Just once......I want an unbiased site...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-19 02:40am

That lists all the whackjob groups from National Alliance to
the Black Panthers and ELF, that's impartial and doesn't
descend to frothing at the mouth about "right wing extremists"
etc.

I mean, it gets boring after a while, even if I can filter out their
political slant unconsciously, I am still a bit miffed by how they attach
"right wing" to virtually everything.

For fuck's sake, just because I'm dissatisfied with how my government
does certain things, doesn't mean I'm automatically a bomb-throwing
anarchist who wants to bring it down.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 02:43am

Perhaps the label "right-wing extremist" is too generously handed out, but that doesn't change the fact that there are too many of them.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-19 02:50am

Durran Korr wrote:Perhaps the label "right-wing extremist" is too generously handed out, but that doesn't change the fact that there are too many of them.

I've been to the ADL's site amongst others, and I've come to the
conclusion that to them, two rednecks in the woods in hunting
season bitching about taxes, etc constitutes a "hate group"
seeking to overthrow the government.

I find it sort of funny, that they always try to link conservatism
to these whackjobs. I guess by their standards, we should call the
Sierra Club a dangerous left-wing extremist organization

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 02:52am

MKSheppard wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Perhaps the label "right-wing extremist" is too generously handed out, but that doesn't change the fact that there are too many of them.
I've been to the ADL's site amongst others, and I've come to the
conclusion that to them, two rednecks in the woods in hunting
season bitching about taxes, etc constitutes a "hate group"
seeking to overthrow the government.

I find it sort of funny, that they always try to link conservatism
to these whackjobs. I guess by their standards, we should call the
Sierra Club a dangerous left-wing extremist organization

Don't talk about the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy like that. They'll send you explainatory pamphlets.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-19 02:53am

SirNitram wrote: Don't talk about the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy like that. They'll send you explainatory pamphlets.

Hmm.

Who do I talk to?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 02:54am

I guess by their standards, we should call the
Sierra Club a dangerous left-wing extremist organization

Well, the Sierra Club did support the very dangerous Kyoto Treaty, so that wouldn't be too far off.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-19 02:55am

Shep, if you don't want anyone to use the term "right-wing extremist", what else would you call the "black helicopter" people? The ELF are environmental extremists, the WTO protest mobs are left-wing extremists, and the survivalist/militia/blackhelicopter nutjobs are right-wing extremists. I don't see what the point is of avoiding accurate terminology.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-19 03:00am

Darth Wong wrote:Shep, if you don't want anyone to use the term "right-wing extremist", what else would you call the "black helicopter" people?

Crackpots. I can probably find some crackpots out there who can prove to
us that the Bush family was behind the JFK assassination.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-19 03:02am

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Shep, if you don't want anyone to use the term "right-wing extremist", what else would you call the "black helicopter" people?
Crackpots. I can probably find some crackpots out there who can prove to
us that the Bush family was behind the JFK assassination.

Dubya did it. <Insert mandatory joke about this being accepted by X group here>

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-19 03:03am

But you gotta differentiate between the crackpots.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-19 03:07am

Durran Korr wrote:But you gotta differentiate between the crackpots.

They're all crackpots in the end.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-19 05:06am

MKSheppard wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Perhaps the label "right-wing extremist" is too generously handed out, but that doesn't change the fact that there are too many of them.
I've been to the ADL's site amongst others, and I've come to the
conclusion that to them, two rednecks in the woods in hunting
season bitching about taxes, etc constitutes a "hate group"
seeking to overthrow the government.:

Provide an example.

Durran Korr wrote:Well, the Sierra Club did support the very dangerous Kyoto Treaty, so that wouldn't be too far off.

I have the feeling that the main reason that the USA opposed Kyoto merely because the USA is the most polluting nation in the world today, and that the Kyoto Treaty - if implemented - would force them to give up many of their luxuries.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-19 05:08am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
I have the feeling that the main reason that the USA opposed Kyoto merely because the USA is the most polluting nation in the world today, and that the Kyoto Treaty - if implemented - would force them to give up many of their luxuries.

You mean the Kyoto treaty would destroy our economy while letting nations like China and India pollute their way to dominance due to the fucked up "enviromental trading system"?

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-19 05:16am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:
I have the feeling that the main reason that the USA opposed Kyoto merely because the USA is the most polluting nation in the world today, and that the Kyoto Treaty - if implemented - would force them to give up many of their luxuries.
You mean the Kyoto treaty would destroy our economy while letting nations like China and India pollute their way to dominance due to the fucked up "enviromental trading system"?

