Posted by: graemebird | February 8, 2009

Enviromentalists Murder 200+ Victorians.

Whole families cooked alive. 

 

How many of you who own property, are allowed to chop down your own trees without seeking council permission?


How many property-owners out there think that it would be irresponsible to cut down trees on their property on account of the lies and scare-stories they have been told by the greenies?

As we have seen in the DDT bureaucratisation holocaust, the environmentalists don’t need an outright worldwide ban of something to get people killed.

 

Relentless small obstructions and discouragement is enough to acheive the desired goal.

 

Until more details come to light we have to consider that it is the greenies who are responsible for these deaths in Victoria.

 

Lies and scare stories kill.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I’d have to agree with you, bird.

    Brown and his mentally impaired supporters deserve the worst scorn.

  2. I was right about the other stuff too you bullshitartist Cambria.

    Or are you still claiming that stealing billions is good for the economy during a recession.

    Or are you claiming like Hill that massive bank money creation is not inflationary.

    Face it Cambria. You are a dummy. And a liar.

  3. anything else?

  4. What do you mean? Cambria has never……. oh right. And a bootnigger….. Cambria has never come up with a sound reasoned argument against anything I’ve said. And now here he shows up reiterating that I’m wrong about all things other than what I said in the thread.

    He’s just a bullshit-artist.

  5. Don’t talk nonsense Bootnigger. Just tell us again how money supply increases aren’t inflationary and how maintainging 1 billion dollars stealing a day is powerfully helpful for the economy during a recession.

    BACK DOWN FROM YOUR LIES CAMBRIA.

    LETS HEAR HOW HARDING CUTTING SPENDING IN HALF WAS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG YOU PATHETIC BOOT NIGGER.

  6. Its the insolence of these welfare queen bankers that really gets to me. Cambria, fundamentally a leftist, starts hanging around the libertarians. Then as soon as the banks are all going down the poohole out he jumps with these demands for special favours for the banks, with his Keynesian economics and just generally being a jerk who wants no-investor-left-behind policies.

    Cambria has never bested me in an argument on anything. He is a hardcore liar.

  7. Here is Gerrard Jacksons latest article backing up precisely what I’ve been telling you guys.

    I’m right and the rest of you have been wrong about everything. And its because I stick with logic and the rest of you are mindless zombies.

    http://www.brookesnews.com/090902obamanomics.html

    How did Cambria start deluding himself that he had some sort of economics understanding?

    Thats what I wonder about. He cannot put the simplist logical argument together about any damn thing and yet suddenly he’s an authority on economics charging about misleading the softheaded Boris and just generally bullshitting about everything.

    “Although I realise I am in danger of being accused of beating a dead horse here, allow me to once again stress that with consumption at about 70 per cent of GDP total economic activity comes in at more than twice the GDP figure.

    This is because the national accounts ignore all intermediate spending. Therefore we conclude that it is business spending, i.e. Investment and savings, that needs to be stimulated, not consumption. ”

    But not according to Cambria. Oh No. In Cambria’s view you can never cut spending in a recession. Although Harding cut spending almost clean in half you can never cut spending in a recession according to Cambria.

    BUT FUCKING WHY?

    The stupid bootnigger will not stay for an answer.

  8. Dagwood
    Stop deleting comments, you cowardly sheep rapist.

    Where does Gerry actually say that you CUT spending in a recession? where? What he says is that you don’t stimulate with a spending package.

    It’s not the same thing, but I suppose a tiny brain like yours wouldn’t understand the nuance of that statement.

  9. He obviously thinks that you cut spending during a recession idiot. WHY WOULDN’T YOU YOU STUPID CUNT?????

    Lets have a fucking reason why you would maintain 1 billion dollars a day stealing in a recession.

  10. You are a fucking idiot mate. Are you in fact saying that Harding did the wrong thing cutting spending in half?????

    Make a fucking logical argument you stupid cunt!!!!

  11. HE FAVOURS CUTTING SPENDING DURING A RECESSION. WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT? AGAINST HARDING AND VAN BURENS ACTIONS?

