Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

gozunda wrote: »

We cant house the people here already...

Omg why are you such a racist!?

Tell me how

This is brilliant, the same people who are talking here about not being able to house the people we have are on other threads saying there isn't a homeless issue.

At least they have consistency in that they misinterpret the Green position (saying we should take in more asylum seekers = we want to double our population apparently) in the same way they misinterpret Greta's message.

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

This is brilliant, the same people who are talking here about not being able to house the people we have are on other threads saying there isn't a homeless issue.

At least they have consistency in that they misinterpret the Green position (saying we should take in more asylum seekers = we want to double our population apparently) in the same way they misinterpret Greta's message.

Everytime you post on here you seem to be always attacking the posters that won’t kiss Greta’s feet, why is that?

Having said that i’m surprised that others on other threads have said there isn’t a homeless issue when clearly there is.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Everytime you post on here you seem to be always attacking the posters that won’t kiss Greta’s feet, why is that?

Having said that i’m surprised that others on other threads have said there isn’t a homeless issue when clearly there is.

Every time I post and quote someone, I am countering the message in their post.
Just because you feel attacked, does not mean that it is the case. If you do feel that way, go ahead and report the post.

Tell me how

Tea drinker wrote: »

I have no intention of proposing a workable solution - same as everyone else.
Greens said that Ireland can easily house 10 million and have proposed we take in refugees to at least in part make up that number => they want it.
http://www.thetricolour.com/Articles/183/politics/Eamon-Ryan-TD-we-need-to-bring-in-people-as-refugees-and-become-island-of-10-million/l4468782/

Yep, as expected.
Let's all sit on our hands. It'll be fine.

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

Every time I post and quote someone, I am countering the message in their post.
Just because you feel attacked, does not mean that it is the case. If you do feel that way, go ahead and report the post.

Once again another misunderstanding. Where did i say you were attacking me?

But i bet “the same people” are the ones disagreeing with Greta though.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Once again another misunderstanding. Where did i say you were attacking me?

Jesus wept

Micky 32 wrote: »

Everytime you post on here you seem to be always attacking the posters that won’t kiss Greta’s feet, why is that?

Having said that i’m surprised that others on other threads have said there isn’t a homeless issue when clearly there is.

I've responded to a one or two of your posts recently.
Are you saying now that I don't actually attack people every time?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

This is brilliant, the same people who are talking here about not being able to house the people we have are on other threads saying there isn't a homeless issue.

At least they have consistency in that they misinterpret the Green position (saying we should take in more asylum seekers = we want to double our population apparently) in the same way they misinterpret Greta's message.

Incorrect. Nope. Wrong again. More crap and even more horse manure comments slinging ****e ... :rolleyes:

Link or go fly off

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

Jesus wept



I've responded to a one or two of your posts recently.
Are you saying now that I don't actually attack people every time?

It’s clear you either don’t read posts properly or don’t understand them.

Micky 32

gozunda wrote: »

Incorrect. Nope. Wrong again. More crap and even more horse manure comments slinging ****e ... :rolleyes:

Link or go fly off

Spot on!

Micky 32

gozunda wrote: »

Incorrect. Nope. Wrong again. More crap and even more horse manure comments slinging ****e ... :rolleyes:

Link or go fly off

Yes i’m finding it hard to think any irish person would deny there’s a homeless problem unless they work for FG.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Every time I post and quote someone, I am countering the message in their post. Just because you feel attacked, does not mean that it is the case. If you do feel that way, go ahead and report the post.

Yes the poster is correct.

And no I dont have a 'message'. This is a discussion (humourous) about gretas travels across the world. If some dont like that then no one is forcing anyone to read the comments btw. Simplez


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Yes the poster is correct. The same old bull****e attacks repeated

And no I dont have a 'message'. This is a discussion (humourous) about gretas travels across the world. If dome dont like that then no one is forcing anyone to read the comments btw. Simplez


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Where was it deemed that this is a 'humourous' (sic) discussion?
Apart from within your own head?

You seem to be the only one who thinks this.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Where was it deemed that this is a 'humourous' (sic) discussion?Apart from within your own head?
You seem to be the only one who thinks this.

