protest WEF meeting on sept 11 info at www. : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

There is a lot of greedy influential people getting together (1000) incl BILL GATES on sept 11 in Melbourne Australia for the World economic forum on globalisation and on how they can get more power and money than they have now.

Show your support to protest against these greedy leeches.


-- antiglobalcorp (, September 05, 2000


Well, Buddy, I completely suport your view. There is alot of shit out there that doesn't make any god-damn since but your mother-fucknig ass summed it all up nicely !!!

Thanxs !!

-- Corey Mc Gill (, April 03, 2002.

Never will I align myself with the kinds of fools and rebels without a cause that I saw in Seattle and Washington, Dc.

-- Buddy (, September 05, 2000.

What century are you in today, Buddy? LOL

-- What wilt thou have, oh master? (, September 05, 2000.

>> Never will I align myself with the kinds of fools and rebels without a cause that I saw in Seattle and Washington, Dc. <<

Unless you were in Seattle and Washington DC, you saw exactly what was chosen for you to see. Right down to each 0.1 second. Using the same kind of control over what gets seen, I could make the crowd at a physics symposium look like a bunch of kooks, weirdos and idiots, or I could portray your home life as a grotesque cartoon that would be perfectly convincing to anyone who didn't know you better.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, September 05, 2000.

I was in DC and I did see the protestors. Most of them didn't even know what they were protesting against. Sorry, but vague references to "greed", "globalization", "global warming" and so forth do not a cause make. I am not saying I disagree with everything they are saying--I may or may not on specific issues. But what I saw in DC were mostly anarchists and communists purporting to be for the people when in reality many of them are just as greedy and "me-first" as they claim everyone else is.

-- Buddy (, September 05, 2000.


I knew your presence here had to be more than a simple desire to improve the great unwashed. It seems you are a conspiracy theorist at heart. (laughter) From my perspective, the WTO-related antics have been covered from every possible angle.

The real problem was not a cabal of mass media, but the incoherence of the protests. Lest you think I read only conservative journals, try this analysis from The New Republic:

Protest Too Much

TNR Editorial

And from

Seattle Round 2

The Left has fallen on hard times. The WTO protestors just added insult to injury. By the way, please sally forth with more articles on the Green Party. Outside of U Mass Amerherst, it's hard to find a socialist with whom to argue.

-- Ken Decker (, September 05, 2000.

>> was in DC and I did see the protestors. Most of them didn't even know what they were protesting against. Sorry, but vague references to "greed", "globalization", "global warming" and so forth do not a cause make. <<

I would agree that street demonstrations and protest marchs are a poor way to articulate a message and to broadcast it to the general public. By necessity, they reduce issues to slogans that can be printed on a sign or chanted.

While I am glad to hear you did not base your opinions solely on the images presented on television, I do wonder on what basis you state that most of the protestors did not know what they were protesting against. The protestors I know who went to Seattle were reasonably well-informed about the parts of the WTO they objected to.

Having seen tapes of them, the speeches at the protest rally held prior to the march (attended by over 35,000 people) made much of the fact that the WTO rulings are summary judgements made entirely in secret. No public participation. No public attendance. No published minutes. No accountability. No appeal.

In my view, if you can't get to the table where the decisions are made, your interests won't be served.

>> Outside of U Mass Amerherst, it's hard to find a socialist with whom to argue. <<

I am afraid you'd find me a rather common-sensical socialist for your tastes, Ken. I have no illusions about a communist international, or the efficacy of state-ownership of the means of production.

I am philosophically committed to democracy. I accept profit as part of the system. But, I am strongly in favor of competition taking place within a regulated environment.

What I mean by that is that capitalism takes little or no interest in issues of public health or safety when they conflict with profit. And they almost always do conflict with profits. You know as well as I do that health and safety cost money.

No business owner wants to voluntarily reduce profits by buying a dime's worth of safety more than the minimum required to run the business. Installing safety equipment may even impair his competitive ability, if his competitor runs a sweat shop. So government must act as the public's agent to ensure health and safety are taken into account.

Socialists of my stripe have been forming governments and successfully running economies in Europe for more than fifty years.

I take the general complaints of the labor unions about WTO to be valid. There are several ways to go about setting the rules for global trade. The WTO tilts those rules in favor of capital over labor and it strongly interferes with government's natural role (in a democracy) of protecting its citizens through setting safety standards.

The undercutting of government regulations through the WTO serve the interests of capital to make greater profits. Government regulations always interfere with profits. Of course they do. But, that is because they serve a higher purpose than profits, namely public health and safety.

By setting up a system roughly guaranteed to serve the interests of profits ahead of the interests of the public, and by extending that system worldwide, people everywhere (but most especially in the western democracies) are given a Hobson's choice of either bowing to superior force and sacrificing their health and safety, or opting out of the global trading system altogether - with potentially disastrous consequences in either case.

If this is treason, let's make the most of it. It looks more like common sense to me.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, September 05, 2000.

Buddy, you should have kept your mouth shut, now you've opened it and proved you are a fool, judging others by your own short yardstick.

Perhaps not everyone marching or protesting has a degree in economics, but most understand pollution and degradation of the planet. On a more simple level, a majority of us appreciate clean air, water and food. If those aren't worthy causes, then name one that is.

Most people have a fairly clear understanding of the implications of global warming and greed. The greed of ordinary people, pales by comparison to the greed of corporations, aided and abetted by the IMF and World Bank.

Thanks Brian for saying what needed to be said.

-- gilda (, September 05, 2000.

"Buddy, you should have kept your mouth shut, now you've opened it and proved you are a fool, judging others by your own short yardstick."

There's a popular phrase around here: "Pot. Kettle. Black."

"most understand pollution and degradation of the planet"

That's a noble cause, if a rather simplistic way of looking at these protests. What I see are too many causes, many questionable, lumped together under the "green" label in these protests. And many with a more limited agenda, for example anarchy, latching on to this all-encompassing anti-globalization message.

-- Buddy (, September 06, 2000.

Buud -eeee duuuuuumb

buudeeeee duuumb

-- coco (the@talking.gorilla), September 06, 2000.

If I remember right, this is the point where someone on here usually calls me a "bitter old woman," so go for it.

-- gilda (, September 04, 2000.

speaks for herself, pay no attention to her.

-- kettle (, September 06, 2000.


I'm not afraid to look dumb expressing my opinion. I think the protesters looked dumb. You think I look dumb. So, I guess we're even.

Have a nice day.

-- Buddy (, September 06, 2000.

Like it or not, Buddy nailed a major stumbling block in the US. There is at least the perception that the 'movement' has been co- opted.

{whether from within or without - or a combination of the two is another matter}

I don't see how this is going to be dealt with successfully by the 'greens' without considerable distancing from certain factions & methods.

More likely, viewpoints may get an airing in these venues - if they seem popular enough, the position will be taken on by one of the other major parties as their own. {Think marketing}.

-- flora (***@__._), September 06, 2000.

OK, so people at protests generalize. Now why do you think they do that? It's because they are not allowed a podium from which to state their views, so they have to speak words that will fit on a poster. In fact they are not even allowed to hear the discussions. Elementary Watson.

And the only time I've ever heard the word anarchy used as a true goal, was when I read Edward Abbey's "The Moneywrench Gang," and "Hayduke Lives." I know many environmentalists, and not one has suggested anarchy to me. But they have suggested change, by acting to make sure that corporations act responsibly.

You fling around "vague references" to "anarchists" and "communists," while blasting people who use "greed" and "global warming" on protest signs, and then say that they know nothing.

