Hippy Do-Gooders have Destroyed the World

Originally posted by zerbot565
I was under the impression that the word "hippy" derives from the word hip ,hipster ,,
someone who is in tune with the time / age they live in and around,

it has more to do with the 40´s beatnik generation then the 60´s or 70´s flower power movement

Yes - - it was coined by a radio DJ (or newscaster).

Beatniks were more of an artsy/literary fringe society. Its actually where the original look for the Beattles came from.

The original Hippie movement was an anti-war political movement.

The anti-war movement morphed into the Love and Peace "Flower Power" movement - - "War is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things"

Originally posted by flexy123
I was just wondering,

when you go voting....do you also only vote for the ones who promise "tax cuts"?

Because this is the same logic as you thinking that "being able to run my air condition 24/7 without paying too much" is obviously a solution to anything.


Also..i was actually expecting something halfway intelligent in this thread, something like valid arguments or someone, although sharing a unpopular opinion, STILL having valid points.

Sadly, i don't see anything here except repeatedly pointing out how important YOUR "living standard" is and how it's important for you not to pay too much to run your A/C 24/7...and you expect a discussion here..or did you just do this for the sake of trolling and for sprouting your hate for whoever you don't like on whatever political side? (Because this is all i see in this thread).

You seemed pretty annoyed about my airconditioner.

Is this better?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess this thread is pretty obnoxious.

Many young people were fooled by Marxist revolutionary types(such as Bill Ayers and the Weathermen Underground) who talked them into protesting the Viet Nam war. People who are peace-loving believed that not killing people was the real motive, but the motive was and still is Communist Revolutionary tactics to abolish private property and force people to redistribute the fruits of their labor in the Marxist way.
To this day, North Viet Nam is still communist, and so is Laos, North Korea, and Cuba. Oh by the way, I read in Michael Savage's book "Trickle Up Poverty" that in Cuba, the people cannot change jobs without govt permission(p. 65), and unless people want all their freedom taken away, I suggest they wake up and smell the brew.

Originally posted by timetothink
www.dailymail.co.uk...


No global warming for 15 years...we may be cycling into record freezing...get off the global warming crap already...everyone knows the truth, you can't use it for power anymore, it's laughable.

I agree with the op....enviromentalists would rather us go back to the dark ages and alot of powerful people who can make money off "green" crap are using them to their benefit. What a joke.

If you would like to check out the thread:
That 15 year no GW thread still on the front page linky

How disingenuous and false.
ATS. Deny Facts

Here, in case you want to learn something:

SkepticalScience

I now see people whom deny global warming as disinformation corporatists..the only other alternative is willfully moronic..and since they have figured out how to turn on computers and log into a website, they can't be that moronic..meaning they are purposefully pushing forward false information.

Originally posted by DaMod
Well the gas pipeline generates enough heat to melt the snow around it causing the plant life to get exposed... You guessed it.. the gas pipeline actually provides them a food source that they would not have otherwise which in turn prevents the harsh winter from killing off extreme numbers of the population... The gas pipeline is actually a god send to the local wildlife...

Uhhh, yeah, in that case, fewer die than normal... a "normal" developed over some hundreds or thousands of years, and the local wildlife is adapted to it in their breeding habits.

So, fewer animals die due to standard winter conditions. So more breed next spring. So the population grows where under normal conditions it would be stable.

So now there are too many of some animals... the predators - human and otherwise - can't keep them under check as they could if the normal number died during winter.

So now we have crowding, which means less food for each, which means each individual is less healthy than it should be. Also, many animals do not have social constructs to manage large numbers of them in a relatively small area. So the social structure of some animals begins to break down, resulting in an even less healthy population.

No, thinking that gas pipelines are a god send to the local wildlife is a very anthropomorphic idea. It might seem like a good idea to a human, but in the long run, it is NOT.

reply to post by SaturnFX


So now you are going to lump people who don't buy into the AGW theory into the corporatist category? I am for free enterprise, not necessarily big multinational corporations. It's always the little guy who pays.

