Greenpeace....

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

My question was did the message lose its mark by the distribution of that message.

Yup.

It appears you answered with your opinion, bravo. I also stated the impact remains to be seen as the news cycle works it.

It'll be on the cover of the Sun, page 2 story in the Herald, then forgotten.

Greenpeace has created a brand that brings awareness wether we like it or not. It appears you do not agree but we are now on page 9.

It appears your reading comprehension is weak as I have never argued against that point. Obviously Greenpeace has created a brand that brings awareness... of Greenpeace. I was already well aware of this group of lunatics. Their sad little stunt taught me nothing I didn't already know about them.

I do not agree that the messenger and message is the same here but that is your opinion.

Indeed it is, and I would argue it is a majority opinion.

I would guess that your awareness of the Human Society would be less if it was not for PETA and Greenpeace. Sometimes you just have to shout to be heard.

Actually, it would be greater if not for PETA, and I have no clue what relevance Greenpeace has to the Humane Society. I would suggest that reasonable organizations struggle to be heard when unreasonable ones shout unnecessarily. More, I would suggest that such needless shouting brings a cause into disrepute and only hurts decent organizations.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The hilarious part of this argument is that you are whining about global warming when the protest had almost nothing to do with that. Christ, even the bleeding heart hippies that buy into Greenpeace's nonsense have no clue what their supposed message was.

From Greenpeace re:this protest:

“While oil may run your car, it shouldn’t run your government. Canada is not a petro-state and Big Oil should not be calling the shots and governments should not be ignoring the environmental destruction of the toxic tar sands. Until both the federal and Alberta governments stand up to the oil industry, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase, more animals will die, more residents will be poisoned by the air they breathe and the water they drink, and more treaty rights will be violated in favour of profits in the senseless quest to squeeze every last drop of dirty oil from this province.”

It had NOTHING to do with greenhouse gases? Here. I'll wager $100 that if we ask Greenpeace if their protest had something to do with greenhouse gas they will say that it does. So you have a choice here. You can either admit that you are WRONG or you can take me up on my offer.

4x4: If you're willing to jump in, I'll take your action as well.

[Devils'Advocate]

From Greenpeace's Tar Sands page:

Areas of wilderness the size of small countries are chewed up and replaced by a landscape of toxic lakes, open pit mines, refineries, and pipe lines. The tar sands are what unrestrained fossil fuel use and unchecked greenhouse gas emissions look like. They are pushing us towards runaway climate change.

That sounds like global warming has absolutely nothing, nothing at all to do with their stance on the tar sands.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

From Greenpeace re:this protest:


It had NOTHING to do with greenhouse gases? Here. I'll wager $100 that if we ask Greenpeace if their protest had something to do with greenhouse gas they will say that it does. So you have a choice here. You can either admit that you are WRONG or you can take me up on my offer.

4x4: If you're willing to jump in, I'll take your action as well.

barricade some freeways in California - dirty oil is going there
go pull a stunt like this in China - dirty oil is going there

no wait!
spend some of that millions and millions you raise on alt fuel methods, a solution or something else....then just constant bitching, be part of the solution not inconvenience.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It had NOTHING to do with greenhouse gases?

I didn't say nothing. I said "almost nothing". The primary thrust was self promotion. The secondary was big oil's supposed control of the government. But since they threw a typical "omg ghg!" comment into their canned statement, that must have been the argument they were harping on today.

[4X4]

Why are you so desperately trying to start a global warming debate? This thread is nearly 200 posts long and the only 4 posts in it about global warming were yours. You dredged up some quote that mentions greenhouse gas emission for what? If you really want to talk about global warming, there have been many, many threads about it. And what action are you looking for me to take? You want to bet that greenpeace doesn't like global warming? Thatnks for the update. Why would I bet you about that? I hear that greenpeace also wants to save the whales. Why don't we discuss that too?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I didn't say nothing. I said "almost nothing". The primary thrust was self promotion. The secondary was big oil's supposed control of the government. But since they threw a typical "omg ghg!" comment into their canned statement, that must have been the argument they were harping on today.

Self-promotion is crap. You can claim that to dismiss any protest. It's easy since you don't need any proof. Amnesty has a protest outside an embassy of a country holding innocent political prisoners? "Bah... self promotion". It's bullcrap, but you have a nice built-in reason to dismiss any protest. "The organizers are just using it to gain publicity".

