By Manila Ryce
Published Monday, November 27th, 2006, 4:05 pm
Filed under: World: Antartica, Environment, Entertainment, World Issues, US Politics

23 Responses to “Happy Feet is Liberal Propaganda”

1. 

   Yeah, the American People were So offended by this obvious liberal propaganda that it’s been #1 at the box office for the last 3 days straight, grossing close to $40 million. The only people that can be this offended by environmental messages to kids are the ones who believe the warnings to all be a hoax, and that everything is fine. No need for liberal spending on such issues. This fiscally conservative viewpoint is justified, seeing as how we now have the largest surplus in history of over $3 trillion dollars! What? Wait, not surplus, Deficit. Hm…
   Yep, everything’s fine.

   PapaFigue
   11/27/06 at 6:30 pm
   
2. 

   Ofcourse it is offensive!
   the kids now know that fish don’t grow on trees and that they are alive which means they might come to an end one day as all resources do. And the little adorable kids now know that a zoo is not an animal’s best place to be. we need to protect kids from such propoganda, we need to shelter them and only tell them that they are living in a perfect wrld with endless resources and fairies who will give them money when they grow up!

   DarkAngelJG
   11/29/06 at 12:45 pm
   

3. Gotta get em while they’re young.

   I think ice age, and ice age 2 (THE MELT DOWN) were similar plots to brainwash kids against global warming. As if KIDS are going to do shit about global warming - SPEND THIS MONEY ON RESEARCH TO FIND A WAY TO FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM - NOT ENTERTAIN THOSE LITTLE SHITS!!!!

   Dave
   12/8/06 at 4:59 am
   
4. 

   @Dave: Perhaps the kids movies aren’t aimed at kids at all! Think about it, while Chavez is reading Chomski, our pres and his possie are mesmerized by things like the Little Goat that Could and Mel Gibson. Maybe they’re just not buying the whole globale warming thing cuz it’s too ’sciency’ for their little brains to understand. If that is truly the case, then what better way to get through to the men in charge? On the other hand, this would mean the Neo-Con stooges are right about the propaganda thing. Can’t have that, can we?

   PapaFigue
   12/11/06 at 8:24 pm
   
5. 

   Ok, I just went and actually saw this movie, and not surprisingly, Cavuto and whoever that chick is have their heads completely up their asses. I mean, one has to wonder how they can get away with being so blatently wrong on so many key points:

   -They talk of the overfishing problem, (you know, the one that predicts the ocean fisheries to be completely depleted by 2050), as not only made up, but also imply that it’s wrong to think it’s the fault of “Big Bad Man and Business.” Right from the moment the penguin realizes who’s taking the fish, the first thing he goes with is not “big bad man,” but “ignorant man.” He realizes that they just don’t know what they’re doing to the penguins, not to mention every other member of the ecosystem, all of whom are starving and becoming increasingly desperate. He then takes it upon himself to appeal to their better nature, because he’s sure they have one. And sure enough, not to ruin it for anybody, but the humans are the ones, once they become aware of the impact they’re having, who actually have the power to do something about it. Yes, obviously the act of an bad bad species.

   -”They don’t give any solutions!” was another point this pair seems to agree on. I’m sorry, I counted at least 3, though the first of which are considered the S and F words by the neoCons: Science and Facts. Once the studies have been done, which in reality they have, the Facts are consistent with theory that humans are the cause for much of the world’s decline. Then there’s a big debate among the leaders of the world, which include rotating fishing zones to allow fish to replenish themselves, or even the banning of commercial fishing in that area all together. I’m pretty sure I may have missed a couple others, but those THREE SOLUTIONS are pretty clear.

   -The Zoo thing. The point of the Zoo scene is to show that for wild animals, the Zoo is not only the most unideal place for them to spend their lives, but it also should not be the ONLY PLACE LEFT in the world where these animals can survive. The zoo itself isn’t bad; it’s the reason he’s still alive, and becomes the reason people start to notice him, and sets off the whole scientific research thing. But his situation, where he’s trapped in this artificial alien world where he slowly loses any hope, or memory of ever being free and helping his friends, is a pretty crappy one.

   -”They shouldn’t peddle this stuff to kids!” Since when are the neoCons opposed to teaching morals to the kids? Yes, MORALS! This is a fairy tail with a real MORAL to the story. If Cavuto and the chick are going to compare the film to “An Inconvenient Truth” and be right about it, (which they are, though I doubt they realize the implications), then they HAVE TO realize that, as Al Gore specifically said in the first part of his movie, the human impact on the environment is no longer a political issue, it is a MORAL ISSUE. It’s very interesting to hear neoCons arguing against teaching of morals, by calling it propaganda.

