Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Leftists' Long-Term Goal: A "Carless" Society

The takeover of GM is just one step toward the leftists' long-term goal – a "carless" society.

As Michael Moore says in his article, "Goodbye, GM," June 1, 08, "The things we call cars may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet."

If this idea of a "carless" society seems incredible, then consider how unbelievable the things Obama is doing now would have been ten years ago. See Moore's entire article at this link:

Michael Moore continues by outlining several steps he would ask President Obama to implement. Below are three of those steps.

"Thus, as GM is 'reorganized' by the federal government and the bankruptcy court, here is the plan I am asking President Obama to implement for the good of the workers, the GM communities, and the nation as a whole……. Number 1. Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices…. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps."

Number 4: "Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the GM factories. And hire local people everywhere to install and run this system."

Number 5: "For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, have the GM plants produce energy efficient clean buses." [Can you imagine catching a bus in a rural area to go buy groceries, to buy parts to repair farm equipment, house repairs, for doctor appointments, etc. especially for the elderly]

Recently, May 17, 09, our Arkansas state paper, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, published an article taken from the New York Times entitled: "Residents of German district adopt car-free lifestyle" The first paragraph reads,

"Residents of this upscale community [Vauban] are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: They have given up their cars….. Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called "smart planning."

The following quote from the article exemplifies the gist of the article:

"'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor."
Link to the entire article:

Now just why would an Arkansas paper print such an article with such a positive slant? Even the word "car-free" in the headline indicates a positive slant to doing away with cars. Isn't it the beginning of preparing people for just this lifestyle of a "carless" society like leftists always do when they start their propaganda for a change they plan to implement? Remember a number of years ago when liberals started talking about the advantages of a nationalized health care, it was originally rejected with venom. Now it is so acceptable that people who oppose it are called radicals.

Taking over the auto makers will exponentially increase the price of cars. The government has never run anything efficiently. The new fuel-efficiency and tailpipe-emissions standards will drive auto prices even higher. Then the alternative fuels required will make driving a car so expensive that people will no longer be able to afford them.

We can then be like the third world countries that all of us have dreamed about living in. And all that will be called PROGRESS. And Obama will no longer have to apologize to other countries for our nation's indulgence. And we won't be that mean old country that uses more than our share of the world's energy. And no one in the other countries will be any better off. We will just be reduced to their poverty as we burn up our food for alternate fuel.

Then who will help all those countries during their times of crisis as our country has so many times for so many years?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you really think this monolithic entity you call "liberals" want a carless society?

Then you're an idiot.

P.S. Nearly all the car designers and scientists are liberals. It has to do with IQ, understanding science (e.g. evolution).

Why am I here. To listen to fringe lunatic who went to a community college?

8:08 PM, June 03, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the "liberals" don't, but the environmentalist wackos definitely do. And we don't see too many conservatives amongst that particular group now do we?

8:14 PM, June 03, 2009  
Anonymous Mark said...

"Nearly all the car designers and scientists are liberals. It has to do with IQ, understanding science (e.g. evolution)"

"It's not that our liberal friends are unintelligent, its just that they know so much that isn't true."

Ronald Reagan

If you refer to the engineering part of car design then I must say that I scarcely know an engineer that is not conservative.

4:58 AM, June 04, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, believing in the lie of Darwinian Evolution will help an engineer design a better car?

Maybe you should try taking a few courses at a community college.

12:30 PM, June 04, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

That incoherent non-sequitur is typical of liberal "debating" tactics.

Your attempt to attribute a position to me that I did not hold won't fly here. We are grown-ups. You can kick over a strawman with my name one it, but that doesn't mean you've refuted any position that I have actually held.

I have already taken all of the science courses required for me to teach science in the public schools for a dozen years.

I have challenged many an evolutionist to defend the position that "an objective look at the scientific evidence will show that naturalistic evolution is by far the most credible explanation for the diversity of life on Earth". The smart ones don't take the challenge. The dumb ones who are too arrogant-dumb to know how better get routed early and are unable to even comprehend most of the evidence I present, much less refute it.

Until someone comes along that can at least stay close to even with me in such a debate, I see no reason to change my position. But maybe if you keep calling me names long enough it will get me to change my mind. Perhaps if you used all caps and a larger font....

6:53 PM, June 04, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

A search of this blog with the word "evolution" might be a good starting point for a real education on the issues.

6:54 PM, June 04, 2009  
Anonymous kevin n said...


Are you seriously trying to insinuate that Germany and any other country with extensive rail service is a "third world country"?

1:07 PM, June 09, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


Are you seriously trying to insinuate that Germany does not have cars?

8:46 PM, June 09, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home