Lucky...

Can't access the video, but given the size of whaling ships I've seen, unless the dumbshit greenpeacer was at LEAST 200-300 yards ahead of the whaler when he crossed the bow, there was NO WAY the whaler was going to miss him - and that's moving dead slow. Ships don't maneuver like cars. I couldn't pull it up either, but I get the jist. The ecologists were being a nuisance, threatening commerce at the very least, the whaler said fuck you. I did concede the ecologists were performing a very short degree of terrorism of sorts, certianly not of the ilk of abortion clinic protestors, but in a general sense, they are on the edge at sea. Of course these guys have a policy of hurting no one, so they don't use physical violence.

but fouling their props is. so is throwing chemicals onto the ship. so is ramming the ship. the sea shepards have even sunk ships before. terrorist is a word with other connotations. I'd rather think of them as pirates. Pirates rob things, terrorists use fear to achieve a political agenada. I think you're using the, "my diddy told me it was like..." dictionary and standard US dictionaries for your defs.

Since as far as I can tell this is about the only response to the thread, I have replied to it. Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct, although I guess you could call them vigilantees just as easily. BBC had a short video of them and to be honest they were piloting their craft in an agressive manner and buzzing a much larger ship. How does a high speed, highly manouvarable craft get rammed by a large unweildy vessel? I think they cocked up with there aggressive manouvers and simply got run over - tough luck to them. To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both: - Introduction of fear - To achieve a political agenda to be terrorism. I believe you also need intent to induce the fear. If the gun wearing tea-partiers did so in order to produce fear, then the terrorist label could be fairly applied. If they wore guns, and any fear generated was not intended by them, then they are not acting to incite fear, and (in my mind) not terrorists. Who can determine intent? Not I. just trying to tweak your definition. I believe intent is required. They weren't carrying .22's around, these were usually AR-15's and the sort. To take this to a political rally is conidered, by a reasonable standard, nothing less than the introduction of fear. No one was threatening to attack the president, this was a political message teling the admin they hate him, so don't push it too far. Mens Rea really isn't necessary, strick liability reasoning is all that is necessary, as this allows you an out and someone must pull the trigger on the [res in order to convince you; that is abstract logic.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism. To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that. Yes, of course...because you NEVER hear about anyone getting bitten by a rattlesnake. First rule of holes: STOP DIGGING Right, this is why I wrote: ...look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. You came in late, but the point made by someone else was that since humans have canines for fighting, they must also eat that flesh they bite as they are defending themselves. I supplied the rattlesnake reply that that STRIKE and not eat or inject venom as a defense, esp in adult snakes with regard to the venom. Let me spell it out for you simply: TEETH/FANGS CAN BE USED AS DEVICES IN WHICH TO EAT AND/OR TO FIGHT AND DEFEND YOURSELF, SO A HUMAN'S CANINES CAN BE USED TO FIGHT AND THEN NOT EAT WHAT THEY DEFENSIVELY BITE, AS THEIR DIET IS BASED UPON MEAT AND DIGESTIVE SYSTEM DOESN'T DIGEST MEAT WELL. Simple enough?

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism. To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that. My bromeliads, ficus, philodendrons, orchids, and varius herb plants told me last night that they think you are a despicable predator. What have their species ever done to you, to be treated so poorly. Tell em not worry, I don't predate on them, perhaps distant realtives.

They use economic terrorism, not physical terrorism. Is it still terrorism? Barely an in a limited sense. You're using the term losely.

I thought the video was pretty damning that they were "buzzing" the whaling boat in a pretty intimidating manner, that is instilling fear. In this very post I wrote: Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. So I guess you're arguing with yourself. At the same time, draw a line bwtween nuisance and fear. The Whaling ship intentionally refused to miss the other ship in an act of defiance. Either way, there was no shown violent agenda, but as I said, this could be interpreted as a lower end form of terrorism, just barely, as they showed to intent to inflict fear, just a nuisance.

You really are disturbed by anyone, who seems to catch a lucky [Irony, indeed] break, aren't you? Honestly, if you could become a One Hit Wonder, which, at this point, in life, is extremely doubtful, wouldn't you? and you'd be playing your base, to the last dollar. Why can't you just ever say,"Good on him, for hitting it big", whoever it is? You missed teh comparison and focused on me allegedly hating BRS. Not sure if you did so purposely or you were just unable to comprehend the comparison. BTW, look yourself in the mirror for never-to-be 1-hit wonders.

Like they say, only the good die young. Rush will be here for a while to comment on and make 10's of millions, buit never do anything for America. I call that a parasite. Lucky for you that listening to his BS is purely optional, but him paying more income taxes in one year than you probably will your entire life is not. I personally can't stand to listen to him, but the taxes he pays on those tens of millions sure come in handy for ol' Uncle Sam. And you pose that gives him license to act like a sociopathic asshole? And those advertiser dollars would have gone elsewhere, so who cares they end up with him other than you worship rich people? Like to take the oportunity to constantly lie about him?? You all really need a different web site to get your Rush talking points What lies? - Made fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson's - Made a racist remark about McNabb saying he isn't good, just the media wants to support him due to his color/race - Swore all druggies to hell, then was discovered to be one just for a few.... No lies, just your inability to refute them.

On an individual basis, yes, on a national level, it hurts the country when taxes are cut.

I hope you are including Al Gore, the Clintons and the Kennedy clan in your list of the super rich. But Gore/Clinton raised taxes to their own cost, so make a little sense every now and then.

