I haven't seen sicko yet, but does he refer to it as "free" in the movie? when searching for "free healthcare" "michael moore", all I seem to pull up is conservative websites bashing him... (as opposed to searching only for "michael moore", where only half of the sites that come up are bashing him;)
You're right! I hadn't been sure, but now I know I really must have been hallucinating yesterday when kdawson posted this article bashing the democrats for coming down on file-sharing. I'm sure it was just a dream when I noticed that all the right wing trolls were chortling through the threads about how democrats were no different than republicans and tagging the article "demoncrats" and other such things. Surely I was, since that sort of thing would never happen in this bastion of liberalism all we neo-hippies call slashdot.
never watched alias.... now you've got me worrying:( He did at least promise that it wouldn't be a "it was all a dream" or a "they're already dead" ending, but it is difficult to tell what sort of ending could tie everything up. I haven't been disappointed so far, so I'm holding out hope.
For a start: the story actually goes somewhere in Lost. They actually did some story writing ahead of time instead of just tossing out some meaningless obscure crap every now and then. The suspense in Lost means something because you know it's eventually going to be dealt with, and that the story will change dramatically and in not entirely predictable ways. Lost can seem cheesy at times, but overall it has much more depth than x-files could ever hope to have.
Most of the tourists are aboard cruise ships. This bridge would get in their way more than it would service them....and 7500 residents? My neighborhood had more residents than that! When a medium sized metropolitan area is around a million people, 7500 is pretty much as insignificant as 50, especially when the bridge rivals both the golden gate and Brooklyn bridges.
...so, what you're basically saying is, there are places that exist which are *worse* than california (like baghdad or beijing). Given that level of endorsement, I hope you don't blame me if I'm not packing my suitcase for a trip to LA anytime soon:)
I thought the same thing until I went to London. I was called "mate" by complete strangers several times a day. Also, no one called me "chap", nor did anyone say "cheerio", btw.
Unless you're some kind of prude, I think the first one is more funny than it is a fiasco. If you're accusing him of being one-sided, he did list the actual clinton fiasco. The rest were just recent examples. If you're willing to dip into history as far as 72 for an example which is as admittedly fucked up as the Kennedy example is, we could be here all night listing fiascos on both sides (though some very prominent ones from the same time period involving republicans, I must admit, come to mind first). As far as the chinese secrets thing, are you talking about al gore? I thought that had been debunked, but perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have a link?
None of this is a *justification*. I never said anything that *justifies* arson. I never said it was "OK" (that would be a justification, FYI). Here, guy, since you're having such an issue with this word, here's the definition. Please tell me where I said the EFL or the act of arson is "free of blame", etc... I said you were blowing it out of proportion; and you are. In fact, now you're blowing what I said out of proportion as well. You obviously hav ea problem with this. You claim that all these people are hurt by this group and that they've had such a terrible impact, yet you can't cite me one case of injury. hell, I actually expected you to have something in mind, considering how angry you seem with these people. What a crock... Hell, one of their 3 directives is not to injure anyone. What the fuck kind of terrorist has that as a slogan? The EFL has got to be the weakest terrorist organization I've ever heard of.
What's a bigger threat? Domestic terrorism is about as bad as it gets.
Domesitc terrorism can be as bad as it gets, and it can also be pretty pathetic. If you're the kind of idiot who can't recognize the difference between anything labeled "terrorism", then I highly regret having used that word. Seriously, what isn't terrorism these days? Do you honestly equate burning a bunch of SUV's with crashing a jetliner into a skyskraper?
"The other guys are worse" *is* evidence that you're blowing this out of proportion, in that you're claiming they're a threat on the level of the guys who you've now admitted are *worse*. As long as you're attempting at pointing out logical fallacies, associating someone I don't like with left-winger's doesn't mean that all left-wingers are bad. You should watch that logic, as it would imply that right-wingers are all kid-molesting, bribe-taking, lying, cheating, murderers. Furthermore, I don't consider myself a "left-winger", nor did I put them on any side. They're widely recognized as a lef-twing group, I didn't have to do that.
I am pretty sure Timothy McVeigh didn't have a whole terrorist organization, and neither do the anti-abortion nutcases.
Uh... so part of the definition of terrorism is having a lot of friends?
The bare facts are that the ELF is a terrorist organization that plants firebombs and does all sorts of nasty things. How is the case against them overblown?
It's overblown because you said things like this results in the unnecessary deaths of many humans who may have been saved through the research they disrupted. Many of those researchers leave the field because they cannot tolerate the constant harassment., with zero evidence to back it up, and because you were replying to my assertion that they didn't kill people (which was a reply to someone calling them "baby-killers"). What really got me was this:
Seriously, if there is a group of people that deserves to spend time in Guantanamo, it would be people who think it is acceptable to engage in terrorism in the name of "animal rights"
Why not anti-abortion terrorists? Islamists? Anarchists? What is it about animal rights "terrorists" that makes them so much worse, or hell, even *as bad* as these types?