  12. You are a traitor. You keep lying to people about money and banking. You keep advocating for the bailout, and now you say, without any justification whatsoever, that taxeater spending is sacrosanct during recessions.

    YOU HAVE NEVER JUSTIFIED ANY OF THIS.

    You are a traitor mate. You betrayed all of us by siding with the left on all the important issues. Not least of which was carbon tax. When you never had an argument for that either. You lied about there being scientific evidence in favour of that one, then refused to make good with it.

    You are a traitor.

  13. WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST CUTTING SPENDING IN HALF LIKE HARDING DID YOU LEFTIST TRAITOR CUNT?

    LETS HAVE THAT ARGUMENT.

  14. WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR MAINTAINING SPENDING DURING A RECESSION YOU LEFTIST TRAITOR CUNT.

    LET US HAVE THAT ARGUMENT.

  15. Betrayed us on the bailout, the carbon tax, and now betraying us on the issue of “stimulus” packages.

    There is the clear pattern of betrayal on all strategic points as he argues with Homer about the 30’s.

    He’s Friedmanite in the 30’s and a leftist traitor cunt in the here and now.

  16. Look how this leftist cunt bootnigger traitor never stops.

    Just seconds ago:

    ROG SEZ:

    “NYT are now saying that the Govt will use private funds to buy up “toxic debt”

    JC SEZ:

    It actually sounds like an ok plan, rog. The idea is to place a reasonable floor and then let private money try to work through it.

    It sounds okish at first blush.

    IT DOESN’T SOUND THE LEAST BIT OK YOU STUPID TRAITOR BOOTNIGGER CUNT. THERE IS NO USE TRYING TO MAKE IT SOUND FREE ENTERPRISE SINCE ITS CLEARLY JUST STEALING YOU TRAITOR DOG COLLABORATOR.

    Can there be any doubt whatsoever now that Cambria is a leftist Welfare Queen. A fellow who constantly lets us down because of his parasitical attitude and his relentless triangulating.

  17. Graeme
    you obviously have an interest in economics. Let me know if you’d like to enrol in a course and I’ll give you a rundown of the unis in Australia

    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU IDIOT. I HAD COMPLETED A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS WHEN YOU WERE A SMALL CHILD. AND YOU REFUSE TO LEARN ECONOMICS THOUGH YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN IT FROM AN AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY.

    THIS IS A DISGRACE. REPEATEDLY YOU HAVE SHOWN YOUR IGNORANCE OF MONETARY ECONOMICS. YOU STILL BELIEVE IN THE KEYNESIAN MULTIPLIER. YOU CONSTANTLY DEFERRED TO IGNORANT TYPES LIKE ANDREW REYNOLDS AND FYODOR ON THESE MATTERS WHEN YOU OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TELLING THEM THEY WERE WRONG. AND YOU HAVE NOT COME OUT IN FAVOUR OF SPENDING CUTS IN A RECESSION.

    YOU CANNOT LEARN ECONOMICS UNLESS YOU ADMIT YOUR CURRENT IGNORANCE ON THE SUBJECT. YOU STARTED A THREAD BY ADMIRINGLY QUOTING A POST BY ANDREW REYNOLDS WHICH SHOWED HIM TO BE ENTIRELY WRONG. YOU DIDN’T CORRECT HIM BUT RATHER USED THIS POST TO CONFIRM YOUR IGNORANT POSITION ON THIS MATTER AS IF REYNOLDS WAS SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY ON THE MATTER.

    ITS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU ACTUALLY LEARN YOUR SUBJECT. YOU CAME OUT IN FAVOUR OF PAULSONS BAILOUT AND NEVER OPPOSED ANY OF HIS STIMULUS PACKAGES. THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS.

    EVERY LAST ARGUMENT WE HAVE HAD ON THIS SUBJECT YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG AND I HAVE BEEN RIGHT. THIS IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER LEARNED THE SUBJECT AND REFUSE TO DO SO.

