Prince Charles, nerdiest man on the planet says, “We are making it cool to use less stuff”

View Comments (28)

• Yep, sounds like a good description of all religions.

  • Difference being that not all religions are dangerous and crazy EVEN if they may attract dangerous and crazy individuals. The religion is not at fault (depends), what is at fault is the application of the religion by the individuals within the religion. I actually have no problem with peeps loving Gaia and whatever, my problem (like I have with Islam) is the application of the religion and the use of it as a weapon against people. Christianity and Judaism as we all know are not been perfectly applied, however the major difference is that christians (and Jews) have been successful in policing and curbing the madness applications of the past by individuals and groups. Unfortunately, Muslims have not been successful in this aspect and as we see, environmentalists haven't either. Christians and Jews haven't rammed taxes down people's throats making them buy christian products or hire christian people exclusively in order to do jobs for the government nor has the government chosen christian organizations to run important things or apply important policies even if they are unpopular. To this day, I haven't heard of anyone being punished or taxed because they are not Christian or because they are not going to church or buying christian products/services or making christian movies. Have you? As anyone come to your house and stated that if you fail to go the a christian church or a jewish synagogue you will be taxed? Yet we see this to be the case with environmentalism, where policies are in place to punish and tax those that choose not to apply environmentalist policies in their private lives. So liberals (and others) are being selective on which religion to push down people's throats and which others to persecute and in some cases prosecute.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7bBVc_sdVQ&feature=related

• What is the governements "green" agenda all about, really, beside another excuses for more taxes?

  Make the peoples accept becoming poorer and poorer, that´s what. Putting a green layer of paint on the economical failure thjat are the results of decades of mismanagement.

  • I heard a man state that environmentalism is a religion (which in all reality it is), the government decree of environmentalist institutions in the way of taxes and other means (providing subsidizes for those that chose to engage in environmentalist endevours) is a clear violation of the first amendment.

    All in all the government shouldn't institute a STATE religion, if we view environmentalism as such, the underhanded ways of the government to MAKE people oblige to environmentalism tenets is indeed an underhanded way to go around the 1st amendment. The reasoning behind it is nefarious. It is a method of control. If they can push away the ultimate Deity as the One who provides all liberties and freedoms and institute Mother Earth in His place, it will be easier for governments to control individuals and nations.

    Now if we chose not to view environmentalism as a religion that is being instituted by liberals of all kinds, then to answer your question about your agenda may prove to be rather difficult OTHER than of course as you stated using it as a con for more fleecing and taxation of the general US populace. So it can be as simple as government wanting to con money and production out of people.

    The institution of it as a religion in order to remove Judeo-Christian cornerstones from the laws and foundations of rights and freedoms that we all currently enjoy, may NOT be the first and foremost reason, however it could be the reason inside their subconscious that is to say, they may not realize that is what they are doing. If they do know that is what they are doing, then they are indeed evil, if they don't they are just tools.

    • Alonzo Rachel on Earth Day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXRC57Ja1Sk

• Prince Charles and Obama...BROTHERS FROM THE SAME MOTHER (LAND). In this case England.

• Heir??? We are ALL heirs of Mother Earth. Some just take the job more responsibly than others.

• Yeah, I'm totally all for taking seriously a middle-aged fart whose greatest achievement (and ONLY) achievement in life was making it out of his mother's womb in one piece. (I'm talking about Barack Obama but it goes for Prince Carbon, too.)

• I have been suspecting for a while now that the Queen may skip him and give the crown to William. Those Brits of course say it wont happen, kinda like a "colonist revolt" a couple hundred years ago, or more appriopately a king renoucing and giving the crown to his brother who was this current Queen's father. But, whatever.

  • If they do it right, she will have to abdicate AND Charles will have to abdicate in order for William to rightly be King. Or she dies, Charles abdicates or renounces his seat at the throne and William becomes the King. Those are the only ways to correctly pass the throne to William. That is not going to happen. The Queen takes her role as Queen very seriously, she believes (and I kind of agree with her) that her position was part of G-d's plan. Remember her uncle DID abdicate, that was the CORRECT way to pass on the royal crown. Her Father DID NOT take the crown from his brother by force. So she is going to die a Queen, she is not going to abdicate, it will never happen and it is up to Charles to abdicate once he becomes King. That also will never happen. He has spent 60+ years training and waiting to become King. It is his birthright even if we don't like him, that is his birthright. Unless he is assassinated or he abdicates he is not going anywhere and William himself have said that is the way it should be. Overall he is enjoying his normal life with his normal wife, I don't think he is in any hurry.

    There is no other correct way other than the people of England (UK) killing off the Queen AND Charles or just Charles after the Queen is dead and allow William to take over. That is not going to happen. As for the American Revolution that had no effect on George III's reign. His son George IV took over after he died. Everything went normally. He just lost the colonies, not his reign. George III's lived a very long live and reigned for longest than all other Kings and Queens of his past. Queen Victoria broke his reign record and both she and Queen Elizabeth II broke his life record (Queen Victoria died older than him and Queen Elizabeth II is still alive and is older than him when he died).

    • All very correct points. Edward the Vlll abdicated because the woman he wanted to marry had two living divorced husbands, at that time in English history it was unconstitutional. But since Prince Charles and Camilla's marriage wont result in any future children, they shouldnt encounter the problems of the past.

      • That was one reason and another reason is that his ex-wife is dead. If Diana was alive, it would have proven very difficult for him to remarry. That is one of the many reasons behind the conspiracy theories surrounding Diana's death. However, regardless if he remained singled he is not abdicating and if he managed to be married he is not abdicating either. He waited for that crown. Too bad for him since the power of Monarchy has dwindled considerably, he is not going to make any difference after all.

• His father is pretty cool though. Too bad he couldn't have ran the country. (Prince Charles does some things that are okay though, which I won't mention out of fear for how MEAN and scary everyone is here.)
  What's with all this "he should live like the common people" stuff anyway? Sounds kinda Bolshy to me. He's (might) be a freakin' king someday, might as well enjoy everything that goes with it. Nothing wrong with growing some vegetables. Agriculture is part of our historic inheritance as Americans!
  Just to be clear though, I do want more "stuff." Always. (And if anyone knows where I can find an American-made coffee maker, let me know.)

  • as to the coffee maker, what kind and what price?

  • His Father is a racist and too bouchy for my taste.

    As for Charles, if he lived the life like his sons live (as much as possible) I would have more respect for him. If he were to take business class or first class seats on commercial airlines with minimal and truly minimal entourage to do what he wants to do, I would respect him. A lot of what he actually says is moronic and idiotic and I really dont care and no one really cares. They only pretend to care because of who he is that is all. My problem is that he wants ME to have less while HE has no problem with more or to keep what he has instead of going for less. I don't want a man like him mandating to me what I can or cannot have or do wiith my life and possessions.

  • I have no doubt that he has done a good thing a time or two. However, I feel that how he acts does not demonstrate the kind of character that I'd like to lead -- but since he's not my leader, all that's academic.

    Compared to earlier royalty, what he has done is small potatoes -- but times and sensibilities change, and I just can't stomach a hypocrite.

• Charles is a living example of the evils of inbreeding.

  • It is true, that is another reason I congratulate William from marrying a womant that (so far) has no direct nor indirect relation to any of his ancestors (at least the most "recent" ones). His grandmother and his grandfather (on his father's side) are cousins I believe fourth cousins as they share the same great grandmother. In the meantime that entire situation on either side of them had a lot of cousin love. Ewww... Charles and Diana weren't directly nor immediately indirectly related so that is good. William could have gone for any princess in Europe however of course most European royal families do share common ancestry SOMEWHERE. He just wanted to be normal and he has been living a very normal life with Kate for the past 10 years so good for him.

• God help the UK if that idiot becomes King. God help the UK anyway.
  What is it about royalty that most of them are such dumb-asses? He is the worst kind, uninformed, bigoted and ignorant, hypocritical and a disgrace.

  He ought to be strapped to a wind-turbine blade and taken for a ride. The other two blades could also be occupied - I nominate Manbearpig, and Chris Huhne (UK lib-dem climate pillock) to be also taken for a long spin - when the wind's blowing of course - which isn't often.

  • If he ever gets to be King (his Mother dies and he doesn't before then or soon after), I am not worried because King and Queens are constitutional and they have no real power anymore. If anything they are ambassadors for England and have no real ability to make any real contracts. He will not be able to make any real damage to the country, HOWEVER, he CAN (and some may say does) embarrass the country greatly.

    The UK has a lot of problems, but I cannot be preaching too much cause we have a lot of problems here too.

  • Yes, we have high hopes for Kate -- there are not very many branches on that particular family tree at the moment.

    • At least they're bringing in some new blood. It's a good idea to add some fresh DNA to a line of breeding once in a while. I mean, just look at Charles. That's the kind of thing that happens when you do too much inbreeding.

• He is fugly.