Atkins? I'm not really familiar with it, but I thought it recommends lean meat, which makes no sense given what we evolved to eat. As for your "balanced diet" - care to elaborate on what you mean by that? Or is every situation different and therefore everything should be eaten "in moderation" - in short, you've said nothing.
I've lost 15 pounds all by exercising less and eating only meat (fatty meat is a bonus), vegetables, nuts, some fruit, dairy (whole milk, cheese, lots of cream, etc). and cooking only in olive oil, coconut oil, etc. Of course, exercise is still good, but the people that do it 24/7 in a desperate bid to lose weight while still scarfing down refined sugars and highly processed vegetable oils are going to fail miserably. That is what has created this myth that losing weight is hard.
Unprovoked threats, no matter who makes them, are unjustifiable. Would you care to specify which countries you're talking about?
Exactly, you don't just get the best armed guy on the block to start shouting back and shooting at people do you?
Again, I call the police. What you're trying to say, I'm not sure. You should be more clear in your analogies.
No, I'm just pointing out that the Americans have played with Iranian politics already and did a smashing job the last time.
Would you care to be specific about what you're talking about, and how it directly relates to the current Iranian leader's threats against Israel and the US?
Care to talk in specifics, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity? Here are some specifics (written 8 years ago, yet it predicted this whole crisis)
Yeah, because talking is one of the worst things he could be doing. Talk is cheap. In other words, it costs us nothing.
Alright, fantasy land is over. Back to reality. By talking with someone who threatens to destroy you once they are capable of doing so, you sanction their beliefs and their threats. You make their lunacy seem all the more mainstream. They gain followers and you lose followers.
Quick question, what is the first response for noisy neighbors? Talk to them, or go over and burn their house down?
If they're playing music loud, I ask them to turn it down. If they're shouting for my destruction, I call the police. See the difference?
While you're at it, you may want to look at who's responsible for the whole Iran thing.
Ahh, so when it's convenient for your position, suddenly Iranians are not responsible for their own actions. They have no free will, no choice of their own. Back in reality, every second they choose to keep him as their representative to the world, they invite harm upon themselves.
The reason jobs went overseas was to increase the part of profit in business
And how can you increase profits if your product costs more than your competitor's? Nobody will buy from you. Once government-backed economic manipulation made it more profitable to incur overseas-shipping costs than to hire workers locally (what a feat the government performed there!), some companies had to go overseas to remain profitable. Their success drove their competitors to follow them overseas in order to remain competitive. The only way jobs will ever come back is to undo the laws that made it this way.
You can't mold reality to fit your belief system - reality will remain the same.
In case you haven't noticed, the fruits were already redistributed, from our wallets to a vault owned by some millionaire-turned-billionaire.
Who are you talking about? Care to give any context to your statement, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity?
700 million dollar bailout.
You mean the bailout money that successful banks didn't want, and that they were forced to accept? You mean the bailout that was passed by the government thanks to vast amounts of pork? (search "wooden arrows for children", for example)
Tax cuts to corporations and the crazy wealthy.
Those same tax cuts should go to the crazy unwealthy.
'Stimulus' cheques.
Who's supporting those?
Your original attack was on the rich, but your list seems to consist of government-backed extortions. Do you not see your contradiction? Or were you only talking about the rich who became rich through political pull and manipulation?
Invest it in innovative companies? You mean, like in subprime funds? Great.
Dear god, what are you on about?! Banks never would have considered such ridiculous loan schemes if they were not forced through government manipulation to loan to risky individuals, all under the banner of "providing affordable housing".
If you don't spend it in guards, fences and alarms, the poor will eventually mug you and steal it.
False dichotomy. With more money for investments, and without the regulations that send jobs overseas, more jobs would be created in this country, and unemployment would go down. Best of all, individual rights would not be violated.
Yeah, like, economy running unchecked is fully able to stand on its legs, without nuking itself (and us) in the process... (doh !)
Can you give an example of true laissez-faire capitalism in action ever? Or an argument for why it wouldn't work? (also be sure to include what you mean by "work")
I'm an atheist. I'd also be very surprised if the statist left, like the statist right before them, doesn't make the same suggestion as the Religious (statist) Right that you despise (as I do too).
I was under the impression that after Bush won the last election and started thumping is chest and bellowing something about spending the political capital that he earned. Then he ordered the telecom industry to wiretap everyone's phone and then signed of on systematic torture. Does calling the constitution "just a piece of paper" and spitting on human rights not count as "saying goodbye to your rights"?
Who said I would ever support the Republican Party, or Bush for that matter? Bush violated rights. McCain would have too. Obama will too, but with a Dem majority in Congress we're likely to see more damage than we would under a split system.
