Comments on: Cut Carbon, Kill Babies

By: Ike

Ike — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:31:45 +0000

Shaitana, you need to be careful.

For instance, are you talking about the limousine liberals who are completely out of touch with society – who ought to live within their own mandates?

Be more explicit, or else you’ll be accused of being a racist, as most blacks tend to vote Democrat for no other reason than they’ve never challenged the lies fed to them by a paternalistic and devious racist party.

By: n.n

n.n — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:24:13 +0000

Science czar's guru called for more carbon CO2 promoted as greenhouse gas needed to fight global starvation Their goal, or strategy, must have changed since that time (1950s).

By: Mauser

Mauser — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:56:13 +0000

Remember that the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century was also the genesis of the abortion rights movement and Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood, which concentrated on abortion for Blacks, and made it seem all peachy by gift-wrapping it as license to have all the sex you want (A common Liberal theme).

By: Shaitana

Shaitana — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:13:00 +0000

I just lost all respect I had for Mr. Attenborough. Alas my lost youth… BTW can’t we convince more Liberals to stop having kids? I mean so many are off to a fine start, but then there are the dumb ones who keep on reproducing anyways! Come On Dems! Do something about this travesty!

BTW I am all for multi-decade retro-active abortion in this country… hehehhe…

By: MissJean

MissJean — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:54:24 +0000

Actually, Ortzinator, that would be a return to our past. The first forced-sterlization law was drafted (and vetoed) in the 1890s, but the eugenics movement really took off in the early 1900s. In Buck v. Bell (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that the mandatory sterilization of the mentally handicapped don’t violate the Constitution. Of course, the woman in that case was “mentally handicapped” only in that she didn’t have a good education.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

Rewrite it a bit, and it works for our current pseudo-scientific fad:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting for disease and starvation to eliminate the surplus population, society can prevent those who manifestly unfit (due to being born outside recognized civilization or outside a progressively secular worldview) from continuing their kind.”

By: ortzinator

ortzinator — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:24:13 +0000

Just a few decades before they start sterilizing people.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:50:25 +0000

Brent Bozell asked me to write an op-ed on this for the Media Research Center, so that’s my project for the evening.

By: Ike

Ike — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:34:52 +0000

Go ahead and finish up the rest of the argument, Bob.

Much of the “concern” over climate and over-population is really just liberal racism escaping, and covered with a thin veneer of patrician nobility.

Go read Ehrlich’s works, and see how he describes the nightmare that is Bangladesh. It’s not that there are too many people, there are too many dark people! (You can see the same sentiments in Mathus’ books, too…)

By: Cameron

Cameron — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:58:23 +0000

Well, since you asked:

David Attenborough: 2 kids
Crispin Tickell: 3 kids
Jonathon Porritt: 2 kids
James Lovelock: No idea, but he does support nuclear power and refers to carbon offsets as a joke.