If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Working for Change)   Arianna Huffington's list of forgettable news for 2004   (workingforchange.com) divider line 207
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

14567 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2004 at 7:08 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-31 05:02:12 PM
helix400:

Wow. Just wow. We should know better than those who live there how to use the land? They're too ignorant to know better? Wow, that had to be one of the snootiest, condescending answers I've ever heard.

There is absolutely nothing condescending about what I just said. It is not my opinion that we are more advanced technologically than any third world nation, it is a fact. It is also a fact that we, as the more advanced, know what long term effects our technology will have. They, by and large, do not.

Therefore, the responsibility falls to us to make judgments and take precautions to ensure that we don't totally fark up the environment for them because, as I said, we should know better.
 
2004-12-31 05:05:19 PM
In my opinion, if the oil companies/local yokels want to drill for oil, let them. As long as they own the land.
 
2004-12-31 05:05:20 PM
Tell Them I Hate Them The locals don't understand what long term damage dropping a factory there will do.

That sounds pretty condescending to me.
 
2004-12-31 05:07:34 PM
helix400: That sounds pretty condescending to me

I swear to god my farking head is going to pop. You're telling me that some farmers in South America understand what polution a Nike factory is going cause 20 years down the road? The factory owners who have built similar facilities and know what they do wouldn't have more knowledge than them regarding polution is condescending?

Give me a break.
 
2004-12-31 05:07:41 PM
helix400

In the context that those statements were made, they're not condescending, they're 100% true.
 
2004-12-31 05:10:45 PM
helix400
those locals are environmentalists?

here's a better idea. if you live on the goddam tundra, and aren't doing so hot because there's nothing there to do, move to where the jobs are.
 
2004-12-31 05:12:19 PM
hillbillypharmacist

*golf clap*
 
2004-12-31 05:12:19 PM
Tell Them I Hate Them

You compare Alaskan locals in such a way that they are ignorant, redneck, uneducated people who never have been involved in oil drilling before.

But they have done oil drilling before. And they live in the wilderness. They know what they are doing. They know how to do it with minimal impact. For you to suggest that they have no experience and we would know better simply because they are poor and desperate for jobs is condescending.
 
2004-12-31 05:16:41 PM
hillbillypharmacist if you live on the goddam tundra, and aren't doing so hot because there's nothing there to do, move to where the jobs are.

Oooh, the condescension continues.

First, they live on economically productive lands. Second, some Washington politicians lock up tens of millions of acres next to their homes. Third, you now tell them if they want jobs, to move, because you're not willing to give a small portion of the land back.
 
2004-12-31 05:17:33 PM
helix400

So if the locals say it's a good idea, even though they have a vested interest in it's success, then the experts who are speaking out against it obviously don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about.

It's a farking wildlife reserve. That means you can't build shiat there.

We could build geo-thermal power generation plants over top of the Yellowstone geysers, and it would probably drum up the local economy a bit. Does that make it a good idea? No.
 
2004-12-31 05:18:20 PM
helix400:

But they have done oil drilling before. And they live in the wilderness. They know what they are doing. They know how to do it with minimal impact. For you to suggest that they have no experience and we would know better simply because they are poor and desperate for jobs is condescending.

This is my last try...

The guys working the rigs should not, and do not, have as much knowledge regarding the long term effects of drilling. I am not saying they are dumb, or worse that those who do. I'm saying that it is a FACT THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW AS MUCH IN THIS ONE AREA.

I didn't call them rednecks, I didn't call them stupid, so don't put words in my mouth. I stated that they aren't as aware of the facts as others, which I think is 100% true.

I'm looking out for them because I think they could be taken advantage of. That's all.
 
2004-12-31 05:21:11 PM
I agree that we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR. I also agree we need to do much more to locate and stockpile consumable natural resources, including oil. What I don't understand is why we refuse to annex the most resource viable underdeveloped area in the world - Canada.
 
2004-12-31 05:22:00 PM
helix

Do the people who want to drill actually own the land in question?

/I swear I must be on everybody's ignore list.
//If you think this is fun, wait till it goes green!
 
2004-12-31 05:23:12 PM
Tell Them I Hate Them

I understand you completely and agree with you.
 
2004-12-31 05:23:34 PM
so should we drill there because the locals need jobs, or because we need that tiny bit of oil?

like whatshisname said, the amount of oil there is not enough to sustain jobs nor oil supply for even a few years. so why go through the trouble of digging up the wilderness when long-term, it won't really get us anything?

if they aren't poor and desperate for jobs, then why would they be on fire to drill when drilling will get the country so little?

it's not condescending. they may know how to drill really, really well. but that doesn't make it worth it.
 