I've already looked it up. The money ($1500) that they gave to the ELF was given only for use in specific projects which did not include "arson". This is far from a claim that PETA is a bunch of terrorists. In addition to this, they funded the legal defense of some ELF members. These were the only donations that I found that were credibly sourced. Big fucking deal. Following this logic, you're more of a terrorist for filling up your gas tank every week. Given how ready the government is to stamp out groups like PETA (check some of the recently passed legislation making boycotts of animal industries arguably a terrorist offense; I'm not kidding), the fact that they've retained their tax exempt status is proof that there's no credible claims that they've funded arson. Trust me, were it there, a lot of well-funded lobbyists and lawyers from the meat industry who hate PETA a lot more than you or I, would currently by burying them with it. I'm all for bashing PETA when they're pulling idiotic PR stunts, but calling them terrorists is silly.
PETA spokesperson Lisa Lange acknowledged a $1,500 donation to ELF for a "project of habitat protection," which concluded, "meat eating is a huge problem for the environment."
"This is one of our focuses of our vegetarian campaign reaching to environmentalists, basically saying you can't be an environmentalist and eat meat, and the ELF was going to be doing some publicity on that very thing," Lange said. "We saw it as an opportunity to get our message out.
"None of our money goes toward illegal activities," Lange insisted. "This specific project we funded was a quality project."
Lange also said PETA is open about its contributions to the legal aid of accused ALF members. According to a release by the Center for Consumer Freedom, PETA made a $2,000 contribution to the defense of David Wilson in 1990, and $5,000 contribution to the "Josh Harper Support Committee."
First off, ELF is not an animal rights group; you're thinking of the ALF (though I admit, the two movements are intertwined). Secondly, can you name any researchers that have left any field because of harassment from the ELF? Or a firefighter that has been injured? Your claim that people have died because of research interrupted by them is specious at best. What life-saving research project was significantly postponed due to activities of the ELF? If it turns out that the stem cell research we weren't able to preform because of the Bush administration will cure many fatal illnesses, will you then say that Bush should be thrown in gitmo? Seriously, I'm not saying I support what they do, and I agree that the risk they have brought to innocent people through terrorist activities is unacceptable, but the case against them is overblown, and I think it's specifically because they're a left wing group, not because they're some huge threat. I'd like to see some bare facts rather than people just blowing smoke, because it might actually convince me that they were more than 1/10000th the threat of religious fundamentalists, abortion opponents, or timothy McVeigh types. You know, the ones who actually kill people.
Can you link to such a demonstration in a commercially planted forest? I'm honestly curious, and not asking rhetorically, as I've not heard of this before. I highly doubt that they are against the commercial use of wood entirely.
Actually, it's funny: I went to look up their opinion on this, and it starts by expounding on how forest preservation is important to the quality of human life. I've looked across their site, and I can't find anything about commercial forests. I guess if their opinion is, as you say, that we shouldn't have such forests, then they're certainly not voicing it very loudly.
I agree, I was only using that example to provide context. Admittedly, not as many people think environmentalists or animal activists are the boogey-man compared to muslims, and even fewer still consider pro-life people to be the boogey-man, but anyone who feels this way about any mainstream group with convictions is misguided (unless, of course, the group's convictions are fundamentally misaligned, like the KKK or something like that).
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately this is just par for the course for McRobbie. He's also the one responsible for bringing our university Peoplesoft...
...soooo, a guy who steals a tv should be ass-raped for it?
I haven't seen sicko yet, but does he refer to it as "free" in the movie? when searching for "free healthcare" "michael moore", all I seem to pull up is conservative websites bashing him... (as opposed to searching only for "michael moore", where only half of the sites that come up are bashing him ;)
You're right! I hadn't been sure, but now I know I really must have been hallucinating yesterday when kdawson posted this article bashing the democrats for coming down on file-sharing. I'm sure it was just a dream when I noticed that all the right wing trolls were chortling through the threads about how democrats were no different than republicans and tagging the article "demoncrats" and other such things. Surely I was, since that sort of thing would never happen in this bastion of liberalism all we neo-hippies call slashdot.
...and here I thought malicious modding down was saved for political posts? I guess I stepped on some toes here :)
never watched alias.... now you've got me worrying :( He did at least promise that it wouldn't be a "it was all a dream" or a "they're already dead" ending, but it is difficult to tell what sort of ending could tie everything up. I haven't been disappointed so far, so I'm holding out hope.
For a start: the story actually goes somewhere in Lost. They actually did some story writing ahead of time instead of just tossing out some meaningless obscure crap every now and then. The suspense in Lost means something because you know it's eventually going to be dealt with, and that the story will change dramatically and in not entirely predictable ways. Lost can seem cheesy at times, but overall it has much more depth than x-files could ever hope to have.
don't need this, already have lost :)
he's talking about the cartoon movie, where optimus prime dies almost right away (needed to make room for new toys).
Most of the tourists are aboard cruise ships. This bridge would get in their way more than it would service them. ...and 7500 residents? My neighborhood had more residents than that! When a medium sized metropolitan area is around a million people, 7500 is pretty much as insignificant as 50, especially when the bridge rivals both the golden gate and Brooklyn bridges.