The multinational mega-corporations, international bankers, covert agencies that overthrow democratically elected governments and military industrial complexes have destroyed this world in the name of greed and the never-ending quest for personal power. Not some environmentalists protesting.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

So now you are going to lump people who don't buy into the AGW theory into the corporatist category? I am for free enterprise, not necessarily big multinational corporations. It's always the little guy who pays.

I gave two options...either multinational corporate stooges, or complete morons

ok, I am being a bit of a hard arse. Just frustrating that people accept really bad half science by politicians and corporations over actual scientists.
They take out of context the words of actual scientists to tailor make a false viewpoint which flys against both peer reviewed science and the person they are quoting. This is a willful deception..

And with endless threads being debunked and the actual science shown, yet people still choose to believe the proven liars and deceivers over the truth..what is there left to think about such people.

There has not been a single coherent point by the climate deniers that hasn't been fully checked with simple statistics and projection models...so, why do deniers still exist?

I can actually understand the debate on how much is natural, and how much is manmade. To someone like me, its self evident, however, there is some wiggle room..but to simply deny..its like denying gravity because you seen a movie where superman flies, therefore that disproves gravity...

I'm far from a tree hugger. I do see a need to have laws to protect the environment though because throughout history people have done things that were bad for OUR environment to seek financial gain or prestige. There is a difference in living in this world and abusing this world. It's not just the businesses, it's the people also. To extract oil safely and in an environmently friendly way it gets more expensive. People scream when the price of gas goes up a nickel. The businesses are providing a service which use rules deemed as adequate by governments to do their work. If the oil companies working in the gulf got together and built an emergency station and this station had experienced emergency workers and all things necessary right there to fix many problems that occur when something happened it would not cost that much over a long run and would also create jobs.

The forests wouldn't need management if people weren't so wasteful with wood products and companies built stuff to last a lifetime. People complain all the time about things. We need rules and regulations for preservation of this world. As far as I know we don't have anywhere elso to go if this planets biodome fails us. I'm not counting on God sweeping me away or some alien ship coming to the rescue. If that alien ship showed up I'de probably stay here anyway if they looked hungry.

Our only option on the table is to reevaluate our wants and needs. A computer is not bad, it allows you to see the world without taking a plane. It lets you see what other cultures see. It can save a lot of impact on the environment if used correctly. Environment is not like governments. We can't replace our environment or elect a new species, we have to allow it to heal or, at greater cost than value gained, nurse it back to health. I do not have answers, just awareness of the problem. The Economy takes presidence over the environment presently and that has to change before the consequences are irreversible. This world will survive but I have my doubts of humans ability to survive. I give us seventy years at the present mindset of people before we approach extinction. You see, when everything starts going wrong the blame game turns to war. Our worlds nuclear capabilities can easily destabalize the crust and cause an unliveable place for us.

The earth is already locked into a perpetual motion action and continuing unnecessary destruction will only make the results get worse. I have studied lots of evidence and have a pretty diverse knowledge of human nature and can only come up with one remedy....Kiss our asses goodbye.... I wish I had a more unrealistic view of the future.

reply to post by SaturnFX


oh name-calling then. Ok that makes so much more sense. Can I call the socialist ideologues and greedy politicians promoting the AGW theory morons too?

See, the thing is that sensible people who know that the sun is the primary driver of our climate and that the climate is always changing and going through cycles are not denying climate change. It is AGW's who had to change their theory from Global Warming to Climate Change because their own theory that the planet was continually warming from co2 was faulty to begin with and there was no way to promote it when the cooling phase comes around.
I have never said we shouldn't take care of the planet but I don't promote the insane idea that humans are parasites and have no right to survive here like all the other plant and animal species do.
I had s social studies teacher in grade school who always preached the "Survival of the Fittest" theory and yet here are the AGW saying humans have no right to that.
She went on to get an award as a teacher in that district. A black woman, and one of my very best teachers.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I am for free enterprise, not necessarily big multinational corporations. It's always the little guy who pays.

oh, and wanted to address this part also:

Pay now in research in tech to stablize and reverse the process
or our kids pay far greater amounts with a destablized world heading into a truely catastrophic result.
Keep in mind, this whole debate isn't about how much sunscreen we will need to put on in 50 years, its about how much the ocean ecosystem can stomache before mass extinction. Believe it or not, we are very connected to the ocean and its resources.

NatGeo Some stuff about coral reef devastation
You can't just hammer a balanced ecosystem and expect no consequences..

Now, as far as free market capitalist..great. same here to an extent...however, if some company wanted to drill into some sensetive area on the techtonic plate that would cause mass earthquakes and havoc, I think they need to be stopped.
Do what you want, and harm none.
The evidence shows some practices we are doing is most certainly harming...granted, its not producing an earthquake the second they start working, but its a slow accumulation. Much like asbestos, it takes awhile.

Capitalism stops when it hurts me and my own...your ventures are trumped by my safety..and that is the problem.
Corporations lose money when they have to deal with issues of other peoples safety..therefore they skew the science, they spread lies in order to continue their venture..to hell with your safety..they want money.

And they have successfully purchased an entire political party, lock, stock, and barrel. Its quite depressing..but more depressing is seemingly intelligent people totally buying into a politician opposing science.

I think you can also make an argument that..well, you don't have kids, therefore you don't give a rats arse how the world is in 2100..sure, why not..at least its honest and actually resonates with many (even people that give lip service to "the future, the kids, etc". Hell, you might even win me over on such a honest debate (I have no kids)...problem is, I do have nephews and nieces I love to pieces, therefore ultimately their prosperity outweighs my desire to live like a gluttonous king.

Anyhow, this discussion in this particular thread is pointless. Perhaps you or I should start a thread discussing both sides of the debate armed with facts only, and scope of facts. This thread is little more than a political baiting thread (admitted by the ops in page like 2). I don't like feeding the trolls, even though sometimes it is a guilty pleasure.

Personally I don't think you are a moron btw..but you are totally blinded by ideology which filters your information...my opinion. But you do give a fairly good counterpoint when we engage.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


In areas that experience 80% winter kill I would consider it a good idea..

Hunting regs in the areas I hunt restrict you to buck only as a single buck can impregnate hundreds of does. Our local deer population stays within acceptable levels with much lower rates of winter kill (which actually puts populations at risk for localized extinction)

The deer population stays within stable and manageable numbers... However the elk population here which usually populate areas that are not considered ideal for pipelines (hence there are none) are reaching unmanageable levels.

Taking this under consideration I would consider your point moot.

Of course I live in wyoming where the population is just over half a million humans therefore creating a higher land area for wild life populations... With this in mind we actually have more square mileage of wilderness therefore can handle a much higher wild life population than most other states.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

oh name-calling then. Ok that makes so much more sense. Can I call the socialist ideologues and greedy politicians promoting the AGW theory morons too?

See, the thing is that sensible people who know that the sun is the primary driver of our climate and that the climate is always changing and going through cycles are not denying climate change. It is AGW's who had to change their theory from Global Warming to Climate Change because their own theory that the planet was continually warming from co2 was faulty to begin with and there was no way to promote it when the cooling phase comes around.
I have never said we shouldn't take care of the planet but I don't promote the insane idea that humans are parasites and have no right to survive here like all the other plant and animal species do.
I had s social studies teacher in grade school who always preached the "Survival of the Fittest" theory and yet here are the AGW saying humans have no right to that.
She went on to get an award as a teacher in that district. A black woman, and one of my very best teachers.

edit on 1-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

So, your halfway there then
You accept the world -is- warming...your just debating the cause of it. Well, halfway there is at least a step in the right direction
The climate destabilization is the broad picture type thing. The earth has cycles..ice age, warming, etc...the discussion is what is super amping up the warming phase (which will eventually lead to an ice age). The correlation is the beginning of the industrial age and mass greenhouse gases introduced into the ecosystem.