    “Andrew Reynolds, prompted by recent blog debates, has a short incisive post on why Rothbard and the Social Credit theorists are wrong about their theories of money.”

    THIS WAS YOU JASON SOON TALKING. THIS WAS YOU SHOWING YOUR IGNORANCE OF MONETARY ECONOMICS. AND YOU CONTINUED TO SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THIS THREAD. YOU SHOULD FUCKING LEARN THE MATERIAL YOU STUPID IGNORANT FOOL. AND DON’T PRESUME TO BE SOME SORT OF EXPERT TELLING PEOPLE WHERE TO DO A COURSE WHO HAD A DEGREE WHEN YOU WERE A SMALL CHILD.

    IMAGINE BEING SO IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS THAT YOU FELL FOR WHAT ANDREW REYNOLDS WAS SAYING HERE. THIS IS REALLY DISGRACEFUL JASON. WHY DIDN’T YOU LEARN THE MATERIAL?

    http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=3205&cp=241

    NOWHERE IN THAT 2442 POSTS DID YOU EVER CORRECT ANDREW ON THAT SUBJECT. BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS. YOU ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. IT CAME TO ME AS A MASSIVE SHOCK THE FIRST TIME THAT FYODOR AND YOU STARTED THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE HAD THESE CONTINUAL THREADS OF DOOM. THIS WAS BASICALLY YOU BEING BELLIGERENTLY IGNORANT AND DISHONEST ABOUT ECONOMICS.

    NOT ONLY ARE YOU IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS. YOU APPEAR TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF LEARNING THE SUBJECT. WE HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT MONETARY ECONOMICS A LONG TIME PRIOR TO THIS THREAD. AND YET YOU STILL SCREWED IT UP. HOW COULD THIS BE? AND SINCE THEN YOU HAVE STILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU WERE WRONG AND I WAS RIGHT ABOUT THIS MATTER. SHOWING YOURSELF TO BE IGNORANT STILL ON THESE SUBJECTS.

  18. Graeme, now I’m confused. Before you said that you wanted to print money in order to write off debt. Now the NZ government seems to be considering using government funds to write off debt. Obviously, these aren’t identical methods, but printing money is still an indirect tax.

    What is your problem with this?

  19. My apologies – I misread the quote above. They are saying that the govt will use “private” funds to buy up debt. But that doesn’t make sense – how can a government use private funds without them effectively becoming public funds, by virtue of being confiscated from private sources?

  20. Beats me Fisk. The point about using new cash to increase spending is that this is the only way to increase spending. I’m not saying you necessarily wish to increase spending. But if you want to increase spending, then cash creation is the way to increase spending.

    There is a lot of fuss going on at the moment where they want to increase spending by stealing another 42 billion dollars off us in addition to the billions they are already stealing off us.

    But this will not increase spending. Increasing the amount of cash will increase spending. If thats what you wish to do.

    Now supposing you want to increase spending by lending money to the banks at bargain basement prices. Why ought the banks get this benefit in the first place? If you lend me money at bargain basement prices thats conferring benefits on me that others cannot participate in.

    This is no good. And notice that it only increases spending by also increasing debt. Whereas part of the reason why we have a recession is that everyone is in too much debt.

    So clearly the way to increase spending is just to use new cash to reduce debt and put up a reserve asset ratio so that the banks won’t pyramid on top of the new money.

    What is your objection to this reasoning exactly?

  21. Jason supposing that you understood economics. Why wouldn’t you just tell Cambria that he was wrong. You could tell him that he was wrong and show him why it is obvious that you slash government spending in a recession. Just like Harding or Van Buren.

    Well the reason is very clear. You won’t tell Cambria he is wrong because you don’t understand economics. Nothing is more clear than that. If you understood your subject you would explain to him why he is wrong, and you would be advocating massive cuts in spending.

  22. Don’t know about the reserve-asset ratio stuff, because I haven’t put much thought into it. I usually like to mull things over for a few weeks before deciding which side to take on an unfamiliar issue. My preliminary thoughts would be that if the banks were lending primarily for genuine investment purposes, then I wouldn’t worry about the RAR. But that’s only my interim thought.