...so, what you're basically saying is, there are places that exist which are *worse* than california (like baghdad or beijing). Given that level of endorsement, I hope you don't blame me if I'm not packing my suitcase for a trip to LA anytime soon :)
good job not understanding sarcasm...
It was only a couple of flipper babbiieeeeesss!!!!
damn... you can get a needle for selling drugs?
Congratulations on the first "BBBBBUT CLINTON!!!" post! I'm surprised it took you assholes this long!
or a pacemaker... ouch.
I thought the same thing until I went to London. I was called "mate" by complete strangers several times a day. Also, no one called me "chap", nor did anyone say "cheerio", btw.
Your post should be required reading for every american citizen. Seriously, I'm bookmarking it as a reference for others!
Unless you're some kind of prude, I think the first one is more funny than it is a fiasco. If you're accusing him of being one-sided, he did list the actual clinton fiasco. The rest were just recent examples. If you're willing to dip into history as far as 72 for an example which is as admittedly fucked up as the Kennedy example is, we could be here all night listing fiascos on both sides (though some very prominent ones from the same time period involving republicans, I must admit, come to mind first). As far as the chinese secrets thing, are you talking about al gore? I thought that had been debunked, but perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have a link?
None of this is a *justification*. I never said anything that *justifies* arson. I never said it was "OK" (that would be a justification, FYI). Here, guy, since you're having such an issue with this word, here's the definition. Please tell me where I said the EFL or the act of arson is "free of blame", etc... I said you were blowing it out of proportion; and you are. In fact, now you're blowing what I said out of proportion as well. You obviously hav ea problem with this. You claim that all these people are hurt by this group and that they've had such a terrible impact, yet you can't cite me one case of injury. hell, I actually expected you to have something in mind, considering how angry you seem with these people. What a crock... Hell, one of their 3 directives is not to injure anyone. What the fuck kind of terrorist has that as a slogan? The EFL has got to be the weakest terrorist organization I've ever heard of.
Domesitc terrorism can be as bad as it gets, and it can also be pretty pathetic. If you're the kind of idiot who can't recognize the difference between anything labeled "terrorism", then I highly regret having used that word. Seriously, what isn't terrorism these days? Do you honestly equate burning a bunch of SUV's with crashing a jetliner into a skyskraper?
"The other guys are worse" *is* evidence that you're blowing this out of proportion, in that you're claiming they're a threat on the level of the guys who you've now admitted are *worse*. As long as you're attempting at pointing out logical fallacies, associating someone I don't like with left-winger's doesn't mean that all left-wingers are bad. You should watch that logic, as it would imply that right-wingers are all kid-molesting, bribe-taking, lying, cheating, murderers. Furthermore, I don't consider myself a "left-winger", nor did I put them on any side. They're widely recognized as a lef-twing group, I didn't have to do that.
Uh... so part of the definition of terrorism is having a lot of friends?
It's overblown because you said things like this results in the unnecessary deaths of many humans who may have been saved through the research they disrupted. Many of those researchers leave the field because they cannot tolerate the constant harassment., with zero evidence to back it up, and because you were replying to my assertion that they didn't kill people (which was a reply to someone calling them "baby-killers"). What really got me was this:
Why not anti-abortion terrorists? Islamists? Anarchists? What is it about animal rights "terrorists" that makes them so much worse, or hell, even *as bad* as these types?
First off, ELF is not an animal rights group; you're thinking of the ALF (though I admit, the two movements are intertwined). Secondly, can you name any researchers that have left any field because of harassment from the ELF? Or a firefighter that has been injured? Your claim that people have died because of research interrupted by them is specious at best. What life-saving research project was significantly postponed due to activities of the ELF? If it turns out that the stem cell research we weren't able to preform because of the Bush administration will cure many fatal illnesses, will you then say that Bush should be thrown in gitmo? Seriously, I'm not saying I support what they do, and I agree that the risk they have brought to innocent people through terrorist activities is unacceptable, but the case against them is overblown, and I think it's specifically because they're a left wing group, not because they're some huge threat. I'd like to see some bare facts rather than people just blowing smoke, because it might actually convince me that they were more than 1/10000th the threat of religious fundamentalists, abortion opponents, or timothy McVeigh types. You know, the ones who actually kill people.
Can you link to such a demonstration in a commercially planted forest? I'm honestly curious, and not asking rhetorically, as I've not heard of this before. I highly doubt that they are against the commercial use of wood entirely.
Actually, it's funny: I went to look up their opinion on this, and it starts by expounding on how forest preservation is important to the quality of human life. I've looked across their site, and I can't find anything about commercial forests. I guess if their opinion is, as you say, that we shouldn't have such forests, then they're certainly not voicing it very loudly.
I agree, I was only using that example to provide context. Admittedly, not as many people think environmentalists or animal activists are the boogey-man compared to muslims, and even fewer still consider pro-life people to be the boogey-man, but anyone who feels this way about any mainstream group with convictions is misguided (unless, of course, the group's convictions are fundamentally misaligned, like the KKK or something like that).
Who has anyone from the ELF killed, let alone what babies? Please list them all here.