Forums > Social Discussion > bush takes greenpeace to court
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
who are the criminals again?
remember to send the petition letter (link at the bottom) if you care...
who are the criminals again?
remember to send the petition letter (link at the bottom) if you care...
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
you're right.
my analogy is a bad in places but not for the reasons you state.
1. greenpeace are non-violent.
2. greenpeace are a government registered charity (at least in this country).
3. assault is a real crime, sailormongering is not.
the analogy is a good one really, if you stop and think for just a couple of minutes i'm sure you can see that.
you say the neighbourhood watch would never get declared illegal but that is *exactly* what i thought about greenpeace (as i'm sure most people did, possibly including yourself) until i read this story.
that is what is so shocking about it.
to be fair, us customs is unaffected by all of these problems except the one we are discussing here - us customs has one priority: stopping illegal goods entering the country.
and this is exaclty why there are groups like greenpeace.
they help to identify the companies that are causing these problems and report them to the relevant authorities.
again, i ask what is your point?
i hope it is not this:
"Personally I find it hypocritical to blame the whole of one organisation for the crimes of a few and then cry unfair when the exact same is done to an organisation that you may belong to or know someone who does. That is the hypocracy of this topic on this web site."
i have never said that the whole of the us govenrment should be declared illegal or held responsible for the actions of a few.
point out to me where i have blamed the whole of the us government for the atrocities that were recently in the news and i will concede to your point.
otherwise, i suggest you don't assume that everyone who uses this site shares the same opinions and that you stop trolling a topic that is trying to highlight one particular example of the hypocrasy and poor conduct of the most powerful government in the world.
Quote:
Your analogy is so far fetched it doesnt even merrit thought. The crime watch wouldnt get banned because in order to set one up you need the cities approval, it just wouldnt happen. Though to appease the masses...
Is it fair that the drug dealer was assaulted? Did the people of the neighborhood act responsibly? If you can answer yes to both of these questions, then yes it is fair the the crime watch got disbanded. In this case, the negitive actions of the neighbors caused karma to kick in and have a negitive responce.
you're right.
my analogy is a bad in places but not for the reasons you state.
1. greenpeace are non-violent.
2. greenpeace are a government registered charity (at least in this country).
3. assault is a real crime, sailormongering is not.
the analogy is a good one really, if you stop and think for just a couple of minutes i'm sure you can see that.
you say the neighbourhood watch would never get declared illegal but that is *exactly* what i thought about greenpeace (as i'm sure most people did, possibly including yourself) until i read this story.
that is what is so shocking about it.
Quote:
Also, the world has many problems, what if they cant all be solved at once, where do you place your priorities? Do you work on preventing green house emmitions? Illeagle logging? Alternative fuels? Oil drilling? Endangerd species? Stopping the dophins from getting cought in the tuna nets, while leaving the poor helpless tuna to die a horrible death?
to be fair, us customs is unaffected by all of these problems except the one we are discussing here - us customs has one priority: stopping illegal goods entering the country.
and this is exaclty why there are groups like greenpeace.
they help to identify the companies that are causing these problems and report them to the relevant authorities.
again, i ask what is your point?
i hope it is not this:
"Personally I find it hypocritical to blame the whole of one organisation for the crimes of a few and then cry unfair when the exact same is done to an organisation that you may belong to or know someone who does. That is the hypocracy of this topic on this web site."
i have never said that the whole of the us govenrment should be declared illegal or held responsible for the actions of a few.
point out to me where i have blamed the whole of the us government for the atrocities that were recently in the news and i will concede to your point.
otherwise, i suggest you don't assume that everyone who uses this site shares the same opinions and that you stop trolling a topic that is trying to highlight one particular example of the hypocrasy and poor conduct of the most powerful government in the world.
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
No you misunderstand me, I am not against greenpeace nor am I supporting the destruction of an endangerd species of trees. I am trying to make the obvious, obvious. You can not cry foul over the same situation as you cry for blood over. I agree that Bush is being a twit over this, I agree that the endangerd trees should be protected, but I dont believe that people who say that it is fair to rope some oganisations around the individual members actions and not others.
In essence I am agreeing with Colemans analogy and saying that his analogy should apply to both Greenpeace and other organisations who have gotten bad mouthed because of the actions of some of their memembers.
No you misunderstand me, I am not against greenpeace nor am I supporting the destruction of an endangerd species of trees. I am trying to make the obvious, obvious. You can not cry foul over the same situation as you cry for blood over. I agree that Bush is being a twit over this, I agree that the endangerd trees should be protected, but I dont believe that people who say that it is fair to rope some oganisations around the individual members actions and not others.
