If the summary is true....that an incorrect drop down was selected...then why did it take 37 minutes to correct? Please explain why it wasn't corrected immediately.
Not only that but the shareholder ALSO gets to pay tax on dividends as well as tax on capital gains.
You are left with this: Shareholders own the company. The company pays tax on profits. Then the company distributes those profits back to the shareholders (dividends)......where they are taxed a 2nd time.
This is why many people advocate elimination of the corporate tax. It's pretty obvious to see why.
How does a 3rd world country as backward as NK have elite, top of the line, hacking capability? Last I checked, they had a whole 1024 IP addresses for the whole country. There is no high tech industry there and they don't actually produce any computing or software products. I would be highly surprised if they could make a single ASIC, much less a complex and capable CPU on par with Intel/AMD.
I ask seriously. There are many more technically capable adversaries out there but it's not them who strike successfully yet all of the "bad" hacks I've heard about over the last few years are all being attributed to DPNK
So how do the norks have such a world class hacking capability in the middle of such a technological backwater? How is that even possible?
Don't forget to look at the Obama years. Talking about the debt and adding "trillions" isn't complete without an analysis of his tenure and what happened to the national debt under his watch.
So the homeless problem in SF and other liberal bastions are because society is fucked up? What about the hobos and bums? Do they share any responsibility at all or is it just society that is fucked up?
I am asking because I haven't ever met a person in my life who wants more homelessness and more misery for people. I am quite certain "society" wants to resolve this.
????? Are you dense or something? You motivate them by not doing business with them. If they care and want your business, then they will cater to your needs and you can both voluntarily do business. If they don't care or want your business then that is their right too. They are not obligated to bow to your demands and you are not obligated to pay them money or eat their swill.
it's pretty simple really unless you have the attitude that you are "owed" something
Like restaurants can make more money if they make crappy food that's bad for us and we eat it up
Wait, what? No, no no. You have it all wrong. Capitalism is not the problem, even in the analogy you provided. Did you miss the part where you can go to another restaurant if you don't like the one that serves crappy food? Capitalism is voluntary. Restaurant can choose to serve crappy food and you can choose to eat there - or take your business elsewhere.
What difference does that make? Seriously. Are we forcing companies to think a certain way now? How about we let the market decide and if it becomes a real problem instead of an imaginary problem....then we can act.
You vastly overstate their importance. Yes, they are a big company but as a percentage of all retail sales, they are a pimple on the butt of an elephant. Neither them nor Walmart represent anywhere near 10% of retail sales so it's hard to say they even "dominate" retail sales.
Well, we don't outright ban it. But we do tax the hell out of it. Ever heard of the Estate Tax? You should look it up because it's relevant to your argument.
The fact is, Fox News actually did broadcast anti-Obama pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" â" specific phrases â" for every talking head to repeat
The fact is, CNN News actually did broadcast anti-Trump pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" â" specific phrases â" for every talking head to repeat
First, the states aren't just "geographic regions" inside a big national government. They are sovereign states and our national government is a republic of sovereign states. The history on that aspect is well covered and well litigated. (hint: It's the states rights vs federal government argument that you always hear about).
The states are not just "artificial jurisdictional areas we call states". You grossly misrepresent their place in the pecking order.
Thinking of the states from a sovereign perspective, Oklahoma has as much right to be represented in our national government as New York or California. Not more. But not less either. The electoral college and the senate are the most public examples of how we try to achieve that balance. We don't base it on population because NY and CA would always win.
Here in Oklahoma, we are thankful for the electoral college. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is it supposed to do, you ask? Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.
If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.
Sorry if you don't like it but it's the law of the land.....and for good reason.
He said "Obama had my wires tapped". That means Obama specifically ordered his communications to be monitored
No, it doesn't. It means Obama's administration ordered and carried it out. Wiretapping and chasing down warrants are not the job of POTUS -- but they are absolutely the jobs of people who directly work for POTUS. I am sure you know there are 100,000's of people working in the executive branch of government and every single one of them ultimately reports to POTUS.
I am honestly surprised that any reasonable person would think that Obama personally ordered the wiretap and personally installed it himself.....that....isn't...what Presidents do
I haven't found that to be the case and no, I don't work for Amazon. But I do buy a lot of stuff from them. Prime, for the shipping alone, is worth it to me.
there is a checkbox on the left nav for "Prime". Check it and you will only see prime shipping eligible products. Very helpful you exactly your situation.....
