Comments by "Tomas Vrabec" (@tomasvrabec1845) on "Jubilee" channel.

  1. THtat is because Social Democracy is not actuary under the socialist umbrella but under the Capitalist umbrella despite its name.
    158
  2. Middle Ground? :D Well.... let me introduce you to Social Democracy. Political system oriented on people as people but still being part of the Capitalist Umbrella.
    5
  3. :D Most students come to Uni and start eating more unhealthy. I got to uni and suddenly started eating more healthy because I had the power of buying my own food. I spend about 6-8£ a week on meet 2£ for milk and eggs and usually about 20£ on fruit and vegetables. As I get older the less snacks I eat and since I am at uni it is at the minimum. I always have a fruit bowl in my room with a pack of apples, easy peelers and apples or any other seasonal food. Overall I tend to spend between 30-40£ a week on food (usually less than 40). :D Good for me because everyone else seems to spend about 60 or more which troubles many students due to limited budgets.
    1
  4. :D Me at the moment (European): Yes, from what I can see so far they are all over race and gender.
    1
  5. that comment about food chain hit me. No it isn't just a made up thing. A jelly fish eats plankton, turtle eats jelly fish and a shark eats the turtle. Shark can't eat anything the Jellyfish eats (it may eat what the turtle eats but doesn't naturally and wont get much). Same for the Turtle eating plankton.
    1
  6. I don't know how it is in America but here in Europe in general it is cheaper to eat healthy. For me it takes at least 3£ to get full for the moment at McDonalds (yet I get hungry within an hour and a half) but for that cost I get a kilo of chicken legs which with a pack of potatos and some extra veg (overal cost about 10£) lasts me 3 days ( 6 meals). Unhealthy fast food or frozen food would cost me about 20£ for 3 days.
    1
  7. When the man said that USA as a country would not make an impact due to China's emissions I was in disbelief. USA is one of the largest countries in the world and one of the leading countries in terms of emissions, on it own their change would have a massive impact. What more, as someone from a smaller country, the climate change sceptics here are making a similar argument but instead of china they say America. They do say America and not China despite their knowledge of China's emissions because of China extreme regime system. The competitive government of china is far to into the competition to reconsider their impacts but america could slowly change laws to shape the need for saving the world whilst still creating a huge job opportunity. I mean... make people recycle by law. First, extra taxes if you do not recycle plus you make a new job role of people who check f it runs as it is meant to, people who collect and handle specific waste, people who will be in research to deposing of specific waste. I mean,,, if you were to take a huge corporation their impact would be very large withing the nation. They are likely to become more popular to the modern consumer and if their competition was not recycling, they would make more profit by not having an extra tax.
    1