Quote:
The global warming scam is just an excuse to take everything away from you to save the planet.
Everything? Yes, everything.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams and Chief Climate Officer and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Rohit T. Aggarwala today released the city’s first integrated greenhouse gas inventory, which incorporates emissions from the production and consumption of food. Those emissions represent 20 percent of New York City’s overall emissions — the third largest source, behind buildings (35 percent) and transportation (21 percent).
Just like cars and individual liberty, the food will have to go. New Yorkers will look back nostalgically for the days when Mayor Bloomberg merely wanted to cut salt and ban soda. They’re coming for your meat, fish and eggs.
In response to the new inventory, Mayor Adams and Mayor’s Office of Food Policy (MOFP) Executive Director Kate MacKenzie also announced that the city will reduce absolute carbon emissions from food purchases across its city agencies by 33 percent by 2030.
Just wait until they do an inventory of carbon emissions based on population and announce that they’re cutting the population by 33% by 2030. If you don’t think it’s coming, look to the history of the Left.
Comrades, let us starve and eat soy together so that the planet may thrive.
Well, this would be fine if the people that came up with these ideas, and all the people that voted for them, would lead the world by example and be the first to kill themselves off with their stupid insanity.
Not only would it reduce the population, it would rid the world of its biggest problem - them.
The phrase is “you have another think coming” …not another thing coming. Oh well…
Rice is not nice anymore. And, they actually DO know how important rice is for feeding much of the world’s poorest nations.
But this way they can force everyone to eat bugs instead, don’t you see?
If the “greens” have their way, the earth will be brown, not green, as the carbon dioxide they want to “reduce to zero” is the food of green plants. No vegetables, no animals, no meat, no milk, no eggs, no flour, no fruit. The worms and the beetles may survive. Meek little things. Didn’t someone once prophecy that the meek shall inherit the earth? Damn it, who the hell was it?
Where is it?
Anyway, it’s an obvious typo, I would have thought.
I don’t correct typos often, only if there is a clear reason to do so. We all make them. They abound in the comments on these pages. And computer spellcheckers often “correct” words wrongly.
Usually it is easy to see what the writer meant to write.
Not your typo, but the author of the article, and I doubt it was a typo. I hear people say it all the time.
This explains it and I understand the problem:
Some things get under my skin.
- Using “ask” when the word should be “request.”
- Confusing “less” and “fewer.”
- Using “I” when it should be “me.”
- Using “further” when it should be “farther.”
- And that “thing/think” one.
In school my kids were actually told that using “I” was ALWAYS correct, and when they spoke up and said…“My Momma says…” Well, they finally gave up.
Heres mine -
saying “all the sudden”, when it should be “all OF a sudden”, and “So-and-so graduated High School” when it should be “graduated FROM High School”.
Or “Ima” instead of at LEAST “I’m gonna”, not to mention “I’m GOING to”!!!..
“All are not” when it should be “Not all are.”
It’s not really in order to save the planet. It’s to enforce hunger and starvation. Can’t the people understand how they use all of these pretexts in their war on the west?
“All are not” when it should be “Not all are.”
Thank you so much for that. They are not at all the same things, and people speak stupidly when they say things like “all atheists are not communists” instead of “not all atheists are communists”. The same goes for “all communists are not atheists” instead of “not all communists are atheists”. I wonder if people who speak like that would be able to use a Venn diagram to show those relations.
Variations of the tune Why Can’t The English from My Fair Lady…
My pet peeves (some of them, anyway - I have many regarding misuse of language) are “myself” instead of the correct “me” or “I”. It may be motivated by uncertainty about which of those two correct forms one should use. “Myself” is reflexive and should only be used to say things like “I really made a fool of myself”. “Impact” and “impactful” instead of affect or effect or effective, significant, etc. – Again, probably motivated by ignorance about the differences between affect and effect, etc. As you point out, using “I” (or “myself”) in places where “me” is grammatically correct. Improper use of logical quantifiers, as I described in my reply to Backwoods (which was mistakenly addressed to you initially. I deleted it and then reposted it to Backwoods.)
following up on my previous reply, to tie up one logical loose end…
If someone did actually mean to say (erroneously, but…) “All atheists are not communists”, a clearer alternative way of saying that is “No atheists are communists”. Likewise, “All communists are not atheists” is better expressed (but again, falsely…) “No communists are atheists”. The truth of the the matter is “Some communists are atheists” and “Some atheists are communists”, where “some” means only “at least one”. Logically, it could also mean “most” or even “all”, but not necessarily.
I was disappointed that James J. Kilpatrick in his Court Of Peeves, Irk, And Crotchets gave it only a mild rebuke instead of the full injunction I thoought it deserved.
What was it JJK gave only a mild rebuke to? Dangling participles?
The “All are not” thing.
Oh yes! I can’t stand the “myself!” Nor can I stand saying “Absolutely!” instead of just answering …“Yes.”
Okay…I am not perfect, but please can’t we keep some grammar and language usage semi-true to what I learned when I was growing up.
Yes, I know the three dot thingie is never used correctly by me…but it serves my purpose of implying a pause better than anything else.
I think we should recognize stylistics in usage. I like “absolutely” in that context and use it myself as an emphatic form of YES! I rarely mean to say it’s absolutely true beyond question, though in some cases I feel like it may be so.
Yes, I find it acceptable to use as an emphatic form of YES! The term has moved into an everyday use of simply yes, and it is that, which bugs me.