There are 3 different replies to my post playing the "what, who me?" game with respect to the surveillance. If there was no surveillance, then a) why is the NY Times publishing info about wiretaps on Jan 20, 2017 and b) why was anyone crying about Trump being in bed with the Russians before and after the election? How did they know that aside from "anonymous intelligence sources....."? The only people who actually know the facts are all in the IC world --- but they were clearly leaking that investigation(s) were underway. Claiming "what surveillance" is a joke at this point because the entire case that Trump is a Russian Agent was based on info allegedly leaked from intelligence sources. None official or on the record, of course.
You can't have it both ways. You can't scream that you are certain Trump is in bed with the Russians and then claim there is no surveillance going on. Either he is/was an FSB agent - and the surveillance is legit and properly oversighted. Or he isn't/wasn't an FSB agent - and this is all being done for politics. There is no in between where we had legitimate suspicions, checked it out, found nothing, and stopped the surveillance. The very fact that it's still being discussed rules that possibility out.
There is less than zero chance that the President (Obama) didn't know about or sign off on this surveillance. The idea that a sitting President investigating his opponent would be done by lower level people without his knowledge is preposterous. Of course his administration (and he) knew. The question is: was the surveillance legitimate? Or was it done for political purposes?
Unless Trump really is an agent of the FSB and Russians, it's looking more and more like it's the 2nd option. And that should scare everyone no matter what party you are for. This looks like Lois Lerner pt 2 but since it's all classified behind the bureaucracy, there is no Lois to blame. Not yet, anyway.....
The only way this works out well for the previous administration is if Donald and his lackeys really are agents or really were in collusion with the Russians to throw the election. Thus far, no evidence has been presented and even James Clapper says there is nothing there. So why is this Russian thing still in the news? Politics. Which begs the question: was this investigation/wiretapping done for political reasons? If so, Obama and his admin have some explaining to do.
Slashdot Mirror
If the summary is true....that an incorrect drop down was selected...then why did it take 37 minutes to correct? Please explain why it wasn't corrected immediately.
Something is fishy here....
White males aged 18-40 are the only/b non-protected class that exists. Every other class of people has special protection in one form or another.
Not only that but the shareholder ALSO gets to pay tax on dividends as well as tax on capital gains.
You are left with this: Shareholders own the company. The company pays tax on profits. Then the company distributes those profits back to the shareholders (dividends)......where they are taxed a 2nd time.
This is why many people advocate elimination of the corporate tax. It's pretty obvious to see why.
Who pays corporate taxes? Answer: the corporations. And who owns the corporations? Answer: the shareholders.
Why don't we just tax the shareholders and skip the corporate tax?
How does a 3rd world country as backward as NK have elite, top of the line, hacking capability? Last I checked, they had a whole 1024 IP addresses for the whole country. There is no high tech industry there and they don't actually produce any computing or software products. I would be highly surprised if they could make a single ASIC, much less a complex and capable CPU on par with Intel/AMD.
I ask seriously. There are many more technically capable adversaries out there but it's not them who strike successfully yet all of the "bad" hacks I've heard about over the last few years are all being attributed to DPNK
So how do the norks have such a world class hacking capability in the middle of such a technological backwater? How is that even possible?
Don't forget to look at the Obama years. Talking about the debt and adding "trillions" isn't complete without an analysis of his tenure and what happened to the national debt under his watch.
So the homeless problem in SF and other liberal bastions are because society is fucked up? What about the hobos and bums? Do they share any responsibility at all or is it just society that is fucked up?
I am asking because I haven't ever met a person in my life who wants more homelessness and more misery for people. I am quite certain "society" wants to resolve this.
????? Are you dense or something? You motivate them by not doing business with them. If they care and want your business, then they will cater to your needs and you can both voluntarily do business. If they don't care or want your business then that is their right too. They are not obligated to bow to your demands and you are not obligated to pay them money or eat their swill.
it's pretty simple really unless you have the attitude that you are "owed" something
Is it just people who want some part of 21 million bitcoins that will ever exist?
Like restaurants can make more money if they make crappy food that's bad for us and we eat it up
Wait, what? No, no no. You have it all wrong. Capitalism is not the problem, even in the analogy you provided. Did you miss the part where you can go to another restaurant if you don't like the one that serves crappy food? Capitalism is voluntary. Restaurant can choose to serve crappy food and you can choose to eat there - or take your business elsewhere.
What difference does that make? Seriously. Are we forcing companies to think a certain way now? How about we let the market decide and if it becomes a real problem instead of an imaginary problem....then we can act.