Again more comments with no basis in reality

We are nearly 200 pages in and you seriously dont know the thread was started with this post?

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Following some kiljoy complaints about more comments in the same vein - an admin had this to say about the thread

Mr E wrote:

In a thread that started with lots of tongue-in-cheek remarks, it's another tongue-in-cheek remark...

I get the obsession with greta but seriously how many times does it have to be explained that it's a humourous / tongue in cheek discussion?
Whats not to understand???

Anyway back on track here is a topical (and humourous) photo I found on Cool vids and pics Thread. Not Hello Magazine but ...



Edit: not to be taken seriously....

Micky 32

[/quote]

.. and as usual there will be no acknowledgment or comment about this. I think the word hypocrisy should be awarded with a capital H status when used in this thread ;-)

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Micky 32 wrote: »

.. and as usual there will be no acknowledgment or comment about this. I think the word hypocrisy should be awarded with a capital H status when used in this thread ;-)[/quote]

Ah now it’s a funny meme. Nobody expects anyone to be responsible for trees being cut down to make magazines. Who has a say in this? I’m very much against Greta but Jaysus...

KyussB

In fairness, memes are barely funny at the best of times - and try-hard adaptations of memes just make it look like the poster doesn't have a genuine sense of humour of their own - and has to resort to manufactured/unfunny meme generators, to try and appear funny.

That particular meme, doesn't really hit home outside of its original format:
https://i.imgur.com/1bak0Ra.jpg

It's like when someone takes a Monty-Python/Life-of-Brian meme, and uses it to support free-market/economically-conservative views - when that's the 100% exact opposite of what those comedians would support. It just comes off as artificial/unfunny and not genuine.

Micky 32

KyussB wrote: »

In fairness, memes are barely funny at the best of times - and try-hard adaptations of memes just make it look like the poster doesn't have a genuine sense of humour of their own - and has to resort to manufactured/unfunny meme generators, to try and appear funny.

That particular meme, doesn't really hit home outside of its original format:
https://i.imgur.com/1bak0Ra.jpg

It's like when someone takes a Monty-Python/Life-of-Brian meme, and uses it to support free-market/economically-conservative views - when that's the 100% exact opposite of what those comedians would support. It just comes off as artificial/unfunny and not genuine.

Ah i get you. So basically you’re saying it’s all lies that magazines are made from cut down trees? That’s great i can sleep tonight so ;-)

alastair

Micky 32 wrote: »

Ah i get you. So basically you’re saying it’s all lies that magazines are made from cut down trees? That’s great i can sleep tonight so ;-)

Paper is primarily sourced from sustainable forestry these days - more forest is planted than is cut down in it’s manufacture, and stock like Time use is printed on has a significant recycled element. It’s also a product that gets recycled itself. The killer for a popular publication like Time, isn’t the paper, it’s the carbon footprint of it’s distribution.

Micky 32

alastair wrote: »

it’s the carbon footprint of it’s distribution.

Well there you go then.

alastair

Micky 32 wrote: »

So basically a bit like recycled plastics etc, i see... but wait.... i thought recycling wasn’t the way to go according to some posters on here.

Apparently though, aren’t trees being cut down at a faster rate than planted?

No - for the majority of paper - they’re not. And the paper manufacturers are rapidly phasing out any non-sustainable forestry products - on the back of consumer pressure. There’s a load of spin associated with the environmental impact of paper, but despite that spin, the reality is that it’s far more sustainable than it was. As I say - the bigger issue with mass distributed periodicals is the logistics of distribution.

Micky 32

alastair wrote: »

the bigger issue with mass distributed periodicals is the logistics of distribution.

It’s a pity Greta seems to be ok with this.

alastair

Micky 32 wrote: »

It’s a pity Greta seems to be ok with this.

Well - it’s all a matter of priorities - it’s small change compared to many other activities, and there’s not too many people suggesting that reading matter on paper should be done away with - it’s pretty eco-friendly once it’s made it’s way into the world - lasts a long time, 100 percent recyclable with relatively low energy overhead, doesn’t require any ongoing power sources, educates people, etc.

