Thanks for all the memories! I've been pretty much a daily reader since the date I joined.... wish I knew what date that was. Didn't sign-up for an account for a LONG time after I started reading... might have had a 4 or 5 digit number if I had signed up earlier.:-) Good luck in your future endeavors!
How naive you are... You say, "Yes, we need to stop deficit spending" and "Congress - get to work" right after blasting the ONE political movement in recent history that has had a measure of success in forcing congress to seriously address it! You may disagree with most of their political views, but the tea party is largely made up of regular folks who are fed up with 'business as usual politicians' (both Democrat AND Republican) who spend copious amounts of money with little or no regard to fiscal responsibility. This political discourse on deficit spending would be only lip-service (as it has been for decades) if the tea party had never formed. Only now are things beginning to get serious... and I promise it will get worse before it gets better. The tea party is NOT going away and what they want is going to have to be addressed.
Furthermore, I am sick and fracking tired that you and others like you have the audacity to bitch about 'rhetoric and political posturing' and 'childish nonsense' while simultaneously devolving your own language into impudent tawdry jabs calling people 'tea baggers' proverbially participating in a giant liberal circle-jerk congratulating each other on your oh-so-clever humor, how smart you are and how dumb everybody is who disagrees with you. Grow up!
Since sales tax is paid on top of the the sale, it has no effect on profits.
This not quite true. There is a REAL cost to collecting the tax and remitting the tax to the appropriate authorities, filling out tax forms, accounting for money collected, keeping records, etc. The cost of doing this may not be much as a percentage per individual sale - but, it would require real time from real people who have to be paid real salaries for doing a purely administrative job that adds absolutely NO productive value to the customers or shareholders of the company.
The money for this activity MUST come from somewhere - and, generally, the company has to build that cost into their price structure.... ALTHOUGH, unbeknownst to many - some states allow businesses to retain a small percentage of the taxes collected as a fee/reward for doing the state's dirty work for them.
Having experience on this subject I speak with some authority.....
The online retailers you mentioned are either 1) big enough to hire hordes of tax experts/researchers/accountants to keep up with the thousands of taxing jurisdictions within the states who have sales and use taxes or 2) are connected with the Steamlined Sales Tax consortium which somewhat harmonizes tax laws across the several states (However, most of the original SST member-states have fallen out of compliance with the consortium rules.... and currently LESS THAN HALF of the states that have a sales and use tax are members).
Furthermore.... Wal-Mart, Kroger, Home Depot, etc. likely have NEXUS (i.e. some physical presence) in the states in question - therefore they have no choice but to abide by each respective state's taxation laws. Amazon's argument will be - as has mine for my specific situation - "We have no physical or legal presence in your state - therefore you have no taxation jurisdiction over us."
God does not exist because you can't prove it and the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
Actually you are incorrect. The onus of proof is on God... Proof of his existence and handiwork surrounds you, but you, like the ancient Israelites in the bible, stubbornly refuse to believe even though you have seen.
If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
I hope you're being sarcastic here.... because if you are serious you have a major lack of intellectual understanding in what it means to believe in a deity... The works of J.R.R. Tolkien and Douglas Adams are fiction - and they claim to be fiction. You might consider the Christian bible to be fiction as well, but it was written by LOTS of different people who claimed to be serious about what they were writing over the course of (perhaps) two thousand years or more and demonstrates a remarkable consistency across all those years and authors.
While we are on the subject, maybe I should ask: Just what proof WOULD be necessary for you to believe in God? Seriously... if God DOES exist... how would you EXPECT him/her/it to reveal itself to you?... How are you going to verify that the credentials of the ALL MIGHTY are legit?
That was not a threat of violence, dork... merely illustrating the absurdity of true democracy.
On the child labor issue... Before you throw around your pompous attitude, you might consider broadening your horizons and expanding your mind a little bit. The world is a bit bigger than your (likely) urban/suburban city life experience. Your idea of child labor, I'm guessing, is a pretty narrowly defined concept - where tiny children are forced to work in sweat shops essentially as slaves to make the expensive shoes and what-not Americans buy.
I find the slave-like exploitation of children deplorable - as I'm sure you do. But I know of lots and can imagine many more scenarios in which something we both might call 'child labor' is simply a way for a family to survive where they live. Keep in mind, also, the historical perspective. Both my parents worked on their respective family farms growing up... does that make my grandparents evil child-slave drivers? Absolutely not!
