.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: jpuesan
    New Today: 1
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 697

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - Those socialists are at it again

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » General discussion
    Author Message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:08 am Reply with quote

    More socialist mania from "the experts."

    Coming to a perverted political outlet near you ....



    Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert

    By Jen Kelly
    The Advertiser

    December 10, 2007 01:00am

    A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

    Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

    Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

    And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

    Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.

    "Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

    "Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

    Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.

    "I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource consumption per head than other styles of households.

    But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.
    View user's profile Send private message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1712
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:22 pm Reply with quote

    That is truly comical, watch this space for more coming this way soon.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:46 am Reply with quote

    All this has been brewing for a long time.

    Fringe eco-academics like James Lovelock who were regarded as cranks a decade ago now get airtime on national TV - he of the Gaia theory who advocates slashing global population to 500 million. The logical end point of green politics is self-immolation. These weirdos are all end-timers and apocalypse freaks who in an more religious era would have been rampant bible bashers, telling everyone how to live their life and persecuting those who ignored them. They are the Green Misanthropists, eg see

    http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc091302.html

    Cool AND FINALLY: GREEN MISANTHROPISTS PROMOTE VOLUNTARY HUMAN EXTINCTION

    >From American Council on Science and Health, 9 September 2002
    http://healthfactsandfears.com/editors_rants/learning/2002/misanthropy090902.html

    Green Misanthropy, (John) Gray Misanthropy

    By Todd Seavey

    What are we to make of green activists who oppose electricity and want most
    of humanity to remain poor?

    What are we to make of green activists who would rather see Zambia face
    starvation than let people eat genetically-modified crops?

    What are we to make of green activists who promote "voluntary human
    extinction"?

    Finally, what are we to make of a philosopher who once held libertarian,
    pro-capitalist views, later held anti-capitalist and anti-globalization
    views, and has finally denounced humanity as a plague upon the Earth, openly
    longing for our destruction as the only solution to environmental problems?

    Calling them all evil might be oversimplifying. A friend of mine, Critical
    Review editor Jeffrey Friedman, insists that there are no evil people. He
    points out that political activists love to paint their opponents as evil
    but that usually their opponents just sincerely disagree about how to make
    the world a better place. No one, the argument goes, does what he does
    because he woke up in the morning thinking, "How can I make the world, on
    balance, a worse place?"

    I think Friedman is wrong to say no one thinks this way, since there are at
    least a few bullies, sadistic murderers, violent Satanists, and gang members
    eager to prove how bad they are. These people are evil in the classic sense
    of the word. But the case of well-meaning political zealots is a more
    interesting one. If someone genuinely believes that blowing up an airplane
    will, in the long run, make the world a better place, might we say that
    person - despite making a terrible, disastrous error in judgment (and
    deserving whatever retaliation he gets) - is not evil?

    Perhaps, but we are within our rights to inquire further about what "a
    better world" means in such a person's mind and whether he has been morally
    responsible in thinking that vision through. If his goal is a world of
    peace, happiness, and prosperity for all, we might be willing to concede he
    is not evil in the classic, villainous sense of the term - though we'll
    still happily shoot him (and so would Friedman, I should note - ultimately
    we both care more about consequences than intentions). If, on the other
    hand, the zealot's vision of "a better world" is one in which, to paraphrase
    Osama bin Laden, "the world runs red with the blood of infidels," it is fair
    to ask whether this in any meaningful way constitutes "good intentions" -
    though the zealot's desire to secure salvation and eternal joy for all the
    non-infidels means that even butchery may be an attempt (albeit a failed
    one) to do good.

    However, it would be naive to think that classically evil motives never
    intermingle with people's stated good intentions. The zealot may have become
    a zealot in the first place in part because he loves to kill. Someone might
    embrace the anti-moral philosophy of Nietzsche in large part because he's
    eager to rationalize shoplifting and vandalism, hobbies he loved long before
    reading Beyond Good and Evil. Similarly, a Marxist acquaintance of mine and
    other left-wing activists recently had a rumble with neo-Nazis in
    Washington, D.C. (think of it as a re-enactment of Weimar political
    violence) - and while my friend went mostly out of a sincere desire to
    oppose fascism, surely he went in part because he enjoys a good fistfight.
    So "good intentions" can be a veneer over nasty, misanthropic, sadistic
    motives.

    And that brings us back to the various green activists I mentioned at the
    beginning.

    When an activist such as Gar Smith, webzine editor for the Earth Island
    Institute (the group that worked to save the "Free Willy" whale), says
    "There is a lot of quality to be had in poverty" and complains that
    electricity is "destroying" primitive cultures by bringing them media and
    machines and raising their standard of living, should we regard him as
    well-meaning? According to a report by CNSNews.com, Smith says, "I don't
    think a lot of electricity is a good thing. It is the fuel that powers a lot
    of multi-national imagery."

    When the president of Zambia says his nation would "rather starve" than
    accept genetically-modified crops - and imminent famine creates the
    possibility that Zambia may one day face that very choice - should we view
    the anti-biotech activists who created this situation as compassionate
    people? Should we listen with sympathy to the hecklers who interrupted Colin
    Powell at the Johannesburg Earth Summit when he defended Zimbabwean property
    rights and American biotech? U.S. AID Administrator Andrew Natsios,
    according to the Washington Times, is one man who is no longer willing to
    give the anti-biotech activists the benefit of the doubt. He now openly
    criticizes them as obstacles to famine relief. Leftists may soon be forced
    to decide which they hate more, famine or technology, and the answer will
    speak volumes about whether their vaunted compassion is really misanthropy
    in disguise. (One precedent that makes optimism difficult is
    environmentalists' support for the ban on DDT, a ban that has cost millions
    of lives.)

    When the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement calls for all humans to stop
    breeding so that humanity vanishes from the Earth - for the sake of Gaia -
    they at least do so with some humor, but is it unreasonable to think that
    there may be some good, old-fashioned misanthropy (with which any
    intelligent person can sympathize) underlying their ostensible concern for
    trees and ecosystems? In the grand scheme of things, if even a species as
    impressive as humanity doesn't matter, what ultimately makes trees and
    ecosystems so important?

    Is it possible that many of these green activists are simply growing weary
    of decades of disguising a deep hatred of their fellow humans as a deep
    concern for nature?

    Philosopher John Gray was once more-or-less libertarian but is now the
    civilization-despising author of Straw Dogs, in which he argues that
    humanity is inherently destructive and predatory and that we should hope the
    "plague" of humans will eventually vanish from the Earth, enabling it to
    recover from its metaphorical illness. Helene Guldberg, in her Spiked-Online
    review of the book, notes that Gray laments the introduction of agriculture
    some 10,000 years ago as an attack on nature, while Guldberg counters that
    we should "celebrate the birth of agriculture...for marking the start of
    human civilization." In adopting his anti-agro view, Gray, previously a
    hardcore conservative (at least for a few years after his more libertarian
    phase) has reached a reactionary reductio ad absurdum: He has come to hate
    modern society so much that he joins the environmentalist radicals of Earth
    First! in longing to go "back to the Pleistocine!" (There are times when one
    suspects that all the world's fanatical causes are basically
    interchangeable, as when the Palestinian spokesman at the Earth Summit used
    all of his time to condemn Israel instead of touting environmentalism.)

    We live in strange times when a conservative is echoing radical
    environmentalists, while Guldberg, part of the Marxist crowd associated with
    Spiked-Online and the Institute of Ideas, sticks up for Western
    civilization, industry, and science (actually, Marx himself, who admired
    progress and condemned the "idiocy" of rural life, probably would have
    approved, but nowadays Guldberg and company's sentiments make them unusual
    on the left). The Australian philosopher Chandran Kukathas suggested a
    decade ago, when Gray first began toying with extreme conservative and
    environmentalist views, that Gray should be labeled "blue-green" (in keeping
    with the European practice of calling leftists red, conservatives blue, and
    environmentalists green). Brian Micklethwait argues on Samizdata.net that
    Gray is just a grouchy pessimist and always has been.

    And people should be allowed to be grouchy pessimists, even grouchy
    misanthropes who wish humanity would vanish. But if those are the sorts of
    motives that underlie their manifestos against biotech corn and their
    protests against multinational agriculture companies, we probably shouldn't
    delude ourselves into thinking they have the public good in mind when they
    make policy recommendations. It may be time to stop philosophizing with the
    greens and start psychoanalyzing them in much the same way that we do other
    hate groups.


    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:54 am Reply with quote

    Good post there, Fission.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:58 pm Reply with quote

    These people see humans as pollution. Pollution.
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:34 am Reply with quote

    Zose Eurosocialeests ...

    Now those crooked bureaucrats in the little, round glasses want to impose Eurosocialist EU constitution with only one country's voting to approve it in public vote. ... More autocrats trying to tell everyone else what to do while they silence internal opponents with several hundreds of thousands of euros per year salaries.

    These bureaucrats only work a few weeks a year with any dedication.

    This "reform" is NOT democratic, nor an improvement.

    This is exactly why socialism represents a stinking little elite ordering everyone else what to do without their constituents' approval.

    Vote these jerks out of office in the next election for betraying European citizens of their voices in this monumental decision developing.

    --
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/13/eu.treaty/index.html
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:40 am Reply with quote

    The EU is driven by France and Germany. At the moment both countries have Conservative governments (Sakozy and Merkel). You say that in order to vote out these "socialists" who drove the treaty, citizens will need to vote the opposition parties in. The opposition parties are the Socialists..... Laughing

    Feel ze EU consensus socialism!

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:58 pm Reply with quote

    fastfission wrote:
    The EU is driven by France and Germany. At the moment both countries have Conservative governments (Sakozy and Merkel). You say that in order to vote out these "socialists" who drove the treaty, citizens will need to vote the opposition parties in. The opposition parties are the Socialists..... Laughing

    Feel ze EU consensus socialism!

    FF


    Conservative is not an issue in Eurosocialism. Socialism invades all the major players there.

    People need to demand grassroots government controlled by voters, not by autocrats decorating their selves in authority and self-superiority avoiding constituent voices. If it takes a voting strike to demand voter control, then so be it.

    I agree that it is a huge problem of all the major players there, but it also a huge fault in the political culture that supports socialism. France, Finland, and other major socialists love their huge vacations, and as Sarkozy said, France suffers from 20 minutes of kissing colleagues at the start of each so-called workday.

    I am also dismayed at the French and German dominance of this system, since France introduced socialism to Europe in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. Bismarck followed shortly afterward in this downspin that originally rose from the HUGE class differences of earlier royals-ruled, feudal Europe.

    The French and Germans may as well have everyone else -- the Quislings against common voters -- sign the EU constitution in an old railroad car, making symbolic reference to the vehicle they both employed for signing treacherous documents. I could just see the Merkel, the Bundesbank (German Central Bank) director, and Sarkozy doing a stomping victory jig together outside.

    It bothers me even more that Britain has fallen into the socialist trap, since Britain is fundamental in history for inspiring legal gains in democracy, as well as the importance of individual human rights. Socialism only attacks democracy with a new elite largely based on political in-playing rather than competent merit, and inspires the group mentality that weakens the importance of individuals.

    Consider that the EU was modeled after the PhD thesis of Helmut Kohl, who was widely known for corruption in access to secret accounts as well as the Flick bribery scandal.

    Again, the German socialist system's elite protected itself and Kohl against prosecution.

