Capitalist Man

What is the stupiest thing you heard a viro say?

31 posts in this topic

If "obesity" is stigmatized as causing polar bears to forget how to swim and be stranded on floating ice, then just like everything else it will come under Al Gore's...um...I mean EPA...well, maybe UN control (now that I think about it, it won't be Al Gore - he's a bit of a landmass himself)

That's OK. He now buys saturated fat credits as well as carbon credits to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of JIR, here's some scientific ammunition against the GW crowd, having at least as solid a grounding in observed fact:

post-47-1210963729.jpg

That's great. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I remember that Penn & Teller episode. I liked when the representative of some big green group was answering their questions. She was going on about how animals were dying and going extinct in the rain forest.

"Why as human beings should we care if these animals go extinct?"

*blank look* no answer.

Another perfect quote from that episode is:

(Signature Gatherer): Would you like to sign a petition to -

(Protest Attendee): Sure, I'll sign.

They didn't even ask what the petition is for, but they signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to say what's the stupidest thing I've ever heard an environmentalist say. Almost all of what they say is wrong, but in the case of the serious ecologists, it isn't due to stupidity. They're just following their evil ideas about man's civilization being evil, and "nature" being an intrinsic value that must be protected from Man. Any passing thought that some idea of theirs might be wrong is quickly brushed aside by the justification that they are, after all, trying to "save the earth."

Are most of their followers quacks, or are they charlatans? (That is, do they really believe their nonsense, or do they know it's wrong but are advocating it anyway?) Sometimes it's hard to tell. But one of the stupidest things I've heard out of the mouth of an environmentalist recently came from none other than John McCain: claiming that forced reductions in carbon-containing fuel usage is somehow a "free market" solution. I don't think this man has any idea what free market capitalism is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are most of their followers quacks, or are they charlatans? (That is, do they really believe their nonsense, or do they know it's wrong but are advocating it anyway?) Sometimes it's hard to tell. But one of the stupidest things I've heard out of the mouth of an environmentalist recently came from none other than John McCain: claiming that forced reductions in carbon-containing fuel usage is somehow a "free market" solution. I don't think this man has any idea what free market capitalism is.

Exactly. With advisors like Woolsey and McFarlane, John McCain's ideas concerning free market capitalism are the biggest threat coming from the "environmentalists."

McCain Announces National Security, Energy Advisors Schlesinger, McFarlane and Woolsey

Neoconservatives, Environmentalists and Oil

Earlier this year, Robert Bryce, the author of ''Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate,'' reporting in the online publication Slate, observed that there was a developing alliance between greens and neo-conservatives. Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, president of the ultra-right Center for Security Policy (website) -- two big time advocates for President Bush's war with Iraq -- are enthusiastically advocating fuel-efficient vehicles as a way of reducing dependence on Middle East oil.

Bryce pointed out that Woolsey was driving a Toyota Prius -- an early entry in the hybrid-auto market. Gaffney, a frequent defender of Bush’s foreign policy initiatives on television’s cable news networks talking-head fests and a regular contributor to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church-owned Washington Times, Bryce noted, had “been speaking regularly in Washington about fuel efficiency and plant-based bio-fuels” (“As Green as a Neocon: Why Iraq hawks are driving Priuses")

The coupling of such top neo-conservatives -- the architects of the Iraq war -- with environmentalists -- many of whom have voiced profound concerns about the devastating effects the war has had on the Iraqi environment -- materialized sometime late last year when they backed a proposal from the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) (website), a Washington-based think tank tracking energy and security issues.

The IAGS document, entitled, “Blueprint for Energy Security: ‘Set America Free,” was signed by such neoconservative heavyweights as Woolsey, who is the co-Chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger (website), Gaffney, Gal Luft and Anne Korin of the IAGS, Milton Copulos of the National Defense Council Foundation (website), Bill Holmberg of the American Council on Renewable Energy (website), Robert McFarlane, a former National Security Council Director and Iran/Contra protagonist, Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute (website), and Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The “Blueprint” “spell[ed] out practical ways in which real progress on ‘fuel choice’ can be made over the next four years and beyond.”

“The IAGS plan proposes that the federal government invest $12 billion to: encourage auto makers to build more efficient cars and consumers to buy them; develop industrial facilities to produce plant-based fuels like ethanol; and promote fuel cells for commercial use. The IAGS plan is keen on ‘plug-in hybrid vehicles,’ which use internal combustion engines in conjunction with electric motors that are powered by batteries charged by current from standard electric outlets,” (See the "Blueprint")

In a related development in late-March, the Energy Future Coalition (website), a group made up of conservative energy and national security experts, sent a letter to President Bush calling for a change in energy strategy that would take into account conservation and alternative energy sources.

Commenting on why he signed on to the letter Robert McFarlane told the San Francisco Chronicle that, “The implications [of continuing to rely on foreign oil supplies] are truly catastrophic. The good news is the solution to getting off oil is at hand.”

Woolsey, who also signed the letter, somewhat indelicately pointed out that “Middle East turmoil could bring regimes to power that don’t want to sell oil to the rest of the world because they want to live in the seventh century.” In addition, Frank Gaffney, who helped organize the letter, is concerned about China, as is often his bent: “The Chinese are on the march trying to secure access to oil and choke points. This could be part of a medium-to long-term strategy to confront us or go to war with us.” (In June, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) announced an $18.5-billion bid for Unocal Corp., the California-based oil giant, the ninth-biggest oil company in the US.)

For neoconservatives, it is all about reducing “the flow of American dollars to oil-rich Islamic theocracies, Saudi Arabia in particular,” Bryce wrote. The neo-cons are ''going green for geopolitical reasons, not environmental ones,'' he concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For neoconservatives, it is all about reducing “the flow of American dollars to oil-rich Islamic theocracies, Saudi Arabia in particular,” Bryce wrote. The neo-cons are ''going green for geopolitical reasons, not environmental ones,'' he concluded.

I should have also made the following point in my previous post. The worst thing I seen in a while was President George Bush walking off of Air Force One. He greeted and than kissed the King of Saudi Arabia. He then had a meeting and asked the King to produce more oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites