Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   Live Earth concerts: artists flight distance = 222,623.63 miles, carbon emissions produced by all concerts = 31,500 tons, carbon emissions including TV audience = 74,500 tons, hypocrisy = off the scale   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 359
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

2199 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Jul 2007 at 6:14 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-07-07 10:02:12 AM  
Murkanen: Efficiency. You can get more with fewer resources and energy loss. For nations that rely heavily on manufacturing or high-energy jobs (indian tech centers), that is a boon.

India is a developing economy whose main industries (subsistence agriculture and computer service) has little to do with heavy industry and everything to do with a huge pool of human capital. I couldn't think of a worse example of a country that would benefit from a centrally planned energy plan banning CO2 burners.


As for your claims about China "going green" every major environmental organization seems to think otherwise. They still run off of unwashed coal. They put Benzine in the rivers, something we did back in 1950. They are paying lip service.

You also failed to address how the US and Europe changing our policies and China staying put wouldn't result in our financial ruin.
 
2007-07-07 10:02:30 AM  
Sunny Ray: It is almost like the Conservatives and Global Warming Deniers are afraid to find a marketable replacement for the internal combustion engine. I don't get this. How long have we used engines largely dependent on gasoline, a hundred years? It is weird how these Conservatives recoil at the thought of anything Green. It is though they equate Big Oil with God.

EXACTLY!

/People easily submit to their corporate masters.
 
2007-07-07 10:03:07 AM  
You can't make money without spending money, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, you can't pass just laws without paying off some shady politicians, etc, etc.

By the way: everyone watching on TV would probably be watching TV anyway, just not that in particular concert, so that's really a very misleading "fact."
 
2007-07-07 10:04:42 AM  
Mad Tea Party

What is that emblem on that flag they're posting? I have it on a backpack I bought at a garage sale years ago and have never been able to identify it.
 
2007-07-07 10:05:08 AM  
Friar Tuck:
Stupid Guitar: And what about Peak Oil? Say we leave that subject aside.

oh no. Let's explore it, and explore it good. Tell me why you think the price of oil will rise exponentially. Tell me why the flow of oil will be like cutting a cable line instead of slowly turning off the faucet when new tech is developed. Please god tell me, I want a good laugh.

Stupid Guitar:People nationwide are already getting rid of their gas guzzlers, don't you think that's affecting the automotive industry? Last I checked, that was a part of our economy.

So you consider a household having to buy a smaller car because of gas costs a positive thing for the economy? Let's forget the fact that a new car will cost more with insurance than an old car will hurt you in gas prices. How would spending more money on less product help the whole economy? Perhaps you can address how we will go about getting that hard carbon cap? There are a lot of questions here. Often it is entertaining to hear the answers.


You're the one bringing Peak Oil into this discussion, not me. I only comment on what I see and observe. I can't talk about the supposed effects of Peak Oil, because the theory hasn't really played itself out yet. You're telling me the things that I consider, but strangely enough, I didn't post any such considerations. Is that your basis for debate? Read my posts carefully, you asked me to elaborate on why I think our economy will be affected by Global Warming, and I gave you my opinions about it.

Putting words in my mouth doesn't strengthen your argument.
 
2007-07-07 10:07:03 AM  
Mac Savvy: It just becomes ridiculous when this is being used as a political issue while it is obvious by the amount of waste they are producing that slowing global warming isn't their objective- stealing as many votes as possible by appealing to young people is the motive. That may or may not be the case, but it sure looks that way...

I won't say one way or another weather or not global warming exists/ if it is significantly affected by man. We have been able to have a significant impact on nearly every other eco system in the world, including oceans. I wouldn't put it past us to have some effect. It can also be thought that if they manage to impact ~.08% of the population to reduce consumption by 50 pounds/year (something less than switching an old bulb to the new fluorescent) they've had a positive impact.

Also, you can be a real bastard by including TV usage of interested parties in there. You will probably have several million people watching, each throwing in some CO2. Congrats. Prove that they wouldn't be watching another station, out in their car, or some other equally polluting activity. In the end when you talk about any large segment of the population (especially Americans, and to a lesser extent most industrial or industrializing countries), you're going to get a very awe inspiring total. Each person throws in 10-100 pounds, and bam. The US generates ~5,800,000,000 metric tones a year. Link (new window)


/weather pun intended.
 