As for big oil's control of government... you don't think the greenhouse gases has something in there? IT'S THE WHOLE REASON!!!! They want the government to do more about CO2 emissions!! But they don't...

If it were not for the greenhouse gas issue, they wouldn't have been there today.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

What?? So, if we can follow your logic, because Greenpeace has broken the law multiple times in the past we should now simply expect that they will break the law, and then give them a pass when they do?

You're on a role Ozy! Started off with a somewhat reasonable position and now have been reduced to talking in circles, making ludicrous claims and calling people obscure names that, I guess, make you feel better about your position? Well done. Why don't you head off now, clearly any point you may have had has been made and you have nothing left to offer us. Good luck with the Greenpeace thing, hope you don't get arrested.

My cat's breath smells like cat food, son.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Why are you so desperately trying to start a global warming debate? This thread is nearly 200 posts long and the only 4 posts in it about global warming were yours. You dredged up some quote that mentions greenhouse gas emission for what? If you really want to talk about global warming, there have been many, many threads about it. And what action are you looking for me to take? You want to bet that greenpeace doesn't like global warming? Thatnks for the update. Why would I bet you about that? I hear that greenpeace also wants to save the whales. Why don't we discuss that too?

I'm bringing it up because it was CENTRAL to the protest today and everyone seems to be ignoring it.

If I asked Greenpeace if today's protest was about global warming, would they say yes?

If I asked Greenpeace if today's protest was about saving the whales, would they say yes?

I'm willing to bet $100 on the former, but not on the latter. Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

The question isn't whether or not Greenpeace are against global warming. It's whether they would consider today's action to be a strike against climate change. DO YOU THINK - IN *THEIR* OPINION - THAT THE PROTEST TODAY HAD A LOT TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If it were not for the bank account getting a little low, they wouldn't have been there today.

Fixed that for you.

And sorry, but Greenpeace pretty much exists simply to promote itself. Legitimate groups tend to focus more on what they do than who they are.

And I saw several typical talking points in their statement. Seems you are the one choosing to haul a single point out to become your focus. Unless you speak as a representative of Greenpeace, I stand by my argument.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'm bringing it up because it was CENTRAL to the protest today and everyone seems to be ignoring it.

And yet another supporter admits that the supposed message was buried under the stunt.

You are doing more to argue our point than you are your own, DA.

[4X4]

Alright, DA. You win. Today's protest was about global warming. Too bad this thread wasn't.

[killer_carlson]

Jobs. What do these protesters do for real jobs? How do they pay their bills? This question is never answered.

It needs to be.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

From Greenpeace's Tar Sands page:


That sounds like global warming has absolutely nothing, nothing at all to do with their stance on the tar sands.

Greenpeace masks their anti-capitalist agenda with their environmental hysteria. Even the founding member of Greenpeace (who has long since left the organization) says this. They may tell you that their protest is all tied into global warming, but it's really just a bunch of nonsense. What they are after is wealth redistribution.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I don't think today's message from Greenpeace was directly addressing the man-made global warming myth, but most people know that Greenpeace is a big advocate of the myth.

They are just morons......

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Greenpeace masks their anti-capitalist agenda with their environmental hysteria. Even the founding member of Greenpeace (who has long since left the organization) says this. They may tell you that their protest is all tied into global warming, but it's really just a bunch of nonsense. What they are after is wealth redistribution.

This.

and Agenda 21....

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Why not? Both had a political belief that they strongly believed in and use whatever non-violent means at their disposal.

I sense that the distinction is that you agree with one group and therefore AGREE with their civil disobedience and disagree with the other group and therefore DISAGREE with THEIR civil disobedience.

It's not a "how dare they break the law and bring out emergency vehicles", it's a "how dare they break the law and bring out emergency vehicles for a cause I don't like".

Nope. Your sense is incorrect.

I agree with both groups actually. Their intent that is. But GreenPeace's delivery of their message makes them a joke in my eyes. Just a bunch of attention whores.

[Muta]

I don't agree with the protesters' tactics, but it's not hard to atleast basically understand that the message is about the oil industry in Alberta. You don't need much brainpower to conceive that.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Jobs. What do these protesters do for real jobs? How do they pay their bills? This question is never answered.

It needs to be.

greenpeace is a welfare system.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This.

and Agenda 21....

I love it, Ark2 (who I have ignored, thanks for quoting him...) and Mikey talking about conspiracies!