Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Should we #EatTheBabies? Or follow the Obamas' lead?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Should we #EatTheBabies? Or follow the Obamas' lead?

    Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was confronted at a town hall by a frantic woman — either lunatic or troll — hailing from what’s left of the late Lyndon LaRouche’s political cult.

    “We’re not going to be here for much longer, because of the climate crisis," the woman shouted. "We only have a few months left. I love that you support the Green Deal, but it’s not gonna get rid of fossil fuel. It’s not going to solve the problem fast enough. A Swedish professor said we can eat dead people, but it’s not fast enough! So, I think your next campaign slogan needs to be this: We’ve got to start eating babies."

    She even removed her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that said, “Save the planet, Eat the children.”

    Ocasio-Cortez, recognizing that her interlocutor was either facetious or mentally disturbed, handled the situation about as well as could be expected. Obviously, no one will be taking the Jonathan Swift route to avoid climate disaster any time soon.

    But the outlandish suggestion of eating babies should be enough to make anyone think, especially given the hyperbolic and alarmist rhetoric that surrounds climate change nowadays. Greta Thunberg’s needless anxiety problem serves as a reminder that at some point, irresponsible rhetoric about climate change can cross the line from merely stupid to dangerous — or at least to a point where it moots any need or desire to act.

    Scientists broadly agree that the earth’s temperature is warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. But that hardly settles climate change as a political issue. This scientific reality does not on its own produce any obvious policy prescription that is both practical and potentially effective in solving the problem: In fact, most proposals, like Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, fail on both counts.

    More importantly, the broad scientific consensus does not by any means extend to the precise timeline, nature, or magnitude of the consequences of that warming. News organizations can generate clicks from scary predictions about how Miami will soon be underwater, but no one knows the day or the hour when it will happen or even with certainty that it ever will. Very rich people who claim to believe in science, including the Obama family, are paying enormous sums of money to live right on the ocean’s edge. Are they climate deniers? Or are they just not hyperventilating?

    To hear Ocasio-Cortez and others discuss the subject, one comes away with a clear impression that the world is beyond hope.

    “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,” she has said. To be fair, she meant to say only that the world will end if we don’t address climate change within 12 years. But with only about 11 years left to act as of this writing, and certainty that the world’s largest emitter (China) will increase its emissions over that period, we would normally conclude that the world is lost — even if we do start eating babies.

    If this environmental millenarianism is real, then at least it helps puts other things into perspective. Impeachment hardly matters if the world is about to end anyway. No point in going through another wearying, divisive election season.

    And why save up in your 401(k) when you’ll never get to use the money? Why save for college when the world will be uninhabitable by the time their kids reach adulthood anyway?

    Then again, maybe the Obamas are right. Maybe you’re saving and planning for the future and buying houses on Martha’s Vineyard because deep down, you don’t believe in the alarmism, either.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    26,116
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 5,043 Times in 3,907 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,697 Times in 1,555 Posts

    Default

    Modern problems require delicious solutions.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadcatbounce View Post
    Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was confronted at a town hall by a frantic woman — either lunatic or troll — hailing from what’s left of the late Lyndon LaRouche’s political cult.

    “We’re not going to be here for much longer, because of the climate crisis," the woman shouted. "We only have a few months left. I love that you support the Green Deal, but it’s not gonna get rid of fossil fuel. It’s not going to solve the problem fast enough. A Swedish professor said we can eat dead people, but it’s not fast enough! So, I think your next campaign slogan needs to be this: We’ve got to start eating babies."

    She even removed her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that said, “Save the planet, Eat the children.”

    Ocasio-Cortez, recognizing that her interlocutor was either facetious or mentally disturbed, handled the situation about as well as could be expected. Obviously, no one will be taking the Jonathan Swift route to avoid climate disaster any time soon.

    But the outlandish suggestion of eating babies should be enough to make anyone think, especially given the hyperbolic and alarmist rhetoric that surrounds climate change nowadays. Greta Thunberg’s needless anxiety problem serves as a reminder that at some point, irresponsible rhetoric about climate change can cross the line from merely stupid to dangerous — or at least to a point where it moots any need or desire to act.

    Scientists broadly agree that the earth’s temperature is warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. But that hardly settles climate change as a political issue. This scientific reality does not on its own produce any obvious policy prescription that is both practical and potentially effective in solving the problem: In fact, most proposals, like Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, fail on both counts.

    More importantly, the broad scientific consensus does not by any means extend to the precise timeline, nature, or magnitude of the consequences of that warming. News organizations can generate clicks from scary predictions about how Miami will soon be underwater, but no one knows the day or the hour when it will happen or even with certainty that it ever will. Very rich people who claim to believe in science, including the Obama family, are paying enormous sums of money to live right on the ocean’s edge. Are they climate deniers? Or are they just not hyperventilating?

    To hear Ocasio-Cortez and others discuss the subject, one comes away with a clear impression that the world is beyond hope.

    “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,” she has said. To be fair, she meant to say only that the world will end if we don’t address climate change within 12 years. But with only about 11 years left to act as of this writing, and certainty that the world’s largest emitter (China) will increase its emissions over that period, we would normally conclude that the world is lost — even if we do start eating babies.

    If this environmental millenarianism is real, then at least it helps puts other things into perspective. Impeachment hardly matters if the world is about to end anyway. No point in going through another wearying, divisive election season.

    And why save up in your 401(k) when you’ll never get to use the money? Why save for college when the world will be uninhabitable by the time their kids reach adulthood anyway?