2007-07-07 10:07:45 AM  
Stupid Guitar: I'm over it now:

Um, you forgot one scenario, the most likely one IMO.
4) Global warming might be happening, and man might be the cause of it, so in order to prevent what might possibly happen, we cripple our economy with taxes and ridiculous restricitions. We're all poor, but at least we feel better about ourselves.

Somebody post the internet tough guy pic.
/sniffs own fart again

Global warming IS happening, man IS the cause of it, and our economy will be crippled if things keep going the way they are going. You really don't have a point to argue. Then again, what can you expect from a fart-sniffer?


All the scientists can move on to that cure for cancer thing now. STUPID GUITAR has enlightened all of us. Kudos to you, sir.

The point I was trying to make is that the whole global warming debate/solution will be turned into an excuse to grow our government even larger, tax our population even more, and restrict our economy----in short, I believe the GW leadership is populated by people bent on turning us more and more into a nanny state. GW is a nice excuse to get what they have always wanted anyway, which is socialism.
Our government couldn't find its' own ass with both hands. I don't want them any deeper into my life than they already are. Perhaps you feel differently. That's fine by me.

/adjusts tinfoil hat
 
2007-07-07 10:08:06 AM  
PC LOAD LETTER: Lincoln was a Darwinist, did not support the Mexican War on the grounds of it being Imperialist, and drove the change from "preserving the union" to "free the slaves" as the key driver behind the Civil War.

Lincoln was a believer in God. He borrowed from the bible for his speeches. He was a freethinker and may have believed in evolution, although I feel the theory was quite novel in his day. Lincoln didn't support the mexican war because he was a free soiler who feared, rightly, more slave states admitted into the union should his colleagues waiver. Others from his party felt the same way.

Lincoln's call was always to preserve the Union, up to the end. The rhetoric about the moral crusade regarding the ugly instituion of slavery was later. He was surely not the first to make that assertion. To credit that to him is absurd.

You fail at history, boy. You can try to whip out your dick all night, you're just not going to measure up.
 
2007-07-07 10:11:10 AM  
PC Load Letter has diverted the attention from the issue at hand to ranting about Lincoln, America's greatest moderate, being a liberal.

I believe the original topic was climate change, hypocrits, and what if anything to do about the problem.
 
2007-07-07 10:11:49 AM  
bkennedy: Don't know, as I didn't make the card myself.
 
2007-07-07 10:12:52 AM  
Fakk: That could easily be remedied by all politicians advocating awareness and change.

If George Bush made the internal combustion engine illegal tomorrow, do you actually think the GOP would win a single extra vote this coming election?
 
2007-07-07 10:16:29 AM  
I don't get how these people can deny global warming or that it's man made.

The Supreme Court AND the President have both pushed in that direction.

George W. Bush:
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.


Yes, you can say that we need more research, you can say that natural causes may be a larger part of climate change. But you CANNOT deny A)that global warming exists B)that global warming is a problem C)Man contributes to it to some degree D) We need to come up with some way to deal with it.
 
2007-07-07 10:17:02 AM  
I are Conservative .... must deny Global Warming .... Mans' activities on Earth are miniscule and it is the height of arrogance to believe that mere mortals can effect change on this planet .... Enviromental Wackos want to send us back into the stone age, ruin the economy and kill people, it is their dirty little secret ..... They really hate you and want you dead. God gave us this Earth to do what people do and Liberals do not and do not want to appreciate it.
 
2007-07-07 10:21:26 AM  
The conservative mind to me, comes across as hypocritical in the least, to downright scary.

From the Dark Ages, to Al-Qaeda, and to Elvis not being allowed to shake his hips on TV, conservative thinking is just childish to me.

Yet, after making progress, American conservatives (hypocritically) adjust their values accordingly while simultaneously holding onto ideallic memories that happened a generation prior, and calling them the "good-ol' days".

Pretty soon, the 80's will now become THOSE days (not the 50's).

That's hilarious to me for some reason.
 
2007-07-07 10:23:31 AM  
The sweeping generalizations in this thread are pretty shameless. What's interesting is that how in so many of them you can swap one label with another and the statements still apply. This country is so divided at this point, and so many people on both sides don't want it any other way, it's depressing.
 
2007-07-07 10:23:55 AM  
Deneb81: I don't get how these people can deny global warming or that it's man made.

I don't see anyone doing that. I see people who have expressed doubts that you quoted.

Doubts that we are in a macro hot cycle now. Doubts as to how much is caused by man. Doubts as to the accuracy of 150 year old temperature and rainfall data. Doubts as to the applicability of the plan. Doubts as to possible damage to the US economy. Doubts as to possible damage to the developing world.

I don't see anyone in here saying that the earth isn't hotter. Because if that's what this concert is about, just cut their amps now.
 
2007-07-07 10:27:00 AM  
Larry Labia

I guess one of the biggest problem with Conservatives, especially men, is they all want to give their Mothers a pearl necklace, harkening back to the good ol' days.
 
2007-07-07 10:28:07 AM  
In hindsight, I should have written:

After making progress, American conservatives (hypocritically) adjust their LIVES accordingly (adopting the internet, satellite TV, and listening to rock music) while simultaneously holding onto ideallic memories that happened a generation prior, and calling them the "good-ol' days".

HYPOCRITES.
 
2007-07-07 10:28:41 AM  
I'm over it now:

All the scientists can move on to that cure for cancer thing now. STUPID GUITAR has enlightened all of us. Kudos to you, sir.

The point I was trying to make is that the whole global warming debate/solution will be turned into an excuse to grow our government even larger, tax our population even more, and restrict our economy----in short, I believe the GW leadership is populated by people bent on turning us more and more into a nanny state. GW is a nice excuse to get what they have always wanted anyway, which is socialism.
Our government couldn't find its' own ass with both hands. I don't want them any deeper into my life than they already are. Perhaps you feel differently. That's fine by me.

/adjusts tinfoil hat


And what is your enlightened position? To let things continue as they are until our enviroment becomes so screwed up that no one can breathe? Keep grabbing those dollars till the last one with all the money wins? At least we have a chance now to correct our short-sighted mistakes, and have something that resembles commerce. This "nanny state" that you talk about is coming to fruition without any help from the so-called eco-terrorists. The way I see it, it's not even the socialists that are bringing this about.
 
2007-07-07 10:33:06 AM  
I answered all that later on:
But you CANNOT deny A)that global warming exists B)that global warming is a problem C)Man contributes to it to some degree D) We need to come up with some way to deal with it.

Some global warming is man made. It may be a small percent.

But in any event, global warming is a problem, man-made or not. There will be effects that need to be studied. And we will need to prepare to deal with them.

If half the beliefs about increased storm strength and frequency, or coastal flooding is true, the result will be devastating on the U.S. populous and economy. This is a long-term problem and we need to start looking into long-term solutions now.

And that's without even getting into the debate as to whether global warming is man-made or not.
 
2007-07-07 10:35:00 AM  
And since I'm talking to myself here.. I think what conservatives worry about more are liberal politicians, not liberals. I consider myself more right leaning not because I hate the environment or don't want change or hate progress or whatever. I fear liberal politicians because of what I perceive as their ultimate goal, which is to eliminate the individual by pandering to whichever group of adjective-Americans will get them the most votes and keep them in power. Once liberal politicians move the majority of voters off of the tax base, and I believe that is what they want, then the rest of the people will be screwed. Tax the minority and use it to buy the votes of the majority.

In addition, liberal politicians don't seem to really have a plan. Conservative politicians aren't any better, but in this choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, I'll take the party that I think will damage the country the least. IMO I think the liberal politicians do more damage when they're in charge. It's a close race but there it is.

It's frustrating to be a person who loves music and art, the environment and nature, and at the same time wants small government, low taxes, free enterprise, and effective social programs for those who really need it. There's no one for that person (me) to vote for. The politicians (and in large part their supporters) are so bent on hating the other side and slinging mud that nothing really positive is being accomplished by anyone any more.

This government needs an enema. Bring on term limits or something.
 
2007-07-07 10:40:03 AM  
WOW

I go away for a little while to do some work and the stupid explodes all over this thread.

FriarTuck posts,

It's a bad idea for all business and commerce if we reduce without replacing it with another fuel source.

Please show me where I said reduce it without finding another source - or even implied that.

If we install more efficient lighting, how does that factor into your equation? How about looking at how we design buildings, using passive lighting, where applicable, passive solar, retrofitting buildings with better heating systems - the list goes on and on.

