From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 18:35:24 MDT
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 12:43 pm, Mike Lorrey
> wrote:
>
> > Uh, you are confusing discussions. Greenpeace is
> the
> > most active part of the Green Party movement
> around
> > the world.
> >
> > To counter your assertions and aspersions:
> >
> >
>
http://www.greenpeace.org/extra/?item_id=4265&forward_source_anchor=Our%20Mission
> > forward_destination_anchor=%2faboutus%2f
> >
> > "Greenpeace organises public campaigns
> > for:
> > - The protection of oceans and ancient forests.
> > - The phase out of fossil fuels and the promotion
> of
> > renewable energy to stop climate change.
> > - The elimination of toxic chemicals .
> > - The prevention of genetically modified organisms
> > being released into nature.
> > - An end to the nuclear threat and nuclear
> > contamination.
> > - Safe and sustainable trade. "
>
> You have changed your list of claims considerably.
> I am now in full
> agreement that the above list comes from the
> Greenpeace website. I was
> formerly disputing your previous list which was
> totally different and
> could not be found on the Greenpeace website:
>
> On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 03:52 pm, Mike Lorrey
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Your long list of proofs that Greenpeace is
> politically active was
> unecessary and undisputed.
I was treating Greenpeace and the Green Party
categorically, since they have at least 90% membership
overlap, share much of the same leadership cadre.
It is natural that Greenpeace would not explain the
real reasons why they are for massive energy taxes in
the US *specifically* because it is rather plain that
similar taxes imposed in Europe have been squandered
on nanny statism and have not been directed to the
environmental causes they were intended for.
>
> > And, btw, Harvey, you haven't responded to my
> prior
> > assertion about european energy taxes. What
> proportion
> > of taxes on energy in europe has actually been
> used to
> > fight global warming, and what portion has gone to
> > welfare state socialism?
>
> I must have missed this question. I have no idea.
> Why don't you do a
> Google search? I'm not sure why this question is
> directed to me.
It was directed at you because you've been one of the
few individuals defending the greens here.
__________________________________________________
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 - 09:15:47 MST