    Then again, maybe the Obamas are right. Maybe you’re saving and planning for the future and buying houses on Martha’s Vineyard because deep down, you don’t believe in the alarmism, either.
    You always have to discount any Trumpkin post when they leave off the source, I'm betting brietfart or gateway or Tucker Carlson's website, but it could be one of hundreds

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Phantasmal (10-06-2019)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadcatbounce View Post
    Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was confronted at a town hall by a frantic woman — either lunatic or troll — hailing from what’s left of the late Lyndon LaRouche’s political cult.

    “We’re not going to be here for much longer, because of the climate crisis," the woman shouted. "We only have a few months left. I love that you support the Green Deal, but it’s not gonna get rid of fossil fuel. It’s not going to solve the problem fast enough. A Swedish professor said we can eat dead people, but it’s not fast enough! So, I think your next campaign slogan needs to be this: We’ve got to start eating babies."

    She even removed her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that said, “Save the planet, Eat the children.”

    Ocasio-Cortez, recognizing that her interlocutor was either facetious or mentally disturbed, handled the situation about as well as could be expected. Obviously, no one will be taking the Jonathan Swift route to avoid climate disaster any time soon.

    But the outlandish suggestion of eating babies should be enough to make anyone think, especially given the hyperbolic and alarmist rhetoric that surrounds climate change nowadays. Greta Thunberg’s needless anxiety problem serves as a reminder that at some point, irresponsible rhetoric about climate change can cross the line from merely stupid to dangerous — or at least to a point where it moots any need or desire to act.

    Scientists broadly agree that the earth’s temperature is warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. But that hardly settles climate change as a political issue. This scientific reality does not on its own produce any obvious policy prescription that is both practical and potentially effective in solving the problem: In fact, most proposals, like Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, fail on both counts.

    More importantly, the broad scientific consensus does not by any means extend to the precise timeline, nature, or magnitude of the consequences of that warming. News organizations can generate clicks from scary predictions about how Miami will soon be underwater, but no one knows the day or the hour when it will happen or even with certainty that it ever will. Very rich people who claim to believe in science, including the Obama family, are paying enormous sums of money to live right on the ocean’s edge. Are they climate deniers? Or are they just not hyperventilating?

    To hear Ocasio-Cortez and others discuss the subject, one comes away with a clear impression that the world is beyond hope.

    “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,” she has said. To be fair, she meant to say only that the world will end if we don’t address climate change within 12 years. But with only about 11 years left to act as of this writing, and certainty that the world’s largest emitter (China) will increase its emissions over that period, we would normally conclude that the world is lost — even if we do start eating babies.

    If this environmental millenarianism is real, then at least it helps puts other things into perspective. Impeachment hardly matters if the world is about to end anyway. No point in going through another wearying, divisive election season.

    And why save up in your 401(k) when you’ll never get to use the money? Why save for college when the world will be uninhabitable by the time their kids reach adulthood anyway?

    Then again, maybe the Obamas are right. Maybe you’re saving and planning for the future and buying houses on Martha’s Vineyard because deep down, you don’t believe in the alarmism, either.
    However the woman wasn't an AOC supporter, nor was she actually suggesting eating babies to combat climate change. She apparently was working at the behest of a fringe conspiracy group with a history of such stunts. They stated their intent was to troll Ocasio-Cortez.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ba...te-change-aoc/

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    However the woman wasn't an AOC supporter, nor was she actually suggesting eating babies to combat climate change. She apparently was working at the behest of a fringe conspiracy group with a history of such stunts. They stated their intent was to troll Ocasio-Cortez.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ba...te-change-aoc/
    And that has what to do with the rest of article simpleton? Not a fucking thing.

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    You always have to discount any Trumpkin post when they leave off the source, I'm betting brietfart or gateway or Tucker Carlson's website, but it could be one of hundreds
    No. No reason to post links or facts anymore. No Democrats or liberals here do. Feel free to google it.

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadcatbounce View Post
    And that has what to do with the rest of article simpleton? Not a fucking thing.
    Well, you need to start at the false premise.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Well, you need to start at the false premise.
    What is false? Even your Snope reference says "She apparently was working at the behest of a fringe conspiracy group with a history of such stunts." Can any of you Democrats actually read and understand things?

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    56,505
    Thanks
    25,108
    Thanked 20,421 Times in 16,410 Posts
    Groans
    129
    Groaned 1,433 Times in 1,355 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default


  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    You always have to discount any Trumpkin post when they leave off the source, I'm betting brietfart or gateway or Tucker Carlson's website, but it could be one of hundreds
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ad%3f_amp=true

    The Washington Examiner, most likely.

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deadcatbounce View Post
    What is false? Even your Snope reference says "She apparently was working at the behest of a fringe conspiracy group with a history of such stunts." Can any of you Democrats actually read and understand things?
    If you read several times, I’m sure you’ll figure it out, but maybe not, but I have high hopes for you.

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    If you read several times, I’m sure you’ll figure it out, but maybe not, but I have high hopes for you.
    I read it. And understand it. You do not. Typical dumbfuck Democrat. That is why Democrats rely on dumb people like you. And you deliver.

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    They stated their intent was to troll Ocasio-Cortez.

    color me shocked.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    color me shocked.....
    Notice not one word about the Obama's hypocrisy from the left.

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...ad%3f_amp=true

    The Washington Examiner, most likely.
    And an "editorial" from the Washington Examiner no less

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Phantasmal (10-06-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Will Israel Follow China's Lead?
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-30-2018, 07:59 AM
  2. Will Romney follow McCain's lead?
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-15-2011, 11:25 AM
  3. The US Should Follow China's Lead
    By Bfgrn in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 02:55 PM
  4. The US Should Follow Europe's Lead
    By Canceled2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-17-2011, 01:06 AM
  5. lead follow or get out of the way
    By Don Quixote in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 09-23-2007, 11:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •