, the push for reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone park. The elk population is now 40% of what it was before that crap got pushed through.

I have no idea where you live but here in Montana there have been a few other notable cases, or incidents that piss me off to no end including, trying to end snowmobiling around the park, huggers trying to close every fuggen trail in Montana to anything but a human hike. No snowmobiles, atvs, mountain bikes or horses. You have out of state huggers showing up during hunting season protesting and chaining themselves to trees. Shit like this is why I don't mind seeing a story about a few of them getting this ass handed to them when they take it upon themselves to go in and cause trouble.

Saulbadguy
02-17-2005, 02:41 PM
Right. If someone breaks into my house, I'll ask them if they would like some coffee and wait for the cops to swing by in 20 minutes or so and remove them.

They had no idea what these people's intentions were. How did they know they didn't intend on taking them hostage or firing the building?

If the dipshits don't want to get beat down they should probably cease breaking into places.
“They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Running around like morons and making loud noise is much different from carrying a weapon and taking hostages. I'm sure their intentions were clear before the morons started wailing on them.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:42 PM
Wasn't there a reason that they were reintorduced?

I thought that it was because a different group was overpopulating and detroying the land in some other way?

Bwana
02-17-2005, 02:46 PM
Wasn't there a reason that they were reintorduced?

I thought that it was because a different group was overpopulating and detroying the land in some other way?

The "logic" was they were there before, hence, they should be there again. The ecosystem was doing just fine before they were reintorduced, as was the elk population.

Cochise
02-17-2005, 02:50 PM
“They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Running around like morons and making loud noise is much different from carrying a weapon and taking hostages. I'm sure their intentions were clear before the morons started wailing on them.

How did the occupants of the office know that they weren't armed or planning on harming anyone?

and WTF did they expect for breaking and entering?

I'm glad for once someone stood up to them. Maybe they will think twice and go back to breaking out SUV windows at the dealerships. Something they can do in the middle of the night without facing the people they are hurting, like cowards.

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 02:51 PM
I'll have to take your word on that.

What about the snowmobiles?
Where they causing any damage?

beavis
02-17-2005, 02:56 PM
Why is is that every conservative on this board has such an incredibly short fuse?

Why do you guys resort to ad hominem attacks so quickly?

You guys control the whole government, and you're kicking dem ass all over the country, or so it seems...

Shouldn't you guys be a little happier?
What the hell are you still so bitter about?
Pot, meet the kettle...
And they say fascism could never happen here...

You guys make a left wing conspiricy nut glow with pride.

Now I know what kind of person could have shot MLK, JFK, Ghandi.....


But I still have to point out that acceptance of brutality by Bush republicans.

Might makes right, dressed up in moral christianity.
It's the hypocrisy that drives me crazy.

beavis
02-17-2005, 02:59 PM
The protestors should be arrested, and charged with disorderly contact, trespassing, etc.

The people who attacked them should all be charged with assault & battery.

Perhaps the protestors will think twice about trying to disrupt business, and take it outside and do there thing peacefully, and perhaps the traders will think twice before putting their hands on someone.

JMO.
You really think so? If bunch of nuts busted into your place of business and started acting like these idiots did, wouldn't you think there was even a remote chance they might have a couple pounds of C-4 wrapped up in some nails and ball bearings strapped to their chest?

Bwana
02-17-2005, 02:59 PM
I'll have to take your word on that.

What about the snowmobiles?
Where they causing any damage?

There have been numerous impact studies on the subject and there was no damage found, but the protesters claimed it was "upsetting some buffalo." There are so many buffalo in the area that the fish and game kills several a year and gives them to various indian tribes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want some dingleberry timber company showing up and cutting down all the trees in this state, infact I would raise more hell about that than I do abotu the tree huggers, but some of these groups around here have taken it a step to far.

Bwana
02-17-2005, 03:01 PM
Care to explain your logic?

I can explain it. Did you ever make it into Yellowstone park before 1988? Have you been back since? I think Brock is talking about the "let it burn natural policy."

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:05 PM
No, sorry...

Much as Hollywood movies make it seem like we all have the capacity to commit mass suicide that way, I don't it is much of a reality.