Here's an article about how biodiesel could possibly becoming viable. How much federal money do you suppose is being pumped into that kind of research?

Nuclear? Sure, just make sure that is isn't Chernobyl and find some damn way of cleaning up the waste.

Solar? Wind? Tidal? How about it?

As to the comment that raising awareness by committing rape, I find the suggestion to be exactly what I loath about the idiots that would make that kind of insensitive comment. Perhaps if you wife or sister had been raped you would not make such a complete jackass out of yourself.

See if you can understand this in very simple terms, yes people are traveling to different locations - they do that. they are also using electricity - people tend to do that, as well.

However, to the moron that feel driving their Hummers around so that they can advertise how small their penises are to the rest of us, you are wasting fuel unnecessarily and you could probably downgrade to a Ford Canyonaro and save us all some grief.

Figure it out, burning MORE fuel that you need to do is the equivalent to eating more food than you have to.

Gluttony is not something to be proud of.
 
2007-07-07 10:48:23 AM  
Random Reality Check:
Figure it out, burning MORE fuel that you need to do is the equivalent to eating more food than you have to.

Gluttony is not something to be proud of.



Don't tell us. Tell Madonna, Bon Jovi, Laurie David etc. They are the ones flying in private jets
 
2007-07-07 10:48:28 AM  
Global Warming is the new religion. I'm hoping a few Luthers or Calvins reform the corrupt, Indulgence-selling cult.
 
2007-07-07 10:48:42 AM  
Random Reality Check: WOW

I go away for a little while to do some work and the stupid explodes all over this thread.

FriarTuck posts,

It's a bad idea for all business and commerce if we reduce without replacing it with another fuel source.

Please show me where I said reduce it without finding another source - or even implied that.

If we install more efficient lighting, how does that factor into your equation? How about looking at how we design buildings, using passive lighting, where applicable, passive solar, retrofitting buildings with better heating systems - the list goes on and on.

Here's an article about how biodiesel could possibly becoming viable. How much federal money do you suppose is being pumped into that kind of research?

Nuclear? Sure, just make sure that is isn't Chernobyl and find some damn way of cleaning up the waste.

Solar? Wind? Tidal? How about it?

As to the comment that raising awareness by committing rape, I find the suggestion to be exactly what I loath about the idiots that would make that kind of insensitive comment. Perhaps if you wife or sister had been raped you would not make such a complete jackass out of yourself.

See if you can understand this in very simple terms, yes people are traveling to different locations - they do that. they are also using electricity - people tend to do that, as well.

However, to the moron that feel driving their Hummers around so that they can advertise how small their penises are to the rest of us, you are wasting fuel unnecessarily and you could probably downgrade to a Ford Canyonaro and save us all some grief.

Figure it out, burning MORE fuel that you need to do is the equivalent to eating more food than you have to.

Gluttony is not something to be proud of.


Good luck on getting him to reply to your post, he responded to mine by basically forming an imaginary arguement by me! Surprise, surprise, when I called him on it, not a word to be heard from Friar Tuck .
 
2007-07-07 10:49:38 AM  
Outshined: This government needs an enema.

Never mind the enema. Up against the wall, motherfarkers!

img.search.com
 
2007-07-07 10:56:18 AM  
FriarTuck:
It's a bad idea for all business and commerce if we reduce without replacing it with another fuel source.

Because it's never an option to do the same job with less through improved energy efficiency...
 
2007-07-07 10:59:09 AM  
Whats ironic is that we have probably already hit the tipping point. We aren't going to be affected, our kids probably inconvenienced quite a bit, but 30-50 years from now things will probably be pretty bad with regards to the climate.

Much of it I'm sure was natural processes, but it's kind of sad to think that our great-great-grandchildren will think back to the late 20th and early 21st century and curse us for being so short-sighted.
 
2007-07-07 11:01:07 AM  
TearsInTheRain: but it's kind of sad to think that our great-great-grandchildren will think back to the late 20th and early 21st century and curse us for being so short-sighted.

Why do you care? It's not like you'll be alive to hear their accusations.
 
2007-07-07 11:08:49 AM  
Hang On Voltaire

Don't tell us. Tell Madonna, Bon Jovi, Laurie David etc. They are the ones flying in private jets

Oh, you mean because with all of the energy they'll use putting on this show they are probably comparable to one second's worth of the energy being used in Iraq, on average? But you're okay with that expenditure of energy and pollution, right?