   Of course, it’s easy to make sense of this once one remembers that neoCon “morality” is, just like everything else, not really in step with Actual Morality.

   Last comment on this, I swear. Go see the movie, btw, it’s actually really good!

   PapaFigue
   12/15/06 at 11:18 am
   

6. You stupid fucks, this whole world is being destroyed while all of us sit around and do nothing to stop it, humans have become fucking parasites killing off what doesn’t seem to benefit their monetary bullshit. If you think this one movie is going to change the destruction of Earth you are sorely mistaken, think of how much shit was put into making the film (cameras, paper, etc.), all of that was taken from the Earth to benefit humans in one way or another, we rape the Earth for its resources. If you think you are liberal, you are nothing, unless you see that this world will die if we continue on this path of destruction,and you should do something about it. There is so much more than that, but I’ll leave it at that. Oh and if anyone says how I’m using a fucking computer, fucking shut the hell up because that is only a cop out for you not to see this horrible truth, research on your own the destructive properties of human civilization.

   Tom
   04/8/07 at 5:26 pm
   
7. 

   @Tom: Damn, dude! And I thought I had a dim outlook on the future of the species. I’ll agree with you that there isn’t a lot of hope, but there’s still some. We have everything we need to live in harmonious relationship with the world around us; the technology, the reason and intelligence, and most importantly, the awareness of our own impact. The problem is that, as you pointed out, these 3 traits are overlooked, repressed, or even outright destroyed by other motivations, namely money and comfort. It’s really just a question of will, and no, right now, we as a species don’t seem to have the will to change the way we live.
   Now, there’s nothing any one of us can do to change the course of the world. But that doesn’t mean that there’s NOTHING at All we can do. Drive a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon. Buy those canvass bags at the supermarket, ($1.00 ea) so you don’t have to use paper or plastic. If you use paper or plastic, Recycle ‘em! (They make it easy for you since the bin is right in the supermarket itself) Invest in Halogen Lights and Rechargeable Batteries. (The former last about 7 years and uses only a fraction of the wattage. The latter lasts about 2-5 years and can be recycled at any Staples or Office Depot.) Call the power company and switch to Green Energy. (I don’t know where you live, but in California, Green Energy is available at most public utilities for like $10-15 more per month. Not that big of an investment if you ask me.)
   There’s a ton of other stuff too, but it starts getting into the “Homeowner” socioeconomic demographic, which I’m not a part of yet. (Yes, it is possible to build and/or retrofit a completely Green Home that runs off solar, wind, and grain alcohol fuels. The conversion isn’t cheap, but it more than pays for itself in the long run!)
   But the point of all this is that there are things we can do. Albeit they’re small, but imagine the impact of 100,000 of these small things. Or even a million. Or even 100 million. We are indeed running out of time, but our destruction of the Earth will not happen in a day, so don’t expect to heal it that fast either. The point is, we can do it. We only need to want to.

   PapaFigue
   04/9/07 at 12:52 pm
   
8. 

   @Tom: Damn, dude! And I thought I had a dim outlook on the future of the species. I’ll agree with you that there isn’t a lot of hope, but there’s still some. We have everything we need to live in harmonious relationship with the world around us; the technology, the reason and intelligence, and most importantly, the awareness of our own impact. The problem is that, as you pointed out, these 3 traits are overlooked, repressed, or even outright destroyed by other motivations, namely money and comfort. It’s really just a question of will, and no, right now, we as a species don’t seem to have the will to change the way we live.
   Now, there’s nothing any one of us can do to change the course of the world. But that doesn’t mean that there’s NOTHING at All we can do. Drive a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon. Buy those canvass bags at the supermarket, ($1.00 ea) so you don’t have to use paper or plastic. If you use paper or plastic, Recycle ‘em! (They make it easy for you since the bin is right in the supermarket itself) Invest in Halogen Lights and Rechargeable Batteries. (The former last about 7 years and uses only a fraction of the wattage. The latter lasts about 2-5 years and can be recycled at any Staples or Office Depot.) Call the power company and switch to Green Energy. (I don’t know where you live, but in California, Green Energy is available at most public utilities for like $10-15 more per month. Not that big of an investment if you ask me.)
   There’s a ton of other stuff too, but it starts getting into the “Homeowner” socioeconomic demographic, which I’m not a part of yet. (Yes, it is possible to build and/or retrofit a completely Green Home that runs off solar, wind, and grain alcohol fuels. The conversion isn’t cheap, but it more than pays for itself in the long run!)
   But the point of all this is that there are things we can do. Albeit they’re small, but imagine the impact of 100,000 of these small things. Or even a million. Or even 100 million. We are indeed running out of time, but our destruction of the Earth will not happen in a day, so don’t expect to heal it that fast either. The point is, we can do it. We only need to want to.

