they plant the trees.....

they chain themselves to the trees....

they get tossed in the wood-chipper with the trees.....





Hippies are apart of the problem (F*ck Green Peace!) Green peace cause more problems then they solve!!! they go nail spikes into trees so when tree-fallers cut them down, the spike breaks the chain, then the chain spins back around and mames the tree-fallers

APART OF THE PROBLEM, just like the christians who go out and shoot doctors!!!!!

if you're passive in this world, you're also apart of the problem

believe in karma, help you're fellow man, help the earth, live each day to its fulliest, listen to rock and bob marley....i'm all for this...

don't stand by from afar and watch destruction...and at the same time, don't be f*cking stupid about it.......

they go nail spikes into trees so when tree-fallers cut them down, the spike breaks the chain, then the chain spins back around and mames the tree-fallers

They smell funny

You know this from personal experience? :lol: Just what is the definition of a "hippie" these days?

looks like you're the "dirty hippie" Charley!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

look at these squares......................... 8)
:shock:

I personally despise the "Earth Firsters" and think they have pushed the fine line between activism and terrorism into the dark side.

They, on the other hand, are proud of their extremist past. At times they seem willing to injure or kill for their own ideals.

f--- that. Their right to protest ends at my right to live.

*shakes head*

And your right to dig, mine, chop, cut, fish, hunt, pollute, expand, develop, trade, exploit, and destroy ends at my, my children and your childrens right to live.

Hayduke lives maaan, Hayduke lives...

Most tree spikers put the spikes in at above head level so it doesn't hurt the loggers, but the saws in the mill.

Somebody please show some documentation where a logger was injured from a spike in a tree. Most tree spikers put the spikes in at above head level so it doesn't hurt the loggers, but the saws in the mill.

-Jeff

What planet are you cosmic crusaders from. I've never heard such a heap of poo in my life.

Hippies are not necessarily Environmentalists.
Environmentalists are not necessarily Hippies

Use your imagination.

Look beyond the feckin label.

No wonder you guys cant feckin catch any terrorists. You are all lookin for these swarthy-looking, sinister, turban-wearing bearded guys, with bombs strapped to them and big signs around their necks saying TERRORIST


Hate wears many faces.

You guys think that if some guy has long hair, a beard, love-beads and drives a VW van, then there is a good chance he's some kind of enviro-terrorist, hell bent on disrupting society.

Pull ya head in.

We are not in danger from the Hippies

Blaming the soldier, so to speak, for the politics of his country

.

The soldier enacts the policy of his government.

Do soldiers walk around knowing that they are safe and untouchable because when they kill it's not their fault? Or do they watch their backs, knowing that it is their place to kill and to be killed?

Look at the Nuremberg trial transcripts to see whether the argument, "I was just following orders" holds any water.

they plant the trees.....

they chain themselves to the trees....

they get tossed in the wood-chipper with the trees.....

So now a laborer in a sawmill is the moral equivilent to an SS officer?

If you can make that logical leap then surely you would concede that, the ELF, Earth First, PITA et,al. are terrorists of the same stripe that blew up the club in Bali.

Through predominatly non-violent terrorism awareness and practical effectiveness can actually help the cause. And try to think of terrorism as it's dictionary definition, not the connotation you have about it after 9/11.

As far as violent, I meant physically violent. Sorry. Terrorism can be accomplished without hurting people. That's what I meant.

They're attacking organizations and companies, not individuals. Huge difference. i.e They're not breaking the workers leg they're breaking the companies bulldozer. I meant terrorism more in the sense of a small camp using quick guerilla tactics against these organizations. This will get the label of terrorism to evoke public fear against these people. They're waging a war the only way they can.

UBL is waging war the only way he can also. There is no moral difference between the two. Once you decide you "are" the law, you're in the same camp and no different than UBL, Tim McVeigh, The IRA, on infinitum.

As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

War kills men, and men deplore the loss; but war also crushes bad principles and tyrants, and so saves societies.

When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.

With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.

trees are a renewable resource folks.

plant them and they will grow. it's a beautiful thing.

Then spiking one didn't either.

In terms of moral responsibility to themselves, yes! Everybody must take responsibility for what do, and be aware of the potential consequences to themselves.

If your job offends, then be prepared for the consequences. Any cop can tell you that.

And here you are typing your silly stoned thoughts about morality on a piece of equipment that according to your own logic puts you on par with the the most infamous fascists the world has known!

In terms of moral responsibility to themselves, yes! Everybody must take responsibility for what do, and be aware of the potential consequences to themselves.

If your job offends, then be prepared for the consequences. Any cop can tell you that.


Absolutely!

In terms of moral responsibility to themselves, they are in exactly the same league. Their message is even the same in moral terms: "we want to communicate a message, and although we do not want to harm anyone, we will accept it if it happens"

Neither side is innocent. Terrorists deserve to be made to take responsibility, and to be punished as merited. But so do loggers. And whereas I don't doubt that terrorists deserve far greater punishments, I hardly think that means we should let loggers who wreck the environment off scot-free.

Comparing a guy cutting down trees that his employer owns,

That's a valid point. Actually, much as this discussion has been fun, I think I will take your advice and leave it alone - I've no real desire to get into a tit for tat with bonger regarding my boyfriend's balls (again).

We probably could argue it further, but I think it'd just end up messy (and now that you're here and apparently feeling annoyingly astute today, I think most of the mess would be on my side).

cheers bum!

:wink:

It seems you took your funny pills today. Got any extra?

My assertion is that people should take responsibility for their actions, right (1)? That doesn't imply that I think hitting people is right, or that being a police officer is wrong (2). It only implies that I think people who hit others, or work as police officers, should be aware of the potential consequences.

I've no real desire to get into a tit for tat with bonger regarding my boyfriend's balls (again).

I promise to not refer to them again, and if I do, I'll make sure the correct possesive is used: boyfriends' balls. I'd hate to leave anyone out.

Bonger:

I backed down because Bumblie did what you couldn't: he eloquently exposed the gaping holes in my argument, AND graciously extended me the opportunity to back down before he handed me my ass.

That he was able to see the hypothetical construct for the sham it was, and to extend me the courtesy of assuming that I knew it was a smokescreen then offer me an honourable exit speaks volumes for both his intelligence and his character.

You got as far as talking about my boyfriends (sic) balls. Hmmmm. I think this one's over don't you?

I backed down because Bumblie did what you couldn't: he eloquently exposed the gaping holes in my argument, AND graciously extended me the opportunity to back down before he handed me my ass.

That he was able to see the hypothetical construct for the sham it was, and to extend me the courtesy of assuming that I knew it was a smokescreen then offer me an honourable exit speaks volumes for both his intelligence and his character.

Bumblie eloquently exposed the gaping holes in my argument, AND graciously extended me the opportunity to back down before he handed me my ass.

That he was able to see the hypothetical construct for the sham it was, and to extend me the courtesy of assuming that I knew it was a smokescreen then offer me an honourable exit speaks volumes for both his intelligence and his character.