    Regarding your other point, having reflected on your position on using government created cash to liquidate bad debt, I think there is some merit to it. That’s not the same thing as saying that I’d advocate doing it – just that it seems to make sense on its own terms.

  23. Well you would only do it if you wanted to increase spending. If you didn’t want to increase spending you wouldn’t do it. Supposing you wanted to increase spending and you didn’t want to print cash. Well in that case there is no use doing anything at all. Since the other measures don’t increase spending.

    There is no doubt that bank cash pyramiding is fraud. Since it comes from the practice of lending gold that you don’t have. At the moment we have had bank-shares pyramiding, where outfits like Goldman-Sachs have been making money by lending shares they don’t have possession of.

    Also there was a lot of ponzi-gold pyramiding going on where there was months waiting lists for taking delivery of gold and the waiting lists would get longer even as the price of these things dropped.

    This is fraud and it has deleterious effects on market prices.

    Plus look at it like this. The reserve asset ratio would have to be at least 50% for us to not have to bail these assholes out. This is not the only bailout in history. They are continual and inherent to ponzi-selling and ponzi-lending.

    The idea is to get rid of any ponzi-lending or any ponzi-selling in each and every market. It would have been somewhat cleaned out by the market already but Paulson came through with his bailout. The greatest act of theft in all history. And they will keep on getting away with it these banks unless we can stop them pyramiding the cash in the first place.

    Its not that I like the idea of introducing new cash by the way. I’d rather have the whole thing running on stored commoidities. But if you want to increase spending its better to actually do something which will increase spending, rather than just steal stuff and pretend that it will increase spending.

  24. WHY WOULD YOU NOT BE CUTTING SPENDING IN A RECESSION LIKE HARDING?

    EXPLAIN YOURSELF YOU FUCKING MORON.

  25. And the first thing the left do is dance around singing about how this is all global warming’s fault. It’s sickening.
    Thankfully my family are ok, but there’s another problem they’re having with the council in relation to tress.
    Basically, the council are forcing my dad’s uncle to sell part of his farm because land developers are building a housing estate nearby and ‘x’ amount of park land is needed near the estate. The part they want is swampy scrub land and does not contribute to my great uncle’s income. So, in a way he is land hoarding. Apparently, they want his land not just because it’s close to a estate, but because it also has an endangered tree native species on it. Once this fact was brought up at a council meeting my dad said he’ll go in a cut down all the trees on it down tomorrow. This sent them into a spin off: “You wouldn’t, you can’t, you need permits.”
    At this stage it looks like the council are going to get the land. The main thing we don’t want is them buying it at light-industrial cost, then selling it at residential price. Therefore profiting from an act compensated theft.
    Any ideas on property rights, Graeme?

  26. Well its just a disgrace Clinton. And surely it is these violations of property rights that are what this fire is all about.

    I would have cut down a few of my own trees by now if it wasn’t the hassle of having to get permission and having to get licensed people to do every last little bit of it.

    The net effect of all this bullying and presumption has to add up to nasty fires every once in awhile. And the criminals then turn around and blame CO2.

    What you outline is the corruption and bullying involved in zoning. We have to get rid of this tyranny of zoning.

  27. NOT ONLY DID HARDING CUT SPENDING. HE CUT IT IN HALF ALMOST. NOW WHAT ON EARTH COULD MAKE YOU THINK THAT HE DID THE WRONG THING?

    YOU ARE A FUCKWIT CAMBRIA. YOU DON’T HAVE AN ARGUMENT.

  28. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim4.html

    “In 1922, the House passed a veterans’ bonus bill 333–70, without saying how the bonuses would be funded. Harding let senators know that if they passed the bill, he would veto it. The senate passed it 35–17. Despite intense lobbying from the American Legion, Harding vetoed the bill on September 19 – just six weeks before congressional elections, when presidents generally throw goodies at voters. Harding said it was unfair to add to the burdens of 110 million taxpayers.

    Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922.

    Federal taxes were cut from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922.

    Harding’s policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924. For federal spending, in 1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.”

    Notice that he cut both spending and taxes and kept the budget in surplus.

    Now what could possibly possess you you moronic bootnigger, to suggest that he did the wrong thing.

    You are just so fucking useless mate. You cannot put together any sort of logical argument.

  29. Can anyone help this idiot Cambria out here? What about you Soon. You know no economics. So you might be able to keep a straight face.

    Try and sort out a logical argument why you have to maintain government splurging during a recession. Why you need to lock in the competitive splurging promises of the last election.

  30. Look Cambria you traitor. Where is your argument for locking in parasitism during a recession. So everyone is struggling right? And people are doing it tough right? And you want the thieving to continue at its current fever pitch FOR WHAT FUCKING REASON????

    This was precisely the same as your carbon tax idiocy. Always making the assertion but nothing to back it up.

    Why on earth do you champion the idea that Harding did the wrong thing?

  31. You going to come up with a REASON that Harding did the wrong thing Cambria?

    Or are you just going to sit around with egg on your face?

  32. You’re either a cretin or a dishonest dick. He cut taxes and cut spending which in an economy that was basically flexible in terms of the labor market shortened the depression of 1920-21.

    But where does that contradict anything Bird said? I recall Bird’s claim was that the Harding Administration slashed spending in half. This is true. They did cut spending in half. How is Bird being “dishonest”?

  33. The first point is that, maybe I haven’t been reading closely enough, but I hadn’t realised that Bird had mentioned a “budget tightening” in so many words. Perhaps it was on another thread – in which case I’d be interested in seeing the link.

    The second point – even if Bird had mentioned a “budget tightening”, I didn’t realise he had ever contradicted the fact that the Harding Administration cut taxes. If Bird did, then I’d like to see where so. If not, then he was obviously careless about speaking of a “budget tightening”, assuming he did on this, or another, thread.

    Either way, neither “cretin” nor “dishonest dick” would be appropriate to what at worst can be attributed to carelessness. Why did you use those words?

    • Clearly Cambria has taken to lying to bail out of this one. I insisted that you cut BOTH spending and taxes in a recession. Cambria insisted that you must never cut spending, but only taxes. Cambria then started with this movable-feast of “budget tightening”. Which he applied to opposing policies. So that he called Hoovers increasing taxes and spending and running a huge deficit……. well that was a “budget tightening” and the opposite policy which I advocated…… which was to cut taxes and spending and run a surplus budget….. well that in Cambria’s view was a “budger tightening” as well. So the stupid bootnigger cannot so much as keep to any sort of consistent definition.

      Clearly under Cambrias thinking Harding went for budget tightening. Not that this matters because budget tightening was neither here nor there. As revenues crashed he slashed spending. Which was the right thing to do. But he went further I think then merely letting revenues fall. I think he cut taxes on top of that. But since it was a recession if we translate matters to today clearly he was going for a “budget tightening” and he wasn’t having a bar of any of Cambrias supply-side bullshit. We know that from two facts. 1. There was a serious monetary crunch. 2. He always managed to run a surplus budget.

      So the dumb bastard has just moved to goalpost rather than admit that he was wrong. ARE WE CLEAR NOW THAT YOU CUT SPENDING IN A RECESSION CAMBRIA YOU IDIOT? OR ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT HARDING DID THE WRONG THING? IF SO WHY?

      So far the idiot Cambria has applied his sliding definition of a “budget tightening” to running deficits whilst increasing taxes and spending. To running surpluses whilst cutting taxes and spending. But the latter he has also called supply-side once he was proved wrong. DUMMY HEY?

  34. “CL, last time it was Bird that appealed to so called third parties. Unfortunately for him, the judgement of these third parties was mostly exactly opposite of what he expected. You see, even his most loyal supporter, jc, has had enough…”

    Its so sad. Swept along by the crowd. Boris was always softheaded, but he really had never taken up lying until now. I never rely on authority and will always back anything I’m saying up with my own reasoning in my own words.