   PapaFigue
   04/9/07 at 12:52 pm
   
9. 

   @whomever…

   And the post is revived! What started in November continues in April. What a wonderful site! What amazing readers. I love it here!

   The only thing I can really add is — have faith in the earth people. She’s been here a helluv a lot longer than any of us and has been through comets, pole shifts, nuclear explosions, tectonic shifts, flash floods, etc. You think “global warming” is gonna stop her? Ever consider that maybe “global warming” is the earth’s way of healing itself? I’m not saying let’s keep doing what we’re doing… but all these misanthropic notions just resonate more negativity. And that’s good for no one.

   There’s plenty of hope. Didn’t you ever see Shawshank Redemption? Common ya’ll… look outside, it’s a beautiful day.

   yazo
   04/9/07 at 2:38 pm
   

10. plastic rings around the necks of animals doesn’t happen?? are you kidding, or just oblivious? check these out:

    meggan.typepad.com/quiddity/bizarre/index.html

    www.witn.psu.edu/…/gofigure.phtml?show_id=30

    www.ethicalstudent.com/waste.shtml

    and especially: www.amsa.gov.au/…/Stow_it_Dont_Throw_it/

    joey gaskell
    04/11/07 at 2:47 pm
    
11. 

    @Yazo: I agree. I have no doubt in my mind that Earth and life will continue even after we cook everything on land including ourselves. But one also must remember that the Earth is under no obligation to keep us around. And so therefore, the task, our own preservation, is really up to us.
    But you’re right about the misanthropic sentiment also. We might historically have been the cancer that eats the world around us, but that doesn’t mean we Have to be. The power to change is in fact in our hands. And that really is the moral of the movie. Go see it everyone! Don’t let the previews nor the propaganda fool you!

    PapaFigue
    04/13/07 at 4:45 am
    

12. I just watched this movie yesterday while volunteering at a shelter for children and I have to agree that exposing children to this message is wrong. The entire movie tries to create an association between an emotional cluster (affection and compassion for the wild animals) and a particular outcome. Trying to “gettum young” like the tobacco companies. These attitudes will become the foundation for later analysis in life.

    One thing I found interesting, which the movie did not mention, was the impact upon the human population of the “good” UN resolutions. I remember watching all those happy penguins dancing and celebrating at the end of the movie and thinking, how many millions of people are going hungry now because of these sweeping regulations on fishing? Not just from lack of food, but from job loss as well. What’s moral about putting thousands of workers out of work? What’s going to happen to their families, their children, their retirements? Apparently, there’s nothing moral about caring about human life.

    One of the things I find most interesting about environmentalists is their twisted views of the human species. Humans are either a) a cancer upon this planet or b) “stewards” of the earth. There’s also this strange implication that human life is a foreign element that’s disturbing the “natural” way of things. “Uncle” Tom, who posted earlier, seems to share these sentiments (you can’t miss him).

    Environmentalists are not the first group to go around preaching dooms-day prophecies. They’ve always existed at all times in history; even the whole “overpopulation” argument isn’t new. They have always been wrong! Life on earth is a collection of dynamic systems which have always changed; and will always change long after we die off or evolve into a different species. There’s no reason to try and preserve life on earth at all costs because it’s an impossible goal. There’s no reason to believe that we’ll all die off in 50 to 100 years if we don’t implement radical legislation to stifle economic activity, so a few species can “live comfortably.” In my opinion, human life is more important that all other forms of life and we are no where near running out of resources. Even if we get to that point, we’ll just evolve and adapt as we’ve always done.

    Ivy
    04/15/07 at 4:12 pm
    
13. 

    @Ivy: It might help if you actually read Any of the comments before posting your own. Everything you said has already been covered, and proven utterly shortsighted.