What is your point? Rich people shouldn't spend their money as they choose?
Do you think these people should be mandated to flying commercial airlines?

Or are you simply sore that these people are doing what they think is right - something a lot of the other side of the spectrum wouldn't even consider doing unless there was a buck to be made in doing so - environment be damned.
 
2007-07-07 11:15:31 AM  
Because Gore and all global warming activists are telling people not to fly, attend rock concerts, or live in big houses, right?

Necon Playbook: When you have no answer to the messege, attack the messengers.
 
2007-07-07 11:15:57 AM  
Look, it's really farking simple - humanity is using carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years *in the farking ground* and have since the mid-nineteenth century been burning this shiate up. It appears that we may have disrupted the natural carbon cycle, and given the ppm figures of CO2 that we know about over the timescale, then we surely have.

It's OK to burn trees - that cycle is only the lifetime of the tree - but you farking lunatics need to think about how we are going to provide power without using stored carbon.

I trust that every eco-warrior and libertarian on here is willing to have a uranium or thorium power plant in the neighbourhood? You really should be.
 
2007-07-07 11:19:25 AM  
HOV The intent of my post of above was to illustrate the concept of threshold.

And the "cripple the economy people" might as well try to bring up Paris Hilton because they equally irrelevant distractions. There's more evidence to show the economic benefits of exploring alternative renewable energies (NOT ETHANOL) then there being evidence of economic hardship as a result.
 
2007-07-07 11:21:19 AM  
i131.photobucket.com
 
2007-07-07 11:26:34 AM  
TheHoodedClaw

while channel surfing I stumbled across the Live Earth show and saw some hippie musicians sporting "no nukes" t-shirts.

I believe 80% of France is powered with nukes.

Also, france provides/sells energy to London, UK.

People fear what they do not understand; climate change for example.
 
2007-07-07 11:29:09 AM  
Ha-Ha. Everyone's talking about global warming. Suck it CONS.

HeeBeeJeeBee wins with You're allowed to incrementally try to make the world a better place.
 
2007-07-07 11:29:23 AM  
Nobody thinks they will, asshat. It's about raising awareness.
If this concert is to 'raise awareness', it shows either how much of an ego these people really have, and/or it shows how stupid some people in this world really are (if they are "unaware" of the idea of global warming).
 
2007-07-07 11:31:05 AM  
I am sorry, but I lost respect for these hypocrites when I walked through parking lots at Giants Stadium filled with trash (most recyclable) piled up NEXT TO cars with bumper stickers like "SUVs: The real terrorists." Meanwhile, the trash, glass, and cans bins are like 50 ft. away from these idiots--who, after whatever crunchy show they were at, end up running over their shiat while trying to speed away from the lots only to IDLE emissions into traffic for hours on the turnpike.

I drive a Lexus SUV, but I never litter, live in an apartment that takes minimal heating/cooling all year (particularly when compared to the monstrosities that are popping up everywhere), and generally spend as little time on the road as possible. I have a tiny carbon footprint and am not so spoiled that I can't walk to throw away trash or to a farther lot to avoid traffic after an event, so Live Earth can go preach to some other "eco-terrorist" SUV-driver.

/Sorry, but the hypocrisy gets to be too much when I see it first hand like that.
 
2007-07-07 11:31:34 AM  
This is consistant with conservatives wing nuts taking every opportunnity to poke holes in what they perceive to be a "liberal" cause.
Typical.

It's okay to spend unfathomable amounts of money for their Iraq oil cause but expending energy and finances on any cause they disagree with must be ridiculed.
Arrogant.
 
2007-07-07 11:32:43 AM  
Stupid Guitar: I'm over it now:

All the scientists can move on to that cure for cancer thing now. STUPID GUITAR has enlightened all of us. Kudos to you, sir.

The point I was trying to make is that the whole global warming debate/solution will be turned into an excuse to grow our government even larger, tax our population even more, and restrict our economy----in short, I believe the GW leadership is populated by people bent on turning us more and more into a nanny state. GW is a nice excuse to get what they have always wanted anyway, which is socialism.
Our government couldn't find its' own ass with both hands. I don't want them any deeper into my life than they already are. Perhaps you feel differently. That's fine by me.

