Are you a 'Watermelon?'

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,106
Location
Somewhere Nice
I am not. I am a conservationist as outlined below by the Great Thomas DiLorenzo...

The Green movement is clearly a Communist movement whose goal is to destroy Capitalism and human life. How anyone fails to see this transparent effort, is beyond me.

An "environmentalist" is a totalitarian socialist whose real objective is to revive socialism and economic central planning under the subterfuge of "saving the planet" from capitalism. He is "green" on the outside, but red on the inside, and is hence appropriately labeled a "watermelon."
Aconservationist, by contrast, is someone who is actually interested in solving environmental and ecological problems and protecting wildlife and its habitat. He does not propose having government force a separation of man and nature by nationalizing land and other resources, confiscating private property, prohibiting the raising of certain types of animals, regulating human food intake, etc. He is not a socialist ideologue who is hell bent on destroying capitalism.

Heilbroner’s suggested subterfuge was explained by him as follows: "There is, however, another way of looking at . . . socialism. It is to conceive of it . . . as the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment." "We" socialists must all become watermelons, in other words. If enough members of the public can be hoodwinked with this subterfuge, then "capitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism." That is exactly what will be discussed at the upcoming "Earth Summit" in Rio.
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo230.html
 
Werbung:
conservation is critically important. if only the EPA were interested in that.

if its important to you, consider backing Ducks Unlimited, they are the world leader in real conservation accomplishing more than all other groups combined. they do far more than have an office on K Street.
 
conservation is critically important. if only the EPA were interested in that.

if its important to you, consider backing Ducks Unlimited, they are the world leader in real conservation accomplishing more than all other groups combined. they do far more than have an office on K Street.
Trout Unlimited does some good work as well, as does the Nature Conservancy.

Now, just what organizations propose having government force a separation of man and nature by nationalizing land and other resources, confiscating private property, prohibiting the raising of certain types of animals, regulating human food intake, etc.?

Separating man from nature?
Nationalizing land? Who is nationalizing land in the USA?
The only people confiscating private property are the supporters of asset forfeiture. This is the first time I've heard them called "environmentalists".
Prohibiting raising of certain types of animals? Pigs, chickens, cows, what?
Regulating human food intake? Is that a reference to banning large size sodas in NY?
 
Trout Unlimited does some good work as well, as does the Nature Conservancy.

Now, just what organizations propose having government force a separation of man and nature by nationalizing land and other resources, confiscating private property, prohibiting the raising of certain types of animals, regulating human food intake, etc.?

Separating man from nature?
Nationalizing land? Who is nationalizing land in the USA?
The only people confiscating private property are the supporters of asset forfeiture. This is the first time I've heard them called "environmentalists".
Prohibiting raising of certain types of animals? Pigs, chickens, cows, what?
Regulating human food intake? Is that a reference to banning large size sodas in NY?


haven't heard of the rules surrounding wetlands have you... they don't take it from you but render it incapable of doing anything with but no break on taxes. not bad in concept but horrible in practice.
 
haven't heard of the rules surrounding wetlands have you... they don't take it from you but render it incapable of doing anything with but no break on taxes. not bad in concept but horrible in practice.

I'm sure that there are regulations concerning wetlands, as they affect land all around them. Doesn't Ducks Unlimited support these regulations?
 
I'm sure that there are regulations concerning wetlands, as they affect land all around them. Doesn't Ducks Unlimited support these regulations?

they support responsible regulation as opposed to what we have. the definition of wetland expanded far beyond anything reasonable some years back. they are very concerned about wetlands given their roll in conservation (not just ducks) and have gotten a ton of actual wetlands protected from development via outright purchase, donated by the owner or in the case of govt owned land, protected from their development. they are similarly concerned about dryer wild areas.

mainly they do all this not via onerous regulation but directly through purpose or coaxing people to do the right thing. and they are terrific in coaxing people.
 
they support responsible regulation as opposed to what we have. the definition of wetland expanded far beyond anything reasonable some years back. they are very concerned about wetlands given their roll in conservation (not just ducks) and have gotten a ton of actual wetlands protected from development via outright purchase, donated by the owner or in the case of govt owned land, protected from their development. they are similarly concerned about dryer wild areas.

mainly they do all this not via onerous regulation but directly through purpose or coaxing people to do the right thing. and they are terrific in coaxing people.

