1 posted on
04/09/2010 10:08:20 AM PDT by
RogerFGay
To: RogerFGay
Ayn Rand called it 40 years ago. She knew environmentalism would be the next big leftist gambit.
2 posted on
04/09/2010 10:11:12 AM PDT by
A_perfect_lady
(If one racist Tea-Partier proves all conservatives hate, what do 500 Muslim suicide bombers prove?)
To: RogerFGay
I wonder who provides funds for this Sophie Prize ?
3 posted on
04/09/2010 10:15:25 AM PDT by
Ken522
To: RogerFGay
4 posted on
04/09/2010 10:19:53 AM PDT by
boomop1
To: zot; SeraphimApprentice; Interesting Times
5 posted on
04/09/2010 10:20:37 AM PDT by
GreyFriar
(Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
To: RogerFGay
“The “Sophie Prize” is awarded for disrupting free-market capitalism and pushing the world toward centralized control.”
Sounds like Obama, Pelosi and Reid all may be jostling for this prize for their contributions in enacting ObamaCare.
6 posted on
04/09/2010 10:24:09 AM PDT by
DrC
To: RogerFGay
Related thread:
Hansen barracking for lawless destruction and the end of civilization (NASA director James Hansen)
********************************EXCERPT INTRO*****************************************
JoNova ^ | January 25th, 2010 | Joanne
Posted on Thu 11 Feb 2010 09:20:44 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
…
Civilization is the problem. Hansen recommends a book that incites violent sabotage, and promotes illegal activities to bring about an end to industrial civilization. Is this kind of book legal in the US?
James Hansen has called for industrial sabotage and defended lawbreakers before, but did he really read all of Keith Farnish’s words before he endorsed the book “Times Up”?
Farnish has put together a frightening compilation. He tried non-violent protest with Greenpeace for five years, but then he changed tactics. He got angry, and recommends you do too:
“Constructive Anger, on the other hand, does achieve something useful – even if it may not be exactly what was originally intended. For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then, however you go about it – explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction – the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.”
The four key rules of sabotage
1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Is it worth it?”
2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, don’t get caught.
4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.
What Keith suggests is vigilante terrorism, to paraphrase:
1. Stepping outside the law is essential. (But don’t get caught).
2. Blowing up Dams is ok, if you feel the action is a net benefit to the environment.
(Excerpt) Read more at joannenova.com.au ...
To: RogerFGay
“Today’s economic system is at odds with the limits set by nature. Too many decisions are based on short-term profit for a few select groups rather than a moral and fair distribution of... “
What “nature” is this fool talking about;
the one where EVERY life form on the planet (except humans) are obsessed with the moment-to-moment, day-to-day “short-term-profit” (survival) in which only some “select groups” manage to excel over their competitors;
or the NATURAL, ORGANIC environment of human economics which awards the smart, the talented, the frugal, the hardworking, the risk taker the same way?
The writer is apparently one who thinks it is “immoral” that the smart, the talented, the frugal, the hardworking, the risk taker is awarded over the ignorant, the dolt, the spendthrift, the lazy and those willing to just plod along.
14 posted on
04/09/2010 11:07:35 AM PDT by
Wuli
To: RogerFGay; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ...
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
