i agree that something should be done but i larfed, they didn't offer a single solution. all it did was attack.
this part made me larf the most;
It is time for real change, not empty promises. No amount of socialism or
free market ideology will save us from ourselves, there needs to be a
fundamental re-write of what we think we know, to achieve a sustainable
human enterprise.
we can't have socialism and we can't have a free market ideology. two opposites. we can't even have a mixture of the two such as a free market ideology with some social norms such as health care reform.
so what can we have? whats left? communism? moaism? toaism or some other ism. i agree to reducing the oil fields of the world and replacing their output with alternative energy but when it's suggested the same people who wrote this article complain that that's not dealing with the problem. that it's just adding to the economic woes.
If these fuckers ran the country we'd be up shit creek without the proverbial paddle. for me it sounds good but lacks any depth whatsoever.
like i say. not one single idea of what they'd do to make it a better world.
in a statement that long it could have surely suggested wind power, sea power (which has be proven to work) even nuclear power has to be better than fossil fuels but dare say build more of them and they cut your balls off.
jmo
this part made me larf the most;
It is time for real change, not empty promises. No amount of socialism or
free market ideology will save us from ourselves, there needs to be a
fundamental re-write of what we think we know, to achieve a sustainable
human enterprise.
we can't have socialism and we can't have a free market ideology. two opposites. we can't even have a mixture of the two such as a free market ideology with some social norms such as health care reform.
so what can we have? whats left? communism? moaism? toaism or some other ism. i agree to reducing the oil fields of the world and replacing their output with alternative energy but when it's suggested the same people who wrote this article complain that that's not dealing with the problem. that it's just adding to the economic woes.
If these fuckers ran the country we'd be up shit creek without the proverbial paddle. for me it sounds good but lacks any depth whatsoever.
like i say. not one single idea of what they'd do to make it a better world.
in a statement that long it could have surely suggested wind power, sea power (which has be proven to work) even nuclear power has to be better than fossil fuels but dare say build more of them and they cut your balls off.
jmo