Are you Left Wing like those or you is Nationalist well said if what you is ?!?!?!?! :flower: :flower:
Progressive Collection
- Thread starter TalkingTogheter
- Start date
OH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The tinfoil hat brigade is MULTIPLYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder which alter egos TalkingTogether chats with when he is not mangling the English language????????????????
Soldier??????????????????????
MHz???????????????????????????
Gilgamush?????????????????????????
Walter??????????????????????
How many personalities can one guy have?????????????????????
I don't need more than one to send you fuks scurrying for cover.
Why is being part of the collective so important if you can't stand it when you perceive other people talking to anybody but the collective.
Apparently Interpol isn't finished with the place yet.
Something you or nobody in the collective will ever experience, was that supposed to make me sad, if I'm not sad then it must be you.
Speaking from my own perspective as an Albertian. If energy is manipulated into boom or bust years by forces outside of the places oil is found then the rest of the same system is just as flawed. Maybe in 100 years nobody in the west will care anymore than the people in the east do these days about being fed fact rather than fiction..
From your POV how is Canada different from the Netherlands? I assume your living room is east of Manitoba.
From your POV how is Canada different from the Netherlands? I assume your living room is east of Manitoba.
LIE-berals and Muslims are natural allies-they ALL think they are morally and intellectually SUPERIOR to the rest of us.
So why then are they so HOSTILE to seeing us discuss their policies and programs in a public forum? The obvious answer is they are a bunch of nasty little dictators who want to TELL US what to think! Their definition of democracy is THEY SPEAK and WE LISTEN! Don’t believe me? Then consider the following:
This little gem of Muslim news appeared in the Sun newspaper the other day and its commenting on an invitation to join a “Pro-caliphate group gathering in Mississauga” this weekend. This is the story-with some comments of my own placed in brackets:
By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
First posted: Friday, May 20, 2016 04:55 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, May 20, 2016 08:01 PM EDT
Hizb-ut Tahrir Canada
A flyer promoting Saturday's event in Mississauga hosted by Hizb-ut Tahrir
A controversial pro-caliphate organization is holding another event in Ontario this weekend.
“Join us to discuss the strength of the ummah,” reads an invitation to an event hosted by Hizb-ut Tahrir Canada in Mississauga on Saturday. “Ummah” is typically used to denote Muslims around the world.
The goal of Hizb-ut Tahrir, which was founded in the 1950s, is to unify all Muslims and Muslim countries into a large caliphate. It’s banned to varying degrees in many countries around the world, ranging from Germany, France, Russia and most Arab countries.
(I say isn’t THAT NICE-our neighbours in Mississauga are so obnoxious they have even been banned in some ARAB countries-countries they CAME FROM!)
The causes of the bans range from alleged participation in terrorist activities to racism and anti-Semitism. In Canada and the United States it faces no bans or allegations of illegal behaviour. However, previous conferences in the US have been canceled due to controversy and public outcry.
The title of Saturday’s event is “Pillars of the Khilafah [caliphate] state”, with the invitation depicting those pillars as resources, population, industry and military.
(Note the immediate philosophical problem-one pillar of the Khilafah is the military-and they have not noticed that LIE-berals want to GUT our military! But then a disarmed/complacent Canada would be easier to defeat by enemies! But this is what the Trudeau’s-father and his sons WANT. The Trudeau vision is western nations groveling before their revolutionary overlords-as the Trudeau`s rebuild Canada in their socialist image! And the FIRST socialist step is to bankrupt us with debt and open us to new ways of governing after we lose faith in traditional ways!)
The Sun reported in January that the Canadian branch of the group hosted a similar event last November at a Mohawk College facility in Hamilton.
Mazin Abdul-Adhim, a prominent figure in the organization, gave a speech describing sharia as “the best system that exists on Earth.” He argued: “We’ve been sitting and not really doing very much for the application of Islam in society ... We’re required to call for something — the full implementation of Islam — we’re not allowed to call for anything else or compromise in any other way.”
(I have to say-isn’t that nice-we have allowed these people into the country and now these clowns are telling us they are MORALLY OBLIGATED to tell us WE NEED TO CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE THEM! And please note they also feel obligated to implement Sharia Law as well-which would neutralize a BIG CHUNK of our Cdn constitution related to family law and women’s rights along the way!)
The college was unaware of the nature of the event when the space was booked but later told media the group is no longer allowed to host events there.
In a press release in January, Hizb ut-Tahrir stressed that it is a political party “that works with the global Muslim community to resume the Islamic way of life by re-establishing the Khilafah (Caliphate) in the Muslim lands, and this work is achieved through intellectual and political means alone.
(Really? Then why did the Imam in Maple Ontari-owe tell us that “it is the fate of Canada to become a Muslim nation”? Of course he was referring to the Muslim habit of having 4-6 kids while Cdn women have 1.6 kids or thereabouts-clearly Muslim reproductive rates will eventually make white a minority in their own land and thus vulnerable to Muslim voter pressure to change us! Do we really want people with such fundamentally alien views to become the majority here?)
“Hizb ut-Tahrir considers it impermissible (sinful/Haram) to use violence as part of this work, as the Shari’ah (Islamic Law) forbids it. Furthermore, Hizb ut-Tahrir does not promote hate speech, rather the efforts of the Hizb revolve entirely around creating awareness of the Islamic systems and how they correctly solve mankind’s problems, and disagreements are respectfully addressed through discussions and sincere debates in an intellectual manner,” the group stated.
(And again I say-isn’t that nice-they will solve all conflicts and disputes with discussion and sincere debate-and after we are informed of the wonder of Islam we will be expected to fall on our knees and acknowledge Allah as supreme-OR ELSE THERE WILL BE TROUBLE! We all know that those who refuse to recognize Islam and accept the wisdom of Prophet Mohammad above all other writings and all those who dispute the primacy of Sharia Law as the most correct system are deemed to be sinners and heretics of a sort RARELY dealt with mildly under Sharia LAW! And Infidels my be blown up, stabbed or run down like dogs as convenient to devout Muslims!)
A representative from Swagat Banquet Hall in Mississauga, where the event is taking place on Saturday, declined to comment on the matter when contacted by the Sun.
(I say once again we are reminded that our prime minister-The Boy with nice hair-for Brains is a dangerous doofus who wants to implement his fathers dream-he wants to build a revolutionary new society on the ruins of our old “Imperial” Canada. Pierre Trudeau was proven as a hard core socialist revolutionary who despised what he saw as Western Imperialist society and his wretched son has followed his dream by messing with our immigration system and letting into Canada a horde of people who have NO HOPE of being fully integrated into our society-sometimes because they lack language and educational skills but mainly because they see themselves as morally superior and more holy and -as the spokesperson stated “Sharia is the best system on Earth” and they are “ required to call for the full implementation of Islam”.)
( There can be no peace and no compromise with such people since-by their own statements- they cannot be good Muslims UNLESS they keep pushing their views. Muslims keep telling us Islam is the religion of peace but who really believes it? Just draw up a cartoon of Mohammad The prophet with a bomb in his turban and show it publicly and see what happens to you! WE know from Danish experience that your funeral will be a closed casket affair as you WON’T be fit to exhibit!) (And our idiot Boy wants to bring in another pile of these people-for the benefit of the LIE-beral party who will be BUYING those ethnic/religious votes at our expense! What it comes down to is that LIE-berals have given up trying to prove their genius to us and are now IMPORTING the voters they need to maintain power!)
I think the following is absolutely true regarding liberalism:
Editor’s note: Dr. Terri Murray’s new book Identity, Islam & the Twilight of Liberal Values is a critique of the Left and its ever-growing collusion with totalitarian ideology, including political Islam (Islamism). The following is a summary of the book’s central themes that Clarion Project asked Dr. Murray to write for our readers.
The last years have seen a host of neologisms introduced into the political discourse. At the same time, old terms were resurrected with new meanings. This “newspeak” has suddenly gone mainstream – and not only with millennials. Words like “intersectionality,” “the AltRight,” “cis gender,” “trans kids,” “TERFs,” “Antifa,” “Islamophobia” and “populism” all have made their way into our everyday language.
Yet, many of these terms contain unstated assumptions or conclusions that have not been argued for. But the reality is that once the words are treated as meaningful, the point has already been conceded. This peremptory use of words begs important questions that effectively short-circuit and supplant critical thinking and debate with cheap rhetoric and victimhood claims. In fact, much of what is now being peddled as liberal, left-wing policy in fact erodes https://foyles.co.uk/witem/history-...entity+Islam+&+the+Twilight+of+Liberal+Valueskey aspects of classic liberal political philosophy. Simultaneously, this new labeling is being used to “sell” the regressive contents of these political “products” to the next generation of would-be liberals.
The primacy of the individual and the protection of his or her civil rights (classic liberalism) have given way to collectivist social arrangements. These arrangements give importance to social hierarchies that ironically constrain individuals to a subordinate status vis-à-vis cultural traditions and customs.
These arrangements sound nice, though, when packaged as “multiculturalism.” Yet in Britain, for example, due to multiculturalism, Muslims were made to interface with the government as communities. Due to money (and the influence it buys), leadership roles in those communities were assumed by Salafi-Wahhabists (backed by Saudi Arabia). These ultra-conservatives did not represent Britain’s large secular Muslim constituency but rather served to drown out their voices and colonize whole communities.
In the United States, there is the Muslim Brotherhood-linked group CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR represents itself as the voice of American Muslims. For example, in June 2018, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s travel pause for a number of majority-Muslim countries, at least seven Democrats from the House and Senate shared a platform with CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad and spoke in harmony with him.
However, a closer look at the organization’s history, activities, statements and causes suggests that its primary goal is to silence and delegitimize its critics (including secular Muslim critics) and to redefine what it means to be a “moderate” Muslim.
In general, in the last years, tolerance for intellectual dissent and diversity of opinion on moral and social norms has been replaced by a state-sponsored demand for “diversity.” This demand (to “respect” non-Western religious ideology) replaced the neutral state with a top-down mandate to show deference and positive esteem for difference (that is, difference from the West). Any refusal to do so is now punished as a thought crime.
At the same time, a new demand for “tolerance” emerged, this time for aggressions against the West. As we have seen, each new act of Islamist terror is quickly followed by apologetics explaining why these acts were the inevitable consequence of legitimate grievances against the West and its imperialism.
Typical of this was Glenn Greenwald’s apology for the Boston bombers, in which he explained, “As the attackers themselves make as clear as they can, it’s not religious fanaticism but rather political grievance that motivates these attacks.”
This “wicked West” mantra plays on the truth that Western governments and their agencies have indeed waged overt, covert or proxy wars in foreign lands, including in the Middle East. But opposing Western foreign policy does not require one to “buy-in” to the grievance narrative of Islamists (which, to no small degree, serves to obfuscate the extent to which Western superpowers have actually colluded with Islamist repression and its leadership). Liberals are now told they must adopt an either/or stance between condemning either U.S. foreign policy or Islamist terror, when in fact we can and should oppose both. This false dilemma glosses over the fact that Islamism is itself a colonizing force that seeks to impose a global caliphate and impose universal sharia law — hardly a democratic antidote to imperialism.
Defending Islamism as though it were the only option for leftist opponents of U.S. foreign policy overlooks the fact that violence and censorship are not justifiable means of redressing grievances. Doing so merely replaces one form of repression with another, rather than taking the moral high ground.
It also spins the fiction that Islamism has no inner ideology of its own that it wishes to impose. Meanwhile, in the West’s universities, moral relativists disseminate the view that ideologies that respect self-determination are on an equal footing with authoritarian, theocratic or fundamentalist ideologies (that do not respect self-determination). These moral relativists reject “Western” understandings of ethics and human rights, claiming that there can be no “master discourse” (meaning, objective moral judgments are impossible). Ironically, they simultaneously presuppose that Western colonialism should be seen as an objective moral evil.
Further, liberals are now being told they must either oppose racist speech or defend freedom of speech, not both. This false dilemma obfuscates the fact that this type of censorship has been used primarily to shut down the most progressive Muslim voices by the fundamentalists (and their Leftist enablers) who wield the charge of “Islamophobia” as a de facto blasphemy law.
Identity, Islam and the Twilight of Liberal Values unpacks many fallacies that were pedaled in 2017 and 2018 and offers readers some helpful suggestions for how to recognize and counter these misleading political ploys.
Editor’s note: Dr. Terri Murray’s new book Identity, Islam & the Twilight of Liberal Values is a critique of the Left and its ever-growing collusion with totalitarian ideology, including political Islam (Islamism). The following is a summary of the book’s central themes that Clarion Project asked Dr. Murray to write for our readers.
The last years have seen a host of neologisms introduced into the political discourse. At the same time, old terms were resurrected with new meanings. This “newspeak” has suddenly gone mainstream – and not only with millennials. Words like “intersectionality,” “the AltRight,” “cis gender,” “trans kids,” “TERFs,” “Antifa,” “Islamophobia” and “populism” all have made their way into our everyday language.
Yet, many of these terms contain unstated assumptions or conclusions that have not been argued for. But the reality is that once the words are treated as meaningful, the point has already been conceded. This peremptory use of words begs important questions that effectively short-circuit and supplant critical thinking and debate with cheap rhetoric and victimhood claims. In fact, much of what is now being peddled as liberal, left-wing policy in fact erodes https://foyles.co.uk/witem/history-...entity+Islam+&+the+Twilight+of+Liberal+Valueskey aspects of classic liberal political philosophy. Simultaneously, this new labeling is being used to “sell” the regressive contents of these political “products” to the next generation of would-be liberals.
The primacy of the individual and the protection of his or her civil rights (classic liberalism) have given way to collectivist social arrangements. These arrangements give importance to social hierarchies that ironically constrain individuals to a subordinate status vis-à-vis cultural traditions and customs.
These arrangements sound nice, though, when packaged as “multiculturalism.” Yet in Britain, for example, due to multiculturalism, Muslims were made to interface with the government as communities. Due to money (and the influence it buys), leadership roles in those communities were assumed by Salafi-Wahhabists (backed by Saudi Arabia). These ultra-conservatives did not represent Britain’s large secular Muslim constituency but rather served to drown out their voices and colonize whole communities.
In the United States, there is the Muslim Brotherhood-linked group CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR represents itself as the voice of American Muslims. For example, in June 2018, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s travel pause for a number of majority-Muslim countries, at least seven Democrats from the House and Senate shared a platform with CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad and spoke in harmony with him.
However, a closer look at the organization’s history, activities, statements and causes suggests that its primary goal is to silence and delegitimize its critics (including secular Muslim critics) and to redefine what it means to be a “moderate” Muslim.
In general, in the last years, tolerance for intellectual dissent and diversity of opinion on moral and social norms has been replaced by a state-sponsored demand for “diversity.” This demand (to “respect” non-Western religious ideology) replaced the neutral state with a top-down mandate to show deference and positive esteem for difference (that is, difference from the West). Any refusal to do so is now punished as a thought crime.
At the same time, a new demand for “tolerance” emerged, this time for aggressions against the West. As we have seen, each new act of Islamist terror is quickly followed by apologetics explaining why these acts were the inevitable consequence of legitimate grievances against the West and its imperialism.
Typical of this was Glenn Greenwald’s apology for the Boston bombers, in which he explained, “As the attackers themselves make as clear as they can, it’s not religious fanaticism but rather political grievance that motivates these attacks.”
This “wicked West” mantra plays on the truth that Western governments and their agencies have indeed waged overt, covert or proxy wars in foreign lands, including in the Middle East. But opposing Western foreign policy does not require one to “buy-in” to the grievance narrative of Islamists (which, to no small degree, serves to obfuscate the extent to which Western superpowers have actually colluded with Islamist repression and its leadership). Liberals are now told they must adopt an either/or stance between condemning either U.S. foreign policy or Islamist terror, when in fact we can and should oppose both. This false dilemma glosses over the fact that Islamism is itself a colonizing force that seeks to impose a global caliphate and impose universal sharia law — hardly a democratic antidote to imperialism.
Defending Islamism as though it were the only option for leftist opponents of U.S. foreign policy overlooks the fact that violence and censorship are not justifiable means of redressing grievances. Doing so merely replaces one form of repression with another, rather than taking the moral high ground.