You vastly overstate their importance. Yes, they are a big company but as a percentage of all retail sales, they are a pimple on the butt of an elephant. Neither them nor Walmart represent anywhere near 10% of retail sales so it's hard to say they even "dominate" retail sales.
In 2016, total US retail sales were about $5 Trillion. For comparison, Amazon is around $135billion of gross revenue or about 2.7% of retail sales. The other 97.3% is done by others.
Your mistake is understandable as they receive a lot of press.
Well, we don't outright ban it. But we do tax the hell out of it. Ever heard of the Estate Tax? You should look it up because it's relevant to your argument.
The fact is, Fox News actually did broadcast anti-Obama pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" â" specific phrases â" for every talking head to repeat
The fact is, CNN News actually did broadcast anti-Trump pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" â" specific phrases â" for every talking head to repeat
I'll take Obama for $1000 Alex
I don't see where there are differences in what you and I posted. You just supplied the Constitutional authority upon which my replies are based.
First, the states aren't just "geographic regions" inside a big national government. They are sovereign states and our national government is a republic of sovereign states. The history on that aspect is well covered and well litigated. (hint: It's the states rights vs federal government argument that you always hear about).
The states are not just "artificial jurisdictional areas we call states". You grossly misrepresent their place in the pecking order.
Thinking of the states from a sovereign perspective, Oklahoma has as much right to be represented in our national government as New York or California. Not more. But not less either. The electoral college and the senate are the most public examples of how we try to achieve that balance. We don't base it on population because NY and CA would always win.
You are wrong. It applies to Presidential elections too. Both avenues are there to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Here in Oklahoma, we are thankful for the electoral college. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is it supposed to do, you ask? Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.
If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.
Sorry if you don't like it but it's the law of the land.....and for good reason.
He said "Obama had my wires tapped". That means Obama specifically ordered his communications to be monitored
No, it doesn't. It means Obama's administration ordered and carried it out. Wiretapping and chasing down warrants are not the job of POTUS -- but they are absolutely the jobs of people who directly work for POTUS. I am sure you know there are 100,000's of people working in the executive branch of government and every single one of them ultimately reports to POTUS.
I am honestly surprised that any reasonable person would think that Obama personally ordered the wiretap and personally installed it himself.....that....isn't...what Presidents do
I haven't found that to be the case and no, I don't work for Amazon. But I do buy a lot of stuff from them. Prime, for the shipping alone, is worth it to me.
there is a checkbox on the left nav for "Prime". Check it and you will only see prime shipping eligible products. Very helpful you exactly your situation.....
There are 3 different replies to my post playing the "what, who me?" game with respect to the surveillance. If there was no surveillance, then a) why is the NY Times publishing info about wiretaps on Jan 20, 2017 and b) why was anyone crying about Trump being in bed with the Russians before and after the election? How did they know that aside from "anonymous intelligence sources....."? The only people who actually know the facts are all in the IC world --- but they were clearly leaking that investigation(s) were underway. Claiming "what surveillance" is a joke at this point because the entire case that Trump is a Russian Agent was based on info allegedly leaked from intelligence sources. None official or on the record, of course.
You can't have it both ways. You can't scream that you are certain Trump is in bed with the Russians and then claim there is no surveillance going on. Either he is/was an FSB agent - and the surveillance is legit and properly oversighted. Or he isn't/wasn't an FSB agent - and this is all being done for politics. There is no in between where we had legitimate suspicions, checked it out, found nothing, and stopped the surveillance. The very fact that it's still being discussed rules that possibility out.
Let me quote the headline: Wiretapped Data used in Inquiry of Trump Aides
Someone was leaking and it was believable enough for the NYTimes to put it on the front page.
There is less than zero chance that the President (Obama) didn't know about or sign off on this surveillance. The idea that a sitting President investigating his opponent would be done by lower level people without his knowledge is preposterous. Of course his administration (and he) knew. The question is: was the surveillance legitimate? Or was it done for political purposes?
Unless Trump really is an agent of the FSB and Russians, it's looking more and more like it's the 2nd option. And that should scare everyone no matter what party you are for. This looks like Lois Lerner pt 2 but since it's all classified behind the bureaucracy, there is no Lois to blame. Not yet, anyway.....
The only way this works out well for the previous administration is if Donald and his lackeys really are agents or really were in collusion with the Russians to throw the election. Thus far, no evidence has been presented and even James Clapper says there is nothing there. So why is this Russian thing still in the news? Politics. Which begs the question: was this investigation/wiretapping done for political reasons? If so, Obama and his admin have some explaining to do.