If you like the Wal-Mart economy approach...a shattered peasant class with little money buying cheap crap, then you're on the right track. What you prefer depends on who you are. Rich and corporations and those stupid enough to be indoctrinated by corporations (Teabaggers, Ron Paul, etc) want lower taxes on the rich and corporations or the same as everyone else pays. The rest (people who aren't living off of capital gains, educated people who aren't subject to corporate propaganda) would prefer a more progressive tax system. If people had more money...like say things were manufactured in the US again, they wouldn't mind paying $65 more for an iPhone. And since 28% is capital gains, that means you don't know if I'm getting my money from my employer and paying in that bracket or capital gains. The fact that you assume to know where my income comes from, shows that you're not a real disciplined thinker, but more the Teabagger type who makes emo assumptions based on limited information. You know, like how teabaggers seem to think they know how the global political and economic system work even though they barely got a HS diploma?
Leaving aside all the immature rhetoric and petty name calling, your comment doesn't even make sense. The current system is obviously flawed, but you don't add to your credibility by rudely portraying an ill-thought out populist idealism.
In theory everything the OP said is 100% right on the money, in practice there are too many loopholes for it to function the way it should, but don't confuse the system's current disfunction with the capitalist system that has brought more wealth and more prosperity to an enormous amount of people than any other system in human history.
Corporate taxes are in theory meant to encourage reinvestment in a company, making it cheaper to reinvest than pay yourself. The problem is that it's possible (and totally legal) to do a huge number of things which effectively allow you to "pay" yourself at the corporate rate, like loaning yourself money from the corporation or buying yourself property and then leasing it to the corporation, etc. etc. etc. The solution is to ensure that if actual people take money from a corporation (they make a financial gain), that this money is taxed at a fair rate and then be done with it. People don't have problems with companies reinvesting in themselves (it's the reason I support low corporate tax rates in theory)... people have a problem with some rich jackass rigging the system to pay way less than his fair share of taxes.
Tax code reform is the key, anyone going on about tax rates for the super rich clearly doesn't understand how the system works, they don't really care if you raise their taxes as they'll find a way around them anyway.
First off, I am the OP. I just don't agree with low taxes on the rich and corporations. I get that you, like the majority of barely literate teabaggers, like low corporate tax rates. I think that corporations shouldn't be focused on profit, but on the health of the communites they serve and the people working in them. I also think that all corproations should be worker controlled, so you're not going to convince me that the current system, while imperfect, just needs a bit of tweaking. More like a complete overhaul. Society won't benefit further from corporations until their charters are changed from pure profit motive. I don't think they should be allowed to exist as they are. If you don't agree, that's fine. The open source movement has convinced me even more that people, working collectively for the good of the community, can create without a profit motive. The idea that people can only be motivated by money is a joke. Doubt I'll ever live to see a day when that's not shoved down everybody's throats, but I'll still have my opinions. Also, I just don't like the comparisons of Capitalism to Feudalism and slavery...yeah, I get it's better. Does that mean capitalism is the best system possible? Absolutely not.
I think he (and probably you) were likely natural athletes and for whatever reason (life happening, depression) got caught in a rut.
In other words, normal people aren't capable of being fit, unless they are natural athletes? You better come up with a better explanation, friend, because that sounds like rationalization, and has far more scientific evidence against it than for it.
Look, I'm personally fantastically thin, so I don't need to explain anything myself. As for the obese, I spent probably 30 seconds forming that hypothesis. I think every thinking person knows what causes fat people to be fat, but I'm not so sure it's well understood what causes an morbidly obese person to all of a sudden become an athelete. Keep in mind that my hypothesis (from 2004) was about a very narrow demographic, dumbass.
Wow, you must suck at doing your taxes. If you're paying the full rate you should invest in something called "TurboTax." It's a software program that helps you file and do your taxes. It also suggests tax deductions you might want to take, etc.
What you're doing is saying "I'm dumb and other people aren't - those other people should be penalized." That's patently unfair. Why should other people get penalized for your stupidity?
I shouldn't have mentioned my tax rate. The point was, your insults aside, corporations should pay as much as people, since they are people, asshole.;)
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
I am not part of the "unwashed masses" however, if the supreme court wants to rule that corporations are people and have the same rights, then why not tax them like people? People can deduct interest paid on their primary residence from taxes. Why not only allow corporations to deduct interest on their primary headquarters? People are limited on most deductions to a percentage of AGI. Why not the same thing for corporations?