At least not among a bunch of white college kids, as these people have been described..

Lefty_the_Right
02-17-2005, 03:08 PM
I've neve heard of the "let it burn natually" position.

I guess in some cases it might make sense, but not as the plan.

He made it sound like it was pretty common?

Brock
02-17-2005, 03:14 PM
I've neve heard of the "let it burn natually" position.

I guess in some cases it might make sense, but not as the plan.

He made it sound like it was pretty common?

Ever watch the news? There have been millions of acres of forests destroyed by wildfires in the past couple of years alone. This is caused by your greenpeace and sierra club pals.

Bwana
02-17-2005, 03:15 PM
I've neve heard of the "let it burn natually" position.

I guess in some cases it might make sense, but not as the plan.

He made it sound like it was pretty common?

To be honest LTR, I have no idea how common it is on a national level, but out here in the west, it was the policy for countless years and it bit them in the ass in '88 over in Yellowstone. They went with the let it burn policy and then thought, "gee these fires are getting way to big, perhaps we should put them out!" It was to late. When fires get to that level, the only thing that will put them out is winter snows which was true in this case. The only problem was that those fires smoked about half the park before it happened.

What they need to do is clear cut all the forests around here. Thin them out and remove some of the fuel so when a fire does start, they have a shot of putting it out. The policy has changed in a few of the forests and they are doing exactly that.

Saulbadguy
02-17-2005, 03:52 PM
You really think so? If bunch of nuts busted into your place of business and started acting like these idiots did, wouldn't you think there was even a remote chance they might have a couple pounds of C-4 wrapped up in some nails and ball bearings strapped to their chest?
No.

AustinChief
02-17-2005, 04:07 PM
very simple.. it was private property that they forced there way in to and then disrupted everyone's work there.

Let's make an analogy here... let's say I don't condone a certain activity... so is it ok for me to break into a building to disrupt said activity? So if you don't like me smoking cigarettes in my house.. you can break in and disrupt that? If I don't like gay sex.. I can break into someones house and disrupt that activity?

Sorry, but a good beating isn't enough... I would kill anyone who had the audacity to pull that shit on me. It is the ULTIMATE in presumption. HOW DARE THOSE ****ING PEOPLE ASSUME THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THEIR VIEW ON OTHERS...

You want to see facism... take a long hard look at the environmantalist movement.

What a complete lack of respect for fellow humanity you must have to believe that the proper way to promote your view is by FORCING people to hear it.

People like this literaly make me sick.

--Kyle

Bwana
02-17-2005, 04:12 PM
very simple.. it was private property that they forced there way in to and then disrupted everyone's work there.

Let's make an analogy here... let's say I don't condone a certain activity... so is it ok for me to break into a building to disrupt said activity? So if you don't like me smoking cigarettes in my house.. you can break in and disrupt that? If I don't like gay sex.. I can break into someones house and disrupt that activity?

Sorry, but a good beating isn't enough... I would kill anyone who had the audacity to pull that shit on me. It is the ULTIMATE in presumption. HOW DARE THOSE ****ING PEOPLE ASSUME THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THEIR VIEW ON OTHERS...

You want to see facism... take a long hard look at the environmantalist movement.

What a complete lack of respect for fellow humanity you must have to believe that the proper way to promote your view is by FORCING people to hear it.

People like this literaly make me sick.

--KyleDing Ding Ding what Kyle said. :thumb: What's priceless is the fact that some of these ass clowns that pulled this low rent move off act surprised that they got their ass kicked. :shake:

2bikemike
02-17-2005, 09:05 PM
Damn I miss all the fun. It would have been great to knock a few of those ass wipes around.

WilliamTheIrish
02-17-2005, 10:13 PM
Greenpeace meets reality.

They would have been safer in a boat.

penchief
02-18-2005, 11:13 AM
I admit that it has a great sense of irony.

But I still have to point out that acceptance of brutality by Bush republicans.

Might makes right, dressed up in moral christianity.
It's the hypocrisy that drives me crazy.

Like Jeff Gannon.
You conservatives don't seem very willing to discuss the issue.

