From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 13:52:23 MDT
--- Emlyn O'regan <oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au>
wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/28/02 20:48:36,
> mail@HarveyNewstrom.com writes:
> > >On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 07:02 pm, Mike
> Lorrey wrote:
> > >> Plenty can be done. Some of the easiest and
> most cost
> > >> effective things to do, the environmentalists
> don't want
> > done, in my
> > >> opinion specifically because they would solve
> the problem
> > so easily and
> > >> would not contribute to their other agenda
> items that
> > involve further
> > >> socialist encroachment on private enterprise.
> > >
> > >This sounds like the conspiracy theories we have
> been discussing in
> > >another thread. Do you have any evidence this
> conspiracy theory?
> >
> > Well, Greenpeace is now opposed to solar, tidal,
> wave, and
> > hydroelectric
> > power.
> >
>
> References?
Try the Greenpeace website(s). The Green agenda is
only partly environmentalist. The rest is heavily
socialist, as you can see by their support for
nationalized health care, education, retirement,
universal progressive taxation and nationalization of
industries. They are also against the individual
rights to self defense and to keep and bear arms, and
for one world government.
As an example of their agenda at work, look at europe
and its high taxes on carbon energy sources (gasoline
primarily). What proportion of these taxes collected
are actually spent on curing the 'greenhouse effect'
and what proportion are spent on welfare state social
programs? More than 90% is spent on social welfare
programs, price subsidies, etc. The proportion of such
taxes spent on actual environmental vs welfare
programs tells you how much the Green movement is
dedicated to either cause.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:45 MST