2004-12-31 05:26:02 PM
helix400: First, they live on economically productive lands. Second, some Washington politicians lock up tens of millions of acres next to their homes.

I don't think homestead laws apply any more. The land belongs to the government, and therefore all of the people of the United States.

The Washington politicians have locked it up on behalf of the interests of the people who voted them into office.

If 5.7 billion barrels of oil goes up for grabs, you can also bet it will be some company out of Texas that will benefit most. They may let the locals do the dirty work.
 
2004-12-31 05:26:30 PM
costermonger It's a farking wildlife reserve. That means you can't build shiat there.

Why? Because it's on the map? Because you trust that every bit of land was correctly locked up the first time around? Becauase once it's been done, it can't be undone? Just because it's been federally designated as wilderness doesn't mean that it's right, or that it should be completely locked away from any drilling.

Tell Them I Hate Them The guys working the rigs should not, and do not, have as much knowledge regarding the long term effects of drilling. I'm saying that it is a FACT THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW AS MUCH IN THIS ONE AREA.

I can respect this. =) I would just disagree, because I think locals definitely know the long term effects because they see and live next to the long term effects.

I'm looking out for them because I think they could be taken advantage of. That's all.

That's fine. But just remember this when some federal regulation negatively affects your life because someone else thinks they are just looking out for you.
 
2004-12-31 05:26:39 PM
costermonger: /I swear I must be on everybody's ignore list.

Nope.

As for the Yellowstone comment. They'd have to do it over my dead body if they ever tried.
Yellowstone is set to be my eternal resting place. I have a permit for my ashes to be scattered there when the time comes.
 
2004-12-31 05:27:28 PM
First, they live on economically productive lands. Second, some Washington politicians lock up tens of millions of acres next to their homes. Third, you now tell them if they want jobs, to move, because you're not willing to give a small portion of the land back.

if it's washington politicians who've locked up the land, then you should take it up with them. hey, i'd love to give the land back. but i can't give them their land back, because it's not mine.
 
2004-12-31 05:34:02 PM
Why? Because it's on the map? Because you trust that every bit of land was correctly locked up the first time around?

I think it sets a dangerous precedent to go ahead and drill in land that is protected against development. There's not much sense in having wildlife preserves if the land isn't actually going to be preserved.

If there actually is cause to say that some of the reserve shouldn't be protected, was unfairly included in the ANWR, well, that's a different issue that needs to be addressed seperately, and that land needs to be taken out of the reserve before drilling.

It's not a wildlife reserve if it's not reserved for wildlife. Simple as that.
 
2004-12-31 05:34:27 PM
my last post probably didn't make any sense. let me 'splain: what things can the locals do that is economically productive that doesn't involve drilling for oil, a fabulously invasive and dirty way to make money from the land? if there are other ways, then by all means. but drilling for oil... bad idea.
 
2004-12-31 05:35:07 PM
Ugh, I'd better be done with after this, I've commented way too much.

costermonger Do the people who want to drill actually own the land in question?

No, I don't ignore you. =) But to answer your question, they never really had a chance to own it. Long ago, the federal government took control of most open, undeveloped land in the western US, and it can be very difficult to buy any of it for private use.

hillbillypharmacist if it's washington politicians who've locked up the land, then you should take it up with them.

That's exactly what's happening. =) Congress will probably open this issue up again. Of course, all 3 Alaskan congressman strongly support opening up ANWR.
 
2004-12-31 05:35:08 PM
 
2004-12-31 05:36:35 PM
Awesome. I saw this thread was green - and thought I'd pop my head in and see flaming crap being tossed from side to side by the regulars.

But you guys?

Comeon! Hold hands!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
 
2004-12-31 05:50:44 PM
 
2004-12-31 06:10:03 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: Another man's view...


Feh! Propaganda. No better, no worse than any Greenpeace type propaganda.

Yes I watched it all, and I wish I had the time to spend quoting and rebutting but I just don't give that much of a fark right now. Perhaps when I have a better buzz on.
 
2004-12-31 06:25:58 PM
Propaganda from a resident of the area carries more wieght with me than propaganda from someone in New Jersey.
 
2004-12-31 07:03:06 PM
My Baby's Daddy was actually pretty funny. Hell, they had Eddie Griffin and Amy Sedaris onboard.

Anyhow, I think we all learned our lesson about trusting Eskimos after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Ice parking lot if you ask me.
 