This is a time in our nation's history when the guardians of greed are able to impose their will without listening to the voices of caution and forsight. It is enough to drive any reasonable person to "tree-hugger" status.

Keep the faith, though. Someday soon (I hope), necessity will have no choice but to restore sanity to the equation. Commerce cannot trump humanity, IMO. If humankind is unable overcome our greed driven by the profit motive, we are doomed. The optimist in me believes that we eventually will. I only hope it will not be too late.

Bwana
02-18-2005, 11:25 AM
This is a time in our nation's history when the guardians of greed are able to impose their will without listening to the voices of caution and forsight. It is enough to drive any reasonable person to "tree-hugger" status.

Keep the faith, though. Someday soon (I hope), necessity will have no choice but to restore sanity to the equation. Commerce cannot trump humanity, IMO. If humankind is unable overcome our greed driven by the profit motive, we are doomed. The optimist in me believes that we eventually will. I only hope it will not be too late.

Yeah, ok.

Brock
02-18-2005, 11:30 AM
This is a time in our nation's history when the guardians of greed are able to impose their will without listening to the voices of caution and forsight. It is enough to drive any reasonable person to "tree-hugger" status.

Yep, maybe someday you'll succeed in abolishing private property.

alanm
02-18-2005, 01:10 PM
This is a time in our nation's history when the guardians of greed are able to impose their will without listening to the voices of caution and forsight. It is enough to drive any reasonable person to "tree-hugger" status.

Keep the faith, though. Someday soon (I hope), necessity will have no choice but to restore sanity to the equation. Commerce cannot trump humanity, IMO. If humankind is unable overcome our greed driven by the profit motive, we are doomed. The optimist in me believes that we eventually will. I only hope it will not be too late.
If I drink the kool aid. And put my bestest Nike's on. Can I follow you on the mothership to Hale Bop?

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 01:16 PM
I guess all you true believers think that God will come down and make more forests after we use them up?

Or make more oil?

What exactly is the long term game plan for "conservatives" these days?

DanT
02-18-2005, 01:19 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1487741,00.html

Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders
By Laura Peek and Liz Chong


WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”

Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. “The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims,” a spokesman said.

Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. “The violence was instant,” Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said.

“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.” When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open.

Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others.

They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts “open outcry” trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.

But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. “They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”

Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion.



ROFL

That reads like an article from The Onion (www.theonion.com).

penchief
02-18-2005, 05:27 PM
Yep, maybe someday you'll succeed in abolishing private property.

Who said anything about private property? I believe that privilege pertains to the accumulation of wealth and property. However, it does not give one the right to exploit the essential needs of humanity. Even ownership comes with responsibility.

Anyway, what does that have to do with this administration's wholesale exploitation of our natural environment for the benefit of it's corporate cronies? How is corporate welfare any more noble than human welfare?

IMO, this is one area in which caution and forsight should be a requirement. I also believe that reason and science should dictate policy instead of greed, ideology, or partisan politics.

Everyone, including the neocon's most ardent supporters, should put aside petty partisan politics when it comes to the preservation of our natural habitat.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 05:52 PM
I'll ask the question again:

I guess all you true believers think that God will come down and make more forests after we use them up?

Or make more oil?

What exactly is the long term game plan for "conservatives" these days?

KCWolfman
02-18-2005, 05:58 PM
I'll ask the question again:

I guess all you true believers think that God will come down and make more forests after we use them up?

Or make more oil?

What exactly is the long term game plan for "conservatives" these days?
Do you have proof we are using all the lumber up? Can you find a link that is not a wacko leftist site to support your position?



Look another chunk of sky is falling over there, LeftyLittle!!!!

penchief
02-18-2005, 06:08 PM
If I drink the kool aid. And put my bestest Nike's on. Can I follow you on the mothership to Hale Bop?

Believe me, when it comes time to board the mothership and leave the earth behind I won't be privileged enough to take that ride. That trip will be reserved for those who earned their keep by shitting on Mother Nature to begin with.

Lefty_the_Right
02-18-2005, 06:12 PM
Try looking at a satalite photo.