There are also ALL KINDS of scenarios in which I think it would be VERY BAD and immoral for a parent to have a child laboring to help support his or her family... The difference between you and me is: I know I am not smart enough to decide for every situation if it's good or bad. You think you are. I think things like this should be left up to the child's parents. You think you are smarter than the child's parents and should make the decision for them in all situations.
What I said was 'child labor' - that is, a child working for a wage or other form of compensation, given the consent and/or guidance of his or her suitable and responsible parent(s) is not INHERENTLY evil or immoral. It may very well be, but it is not necessarily so... and I don't think we need laws to restrict it. Why?
If you found out, say, your favorite beverage was made by slave-like child labor, would you buy it anymore? No! Neither would I... and I think most other people in our nation today would do the same.... the beverage company goes out of business, problem solved.
Allow me to retort in reverse order of your points.
It's called a 'republic', trust me you wouldn't like the alternative democracy (what the majority says, goes) because if I wanted to I could probably convince a majority of the people that we need to shoot you in the head just because you are ugly, and it would be entertaining for the rest of us.
I don't see you suffering any negative consequences for me living my life the way I see fit... and when I look out the window the environment still appears to be there and it appears to be in generally good shape.
I'm not sure what Interstate highways have to do with energy production... and I PROMISE you... a nuclear power plant could indeed be built by private entities with no need for government backed loans... if the government didn't make it so it were impossible to do it otherwise.
I do NOT agree that some government restrictions on free trade are necessary. 'Child labor', as you call it is not inherently evil. What if a family is poor and they need extra money? Is it evil for a farmer's children to work in the field?
On the subject of corporate welfare (tax breaks to oil companies and such) I agree with you... Government has little or no business ensuring one industry succeeds over another. Blaming Cheney for that is sophistry... as your messiah, Obama, has had more power than Cheney ever had for a few years now.... and nothing much has changed.
How do I account for evil corporations that cause damage?... Simple. If I don't like what a company is doing or what it stands for or what it sells I don't buy what they sell. If I feel passionately enough about it I convince others to do the same. Eventually... the evil corporation will cease to exist. Problem solved.
Actually, the earthquakes we are currently discussing have NOTHING to do with the New Madrid seismic zone... It is an entirely different set of known faults in central Arkansas - over a hundred miles away from the general edge of the New Madrid zone.
These same faults have been active before... in the early 1980s and again around 2001. The magnitude 4.7 we had the other day was the largest we've had in the state since something like 1969... and the largest recorded quake this particular fault system has ever produced. I didn't even know the fault was there until the 2001 activity.
I live about 20 miles away from the epicenter of of the 4.7. It gave me quite a jolt the other night as I was browsing slashdot. Sounded like a gigantic bomb had exploded miles away then a fraction of a second later the shock-wave hit. It's a strange sensation to have the supposedly solid ground move underneath your feet.
I, myself, have a very difficult time believing the drilling activities have anything to do with these earthquakes.... as the faults were active LONG before any drilling activity took place here, therefore it will be difficult to prove a causation relationship.
No offense, pixelpusher220, but I don't know how to say this other than: You, and others like you, are ignorant. With you, things are always the fault of somebody else... the evil conservatives... or whomever happens to disagree with your politics. There are basic laws of economics involved with energy production. Laws. Like gravity... Congress could pass legislation all day long changing the law of gravitation, but you will note that it is a particularly stubborn physical law.
The reason oil, natural gas, coal, etc. are our chief means of energy production at this time is because... They are inexpensive relative to other means. Economics! You can subsidize other means of production until the cows come home and it's not going to make any difference in the long run. Ultimately, the free market WILL win. Period. No exceptions.
Do you have some philosophical belief that people should use a particular 'kind' of energy? Fine! I'm happy for you! It's your job to convince them, not force them. Go into the freaking lab yourself! Invent something that makes more economic sense than pumping free, usable, natural, made-by-the-Earth, just-sitting-there-waiting-for-us-to-use-it stuff out of the ground and you will have my complete attention. Until then, leave me the hell alone! Don't think that because you have some philosophical belief that you have the right to forcibly take my money, and others, and use it to invent your invention... or force us to abide by your belief! Use your own damn money or convince investors to invest!... But let people do it of their own free will!
