Hate speech from a Princeton economist
Warmism supporter Paul Krugman says in the NYT:
"So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
Source
The usual punishment for treason is death so this runs very close to incitement to violence.
10 comments:
"The usual punishment for treason is death so this runs very close to incitement to violence. "
That's quite a stretch, even for you.
The article represents one of the far-left's basic tactics, which is to invent a crisis, (ie: global warming) create fear and hysteria, then force their vile agenda onto everyone, whether you agree or not. Now that they have filibuster-proof control of congress, i'm afraid we're going to see a whole lot more of this power-mad abuse of freedom. America is now under the rule of a one-party system, which is about as anti-democracy as you can get. But, since there is no outrage being displayed by the people, those people apparently deserve nothing better.
I beg to differ with Anonymous 1:46:
There has been outrage, in the form of the "Tea Parties" that were held on April 15, and scheduled for July 4.
These protests were either not reported, ridiculed, or downplayed by the media. People are starting to mobilize, and I would hope this will be seen in the mid-term elections.
If not, then I concede to Anonymous 1:46.
I consider it an abdication of a congressman's responsibility to hear all sides of a subject, but the liberals refuse to hear speakers who can present evidence that global warming is either a cycle or not even happening. They have their agenda and they are not about to let any "inconvenient truths" get in the way.
You're right Brian, but it's nowhere near enough since those protests had no effect. If they continue and grow? Perhaps, but that remains to be seen. Generally speaking, the American people will take/have taken an almost unlimited amount of abuse from their elected officials. Their response? To go and vote for the same crooks every election day, and the politicians and the media are very aware of it.
Not quite, David. It is an incitement to violence in spirit as well as in form.
It's clearly designed to indicate that those who dare oppose the alarmist view are outcasts in society and should be treated as such.
The radical ecomaniacs (as all radical leftists) have for decades resorted to violence in their actions against those they see as "enemies of the planet" or whatever term they use at any given time.
Firebombings, murders, etc. etc.
By classifying those who oppose him as he did he clearly means to indicate that they are legitimate targets for such action.
I don't think it fits the legal definition of "incitement to violence", but it is dancing on the line. It is definitely an attempt to paint opponents of AGW claims as "evil personified".
Krugman hasn't written anything valid in decades.
His remarks also affirm the leftist notion that if you dissagree with a leftist (no matter the facts or lack there of) you're wrong and should be silenced.
~darko
"affirm the leftist notion that if you dissagree with a leftist (no matter the facts or lack there of) you're wrong and should be silenced."
Yawn
The only treason that was committed was committed against the United States by the 219 representatives who voted in favor of the bill. Names are being noted (Mark Levin is one taking down their names), and their primary opponents will be supported in 2010. Hopefully we who live in the appropriate districts will be able to vote them out in those primaries and remove them from power. There are some who are waking up...
Post a Comment