    PapaFigue
    04/15/07 at 11:19 pm
    

14. Wow, PapaFigue, I had no idea you were the True Authority on all things. LOL. For your information, I did read all the comments before posting my own and, get this, I disagree with you. (Gasp!) I know it might be hard for you to come to grips with the idea that opinions are not facts, and should not carry as much weight in policy formation, but that’s something our society calls maturity. You know, being able to understand that your opinions are not always right or valid and that others might not parrot along with you.

    The truth is environmentalists are incredibly shortsighted. All they care about is the here and now which is demonstrated by the complete fixation upon preserving the present. Every analysis they make to the future is apocalyptic because they are unwilling to conceive of any alternative to their own prejudices. If fact, if their predictions didn’t put armageddon within their lifetime the vast majority wouldn’t be so zealous. Plus, the only reason they predict the end of human life is because they fail to account for the remarkable resiliency of our species. Our technology is dramatically greater than it was when we survived earlier ice ages. We will survive, assuming a catastrophe ever occurs.

    Oh! But people are going to die you say! People are dying now, PapaFigue. That argument is moot. The only hope for the survival of our species is technological advancement, which relies upon a thriving economy. Hampering the survival of other human beings so you, and others like you, can fulfill some “humane” fantasy about “saving” other species is incredibly shortsighted. Encouraging human suffering by sabotaging industry is even worse; especially when your justification relies upon faulty, biased analysis.

    Ivy
    04/16/07 at 10:40 am
    
15. 

    @Ivy:
    …I don’t believe I’ve ever claimed to be the “true authority” on anything, nor am I shocked and awed at the idea of anyone disagreeing with me, least of all you. All I’m saying is that your comment, while well written and in depth, did nothing to disprove any of the “environmentalist” messages touted by the film. I don’t ask that everyone agree with me, but I do advocate having a clear case for one’s opinion, backed up by facts and evidence, for whatever opinion one may have. That’s how debate and dialogue work.

    As far as “environmentalists being shortsighted,” this is a bold statement, yet you provide no real examples on how this is so. I’m not disagreeing with you, I think a vast majority of “left wing liberals” are pretty out there. But that doesn’t change the facts. The fact is, according to a study published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, “Science,” and again in the Washington Post:

    “14 researchers from Canada, Panama, Sweden, Britain and the United States spent four years analyzing fish populations, catch records and ocean ecosystems to reach their conclusion. They found that by 2003 — the last year for which data on global commercial fish catches are available — 29 percent of all fished species had collapsed, meaning they are now at least 90 percent below their historic maximum catch levels.

    The rate of population collapses has accelerated in recent years. As of 1980, just 13.5 percent of fished species had collapsed, even though fishing vessels were pursuing 1,736 fewer species then. Today, the fishing industry harvests 7,784 species commercially.”

    This puts us past peak levels, and at current rates of overfishing, puts world fisheries to be deplete by 2048.
    Those are the facts, Ivy. No amount of hippy-bashing can disprove this.

    Now this doesn’t have to be apocolyptic, nor have I ever said this event is “Armageddon,” or even close to an Extinction Level Event, at least for us non-fishes. But even you have to realize this poses a serious problem. World population will only rise, predicted to hit 10 billion within the decade. And once again, the issue of jobs for fisherman, that seems to be the focus of your ire, is also at stake.

    You also imply that just because we recognize the shortcomings of our species, namely our civilization’s historical impact on natural world around us, we somehow dismiss our strengths. Indeed, resiliency, adaptability, and intelligence have made us one of the most successful species on the planet at this point, despite our naturally relative physical shortcomings. If you had actually understood the message of the movie, you would have understood that all these problems we face are Within Our Power and Capability to Solve! How does rotating fishing zones to allow populations to replenish themselves annihilate fishing jobs? Rotation does not equal cessation. It’s the reason why farmers can use the same land to grow year after year of different crops without sacrificing fertility. If you were to tell a farmer that rotation means the end of farming, you’d get more than a funny look.
    This is only one of many solutions that might be available to us. But the number of solutions, when it comes to living more harmoniously with the world around us, mean nothing when we as a species lack the will to implement them. In fact, many of us, like you, simply refuse to believe a problem exists.

    “But people are going to die, you say!” I don’t remember ever complaining about this. That argument is indeed moot, which is probably why I never used it. It’s very amusing how you seem determined to paint me as some left wing wack job, which in my opinion are no better than right wing wackjobs. But the implication you make that we Will survive, my question to you is, “are you sure?” The world we live in is under no obligation to keep us around. If you believe otherwise, then that is in fact a “faulty and biased analysis.” Our survival does not necessarily entail the destruction of everything else. You speak of our resiliency and our adaptability as though the test is far off, and we’ll surely pass it.
    The test is not far off. The test is indeed within our lifetime. I have no doubt that we can pass it. But just like a test you take at your homeschool, the first step is acknowledging the thing is in front of you.

