rogueyam Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 ...believe in whatever is causing it you want, but the environment is changing and we need to do something about it. So even if the changes are 100% NOT caused by man we still need to "do something about it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Absolutely. You once again show you ignorant arrogance. Even it it just means making plans to abandon cities that will be underwater, or maybe make seawalls, or whatever. Most countries have virtually outlawed incandescent lighting because compact fluorescents are 8x more efficient; but rightie America catn't even seem to do that. Just a couple of silly examples, but even you can get the drift. The righties just want to close their eyes, pretend it is not happening, and leave it for their children/grandchildren to deal with. Typical, for a group of folks who's favourite words are "Me, Me Me"! Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 So even if the changes are 100% NOT caused by man we still need to "do something about it"? RY..Well, there is hope for the libs here who, undoubtedly blame GWB for global warming. It will all stop next January. SD...FYI, this issue is not a lib vs. conservative matter. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Yea' date=' stuff like that tends to piss us off.[/quote']Then why are you NOT pissed off at Lynne Cheney? How is this cover any different? It is worse to me, using the Marines to spread dodgy propaganda to children. At least the Time cover is speaking to a serious issue -- believe in whatever is causing it you want, but the environment is changing and we need to do something about it. That's something I'd think the Marines would be proud to help with. Regards, SD Just wanted to see it again , again. Ummm ... maybe the difference is between a sketch of kids plays vs a genuine photo of men who gave their lives in defence of their country when it had actually been attacked? I also suspect the cover was meant to make money for Time Inc., not for any humanitarian purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Gee, that news to me that Lynne Cheney gives away the money from her books to humanitarian causes...5555555 She's a professional writer and I'm sure pockets all the dough. But are you saying that's OK cuz she's Darth's wife? PS - no idea why it posted the pix twice Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 My point is: 1) Cheney's is a drawing. 2) Time's is a Pulitzer Prize winning photo of soon to be dead Marines. To me that's quite a difference. At least Time could have drawn a similar picture, but maybe having tree huggers instead of Marines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 The thought's the same, so not any difference at all to me. If you want to argue semantics, then Time's is only part of an actual pix; it is also a cartoon/drawing. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted April 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Time still used the Marines. That is the offensive part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Yea' date=' stuff like that tends to piss us off.[/quote']Then why are you NOT pissed off at Lynne Cheney? How is this cover any different? It is worse to me, using the Marines to spread dodgy propaganda to children. At least the Time cover is speaking to a serious issue -- believe in whatever is causing it you want, but the environment is changing and we need to do something about it. That's something I'd think the Marines would be proud to help with. Regards, SD Who said I was not? But the issue to me is that they used the Marines that died. Anyone can put up a flag. They did it and most of them died for it with in a few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted April 20, 2008 Report Share Posted April 20, 2008 Time still used the Marines. That is the offensive part. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.