2004-12-31 07:14:46 PM
I think that article summed up the "list of shiat I don't care about" for 2004... William Hung, Paris Hilton, grilled cheese sandwitch, and Janet's Boobie... Who cares?
 
2004-12-31 07:15:45 PM
How cute, the lady who LOST had something to say.
 
2004-12-31 07:16:42 PM
"Madrid, Spain, March 11, 2004. Beslan, Russia, Sept. 3, 2004."

... I don't get it. What happened in Madrid and Beslan are forgettable / should be forgotten?

What's that supposed to mean?
 
2004-12-31 07:18:45 PM
I think when she sat in her SUV for 2 hours so she could get a photo op. with Arnold Schwarzeneger and then she knocked over the microphone set-up should be one of the things on that list. That was so pathetic and funny!
 
2004-12-31 07:22:33 PM
That a man who finds the Geneva Conventions "quaint" is going to be our next attorney general.

It's sad that our next AG doesn't know the Geneva Convention are THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They're not any more quaint or ignorable than a federal murder statute.
 
2004-12-31 07:24:29 PM
mcflizzy


"Madrid, Spain, March 11, 2004. Beslan, Russia, Sept. 3, 2004."

... I don't get it. What happened in Madrid and Beslan are forgettable / should be forgotten?

What's that supposed to mean?


That she wants to forget about the Islamo-fascists and the threat they pose to the current world order?
 
2004-12-31 07:26:41 PM
The thing about Bush is, he's a moron.
 
CCW
2004-12-31 07:26:46 PM
"You break it, you live with it for the rest of your life."
 
2004-12-31 07:27:16 PM
Let's ask Arianna:

At this very moment, exactly how many dead American soldiers?
 
2004-12-31 07:30:47 PM
I just can't believe how much debt this guy is running up?

Doesn't he realise that when America is bankrupt his personal gains won't mean anything?

I wish the candidate had to pass a "Skill testing question" like lottery winners do.....
 
2004-12-31 07:31:02 PM
CornHut: At this very moment, exactly how many dead American soldiers?

I would bet absolutely anything she knows.
 
2004-12-31 07:33:30 PM
Hi Dancin'!

Happy New Year! *hugs and kisses*



/fark everyone who is being a fussbudget on this thread. If y'all want to do something productive, go watch DICK (the movie) with Kirsten Dunst/Michelle Williams. It's hilarious.
 
2004-12-31 07:34:17 PM
I would have also added "paying 26k for a pretend island" to this list:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12/17/news_6115292.html
 
2004-12-31 07:44:59 PM
All-grey cats piss me off.
 
2004-12-31 07:49:56 PM
mcflizzy:

... I don't get it. What happened in Madrid and Beslan are forgettable / should be forgotten?


It means she wishes they never happened and were not a part of our collective consciousness. If the article had been written more recently she probably would have included the tsunami in S.E. Asia.
 
CCW
2004-12-31 07:50:28 PM
 
2004-12-31 07:52:23 PM
Jaegs: I wish the candidate had to pass a "Skill testing question" like lottery winners do.....

Your Canadianism is showing; we unfortunately have no such requirements in the U.S.

/If Only!
 
2004-12-31 07:54:14 PM
{We liberals (Including Huffington) may be out of power for the moment, but at least there's the satisfaction of being on the correct side of history.}
.
That remains to be seen RICHE, lets just say I am old enough to have heard the same assurances from Liberals about Ronald Reagan, just before the Berlin wall fell, we had about two dozen democracies break out in the world, and apartheid fell.
Oh yeah, and the economy took off like a rocket while prices and interest rates went down. Lets see, in about three years I'll let you know if you were right or not.
 
B82
2004-12-31 07:57:18 PM
Arianna wasn't a Bush backer in 2000. After her Republican husband got the ghey in the 90's, she became a Michael Moore clone
 
2004-12-31 08:00:53 PM
Impudent Domain:

Ronald Reagan, just before the Berlin wall fell, we had about two dozen democracies break out in the world, and apartheid fell.

Apartheid did not fall while Reagan was in office. We (liberals) we're still protesting it in 1990. Now I don't remember when it fell but it was not when RayGun Ronnie was in office.
 
2004-12-31 08:01:37 PM
Yesdog:

Psst, DIA: You kicked in a little before your cue. No problem though -- we'll catch up in the chorus.


Nicely played old chap. How very expository.
 
2004-12-31 08:01:47 PM
Cornhut:

"Let's ask Arianna:
At this very moment, exactly how many dead American soldiers?"

You're kidding that you think Arianna Huffington and Paul Wolfowitz should be held to the same standard of knowledge on that subject, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report