The green issue that dare not speak its name

[YADA]

Yeah I certainly haven;t heard any main stream green groups that suggest people mass suicide or that we killl a bunch of people. Most just suggest limiting future births like you pointed out.

Well these groups do promote abortion [which has its roots in the eugenics movement of Margaret Sanger - who viewed Hitler’s final solution favorably and said so!] and euthanasia [now called assisted suicide in some quarters and as has been practiced in Denmark to remove those who are seen as not having good quality of life - even when they don’t ask for it] …

We have systematically eliminated millions before and after birth and these causes are supported by groups like the Sierra Club … lots of ‘ennvironmental’ groups…

Why does the Sierra Club support Planned Parenthood - the country’s largest abortion provider and whose [Planned Parenthood’s] condoms have the highest failure rate as tested by Consumer Reports? Double profit there … sales of condoms that fail followed up by the abortion to follow …

 

[vern_humphrey]

Rent? I seriously doubt you gonna be getting that rifle back…

I will, of course, expect him to pay a large security deposit.

But, ummm, as much fun as this idea sounds (and it really, sincerely does), I’m just not sure how…well, it involves violence.

And from what I’ve been told, violence solves nothing. Perhaps we just buy their countries?

Like we bought Nazi Germany and Japan?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Is your postion from compassion for those suffering today, or fear that resources will be unavailable to future generations? Liberals seem to want everyone to be equal in a socialist way…if we can get them out of the womb first.

So what are you doing to help the suffering people?

Neocons have a strange view of liberty though too. They think it is reserved for themselves specifically and others only as long as they conform to their view of it and most are willing to use force in order to give them ‘liberty’ whether they want it or not. Evangelicals are like Islamists in view of liberty as it should be restricted only to those who believe as they do.

Look out!

There are “neo-cons” hiding under your bed!

 

[Verisimilitude]

The Unites States is the most generous country on the face of the earth. We have given massive aid to Burma and darfur-only to see it stolen by corrupt governments.

Because the government takes 20-30% of your income as a tax to fund that aid do you feel your obligation is satisfied? If we know they are corrupt governments, giving them our money isn’t very wise.

Our generosity also funds Islamic dictators in Pakistan, Egypt, KSA and a few others that I find difficult to support though it is taken from me in the name of interest or security. Our generosity helps keeps the pet population in control by spayed and neutering them, but also assists women in getting abortions. We fund private business that have successfully lobbied the government and hold funds from others that mention God- like schools and the Boy Scouts.

I am sure the government feels qualified to spend my money on my behalf, but given the choice to give or not to one particualr group or not should be my decision just as the size of my family is my decision.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I will, of course, expect him to pay a large security deposit.

Phew! Though, seeing as how you’re sending out a forum goer, and not a trained guerilla, I think a firearm altogether is too much firepower. Perhaps like the, oh what were they called?..Zealots? They weren’t too heavily armed. Then again, I hope the forum-goer can blend in adequately with the native population.​

Like we bought Nazi Germany and Japan?

No, more like how we ‘liberated’ Panama. That seems a bit less messy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Phew! Though, seeing as how you’re sending out a forum goer, and not a trained guerilla, I think a firearm altogether is too much firepower. Perhaps like the, oh what were they called?..Zealots? ** They weren’t too heavily armed**. Then again, I hope the forum-goer can blend in adequately with the native population.

They didn’t win, either.

But if he orders now, I’ll throw in a pair if Nike running shoes.

No, more like how we ‘liberated’ Panama. That seems a bit less messy.

Which time?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

How do you propose to overthrow the tyrants and corrupt governments? How do you propose we deal with warlords?

And how much ammunition are you prepared to expend in the attempt?

Responsibility beings at home. As soon as we get rid of the tyrants in the White House, we’ll have more credibility.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If only we did have term limits at the Federal level.

We do. They’re called elections.

Every two years, we have an election for United States Representative in each congressional district nationwide.

Every two years, we have an election in for United States Senator for 1/3 of the members of the Senate.

Every four years, we have an election for the President of the United States.

Just because the right-winger doesn’t always win or replaces a non-right-winger isn’t a reason to take away the right of the people who vote for who they wish.

Actually, I would favor eliminating the term limit for President…except there are men who would try to become emperor, given the chance. A good example is the individual in th White House right now who has unjustifiably arrogated untold power unto himself only to be slapped down by the Supreme Court.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Responsibility beings at home. As soon as we get rid of the tyrants in the White House, we’ll have more credibility.

It’s expressions like this that make the hate Bush folks incredible.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-nicholson-lord-the-green-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-494756.html

I am coming out of the closest as I openly count myself as a advocate of population control. I support population control because I count myself as a “green.” Hopefully, the taboo on population control will not last when peak oil takes its toll. I expect population control to make a comeback as a popular “green” issue. I want to ensure the prosperity of humanity in the long run, and I find it difficult to improve the average quality of life of the people of the world if there are a few more billion.

parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

Many environmentalists privately support population control. I wonder if they will have the audacity to come out of the closet.

There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming" -Ted Turner

youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0

Overpopulation is not a problem.

And killing people isn’t the solution.

End of story.

 

[po18guy]

I am coming out of the closest as I openly count myself as a advocate of population control.

You had no closet to come out of. Your world-based views are completely consistent with, and associated with pop control.

Which is fine, as long as you begin with yourself.

It suddenly doesn’t sound that great.