/adjusts tinfoil hat

And what is your enlightened position? To let things continue as they are until our enviroment becomes so screwed up that no one can breathe? Keep grabbing those dollars till the last one with all the money wins? At least we have a chance now to correct our short-sighted mistakes, and have something that resembles commerce. This "nanny state" that you talk about is coming to fruition without any help from the so-called eco-terrorists. The way I see it, it's not even the socialists that are bringing this about.



I believe we need to take some reasonable measures to green-up our economy and lifestyle, so to speak. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, some of these measures make economic sense AND ecologic sense.

The difference between myself and the eco-fringe such as Gore and his ilk is the definition of what "reasonable" is. My fear is that this is beome an issue that we can no longer debate reasonably, because if I express doubts about my beloved govt. ability to clean up our act, I'm accused of being in favor of dirty air---see above. Also, Gore et al are painting a picture that, if taken at face value, is so dire that draconian measures are necessary to "save the planet". It just looks like a power/money grab to me.

I hope I'm wrong. If all this hype actually results in the USA being more green without harming our economy or drastically altering our way of life, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. My bet---more taxes, less freedom, no change as far as GW is concerned. Feel free to disagree, I'm OK with being in the minority on this. I also agree with you on the nanny state coming in other areas, too. The eco-wingnuts are just one more example. And right now, probably the loudest one.

Peace, my friend.
 
2007-07-07 11:34:05 AM  
It's okay to spend unfathomable amounts of money for their Iraq oil cause but expending energy and finances on any cause they disagree with must be ridiculed.

Welcome to politics.

Signed,
The United States of America
 
2007-07-07 11:36:13 AM  
Norad: Yep, cause all these worthless high-profile expenditure concerts will eliminate global warming.

If you're over the age of 25 and think this makes a difference, please. Walk off a very tall building & make sure you fall face-first.



What are you doing about it? Sitting on your ass and typing?
 
2007-07-07 11:36:55 AM  
It just looks like a power/money grab to me.
Some of it is a money grab. Of course, the companies who make huge profits off of some green designs are "good", so their greed is justified.
 
2007-07-07 11:37:39 AM  
www.cardesignonline.com

Built in 1899!


Why can't we do something better?

It is old technology. We become more efficient and greater with better newer technology.

Less energy = Better savings.
 
2007-07-07 11:41:04 AM  
The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".


The reporter just discribed not only "live earth", but Al Gore himself.
 
2007-07-07 11:41:36 AM  
What are you doing about it? Sitting on your ass and typing?
I give the advantage to the guy sitting on his ass and typing, as opposed to the rich people flying around in jets and singing.

Neither will have an impact on the public at large. One is a hell of a lot less pollutive.
 
2007-07-07 11:46:15 AM  
puffy999: Neither will have an impact on the public at large.

That's one hell of a crystal ball you've got there...
 
2007-07-07 11:48:56 AM  
BillyBob_The_Magnificent: TheHoodedClaw

while channel surfing I stumbled across the Live Earth show and saw some hippie musicians sporting "no nukes" t-shirts.



Well, yes. I don't expect that there will be actual thought involved in this circus, but I can't in all good conscience condemn it either. There are some matters that need to be addressed on the larger political scale, and perhaps a raising of awareness is what is needed. No doubt we'll see.
 
2007-07-07 11:53:28 AM  
The Billdozer 2007-07-07 08:03:12 AM
100 Watt Walrus: Nobody thinks they will, asshat. It's about raising awareness.

So by your logic, if I want to raise awareness about sexual assault, I should go rape every hot chick in a 100-mile radius? True, I'm not stemming rape and I'm actually doing what I'm trying to stop, but "I'm raising awareness", right?


It's very telling that this is your first-choice hypothetical scenario.
 
2007-07-07 11:56:15 AM  
I drive a 5.4L v8 Ford expedition high output. It's farking awesome. I bought it because there won't be american 8's made in 20 years- even I know that.

When my kid gets his first car, I'm sure it'll be some idiotic electric cell thingy. I will tilt back my head and laugh. I will tell stories of putting a double bed in the back instead of packing a sleeping bag. I will tell of the times I went muddin. I will tell of the time I ripped that stump out of the ground.

He will get to do none of this. I will laugh.

It's all good, I'm sure they'll get me back and put me in a nursing home.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report