Slashdot Mirror

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/tj-hemlinger-emails_n_798104.html

Why not? People not in this tax bracket certainly aspire to be in it one day. And people making over this are the ones that supply jobs. Increasing their taxes makes jobs scarcer.

Not necessarily true. You're assuming that there is some kind of trickle down effect in which rich people distribute their money to poorer people through jobs. An article from the huffington post shows that the opposite is true, that the income gap is widening. If it was true, that wealthy people create jobs, then the ~10% jobless rate should be mitigated right? It seems rather, that rich people either horde money or don't spend it as fast as needed to distribute the wealth. This isn't a problem caused by Bush, but just how the economy is shifting. I personally think that a strong middle class, you have a healthier more educated citizenship that can drive technology/innovation forward. If the middle class goes away, then you have a weaker economy because consumption goes down and demand for things to consume along with it.

Um, what? Please point to one article that proves this.

I was basing my point on the wikipedia link I provided. Here it is again link.

Last I checked, the Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency

The problem with the Democrats is that they're not very well coordinated and are somewhat spineless. They did have the majority, but there was enough inner-party disagreement, which coupled with a coordinated GOP movement, made it difficult to pass anything.

I maintain that I still find it hard to think of Obama has a bad president when he's dealing with the selfish people within his own party, the crap leftover from Bush and probably Clinton administrations, and coordinated attacks by the GOP and Fox News (I imagine that very wealthy special interest groups are driving the propaganda here). It's just a matter of perspective.

The calories matter, but very little fructose can be used by the body directly compared to glucose. It gets converted to fat. If you're pretty active, you can burn that fat. But for things like providing the energy your brain needs, it isn't metabolized well. You can actually feel short on energy at the same time you're converting fructose to fat. The liver has to work harder to process it too. Most of the time what people perceive as energy from a soda is actually the caffeine.
And with fructose, your brain is less apt to tell you you're full, so gulping down large amounts of fructose is way too easy. It's junk calories that can contribute to fat without doing anything useful.
It's a waste of money. If you tried to live on 2000 calories of fructose a day you may not get fat but it wouldn't take long to be sickly.

Obesity in the U.S. has become much more of a problem since we started subsidizing corn in the Reagan era. The very high yield variety that is profitable (with subsidy) is very low protein and not suitable for eating. It does get fed to cows since it fattens them quickly, resulting in a more sickly and fat-loaded beef supply. It's a very unhealty diet for cows which would kill them if they weren't pumped full of antibiotics. It degrades our food supply in more ways than are obvious at a glance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/sugar-may-be-bad-but-this_b_463655.html

The explosion happened last year actually, but Zuckerberg did not win person of the year in 2009. To to say "2010 was a huge year for social networking" is not inaccurate, however an equally valid statement would be "2010 was no bigger a year for social networking than 2009". If you look at the numbers announced by Facebook it Increased by 200 million users, between September 2009 and July 2010(10 months) the same growth rate between April of 2009 and September 2009.
Cite for my numbers: Facebook.com

Facebook (2010)
Continued growth at almost exactly the same rate as 2009
Facebook launched 'Places' (Foursquare-like service)
Facebook launched 'Questions' (Yahoo answers-like service)
'The social networking' was released to theatres

Wikileaks on the other hand released (in 2010):
The Collateral Murder video.
92,000 Afghanistan war files
400,000 Iraqi war files
251,000 US diplomatic cables

Now regardless of how you view Wikileaks, it would be foolish to say it has influenced events less than Facebook. One caused a United States citizen and military private to be put into solitary confinement for 7 months, without trial (or a pillow), the other produced their own version of existing internet services.

while supplies last !

Yours In St. Petersburg,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

um...

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is back in court today, and has been granted bail by a British judge. He has been in a British prison for a week after being denied bail last week. Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden. It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

Just to play devils advocate, I know that most people agree that this case is about character assassination, though I would imagine the overwhelming support for Assange would make me reconsider my position if I had of been his victim in any other crime due to the potential danger that I would be facing by having the contempt/hatred of such a large number of people.

Don't have an IP handy, but this might do:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/julian-assange-bail-grant_n_796421.html

um...

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is back in court today, and has been granted bail by a British judge. He has been in a British prison for a week after being denied bail last week. Assange is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes involving two women in Sweden. It is thought that one of the women, Anna Ardin, may no longer be cooperating with prosecutors."

Boston Globe

Kansas Matters (w/ large AP story)

Fox News (appears to be the same as first, from the AP)

Huffinton Post

NYTimes (Economix blog)

allmilitary.com (Miami Herald article)

Another good one

A great one, a 1993 article from Reason

Orrin Hatch

This is from the first couple pages of the first two Google searches I tried. Not fucking hard to find.

Do you want to do carbon credits next? That one should be even easier.

The same guy that went after Michael Mann and others after it was thrown out. He's a young Republican with an agenda that he's forcing down everyone's throat since day one. From trying to change the state seal (it has a mammary in it!) to just stating that "Homosexuality is wrong."

I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter (the judge seemed to agree with him) but he's one of those guys and he's a state Attorney General for Virginia pushing his conservative agenda to a national level.

... keeps most people in line. See the new online (free) movie "Human Resources" where that is mentioned in passing. Daniel Quinn has suggested they key factor of "civilization" is that all food is under lock and key.

Sure people can express their opinions, and then they can try to find jobs, which they then maybe won't...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/columbia-alum-castigates-_n_794380.html

A basic income might change things for the better:
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/
The USA already gives out US$800 a month per person on avergae for social security, schooling, and welfare -- why not just give every citizen a check for that amoutn every month. Seems fairer to me than a "needs" based or "age" based criterion for public assistance.

There is not true freedom without economic security. A lot of farmers had that basic security 200 years ago in the USA. Few people have economic security now in the USA where most people are living paycheck to paycheck, and the young are being imprisoned in school and made to fear stepping out of line or they won't get a "good" job. Other ideas:
http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html

The ultimate SEGFAULT was a sad one, the CEO of Segway dying from running his off a cliff by his home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/jimi-heselden-segway-boss_n_739983.html

"Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Goldman, Sachs & Co. will pay $550 million and reform its business practices to settle SEC charges that Goldman misled investors in a subprime mortgage product just as the U.S. housing market was starting to collapse."

This was this year. Google is your friend. You don't "settle" out of court unless you have done something wrong. In my mind they should have paid more.

to declare you are in violation of U.S. law abroad.

P.S.: See Cheney, Richard B., President-VICE

Yours In Osh,
Kilgore Trout, C.I.O.

No.

You're saying only when corruption reaches a certain level it should be exposed, we shouldn't sweat the small stuff because it could be worse?
Ignoring the small stuff makes it harder to stop corruption growing. Do some reading on police corruption for instance, or how organised crime gains power over politicians, etc.

Besides at what level of illegality, scandal or corruption or breaking their own rules does it become acceptable to you that wrongdoing should be exposed? Please define who should be the arbiter of "true corruption" and how they would objectively decide what qualifies. "Proper and controlled"? Controlled by who?

Journalism is meant to be the fourth estate. It's meant to keep an eye on the activities of the government and a free press is one of the mechanisms to guard against abuse by those who would prefer "Proper and controlled" release of information. If FOX News et al had been doing their job then maybe Wikileaks would not be creating such a stir.

Tolerating indiscretions or failures of the US because they are 'not as bad as the others' is a very poor argument. The fact is, if that behaviour is not rooted out, then the US loses credibility to criticise the failings of others. It's already happening, look at Putin's support of Assange and 'tsk,tsk' comments about the efforts of the US
to silence Wikileaks. How will the US ever be able to be taken seriously when they try to argue for free speech or freedom of the press? They will be laughed at as hypocrites.

PS
As far as has been reported, no lives have been lost due to the info in the Wikileaks cables.
"If you don't have the resources to conduct such a review, give the docs to a news organization which does." - Wikileaks did this already. They also offered the US government the opportunity to do this, an offer which was declined.

Did you read the cable, or the link?

Dyncorp was sponsoring Bacha Bazi parties where this shit goes on, and knew enough about what was actually happening to be scared shitless when a reporter came snooping around.

The procurement and beating of small boys at Bacha parties is not made up

and Dyncorp has Done this before.

I'm willing to believe employees of Dyncorp didn't intentionally set out to do this, but they (and the US government) turned a blind eye to it happening, and spent a good deal of time covering it up.

That is what those cables seed light in the case of Mexico. I feel strongly about it since the mexican army almost killed my grandmother an 3 other family members in an illegal raid in their home just because the stupid assat that we have has president launched a war on drugs on US's government behalf.

Or the fact that in the Honduras coup the ambassador and Clinton were fully aware that the removal of president Zelaya was illegal while they were lying to the public? Here in Mexico they confirmed the information of the prestigious magazine Proceso that currently is under attack in a smearing campaign by the mexican government and media megacorp Televisa.

Really, if americans citizens are so used to being lied at by their government then at least they should make all of us a favor and make pretty sure that their armed forces don't operate outside their country's boundaries and stop all that bullshit about spreading a democracy that they don't value or know.

Actually, he calls himself a "rodeo clown". I assume because he tries to be funny and entertaining while doing something he considers dead serious and quite boring. Much like a rodeo clown's job is to entertain while being responsible for the safety of riders.

And... he has done what he called a "comedy tour". From Huffpo:

NEW YORK — Glenn Beck, Fox News Channel's latest sensation, is taking a comedy show on the road for six live performances over six days during the first week of June.

Beck calls his act a "poor man's Seinfeld" and intends to mix topical humor with his modern-day reimagining of Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense."

So, yeah, I guess he is also a comedian.

Also, Beck is not on the "crazy part of the right." I'd peg him as more on the "sane part of the Libertarians" (which does not negate your "crazy", BTW). I'd put him as far to the right as I'd put Penn Jillette to the left. Other than religious views, the two pretty much agree on everything. Beck's attitude toward political parties is the same as South Park's co-creator Matt Stone, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."

Of course, YMMV as where people rate right-left depends on where they stand on the political spectrum. Everyone thinks they are middle of the road. Everyone more conservative than themselves is viewed as being "right-wing" and inverse for everyone on the left of them.

I know it's off topic. Just trying to educate. I'm certain you don't spend a whole lot time watching Beck on TV or listening to him on the radio. Granted, I don't much either, but I did spend a few years listening to his radio show when it was on while I sat in traffic.

Whether or not somebody has been prosecuted for it is as far as I know unknown as of yet, but a google search will show you many of the news about the military censor of WikiLeaks, amongst which is this.

I'm aware of this, and it does indeed appear to be a violation of fundamental liberties, though it strikes me as a little weak as far as enforcing this goes. Until mind-reading technology comes along, there is little they can do to stop anyone reading the Wikileaks documents.

As far as I know, they just "asked" them not to. Voluntarily. Have they prosecuted or arrested anyone for doing so?

Whether or not somebody has been prosecuted for it is as far as I know unknown as of yet, but a google search will show you many of the news about the military censor of WikiLeaks, amongst which is this.
A memo from the US Marines says this:USMC Personnel (Marines/Civilians/Contractors) are hereby cautioned and directed to NOT access the WIKILEAKS website from a personally owned, publically owned or US Government computer system. By willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material - these actions constitute the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information. Meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.
Obviously committing a security violation as an employee of the US Marines is, well, not a laughing matter.

Which .com domain have they seized and blocked access to? Sorry if I've missed something here.

You might find more info here.

Yes, governments can, have always, and always will try to control anything and everything and suppress citizen rights. What I am saying is that in the case of Wikileaks, I don't think they have succeeded yet, whereas the statement "censoring websites from the entire world" suggests they have.

In fact I have, as a non-US citizen living outside of the US, have seen one of the results of this censor when trying to access one of the censored sites, getting a warning page with a FBI DVD-like warning. The problem with censoring the domain name itself is that the website can be hosted outside of the US, and yet they'd have power to censor it.

Regarding the worldwide reactions of mainstream media to a Swedish prosecutor's poor and possibly biased paperwork, see Naomi Wolf's brillant, and sarcastic, commentary on Assange's alleged (just that - alleged) wrongdoings, written in the form of an Open Letter:

"Dear Interpol:

As a longtime feminist activist, I have been overjoyed to discover your new commitment to engaging in global manhunts to arrest and prosecute men who behave like narcissistic jerks to women they are dating.

I see that Julian Assange is accused of having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke. I understand, from the alleged victims' complaints to the media, that Assange is also accused of texting and tweeting in the taxi on the way to one of the women's apartments while on a date, and, disgustingly enough, 'reading stories about himself online'in the cab.

[...]
Thank you again, Interpol. I know you will now prioritize the global manhunt for 1.3 million guys I have heard similar complaints about personally in the US alone

[...]"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html

I love that the people who are supposedly the heroes of transparency always post AC. You apparently know me since you're talking about my wife. That doesn't bother me as I've used one handle online since the BBS days. Anything you want to know about me Google can tell you. I do advocate transparency, but also live by the same standard. How about you, mister Anonymous Coward?

The military leaks are illegal under the UCMJ and the Espionage Act at the very least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

Leaking private company documents is usually covered by theft of private property laws.

And the leaks just came out. They haven't cost any lives that I know of. But Amnesty International did blast Assange for being irresponsible in placing lives in danger.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

My church discloses the money they take in and where every penny gets spent. It is a large reason of why I attend that particular church. I value transparency.

Many non-profits are transparent with their funds. Since you asked:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/reports/

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/accountability/financial-reports

Wikileaks as an organization is not being prosecuted. Assange (who I criticized, not Wikileaks) is being prosecuted for a reason, in Sweden of all places. Sweden is pretty damned famous for being neutral in diplomatic affairs. Sweden is the same country that refuses to extradite Polanski to the US. So please continue your crazy conspiracy notion that the rape charges are due to agents of foreign governments.

Someone has suggested killing Assange as a means to protect national interests. I didn't defend that notion, in fact I argued against it.

The difference between Amnesty International is that they are fairly transparent, and well respected. And Amnesty International (who does also criticize governments and try to expose corruption) has blasted Assange and Wikileaks. Did you know that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

I called Assange a hypocrite because he claims his life's work is about transparency, yet he operates under the guise of total secrecy. Do you want to argue that doesn't make him a hypocrite?

And you're telling me to get a fucking clue? Take two seconds and read up on the shit you want to pretend you know something about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

This is the same Sweden that refused to extradite Polanski, and certainly has no qualms disagreeing with the US government.

Please don't suggest that his arrest warrant in Sweden is proof the government in Sweden is controlled by some master all-powerful US government that can make anyone in the world do what they want. If that fictional reality was at all true, Wikileaks wouldn't have the power to humiliate it.

I took the time to research him and formulate my own opinions, including reading the mailing list above. I was asked for examples, and I provided them. However, I'm not wasting the time to dig through the archives again to provide specific examples here. Arguing with a stranger over whether or not this guy is a douche simply isn't worth it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

..so we need people like Assange, flawed though he may be, to expose what's really going on

"It would be trivial for Assange to filter information and only display leaks that would damage the country of his choice."
Guess what? It's trivial for The New York Times to do that too.

There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.

If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.

So which is it? Are you going to factually challenge someone's belief or backpedal from a badly played bluff because you simply don't have the cards?

I responded to you because I had just got done complaining about how much argument is taking place on this subject without a single mention of evidence. And then I happen upon you, who not only talks of evidence but suggests that there is an abundance of it, in favor of censorship — which is the windmill I happen to be tilting at today.

I mean I don't know anything about porn — I'd be lucky if I could perform a Google search on the topic without somehow lousing it up — but I strongly resist censorship. Especially when the folks doing the censoring cannot produce empirical data about what ill is being resolved by slicing up other people's access to empirical data and replacing it with falsehood.

I mean, no matter how many citations we might potentially find suggesting there is no causal link to harm, how can I find the studies you specifically claim to have that there is? Your claim is fantastic. On par with claiming to have proof of evidence of God. So imagine my disappointment when I learn you were just making it up as you went.

As to the Ad Hominem (please look that up too), If it's any help, I am sorry for suggesting you don't know the meaning of the word "poison". That was very passive-aggressive of me. I should have just flat out said it instead.

It's just that I have high expectations for people who spam promo codes, trying to make a buck convincing people that coconut oil can cure hypothyroidism. You've got to at least demonstrate knowledge of the basics, or you'll be taken about as seriously as Sarah Palin when somebody calls Bullshit on you.

who directly, and personally made the Great Depression much worse, and much longer than it otherwise would have been

Are you talking about The New Deal? If so, I'm not convinced that history on your side there:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/winning-the-economic-argu_b_167301.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/lars-rasmussen-why-i-quit_n_776807.html
http://gizmodo.com/5690405/facebook-email
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/29/rasmussen-facebook-google/
http://www.google.com/

If dogs are soooo smart, then explain this!

Let's hope the Russian spy agency running the cyber program is the same that gave us the fabulously entertaining ring of deep cover agents recently exposed in America.

Because nobody does it better.

Actually it appears to be safe children:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html

Good thing we outlawed that.

"The growing danger, said lawmakers, makes it imperative that Congress move on legislation that would expand government controls and set requirements to make systems safer."

BBBBBOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Yours In Osh,
Kilgore Trout

I highly doubt that someone in the public eye as much as Assange (not to mention someone who is under a microscope already) would have something to do with rape.

Yeah, public figures who do bad thing, that could never happen...

morons.

Yours In Osh,
Kilgore T.

more people should sabotage countries like Iran, or all muslim countries in general, for the simple reason that their handling of minorities can only be described as "genocidal".

Iran's proud but discreet Jews: "the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected." "Imam Khomeini made a distinction between Jews and Zionists and he supported us," says [Jewish community leader] Mr Hammami."

Persian Jews: "Jews are protected in the Iranian constitution."

Righteous Among the Nations: Muslims Who Saved Jews from Holocaust: "The Righteous Among Nations are gentile rescuers who make up 'a small minority who mustered extraordinary courage to uphold human values,' according to Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial museum...Gershman's story begins during the Holocaust and involves Albanian Muslims -- villagers, peasants and farmers -- who risked their lives and the lives of their families to shelter Jews fleeing Nazi Germany."

If you think that is genocide, I suggest you study the history of a real genocide, one that took place, unfortunately, at the heart of the Christian nations of Europe, who for centuries reviled Jews as the Christ Killer, and adorned churches and cathedrals with anti-Semitic imagery.

I'm guessing he was talking about "The Lord's Resistance Army" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army) and the current oppression of homosexuals in Uganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/20/ugandan-embassy-defends-equal-rights-gay-list-appears-newspaper/

The current furor over homosexuality has been fueled by talks given by American Evangelicals there: "The bill was introduced several months after a visit by several American evangelicals, who spoke at a conference called the "Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda." One of them was Scott Lively, a pastor from Springfield, MA, who believes that countries like Uganda can still protect themselves from what he sees as the scourge of the gay agenda. "These are good Christians; better Christians than there are here in the states," says Lively. "They care about each other. And I think the reason they're pushing so hard on this law is that they don't want to see what happened to our country happen over there."
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/anti-homosexuality-bill-uganda-global-uproar/story?id=10045436

There's also the continuing problem of naming witches:
"African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html

http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903044.html

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/32838

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-ose/sarah-palins-yahoo-e-mail_b_127177.html

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sarah+palin+emails+government+business&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

It's pretty sad you believe that. For one, if you'd like a phone that lets you reflash the OS you are welcome to buy a Nexus One [blogspot.com] direct from Google. The nature of open source code means that the phones made entirely by HTC may do things you disagree with. But that's openness for you. Sometimes people will do things you disagree with. It would be fairly pointless to have an open source OS if Google had veto power over every way in which it was used.

I believe you missed the part where the Google trademark is stamped all over the T-Mobile G2. If you do not think that gives Google veto power over evil additional restrictions on the distribution of GPL software, you did not think very hard.

If they were really as cynical as you believe, they wouldn't have ensured Android was open source and the Nexus One was reflashable out of the box would they?

Eric and Larray are plenty cynical by any objective measure. Sorry if you're too tanked up on koolaid to see it. Want another one? How about the posturing on carbon credits in context with their 767 pleasure buggy parked across the street at the air base? How about the blatant nepotism?

I don't really know a lot about Sergy, but I had plenty of occasion to note that Larry and Eric are both pretty "flexible" when it comes to morals versus money versus power. Sad, it certainly did not have to be that way. That said, Google is nowhere near as far gone as Microsoft, or Oracle say. And EMG certainly does recognize the value of getting the open source community to do their heavy lifting for them. It's not like full time Googler's actually have the stomache for hard work any more.

it's already been done by this forward thinking individual

From a liberal source to boot.

America's New Millionaires: 11 People Under 35 Who Have Taken The Business World By Storm

With original whiz kids like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs paving the way, a new generation of entrepreneurs is putting their own spin on success -- and making a lot of money along the way. How did they do it? While they may have taken slightly different paths, these young millionaires all found a way to turn unique ideas into lucrative ventures.

Want to tell these individuals they only have their money because of their parents?

Lol, I love it when I can use your own liberal publicans against your quite obvious liberal comments

Number Of Millionaires Grew Amid Recession

A stock market rebound helped the world's ranks of millionaires climb 17 percent to 10 million, while their collective wealth surged 19 percent to $39 trillion, nearly recouping losses from the financial crisis, according to the latest Merrill Lynch-Capgemini world wealth report.

I would have preferred using the irs.gov or census.gov web sites to prove my point. But I fully admit that its more fun using a liberal rag to prove my point.

The point of my post??? To prove this statement full of shit.

Um, no, rich people are rich because their parents are rich, and their friends are rich, and they get lucky.

From a liberal source to boot.

America's New Millionaires: 11 People Under 35 Who Have Taken The Business World By Storm

With original whiz kids like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs paving the way, a new generation of entrepreneurs is putting their own spin on success -- and making a lot of money along the way. How did they do it? While they may have taken slightly different paths, these young millionaires all found a way to turn unique ideas into lucrative ventures.

Want to tell these individuals they only have their money because of their parents?

Lol, I love it when I can use your own liberal publicans against your quite obvious liberal comments

Number Of Millionaires Grew Amid Recession

A stock market rebound helped the world's ranks of millionaires climb 17 percent to 10 million, while their collective wealth surged 19 percent to $39 trillion, nearly recouping losses from the financial crisis, according to the latest Merrill Lynch-Capgemini world wealth report.

I would have preferred using the irs.gov or census.gov web sites to prove my point. But I fully admit that its more fun using a liberal rag to prove my point.

The point of my post??? To prove this statement full of shit.

Um, no, rich people are rich because their parents are rich, and their friends are rich, and they get lucky.

Don't forget O'Reilly's contributions to successful assassinations:

Tiller the Baby Killer

Last I read Apple's net income last quarter was $3.25b, and you have to remember Q3 includes both the release of the iPad and iPhone 4.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/charles-henry-bennett-tsa_n_443707.html

They get off on violating children

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dyrr8/help_i_believe_the_tsa_violated_my_son/

False Hope!

What Change?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/19/global-seed-vault-nationa_n_616316.html

Maybe that's not a difference.

>>liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both

What about Libertarians? =)

But sure, Vshael sounds like the type of guy that would read HuffPo and Media Matters to the exclusion of all others, and derives his only opinion of Glenn Beck from articles like this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david/a-peaceloving-sarah-palin_b_773730.html

Not knowing that Glenn is rather adamantly opposed to violence (among other reasons because that he thinks a destabilized society would trend left). But that's okay - because the Tides Foundation CEO says "Beck is a self-described 'Progressive Hunter' who relies on violent rhetoric", so it must be true.

Funny thing you should mention Kent State...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/26/kent-state-riot-police-fi_n_191561.html

Ohio (Kent State), 2009. An end-of-year college block party spiraled out of control as police fired pellets and used pepper spray to break up hundreds of rioting students who sparked a string of street fires at Kent State University.

People riot even when good things happen (like trashing their city after winning a big sports game).

But I imagine the riot was the fault of the police, not the students.

Fair enough. Some of the person-on-the-street interviews in 2004 I can no longer find, but there was more during his re-election.

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of America did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." General Jerry Boykin

"He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge," Governor George Pataki

"I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." White House official Tim Goeglein

Palin is now going the same direction: Bush, Palin Both Think They're Chosen By God