The Green Insanity Begins

daveconlon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7419724.stm

Looks like things are starting to kick off for the green, save the world movement.

A "personal emission target". People need to stand up to this rubbish.

Karoma

but, wouldn't this stop chemtrails?

Ostrom

Power of one....as little as possible

Dudess

daveconlon wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7419724.stm

Looks like things are starting to kick off for the green, save the world movement.

A "personal emission target". People need to stand up to this rubbish.

Stand up to it so. Or are you too busy starting "tough-on-pinko" threads?

You're under 40, yet you're conservative and no-nonsense... how interesting!

Rob_l

I dont see the problem with this policy OP personal responsibility for cutting carbon emissions seems fair to me

daveconlon

Rob_l wrote: »

I dont see the problem with this policy OP personal responsibility for cutting carbon emissions seems fair to me

fair enough, how about you pay me €10,000 a year and I'll plant a few trees in your name.
Or maybe you won't pay me because I don't have a police force to back up my plans.

togster

Dudess wrote: »

Stand up to it so. Or are you too busy starting "tough-on-pinko" threads?

You're under 40, yet you're conservative and no-nonsense... how interesting!

:eek: Jesus?

Dudess

Yeah but, you know, when you're bored there's nothing like speaking out against stuff that's "PC" - even if it's sensible and you probably agree with it deep down. Kevin Myers, Ian O'Doherty, Eoghan Harris, Mary Ellen Synon... all those muppets who work for Independent Newspapers or the Irish Mail make a living out of it.

daveconlon

Karoma wrote: »

but, wouldn't this stop chemtrails?

No, chemtrails make a docile, gullable public. This is merely a scheme to fleece them of everything they have.

Ostrom

Because a public policy like this offsets responsibility and diverts from fundametal issues and causes. I'm not opposed to any measures as long as they can prove net reduction, but this does seem to be following a worrying trend on climate policy - valuation of the environment, and locating the problem at the level of public consumption will probably be a worthwhile short term fix, but will do nothing to address fossil fuel and oil dependency. Balancing the national budget of emissions ignores the international context of climate change problems, and the need for co-ordinated international policy. I think looking for policy solutions at home can only be counterproductive, I know its only one proposition, but still, the implications are there.

daveconlon

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah but, you know, when you're bored there's nothing like speaking out against stuff that's "PC" - even if it's sensible and you probably agree with it deep down. Kevin Myers, Ian O'Doherty, Eoghan Harris, Mary Ellen Synon... all those muppets who work for Independent Newspapers or the Irish Mail make a living out of it.

Controlled opposition, look it up.

Irish Halo

Rob_l wrote: »

I dont see the problem with this policy OP personal responsibility for cutting carbon emissions seems fair to me

I'd tell you his problem but personal abuse is not allowed in AH.

Personal responsibility is precisely what conservatives strive for surely? You generate it you should have to deal with some consequences or is that what the third world is for?

daveconlon wrote:

No, chemtrails make a docile, gullable public. This is merely a scheme to fleece them of everything they have.

Is that not TV or is it religion, I keep forgetting what to hate :-(

daveconlon

Irish Halo wrote: »

I'd tell you his problem but personal abuse is not allowed in AH.

Personal responsibility is precisely what conservatives strive for surely? You generate it you should have to deal with some consequences or is that what the third world is for?

Personal responsibility????????????????????????

This is a manufactured, baseless porblem. Global warming/climate change is a hoax to begin with.

How can you base an argument on such false principles.

Dudess

Global warming/climate change is a hoax: explain. And who came up with the hoax? And whose benefit does it serve?

Irish Halo wrote: »

Personal responsibility is precisely what conservatives strive for surely? You generate it you should have to deal with some consequences or is that what the third world is for?

Sensible, moderate conservatives would be consistent in their striving for a culture of personal responsibility, but alas, not all conservatives - or liberals - are sensible and moderate.

Degsy

We're being lied to.Carbon emmisions do no harm whatsovere to the environment.Higher c02 levels encourage better plant growth.Media buzzwords gone mad!

biko

Neo-cons in Ireland?

"My SUV is not bad for the environment, those tree hugging Sellafield protesting veggie eating hippies are the problem, not me".

daveconlon

Dudess wrote: »

Global warming/climate change is a hoax: explain. And who came up with the hoax? And whose benefit does it serve?.

The club of rome. Read the first global revolution.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2341179/1991-CoR-First-Global-Revolution-OCR-Mrkva

See page 75, read the lot for an insight to your future.

As for who benefits, the big boys who run the show. Are you slow on the uptake, a transfer of wealth from the masses to the elite. A socialisation of the planet.

Dudess wrote: »

Sensible, moderate conservatives would be consistent in their striving for a culture of personal responsibility, but alas, not all conservatives - or liberals - are sensible and moderate.

YOu are stuck up on labels. Which box are you in................................

Dudess

A non extreme, non fanatical, non generalising box.

Caoimhín

Just for that im going out to burn a tyre and pour some diesel into a stream. Maybe kill a kitten.
The peaceniks/Marxists hijacked the environmental movement to further their agenda.

daveconlon

Dudess wrote: »

A non extreme, non fanatical, non generalising box.

I get it, you do whatever your masters tell you.

togster

The Global Warming thing is being blown out of proportion. It's a money spinning operation.

Dudess

daveconlon wrote: »

I get it, you do whatever your masters tell you.

LOL... eh, yeah...

daveconlon

caoibhin wrote: »

The peaceniks/Marxists hijacked the environmental movement to further their agenda.

And who created those organisations in the first place?

Rob_l

daveconlon wrote: »

fair enough, how about you pay me €10,000 a year and I'll plant a few trees in your name.
Or maybe you won't pay me because I don't have a police force to back up my plans.

Eh what now?

Caoimhín

daveconlon wrote: »

And who created those organisations in the first place?

Im working on that, give me some time please. You didn't think i was going to produce a fully baked theory did you?

Karoma

daveconlon wrote: »

And who created those organisations in the first place?

Mormon Jesus. Fact.

Irish Halo

daveconlon wrote: »

As for who benefits, the big boys who run the show. Are you slow on the uptake, a transfer of wealth from the masses to the elite. A socialisation of the planet.

What? What? That is the opposite of a socialisation. You don't know much about socialism do you? Or science? Or actual fact based exercises generally?

Also this secret move of wealth from the masses to the elite has two flaws a) the masses never had the wealth and b) it is not a secret. Almost every single major government subscribes to Friedman economics which is the current system of driving what little wealth the masses had to the elite, come back John Maynard Keynes all is forgiven, we'd like our new deal back please.

nice1franko

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah but, you know, when you're bored there's nothing like speaking out against stuff that's "PC" - even if it's sensible and you probably agree with it deep down. Kevin Myers, Ian O'Doherty, Eoghan Harris, Mary Ellen Synon... all those muppets who work for Independent Newspapers or the Irish Mail make a living out of it.

well said dudess

daveconlon

Irish Halo wrote: »

What? What? That is the opposite of a socialisation. You don't know much about socialism do you? .

Mate, just because you may have read a bit of marx in your day does in no way justify such comments. Socialism is a two tiered society. A small controlling elite, and then the masses who keep them in the style accustomed too. Get past the text book version and look at the reailty.

Irish Halo wrote: »

Also this secret move of wealth from the masses to the elite has two flaws a) the masses never had the wealth and b) it is not a secret. Almost every single major government subscribes to Friedman economics which is the current system of driving what little wealth the masses had to the elite, come back John Maynard Keynes all is forgiven, we'd like our new deal back please.

At the minute at least you have the right to private property, and freedom of movement. Also you can breath without being taxed. All that is about to change.

As for Friedman, nothing more than a puppet. Are you one of these people who actually think capitalism has existed at some point?

You really seem to have talen the bait.

ArmaniJeanss

daveconlon wrote: »

As for who benefits, the big boys who run the show. Are you slow on the uptake, a transfer of wealth from the masses to the elite. A socialisation of the planet.

I thought the Big Boys were generally capitalists, not socialists.

I'm a bit of a climate change doubter myself, but I really don't understand your point about a transfer of wealth from the masses to the elite.
i.e.,
Why would the elite fabricate this problem to take our money - surely they were doing a good job of taking our money anyway via oil industry, the automotive industry, airline industry etc. Even if there is a climate change issue, wouldn't it have been in their interests to downplay it so as to continue to reap massive profits via selling us gaz guzzling 4WDs etc, rather than guilt us into thinking that these things are bad.

biko

Socialisation has nothing to do with Socialism.

Socialisation simply means the various ways we learn how to be a human being and are taught the basic rules of the society in which we live. How to become social animals as it where.

daveconlon

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I thought the Big Boys were generally capitalists, not socialists.
.