Hey, I know all kinds of stuff about percolation rates of water through soil, and how different types of soil affects percolation rate and amounts of pollution. I know quite a lot about endocrin disruptors and Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), BSE and Pfiesteria, and Rockefeller's conquest of the Amazon, and Salmonella types such as Gaminara, javiana, menston, paratyphi, pullorum, Rubislaw, thompson and others.

Yet, I Know Very Little about the Teamsters or Sea Turtles or diseases from pollution to migratory waterfowl and salmon, or urban pollution or plutonium, but if I were marching in a protest, I doubt I would have time to discuss the particulars of what I know, or don't know, to those standing on the sidelines--those like you, shrouded in your great wisdom, and speaking with malice at those who may know a good deal about certain aspects of the environment.

And are you "Pot. Kettle. Black?" One of the worst that ever came on this forum?

-- gilda (, September 06, 2000.


I figure you were addressing the anon above when you ask:

"And are you "Pot. Kettle. Black?" One of the worst that ever came on this forum?"

If you weren't, then the answer is that I didn't post that. I thought that the old Pot used to troll the other side of the fence, with the same nasty tactics. That approach still adds nothing to the discussion.

-- flora (***@__._), September 06, 2000.


You say "Elementary Watson" and then rail on me about "shrouded in your great wisdom, and speaking with malice...", not to mention your previous comments about me. No, I am not "Pot. Kettle. Black.", but you just gave a good example.

Read the articles that Ken posted here and browse the web-site that is the purpose of this thread. Anarchy is indeed the uniting ideal behind these protests, an oxymoron to say the least.

You are defending environmentalists and that's okay but it misses the point. Environmentalistism (which in itself is a broad label) is only a minor point of this mish-mash "movement" of typical malcontents.

-- Buddy (, September 06, 2000.


strike that


-- Buddy (, September 06, 2000.

>> typical malcontents <<

If some people are not contented (like those famous cows that give their milk to a particular megacorporation) then perhaps there is a good and sufficient reason for their discontent.

It does far more good to inquire after those reasons than to affix labels. For example, the counter-label to "malcontented" might be "smugly complacent". I fail to see how either of these does more than antagonize and divide.

Incidentally, using such rude characterizations of one's opponents is a very good way to sidetrack the debate over issues into a debate over manners. I'd say "don't go there", except we all go there constantly, like moths to a flame.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, September 06, 2000.

OK, Brian your right.

How about a different label? "Anti-capitalists"

I'm an anti-anti-capitalist. How's that?

-- Buddy (, September 06, 2000.

>> How about a different label? I'm an anti-anti-capitalist. How's that? <<

You jumped out of the water a couple inches and fell back in.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, September 06, 2000.

No, flora, I wasn't addressing you, I was still arguing with Buddy.

But the reason the green movement seems to be co-opted, is that the corporations spend millions each year to apply greenwashing to their activities, while making those who prefer that health and a clean enviornment look like malcontents, anarchists, low-lifes and rabble rousers. And there are always a few rabble rousers at these things, who don't give a damn about the planet, or corporations, but are just there to stir up shit.

E. Bruce Harrison was the young PR man that was hired by chemical companies to discredit Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring. And 25+ years later, is one of the biggest greenwashers. He has written the Bible on how to make a company look good, while doing bad. It's entitled: Going Green: How to Communicate Your Company's Enviornmental Commitment.

He has multiple offices, and his clients include Dow Chemical Co., Coors, R. J. Reynolds and other big names. And yet poll after poll reveals that the public wants clean air, water, and food, and also wants to save some of the environment for their children and grands.

-- gilda (, September 07, 2000.


I guess the disconnect here is that you see this thing in Melbourne and Seattle and the DC protests as some kind of green movement. I don't see that. Their web-sites and the protesters themselves have green issues in them, but not as their overriding theme. The site talks about "Globalisation" with a capital G as if it is some kind of organization.

The bottom line for me is that these protests don't have any kind of focus other than "down with greed" and are trying to lump too many disparate issues into one protest. They make no sense to me.

-- Buddy (, September 07, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