Or is that against your religion?

Living in the Northwest, I can say that they are cutting the forests.

But that wasn't the only thing I mentioned, was it?

Do you think oil as we know it is an infinite resource?

WilliamTheIrish
02-19-2005, 11:00 AM
I'll ask the question again:

I guess all you true believers think that God will come down and make more forests after we use them up?

Or make more oil?

What exactly is the long term game plan for "conservatives" these days?


1) It was an incredibly stupid question the first time.

2) See 1

3) To watch bleating sheep like you ask incredibly stupid questions here. (I guess)

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 11:23 AM
Try looking at a satalite photo.

Or is that against your religion?

Living in the Northwest, I can say that they are cutting the forests.

But that wasn't the only thing I mentioned, was it?

Do you think oil as we know it is an infinite resource?
Ahh, deflection. Does that mean you don't have a link?

No surprise. You are merely spouting without knowing again.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 12:07 PM
I guess all you true believers think that God will come down and make more forests after we use them up?
Botany is not your bag, eh?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:24 PM
Botany is not your bag, eh?
Evidently only God can make a tree..... God or Al Gore when he is done inventing the internet... God or John Kerry after he makes Christopher Reeves rise from the dead and walk again.

WilliamTheIrish
02-19-2005, 12:45 PM
Evidently only God can make a tree..... God or Al Gore when he is done inventing the internet... God or John Kerry after he makes Christopher Reeves rise from the dead and walk again.

Oh "Sod off".......... ya true believer, violence condoning,facist, unhappy Bush backer.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 12:51 PM
Oh "Sod off".......... ya true believer, violence condoning,facist, unhappy Bush backer.
Wow, cool. I have never been told to "sod off". What makes it even cooler is that I thought it would have been Donger to say such a thing before you.

WilliamTheIrish
02-19-2005, 01:32 PM
Wow, cool. I have never been told to "sod off". What makes it even cooler is that I thought it would have been Donger to say such a thing before you.

Russ.... it was sarcasm..... or am I missing something?

penchief
02-19-2005, 01:33 PM
Evidently only God can make a tree..... God or Al Gore when he is done inventing the internet... God or John Kerry after he makes Christopher Reeves rise from the dead and walk again.


Aah, yes. The arrogance of the right.

At what point does commerce become less important than the preservation of our natural habitat? Can anyone on the right answer that question?

We on both sides of the environmental debate can criticize each other forever but the real question is when does pragmatism enter into play?

When does reality trump ideology?

At what point do we, as human beings, acknowledge that our natural habitat is more important than our artificial wealth? As someone before me said, "You can't take it with you," right?

At what point do we owe more to succeeding generations than to our own selfishness? Greed or partisan politics is only temporary when considering the existence of mankind. If our long-term survival is not more important than "making a buck," what is?

The notion that free enterprise is the be-all and end-all to everything that our Lord intended is simply folly, IMO.

No one is more an advocate of free enterpise than myself. I believe it is the root of choice, which is the root of freedom. However, as the Good Book says, "Greed is the root of all evil." When it comes to the home that God gave us, no truer words have been spoken, IMO.

How do conservatives reconcile the contradiction between the unabashed destruction of the environment via greed and the word of the Holy Bible which they unabashedly use for their own moralizing?

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:38 PM
Russ.... it was sarcasm..... or am I missing something?
No, I was laughing about it.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 01:40 PM
Aah, yes. The arrogance of the right.

At what point does commerce become less important than the preservation of our natural habitat? Can anyone on the right answer that question?

We on both sides of the environmental debate can criticize each other forever but the real question is when does pragmatism enter into play?

When does reality trump ideology?

At what point do we, as human beings, acknowledge that our natural habitat is more important than our artificial wealth? As someone before me said, "You can't take it with you," right?

At what point do we owe more to succeeding generations than to our own selfishness? Greed or partisan politics is only temporary when considering the existence of mankind. If our long-term survival is not more important than "making a buck," what is?

The notion that free enterprise is the be-all and end-all to everything that our Lord intended is simply folly, IMO.