    Or you can just pray, and hope God gives a shit. (Because that’s working so well right now.)

    Cheers.

    PapaFigue
    04/16/07 at 3:12 pm
    

16. PapaFigue, I figured you were a left-wing nut because, in your earlier post, you agreed with Yazo that we have been a “cancer” of this planet. There are other clues within the diction of your latest post which lead me astray in my profiling. For instance, you said that the world has no “obligation” to keep us around. Obligation is the act of obliging oneself to a course of action. You personify the world which can only lead me to believe you ascribe, on some level, to the Gaia theory. To choose a course of action means one possesses sentience, which the earth does not. These are traits I consider left-wing nuts to possess. If you do not view yourself in this way, I apologize for insulting you, but I’m afraid it might not change my initial impression.

    As for the rest of your post, let me begin with the study you mentioned. To start, I wish you had provided a link or something to the article so I could read it myself. Otherwise I’m left with only skepticism. But, being in this disadvantageous position, I’ll go ahead and point out what doubts I’d begin with when reading this story. After all, while I acknowledge and applaud your emphasis on evidence, we must also scrutinize said evidence. For controversial matters such as these, multiple perspectives can help separate truth from bias. To start, this is just one study, involving an impressive number of scientists (though we know nothing of their quality), that spent a very short period of time analyzing this phenomena. They examine “fish populations, catch records and ocean ecosystems”…in other words, they examined archival data. We have no idea how accurate these fish population tables are (methods used to collect the data, age of data tables, etc.) While I’d really like to know how they came to the 90% figure, I can examine the data you have provided. Between 1980 and 2003, fish species collapse rose 15.5% while the number of species fished rose 22.3%. Not to sound condescending or anything, but don’t you think that increasing fish options in the market might have an impact on fish populations? That is, while demand for fish will steadily rise with population, increased options will reduce the burden on fishers to harvest one particular species over another, thus curbing over fishing. Just a thought. Furthermore, these are estimates and assume that the primary contributor to the depletion of fish populations is human activity. These data are completely correlational, not causal. Increased predator activity, shortage of foods, diseases, viruses, and parasites are all contributors to the dwindling of fish populations as well. I’m not saying that humans don’t have an impact on the environment, just that nature kills off more species every year through natural selection than we could ever hope to accomplish. Really! Mother Earth is kicking our ass! :)

    You mentioned fish rotation and compared it to crop rotation with farmers. O.k., I’ll bite, but here’s the difference between these two concepts. One is done by voluntary self-interest while the other is forced at the point of a gun. Which do you think describes the present proposed course of action? Just busting balls, PapaFigue. I agree with you that fish rotation is a good policy. It makes sound business sense. However, it’s the proposed method for achieving these ends I disagree with. A more reasonable and moral option for implementing fish rotation plans would be to sell portions of the sea to commercial fishers. With GPS technology we could feasibly set up a grid of ownership over seawaters. I know, it’s a crazy idea, but self-interest for profits will protect fish species better than any other alternative. I don’t know how many Marxist prejudices you have against capitalism, but let me ask you just one question. What businessman wants to go out of business? None! Even the evil oil industry is investing in more fuel efficient cars for the inevitable day when fossil fuel supplies run low; and they’re investing in ways to extract oil from shoal. Hell, I wouldn’t put it past those sneaky bastards to be researching alternative fuels sources. Freedom of choice opens up doors like you wouldn’t believe. Individual freedom, which can only be realized in the absence of government regulation. If the “power in our hands” you love to talk about is a gun…then you have no right to take a moral stance on this issue. If the only solution you can come up with is the restriction of freedom, then do us all, and later generations, a favor: stop! Separate yourself from this issue until you calm down. Or better yet, keep debating those who disagree with you with an open mind.

    I was never arguing with the facts of this issue, PapaFigue. The original topic of this thread was propaganda, the propagation of a moral message. It’s the underlying moral message of the film I largely disagree with, not the facts (provided they’re tried and true). Global warming and depletion of fish species…these are all serious political, economic, and survival concerns and we should devote the reasonable analysis these issues demand. But we should not sanction brute force in pursuit of political or economic goals; and we should be damned sure, beyond a reasonable doubt in ANYONE’s mind, that a threat to our survival is imminent.