To me, this is self evident. The hypothesis is quite detailed, the measured approximate amounts of particles introduced showing an effect overall in the rising trend almost exactly (see that first link, the skeptical science one), etc. Now, it is still a hypo...actually its now a theory as it has been tested. the sun of course plays a part in this also as you mention with its 11 year cycle, and for a more micro-factor, you must consider El Nino/La Nina for trends in warming and cooling, but this does not effect the trend..and its trend we are discussing.
If this year, the world is on fire, and next year, its a block of ice, that is interesting, but its not part of the trend.

Anyhow. What is your view of people whom simply say warming in itself is bunk...not manmade or natural, but warming at all period end of story? What should one think when they say that, then simply refuse to look at data that shows the trend in a relatively stable upward curve?

Surely you have to draw the line somewhere between seeing reality and towing the party ideals...

Although I do see a lot of environmentalists as little more than obstructionists, there are many good things that have come from environmentalists.

I went to college in the early 1970s. Most of the sewage treatment back then did little to remove anything from the sewage before the waste water was put directly back into the rivers of the US.

Now, because of environmentalists, most sewage plant effluent is fit to drink. Put another way, you're not drinking the toilet water from the town upstream of you.

Back in the 1960s, there were a number of rivers here in the US that could barely support life. In some cases, rivers actually caught fire because of the industrial pollutants dumped directly into them. Now, most of the big polluters have had to clean up their waste discharge. Our rivers are much cleaner as a result.

Mines that are still operating must abide by strict waste management protocols. Coal burning electric generation facilities are required to use pollution abatement devices.

The US is better off for those environmentalist types.

Now, we need help in focusing environmentalists so-that their efforts not only create a healthier environment but also don't just get in the way of reasonable projects.

Timber is a renewable resource, however, the forests must be managed to prevent catastrophic fires like we've seen on the west coast. Forestry officials get sued regularly when they announce a controlled burn. If you don't do the controlled burns you end up with catastrophic burns.

If we all work together, we can create a cleaner and better future for our children.

reply to post by theubermensch


Oh brother. Hippies protesting against the people causing the world problems is what causes the worlds problems?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

By the way, do you really, REALLY still by into the left vs right, Democrat vs Republican paradigm? It's pure nonsense. Two sides of the same coin. There is no pointing fingers at just one group here, buddy.

Everyone in Washington is at fault. Democrat and republican alike. But to actually come on here and blame people who are protesting against what everyone in Washington is doing wrong?

Brother/Sister, you make no sense my friend. If you want to see change, you have to stand up and change things.

Protestors/"do-gooder hippies" don't run Washington my friend. You might as well blame the family dog.

Well, that is one way to look at it. I also hate "hippie do-gooders", but I also hate ignorant, know-it-all, Hard liners.
First the hippies:
Yes, they only wine and complain and a lot of times do more harm than good. Ignorance towards other people's way of life and mentality is a major fault for them. Plus, what the hell is up with the dreds and hemp clothing? Are they protesting detergent and shampoo?

Now the Hardliners:
Fossil fuels can be replenished over time... A very, very long time... Like, a million years or so. We will run out of them if we do not control our use. Next, being so beligerent towards the other side is the most childish form of arguing / debating. It solves nothing.

Finally, What does liberal or conservative have to do with being either? I'm in the U.S. Army and I have met both from both. With that being said, the only way to exist is to find a happy medium. If you don't need a Dodge Ram 3500 to pull trailers of equipment, animals, etc.; then don't buy one. Also, if it is less than 1 mile to the store, WALK!!! If you want people to clean up the Earth, get off your ass and adopt a highway and pick up trash or something. Be part of the soloution not some person setting around complaining.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well, I'm sorry to tell you this but more people have died from the failed policies of communism and socialism and even environmentalism than have died from Capitalist venture.

reply to post by theubermensch



First, it is sad to see 21st century hippies trying to revive the 60s culture.

It just doesn't look right. They'd look silly in bell bottom pants.

The 60s era hippies grew up to adulthood to become today's top notch CEOs.