  35. “Anyway Bird never told us about the tax cuts that went with the spending cuts, which is a good thing actually. Bird left the tax cuts out of course.”

    Flat out lying. Flat out lying. A total lie. Instead of admitting he was wrong Cambria simply lied. You can go back on any of the threads and I’ve said right from the start that we need massive spending cuts and tax cuts, and Cambria insisted black and blue that you must never have spending cuts but only tax cuts.

    Cambria lying.

    Fisk check it out.

    Cambria telling blatant lies like the insolent welfare queen that he is.

  36. BULLSHIT YOU ARE A LIAR. ALL THE WAY THROUGH I WAS ADVOCATING BOTH SPENDING CUTS AND TAX CUTS.

    YOU WERE ADVOCATING TAX CUTS ALONE. YOU CLAIMED THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES OUGHT WE CUT SPENDING IN A RECESSION. THEN WHEN YOU COULD NO LONGER DENY THAT THIS WAS EXACTLY WHAT HARDING DID YOU STARTED LYING ABOUT YOUR PRIOR CLAIMS.

    ITS ALL THERE ON MY BLOG AND CATALLAXY, SO YOU HAVE EXPOSED YOURSELF AS A LIAR.

    ARE YOU NOW IN FAVOUR OF MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS?

  37. ABOVE GORE IS SCIENCE-FRAUD MICHAEL MANN. I FIND IT HARD TO TELL HIM APART FROM GAVIN SCHMIDT. I HAD BARRY BROOK AND TIM FLANNERY THERE. BUT I TOOK THEM OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR GOODWILL TOWARDS NUCLEAR. I KNOW THIS IS ONLY TANGENTIALLY RELATED. BUT I STARTED FEELING GUILTY ANYHOW.

  38. WHY ARE YOU NOT IN FAVOUR OF SPENDING CUTS YOU STUPID WOG CUNT?

    DON’T YOU WANT US TO RECOVER AND BOUND AHEAD IN A DYNAMIC WAY?

  39. Barry Brook deserves to be up there, Bird.

    He’s another one of pseudo intellectuals.

    YES BUT AT LEAST HE’S DOING GOOD WORK DESTROYING MYTHS ABOUT NUCLEAR. WHICH MEANS HE’S NOT GIVEN OVER TOTALLY TO WICKEDNESS LIKE CLIVE HAMILTON FOR EXAMPLE.

  40. Come on Cambria you dickhead. Why are you against spending cuts when I’ve proved by theory and practice that they work?

    And don’t lie about your former position. Lying will do you no good here.

  41. Barry Brook has stuck his neck out twice now on nuclear. he’s clearly arguing in good faith

  42. Well its certainly in his favour. Thats all I’ll say. There is no need to embellish anything further than that.

    But tell me this. How do you get the entire youtube on your thread rather than just the link?

  43. it depends on whether the youtube has the facility

    on the right there should be two urls – one just gives you the normal web address and the other one says ’embed’

    you have to cut and paste the embed code into your post

  44. Right

  45. Holy Crap. I couldn’t get it to work on Google Chrome so I whacked it into firefox and it worked like a charm. Its a whole new world for this blog.

  46. The greens dirtywork lying to kids in school books i mean they are using kids in their dirty green plans they deserve to be shot

  47. Right. Well “sacked” is how I’d put it. We might get blow-back from shooting them. I’d be happy if they all lost their government jobs.

  48. Did you notice how Clives head is twisted around like that chick from the exorcist? He’s a very scary man is Clive. Right now he’s over at ABC Unleashed trying to capitalise on this tragedy.

    I knew that Karoly and these guys were going to pull this gig so thats why I put up this thread.

  49. wow Graeme, Mirana Devine is on your wavelength

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html

    It wasn’t climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn’t arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.

    So many people need not have died so horribly. The warnings have been there for a decade. If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.