 

[ribozyme]

You had no closet to come out of. Your world-based views are completely consistent with, and associated with pop control.

Which is fine, as long as you begin with yourself.

It suddenly doesn’t sound that great.

Ok… I do not plan to have any children.

 

[po18guy]

Ok… I do not plan to have any children.

For the sake of the planet, you must take it further. Remember, an adult carbon footprint is larger than a child’s. At some point, you must entertain the killing of humans, especially in third world areas. And, there is one particular religion that is multiplying much faster than others. Now what?

 

[po18guy]

Ok… I do not plan to have any children.

You’ve seen “Soylent Green”, haven’t you? The writer was prophetic.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Ok… I do not plan to have any children.

Why?

 

[vz71]

Why?

Because the individual believes it will lend the argument credibility.

Problem is, there is already an empty claim to suicide for those beliefs.

I am reminded of my 5 year old not getting his way.
He will claim how we all will see he was right when he is gone. Then try to hold his breath for some extended period of time.

 

[ribozyme]

Because the individual believes it will lend the argument credibility.

Problem is, there is already an empty claim to suicide for those beliefs.

I am reminded of my 5 year old not getting his way.
He will claim how we all will see he was right when he is gone. Then try to hold his breath for some extended period of time.

Have you read the scenarios from www.peakoil.com and www.dieoff.org ? Do you want to live in a world where those scenarios would come to fruition?

 

[ncgolf]

independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-nicholson-lord-the-green-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-494756.html

I am coming out of the closest as I openly count myself as a advocate of population control. I support population control because I count myself as a “green.” Hopefully, the taboo on population control will not last when peak oil takes its toll. I expect population control to make a comeback as a popular “green” issue. I want to ensure the prosperity of humanity in the long run, and I find it difficult to improve the average quality of life of the people of the world if there are a few more billion.

parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

Many environmentalists privately support population control. I wonder if they will have the audacity to come out of the closet.

There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming" -Ted Turner

youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0

I think the “green” you support is the dollar. “Ensure prosperity” … why don’t you just say “I want to make sure I have enough”. What is your measure of “quality of life”? I bet Western standards are your measure.

I really don’t even know what they mean by population control. The Chinese have it … is that what you are talking about? Wasn’t this tried during WWII? I mean the world got rid of 7 million Jews … about 60 million overall … is that what you are after? Quoting Ted Turner does the movement no favors.

I see your post as another example of scape-goating … there is someone or some group to blame for the world’s ills and if we can eliminate that segment then all will be fine. The reason they privately hold these views is because … well just try to sensibly articulate how and what population control is. You can’t and not come off sounding like Mao or Hitler. Funny (I guess not so funny) is that no advocate of population control thinks they should be in the group that should be reduced … at least voluntarily.

How about this solution … let’s target all who advocate population control as a viable solution to global warming. Let’s then move them to “Environmental Control Centers” scattered world wide where such problems can be dealt with humanely. In about 10 years the issue will go away and the centers can be mothballed … you never know when you may need them again.

I don’t mean to be flip but just put yourself and others who may believe like yourself in the group that’s targeted? When it comes down to it “population control” means some are undesirable, misuse and waste the earth’s resources … like I said before this has been tried before.

 

[ribozyme]

I think the “green” you support is the dollar. “Ensure prosperity” … why don’t you just say “I want to make sure I have enough”. What is your measure of “quality of life”? I bet Western standards are your measure.

I really don’t even know what they mean by population control. The Chinese have it … is that what you are talking about? Wasn’t this tried during WWII? I mean the world got rid of 7 million Jews … about 60 million overall … is that what you are after? Quoting Ted Turner does the movement no favors.

I see your post as another example of scape-goating … there is someone or some group to blame for the world’s ills and if we can eliminate that segment then all will be fine. The reason they privately hold these views is because … well just try to sensibly articulate how and what population control is. You can’t and not come off sounding like Mao or Hitler. Funny (I guess not so funny) is that no advocate of population control thinks they should be in the group that should be reduced … at least voluntarily.

How about this solution … let’s target all who advocate population control as a viable solution to global warming. Let’s then move them to “Environmental Control Centers” scattered world wide where such problems can be dealt with humanely. In about 10 years the issue will go away and the centers can be mothballed … you never know when you may need them again.

I don’t mean to be flip but just put yourself and others who may believe like yourself in the group that’s targeted? When it comes down to it “population control” means some are undesirable, misuse and waste the earth’s resources … like I said before this has been tried before.

I most certainly do not support killing people. Furthermore, I am not blaming the world’s poor for the depletion of natural resources. In reality, the wealthy consume the most energy. In 1990, wealthy countries used about 7.5 kW per person, while poor countries used 1 kW per person. dieoff.org/page112.htm However, my main concern is that it would be impossible to raise the standard of living if there were more people.

 

[ncgolf]

I most certainly do not support killing people. Furthermore, I am not blaming the world’s poor for the depletion of natural resources. In reality, the wealthy consume the most energy. In 1990, wealthy countries used about 7.5 kW per person, while poor countries used 1 kW per person. dieoff.org/page112.htm However, my main concern is that it would be impossible to raise the standard of living if there were more people.

Please define then “Population Control” … I am interested in what you think it is? Maybe I missed it but I cannot understand what you believe.

The reason I was blunt is … “popluation control” can be a euphemism for something much more sinister.

So do we need fewer wealthy citizens … is there a good ratio for wealthy to poor?