In essence I am agreeing with Colemans analogy and saying that his analogy should apply to both Greenpeace and other organisations who have gotten bad mouthed because of the actions of some of their memembers.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Coleman, I thought I went out of my way when I said the word "you" to put strong emphisis that I wasnt refering to Coleman, but refering to anyone and everyone. It wasnt an attack on you nor was I saying that YOU, Coleman, did anything or nothing. I was trying to broaden the discussion to involve more than just a handful of people.
I am not trolling I am making a point, and I am trying to make it as fair and justly as possible, so I suggest you dont take everything said as a personal attack because not only would I not attack anyone about something as insignificant as an argument on the web, but I would not attack anyone that I dont know anything about. It doesnt make sence to live like that.
If you feel that I have wronged you, then I do apologise, I in no way was out offend you, but I was out to show that there are hypocracies in the actions of some of the people on this site, also by greenpeace and many many other oganisations out there including NRA, US Military, the SCA (blue foam and medievil period armor... go figure).
However I feel that because I chose to show something about a group you, being Coleman this time, care about you have gotten offended as if I was out to ruin your lunch. I wasnt nor have I ever.
I really dont like being put on the defencive like this, it doesnt accomplish anything in my opinion.
Coleman, I thought I went out of my way when I said the word "you" to put strong emphisis that I wasnt refering to Coleman, but refering to anyone and everyone. It wasnt an attack on you nor was I saying that YOU, Coleman, did anything or nothing. I was trying to broaden the discussion to involve more than just a handful of people.
I am not trolling I am making a point, and I am trying to make it as fair and justly as possible, so I suggest you dont take everything said as a personal attack because not only would I not attack anyone about something as insignificant as an argument on the web, but I would not attack anyone that I dont know anything about. It doesnt make sence to live like that.
If you feel that I have wronged you, then I do apologise, I in no way was out offend you, but I was out to show that there are hypocracies in the actions of some of the people on this site, also by greenpeace and many many other oganisations out there including NRA, US Military, the SCA (blue foam and medievil period armor... go figure).
However I feel that because I chose to show something about a group you, being Coleman this time, care about you have gotten offended as if I was out to ruin your lunch. I wasnt nor have I ever.
I really dont like being put on the defencive like this, it doesnt accomplish anything in my opinion.
GOLD Member
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posted:
Actually, it's you who missed my point.
I was commenting on your line:
"...the world needs lumber."
I pointed out that yes the world does need lumber, but it doesn't need rare lumber or old growth hardwood lumber.
I was not commenting on the rest of the discussion between you and Coleman.
Actually, it's you who missed my point.
I was commenting on your line:
"...the world needs lumber."
I pointed out that yes the world does need lumber, but it doesn't need rare lumber or old growth hardwood lumber.
I was not commenting on the rest of the discussion between you and Coleman.
Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
And I agree with you, it isnt needed. It is a luxury. Art is a luxury, hard wood is used primarily in furnature, wooden sculptures and other such things. The only non art form that I can think of is a hard wood floor, but those are really expensive.
And I agree with you, it isnt needed. It is a luxury. Art is a luxury, hard wood is used primarily in furnature, wooden sculptures and other such things. The only non art form that I can think of is a hard wood floor, but those are really expensive.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i'm not taking it personally.
but thank-you for your clarification - if i felt like i was being personally 'attacked' i would have pm'ed you - as far as i can tell we are having a fairly measured discussion on a discussion board?
i was trying to point out that you seemed to be addressing the whole site as if we all believed that the whole of the us military should be blamed for the sick actions of a few.
then address those people directly.
i think you have failed to show greenpeace has been hypocritical in this situation in any of your posts.
the hypocracy of the us government in one particular case is what this topic is about.
as for what spitfire pointed out and your point that we need hardwood for 'art and funiture' - there are legal sources of hardwood lumber for these purposes.
what is more important - comfy chairs, pretty frames for paintings, sculptures and the like or... having oxygen for the planet?
by the way, do you have a brother by any chance? [j/k]
i'm not taking it personally.but thank-you for your clarification - if i felt like i was being personally 'attacked' i would have pm'ed you - as far as i can tell we are having a fairly measured discussion on a discussion board?
i was trying to point out that you seemed to be addressing the whole site as if we all believed that the whole of the us military should be blamed for the sick actions of a few.
Quote:
I was out to show that there are hypocracies in the actions of some of the people on this site, also by greenpeace and many many other oganisations out there including NRA, US Military, the SCA
then address those people directly.
i think you have failed to show greenpeace has been hypocritical in this situation in any of your posts.
the hypocracy of the us government in one particular case is what this topic is about.
as for what spitfire pointed out and your point that we need hardwood for 'art and funiture' - there are legal sources of hardwood lumber for these purposes.
what is more important - comfy chairs, pretty frames for paintings, sculptures and the like or... having oxygen for the planet?
by the way, do you have a brother by any chance? [j/k]
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Clarify something for me, because I really dont know, what is the deal about hard wood? Not the illeagle stuff... just hard wood in general?
People being upset that Greenpeace is being attacked by the government due to the actions of some of its members and then being upset at the military and other organisations because of some of the actions of some of their members is the hypocracy that I speak of.
I also asked the question, basically the same question your analogy asked, is it fair to judge an entire group based on the actions of some of its members. I don't think it is, but I do think that if if isn't right to judge one group, then you shouldnt judge any group.
Clarify something for me, because I really dont know, what is the deal about hard wood? Not the illeagle stuff... just hard wood in general?
People being upset that Greenpeace is being attacked by the government due to the actions of some of its members and then being upset at the military and other organisations because of some of the actions of some of their members is the hypocracy that I speak of.
I also asked the question, basically the same question your analogy asked, is it fair to judge an entire group based on the actions of some of its members. I don't think it is, but I do think that if if isn't right to judge one group, then you shouldnt judge any group.
GOLD Member
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posted:
Hardwood trees, in general, take longer to grow and mature.
Softwoods like Pine trees, grow relatively quickly, so it's easier to replace them.
A common practice in the NorthWest US is to cut down hardwood forests and plant softwoods. Timber companies have to plant trees to replace what they cut, but they plant quick growing softwoods, thus destroying and depleting the hardwood population.
Hardwood trees, in general, take longer to grow and mature.
Softwoods like Pine trees, grow relatively quickly, so it's easier to replace them.
A common practice in the NorthWest US is to cut down hardwood forests and plant softwoods. Timber companies have to plant trees to replace what they cut, but they plant quick growing softwoods, thus destroying and depleting the hardwood population.
Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Thanks for the info... good knowlege.
Another question, doesnt the hardwood net the LJs more profit? So why not replace the hard wood as well as plant soft wood to subsidise the time it takes to grow the hard?
Arnt the problems of the econimy fun?
Thanks for the info... good knowlege.
Another question, doesnt the hardwood net the LJs more profit? So why not replace the hard wood as well as plant soft wood to subsidise the time it takes to grow the hard?
Arnt the problems of the econimy fun?
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i agree.
i do not think this ethos extends to terrorist groups though (as i'm sure you agree).
and for me, any group that uses violence as it's primary means of achieving an end is exempt in my book too.
Quote:
I also asked the question, basically the same question your analogy asked, is it fair to judge an entire group based on the actions of some of its members. I don't think it is, but I do think that if if isn't right to judge one group, then you shouldnt judge any group.
i agree.
i do not think this ethos extends to terrorist groups though (as i'm sure you agree).
and for me, any group that uses violence as it's primary means of achieving an end is exempt in my book too.
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
well, the trial started yesterday in miami.
daily updates are here
there has already been some interesting evidence given about the manner in which the boarding occurred
well, the trial started yesterday in miami.
daily updates are here
there has already been some interesting evidence given about the manner in which the boarding occurred
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
I'm blocked from the Greenpeace site because it's an advocacy (sp?) group. Could someone post of pm me said interesting stuff please
I'm blocked from the Greenpeace site because it's an advocacy (sp?
) group. Could someone post of pm me said interesting stuff please I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Well - it seems the case has been dismissed - yay
Hardly surprising, but still a minor victory
Well - it seems the case has been dismissed - yay
Hardly surprising, but still a minor victory
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
member
33 posts
Location: Stoke-on-Trent (England)
33 posts
Location: Stoke-on-Trent (England)
Posted:
Hurray!
Hurray!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
Quote:
BUSH vs. GREENPEACE - NOT GUILTY!
It's over! I've been in court in Miami all this week defending our ability to stand up for what's right for the planet and our right to speak out against environmental abuses
And at 3:30 this afternoon the judge acquitted Greenpeace on all charges. The prosecution's case was unproven before we even presented our defense. I wanted you to be among the first to know. Thanks so much for your support.
It's incredible - in the last couple of weeks 81,311 people like you, all around the world, have e-mailed President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft to condemn this prosecution. The US Government has never heard from Greenpeace in such strong numbers. It's a great show of what we can all do together, and I congratulate you.
