i guess the global warming thread got too long, meaning breaking of said law was rapidly approaching inevitability. angry in the great white north says this statement "deserves some analysis. " his post is a good example of how the thread goes to hell once the law is broken. i believe it is possible to draw comparisons (even shitty reductio ad chamberlainum ones) about history without insinuating you support the nazis.
bah, elizabeth may - next time, let's not quote hyperbolic brits. these people grew up watching sitcoms about kooky nazis and i believe this may have skewed their judgement as far as invoking nazi germany goes.
she did this at church, which irked minister-in-training glen pearson. interesting views, those anglicans have. at my church, it's 100% acceptable to break godwin's law and repeatedly refer to abortion as a holocaust.
I have to admit that I am very disappointed in Elizabeth May. While I am a big and small "c" conservative, I believe that long-term capitalist interests have to consider much more seriously that long-term business interests will suffer if we don't pay attention to environmental issues.. sort of like the American financial crisis - some people made money like mad for a while, but then the roof fell in.
However - when she sold her soul to the "anyone but Harper" vote, she lost that respect - how can your party gain credibility with that sort of positioning.
I'm also very troubled by relying upon "sky-is-falling" alarmists like David Suzuki and Al Gore who have refused to look critically at the gaps in the "global warming" models.. and who, will, shortly be complicit in the biggest scientific embarassment since Piltdown Man. And comparing Harper to Chamberlain is, well, less than a rational statement.
If we want to make real comparisons, some of the ealriest political environmental movements originated in Nazi Germany.. so, if Harper is Chamberlain, is Elizabeth May Adolp Hitler?
Posted by: Rob | 27.09.2008 at 10:38