I'm sure that would work GREAT in a hospital setting where a nurse keying in data has to jump up and run down the hall to a patient who is crashing..... and then gets fired because she forgot to log herself out on 3 occasions./sarcasm
like perpetual motion - it can, in princible, be done. So far though, no scientist or engineer has worked out how to do it.
Methinks, perhaps, you misunderstand the principles of mechanics... and conservation of energy laws. In theory, in principle, and in reality it is impossible to build a machine that is 100% efficient therefore a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
I had a debate with a friend (a global-warming alarmist) a while back on the same issue... I couldn't make him understand the concept.
We know that Venus' surface temperature is VERY hot, and he had always been TAUGHT that it was because the Venus atmosphere is largely CO2... runaway greenhouse effect. The levels of CO2 may very well play a part in the planet's higher temperature, but it's much, much more complicated than that... and it's inappropriate to make an apples-to-apples comparison with CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.
First, Venus' atmosphere is composed of about 97% CO2 (at the surface)... as opposed to Earth's *****0.039%*****. It's going to take a LOT of convincing to talk me into believing even a 1% increase in CO2 levels are going to make a hill of beans difference to our climate... let alone a thousandth or millionth of a percent over the next few centuries! Second, Venus' atmosphere is IMMENSELY more dense that that of the Earth.
We could certainly stand to learn more from Venus... Unfortunately, it seems Mars is much more en vogue to people these days and we have limited experimental data from our sister planet. All these 'global warming' comparisons to Venus are inappropriate at least until (or especially because) we don't actually have much hard experimental data geared toward that end.
Bravo, whoever you are, AC... I AM a follower of Christ and, while I am not a bible scholar, both my father and brother are. Parent comment is an exquisite description of the confusion at hand regarding 'original sin' and 'immaculate conception'... and the origins of these doctrines within Catholic history.
Ya know... It's funny. As I was reading your post I began to imagine that similar thoughts must have gone through God's mind before he created the 'Heavens and the Earth' - assuming he did.
Just listen to the discussion here... Some of us humans have so little faith in ourselves that we're talking about creating all-powerful computer systems to control people and societies - all toward our ultimate goal. God, of course, also has an ultimate goal I think... he didn't just create the self-sustaining generational ship to get us there (Earth) but he gave us free will. He is braver and has more faith in his creation than we are in ourselves methinks.
Isn't that an interesting parallel? I can imagine God reading/. right now and saying to himself: "Yep... It's not as easy as it looks is it?... to create a self-sustaining world, put people on it and expect things to turn out how you'd like in the end."
Very good point... It always amuses/saddens me to read these ignorant rants from liberal retards (I would estimate 90%+ of the/. comments). They get so cross whenever a story like this comes along about a corporation doing the best they can to increase income/revenue/profit and lessen their tax exposure... the EXACT same thing the complainers do when they fill out their tax return, albeit on a smaller scale. When they stop taking any deductions (standard or otherwise) on their tax returns - and pay income tax on the full, non-adjusted gross income THEN I will listen to their rants.
You liberal retards don't understand that: 1. Corporations do NOT pay taxes... People do. Corporations are legal fictions and when taxed do one or a combination of 3 things: Lower dividends to investors, lay-off workers or, more often than not, increase the price of their product. A corporation is therefore NOT a tax payer... it is a tax COLLECTOR!
2. The loopholes you like to gripe about (legal ones) are in the tax code ON PURPOSE!... put there by the politicians. Gripe at them, not the sensible leaders of a corporation doing the best they can (legally) to lessen their tax exposure.
Many of you have been brainwashed into thinking that being 'rich' - whatever that means - is somehow inherently evil... so you support taxation policies that confiscate more of what people have when they have more. Why? Is it because they OUGHT to be able to live on less money? Is it because you think they don't pay their fair share in taxes? Is it because they earn 10 or 100 times what you earn in a year and you think they are greedy? What do these things matter to you? It is because YOU are the one who is greedy... You are envious of what somebody else has and you support taxation policies that take what they have and give a small piece to you.
So fracking what the rich guy lives in a mansion... who was paid to build the mansion? So fracking what they guy has a yacht... who was paid to build the yacht? So fracking what he has ten cars... Lots of people were employed to build those cars. So fracking what the guy has a million dollars sitting in the bank... The bank is loaning that money to people who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.
You see? Just because a person has a large amount of wealth associated with their name does NOT mean they are greedy and others are not benefiting from it. Even if they do use so-called loopholes to get around taxation - they've gotta spend their money somewhere! They aren't likely to bury it in the back yard.
If companies/individuals are breaking the law, however... penalize them harshly! If it's a stupid law... work to change it.
Actually, I have nothing against the shows. I think they are often funny. Colbert is a particularly brilliant comic/writer. They are by no means credible news sources, however... but many of my liberal friends run away with the same devotion to what they saw/heard on the show(s) as they whine and complain about followers of, say, Rush Limbaugh doing.
One would unlikely to find individuals both interested enough and unbiased enough to conduct a 'scientific' study who's results would be credible. I think the most telling aspect of the whole debate is the ratings of Fox News continue to climb into the stratosphere as the ratings of ALL other news networks and shows continue to dwindle into obscurity.
I, for one, think it's pretty sad that a disturbingly large segment of younger viewers get their 'news' primarily from a comedy show (Jon Stewart). Almost every liberal I know who likes that show has an incredibly arrogant and condescending attitude about their supposedly 'enlightened' beliefs and political philosophies. They seem to feel the very fact that they are liberal makes them better and smarter than those who are not. It therefore becomes difficult to have an intelligent and cordial conversation with them as their beliefs are largely wrapped up in their emotional make-up. Many lack the ability to substantively debate an idea. They refuse to confront facts or opinions that they don't like and quickly trail off into calling whatever they disagree with racist, homophobic, bigoted and the like (Or in the case of Fox News - liars).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for all the memories! I've been pretty much a daily reader since the date I joined.... wish I knew what date that was. Didn't sign-up for an account for a LONG time after I started reading... might have had a 4 or 5 digit number if I had signed up earlier. :-) Good luck in your future endeavors!
-Sigmon
How naive you are... You say, "Yes, we need to stop deficit spending" and "Congress - get to work" right after blasting the ONE political movement in recent history that has had a measure of success in forcing congress to seriously address it! You may disagree with most of their political views, but the tea party is largely made up of regular folks who are fed up with 'business as usual politicians' (both Democrat AND Republican) who spend copious amounts of money with little or no regard to fiscal responsibility. This political discourse on deficit spending would be only lip-service (as it has been for decades) if the tea party had never formed. Only now are things beginning to get serious... and I promise it will get worse before it gets better. The tea party is NOT going away and what they want is going to have to be addressed.
Furthermore, I am sick and fracking tired that you and others like you have the audacity to bitch about 'rhetoric and political posturing' and 'childish nonsense' while simultaneously devolving your own language into impudent tawdry jabs calling people 'tea baggers' proverbially participating in a giant liberal circle-jerk congratulating each other on your oh-so-clever humor, how smart you are and how dumb everybody is who disagrees with you. Grow up!
...watching from the Causeway. EPIC EPIC EPIC! Dream come true for me!
-Sigmon
Since sales tax is paid on top of the the sale, it has no effect on profits.
This not quite true. There is a REAL cost to collecting the tax and remitting the tax to the appropriate authorities, filling out tax forms, accounting for money collected, keeping records, etc. The cost of doing this may not be much as a percentage per individual sale - but, it would require real time from real people who have to be paid real salaries for doing a purely administrative job that adds absolutely NO productive value to the customers or shareholders of the company.
The money for this activity MUST come from somewhere - and, generally, the company has to build that cost into their price structure.... ALTHOUGH, unbeknownst to many - some states allow businesses to retain a small percentage of the taxes collected as a fee/reward for doing the state's dirty work for them.
Having experience on this subject I speak with some authority.....
The online retailers you mentioned are either 1) big enough to hire hordes of tax experts/researchers/accountants to keep up with the thousands of taxing jurisdictions within the states who have sales and use taxes or 2) are connected with the Steamlined Sales Tax consortium which somewhat harmonizes tax laws across the several states (However, most of the original SST member-states have fallen out of compliance with the consortium rules.... and currently LESS THAN HALF of the states that have a sales and use tax are members).
Furthermore.... Wal-Mart, Kroger, Home Depot, etc. likely have NEXUS (i.e. some physical presence) in the states in question - therefore they have no choice but to abide by each respective state's taxation laws. Amazon's argument will be - as has mine for my specific situation - "We have no physical or legal presence in your state - therefore you have no taxation jurisdiction over us."
Fear the worm!
Bravo. Bravo.
Bra-freakin-vo!
Origin probably still exists as an entity... It's just owned by E.A.
I hope they don't find any Cobalt Thorium G!
God does not exist because you can't prove it and the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
Actually you are incorrect. The onus of proof is on God... Proof of his existence and handiwork surrounds you, but you, like the ancient Israelites in the bible, stubbornly refuse to believe even though you have seen.
If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
I hope you're being sarcastic here.... because if you are serious you have a major lack of intellectual understanding in what it means to believe in a deity... The works of J.R.R. Tolkien and Douglas Adams are fiction - and they claim to be fiction. You might consider the Christian bible to be fiction as well, but it was written by LOTS of different people who claimed to be serious about what they were writing over the course of (perhaps) two thousand years or more and demonstrates a remarkable consistency across all those years and authors.
While we are on the subject, maybe I should ask: Just what proof WOULD be necessary for you to believe in God? Seriously... if God DOES exist... how would you EXPECT him/her/it to reveal itself to you?... How are you going to verify that the credentials of the ALL MIGHTY are legit?
That was not a threat of violence, dork... merely illustrating the absurdity of true democracy.
On the child labor issue... Before you throw around your pompous attitude, you might consider broadening your horizons and expanding your mind a little bit. The world is a bit bigger than your (likely) urban/suburban city life experience. Your idea of child labor, I'm guessing, is a pretty narrowly defined concept - where tiny children are forced to work in sweat shops essentially as slaves to make the expensive shoes and what-not Americans buy.
I find the slave-like exploitation of children deplorable - as I'm sure you do. But I know of lots and can imagine many more scenarios in which something we both might call 'child labor' is simply a way for a family to survive where they live. Keep in mind, also, the historical perspective. Both my parents worked on their respective family farms growing up... does that make my grandparents evil child-slave drivers? Absolutely not!
There are also ALL KINDS of scenarios in which I think it would be VERY BAD and immoral for a parent to have a child laboring to help support his or her family... The difference between you and me is: I know I am not smart enough to decide for every situation if it's good or bad. You think you are. I think things like this should be left up to the child's parents. You think you are smarter than the child's parents and should make the decision for them in all situations.
What I said was 'child labor' - that is, a child working for a wage or other form of compensation, given the consent and/or guidance of his or her suitable and responsible parent(s) is not INHERENTLY evil or immoral. It may very well be, but it is not necessarily so... and I don't think we need laws to restrict it. Why?
If you found out, say, your favorite beverage was made by slave-like child labor, would you buy it anymore? No! Neither would I... and I think most other people in our nation today would do the same.... the beverage company goes out of business, problem solved.
Allow me to retort in reverse order of your points.
It's called a 'republic', trust me you wouldn't like the alternative democracy (what the majority says, goes) because if I wanted to I could probably convince a majority of the people that we need to shoot you in the head just because you are ugly, and it would be entertaining for the rest of us.
I don't see you suffering any negative consequences for me living my life the way I see fit... and when I look out the window the environment still appears to be there and it appears to be in generally good shape.
I'm not sure what Interstate highways have to do with energy production... and I PROMISE you... a nuclear power plant could indeed be built by private entities with no need for government backed loans... if the government didn't make it so it were impossible to do it otherwise.
I do NOT agree that some government restrictions on free trade are necessary. 'Child labor', as you call it is not inherently evil. What if a family is poor and they need extra money? Is it evil for a farmer's children to work in the field?
On the subject of corporate welfare (tax breaks to oil companies and such) I agree with you... Government has little or no business ensuring one industry succeeds over another. Blaming Cheney for that is sophistry... as your messiah, Obama, has had more power than Cheney ever had for a few years now.... and nothing much has changed.