No, I mean that the purpose of Kyoto would be to have the West give up some of their luxuries in order to lower production. (particularly, the "right" to own a Range Rover even though you never go off-roading)

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-19 05:22am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
No, I mean that the purpose of Kyoto would be to have the West give up some of their luxuries in order to lower production. (particularly, the "right" to own a Range Rover even though you never go off-roading)

And why do we want to do that when the worst polluters are in third-world countries? Yes, I know the USA is the biggest polluting nation on the planet--but look at how much we produce economically. There's a reason for so much wastage.

And if we want to solve the parts of our society that produce pollution in the long term we can't just turn things off. We need to produce and produce an economic surplus to allow for innovation which can solve problems. Cutting back just creates stagnation.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-19 05:30am

Holy fuckingshit, how did we go from a rant on how it seems to
"watchdog" groups view every bunch of rednecks in the woods
as a virulent anti-semitic organization devoted to the total destruction
of this country to the Kyoto treaty and whether or not SUVs are
a "right"?

JodoForce · Post by **JodoForce** » 2003-10-19 07:13am

We need to produce and produce an economic surplus to allow for innovation which can solve problems. Cutting back just creates stagnation.

This world may run on a stagnating economy for longer than a growing one, yet; if the economy is growing all the time I don't see how total pollution can be reduced much, even with advancing technology.

MarkIX · Post by **MarkIX** » 2003-10-19 08:10am

MKSheppard wrote:Holy fuckingshit, how did we go from a rant on how it seems to
"watchdog" groups view every bunch of rednecks in the woods
as a virulent anti-semitic organization devoted to the total destruction
of this country to the Kyoto treaty and whether or not SUVs are
a "right"?

This is ASVS/SDN after all....

Now, we only need to steer it onto anal sex

Sorry couldn't resist

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-10-19 02:22pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote: I have the feeling that the main reason that the USA opposed Kyoto merely because the USA is the most polluting nation in the world today, and that the Kyoto Treaty - if implemented - would force them to give up many of their luxuries.

I have the feeling that the main reason that <insert almost any western nation> opposed Kyoto merely because that nation is one of the most polluting nations in the world today, and that the Kyoto Treaty - if implemented - would force them to give up many of their luxuries.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-10-19 02:47pm

CelesKnight wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote: I have the feeling that the main reason that the USA opposed Kyoto merely because the USA is the most polluting nation in the world today, and that the Kyoto Treaty - if implemented - would force them to give up many of their luxuries.
I have the feeling that the main reason that <insert almost any western nation> opposed Kyoto merely because that nation is one of the most polluting nations in the world today, and that the Kyoto Treaty - if implemented - would force them to give up many of their luxuries.

Yes, the E.U is clearly third world.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-10-19 03:28pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:Yes, the E.U is clearly third world.

Shh, dont spoil their illusions

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-19 04:46pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: Yes, the E.U is clearly third world.

No EU nations ratified Kyoto, and only one EU prospective member signed it, Rumania, which could be called a third-world country.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-10-19 05:02pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote: Yes, the E.U is clearly third world.
No EU nations ratified Kyoto, and only one EU prospective member signed it, Rumania, which could be called a third-world country.

I believe you are wrong.

click me

Friday, 31 May, 2002, 17:49 GMT 18:49 UK
EU ratifies global warming pact

Industrialised nations must reduce emissions by 8%

All 15 European Union states have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, paving the way for a new international attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The ceremony took place at the United Nations headquarters in New York, where representatives from all 15 nations and the European Commission handed the required papers to the UN chief legal counsel.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-19 05:21pm

< snip >

I grant I was using outdated data there. But I am not really surprised Europe is embarking on such a foolish venture for the sake of a dangerous and ineffective system just to make a certain bloc of voters feel good--the same ones who are shutting down perfectly good nuclear reactors in Germany, for example, which will create a massive energy crisis in the future there.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-10-19 05:35pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:< snip >

I grant I was using outdated data there. But I am not really surprised Europe is embarking on such a foolish venture for the sake of a dangerous and ineffective system

Your opinion. The Kyoto protocol is not perfect, but is better than none at all. Unless, of course, you're of the opinion that all the shit we pump in the atmosphere has no consequences in the environment, and that the global warming is either an hoax or a normal behaviour of Earth.

Either way, I see no problem in reducing the E.U dependency of oil, and investing in alternative energy sources. It's not as if we are swimming in oil over here.

just to make a certain bloc of voters feel good--the same ones who are shutting down perfectly good nuclear reactors in Germany, for example, which will create a massive energy crisis in the future there.

Off-topic, but what makes you so sure that will happen?