Micky 32

alastair wrote: »

Well - it’s all a matter of priorities - it’s small change compared to many other activities, and there’s not too many people suggesting that reading matter on paper should be done away with - it’s pretty eco-friendly once it’s made it’s way into the world - lasts a long time, 100 percent recyclable with relatively low energy overhead, doesn’t require any ongoing power sources, educates people, etc.

But we all know it won’t be recycled 100%. It still equates to the destruction of trees that shouldn’t happen in the first place, not for rags anyway. Even if Time magazine are following the rules there’s lots of magazine and paper manufactures around the world who are not, currently anyway.

Personally i like trees .I have a range of different trees planted in my garden including american species, amazing colour in the autumn.

alastair

Micky 32 wrote: »

But we all know it won’t be recycled 100%. It still equates to the destruction of trees that shouldn’t happen in the first place, not for rags anyway. Even if Time magazine are following the rules there’s lots of magazine and paper manufactures around the world who are not, currently anyway.

Personally i like trees .I have a range of different trees planted in my garden including american species, amazing colour in the autumn.

Again - paper use isn’t causing any deforestation.

Micky 32

alastair wrote: »

Again - paper use isn’t causing any deforestation.

Unfortunately not entirely true. 10% of deforestation is caused by wood products and paper which results in 12% of greenhouse gasses.

Added to the fact of illegal logging going on.

Tell me how

People should really put some effort in to listening to what Greta has said on some of these topics.

She commented on a recent award that the environment doesn't need awards, it needs action. She has donated prize money to environmental causes. She clearly doesn't care about them.
She commented that she doesn't expect everyone to travel by boat across the Atlantic but the purpose of her trips were to show that each individual should consider what they can do and source alternative options if they are available to them.
She said that effort needs to go to finding alternative solutions to current damaging scenarios which will still facilitate the quality of life which people have cone to expect.

There are statements here like as if the only way she has any validity is if she lives in a cave in Sweden and never uses any processed or synthetic material.

Do people see any room for a position between that scenario and the blatant disregard for the environment practised today? Does it have to from one extreme to the other?

Some of the posts are closer to Danny Healy Rae outbursts than being remotely related to fact based commentary.
She is not an expert, (by her own admission) she's being made look like one by the words of some of her detractors.

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

People should really put some effort in to listening to what Greta has said on some of these topics.

She commented on a recent award that the environment doesn't need awards, it needs action. She has donated prize money to environmental causes. She clearly doesn't care about them.
She commented that she doesn't expect everyone to travel by boat across the Atlantic but the purpose of her trips were to show that each individual should consider what they can do and source alternative options if they are available to them.
She said that effort needs to go to finding alternative solutions to current damaging scenarios which will still facilitate the quality of life which people have cone to expect.

There are statements here like as if the only way she has any validity is if she lives in a cave in Sweden and never uses any processed or synthetic material.

Do people see any room for a position between that scenario and the blatant disregard for the environment practised today? Does it have to from one extreme to the other?

Some of the posts are closer to Danny Healy Rae outbursts than being remotely related to fact based commentary.
She is not an expert, (by her own admission) she's being made look like one by the words of some of her detractors.

Ok, if you had the power right this minute what would you do right now

We don’t have the technology currently to facilitate the quality of life that hard working people have come to expect.

Micky 32

We don’t have the technology currently to facilitate the quality of life that hard working people have come to expect.

It boils down to with Greta and Co fantasizing about grounding flights, taking cars away from people isolating them from the outside world including from family abroad. Yeah sure get an electric car but most people in Ireland can’t afford a new car let alone an electric car at rip off prices.

This is why i have absolutely no interest in climate change. I’d rather take on climate change and adapt until better alternative technology takes it’s place rather than being trapped in my own home. i’ll fight it to the end. I won’t be isolated from my family in the USA.

No government elected by people will ever do it anyway, the conference in Madrid proved that.

What will ultimately happen is we adapt or hope alternative tech comes along.

alastair

Micky 32 wrote: »

Unfortunately not entirely true. 10% of deforestation is caused by wood products and paper which results in 12% of greenhouse gasses.

Not true at all, with regard to paper.