No one is more an advocate of free enterpise than myself. I believe it is the root of choice, which is the root of freedom. However, as the Good Book says, "Greed is the root of all evil." When it comes to the home that God gave us, no truer words have been spoken, IMO.

How do conservatives reconcile the contradiction between the unabashed destruction of the environment via greed and the word of the Holy Bible which they unabashedly use for their own moralizing?

And more extremist diatribe from the left.


"We must all learn to share and prepare future generations - as long as it doesn't infringe on me".

'chief - until you start making your own pen and paper and stop using electricity, you are a hypocrite with statements like the above. How dare you complain about my arrogance, when you arrogantly have decided how much resources everyone else can and should use while you arbitrarily waste resources of your own?

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 01:46 PM
At what point do we, as human beings, acknowledge that our natural habitat is more important than our artificial wealth? As someone before me said, "You can't take it with you," right?
Just a spate of people building houses they don't live in and buying paper they don't use, eh?

penchief
02-19-2005, 01:56 PM
And more extremist diatribe from the left.


"We must all learn to share and prepare future generations - as long as it doesn't infringe on me".

'chief - until you start making your own pen and paper and stop using electricity, you are a hypocrite with statements like the above. How dare you complain about my arrogance, when you arrogantly have decided how much resources everyone else can and should use while you arbitrarily waste resources of your own?

KC, I admire your persistence but there is no extremist diatribe here. Unfortunately, you have contribituted another post lacking substance. There is, unfortunately, a limit to everything. While I may drive a car and use electricity, that does not mean that I advocate commercial exploitation to the extreme.

We all know that alternative sources of energy are not sincerely pursued because it is not in the best interests of the "powers-that-be." We also know that higher mileage vehicles are easily attainable but are not pursued because of the influence of the oil and auto industries.

Necessity or progress is much different than stubborn resistance to change borne from greed, IMO.

It's funny how those who reap the financial benefits from resistance to change continue to insist that change will only hurt the consumer. Meanwhile, energy prices continue to rise while those entities continue to experience a financial boon from policies that are supposed to help both the industry and the consumer. In short, greed continues to stifle human progress in favor of those who pay for leverage.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 02:05 PM
We all know that alternative sources of energy are not sincerely pursued because it is not in the best interests of the "powers-that-be." We also know that higher mileage vehicles are easily attainable but are not pursued because of the influence of the oil and auto industries.
ROFL ROFL
http://www.drivingforcemag.com/articles/0205ll.html

Braincase
02-19-2005, 02:15 PM
When you storm into a place of business, disrupt the business with chants of "Kick My Ass If You Dare" through the blowhorns, and then you get get your ass kicked, why is it such a surprise?

Them boys are meat eaters. You don't send in sheep to disrupt the commerce of wolves.

penchief
02-19-2005, 02:16 PM
ROFL ROFL
http://www.drivingforcemag.com/articles/0205ll.html

Baby Lee, this has nothing to do with my position. If government sees fit to tax anyone it should be those who reap profit from resistance to change, not the consumer. I believe that those who thwart technological advances because it would cut into their ability to turn a profit should be the one who pay the price, not the consumer.

The problem is that everytime someone says that our technology or economy is capable of producing a better method, those who are responsible to pursue those methods repeatedly claim that it would only hurt the consumer when in reality they are only interested in protecting their own profits. And they persistently lobby to protect that profit.

At what point does common sense trump profit?

More puzzling is that when they successfully lobby for policies which they claim to benefit their industry and the consumer both, only they benefit while the consumer continues to pay higher prices!

What gives? Maybe you can explain this to me in a way that I can understand.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 02:22 PM
Baby Lee, this has nothing to do with my position.
Your point was that the 'powers that be' discourage higher mileage vehicles out of greed.
And in doing so, you were envisioning big corporate interests manipulating the market to sell gas guzzlers and stifle innovation.
And I chuckled at the irony, in that the 'powers that be' in the government are actively pursuing that same d@mnable end by stripping high mileage cars of their saving incentives out of greed for more tax $$$.

penchief
02-19-2005, 02:29 PM
Your point was that the 'powers that be' discourage higher mileage vehicles out of greed.
And in doing so, you were envisioning big corporate interests manipulating the market to sell gas guzzlers and stifle innovation.
And I chuckled at the irony, in that the 'powers that be' in the government are actively pursuing that same d@mnable end by stripping high mileage cars of their saving incentives out of greed for more tax $$$.

