Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
I think the message is pretty clear. Basically they believe that oil companies drive government decisions like the war in Iraq - whether or not that is justified is another story. I don't know what a Calgary specific example would be, but I'm sure people in the oil industry would know of instances where they "worked closely" with local communities and governments to get what they want with no concessions. Thus, by separating oil and state, they hope that government will drop the hammer on any suspicious/bad/unethical behavior without worrying about the massive royalties that they would lose, or energy security that they would gain.
Again, I am not supporting their stance, nor do I feel like their stance has any merit. It is one born out of ignorance to what actually happens. I am also amused that it IS so ambiguous, but I can clearly see what their intention was.
Not going to get into all that stuff again...but why (if this was part of their message) would they pull this stunt in a country that never went to Iraq?
Again...even if they are protesting that goverment and oil companies make deals with each other...what is their solution? No government intervention/control at all? If that's the case it goes completely against everything they stand for....as the pollution and toxins would then run rampant.
Again...the whole thing is just goofy and points to the true message they conveyed successfully.
I don't care enough to double check, but DA posted a part of their press release, and Iraq was not mentioned at all, so I doubt that was a related issue. Apparently this was about poisoning the air and or children or something. The traffic jams they caused were very effective at poisoning the air.
You honestly don't see the insulting comparison you are making?
Peter12: "You have a little brain."
Me: "I'm not going to continue this discussion with someone who shows so little respect towards fellow CPers that he is willing to personally insult me."
Peter12: "So let's continue the discussion...."
I used to run a politics forum when I was back in Halifax and enjoyed taking the unpopular side of an issue (and thus partially the username). But the one rule I had was to show respect to the other contributors. Attack the message, but never the messenger.
If political discussions on CP are about calling people "little brained", then I'll stick to reading the hockey threads.
I think the message is pretty clear. Basically they believe that oil companies drive government decisions like the war in Iraq - whether or not that is justified is another story. I don't know what a Calgary specific example would be, but I'm sure people in the oil industry would know of instances where they "worked closely" with local communities and governments to get what they want with no concessions. Thus, by separating oil and state, they hope that government will drop the hammer on any suspicious/bad/unethical behavior without worrying about the massive royalties that they would lose, or energy security that they would gain.
Again, I am not supporting their stance, nor do I feel like their stance has any merit. It is one born out of ignorance to what actually happens. I am also amused that it IS so ambiguous, but I can clearly see what their intention was.
Canada was involved in the war in Iraq?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only Canadian soldiers involved in combat in Iraq were with American or British units on exchange. The invading Canadian horde that were driven there by 'big oil's interest in interfering in government policy numbered what? 2-3 dozen troops?
Sure, there were a few more Canadians sent there to try to help pick up the pieces after the initial war effort and provide people with a somewhat stable government and police force... But surely that's not what greenpeace has their knickers in a twist about - helping to get the government of a destroyed developing country back on it's feet and providing some semblance of security to its citizens.
Edit: I don't condone what GP says. I don't agree with anything they say. I am just trying to identify their message so that we can discuss their message, however ######ed it may be. Staying ignorant about their message just makes them credible.
Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace, said that the organization had been taken over by politicos that use environmental hysteria to push an anti-capitalist agenda. Don't believe me? Here's the clip (Moore comes in at the 4:00 mark):
Maybe I'll get lucky and someone will quote me again.
Clearly this is silly conspiracy talk.
The Following User Says Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
If political discussions on CP are about calling people "little brained", then I'll stick to reading the hockey threads.
You'd be surprised at how miffed some people get at getting a bit of fun poked at, especially if it is used in an arguement they don't like. I made my point earlier about the marketing behind the message, and I called someone "son", which seemed to collectively boil a few eggs.
That said, Greenpeace does spark hatred and anger among a good chunk of the populous, so I'm not surprised tempers flare in threads like this. It's a chance for people to vent their frustrations about left-wing radical hippies.
I thought of a better and more elegant way to express my point of view without so much venom.
I feel that GP is extremely ignorant about the happenings of the world, and their message is just as ignorant as the rest of their inane ramblings. However, as I do believe that we are better than them, we don't have to be ignorant about their message before completely tearing it apart (as some posters above me have already done). Their actual message is ######ed enough without having to resort to ignoring it in order to make fun of it.
You'd be surprised at how miffed some people get at getting a bit of fun poked at, especially if it is used in an arguement they don't like. I made my point earlier about the marketing behind the message, and I called someone "son", which seemed to collectively boil a few eggs.
That said, Greenpeace does spark hatred and anger among a good chunk of the populous, so I'm not surprised tempers flare in threads like this. It's a chance for people to vent their frustrations about left-wing radical hippies.
You're surprised that being condescending for no particular reason pisses people off? Really? Unless you're a wise old Southern gentleman calling people son is nothing more than trying to be a dick.
You're surprised that being condescending for no particular reason pisses people off? Really? Unless you're a wise old Southern gentleman calling people son is nothing more than trying to be a dick.
This, if you cant argue without descending into insults and belittling then you really can't debate your point.
You're surprised that being condescending for no particular reason pisses people off? Really? Unless you're a wise old Southern gentleman calling people son is nothing more than trying to be a dick.
Its a tad ironic someone in communications is surprised when their belittling comment is taken poorly.
Nah, I just didn't think calling someone "son" would invoke a serious, deep-rooted hatred in people. Rather than brush it off, it's derailed the thread. The slightest bit of condescending tone, even as minor as this, has really irked people into forgetting the debate that we once had in this thread.I think some people need to relax, take a deep breath, and realize that life doesn't end and the world doesn't stop spinning if they get called "son." Relax boys, relax. It's summer. No need to get stressed.
I thought of a better and more elegant way to express my point of view without so much venom.
I feel that GP is extremely ignorant about the happenings of the world, and their message is just as ignorant as the rest of their inane ramblings. However, as I do believe that we are better than them, we don't have to be ignorant about their message before completely tearing it apart (as some posters above me have already done). Their actual message is ######ed enough without having to resort to ignoring it in order to make fun of it.
Those that ignore it do so because of the messenger's history. That is the fault of Greenpeace. Those that contemplated generally don't understand it. Again, that is the fault of Greenpeace. Those that already support Greenpeace claim to understand it.
As with most of these groups, their protests are designed to preach to the choir. That is one of the primary reasons why I dismiss this stunt as little more than self promotion. They become news again for a day, and that leads those that already support them to donate to the cause.
But their message is completely lost on the wider populace because of their stunt. If they want to see a "separation of oil and state" they need to convince the public at large. By all accounts, the missed the mark badly. All they have done is reinforce the argument with their merry little band of supporters.
Eight people were taken into custody after the incident, while another was arrested later that evening.
The following individuals are charged with one count each of breaking out (Section 348 (1) (c)) and mischief to property under $5,000 (Section 430 (1) (a)):