  50. But its obvious. The environmentalist movement has a clear record of mass-murder when it came to DDT. And we have had increasingly more ludicrous fires in the last several years due to the environmentalist movement taking peoples control of their own land away and making people think that every time they murder one of Gods trees a Polar Bear drowns and baby Jesus cries.

  51. RACHEAL CARSON LIED the facts are that DDT wasnt harming birds as she claimed in her book SILENT SPRING and AL GORE is another big green liar and the whole enviromental movment is based on lies i mean their already lying to the kids in such as THE KIDS ENVIROMENT BOOK and A EARTH BOOK FOR KIDS as well as 50 SIMPLE THINGS KIDS CAN DO TO SAVE THE EARTH and even more disgracful is BROTHER EAGLE SISTER SKY A MESSAGE FROM CHEIF SEATTLE which was aimed at kds and was clean full of lies

  52. Right. Lovelock, who I think was a fine scientist when he was younger and a good ideas man even now reckons that Rachel was alright.

    Lovelock reckons the DDT-bureaucratisation holocaust cannot be sheeted off to her and it was really about city-based bureaucrats.

    Rachel didn’t live long enough to nuance her message. I’ve read silent spring but very long ago. Its more the subtextual message and the presentation that is the problem I think. You had this idea of continual buildup of semi-permanent toxins as we move up the food-chain. And this was speculative and about 99% wrong at least, but I think its a bit unfair to say that she lied.

    You may be falling into the trap that the holocaust-deniers set up. By blaming everything on Rachel when it was white maggot scum like Lamberts predecessors that were to blame. People with the mentality of that fat bastard Merkel who unfortunately, though a rabid extremist, somehow manages to come across as a moderate.

    So I don’t wish to pick on the memory of Rachel. And I think we ought to put more pressure on the evil bastards that are sadly still alive.

  53. JAMES LOVELOCK is a cracked urn who belives this GAIA nonsense he is trying to blame all these bad storm we have on humans who refuse to worship at the church of gaia becuase he is a wacko extremists green nut case

  54. Yeah but he’s 80+. So he’s running only on intellectual capital from his earlier years. Almost no-one achieves anything worthwhile once they are out of their 70’s. They may look and sound like the same old smart guy but it would have taken a lot of more youthful energy for him to do the hard yards and find out that he was being entirely mislead.

  55. THATS UNPROVED. AND SO WHAT. IT APPEARS YOU ARE PUTTING A FEW BIRDS AHEAD OF THE LIVES OF BLACK PEOPLE. YOU ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE NEARLY ALL EUGENICISTS.

  56. That’s just unadulterated LaRouchian garbage Bird. Go back to New Zealand, wog.

  57. Enviromentalism is a radical idea put forth by a bunch of eco-freaks who bleive everything they have read in their eco-wacko magazines and the blabberings of various eco-freaks like PAUL EHRLICH and RACHEAL CARSON

  58. Our Muslim brothers and sisters historically were early proponents of environmentalism and hence we are in Islam’s eternal debt.

    Muhammad was one of history’s most important pioneers of environmentalism. We know this from his teachings on environmental preservation. His hadiths on agriculture and environmental philosophy were compiled in the “Book of Agriculture” which included the following saying:

    “There is none amongst the believers who plants a tree, or sows a seed, and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats thereof, but it is regarded as having given a charitable gift [for which there is great recompense].”

    The Qur’an states: “And there is no animal in the earth nor bird that flies with its two wings, but that they are communities like yourselves.”

  59. Fucking Jew Bastards

  60. Christine, you fat shit. So you’re a Muslim now? Freaking arsehole.

  61. As the most powerful woman in the federal parliament, after PM Gillard, I have no hesitation in declaring that “We are all Muslims now”, in the environmental sense to which I’ve alluded.

    As to whether I will convert to Islam, I am quite sincerely torn between Islam, Buddhism and shamanism since all three religions were the loci of the birth of environmentalism come to fruition in today’s international greens movement and the major Australian political party of which I shall soon be leader.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: