NDP/Leftist/Green Hypocrisy

[August1991]

Everything else aside (and I personally think May is probably the dumbest would-be politician to come on the Federal scene in living memory), what you wrote may stand as being the most bizarre non sequitur I`ve seen on this site.

There are about 6 billion people on the planet, or about 1 billion or so parents. If every parent took their children on a tour of Europe, what would be the CO2 emissions?

If Elizabeth May truly believed that CO2 emissions were an imminent cause of death, would she take her daughter on such a tour? Leftists/Greens often say that they are alone in their beliefs. They have difficulty to explain their viewpoint. They are ridiculed.

Well, in the 1930s, Winston Churchill believed, against popular opinion, that Nazi Germany was a threat to the civilized world. Many people laughed at Churchill and ridiculed him. Churchill, like Suzuki and May, ignored the ridicule. Unlike Suzuki and May, Churchill was not a hypocrite. Churchill did not travel to Nazi Germany and meet Hitler.

----

Jack Layton goes to private health clinics.

David Suzuki has two homes.

Elizabeth May travels about Europe with her daughter.

----

Even young children understand how immoral this behaviour is. Older children describe it as: "Do as I say, not as I do".

Edited January 3, 2010 by August1991

[madmax]

Well, in the 1930s, Winston Churchill believed, against popular opinion, that Nazi Germany was a threat to the civilized world. Many people laughed at Churchill and ridiculed him. Churchill, like Suzuki and May, ignored the ridicule. Unlike Suzuki and May, Churchill was not a hypocrite. Churchill did not travel to Nazi Germany and meet Hitler.

You lost me.... NAZI ERA???

Here is the RIGHTY:

CONSERVATIVE POLITICIAN and PRIME MINISTER of the Britain

"Neville Chamberlain, born Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. When Hitler continued his aggression, Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and Chamberlain led Britain through the first eight months of World War II."

Here is a LEFTY:

TC DOUGLAS Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

“Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt -- it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege."

Now compare that last comment into context with the current governments repetitive nature to prorogue parliment. Is this the first step?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You lost me.... NAZI ERA???

Here is the RIGHTY:

CONSERVATIVE POLITICIAN and PRIME MINISTER of the Britain

"Neville Chamberlain, born Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. When Hitler continued his aggression, Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and Chamberlain led Britain through the first eight months of World War II."

Here is a LEFTY:

TC DOUGLAS Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

“Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt -- it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege."

Now compare that last comment into context with the current governments repetitive nature to prorogue parliment. Is this the first step?

Harper and Nazi in the same sentence is way beyond acceptable. I may not like the guy but...........

[August1991]

You lost me.... NAZI ERA???

Madmax, I merely meant to say that if someone truly believed that global warming (or whatever the claim is) mattered, they wouldn't behave as Suzuki, May, Layton (for example) did.

It is obvious that these people want the rest of us to do - while they don't. Every parent knows the awful moment when a child challenges the hypocrisy of the order: "Do as I say and not as I do!"

----

Nazi era? I recently watched Shoah. At one point, an anti-Nazi Polish Catholic undergound courier describes meeting Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The Jews were willing to do anything to obtain support. They knew that they faced annihilation.

I suspect that Elizabeth May truly believes that the world faces an impending environmental doom. OTOH, May is a flake. She can also travel around Europe with her daughter. IMHO, Suzuki and Layton are also flakes.

Edited January 4, 2010 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

People who can't post without following Godwin's law are flakes too.

[madmax]

Harper and Nazi in the same sentence is way beyond acceptable. I may not like the guy but...........

My point exactly. Whenever one goes down the Nazi road, its trollbait. Just doing some DA.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

My point exactly. Whenever one goes down the Nazi road, its trollbait. Just doing some DA.

We need to avoid the use of such crap, because there is nothing that comes close to the harsh reality of those extremist scum.

[KeyStone]

Congratulations. You have realized that people that advocate for change, are not perfect.

Yes, Elizabeth May flies in planes sometimes.

Yes, Jack Layton went to a private clinic once in his life 13 years ago.

Yes, David Suzuki has chosen not to live in a cave in the mountains.

Advocating for change does not mean that one has to be perfect. It means that you give up the changes that you can, and you make an effort. I don't think it is especially necessary for David Suzuki to live in a one-room shack and power everything by solar panels and 4 hours of a bicycle-generator in order to have credibility as an environmentalist.

What sickens me is not hypocrisy. What sickens me are people that feel a need to tear down the people that are trying to make a difference, by looking for the tiniest flaw in them. Then, they declare that since those people are not perfect, it must mean that we are all the same, so that must be justification for a life of hedonistic indulgence at the expense of the environment and the less fortunate. If you want to be a selfish prick, go ahead - but you don't really need to spend your time tearing down others that are trying to make a difference, simply because they are not 100% perfect.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If you want to be a selfish prick, go ahead - but you don't really need to spend your time tearing down others that are trying to make a difference, simply because they are not 100% perfect.

Interesting...then why do these imperfect change agents spend so much time "tearing down" the lifestyles of others?

Trying to make a difference?

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting...then why do these imperfect change agents spend so much time "tearing down" the lifestyles of others?

Trying to make a difference?

Do you have examples of Suzuki saying "don`t own a second home" or any of them personally going after someone for their choices ?

They do ask for people to try to do their part, and for policy changes to mandate change where it is necessary.

[blueblood]

Congratulations. You have realized that people that advocate for change, are not perfect.

Yes, Elizabeth May flies in planes sometimes.

Yes, Jack Layton went to a private clinic once in his life 13 years ago.

Yes, David Suzuki has chosen not to live in a cave in the mountains.

Advocating for change does not mean that one has to be perfect. It means that you give up the changes that you can, and you make an effort. I don't think it is especially necessary for David Suzuki to live in a one-room shack and power everything by solar panels and 4 hours of a bicycle-generator in order to have credibility as an environmentalist.

What sickens me is not hypocrisy. What sickens me are people that feel a need to tear down the people that are trying to make a difference, by looking for the tiniest flaw in them. Then, they declare that since those people are not perfect, it must mean that we are all the same, so that must be justification for a life of hedonistic indulgence at the expense of the environment and the less fortunate. If you want to be a selfish prick, go ahead - but you don't really need to spend your time tearing down others that are trying to make a difference, simply because they are not 100% perfect.

But these people go around tearing down society for using benefits that are against their point of view.

If you want to play that game, then would you be berating a born again Christian girl for wandering into the pharmacy to buy birth control even though she preaches abstinence?

People in Greenpeace want us to live in the stone age, but would they be willing to give up the perks that they enjoy; I doubt it.

Those people have no business tearing people down if they can't back up their claims.

[Michael Hardner]

à

If you want to play that game, then would you be berating a born again Christian girl for wandering into the pharmacy to buy birth control even though she preaches abstinence?

People in Greenpeace want us to live in the stone age, but would they be willing to give up the perks that they enjoy; I doubt it.

Those people have no business tearing people down if they can't back up their claims.

The analogy is a bad one: the Christian girl's actions don't affect anyone other than herself whereas others' actions with regards to the environment do.

Your assertion about Greenpeace would mean that their intentions are not to save the environment but to inflict inconvenience on people for some reason, and that doesn't hold.

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you have examples of Suzuki saying "don`t own a second home" or any of them personally going after someone for their choices ?

Yes...he calls it his "Nature Challenge"...from wiki:

- Reduce home energy use by 10%

- Choose energy-efficient homes & appliances

- Don't use pesticides

- Eat meat-free meals one day a week

- Buy locally grown and produced food

- Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle

- Walk, bike, carpool or take transit

- Choose a home close to work or school

- Support alternative transportation

- Learn more and share with others

They do ask for people to try to do their part, and for policy changes to mandate change where it is necessary.

Oh sure...even while sucking up more resources and making more pollution than the average Joe. Marvelous.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Your assertion about Greenpeace would mean that their intentions are not to save the environment but to inflict inconvenience on people for some reason, and that doesn't hold.

Oh yes it does....Greenpeace has intentionally impeded the safe navigation of private, commercial, and military vessels for years. The crew use to line up for a chance to whack that bastards with a fully charged fire hose. Lots of fun!

Edited January 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Yes...he calls it his "Nature Challenge"...from wiki:

- Reduce home energy use by 10%

- Choose energy-efficient homes & appliances

- Don't use pesticides

- Eat meat-free meals one day a week

- Buy locally grown and produced food

- Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle

- Walk, bike, carpool or take transit

- Choose a home close to work or school

- Support alternative transportation

- Learn more and share with others

He didn't say have one home, though. So....

[Michael Hardner]

Oh yes it does....Greenpeace has intentionally impeded the safe navigation of private, commercial, and military vessels for years. The crew use to line up for a chance to whack that bastards with a fully charged fire hose.

Right... like I said... doesn't really hold.

We start to get into conspiracy territory with some of these assertions, and I'm sure you don't want to be a part of that.

[bush_cheney2004]

We start to get into conspiracy territory with some of these assertions, and I'm sure you don't want to be a part of that.

Conspiracy theory my ass...Greenpeace whackos would run Zodiacs and RIBs across the bows of large vessels constrained in narrow channels hoping to cause incidents and garner press coverage for their "cause(s)".

Why these buttholes would try such stunts against nuclear powered military vessels is obvious.

[bush_cheney2004]

He didn't say have one home, though. So....

LOL! No, but he prescribes many attributes for the home(s) we would choose. So....when will he follow his own advice.

[blueblood]

The analogy is a bad one: the Christian girl's actions don't affect anyone other than herself whereas others' actions with regards to the environment do.

Your assertion about Greenpeace would mean that their intentions are not to save the environment but to inflict inconvenience on people for some reason, and that doesn't hold.

The girl is however saying to others (preaching) to be abstinent because its right. If she goes and buys birth control pills because her and her youth pastor are getting freaky, that would make her a hypocrite would it not.

I think greenpeace doesn`t care about the means, only the end. Since getting to their idea of a clean environment would require all of us to make large sacrifices. Would they make the same sacrifices, and why aren`t they now.

[Alta4ever]

The girl is however saying to others (preaching) to be abstinent because its right. If she goes and buys birth control pills because her and her youth pastor are getting freaky, that would make her a hypocrite would it not.

I think greenpeace doesn`t care about the means, only the end. Since getting to their idea of a clean environment would require all of us to make large sacrifices. Would they make the same sacrifices, and why aren`t they now.

Just remeber this when posting responses to these types.

There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.

George Orwell

[Michael Hardner]

Conspiracy theory my ass...Greenpeace whackos would run Zodiacs and RIBs across the bows of large vessels constrained in narrow channels hoping to cause incidents and garner press coverage for their "cause(s)".

Why these buttholes would try such stunts against nuclear powered military vessels is obvious.

Ok, so your point seems to be that their intentions are not to save the environment but to cause s**t for people like you.

Like I said, we're in conspiracy land here.

[Michael Hardner]

LOL! No, but he prescribes many attributes for the home(s) we would choose. So....when will he follow his own advice.

Yes, that's valid: that he should explain why it's ok for him to own two homes according to his advice. But he doesn't seem to be tearing people down, just prescribing the path to a green lifestyle.

[Michael Hardner]

The girl is however saying to others (preaching) to be abstinent because its right. If she goes and buys birth control pills because her and her youth pastor are getting freaky, that would make her a hypocrite would it not.

I think greenpeace doesn`t care about the means, only the end. Since getting to their idea of a clean environment would require all of us to make large sacrifices. Would they make the same sacrifices, and why aren`t they now.

The analogy fails not because of the girl's beliefs but because her actions in buying the birth control don't affect me. Therefore, what business do I have telling her what to do or not to do.

Do you understand now ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, so your point seems to be that their intentions are not to save the environment but to cause s**t for people like you.

Like I said, we're in conspiracy land here.

Not just me, but anyone or any industry that conflicts with their eco-facsist agenda to "save the world".

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/end-the-nuclear-threat

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, that's valid: that he should explain why it's ok for him to own two homes according to his advice. But he doesn't seem to be tearing people down, just prescribing the path to a green lifestyle.

Then Suzuki's critics can do same....prescribing the path to choices not limited to his imagination.