    Similarly, Putin protected Yeltsin from prosecution in stealing many billions of Russian government funds. Putin very likely had to be in on this major haul of at least 15 billion dollars, which explains why Putin is not thieving as much now after those many billions were stolen from IMF (International Monetary Funds) and widely disseminated among the influential elements of Russian government.

    It's easy to see that whole socialist systems are self-managing systems of corruption. This is why you don't see government protection of corruption informants in European law, like you do for whistleblowers in USA. European law does not generally provide immunity from prosecution of those who could inform against system corruption. Asians generally only take actions against those who fall out of favor with the leadership system, unless the whole system was touched by the same scandal, like with Yeltsin. In fact, just about every legal agency in Moscow was in on the Yeltsin corruption.

    As much as I do not like FAS, the article was posted at the FAS site, from an outside source:

    http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/ruscrime.htm

    Alot has been written about Kohl and German government corruption, from outside the political machine:

    Some examples from many German books about this:
    The Corruption Trap: How our country sinks into sleaze

    The Black Book [of] Helmut Kohl: How it all began

    The Great Political Scandals: another history of the Federal Republic of Germany

    The Crisis of the CDU [Kohl's Party]

    News:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/609308.stm

    Audio:

    Helmut Kohl, the Power and the Money
    View user's profile Send private message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1712
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:06 am Reply with quote

    http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121407_carbon_tax.htm
    View user's profile Send private message
    furryfeet1690
    Baker (23 kt)


    Joined: Sep 19, 2007
    Posts: 38
    Location: Scotland

    PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:58 pm Reply with quote

    Its quite conveniant also that those scientists don't get anywhere near as much airtime as self serving pigs like Al Gore, promoting his propaganda. I would like to hear a balanced opinion on global warming when i watch the news, then i can make my own judgement, not be brainwashed into feeling guilty every time i let off i am damaging the planet. I'm sick and tired of seeing pictures of polar ice falling into the ocean every time global warming gets mentioned! Mad
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:05 pm Reply with quote

    Here is an excellent example of true socialism completely corrupts government, especially those with putin-styled dictatorships:

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/04/news/international/powell_KGB.fortune/index.htm

    The old Putin FSB -- just like old KGB -- boys are back in town, already robbing the system again.

    If you don't toe the party line, they will seize your property and divide it
    communist-style among party elites.


    Last edited by Graviton on Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:33 pm Reply with quote

    I heard the socialists poison our wells and are responsible for crop failures. Mr. Green
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:39 pm Reply with quote

    bueschu wrote:
    I heard the socialists poison our wells and are responsible for crop failures. Mr. Green


    Don't laugh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

    Stalin made the drought far worse by forcibly shipping out the remaining food, leaving almost none for Ukraine. The surplus was so high that much of it was put on the world market for quick cash resources in the 5 Year Plan.

    So quickly so many forget.

    Stalin actually borrowed this idea from Lenin's earlier go at this forced starvation in Ukraine as well.

    Now Mao's version:

    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/greatleap.htm

    Anyone still laughing? People must have a problem to laugh about this after these reminders.

    Here is a haunting reminder of modern Soviet style monopoly used for political threats:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Ukraine_gas_dispute

    Also notice how the Putiniks shut down the Georgian pipeline, their only competitor, with bombing in the recent fighting. This shut down the line all the way from Azerbaijan to Turkey.

    People are so deluded not to see the dangers of too much central control of an economy that attracts vicious theft of state property and ultranationalist lackeys that often concoct murderous plots for domination.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:07 pm Reply with quote

    I laugh because you seem to use the word "socialist" as a synonym for everything that went wrong in recent human history. Our definitions of "socialism" differ strongly: I use the word to describe a policy that is based on the concept of a solidary society and aims to lessen the cleavege between different social groups. You use it to describe ultra-nationalism, authoritarian rule and a strongly centralized economy in general (which in terms of Russia might also be called state-capitalism).
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:07 pm Reply with quote

    It doesn't matter what your own personal definition of socialism is. Look at the results.
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.12 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::