Responsible regulation is a good thing, as is persuasion. The government does tend to go a little overboard sometimes, which is why there needs to be public input.

The Nature Conservancy just buys land, or accepts donations and then protects their holdings. That's a good thing, too.

The Sierra Club, environmentalists that they are, have a philosophy opposite to "forcing a separation of man and nature."

Still waiting to hear who is in favor of


Nationalizing land?
Prohibiting raising of certain types of animals?
Regulating human food intake?
 
Responsible regulation is a good thing, as is persuasion. The government does tend to go a little overboard sometimes, which is why there needs to be public input.

The Nature Conservancy just buys land, or accepts donations and then protects their holdings. That's a good thing, too.

The Sierra Club, environmentalists that they are, have a philosophy opposite to "forcing a separation of man and nature."

Still waiting to hear who is in favor of


Nationalizing land?
Prohibiting raising of certain types of animals?
Regulating human food intake?


Nature Conservancy may not be quite what they appear

nationalizing land ? not sure I've heard that.
warmers are anti cow as are those concerned with over population as they take a lot of land.
Mayor Bloomberg etc ARE regulating food intake as is Michelle Obama.
 
Responsible regulation is a good thing, as is persuasion. The government does tend to go a little overboard sometimes, which is why there needs to be public input.
It has often seemed to me that the liberal solution to the crimes of government were simply for there to be more "public input". But thanks for spelling it out so clearly. Historically that just does not work.
 
It has often seemed to me that the liberal solution to the crimes of government were simply for there to be more "public input". But thanks for spelling it out so clearly. Historically that just does not work.

no it doesn't. it helps to establish just how far they can go before the people storm the gates with pitchforks and other implements.
 
Nature Conservancy may not be quite what they appear

nationalizing land ? not sure I've heard that.

I hadn't either until I read the OP.

warmers are anti cow as are those concerned with over population as they take a lot of land.

but no one is saying we can't raise cattle any more. The "cow farts causing global warming" idea is mostly a joke anyway.

Mayor Bloomberg etc ARE regulating food intake as is Michelle Obama.

Bloomberg is an idiot if he thinks that outlawing big sodas is going to accomplish anything more than make him the butt of jokes. As for Michelle, she is advocating for a healthier diet. Now, that must be a liberal conspiracy, right, telling people that they should eat more vegges and fewer grams of fat?

anyway, environmentalism and healthy diets are two different issues.
 
I hadn't either until I read the OP.

there are some fighting releasing public lands but thats not really the same

but no one is saying we can't raise cattle any more. The "cow farts causing global warming" idea is mostly a joke anyway.

well some want it curtailed. from the "literature" cow farts/burps release more green house gasses (in terms of effect not strictly by measure). but as methane isn't any more capable of green house effect than CO2 yes it is moot. did you see the pictures of cows with gass bags coming out their arses to capture it ? hilarious.

cow-toots.jpg


Bloomberg is an idiot if he thinks that outlawing big sodas is going to accomplish anything more than make him the butt of jokes. As for Michelle, she is advocating for a healthier diet. Now, that must be a liberal conspiracy, right, telling people that they should eat more vegges and fewer grams of fat?

anyway, environmentalism and healthy diets are two different issues.

Bloomie has already outlawed transfats and salt so big gulps are just the next step for him. MO's school lunch g-men have forcably removed kids bag lunches and required them to eat govt approved food (ob dubious nutritional content). point was that the claim made is valid regardless the purported intent.
 
Werbung:
Btw, did you all know that just mentioning the word watermelon in any context at all at any time and anywhere is racist and is proof that white american's should be attacked by mobs.
 
Back
Top