How do I account for evil corporations that cause damage?... Simple. If I don't like what a company is doing or what it stands for or what it sells I don't buy what they sell. If I feel passionately enough about it I convince others to do the same. Eventually... the evil corporation will cease to exist. Problem solved.
Actually, the earthquakes we are currently discussing have NOTHING to do with the New Madrid seismic zone... It is an entirely different set of known faults in central Arkansas - over a hundred miles away from the general edge of the New Madrid zone.
These same faults have been active before... in the early 1980s and again around 2001. The magnitude 4.7 we had the other day was the largest we've had in the state since something like 1969... and the largest recorded quake this particular fault system has ever produced. I didn't even know the fault was there until the 2001 activity.
I live about 20 miles away from the epicenter of of the 4.7. It gave me quite a jolt the other night as I was browsing slashdot. Sounded like a gigantic bomb had exploded miles away then a fraction of a second later the shock-wave hit. It's a strange sensation to have the supposedly solid ground move underneath your feet.
I, myself, have a very difficult time believing the drilling activities have anything to do with these earthquakes.... as the faults were active LONG before any drilling activity took place here, therefore it will be difficult to prove a causation relationship.
No offense, pixelpusher220, but I don't know how to say this other than: You, and others like you, are ignorant. With you, things are always the fault of somebody else... the evil conservatives... or whomever happens to disagree with your politics. There are basic laws of economics involved with energy production. Laws. Like gravity... Congress could pass legislation all day long changing the law of gravitation, but you will note that it is a particularly stubborn physical law.
The reason oil, natural gas, coal, etc. are our chief means of energy production at this time is because... They are inexpensive relative to other means. Economics! You can subsidize other means of production until the cows come home and it's not going to make any difference in the long run. Ultimately, the free market WILL win. Period. No exceptions.
Do you have some philosophical belief that people should use a particular 'kind' of energy? Fine! I'm happy for you! It's your job to convince them, not force them. Go into the freaking lab yourself! Invent something that makes more economic sense than pumping free, usable, natural, made-by-the-Earth, just-sitting-there-waiting-for-us-to-use-it stuff out of the ground and you will have my complete attention. Until then, leave me the hell alone! Don't think that because you have some philosophical belief that you have the right to forcibly take my money, and others, and use it to invent your invention... or force us to abide by your belief! Use your own damn money or convince investors to invest!... But let people do it of their own free will!
And, get off my lawn!
I'm sure that would work GREAT in a hospital setting where a nurse keying in data has to jump up and run down the hall to a patient who is crashing..... and then gets fired because she forgot to log herself out on 3 occasions. /sarcasm
"Gas can potentially corrupt results"
Yes it can... especially on a first date.
like perpetual motion - it can, in princible, be done. So far though, no scientist or engineer has worked out how to do it.
Methinks, perhaps, you misunderstand the principles of mechanics... and conservation of energy laws. In theory, in principle, and in reality it is impossible to build a machine that is 100% efficient therefore a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
I had a debate with a friend (a global-warming alarmist) a while back on the same issue... I couldn't make him understand the concept.
We know that Venus' surface temperature is VERY hot, and he had always been TAUGHT that it was because the Venus atmosphere is largely CO2... runaway greenhouse effect. The levels of CO2 may very well play a part in the planet's higher temperature, but it's much, much more complicated than that... and it's inappropriate to make an apples-to-apples comparison with CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.
First, Venus' atmosphere is composed of about 97% CO2 (at the surface)... as opposed to Earth's *****0.039%*****. It's going to take a LOT of convincing to talk me into believing even a 1% increase in CO2 levels are going to make a hill of beans difference to our climate... let alone a thousandth or millionth of a percent over the next few centuries! Second, Venus' atmosphere is IMMENSELY more dense that that of the Earth.
We could certainly stand to learn more from Venus... Unfortunately, it seems Mars is much more en vogue to people these days and we have limited experimental data from our sister planet. All these 'global warming' comparisons to Venus are inappropriate at least until (or especially because) we don't actually have much hard experimental data geared toward that end.
HOTTEST years on record? Seriously? Guess it depends on what one's definition of 'on record' means.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/256079/only-9099-last-10500-years-warmer-2010-brian-bolduc?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d1e4b285524a4d4%2C0
Bravo, whoever you are, AC... I AM a follower of Christ and, while I am not a bible scholar, both my father and brother are. Parent comment is an exquisite description of the confusion at hand regarding 'original sin' and 'immaculate conception'... and the origins of these doctrines within Catholic history.
Ya know... It's funny. As I was reading your post I began to imagine that similar thoughts must have gone through God's mind before he created the 'Heavens and the Earth' - assuming he did.
Just listen to the discussion here... Some of us humans have so little faith in ourselves that we're talking about creating all-powerful computer systems to control people and societies - all toward our ultimate goal. God, of course, also has an ultimate goal I think... he didn't just create the self-sustaining generational ship to get us there (Earth) but he gave us free will. He is braver and has more faith in his creation than we are in ourselves methinks.
Isn't that an interesting parallel? I can imagine God reading /. right now and saying to himself: "Yep... It's not as easy as it looks is it?... to create a self-sustaining world, put people on it and expect things to turn out how you'd like in the end."
Very good point... It always amuses/saddens me to read these ignorant rants from liberal retards (I would estimate 90%+ of the /. comments). They get so cross whenever a story like this comes along about a corporation doing the best they can to increase income/revenue/profit and lessen their tax exposure... the EXACT same thing the complainers do when they fill out their tax return, albeit on a smaller scale. When they stop taking any deductions (standard or otherwise) on their tax returns - and pay income tax on the full, non-adjusted gross income THEN I will listen to their rants.
You liberal retards don't understand that:
1. Corporations do NOT pay taxes... People do. Corporations are legal fictions and when taxed do one or a combination of 3 things: Lower dividends to investors, lay-off workers or, more often than not, increase the price of their product. A corporation is therefore NOT a tax payer... it is a tax COLLECTOR!
2. The loopholes you like to gripe about (legal ones) are in the tax code ON PURPOSE!... put there by the politicians. Gripe at them, not the sensible leaders of a corporation doing the best they can (legally) to lessen their tax exposure.
Many of you have been brainwashed into thinking that being 'rich' - whatever that means - is somehow inherently evil... so you support taxation policies that confiscate more of what people have when they have more. Why? Is it because they OUGHT to be able to live on less money? Is it because you think they don't pay their fair share in taxes? Is it because they earn 10 or 100 times what you earn in a year and you think they are greedy? What do these things matter to you? It is because YOU are the one who is greedy... You are envious of what somebody else has and you support taxation policies that take what they have and give a small piece to you.
So fracking what the rich guy lives in a mansion... who was paid to build the mansion? So fracking what they guy has a yacht... who was paid to build the yacht? So fracking what he has ten cars... Lots of people were employed to build those cars. So fracking what the guy has a million dollars sitting in the bank... The bank is loaning that money to people who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.
You see? Just because a person has a large amount of wealth associated with their name does NOT mean they are greedy and others are not benefiting from it. Even if they do use so-called loopholes to get around taxation - they've gotta spend their money somewhere! They aren't likely to bury it in the back yard.
If companies/individuals are breaking the law, however... penalize them harshly! If it's a stupid law... work to change it.
Actually, I have nothing against the shows. I think they are often funny. Colbert is a particularly brilliant comic/writer. They are by no means credible news sources, however... but many of my liberal friends run away with the same devotion to what they saw/heard on the show(s) as they whine and complain about followers of, say, Rush Limbaugh doing.
One would unlikely to find individuals both interested enough and unbiased enough to conduct a 'scientific' study who's results would be credible. I think the most telling aspect of the whole debate is the ratings of Fox News continue to climb into the stratosphere as the ratings of ALL other news networks and shows continue to dwindle into obscurity.
I, for one, think it's pretty sad that a disturbingly large segment of younger viewers get their 'news' primarily from a comedy show (Jon Stewart). Almost every liberal I know who likes that show has an incredibly arrogant and condescending attitude about their supposedly 'enlightened' beliefs and political philosophies. They seem to feel the very fact that they are liberal makes them better and smarter than those who are not. It therefore becomes difficult to have an intelligent and cordial conversation with them as their beliefs are largely wrapped up in their emotional make-up. Many lack the ability to substantively debate an idea. They refuse to confront facts or opinions that they don't like and quickly trail off into calling whatever they disagree with racist, homophobic, bigoted and the like (Or in the case of Fox News - liars).