What you referred to, though, seemed to be a state effort to influence the auto and oil industries through a bottom-up approach (a grass roots effort, if you will). When trying to influence society in the face of a federal effort that supports corporate exploitation, states may not have any other choice.

Having said that, it is extremely ironic how conservative republicans have gone from states' rights advocates to supporting federal law over the rights of states to choose for themselves (i.e. environmental protections, pharmecueticals, etc.).

Seems like conservatives only support states' rights when the states agree with their ideology.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 02:35 PM
What you referred to, though, seemed to be a state effort to influence the auto and oil industries through a bottom-up approach (a grass roots effort, if you will). When trying to influence society in the face of a federal effort that supports corporate exploitation, states may not have any other choice.

Having said that, it is extremely ironic how conservative republicans have gone from states' rights advocates to supporting federal law over the rights of states to choose for themselves (i.e. environmental protections, pharmecueticals, etc.).

Seems like conservatives only support states' rights when the states agree with their ideology.
I didn't say a d@mn thing about the state's right to tax how they see fit.

Don't be that guy. Don't be the straw man flogger.

I'm just pointing out the irony that the same people who, on a different day, would b!tching that people don't buy enough gas mizers, are seeking to take all the incentive out of buying said gas mizer when they realize that less gas consumed leads to less tax revenue.

BigMeatballDave
02-19-2005, 02:35 PM
Why is is that every conservative on this board has such an incredibly short fuse?

Why do you guys resort to ad hominem attacks so quickly?

You guys control the whole government, and you're kicking dem ass all over the country, or so it seems...

Shouldn't you guys be a little happier?
What the hell are you still so bitter about?Your and other liberals arrogant, condescending attitude towards ANYTHING NOT far left...

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 02:37 PM
There is, unfortunately, a limit to everything.

All else is your usual fluff.


Unfortunately, you have decided for the rest of the world what that limit maybe.

Thank you for your concern regarding the property of others.

HC_Chief
02-19-2005, 02:38 PM
Your and other liberals arrogant, condescending attitude towards ANYTHING NOT far left...

They're not arrogant... they're oblivious.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 02:39 PM
They're not arrogant... they're oblivious.
I think they are obliviously arrogant.

penchief
02-19-2005, 02:41 PM
I didn't say a d@mn thing about the state's right to tax how they see fit.

Don't be that guy. Don't be the straw man flogger.

I'm just pointing out the irony that the same people who, on a different day, would b!tching that people don't buy enough gas mizers, are seeking to take all the incentive out of buying said gas mizer when they realize that less gas consumed leads to less tax revenue.

My gripe is not with state governments. My gripe is with the corporate welfare that is practiced by federal government lackies who promote the financial interests of corporate America at the expense of the general public.

penchief
02-19-2005, 02:44 PM
Your and other liberals arrogant, condescending attitude towards ANYTHING NOT far left...

Even though this post is not directed toward me it typically repeats an empty mantra lacking substance.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 02:45 PM
My gripe is not with state governments. My gripe is with the corporate welfare that is practiced by federal government lackies who promote the financial interests of corporate America at the expense of the general public.
And evidently, your gripe isn't actually with greed getting in the way of more efficient cars.

penchief
02-19-2005, 02:47 PM
I think they are obliviously arrogant.

KC, you of all people, should not be criticizing others for being arrogant.

Even though I confess that I do like and respect you, your posts regularly lack substance while consistently utilizing tactics that belittle and divert.

penchief
02-19-2005, 02:59 PM
And evidently, your gripe isn't actually with greed getting in the way of more efficient cars.

My gripe is with a complicit federal government that does not hold corporate America to the fire for neglecting their responsibilities to their country and their humanity.

It amazes me the disrespect that Corporate America shows the very same country that allows them to pursue unlimited profit in a system that they are the most responsible party for ensuring its continued existence for future generations.