It also spins the fiction that Islamism has no inner ideology of its own that it wishes to impose. Meanwhile, in the West’s universities, moral relativists disseminate the view that ideologies that respect self-determination are on an equal footing with authoritarian, theocratic or fundamentalist ideologies (that do not respect self-determination). These moral relativists reject “Western” understandings of ethics and human rights, claiming that there can be no “master discourse” (meaning, objective moral judgments are impossible). Ironically, they simultaneously presuppose that Western colonialism should be seen as an objective moral evil.
Further, liberals are now being told they must either oppose racist speech or defend freedom of speech, not both. This false dilemma obfuscates the fact that this type of censorship has been used primarily to shut down the most progressive Muslim voices by the fundamentalists (and their Leftist enablers) who wield the charge of “Islamophobia” as a de facto blasphemy law.
Identity, Islam and the Twilight of Liberal Values unpacks many fallacies that were pedaled in 2017 and 2018 and offers readers some helpful suggestions for how to recognize and counter these misleading political ploys.
Some good comments there Dixie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals LOVE their jargon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For one thing it marks you as being one of the club- somebody to be trusted if you can understand and use the jargon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And of course it is a deliberate insult to those wh odo not understand the jargon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-beral reasoning is such that if you do not understand their psycho-babble then you ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SPEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|it is of course a DELIBERATE ABUSE of free speech- but then LIE-berals prefer such a dishonest approach because it helps protect their arguments from attack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sadly George Orwell predicted the rise of this politically charged psycho babble when he spoke of the dictator "Big Brother" and the climate of "duck speak" that existed in the Orwellian nightmare world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Consider:
Here is a nice little story from Toronto Sun explaining why and how LIE-berals are making the ugly political climate of the infamous George Orwell novel 1984 come true for us. And I have included a few comments of my own in brackets):
The 'duckspeak' of climate change. Tom Harris, Guest columnist in Toronto Sun. First posted: Friday, June 03, 2016 05:44 PM EDT
Wynne’s climate change strategy rewards big business while punishing average Ontarians We hear it all the time: “Climate change is real”, “97% of experts agree”, “we must increase our use of green energy to reduce carbon pollution”.
But it is all “duckspeak”, precisely what George Orwell warned us about in his novel 1984. Duckspeak was a form of speech consisting entirely of words and phrases approved by the controlling party in Orwell’s disturbing vision of a dystopian future.
Someone who had mastered duckspeak could fire off ideologically pure assertions like bullets from a machine gun, without thinking, their words emanating from their larynx like the quacking of a duck.
Being called a duckspeaker was a compliment in 1984 since it indicated one was well-versed in the official language and views of the state. We are now in an era of climate change duckspeak.
Rather than being merely ridiculous or social satire, the purpose of climate duckspeak is ominous: To convince opinion leaders and the public to think about climate change only as the government and eco-activists want. To support alternative points of view is “climate change denial”, today’s version of thought crime, punishable by excommunication from responsible citizenry.
(I point out that the LIE-beral `carbon crap and trade` program is exactly like the now disgraced European `crap and trade` model! The E.U. crap and trade allowed for shameless price gouging, rigged stock markets with insider trading of valuable carbon `credits` given out for free by govts to their pals, left fiscal loopholes that were exploited by unscrupulous stock traders working with organized crime-AND failed to clean the air as those people and industries that had the biggest carbon foot prints were EXCUSED from cutting back by govts seeking to curry favour!)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sets the stage for climate change duckspeakers by repeatedly asserting, “climate change is real.” Trudeau’s claim is correct but trivial. It is the duckspeak equivalent of proclaiming “sunrise is real”. But Trudeau is employing a strategy right out of 1984.
His statements imply that experts have concluded that unusual climatic events are happening because of humanity, and that government must save us.
U.S. President Barack Obama does the same, asserting in the Cutting Carbon Pollution in America section of the White House web site: “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”
Referring to greenhouse gases (GHG) as “carbon pollution,” as both Obama and the Canadian government do regularly, is pure duckspeak.
“Carbon pollution” conjures up subconscious images of dark and dangerous emissions of soot.
But what they are almost always discussing is carbon dioxide (CO2). But were they to call it that, most people would be unconcerned, remembering from grade school that CO2 is a trace gas essential for plant photosynthesis.
So government and climate campaigners mislabel it as “carbon” to frighten the public and discourage critical thinking, closely following Big Brother’s strategy in Orwell’s classic.
Similarly, Trudeau and Obama err when they refer to low CO2 emitting energy sources as “clean” or “green” since CO2 isn’t unclean.
But the label promotes an image of environmental wholesomeness, hiding the ineffective and damaging nature of many alternative energy sources.
(I point out that here in Ontari-owe where LIE-beral govt has committed to buying every volt of green energy produced in the province-AHEAD of any other form of generation-we now MUST keep a pack of natural gas fueled generating plants fired up and ready-24 hours a day-seven days a week to be ready at a moments notice to take over from green energy when the sun goes behind a cloud or when the wind does not blow as planned. The grossly costly LIE-beral green energy plan has NOT cleaned our air-but it HAS cleaned our wallets and provided windfall profits to those mostly civil service Hogs and great LIE-beral pals that own wind mills and solar farms-while at the same time subjecting people in the countryside-farmers and such to towering eye sores that emit irritating noises that can make people ILL!)
(Govt has turned rural people into lab rats with this noise issue-and a TVO documentary has illustrated the probable scale and scope of deception regarding that noise-TVO played a documentary from England re a wind farm that was sued and the medical information used to dismiss the claims of the frantic neighbouring land owners was based on readings from a wind tower ONE THIRD the size of the one planted near their house! Yes-the test model used by researchers was MUCH SMALLER AND FARTHER AWAY than the unit being complained about-and judge IGNORED these incorrect measurements and dismissed the complaints- talk about the GOVT FIX being in! One wonders if the judge had stock in that wind farm?)
Finally, the “97% of experts agree” phrase is designed to suppress debate. After all, who would dare contest experts about such a complicated issue?
But appealing to authority or consensus is a logical fallacy that proves nothing about nature. Regardless, the surveys used to back up the consensus argument are unconvincing.
They either asked the wrong questions, or asked scientists who don’t research the causes of climate change, or polled mostly those who would obviously agree with the government.
It is not surprising, then, that language tricks like Orwell’s duckspeak are being used today to justify the unjustifiable in the war of words over global warming.
Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition, which opposes the hypothesis carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are known to cause climate problems.
(I say Harris makes some good points about LIE-beral duck speak on the subject of environment and I point out that for most people the debate on climate change has MUCH MORE to do with how to cut back on green house gases-and the great majority of us recognize that NONE of the current LIE-beral initiatives will do ANYTHING to clean the air-it will ONLY BE OUR WALLETS that are cleaned! LIE-berals are treating climate change issues as a grand excuse to set up a HUGE CARBON SLUSH FUND they can dip into as necessary for MORE GRAVY!)
(The quickest way to cut back on green house gases is to cut back on Hog gravy! IN the 9 months after the 9/11 terror attack-during which time 25 percent of the worlds airline fleet was grounded-there WAS a MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENT IN AIR QUALITY! Airplanes produce 75-85 percent of ALL pollution related to transportation-that means that ALL the pollution emitted by cars, trains, trucks buses and ships represents ONLY a FRACTION of the filth spewed by airplanes! Cut back on Hog gravy and they will fly less-AND CLEAN THE AIR while we balance our govt books in the process!)
(It seems obvious that we need to burn less fossil fuel-the problem is how to get it done WITHOUT destroying our economy and rendering millions of people homeless and unemployed! Radical environmentalists use duckspeak just as much as LIE-berals because the radical environmentalists are loons who don’t care that their `solutions` to climate change may force us into miserable lives shivering in mud huts in the forest and eating our daily meal of Dandelion greens raw because the trees around us are sacred and NOT to be used for burning, cooking OR for building! Its an ugly set of selfish LOONS quacking at us-LIE-berals on one side seeking to set up a huge carbon slush fund for selfish reasons and radical environmentalists seeking to destroy our economy because they figure we humans do not deserve to dominate the environment as we do!)