Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
Why is it "logical" to take an energy source that is cheap and abundant and has plenty of infrastructure to support it, and FORCE it to be abandoned in favor of expensive, unreliable, and unproven technologies that actually are WORSE for the environment?
The only persons who would be in favor of such a thing would be someone who would stand to make tons of money from it, and will kick a lot of it back to those who use influence and clout to FORCE it on everyone.
|
Just looking at the face of the green movement is enough to say that is 100% accurate. Al Gore, the Vice Presidential, Nobel Prize winning, Academy Award winning, TIME's Person of the Year, has made himself absolutely filthy rich off environmental activism. This guy, who I'm seriously convinced is borderline mentally retarded, has been in Gov't all his life, he's never held a 'real' job. He has become one of the super-rich via the Gov't. He's created nothing. People complain about money in politics, but the fact is there's plenty of it in activism as well. The Gov't made Al Gore rich. Without our Gov't having the power to steer that much money to certain 'private' interprises, Al Gore would never have become rich. It's sickening. And it's infuriating that people lose freedoms when they pass these laws just to enrich themselves. And he is by far the only politican to become rich because of new regulations passed that always somehow seem to really pay off in terms of the investment portfolios of those voting for the new regulations.