So be careful with it. If you want the tax money, you'll probably have to make doing business cheaper by skimping on something else. Maybe loosening regulations. Maybe making labor cheaper. Whatever. But if you make it too expensive to do business in the US, they'll leave.
As it is the big corporations are paying lower tax rates than most other industrialized countries. And they might as well leave so far as the public is concerned, because they're sending as many of their jobs overseas as they can get away with.
Well if everyone is so fucking stupid then perhaps we should switch to a Technocratic-oligarchy instead of a Democracy. There have been several times in US history where powerful people suggested we discourage the stupid masses from being involved in democratic elections.
With "the stupid masses" defined as "anyone who disagrees with me"?
Since it appears that you are not going to reply, I'll explain to any lurkers what it is that I was thinking when I wrote that.
You claim that the Gentiles would not buy adoption as a legal right to the throne, but you offer no supporting evidence. On the contrary, the two Roman emperors who ruled during the years traditionally ascribed to Jesus' lifetime were *both* "Caesar" only by right of adoption.
Joseph married Mary and, presumably, would have adopted Jesus as his son. To the Jews that should be enough to establish his legal right to the throne. Gentiles wouldn't buy that argument, so another way is also established.
That begs the question, what is Caesar's and what is the Lord's? For me all is the Lord's and Caesar has no legitimate title to anything because everything he has was acquired through theft with the exception of voluntary 'donations' or profits earned through voluntary transactions.
Uh, it's pretty clear that Jesus thought taxes belonged to Caesar.
Using Jesus as the figurehead of a Gospel of Tax Avoidance is beyond perverse.
Fictional doctor on TV? Is there any straw you poor fools won't grasp at? Here's some reasoning for you -- your entire existance is completely meaningless. You will die, all you do will crumble to dust, humanity will become extinct and everything it has ever done and known will be gone. Life itself will become extinct, and the universe itself will come to an end.
So why bother? Nothing matters, why go on living? What is the fucking point of it all?
Life is meaningless if your religion is real, too, however much you'd like to think otherwise.
However, as members of an intelligent species, we can always find our own meaning for life.
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Maybe you'll show us what you expect by working through examples with some of the religions that *you* reject.
Slashdot Mirror
So be careful with it. If you want the tax money, you'll probably have to make doing business cheaper by skimping on something else. Maybe loosening regulations. Maybe making labor cheaper. Whatever. But if you make it too expensive to do business in the US, they'll leave.
As it is the big corporations are paying lower tax rates than most other industrialized countries. And they might as well leave so far as the public is concerned, because they're sending as many of their jobs overseas as they can get away with.
We have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Without the loopholes most US companies would leave the country or go broke.
But with loopholes, the US corporate tax burden is on the low end of OECD countries.
Supposedly also Japan has a "value added tax" that pushes their corporate tax rate higher than the USA.
Single bevel axes are 'handed'.
I imagine optimizing the grip would also cause some handedness as well.
How long ago did these first appear?
In a perfect world we would all be ambidextrous -- being able to use BOTH hands would make things much simpler.
Yeah, one could take over when the other got tired.
Stop posting these psychobabble.
The next one will explain why there are more innies than outies in capitalist societies.
Doctor: We don't have any kidney's available but we have this diseased and rejected kidney in the fridge. Intrested?
If you're going to receive a transplant, it's best to get an organ with broad experience.
I'd probably ban political, religious, medical, medical-like, and probably some other types of commercials from airing on my network.
IIRC it used to be illegal in the USA to advertise prescription medicines and lawyers' services.
Display how much was paid to air the ad as a watermark in a corner of the screen when the ad is aired.
Better yet, display a dynamic overlay that shows the upper bound on your IQ if you believe what is being said.
I've paid for polls to know what you want in your area. I am now paying to say what you want to hear. I'll then do whatever I feel like when elected.
And you should expect me to "feel like" doing whatever will bring in enough bribes^w donations so I can pay for it again in the next election cycle.
Love money or leave it :-)
FTFY
just had a crazy idea, require honest names for superpacs, like "Halliburton execs for Romney" or "Goldman Sachs managers for Obama"
"Rich donors for the Rich"
Well if everyone is so fucking stupid then perhaps we should switch to a Technocratic-oligarchy instead of a Democracy. There have been several times in US history where powerful people suggested we discourage the stupid masses from being involved in democratic elections.
With "the stupid masses" defined as "anyone who disagrees with me"?
I like this but I wish the FEC would grow a pair and make PACs and SuperPacs identify their donation sources.
Geez, don't you think money should be allowed to corrupt politics in private?
Since it appears that you are not going to reply, I'll explain to any lurkers what it is that I was thinking when I wrote that.
You claim that the Gentiles would not buy adoption as a legal right to the throne, but you offer no supporting evidence. On the contrary, the two Roman emperors who ruled during the years traditionally ascribed to Jesus' lifetime were *both* "Caesar" only by right of adoption.
Even funnier is the notion that technological limitations are "clichés".
No, "Hobbit".
lending the film a '70s era BBC-video look
Well, it's a story about olden-times in England, isn't it?
Joseph married Mary and, presumably, would have adopted Jesus as his son. To the Jews that should be enough to establish his legal right to the throne. Gentiles wouldn't buy that argument, so another way is also established.
Now you're just making stuff up.
That begs the question, what is Caesar's and what is the Lord's? For me all is the Lord's and Caesar has no legitimate title to anything because everything he has was acquired through theft with the exception of voluntary 'donations' or profits earned through voluntary transactions.
Uh, it's pretty clear that Jesus thought taxes belonged to Caesar.
Using Jesus as the figurehead of a Gospel of Tax Avoidance is beyond perverse.
Look up Moses' ruling to the daughters of Zelophehad. If Mary had no brothers, it would allow her father's birthright to pass to her son.
So why is the other genealogy needed? Wouldn't the Jews just accept this argument?
Doesn't this violate the US Constitution?
Or are they arguing that Amazon "has a presence" in Texas?
Yes it's a two hour video, complicated issues take time to discuss.
So maybe you'll summarize one or two of the most salient points for us.
Fictional doctor on TV? Is there any straw you poor fools won't grasp at? Here's some reasoning for you -- your entire existance is completely meaningless. You will die, all you do will crumble to dust, humanity will become extinct and everything it has ever done and known will be gone. Life itself will become extinct, and the universe itself will come to an end.
So why bother? Nothing matters, why go on living? What is the fucking point of it all?
Life is meaningless if your religion is real, too, however much you'd like to think otherwise.
However, as members of an intelligent species, we can always find our own meaning for life.
All other religions fail to build a compounding, historically impactive, evidence for their truth.
Good grief, what does that even mean?
Hopefully the challenger will come up with something better than that. (Or did you just reply from the wrong account?)
If you're against Christian teaching and you think you're an analytic thinker, I challenge you find out what's wrong about the content of the bible and find an convincing argument why people who believe in Christ are doing it in vein. If you want to show that the bible is made up, or its text is corrupt, I'm going to put you through scientific method process and axiomatic logic reasoning to establish your case.
Maybe you'll show us what you expect by working through examples with some of the religions that *you* reject.