Together we have won. Bush and Ashcroft have been shown to have been vindictive, using an 1872 law, and shown to be trying to stifle civil disobedience by shutting Greenpeace down.
But Greenpeace is still in business, and we come out of court more determined than ever to stand up for the planet. But we need your help.
The US Government has forced us to spend a lot of time and money defending this case. Money we should be spending defending ancient forests, sailing the high seas to highlight the collapse of ocean eco-systems, campaigning against irresponsible corporations that pollute our air and water at will.
Our campaign to defend ancient forests, in the Amazon - where this Miami case started - and the last remaining ancient forests in the United States, continues. Watch us.
However, the threat to Greenpeace is not yet over. Hard on the heels of the US Government's case, we may end up in court against Exxon Mobil, the world's largest corporate producer of global warming gases. Last year Greenpeace volunteers protested at their headquarters dressed in tiger suits to highlight Exxon's role in global warming. They didn't like it, and our volunteers face felony charges. Like Bush, they are trying to shut us up for good.
So please, keep Greenpeace in action, be part of the action. We appreciate your on- going support, and we continue to need it, now that we have faced off Bush's malicious prosecution. If you can make an emergency donation, please click here.
We couldn't have done it without you.
Rave on
John Passacantando
Executive Director, Greenpeace
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
382 posts
Location: In Ger Land, India
enthusiast
382 posts
Location: In Ger Land, India
Posted:
This made me laugh lots. It's from the Greenpeace USA site.
This is also right funny. Its a flash animation of a NOFX song. The website it's from has loads more flash stuff to make you
This made me laugh lots. It's from the Greenpeace USA site.
This is also right funny. Its a flash animation of a NOFX song. The website it's from has loads more flash stuff to make you
Some things you have to see to believe, but
Some things you have to believe in to see.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
and if you like flash song videos, you can marvel at this new one from the rathergood master veitch:
yob - guvnor
and if you like flash song videos, you can marvel at this new one from the rathergood master veitch:
yob - guvnor
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
382 posts
Location: In Ger Land, India
enthusiast
382 posts
Location: In Ger Land, India
Posted:
A fox in a Burberry cap playin a Flying-V
It's about time really
A fox in a Burberry cap playin a Flying-V
It's about time really
Some things you have to see to believe, but
Some things you have to believe in to see.
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Wooo!
I only found out when i check ed my emails this moring!
Wooo!
I only found out when i check ed my emails this moring!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
5,814 posts
Location: Perth, Australia
Carpal \'Tunnel
5,814 posts
Location: Perth, Australia
Posted:
It is off topic but the Bush puppet comment reminded me of this
https://www.miniclip.com/dancingbush.htm
It is off topic but the Bush puppet comment reminded me of this
https://www.miniclip.com/dancingbush.htm
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
Im in a lonely battle with the world with a fish to match the chip on my shoulder. Gnu in Binnu in a cnu
Pooh-Bah
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
Posted:
and to answer burzaruka, hardwood
a)takes much longer to grow and given profit necessities people don't want to take the risk of growing a long term investment when the faster softer woods take less time and resources to grow. (nd they have less laws restricting their sale.) the stupid thing is if you look at how houses were constructed when hardwoods were the norm, they take less wood and time to build so really hardwoods are superior. the same wall could be built with less wood and be more resistant to rot, settling, less toxic materials, and more beautiful beside.
b)usually is now only left in old growth forests which are essentially still an entire ecosystem so cutting and regrowing the orignal hardwood is too time consuming and unprofitable. the usual formula is to go in, cut all the trees for their one time profitability, and grow cows for fat fug americans to eat at fast food restaurants.
gnorc there's a move in that bush puppet where his head stays but his body 360's... creepy
and to answer burzaruka, hardwood
a)takes much longer to grow and given profit necessities people don't want to take the risk of growing a long term investment when the faster softer woods take less time and resources to grow. (nd they have less laws restricting their sale.) the stupid thing is if you look at how houses were constructed when hardwoods were the norm, they take less wood and time to build so really hardwoods are superior. the same wall could be built with less wood and be more resistant to rot, settling, less toxic materials, and more beautiful beside.
b)usually is now only left in old growth forests which are essentially still an entire ecosystem so cutting and regrowing the orignal hardwood is too time consuming and unprofitable. the usual formula is to go in, cut all the trees for their one time profitability, and grow cows for fat fug americans to eat at fast food restaurants.
gnorc there's a move in that bush puppet where his head stays but his body 360's... creepy
-Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing
-Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
-When the center of the storm does not move, you are in its path.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [bush take * greenpeace court] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > bush takes greenpeace to court [53 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com