You can ROFLMAO all you want, the elitist pig R's cut taxes to benefit themselves, the humble D's raise taxes costing themselves money and helping the country. Of course Kennedy was more of an R than a D in this regard, but as a rule, D's raise taxes at the expense of the rich lawmakers for the benefit of the poor. Ron Paul, right, cut taxes to nothing, end most social svs...there's a role to follow. The R's are lucky to have a nut like him around, he makes the R's look 1/2 way descent.

You can do the exact same as long as you stay legal.... just like him. I am growing more and more to be a fan of a flat rate tax with very few, if any, deductions. How ever we get there, taxes need to be increased, esp for the rich. As I've asked before, show me a major fed tax cut that led to + things. So I don't care how we stack it, what we call it, the country does better under higher taxes.

Don't know any Lush Rimjob... Come on, bro... You can do it. Try to cut out the BS and try again Cut out the BS, it's not nice to tease my hero.

And to you and yours, a human life is much more valuable. OMG , WWJD? Perhaps thay are equally valuable and we should allow nature to run its course. HINT: Humans are not born hunters of animals.

Since as far as I can tell this is about the only response to the thread, I have replied to it. Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct, although I guess you could call them vigilantees just as easily. BBC had a short video of them and to be honest they were piloting their craft in an agressive manner and buzzing a much larger ship. How does a high speed, highly manouvarable craft get rammed by a large unweildy vessel? I think they cocked up with there aggressive manouvers and simply got run over - tough luck to them. To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both: - Introduction of fear - To achieve a political agenda to be terrorism.

If anything, it brings a political bummer down on these nations, often more devastating than any actual loss of revenue.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism. To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that.

No, we were designed to be herbivoires, we've adapted to be omnivoires. Then explain how vegans exist for decades. Explain how I've existed w/o meat since 1987. BTW, I'm no anaemic, I'm 235 lbs. Those adaptations are not natural but purely artifical considering we have to prepare the meat. To say we're omnivoires is not a statement of nature. Remember, structure = function; show me structural designs that bode well for meat eating, esp red meat/pork. To say we were designed to eat meat with a little adaptation is like saying we were designed to fly with a little adaptation. We can do either, but they weren't natural designs and we die engaging in both. Also, they take major artificial adaptations. I agree, just as a guy with a wingsuit doesn't resemble a bird. A guy can bear a baby; it's been done, but if we're talking about what nature meant us to do, what we were designed to do, we are the furthest from a carnovoire that I can think of unless we compare us to fungi. Hell, even some plants are carnivoires / optional carnovoires. Are any plants obligate carnovoires? None that I know of but humans were not desigend to be carnivoires.

People who believe that humans are designed by nature (or Jebus if you're so inclined to buy into mythology) to eat meat are the other side.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism. When you then include the digestion from the physical breaking down of the flesh/meat to the chemical breaking down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva, humans break down starches, not meats. Not to mention our narrow throats vs carnivores larger ones. Here's an entire list of reasons we are not designed carnivoires: http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater Chemically, we are not designed to eat meat, so just because we have canines to fight with, that doesn't mean we then eat that meat. Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970) Try again.

Human physiology arguments are so tired, can't understand why the other side isn't willing to retreat from that weak position. Every aspect of human physiology points to herbivoire. BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

We're going circular here, but just because a person is rich, entertaining, etc we shouldn't follow them if they are also depraved and Lush certainly is; I believe his followers are too. Or the advertiser's dollars might go to football or another venue altogether. See, in sociopathic radio, we get to celebrate garbage like Lush. At least with ball sports there are parameters and these were shown as garbage-boy Lush was kicked off his pathetic ESPN gig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGiTv_xRd5A . Props to ESPN, they should have had teh balls to fire him rather than say 'quit or be fired. BTW, McNabb's stats were off the chart over the next year or two after that, just as they had been before and during that. So yes, you are right Bill, Lush gets paid huge for being: - A racist - Wrong - Entertaining like a trainwreck - Depraved as in laughing at Parkinson's victims - A hypocrite The real losers are the listeners/fans. As for tax dollars, they are realy nothing and the sponsorship would go elsewhere. Now you're confusing charity for grotesque greedy hatred radio. I don't even see that as an abstract comparison. Habitat would likely not be easily replaced, Lush-type garbage would be or the $ would go elsewhere; same thing. You're tangenting; I was talking about the following and serial killers have the same cult-like following Lush does. Yea, and enough people liked BRS to boost him to stardom on what is considered a joke of a song, wa sthen too by most. All I'm saying is that Lush is producing a POS just as BRS did, all you need are enough lemmings to follow. Let's see.... perfected the PC vs poking fun at Parkinson's victims..... I see your point . He developes entertainment on the premise of objective fun, fantasy, etc. Lush garbage creates so-called entertainment on the premise of racism and fun at the expense of very ill people. The thread that binds is the entertainment part, I'm sorry if you can't distinguish the other aspects of their entertainment.

One doesn't wash the other since humans usualy have immediate control over other species. Point is, homo sapien was designed to predate on vegetation only. And unfortunate that it's an issue of debate amongst us rather than one of conscience.

The point is, making a lot of money shouldn't justify acting like a sociopathic asshole, some think it does. The point I was addressing is that just because he pays an average person's lifetime taxes in one year doesn't mean Lush is worth anything; if trhe world was free of its ass-pimple the dollars he gets would go elsewhere, taxes paid by that person or persons. Most countries base a person's worth on their deeds, we base it upon their house, car, etc. I bet he does not pay nearly as much in taxes as he should... AMAZING what the rich can do with expenses...and other deductions. Right. A 35% top brkt is a disguise for low taxes when you factor in huge deductions and amongst the lowest payroll tax rate around.