Problem is with the 21st century hippies is they don't have the talent of the 60s era hippies, their chances of becoming top notch CEOs is a lot slimmer.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by theubermensch

 

Oh brother. Hippies protesting against the people causing the world problems is what causes the worlds problems?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

By the way, do you really, REALLY still by into the left vs right, Democrat vs Republican paradigm? It's pure nonsense. Two sides of the same coin. There is no pointing fingers at just one group here, buddy.

Everyone in Washington is at fault. Democrat and republican alike. But to actually come on here and blame people who are protesting against what everyone in Washington is doing wrong?

Brother/Sister, you make no sense my friend. If you want to see change, you have to stand up and change things.

Protestors/"do-gooder hippies" don't run Washington my friend. You might as well blame the family dog.

It is precisely do-gooders who went to Washington who are running things now, along with the socialist do-gooder Democrat Socialists of America like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

And Greenpeace are basically communists in disguise. They adhere to the philosophy that their ends justify the means they employ, which includes damage to entire economies and industries and to private property, as well as violence and propaganda.

Among Greenpeace’s most successful campaigns of recent years has been its effort to stop the hunting of whales and harp seals in the North Atlantic. By widely distributing films showing alleged brutality against seals, by claiming that whales and seals have become endangered, by organizing international boycotts against fish products from North Atlantic nations, and by lobbying governments in Europe and the United States, Greenpeace has succeeded in having the importation of sealskins banned by many industrial nations.

Greenpeace is not a popular name in Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, parts of Norway and Canada, and even Alaska. The economies of the North Atlantic have depended for centuries on the hunting of whales, seals, and fish. Now that these products have been banned, curtailed, or boycotted since 1985, people in those nations are suffering dislocations and hardships even worse than those created by their harsh climates. Families in the many small villages have been forced onto welfare or into the cities, where finding employment can be difficult. The sudden declines in productivity have left these economies reeling, just as the United States economy would be if its entire automobile industry were suddenly eliminated. The people of those nations are particularly offended by the Greenpeace campaign against their economies because of its incredible irony: Countries such as Iceland have led the world in enacting legislation for protecting their natural resources. Their people cannot understand why foreigners from Greenpeace and other multinational environmentalist groups should arrogantly decide how their resources will be managed.

The disinforming of the public by environmentalists has already cultivated tragic consequences. One example has been given by Bryan Roberts, a Canadian government official whose responsibilities included responding to letters during the height of the anti-sealing campaign. In a videotaped interview presented this past July to the International Whaling Commission, Roberts described his experience:
One of the most frightening things for me… was an entire class of ten-year-olds, 28 or 30 ten-year-olds, writing in to the minister, saying, “Dear Mr. LeBlanc, If you don’t stop [killing seals], I’m going to come and kill you.…” Who is teaching this person to say that, that if you want to resolve a problem, you threaten somebody with murder? Nonviolent Violence

Aside from the obvious financial motives, what reasons could the leaders of Greenpeace have for their campaigns? The evidence suggests that they are pursuing ideological goals largely unknown to their supporters. Greenpeace leaders are not sympathetic to the idea of free enterprise. Interviewed by In These Times last April, Greenpeace USA’s Executive Director Peter Bahouth stated, “I don’t believe in the market approach.… When companies have a bottom line of profit you won’t have them thinking about the environment.” An editorial in the March/April issue of Greenpeace called for replacing the “cruel calculation of the marketplace” and the “savage capitalism practiced by the United States” with a new “social order” patterned somewhat along the lines of the “rapidly evolving social democracies of Western Europe and Scandinavia.” Those nations, of course, are rapidly preparing for merger into a United States of Europe, with increasingly centralized planning of people’s lives.

www.freerepublic.com...

reply to post by theubermensch


You have been trained to think the economy is more important than caring about the environment. Our economy is something we made up in the last few hundred years. The keyword there is made up. Having a balanced and healthy relationship with nature is an idea that has been around as long as man has and only recently has it come under fire from people like you. Really think about what I just said. One thing was something we MADE UP (the economy) and one thing is a natural tendency of all creatures including humans (doing our part to ensure a healthy environment). I can guarantee you I can survive in a bad economy. I have no guarantees about surviving a bad environment...