1
   

Let Them Eat Tofu!

 
 
Miller
 
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 11:54 am
Let Them Eat Tofu!

by Ann Coulter
Posted 02/28/2007 ET
Updated 02/28/2007 ET

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

Human Events
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 603 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 12:41 pm
What is she smokin? That article is quite ridiculous. First of all, what makes her think liberals don't know all those things? they are being debated often enough on 'liberal' media.

and then, since when is Stalin a liberal? Laughing i've never heard such idiocy.

quite a find, this one.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 01:23 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
What is she smokin? That article is quite ridiculous. First of all, what makes her think liberals don't know all those things? they are being debated often enough on 'liberal' media.

and then, since when is Stalin a liberal? Laughing i've never heard such idiocy.

quite a find, this one.


Well Stalin wasn't a conservative now was he? He was a lib on the far left of the isle.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 01:52 pm
Stalin was Russian, first of all. Outside of the U.S. the world does not divide into 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Plus, as you surely know, the term liberal has a completely different connotation in Europe, one that would be closer to republican ideas here.
Anyway, on the spectrum of ideologies, American liberals would be closer to American conservatives than to marxist-leninists such as Stalin who would be on the opposing end of the spectrum.

but that would be for a different thread, plus as far as i remember, these differences have been discussed on a2k in detail before.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 01:55 pm
Baldimo wrote:
dagmaraka wrote:
What is she smokin? That article is quite ridiculous. First of all, what makes her think liberals don't know all those things? they are being debated often enough on 'liberal' media.

and then, since when is Stalin a liberal? Laughing i've never heard such idiocy.

quite a find, this one.


Well Stalin wasn't a conservative now was he? He was a lib on the far left of the isle.


And Hitler clearly wasn't a liberal now was he? You know what that means.
That's right! Dun dun dun dun. Hitler was a (gasp) CONSERVATIVE!! AAaaaahhhhh.

Oh we could play this game all day.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 01:57 pm
freeduck, he was national socialist. you know what that means? he was a conservative socialist! Alas, that means, we're all going to hell, no exceptions!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 02:01 pm
What?!?! (Tiny little black and white world crumbles silently in the background.) But, but, but, that's not possible. Everybody knows that only liberals can be socialists, and that socialism equals communism, and that therefore liberals are communists and enemies of America.

Okay, enough. I'm having a little too much fun at poor baldimo's expense.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 03:12 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
What?!?! (Tiny little black and white world crumbles silently in the background.) But, but, but, that's not possible. Everybody knows that only liberals can be socialists, and that socialism equals communism, and that therefore liberals are communists and enemies of America.

Okay, enough. I'm having a little too much fun at poor baldimo's expense.


Not hurting me any, I have a little bit thicker skin then that.

When it comes down to it:

Facist is on the far right
Communism is on the far left.

Does that bring all of this into perspective?
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:03 pm
we are still digressing from the initial post, but since there are no takers on what Coulter had to say, might as well.

Fascism is far right, socialism is on the left, with communism on the extreme left.

Germany had fascist ideology, and "national socialist" economy. Figure that one out. World really isn't black and white.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:20 pm
Ann Coulter wrote:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I -- so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:35 pm
Where is Dlowan when I need her?? She remembers, since she once posted a link that is now on my old computer, a matrix that craven presented - that was much more useful in understanding political thought that the usual to us in the US thing of left right.

Very early days here that he posted that and it stuck with me. Too bad I can't just repeat it from memory. But since then, I see much argument as simplistic.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 05:58 pm
That article was so stupid I couldn't really read it. So I may have missed a few of her wackier notions.

Hello, liberal farmer here - and I hang out with many conservative farmers who are just as afraid of global warming as I am. The reason - it makes for unpredictable weather which means YOU CAN'T GROW FOOD. For centuries we have developed farming techniques based on climate zones and now nature will not cooperate. You end up with frosts in June and 75 degree weather in January - the plants don't like that and they die. Very simple and it gets worse each year. If you do not have a stable weather pattern you don't know what to grow. Drought or extreme weather destroys your crops, inlcluding animal stocks, global warming means extreme, unpredictable weather. As for tofu - soy is one of the largest US crops and right now it's in serious trouble because of diseases that we have no reliable controls for - so don't count on that either.

I'm sorry the term "global warming" is what has been adopted, the real term should be "Dying Planet".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let Them Eat Tofu!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 11:37:12