The poster was complaining about their profits affecting pump price, so I gave their profits per gallon of gas at the pump. Taxes take far more than that. I am correct as a direct answer to the question.
But their overall profits are still around 6-9%, lower than the industries I stated. Using Exxon for an example, if you want to overlay that on the pump price (which isn't correct, since only a tiny percent of their profit is in pumped gas), you're still lower than the total tax rate in most places. In fact, Exxon itself pays billions in taxes per year, separate from the gas taxes you pay, again helping to jack up your gas prices.
But in the end the largest component of gas prices is the price of a barrel of oil, and tha'ts not set by any one company. It's determined by the world spot market. Back to Exxon as an example again, they only make up a few percent of the world's oil production, and actually buy more oil on the market to refine into products such as gasoline.
And through all that, their profit margin is less than many industries that are not demonized daily in the press and by the politicians.
Apple just made $13 billion on $46 billion revenue for the quarter. That's a 28% profit. Where are the pundits and politicians calling for a windfall profit tax on Apple?
For example, Exxon's profit on a gallon of US retail gasoline is about seven cents. They have big numbers in profit because of the large amount of product they sell.
In fact, of all industries, oil and gas has one of the lower profit margins, far outpaced by the likes of soft drinks, electronics and chemicals.
Your state and the federal government takes many times more than that in taxes. So if you want to demonize someone for gouging you at the pump, look at your politicians, especially the "green" ones.
And thus we are reduced to "human resources". So you think paying someone worth $75k $60k isn't exploitation?
The person who runs the company took the extra risk of creating the company, and usually they do a lot more work than any one employee. Their reward is to take a chunk of the value the employee creates. The employee just gets hired for a job. No personal investment, no risk.
It seems in Europe people believe the government has a place in encouraging a society that is dignified and equitable for the public at large.
Hate to break it to you, but it works exactly like this in Europe, too. If it didn't, then no private for-profit company could exist, you'd never see an Aktiengesellschaft in Germany.
Been there, done that, 14 years living abroad, visiting 12 countries in all. I'm not giving in to your distraction from media lies anymore.
Ah, I see you are using the Fox News definition of a liberal: Anyone who criticises Fox News.
Fox News is often criticized by conservatives and libertarians, too. One indicator that your foxnewslies.net is doing it for liberal ideological reasons rather than truth seeking is that they do not have up there the lies Fox has made about Ron Paul, which incited Paul's definitely non-liberal supporters.
And clearly he's spoken to technologists from around the world
This from a guy who around that time said he barely knew how to turn on a computer, so it's doubtful he said it out of some heightened level of knowledge. If this were Bush, you'd be all over this goof. But since it's Gore, you'll defend him.
What, like where Iraq is?
Been there, done that, too.
Now about that liberal media effort to demonize guns, attempting to influence a constitutional debate through lies and deception...
What the fuck is it you don't understand about there being 2 acceptable pronunciations of router?
I understand there's one everybody in the US uses, and another not used. If you want to get into how bright Gore is, we could talk about spots on zebras, the question of whether Mary was homeless, or which state Minneapolis is in. To test the limits of his ability to pander, ask him for his favorite Courtney Love song. Maybe he should just forget the whole Climate Change thing and go back to work on saving the Texas Eagle.
Fox News viewers have been shown to be the most misinformed group on indisputable matters of current affairs fact in the US.
Those surveys tend to be done by liberals as an attack on Fox. They were also about specific subjects dear to the hearts of the liberals who ordered or took them. I remember one about Obamacare, whether illegals will get benefits. The survey rated Fox News viewers wrong for saying true. Problem is, they were right, and illegals were not disallowed from getting benefits. Fox News viewers were called wrong for thinking death panels exist in the law, but there it was, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which makes the decision to cut off payments to those getting health care through the government. That portion of the law has since been repealed in the House due to the public outrage against it.
So you made an unwarranted charge of racism to get me to call you on your unwarranted charge of racism.
I made an obviously sarcastic unwarranted charge of racism to hilight the one existing in this case. Don't blame me if you were too dim to catch it.
Ah, so when you make a racist statement then it is "sarcastic".
What racist statement?
Okay, I admit, pointing out that the race baiters are themselves often racist may be considered racism by those very same race baiters (which is the industry they're in, inventing racism, so of course they'd see it that way).
In any case, my calling Gore on a minor unimportant misspeak has nothing to do with the lack of journalistic integrity in the industry. They lose integrity either by failure to do their duty and fact checking, or by willfully warping the news to their ideology. You accuse Fox News of the latter, but you don't want to admit your own news does it just as much if not more, and there are several of them and only one Fox.
I had a pretty good one. I went in to get the discounted iPad 2 the day the iPad 3 came out. I noticed Best Buy hadn't lowered their price, and a manager assured me they just hadn't updated their prices yet (duh, it was only a few hours after the announcement), and I could come back in the next few days to get a refund of the $100. I came back the next day, stood in line for five minutes, and got my $100 cash.
My only problems were that it took forever to check out, and the employees seemed clueless about the functionality of various accessories without the one Apple rep being there.
On the contrary, for 90% of people in he industry that I've met in my decades in the industry it's pronounced "root-ers". I know it's pronounced in two acceptable ways, just as advertisement and tomato is. You don't.
Not in one advertisement, not by one Cisco or NetGear rep among the parade that goes through here every year, not by one network engineer. Gore was obviously given some talking points by his handlers and flubbed one of the words. Face it, you're a fanatical Al Gore supporter, he can do no wrong for you. To show I'm not a fanatical Gore hater, I do give him the "invented the Internet" thing because in context and his obvious intended meaning, he was right.
And that's the same reason that weapon types tend to get mis-classified by the media. They're "liars" to the same extent you are
It took you several posts to actually address the issue, but you're still wrong. First, as "journalists" they have a duty to get such facts correct. Some I'm sure do it out of ignorance due to the fact that they shouldn't be journalists, since they are clearly violating the public trust. This probably explains the Fox News instances.
The rest follow the liberal media template, aided by anti-rights bureaucrats and politicians. Fox News is the one network that doesn't (since they follow a different agenda), and that really pisses you off. Don't worry, that's normal feelings for liberals. You can't stand for any news source to exist that doesn't reflect your ideology.
When speaking of the networking equipment, it's not root-ers. In decades of IT experience, I have heard it pronounced Gore's way once - and that was Gore.
And you still refuse to address the topic of media lies. You have relied on personal attack and diversion. I can only conclude you know you have the losing position but are too stubborn to give up.
If you take the side of the lying media, then the facts are most definitely not on your side. I'm betting you're a rabid anti-gun nut since you take such objection to a simple, factual, list of the lies and distortions perpetrated by the media in relation to guns.
That they are doing it is a fact, viewable every day in the news. This isn't something as innocent and laughable as Gore not being able to pronounce "router" or Stevens talking about his "tubes." In this case, the lies and distortions are meant to affect public policy, the debate over a constitutional right. Lies like these have caused laws to be passed that restrict the rights of the people. It is inexcusable.
Think of Gunwalker. The lie perpetrated was that our gun laws are too weak, so guns were traveling from our gun shops near the Mexican border to the Mexican gangs. This was used to try to make the gun laws even more onerous for the average law-abiding citizen.
When that wasn't happening enough, the government forced gun dealers to violate the laws and allow the guns through. Even better, you will see video and photos of those guns supposedly bought from American dealers captured from the Mexican gangs. Such photos commonly include grenade launchers and fully-automatic weapons, things which ARE NOT sold to the unlicensed general public by these gun stores.
Think if all the major news channels parroted the MAFIAA's talking points on SOPA and other paid-for legislation instead of reporting the facts. They're already getting close, with "theft" commonly being used to describe the copying of a movie without permission of the copyright holder. Doesn't that annoy you? Does that make you an internet nut to be dismissed without argument?
That media lying is what happens day after day in relation to guns. That annoys me.
I listed the facts that the media, including Fox, constantly distort. Try to disprove my claims, you haven't dared try yet.
It has gotten to the point where I'm shocked at the rare instances of accurate, unbiased reporting when it comes to firearms.
If this failure of our media doesn't bother you, then you are in need of help. If it doesn't bother you because it serves your ideological goals, then you have a serious moral deficiency.
Let me try this in a way that removes the oh-poor-minorities angle:
You're looking for someone who just embezzled $20 million from a bank. Given limited investigative resources, and when presented with 100 random possible suspects where you can only interview 10, are you likely to to ignore one of the black guys in a hoodie in order to get to question another white guy in a suit?
You're looking for a hacker and are presented with 50 black guys and 50 white guys but can only interview 10. Are you going to interview them 50/50? Or are you going to up your chances of catching your hacker knowing that a very small minority of hackers are black?
Do you really think it's a good idea to intensely search a grandma from Iowa in a wheelchair at an airport and let a 20-something Arab Muslim engineer from Pakistan through without a check? If you're just going random, that's the kind of thing that's going to happen. And it's an idiotic waste of resources.
Profiling works on statistics, it reflects reality. Using it will result in catching more of the bad guys.
It has nothing to do with the 14 Amendment. Profiling, when used properly, deprives no one of anything without due process.
Mainly from the liberal media, sometimes from Fox:
Referring to the more scary-looking semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles." By definition, they aren't.
If they don't do that, they call the rifles "assault weapons" which is a more vague term in its political use designed to demonize these rifles, but also has a military meaning that doesn't include these rifles.
Also, note the use of the words "high-powered" that often accompanies the description of the "assault rifle" or "assault weapon." In almost all cases, they are referring to a rifle that fires an intermediate-powered round, not a high-powered one.
And then there's "armor-piercing" to describe a rifle as being especially dangerous by being able to fire rounds that can pierce body armor. News flash: All intermediate-powered (AR-15, AK-47) to high-powered (most hunting rifle cartridges for medium to large game) rifles with standard ammunition can pierce all but the strongest body armor.
I understand that you made unwarranted allegations of racism.
You don't understand that I used a rhetorical device meant to get you to admit unwarranted claims of racism exist in this case. It established that you can identify unwarranted claims of racism. My obviously sarcastic (well, for those those who can read) unwarranted claim of racism mirrored the unwarranted claims of racism that sparked this whole issue.
This should be an issue of whether Zimmerman was acting in self defense, nothing more. It should not be an issue of the race of the two. It is convenient for me that Zimmerman is also of a minority race (although the media tried hard early on to portray him as white), which allows me to lampoon the unwarranted claims that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race.
The race baiters made unwarranted allegations of racism in the beginning of this. They lose. If you are among them, you lose too. You just admitted injecting racism is wrong, so apply the concept equally.
Slashdot Mirror
The poster was complaining about their profits affecting pump price, so I gave their profits per gallon of gas at the pump. Taxes take far more than that. I am correct as a direct answer to the question.
But their overall profits are still around 6-9%, lower than the industries I stated. Using Exxon for an example, if you want to overlay that on the pump price (which isn't correct, since only a tiny percent of their profit is in pumped gas), you're still lower than the total tax rate in most places. In fact, Exxon itself pays billions in taxes per year, separate from the gas taxes you pay, again helping to jack up your gas prices.
But in the end the largest component of gas prices is the price of a barrel of oil, and tha'ts not set by any one company. It's determined by the world spot market. Back to Exxon as an example again, they only make up a few percent of the world's oil production, and actually buy more oil on the market to refine into products such as gasoline.
And through all that, their profit margin is less than many industries that are not demonized daily in the press and by the politicians.
Apple just made $13 billion on $46 billion revenue for the quarter. That's a 28% profit. Where are the pundits and politicians calling for a windfall profit tax on Apple?
For example, Exxon's profit on a gallon of US retail gasoline is about seven cents. They have big numbers in profit because of the large amount of product they sell.
In fact, of all industries, oil and gas has one of the lower profit margins, far outpaced by the likes of soft drinks, electronics and chemicals.
Your state and the federal government takes many times more than that in taxes. So if you want to demonize someone for gouging you at the pump, look at your politicians, especially the "green" ones.
The person who runs the company took the extra risk of creating the company, and usually they do a lot more work than any one employee. Their reward is to take a chunk of the value the employee creates. The employee just gets hired for a job. No personal investment, no risk.
Hate to break it to you, but it works exactly like this in Europe, too. If it didn't, then no private for-profit company could exist, you'd never see an Aktiengesellschaft in Germany.
Been there, done that, 14 years living abroad, visiting 12 countries in all. I'm not giving in to your distraction from media lies anymore.
Fox News is often criticized by conservatives and libertarians, too. One indicator that your foxnewslies.net is doing it for liberal ideological reasons rather than truth seeking is that they do not have up there the lies Fox has made about Ron Paul, which incited Paul's definitely non-liberal supporters.
This from a guy who around that time said he barely knew how to turn on a computer, so it's doubtful he said it out of some heightened level of knowledge. If this were Bush, you'd be all over this goof. But since it's Gore, you'll defend him.
Been there, done that, too.
Now about that liberal media effort to demonize guns, attempting to influence a constitutional debate through lies and deception...
I understand there's one everybody in the US uses, and another not used. If you want to get into how bright Gore is, we could talk about spots on zebras, the question of whether Mary was homeless, or which state Minneapolis is in. To test the limits of his ability to pander, ask him for his favorite Courtney Love song. Maybe he should just forget the whole Climate Change thing and go back to work on saving the Texas Eagle.
Those surveys tend to be done by liberals as an attack on Fox. They were also about specific subjects dear to the hearts of the liberals who ordered or took them. I remember one about Obamacare, whether illegals will get benefits. The survey rated Fox News viewers wrong for saying true. Problem is, they were right, and illegals were not disallowed from getting benefits. Fox News viewers were called wrong for thinking death panels exist in the law, but there it was, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which makes the decision to cut off payments to those getting health care through the government. That portion of the law has since been repealed in the House due to the public outrage against it.
I still love your misdirection though.
I made an obviously sarcastic unwarranted charge of racism to hilight the one existing in this case. Don't blame me if you were too dim to catch it.
What racist statement?
Okay, I admit, pointing out that the race baiters are themselves often racist may be considered racism by those very same race baiters (which is the industry they're in, inventing racism, so of course they'd see it that way).
I read your first source. If you read all the way it ends up disproving your claim.
Here is the guy who designed the first router
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMU9f9nWnKQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
In any case, my calling Gore on a minor unimportant misspeak has nothing to do with the lack of journalistic integrity in the industry. They lose integrity either by failure to do their duty and fact checking, or by willfully warping the news to their ideology. You accuse Fox News of the latter, but you don't want to admit your own news does it just as much if not more, and there are several of them and only one Fox.
I had a pretty good one. I went in to get the discounted iPad 2 the day the iPad 3 came out. I noticed Best Buy hadn't lowered their price, and a manager assured me they just hadn't updated their prices yet (duh, it was only a few hours after the announcement), and I could come back in the next few days to get a refund of the $100. I came back the next day, stood in line for five minutes, and got my $100 cash.
My only problems were that it took forever to check out, and the employees seemed clueless about the functionality of various accessories without the one Apple rep being there.
Not in one advertisement, not by one Cisco or NetGear rep among the parade that goes through here every year, not by one network engineer. Gore was obviously given some talking points by his handlers and flubbed one of the words. Face it, you're a fanatical Al Gore supporter, he can do no wrong for you. To show I'm not a fanatical Gore hater, I do give him the "invented the Internet" thing because in context and his obvious intended meaning, he was right.
It took you several posts to actually address the issue, but you're still wrong. First, as "journalists" they have a duty to get such facts correct. Some I'm sure do it out of ignorance due to the fact that they shouldn't be journalists, since they are clearly violating the public trust. This probably explains the Fox News instances.
The rest follow the liberal media template, aided by anti-rights bureaucrats and politicians. Fox News is the one network that doesn't (since they follow a different agenda), and that really pisses you off. Don't worry, that's normal feelings for liberals. You can't stand for any news source to exist that doesn't reflect your ideology.
When speaking of the networking equipment, it's not root-ers. In decades of IT experience, I have heard it pronounced Gore's way once - and that was Gore.
And you still refuse to address the topic of media lies. You have relied on personal attack and diversion. I can only conclude you know you have the losing position but are too stubborn to give up.
If you take the side of the lying media, then the facts are most definitely not on your side. I'm betting you're a rabid anti-gun nut since you take such objection to a simple, factual, list of the lies and distortions perpetrated by the media in relation to guns.
That they are doing it is a fact, viewable every day in the news. This isn't something as innocent and laughable as Gore not being able to pronounce "router" or Stevens talking about his "tubes." In this case, the lies and distortions are meant to affect public policy, the debate over a constitutional right. Lies like these have caused laws to be passed that restrict the rights of the people. It is inexcusable.
Think of Gunwalker. The lie perpetrated was that our gun laws are too weak, so guns were traveling from our gun shops near the Mexican border to the Mexican gangs. This was used to try to make the gun laws even more onerous for the average law-abiding citizen.
When that wasn't happening enough, the government forced gun dealers to violate the laws and allow the guns through. Even better, you will see video and photos of those guns supposedly bought from American dealers captured from the Mexican gangs. Such photos commonly include grenade launchers and fully-automatic weapons, things which ARE NOT sold to the unlicensed general public by these gun stores.
Think if all the major news channels parroted the MAFIAA's talking points on SOPA and other paid-for legislation instead of reporting the facts. They're already getting close, with "theft" commonly being used to describe the copying of a movie without permission of the copyright holder. Doesn't that annoy you? Does that make you an internet nut to be dismissed without argument?
That media lying is what happens day after day in relation to guns. That annoys me.
I listed the facts that the media, including Fox, constantly distort. Try to disprove my claims, you haven't dared try yet.
It has gotten to the point where I'm shocked at the rare instances of accurate, unbiased reporting when it comes to firearms.
If this failure of our media doesn't bother you, then you are in need of help. If it doesn't bother you because it serves your ideological goals, then you have a serious moral deficiency.
Because the facts aren't on your side, you resort to baseless personal insults.
Especially lies that have as an end goal the elimination of constitutional rights.
Guns happen to be an area where the lies are quite clear and are broadcast daily to the entire country.
Let me try this in a way that removes the oh-poor-minorities angle:
You're looking for someone who just embezzled $20 million from a bank. Given limited investigative resources, and when presented with 100 random possible suspects where you can only interview 10, are you likely to to ignore one of the black guys in a hoodie in order to get to question another white guy in a suit?
You're looking for a hacker and are presented with 50 black guys and 50 white guys but can only interview 10. Are you going to interview them 50/50? Or are you going to up your chances of catching your hacker knowing that a very small minority of hackers are black?
Do you really think it's a good idea to intensely search a grandma from Iowa in a wheelchair at an airport and let a 20-something Arab Muslim engineer from Pakistan through without a check? If you're just going random, that's the kind of thing that's going to happen. And it's an idiotic waste of resources.
Profiling works on statistics, it reflects reality. Using it will result in catching more of the bad guys.
It has nothing to do with the 14 Amendment. Profiling, when used properly, deprives no one of anything without due process.
Shooting maybe, or preferably calling the police, or even that roving neighborhood watch presence so they know someone's watching.
Along the different branches, my family was:
1 On the North's side
2 Against slavery but neutral (Amish)
3 Not in the country yet
4 Out West getting killed by whites who wanted their land
Mainly from the liberal media, sometimes from Fox:
Referring to the more scary-looking semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles." By definition, they aren't.
If they don't do that, they call the rifles "assault weapons" which is a more vague term in its political use designed to demonize these rifles, but also has a military meaning that doesn't include these rifles.
Also, note the use of the words "high-powered" that often accompanies the description of the "assault rifle" or "assault weapon." In almost all cases, they are referring to a rifle that fires an intermediate-powered round, not a high-powered one.
And then there's "armor-piercing" to describe a rifle as being especially dangerous by being able to fire rounds that can pierce body armor. News flash: All intermediate-powered (AR-15, AK-47) to high-powered (most hunting rifle cartridges for medium to large game) rifles with standard ammunition can pierce all but the strongest body armor.
You don't understand that I used a rhetorical device meant to get you to admit unwarranted claims of racism exist in this case. It established that you can identify unwarranted claims of racism. My obviously sarcastic (well, for those those who can read) unwarranted claim of racism mirrored the unwarranted claims of racism that sparked this whole issue.
This should be an issue of whether Zimmerman was acting in self defense, nothing more. It should not be an issue of the race of the two. It is convenient for me that Zimmerman is also of a minority race (although the media tried hard early on to portray him as white), which allows me to lampoon the unwarranted claims that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race.
He's their eyes and ears in the neighborhood.
Calling when a crime is in progress is too late. The purpose of neighborhood watch is to stop crime from happening in the first place.
You aren't close to understanding.
You are close to understanding.
The race baiters made unwarranted allegations of racism in the beginning of this. They lose. If you are among them, you lose too. You just admitted injecting racism is wrong, so apply the concept equally.
Following an unknown suspicious person once does not constitute illegal stalking. It's a dumb idea, but dumb isn't illegal.
That's how this whole thing got started. I'm just making such unwarranted charges to point out that fact. Good you recognized it. You lose.
Yeah, the term "beaten to death" has never appeared in legal history.