Greta Thunberg's Groupie

[Dazey]

17 hours ago, action said:

predator is the only 80s movie that matters

Commando would disagree. 

[Len Cnut]

22 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Commando would disagree. 

Commando vs Predator, hand on heart now, film for film, which ones more quality, in your opinion, personal affections aside.  Its gotta be Predator man, for like...cinematic value.

[DieselDaisy]

Has anybody quite determined whether or not Commando is satire (or otherwise)?

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not a very good one judging by the size of your air pollution haha.

If I was an activist it would be for politicians enacting policies aligned with the recommendations from the IPCC. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Can I call you Beryl? *feels his tit*

You can call me anything, hon. As long as you don't insist I make squawking noises.

[action]

40 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Commando would disagree. 

I don't know why, and I'm saying this as a massive fan of arnie and his oneliners, but for some reason the movie never grabbed me like predator.

I mean, in predator you had a gang of well trained commandos on a mission which was some serious shit to begin with.....

and in commando, we've got a "dad" who has a vague history as a commando, looking for his daughter and hanging on airplanes, and dropping wussies from heights. I don't know what it was all about. Frankly, I found the movie such a bore

[action]

22 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Has anybody quite determined whether or not Commando is satire (or otherwise)?

it's more a comedy movie than anything else.

I like my comedy films with arnold though. Twins, true lies. but those were enjoyable movies all around. Commando has great oneliners, but the movie itself was a slog to sit through. I don't think I ever managed to sit it out all through the ending either. I think I always walked away when he chopped off that freddie mercury dude's arm or something.

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Has anybody quite determined whether or not Commando is satire (or otherwise)?

Is deliberately satirical to a fair degree, they say so extensively in one of them making of's, though that might possibly be a case of 'shit, we've made this fuckin' sack of shit and its a quarter of a century later, how are we gonna justify it?  I know, we'll say we were takin' the mick!'   At any rate, its hardly Voltaire or...who was the cunt who wrote Tartuffe?  Him.

[DieselDaisy]

 

[action]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

for once greta has a point. they are clearing trees everywhere in my country, as endorsed by the government (used for bio mass plants), while bullying the common people with petty environmental laws. bunch of hypocrites the lot of them. This world is going straight to oblivion this way.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, action said:

for once greta has a point. they are clearing trees everywhere in my country, as endorsed by the government (used for bio mass plants), while bullying the common people with petty environmental laws. bunch of hypocrites the lot of them. This world is going straight to oblivion this way.

The Remaniacs occasionally bring up the benefits of the EU in relation to the proliferation of coordinated environmental strategies for the simple fact that most of them are Extinction Rebellion cracker jacks also, but if they looked honestly, the United Kingdom as an individual member state has done far more on this point that the EU. Maybe the EU should align its policy with the UK's then? Apparently Switzerland is the most environmentally conscious country and that isn't even a member of the EU - Iceland also. 

What have the Romans ever done for us?

It is a bit like LGBT warriors castigating the ''evil Tories'' despite the fact it was the Tories who passed the gay marriage act and lifted the ban on gays serving in the armed forces!

[SoulMonster]

20 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Remaniacs occasionally bring up the benefits of the EU in relation to the proliferation of coordinated environmental strategies for the simple fact that most of them are Extinction Rebellion cracker jacks also, but if they looked honestly, the United Kingdom as an individual member state has done far more on this point that the EU.

Maybe, but you can't get away from the fact that UK was raping your fish stocks before the EU implemented sustainable policies, leading to the positive trend we are seeing today.

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Maybe, but you can't get away from the fact that UK was raping your fish stocks before the EU implemented sustainable policies, leading to the positive trend we are seeing today.

what does fish have to do with the climate?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

what does fish have to do with the climate?

Nothing directly but I was replying to Diesel who wrote about "environmental strategies", and fish stocks are definitely part of the environment.

[DieselDaisy]

Whatever the UK was doing was definitely superior to throwing back dead fish, which is what the EU espouse.

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Whatever the UK was doing was definitely superior to throwing back dead fish, which is what the EU espouse.

Throwing out fish is always bad, but focusing on that and not the overall effect of the policies which has lead to fish stocks growing again, is...not very logical. Fact is, EU's policies have been beneficial to many fish stocks in your waters.