Their exploitation of the system defies common sense and threatens the very system they benefit from in much the same way that the industrialists in the early twentieth century threatened the system through their exploitation of human and natural resources.

Just like abuses to the first amendment threaten its existence, so do abuses to the free enterprise system threaten its existence, IMO. As an advocate of free enterprise and free choice, I am hopeful that such abuses will be eliminated in favor of a continued free enterprise system and human progress.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 03:02 PM
My gripe is with a complicit federal government that does not hold corporate America to the fire for neglecting their responsibilities to their country and their humanity.

It amazes me the disrespect that Corporate America shows the very same country that allows them to pursue unlimited profit in a system that they are the most responsible party for ensuring its continued existence for future generations.

Their exploitation of the system defies common sense and threatens the very system they benefit from in much the same way that the industrialists in the early twentieth century threatened the system through their exploitation of human and natural resources.

Just like abuses to the first amendment threaten its existence, so do abuses to the free enterprise system threaten its existence, IMO. As an advocate of free enterprise and free choice, I am hopeful that such abuses will be eliminated in favor of a continued free enterprise system and human progress.
Why am I surprised? penchief gets called on specifics and rushes to the loving arms of glittering generalities.

penchief
02-19-2005, 03:18 PM
Why am I surprised? penchief gets called on specifics and rushes to the loving arms of glittering generalities.

First of all, explain to me how this article pertains to the oil and auto industry's sincerity in producing more fuel efficient cars, or even the percentage of profits they reap.

It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree with this state's revenue producing measures when it comes to the intent of the energy and auto industry.

I confess that I did not read the article in its entirety, and therefore, initially thought that it was relevent to my original point, which it was not. Raising tax revenues based on mileage and producing higher mileage cars are completely two different things. I can disagree with the state's desire to increase revenues through this method and still criticize the auto industry for not making their vehicles higher mileage vehicles. It is a well-known fact that Honda and Toyato are leaders in the high-mileage car market. All high-mileage vehicles do not have to be as unappealing as the Prius. In fact, it would be simple enough for auto manufactrurers to maintain their current designs and still increase mileage. It is a simple matter of profit-economics that they don't.

So, while I apologize for not reading the entire article, it neither proves your point nor changes my point of view.

2bikemike
02-19-2005, 03:43 PM
All high-mileage vehicles do not have to be as unappealing as the Prius. In fact, it would be simple enough for auto manufactrurers to maintain their current designs and still increase mileage. It is a simple matter of profit-economics that they don't.

.


High mileage cars would sell like crap. There are still too many people me included who want high powered cars and trucks.

And yes it is a matter of profit economics. A company wouldn't stay in business long if that wasn't their intent.

Baby Lee
02-19-2005, 03:53 PM
First of all, explain to me how this article pertains to the oil and auto industry's sincerity in producing more fuel efficient cars, or even the percentage of profits they reap.
Not at all.

The article pertains to the government's sincerity in advocating more fuel efficient cars.

Your original post was

We all know that alternative sources of energy are not sincerely pursued because it is not in the best interests of the "powers-that-be." We also know that higher mileage vehicles are easily attainable but are not pursued because of the influence of the oil and auto industries.
And while your hate for corporate america and love of government might blind you to the fact that this tax proposal is as much a disincentive to fuel efficiency as corporate 'greed,' the point is nevertheless quite obvious.

KCWolfman
02-19-2005, 04:03 PM
Why am I surprised? penchief gets called on specifics and rushes to the loving arms of glittering generalities.
Perhaps his posts lack substance while he attempts to divert?

2bikemike
02-19-2005, 06:13 PM
My gripe is not with state governments. My gripe is with the corporate welfare that is practiced by federal government lackies who promote the financial interests of corporate America at the expense of the general public.

You mean like bailing out Amtrak every year? Now there is a mass transit system that can't make ends meet.

2bikemike
02-19-2005, 06:16 PM
I find it pretty hard to believe that a capitalisitic society such as ours that if someone came up with a cheap viable alternative to fossil fuel that they wouldn't capitalize on the development and make themselves rich beyond all imagination.