Socialism is capitalism on roids. Forget about the left/right, planned/free. YOu are also stuck on labels. Again look at the reality, lnot the text book version.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I a bit of a climate change doubter myself, but I really don't understand your point about a transfer of wealth from the masses to the elite.
i.e.,
Why would the elite fabricate this problem to take our money - surely they were doing a good job of taking our money anyway via oil industry, the automotive industry, airline industry etc. Even if there is a climate change issue, wouldn't it have been in their interests to downplay it so as to continue to reap massive profits via selling us gaz guzzling 4WDs etc, rather than guilt us into thinking that these things are bad.

Well the whole point to to reduce the standard of living, reduce the demand for resources, reduce the populations.

Did Hilary not say "get ready for your blue collar, green jobs". Read "Agenda 21" by the UN.

Watch "Soylent Green", a good show, can be found on google video. The plebs are to be rounded up into habitat areas (large cities) where every element of their lives is controlled.

toiletduck

Why is everyone assuming the op is a conservative? Being skeptical about climate change doesn't automatically make you one!

Isn't this the chemtrail guy again?

Karoma

The Internet has nothing do with Socialisation either. The Internet is simply the means to spout crap such as semantic arguements, conspiracy theories, and lolcats.

daveconlon

toiletduck wrote: »

Isn't this the chemtrail guy again?

I'll rephrase that, "is that not the person who can make evaluations based on his own observations".

daveconlon

Karoma wrote: »

The Internet has nothing do with Socialisation either. The Internet is simply the means to spout crap such as semantic arguements, conspiracy theories, and lolcats.

The internet is a means of getting all information running through one source. Hence the appeals for broadband penetration, no child left behind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1990999/Home-Office-plans-to-create-'Big-brother'-database-for-phones-calls,-emails-and-web-use.html

GET IT?

Karoma

daveconlon wrote: »

The internet is a means of getting all information running through one source. Hence the appeals for broadband penetration, no child left behind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1990999/Home-Office-plans-to-create-'Big-brother'-database-for-phones-calls,-emails-and-web-use.html

GET IT?

You're clearly a nutcase. It's about getting a wide variety of porn from one place. Nutter!
/wanders off temporarily to fulfil is "personal emission target".

Sherifu

Karoma wrote: »

but, wouldn't this stop chemtrails?

It's a caspiracy.

humanji

Casey, I knew you'd come back! :hugs:

daveconlon

SO are you all going to accept this personal carbon target, with charges when you undoubtably break the limits. (A bit like laws, whats the point in having laws if no one breaks them, where the profit in that?)

humanji

Are you going to accept your original site ban and not re-reg anymore?

daveconlon

humanji wrote: »

Are you going to accept your original site ban and not re-reg anymore?

If my laws were applied to you, then Humanji would be banned for dragging this thread off topic.

I mean what is it with this site. You can discuss football and the dog and pony show (politics) all day long. However when you actually mention something relevant, thats when the hassle starts.

Did anyone see family guy last night........................?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it all depends on your definition of 'relevant'

we generally don't buy the lizard people, david icke view of the world and find irritating those that do. at least catholics were born into their nonsense, what excuse do you have? You did this to yourself.

Sherifu

humanji wrote: »

Are you going to accept your original site ban and not re-reg anymore?

Computer says no.

daveconlon

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

it all depends on your definition of 'relevant'

we generally don't buy the lizard people, david icke view of the world and find irritating those that do. at least catholics were born into their nonsense, what excuse do you have? You did this to yourself.

So you have no comments based on the link???

You seem to be the one spouting off. Can you not argue the points I have made.

And who are the "we" you refer too. The rest of the herd?

Sherifu

Can't we all just be mates?

humanji

daveconlon wrote: »

If my laws were applied to you, then Humanji would be banned for dragging this thread off topic.

I mean what is it with this site. You can discuss football and the dog and pony show (politics) all day long. However when you actually mention something relevant, thats when the hassle starts.

Did anyone see family guy last night........................?

But you'd of been banned for posting in the wrong forum, and you'd of been IP banned to make sure you don't re-reg, so who's laws should we play by?

daveconlon

Sherifu wrote: »

Computer says no.

And one must always trust computers and people who dress in white coats.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

and insane nutjobs who are afraid of clouds.

daveconlon

humanji wrote: »

But you'd of been banned for posting in the wrong forum, and you'd of been IP banned to make sure you don't re-reg, so who's laws should we play by?

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law"

Thats what the big boys use, so why can't I?

Dudess

Guys, none of you have any solid proof so don't accuse the OP of being a re-reg.