If I am a small business, employing 150 people, why should I pay more in income tax as a sole proprietor or a partnership, where business income flows through and is taxed as personal income, than if I run the same business but structure it as a corporation? (I know all the reasons to form a corporation, so please don't respond in that way).
Corporations in America get far more state and federal "welfare" than people get. We just don't call it that. Maybe it's about time they pay their fare share, too.
The whole discussion's stupid for me, because I don't agree with the supreme court ruling on corporations being people, so why should i bother getting into a serious discussion on how they should be allowed further advantage? My original post was not a serious invitation to discuss how best to work within the confines of an incalculably stupid decision by the right wing supreme court.
Fruit Company in Costa Rica, 1870-1940, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996. An excerpt (pp. 56-59):
[The United Fruit] company claimed in its propaganda that its role was to instill consumer values among its workers. . . . In 1929, Crowther, another United Fruit biographer, explicitly explained the importance of the spread of a consumer mentality as he waxed eloquent on the virtues of capitalism and bemoaned the immoral effects of a subsistence economy: "The mozos or working people [in Central America] have laboured only when forced to and that was not often, for the land would give them what little they needed." But this could be changed, he explained, by infusing these laborers with the desire for upward mobility. "The desire for goods, it may be remarked, is something that has to be cultivated. In the United States this desire has been cultivated. . . . American movies, radio, and especially magazines were everywhere, and "our advertising is slowly having the same effect as in the United States -- and it is reaching the mozos. For when a periodical is discarded, it is grabbed up, and its advertising pages turn up as wall paper in the thatched huts. I have seen the insides of huts completely covered with American magazine pages. . . . All of this is having its effect in awakening desires."
It's not nearly enough. These people (er i mean corporations) should be paying taxes just like other people. Last year I paid 28%. Sound good, Apple?
Why? That just encourages them to move more and more of their operations overseas because they can't stay competitive if the US charges them 28% but their competitors pay a fraction of that elsewhere.
Furthermore, corporations just have to raise prices, so in the end consumers pay for it. And they pay for it in a regressive way.
And assuming you work for a corporation, those 28% that "you" paid was actually paid by your employer, because that's where all your money comes from.
Corporations should pay taxes proportional to the costs they impose on the community. Most of those are imposed through labor, and that's covered by the income tax. If they impose additional costs, they should pay for it. But just trying to milk them because you can makes no sense and only hurts people.
If you like the Wal-Mart economy approach...a shattered peasant class with little money buying cheap crap, then you're on the right track. What you prefer depends on who you are. Rich and corporations and those stupid enough to be indoctrinated by corporations (Teabaggers, Ron Paul, etc) want lower taxes on the rich and corporations or the same as everyone else pays. The rest (people who aren't living off of capital gains, educated people who aren't subject to corporate propaganda) would prefer a more progressive tax system. If people had more money...like say things were manufactured in the US again, they wouldn't mind paying $65 more for an iPhone. And since 28% is capital gains, that means you don't know if I'm getting my money from my employer and paying in that bracket or capital gains. The fact that you assume to know where my income comes from, shows that you're not a real disciplined thinker, but more the Teabagger type who makes emo assumptions based on limited information. You know, like how teabaggers seem to think they know how the global political and economic system work even though they barely got a HS diploma?
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
If Apple was sincere about conditons for factory workers, they'd simply build their products in a country with enhanced worker protections, even if the cost was greater. Yeah, I've heard the argument that they'd never be able to make the iPhone anywhere else because the factories can't retool fast enough elsewhere. That's a bunch of bull. It adds cost and that's the real problem, right, Apple?
Has nothing to do with the italian grinder you went to bed on, just the rhythmic imbalance. Fix that, change nothing else and the fat will literally melt away. Articles like this pander to the ever expanding population of morbidly obese...probably consciously. Editor's meeting: "Write more stories fat people will like, since everybody's fat".
When you're tired, your will breaks down for one thing.
Secondly, we evolved to get the sleep we need to - we didn't evolve with alarm clocks. That's the factory system that forced us to be a slave to the clock. When I'm training hard, I need more sleep and after a week's work and training, I really need to sleep in; otherwise I become sleep deprived. So, I need to sleep in.
And with our longer commutes, we need to get up earlier, so that adds to the sleep deprivation.
Yeah, we all know how much everyone caters to the obese. They're never mocked; you see them so often in ads for clothes, hair, and make-up it's like companies are yelling, "Hey skinny and normally proportioned people, don't you feel ugly for not gaining weight?"; you see the way girls constantly push themselves to eat more because society has so thoroughly built up the image of fatties as being hot that they're willing to even risk death by overeating in order to try to be beautiful by modern standards.
Or, you know, maybe the scientists performing this study looked at some phenomenon and said, "Hey, there's correlation here, and there might be causation." and they did their best to eliminate outside variables, such as caloric intake. There are actually some scientists who do that sort of thing, you know. It's true that the results of the study may be used as an excuse by some people as another justification for their obesity, but I posit that's not nearly as bad as someone like you discounting science in the name of insulting people with weight problems.
The problem with your reply is that there's a difference between fashion marketing and the mainstream press. One is marketing (you look like this when you wear this) the other is pandering (our readers are couch potatoes, let's give them a feel good article). Also, studying things is great and I support that, but writers who search for this material and editors who publish it aren't scientists, they're propagandists.
Look, there's only one way to lose the weight, and that's this:
Eat less and exercise more.
I know, it's impossible, right? Well, I started out being unable to bike to the end of the block and weighing a dangerous 250 pounds. I ate crap all the time -- working in a mall I'd often eat NYF poutine, a donair, and an Orange Julius for lunch. I didn't get much exercise. I'd also eat a chocolate bar every single day. The odds were against me and the situation was grim.
I kept on the bike though. I biked to school, eventually got all the way (2km!) without a rest, biked all the way through school, and biked to work once I graduated (B.Eng.). I still bike to work.
In addition to that, I did thousands of pushups on the Wii Fit, pulling a lot of weight from my gut and putting muscle onto my chest. I changed my diet, eating a lot more fruit and veggies and cutting out a lot of the chocolate and fast foods. I still eat treats, and lots of them, but nowhere near what I used to scarf down. I drink mostly water, with some sodas as an rare treat.
Now I weigh 160 pounds, 10% BF, and teach spin classes. The only real problem is that my wife isn't happy with my fitness; she's pretty insecure about it.
I knew a guy like that when I worked at AT&T wireless. He was probably 300 lbs when we worked together, but he transferred from engineering to IT. I didn't see him for a couple of years. Ran into him again and I didn't even recognize him. He went from this just lump of cottage cheese to a literal marathon runner. Never seen anything like it in my life. It's super rare and I (of course) have a theory about it. I think he (and probably you) were likely natural athletes and for whatever reason (life happening, depression) got caught in a rut. You're probably just being yourself. Who knows though. You probbaly have a theory of your own on what motivated you. Fear? A diabetes diagnosis? Your wife is right to be insecure about your fitness, if she isn't fit. I'd join in, if I were her; it's like having a live-in life coach.
Has nothing to do with the italian grinder you went to bed on, just the rhythmic imbalance. Fix that, change nothing else and the fat will literally melt away. Articles like this pander to the ever expanding population of morbidly obese...probably consciously. Editor's meeting: "Write more stories fat people will like, since everybody's fat".
When you're tired, your will breaks down for one thing.
Secondly, we evolved to get the sleep we need to - we didn't evolve with alarm clocks. That's the factory system that forced us to be a slave to the clock. When I'm training hard, I need more sleep and after a week's work and training, I really need to sleep in; otherwise I become sleep deprived. So, I need to sleep in.
And with our longer commutes, we need to get up earlier, so that adds to the sleep deprivation.
Just curious...are you one of those fat guys who fancies himself a muscle man? Those are man-tits, not pecs.
Has nothing to do with the italian grinder you went to bed on, just the rhythmic imbalance. Fix that, change nothing else and the fat will literally melt away. Articles like this pander to the ever expanding population of morbidly obese...probably consciously. Editor's meeting: "Write more stories fat people will like, since everybody's fat".
Funny, because the 911 attackers were predominately Saudi yet the US neither bombed Saudi Arabia, installed any dictator in Saudi Arabia (the current royal family came into power through its own military conquests years before oil was discovered there), nor meddled in their affairs. Our presence currently in Saudi Arabia was at the request of the rulers. Your hilariously oversimplified view fails to explain that.
Failed to explain it because it wasn't part of the discussion at hand, but if you want to go into Saudi Arabia, that only bolsters my case. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that the US gets along with great, because they do what we want. Sorry that's so simple. Let me make it even simplet for you; The US gets along with anybody, regardless of human rights, as long as our multinationals are able to do business in their country, they give us basing rights for US military bases or anythinug else we like. And remember, it's countries that benefit Western companies, not Western populations. Yeah, none of this stuff is as complex as the powers that be would have you think. That false complexity is just a way to discourage institutional analysis.
"Immigrants like Gheorghe don’t dawdle in their pursuit of better opportunities. They start at any available entry point in the job market, and then rapidly advance toward very ambitious personal goals. They keep pushing ahead, even if it means hauling plywood on a construction site or making small talk with whatever big shots they might be driving around in a borrowed limo."
Yeah, in other words, come to the US and work in wage slavery for a while first, you big enterpreneur, you. Forbes is just business press and wants cheap labor. Trying to put a positive spin on immigration fot ifs corporate readers who *adore* cheap labor. There's a huge lack of real statistics in the article. It's basically an immigrant pyramid scheme, if you think about it. Come here and work for peanuts as a janitor, but keep those big dreams. NO "DAWDLING", now!
Possessing. Technically, it's not illegal to view CP. It's just illegal to possess or transmit it, which makes viewing it a little tricky.
That's untrue. It's illegal (rightly) to view it, it's just not possible to prove intent to view with browser cache alone. Viewing child pornography is very illegal.
US gets most of its oil from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela. Only a fraction comes from places it's bombed, so the popular idea that the US bombs for oil has no basis in reality. In fact, after gaining complete military control of Iraq and its infrastructure, the new government was not only free to not sell to the US, but were allowed to sell a majority of their capacity to China, an economic adversary of the US.
You don't get it. It's not about where the US gets its oil. It's about multinationals who contribute to war mongering politicians getting the oil...that's why we went to war. Don't you get anything? These politicians and corporations are GLOBALISTS. They aren't out treasure hunting to bring the spoils back to the US people or even government (supposedly an extention of the people), they're setting their pals who contribute to campaigns up with wars to get their companies into Iraqi oil fields. Where the oil goes once a multinational oil company gets its hands on it is irrelevant. GET A CLUE, OK???
No, I don't. Sand niggers hate us because we *gasp* allow women to do such risque things as show their hair and ankles in public. Oh and we don't stone women to death for being raped.
Uh, no...they hate is because we won't stop blowing them up for oil, installing dictators for oil and generally meddling in their lives for oil. Get it, stupid?
The ruling makes sense to me. In light of the outrageously stiff penalties for viewing CP, there should be some real clear intent. That said, I've browsed a vast, vast, vast, vast amount of internet pron in my day and have never happened upon CP, so I'm not sure how often it's accessed absently. Vast.
It distresses me a bit that now because I'm a conservative I'm also ant-education (add to the list of things like racist)
This journalist, of which they are complaining about, I'm sure is not doubt very well educated.
I question the effectiveness (especially for the cost) of our education.
This journalist may be further evidence of the effectiveness of our education.
What good is education if it only further instills a sense of brashness in our ignorant population? I'd rather they be un-educated *and*know*it* (and hopefully work toward fixing it) then have a pice of paper that says they are smart when they are not.
“Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don’t think people didn’t know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we’re educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don’t educate them, what we call “education,” they’re going to take control — “they” being what Alexander Hamilton called the “great beast,” namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.” -Noam Chomsky
I always find it amazing how close together the far left and far right are on certain issues. If the far right ever started studying Chomsky, watch out. First off, they might learn something. Second, there might be a revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
If you like the Wal-Mart economy approach...a shattered peasant class with little money buying cheap crap, then you're on the right track. What you prefer depends on who you are. Rich and corporations and those stupid enough to be indoctrinated by corporations (Teabaggers, Ron Paul, etc) want lower taxes on the rich and corporations or the same as everyone else pays. The rest (people who aren't living off of capital gains, educated people who aren't subject to corporate propaganda) would prefer a more progressive tax system. If people had more money...like say things were manufactured in the US again, they wouldn't mind paying $65 more for an iPhone. And since 28% is capital gains, that means you don't know if I'm getting my money from my employer and paying in that bracket or capital gains. The fact that you assume to know where my income comes from, shows that you're not a real disciplined thinker, but more the Teabagger type who makes emo assumptions based on limited information. You know, like how teabaggers seem to think they know how the global political and economic system work even though they barely got a HS diploma?
Leaving aside all the immature rhetoric and petty name calling, your comment doesn't even make sense. The current system is obviously flawed, but you don't add to your credibility by rudely portraying an ill-thought out populist idealism. In theory everything the OP said is 100% right on the money, in practice there are too many loopholes for it to function the way it should, but don't confuse the system's current disfunction with the capitalist system that has brought more wealth and more prosperity to an enormous amount of people than any other system in human history. Corporate taxes are in theory meant to encourage reinvestment in a company, making it cheaper to reinvest than pay yourself. The problem is that it's possible (and totally legal) to do a huge number of things which effectively allow you to "pay" yourself at the corporate rate, like loaning yourself money from the corporation or buying yourself property and then leasing it to the corporation, etc. etc. etc. The solution is to ensure that if actual people take money from a corporation (they make a financial gain), that this money is taxed at a fair rate and then be done with it. People don't have problems with companies reinvesting in themselves (it's the reason I support low corporate tax rates in theory)... people have a problem with some rich jackass rigging the system to pay way less than his fair share of taxes. Tax code reform is the key, anyone going on about tax rates for the super rich clearly doesn't understand how the system works, they don't really care if you raise their taxes as they'll find a way around them anyway.
First off, I am the OP. I just don't agree with low taxes on the rich and corporations. I get that you, like the majority of barely literate teabaggers, like low corporate tax rates. I think that corporations shouldn't be focused on profit, but on the health of the communites they serve and the people working in them. I also think that all corproations should be worker controlled, so you're not going to convince me that the current system, while imperfect, just needs a bit of tweaking. More like a complete overhaul. Society won't benefit further from corporations until their charters are changed from pure profit motive. I don't think they should be allowed to exist as they are. If you don't agree, that's fine. The open source movement has convinced me even more that people, working collectively for the good of the community, can create without a profit motive. The idea that people can only be motivated by money is a joke. Doubt I'll ever live to see a day when that's not shoved down everybody's throats, but I'll still have my opinions. Also, I just don't like the comparisons of Capitalism to Feudalism and slavery...yeah, I get it's better. Does that mean capitalism is the best system possible? Absolutely not.
I have serious doubts about whether any TEA party members have a HS diploma. Your claim to the contrary is unproven to the best of my knowledge.
Was going to say 8th grade education, but isn't dropping out before 18 illegal or something?
I think he (and probably you) were likely natural athletes and for whatever reason (life happening, depression) got caught in a rut.
In other words, normal people aren't capable of being fit, unless they are natural athletes? You better come up with a better explanation, friend, because that sounds like rationalization, and has far more scientific evidence against it than for it.
Look, I'm personally fantastically thin, so I don't need to explain anything myself. As for the obese, I spent probably 30 seconds forming that hypothesis. I think every thinking person knows what causes fat people to be fat, but I'm not so sure it's well understood what causes an morbidly obese person to all of a sudden become an athelete. Keep in mind that my hypothesis (from 2004) was about a very narrow demographic, dumbass.
Wow, you must suck at doing your taxes. If you're paying the full rate you should invest in something called "TurboTax." It's a software program that helps you file and do your taxes. It also suggests tax deductions you might want to take, etc.
What you're doing is saying "I'm dumb and other people aren't - those other people should be penalized." That's patently unfair. Why should other people get penalized for your stupidity?
I shouldn't have mentioned my tax rate. The point was, your insults aside, corporations should pay as much as people, since they are people, asshole. ;)
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
I am not part of the "unwashed masses" however, if the supreme court wants to rule that corporations are people and have the same rights, then why not tax them like people? People can deduct interest paid on their primary residence from taxes. Why not only allow corporations to deduct interest on their primary headquarters? People are limited on most deductions to a percentage of AGI. Why not the same thing for corporations?
If I am a small business, employing 150 people, why should I pay more in income tax as a sole proprietor or a partnership, where business income flows through and is taxed as personal income, than if I run the same business but structure it as a corporation? (I know all the reasons to form a corporation, so please don't respond in that way).
Corporations in America get far more state and federal "welfare" than people get. We just don't call it that. Maybe it's about time they pay their fare share, too.
The whole discussion's stupid for me, because I don't agree with the supreme court ruling on corporations being people, so why should i bother getting into a serious discussion on how they should be allowed further advantage? My original post was not a serious invitation to discuss how best to work within the confines of an incalculably stupid decision by the right wing supreme court.
Fruit Company in Costa Rica, 1870-1940, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996. An excerpt (pp. 56-59): [The United Fruit] company claimed in its propaganda that its role was to instill consumer values among its workers. . . . In 1929, Crowther, another United Fruit biographer, explicitly explained the importance of the spread of a consumer mentality as he waxed eloquent on the virtues of capitalism and bemoaned the immoral effects of a subsistence economy: "The mozos or working people [in Central America] have laboured only when forced to and that was not often, for the land would give them what little they needed." But this could be changed, he explained, by infusing these laborers with the desire for upward mobility. "The desire for goods, it may be remarked, is something that has to be cultivated. In the United States this desire has been cultivated. . . . American movies, radio, and especially magazines were everywhere, and "our advertising is slowly having the same effect as in the United States -- and it is reaching the mozos. For when a periodical is discarded, it is grabbed up, and its advertising pages turn up as wall paper in the thatched huts. I have seen the insides of huts completely covered with American magazine pages. . . . All of this is having its effect in awakening desires."
Why? That just encourages them to move more and more of their operations overseas because they can't stay competitive if the US charges them 28% but their competitors pay a fraction of that elsewhere.
Furthermore, corporations just have to raise prices, so in the end consumers pay for it. And they pay for it in a regressive way.
And assuming you work for a corporation, those 28% that "you" paid was actually paid by your employer, because that's where all your money comes from.
Corporations should pay taxes proportional to the costs they impose on the community. Most of those are imposed through labor, and that's covered by the income tax. If they impose additional costs, they should pay for it. But just trying to milk them because you can makes no sense and only hurts people.
If you like the Wal-Mart economy approach...a shattered peasant class with little money buying cheap crap, then you're on the right track. What you prefer depends on who you are. Rich and corporations and those stupid enough to be indoctrinated by corporations (Teabaggers, Ron Paul, etc) want lower taxes on the rich and corporations or the same as everyone else pays. The rest (people who aren't living off of capital gains, educated people who aren't subject to corporate propaganda) would prefer a more progressive tax system. If people had more money...like say things were manufactured in the US again, they wouldn't mind paying $65 more for an iPhone. And since 28% is capital gains, that means you don't know if I'm getting my money from my employer and paying in that bracket or capital gains. The fact that you assume to know where my income comes from, shows that you're not a real disciplined thinker, but more the Teabagger type who makes emo assumptions based on limited information. You know, like how teabaggers seem to think they know how the global political and economic system work even though they barely got a HS diploma?
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
It's not nearly enough. These people (er i mean corporations) should be paying taxes just like other people. Last year I paid 28%. Sound good, Apple?
If Apple was sincere about conditons for factory workers, they'd simply build their products in a country with enhanced worker protections, even if the cost was greater. Yeah, I've heard the argument that they'd never be able to make the iPhone anywhere else because the factories can't retool fast enough elsewhere. That's a bunch of bull. It adds cost and that's the real problem, right, Apple?
Has nothing to do with the italian grinder you went to bed on, just the rhythmic imbalance. Fix that, change nothing else and the fat will literally melt away. Articles like this pander to the ever expanding population of morbidly obese...probably consciously. Editor's meeting: "Write more stories fat people will like, since everybody's fat".
When you're tired, your will breaks down for one thing.
Secondly, we evolved to get the sleep we need to - we didn't evolve with alarm clocks. That's the factory system that forced us to be a slave to the clock. When I'm training hard, I need more sleep and after a week's work and training, I really need to sleep in; otherwise I become sleep deprived. So, I need to sleep in.
And with our longer commutes, we need to get up earlier, so that adds to the sleep deprivation.
LOL uh ok. Way to take responsibility.
Yeah, we all know how much everyone caters to the obese. They're never mocked; you see them so often in ads for clothes, hair, and make-up it's like companies are yelling, "Hey skinny and normally proportioned people, don't you feel ugly for not gaining weight?"; you see the way girls constantly push themselves to eat more because society has so thoroughly built up the image of fatties as being hot that they're willing to even risk death by overeating in order to try to be beautiful by modern standards. Or, you know, maybe the scientists performing this study looked at some phenomenon and said, "Hey, there's correlation here, and there might be causation." and they did their best to eliminate outside variables, such as caloric intake. There are actually some scientists who do that sort of thing, you know. It's true that the results of the study may be used as an excuse by some people as another justification for their obesity, but I posit that's not nearly as bad as someone like you discounting science in the name of insulting people with weight problems.
The problem with your reply is that there's a difference between fashion marketing and the mainstream press. One is marketing (you look like this when you wear this) the other is pandering (our readers are couch potatoes, let's give them a feel good article). Also, studying things is great and I support that, but writers who search for this material and editors who publish it aren't scientists, they're propagandists.
You are correct.
Look, there's only one way to lose the weight, and that's this:
Eat less and exercise more.
I know, it's impossible, right? Well, I started out being unable to bike to the end of the block and weighing a dangerous 250 pounds. I ate crap all the time -- working in a mall I'd often eat NYF poutine, a donair, and an Orange Julius for lunch. I didn't get much exercise. I'd also eat a chocolate bar every single day. The odds were against me and the situation was grim.
I kept on the bike though. I biked to school, eventually got all the way (2km!) without a rest, biked all the way through school, and biked to work once I graduated (B.Eng.). I still bike to work.
In addition to that, I did thousands of pushups on the Wii Fit, pulling a lot of weight from my gut and putting muscle onto my chest. I changed my diet, eating a lot more fruit and veggies and cutting out a lot of the chocolate and fast foods. I still eat treats, and lots of them, but nowhere near what I used to scarf down. I drink mostly water, with some sodas as an rare treat.
Now I weigh 160 pounds, 10% BF, and teach spin classes. The only real problem is that my wife isn't happy with my fitness; she's pretty insecure about it.
I knew a guy like that when I worked at AT&T wireless. He was probably 300 lbs when we worked together, but he transferred from engineering to IT. I didn't see him for a couple of years. Ran into him again and I didn't even recognize him. He went from this just lump of cottage cheese to a literal marathon runner. Never seen anything like it in my life. It's super rare and I (of course) have a theory about it. I think he (and probably you) were likely natural athletes and for whatever reason (life happening, depression) got caught in a rut. You're probably just being yourself. Who knows though. You probbaly have a theory of your own on what motivated you. Fear? A diabetes diagnosis? Your wife is right to be insecure about your fitness, if she isn't fit. I'd join in, if I were her; it's like having a live-in life coach.
Has nothing to do with the italian grinder you went to bed on, just the rhythmic imbalance. Fix that, change nothing else and the fat will literally melt away. Articles like this pander to the ever expanding population of morbidly obese...probably consciously. Editor's meeting: "Write more stories fat people will like, since everybody's fat".
When you're tired, your will breaks down for one thing.
Secondly, we evolved to get the sleep we need to - we didn't evolve with alarm clocks. That's the factory system that forced us to be a slave to the clock. When I'm training hard, I need more sleep and after a week's work and training, I really need to sleep in; otherwise I become sleep deprived. So, I need to sleep in.
And with our longer commutes, we need to get up earlier, so that adds to the sleep deprivation.
Just curious...are you one of those fat guys who fancies himself a muscle man? Those are man-tits, not pecs.
Please just shut your fscking pie-hole. You are stating your opinion as fact, nothing more. Save your false rage for facebook.
Don't project, I'm not dumb enough to have a facebook account. And I don't care if you "like" me.
Has nothing to do with the italian grinder you went to bed on, just the rhythmic imbalance. Fix that, change nothing else and the fat will literally melt away. Articles like this pander to the ever expanding population of morbidly obese...probably consciously. Editor's meeting: "Write more stories fat people will like, since everybody's fat".
Funny, because the 911 attackers were predominately Saudi yet the US neither bombed Saudi Arabia, installed any dictator in Saudi Arabia (the current royal family came into power through its own military conquests years before oil was discovered there), nor meddled in their affairs. Our presence currently in Saudi Arabia was at the request of the rulers. Your hilariously oversimplified view fails to explain that.
Failed to explain it because it wasn't part of the discussion at hand, but if you want to go into Saudi Arabia, that only bolsters my case. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that the US gets along with great, because they do what we want. Sorry that's so simple. Let me make it even simplet for you; The US gets along with anybody, regardless of human rights, as long as our multinationals are able to do business in their country, they give us basing rights for US military bases or anythinug else we like. And remember, it's countries that benefit Western companies, not Western populations. Yeah, none of this stuff is as complex as the powers that be would have you think. That false complexity is just a way to discourage institutional analysis.
"Immigrants like Gheorghe don’t dawdle in their pursuit of better opportunities. They start at any available entry point in the job market, and then rapidly advance toward very ambitious personal goals. They keep pushing ahead, even if it means hauling plywood on a construction site or making small talk with whatever big shots they might be driving around in a borrowed limo."
Yeah, in other words, come to the US and work in wage slavery for a while first, you big enterpreneur, you. Forbes is just business press and wants cheap labor. Trying to put a positive spin on immigration fot ifs corporate readers who *adore* cheap labor. There's a huge lack of real statistics in the article. It's basically an immigrant pyramid scheme, if you think about it. Come here and work for peanuts as a janitor, but keep those big dreams. NO "DAWDLING", now!
Possessing. Technically, it's not illegal to view CP. It's just illegal to possess or transmit it, which makes viewing it a little tricky.
That's untrue. It's illegal (rightly) to view it, it's just not possible to prove intent to view with browser cache alone. Viewing child pornography is very illegal.
US gets most of its oil from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela. Only a fraction comes from places it's bombed, so the popular idea that the US bombs for oil has no basis in reality. In fact, after gaining complete military control of Iraq and its infrastructure, the new government was not only free to not sell to the US, but were allowed to sell a majority of their capacity to China, an economic adversary of the US.
You don't get it. It's not about where the US gets its oil. It's about multinationals who contribute to war mongering politicians getting the oil...that's why we went to war. Don't you get anything? These politicians and corporations are GLOBALISTS. They aren't out treasure hunting to bring the spoils back to the US people or even government (supposedly an extention of the people), they're setting their pals who contribute to campaigns up with wars to get their companies into Iraqi oil fields. Where the oil goes once a multinational oil company gets its hands on it is irrelevant. GET A CLUE, OK???
We are at war with Eurasia...we have always been at war with Eurasia
Orwell is all well and good, but things are stacking up to be much more Huxley-ish.
No, I don't. Sand niggers hate us because we *gasp* allow women to do such risque things as show their hair and ankles in public. Oh and we don't stone women to death for being raped.
Uh, no...they hate is because we won't stop blowing them up for oil, installing dictators for oil and generally meddling in their lives for oil. Get it, stupid?
The ruling makes sense to me. In light of the outrageously stiff penalties for viewing CP, there should be some real clear intent. That said, I've browsed a vast, vast, vast, vast amount of internet pron in my day and have never happened upon CP, so I'm not sure how often it's accessed absently. Vast.
It distresses me a bit that now because I'm a conservative I'm also ant-education (add to the list of things like racist)
This journalist, of which they are complaining about, I'm sure is not doubt very well educated.
I question the effectiveness (especially for the cost) of our education.
This journalist may be further evidence of the effectiveness of our education.
What good is education if it only further instills a sense of brashness in our ignorant population? I'd rather they be un-educated *and*know*it* (and hopefully work toward fixing it) then have a pice of paper that says they are smart when they are not.
“Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don’t think people didn’t know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we’re educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don’t educate them, what we call “education,” they’re going to take control — “they” being what Alexander Hamilton called the “great beast,” namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.” -Noam Chomsky
I always find it amazing how close together the far left and far right are on certain issues. If the far right ever started studying Chomsky, watch out. First off, they might learn something. Second, there might be a revolution.
Science illiterate, social media sheeps.
Speaking of illiterate, it's sheep and fish, not sheeps and fishes. Thanks, Teabagger or Libertariantard.