    P.S.–What’s with the home school remark? I attended shitty public school my entire life. :)

    Ivy
    04/16/07 at 10:00 pm
    
17. 

    Ivy — when the hell did I ever say anything about humans being “cancers.”

    If you care to refer to me or quote me or even begin to expound into something grander beyond the misery you people so elegantly try to masturbate in, then maybe for one moment you’d be able to let go of what ever drives you to write ten million words about something I totally thought we were all done talking about.

    “mother earth is kicking our ass”

    Oh god, is this another war now?

    Everything with you people here is about being the victim of something and then some vengeful tactics to counteract that initial rage of emotion. But hey, who am I to judge.

    yazo
    04/17/07 at 12:39 am
    
18. 

    @yazo:
    She was actually referring to something I said. But don’t worry, she assures me she spent time reading all the comments before posting her own, which is why she’s covering completely new ground! Who-actually-said-what is apparently less important than what was Actually said. I’m sure she meant no offense.

    PapaFigue
    04/17/07 at 12:51 am
    

19. Yazo, I’m sorry because, upon reading my post, it certainly does seem as though I was lumping you in with PapaFigue. However, I don’t understand the origin of your vehemence. What “people” are you talking about? I’m not familiar with your terminology. Again, I didn’t mean to cause you grief.

    Ivy
    04/17/07 at 7:49 am
    
20. 

    :-) you’re too cute Ivy

    yazo
    04/17/07 at 5:51 pm
    

21. Hey, I have seen alot of great points from everybody, i am glad to see people expanding their knowledge about our surroundings. I feel that becoming a more knowledgable person on our enviroment is the take home message of happy feet. I do agree that there is a better way to say it than this movie did. i will choose to teach my children these principles in other ways then letting them watch this movie. I have visited vets and they know loads of what we can do to help the enviroment, we need to do our part. Please, everyone look at every angle and agree to do better, there is always room for improvement, NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE. DON’T BE CONTENT WITH HOW WE TREAT OUR ENVIROMENT, NO MATTER HOW WELL YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING. Thanks for all the info, I am using alot of these views in my research paper in college. you are an inspiring bunch i tell ya.

    Jay Larson
    04/24/07 at 11:23 pm
    

22. Ivy. Stop breathing from your mouth. It’ll help.

    Erik
    10/30/07 at 11:39 pm
    

23. Whoa, whoa whoa! Wait, Ivy, whoever you are. How in the hell did you come to this conclusion?

    “A more reasonable and moral option for implementing fish rotation plans would be to sell portions of the sea to commercial fishers. With GPS technology we could feasibly set up a grid of ownership over seawaters. I know, it’s a crazy idea, but self-interest for profits will protect fish species better than any other alternative.”

    First of all, how does GPS technology figure into the plan? It sounds like you just slipped it in there to sound fancy. Second of all, how would this grid work? Would there be noticeable physical boundaries, or would it just be marked down on paper somewhere, so to speak? How do you know that thsomeone else wouldn’t fish out of someone elses waters, either by accident or by their own free will? This would give rise, this plan of yours, to a whole new level of (would you call it) illegal fishing, in all probability. Thirdly, do you really think that commercial fishers are going to take more consideration of fishing stocks when they own a piece of water? People ain’t that smart. Reeeally.

    I mean, you’ve come up with this lame brained plan, with no regards to how we do things now (and this is what the movie regards. We’ve done that same thing before, actually, when fisheries ran out in some areas. Look it up.), or how things work. You’ve disregarded simple facts and some great theories, and you also seem to have no knowledge of what the scientific consensus is, or what the scientists think we should do. You also have this hoity-toity attitude, characterized by your calling what’s his face a ‘left wing nut,’ so, presumably you’re a righty, and I’m not surprised. You’ve played to stupid, irreconcilable stereotypes that only really apply to the truly extremist, and a whole list of other things.

    You need to get your head out of your ass. What was proposed in the film wouldn’t make thousands of people ‘go hungry,’ or throw thousands of people ‘out of work.’ It just wouldn’t. The people above have explained why, so I’m not gonna go into it here. But, I can say this: we’ve done it before in some areas, some areas have almost that same type of law in effect right now. Read about it, before you let out the message board equivalent of a fart in a car.

    ‘Nuff said.

    Yo' Face
    11/5/07 at 7:40 pm
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>