Besides, according to EU policies, fishermen aren't allowed to toss out fish anymore so this is a moot point. And if this happens still (which there are some evidence to for) it just means that UK's fishermen are still are raping nature. And back when they had to throw out fish per EU policies, that was because they had exceeded their quotas or caught too small fish (and hence they had broken the rules). The purpose of such policies is of course to prevent amoral fishermen from benefitting financially on fish they weren't allowed or supposed to catch.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Throwing out fish is always bad, but focusing on that and not the overall effect of the policies which has lead to fish stocks growing again, is...not very logical. Fact is, EU's policies have been beneficial to many fish stocks in your waters.

Besides, according to EU policies, fishermen aren't allowed to toss out fish anymore so this is a moot point. And if this happens still (which there are some evidence to for) it just means that UK's fishermen are still are raping nature. And back when they had to throw out fish per EU policies, that was because they had exceeded their quotas or caught too small fish (and hence they had broken the rules). The purpose of such policies is of course to prevent amoral fishermen from benefitting financially on fish they weren't allowed or supposed to catch.

I never thought you would, in supporting the EU, support the catching of, the death of, and the discarding of, fish? That is ''sustainability'' in action.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I never thought you would, in supporting the EU, support the catching of, the death of, and the discarding of, fish? That is ''sustainability'' in action.

Where did I say I supported it? Understanding the purpose behind a law is not the same as supporting it. If it was up to me I would have solved the issue by enacted harsher punishment for any fishermen who fished above their quotas.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Where did I say I supported it? Understanding the purpose behind a law is not the same as supporting it. If it was up to me I would have solved the issue by enacted harsher punishment for any fishermen who fished above their quotas.

That would include many French and Spanish trawlermen. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

That would include many French and Spanish trawlermen. 

Yes, and so? 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, and so? 

Well your opprobrium seems to be solely aimed at the British whereas it is fisherman from other member states who contravene EU legislation. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Well your opprobrium seems to be solely aimed at the British whereas it is fisherman from other member states who contravene EU legislation. 

Ah, I see where the problem lies! Because I have pointed out, in regards to discussions about the EU and its affect on British fisheries, that British fishermen were not managing their fish stocks properly before they had to through EU policies, you have come to think I have something against British fishermen in particular and not every fishermen who decimates stocks for short-term financial objectives. Right, I forgot to take into consideration your so easily ruffled feathers and your absurd nationalistic pride.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ah, I see where the problem lies! Because I have pointed out, in regards to discussions about the EU and its affect on British fisheries, that British fishermen were not managing their fish stocks properly before they had to through EU policies, you have come to think I have something against British fishermen in particular and not every fishermen who decimates stocks for short-term financial objectives. Right, I forgot to take into consideration your so easily ruffled feathers and your absurd nationalistic pride.

NB people this was written by someone who comes from a country which twice repudiated EC/EU membership by democratic referendum because that country feared the threat to their territorial fisheries. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

NB people this was written by someone who comes from a country which twice repudiated EC/EU membership by democratic referendum because that country feared the threat to their territorial fisheries. 

I don't know how that is relevant. I was not among those who voted against EU membership, so it has no effect on the validity of my arguments. 

[action]

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Nothing directly but I was replying to Diesel who wrote about "environmental strategies", and fish stocks are definitely part of the environment.

when it comes to fishing policy, the EU is more about "economic strategies" than it is about "environmental strategies", if at all. now it is true that fishing policies can have an impact on the environment, it is obvious that economic interests are the main driving force for these measures.

the EU is an economic partnership between member states, not an environmental partnership.

The EU, as an economic partnership, is the biggest cancer to the environment that you can imagine. it is thoroughly immoral. it's the reason why I oppose the EU.

I would be totally in favor of an environmental union though. But that will never happen, because there is no political will within member states to do something good for the environment, and therefore slow down economic growth.

it is as if you don't completely understand what the EU is all about. you seem to view the EU as the perfect platform to implement environmentally sound measures, but you totally ignore the fact that none of its member states intend to do so, and that the EU was never even conceived this way. It's not because EU member states work together "for the economy", that you can get all hippie-hippie about this and somehow imagine them to be able to transform in this vehicle to save the planet.