Seriously folks, is the moderating system this biased? I stick up for what I believe, for the rights of everyone, and I'm a troll??? You aren't going to force reality to change by ignoring what you don't like?
hmm, well... last I checked, companies in question were designing things in india, producing in china, and selling the shit in the US
Who said I was arguing for the status quo? The reason jobs went overseas is government manipulation of the economy. I won't pretend (unlike others) that the situation can be fixed without undoing the damage that has been done. The only way it can be undone, though, is by overturning the legislation that caused the problem. Then shipping costs will be unappealing and jobs will come back home. Until then, don't hate companies for surviving and trying to give you the lowest-priced product possible despite government manipulation.
Who is? Neocons are just as bad as socialists, maybe worse, because they speak of capitalism but invoke statism - they hope to get the benefits of capitalism through government manipulation of the economy, and as always, they fail.
In case you haven't noticed, the fruits were already redistributed, from our wallets to a vault owned by some millionaire-turned-billionaire.
Who are you talking about? Care to give any context to your statement, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity?
They want to take from the obscenely rich and give it to poor people.
And what right do they have to take someone's property and give it to someone else?
It's pretty fair to say that there's nothing a man can do, who earns a few million dollars a year, to justify that as his fair share.
It's quite easy if he got that money through voluntary trade. You invent a product, I buy it, and everyone else buys it. Now you're rich. Do you suddenly not have a right to your earnings? Was anyone forced to buy your product?
What can a man do to rightfully earn that much over a man who works harder and longer that earns peanuts?
He agreed to those peanuts when he agreed to the job. If he and everyone else would hold out for more, they would get more (that's what a union does). Whose fault is it but his own for not improving his skill set?
I want to know how you, who probably doesn't even make $100k a year can stick up for people who have systematically pillaged both the American Treasury and picked the pockets of Americans for over a generation.
I am not sticking up for politicians, nor for corrupt companies who bribe politicians into getting favorable tax breaks. I am sticking up for companies and businessmen who have made my life better. Everything I have I owe to them - my car, my home, my computer, my job, everything I buy, all the choices I have. That's what made (past tense) America great. A scientist or programmer alone doesn't make a product successful, unless he also becomes the businessman by increasing efficiency of production and user-base.
there is nothing wrong with paying taxes, when you can already afford a roof, transportation and food on your table.
So you're fine with discarding others' individual rights when you deem it convenient to do so? How did you ever get that gig?
If I was an american earning 100k a year, I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my salary in taxes
That's fine. How about those who would rather invest their money in innovative companies that build jobs? Oh, too bad, they have to give it to the government as a handout to the unproductive, who will remain unproductive as long as they're sucking on mama's teat.
The problem with cleaning it up is that he has proposed - like McCain - to make it worse rather than better. You can't fix government interference in the economy with increased interference.
We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.
Yes, because when a lunatic leader sees he can make insane threats and then get a roundtable with the leaders of the world, everbody wins!
I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made to the American people, and with control of the house and senate, it looks likely that he won't have any trouble passing bills.
I also hope he passes everything he promised. Then maybe people will stop blaming "deregulation" (which in reality turns out to be more regulation) and start blaming the real problem.
Those "certain inalienable rights" you may have heard of - they went out the window as soon as Obama and McCain became the two choices. Combine Obama's win with the Democratic majorities, and we're ripe to see our individual rights replaced with others' rights to the fruits of our labor - a right to a car, to gas, to healthcare, to other people's property, their privacy, their services, with no choice or input from them. Got a problem with it? Move to another country!
Finally, a reasoned argument for voting for one of the two identical evils. I knew I'd eventually find one somewhere in all these posts. However, the amount of damage that a Dem supermajority and Dem president could do together in the interim still seems too high.
However I'd much rather see a moderately left leaning court compared to a steeply right leaning court.
Please dispense with these arbitrary labels. "Liberal" used to mean what "conservative" now means, and the "religious right" can just as easily become the "religious left" with the marriage of faith and environmentalism (for example). Religion in no way represents fiscal conservatism. What you should be promoting is the recognition of individual rights on principle, in each and every circumstance, rather than the pragmatic advancement of one random party over another. Both parties have discarded all principles and are fine with rights violations when convenient.
I would say that the combination of a fillibuster-proof Dem majority Congress with a Dem president is a bad idea. The only way we can be safe from idiotic legislation is to keep the branches mixed. In fact a recent WSJ article showed that America has always done the best economically with a mixed system.
Slashdot Mirror
Atkins? I'm not really familiar with it, but I thought it recommends lean meat, which makes no sense given what we evolved to eat. As for your "balanced diet" - care to elaborate on what you mean by that? Or is every situation different and therefore everything should be eaten "in moderation" - in short, you've said nothing.
I've lost 15 pounds all by exercising less and eating only meat (fatty meat is a bonus), vegetables, nuts, some fruit, dairy (whole milk, cheese, lots of cream, etc). and cooking only in olive oil, coconut oil, etc. Of course, exercise is still good, but the people that do it 24/7 in a desperate bid to lose weight while still scarfing down refined sugars and highly processed vegetable oils are going to fail miserably. That is what has created this myth that losing weight is hard.
How many countries has Bush threatened so far?
Unprovoked threats, no matter who makes them, are unjustifiable. Would you care to specify which countries you're talking about?
Exactly, you don't just get the best armed guy on the block to start shouting back and shooting at people do you?
Again, I call the police. What you're trying to say, I'm not sure. You should be more clear in your analogies.
No, I'm just pointing out that the Americans have played with Iranian politics already and did a smashing job the last time.
Would you care to be specific about what you're talking about, and how it directly relates to the current Iranian leader's threats against Israel and the US?
Care to talk in specifics, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity? Here are some specifics (written 8 years ago, yet it predicted this whole crisis)
Yeah, because talking is one of the worst things he could be doing. Talk is cheap. In other words, it costs us nothing.
Alright, fantasy land is over. Back to reality. By talking with someone who threatens to destroy you once they are capable of doing so, you sanction their beliefs and their threats. You make their lunacy seem all the more mainstream. They gain followers and you lose followers.
Quick question, what is the first response for noisy neighbors? Talk to them, or go over and burn their house down?
If they're playing music loud, I ask them to turn it down. If they're shouting for my destruction, I call the police. See the difference?
While you're at it, you may want to look at who's responsible for the whole Iran thing.
Ahh, so when it's convenient for your position, suddenly Iranians are not responsible for their own actions. They have no free will, no choice of their own. Back in reality, every second they choose to keep him as their representative to the world, they invite harm upon themselves.
The reason jobs went overseas was to increase the part of profit in business
And how can you increase profits if your product costs more than your competitor's? Nobody will buy from you. Once government-backed economic manipulation made it more profitable to incur overseas-shipping costs than to hire workers locally (what a feat the government performed there!), some companies had to go overseas to remain profitable. Their success drove their competitors to follow them overseas in order to remain competitive. The only way jobs will ever come back is to undo the laws that made it this way.
You can't mold reality to fit your belief system - reality will remain the same.
In case you haven't noticed, the fruits were already redistributed, from our wallets to a vault owned by some millionaire-turned-billionaire.
Who are you talking about? Care to give any context to your statement, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity?
700 million dollar bailout.
You mean the bailout money that successful banks didn't want, and that they were forced to accept? You mean the bailout that was passed by the government thanks to vast amounts of pork? (search "wooden arrows for children", for example)
Tax cuts to corporations and the crazy wealthy.
Those same tax cuts should go to the crazy unwealthy.
'Stimulus' cheques.
Who's supporting those?
Your original attack was on the rich, but your list seems to consist of government-backed extortions. Do you not see your contradiction? Or were you only talking about the rich who became rich through political pull and manipulation?
Invest it in innovative companies? You mean, like in subprime funds? Great.
Dear god, what are you on about?! Banks never would have considered such ridiculous loan schemes if they were not forced through government manipulation to loan to risky individuals, all under the banner of "providing affordable housing".
If you don't spend it in guards, fences and alarms, the poor will eventually mug you and steal it.
False dichotomy. With more money for investments, and without the regulations that send jobs overseas, more jobs would be created in this country, and unemployment would go down. Best of all, individual rights would not be violated.
Yeah, like, economy running unchecked is fully able to stand on its legs, without nuking itself (and us) in the process... (doh !)
Can you give an example of true laissez-faire capitalism in action ever? Or an argument for why it wouldn't work? (also be sure to include what you mean by "work")
Well, that lunatic leader will be gone, but the nutjob in Iran will only get more power and a bigger pulpit if we resort to diplomacy.
I'm an atheist. I'd also be very surprised if the statist left, like the statist right before them, doesn't make the same suggestion as the Religious (statist) Right that you despise (as I do too).
I was under the impression that after Bush won the last election and started thumping is chest and bellowing something about spending the political capital that he earned. Then he ordered the telecom industry to wiretap everyone's phone and then signed of on systematic torture. Does calling the constitution "just a piece of paper" and spitting on human rights not count as "saying goodbye to your rights"?
Who said I would ever support the Republican Party, or Bush for that matter? Bush violated rights. McCain would have too. Obama will too, but with a Dem majority in Congress we're likely to see more damage than we would under a split system.
Seriously folks, is the moderating system this biased? I stick up for what I believe, for the rights of everyone, and I'm a troll??? You aren't going to force reality to change by ignoring what you don't like?
It would have been no different with McCain, except the split branches would have saved us from the Dems and Reps bad ideas.
hmm, well... last I checked, companies in question were designing things in india, producing in china, and selling the shit in the US
Who said I was arguing for the status quo? The reason jobs went overseas is government manipulation of the economy. I won't pretend (unlike others) that the situation can be fixed without undoing the damage that has been done. The only way it can be undone, though, is by overturning the legislation that caused the problem. Then shipping costs will be unappealing and jobs will come back home. Until then, don't hate companies for surviving and trying to give you the lowest-priced product possible despite government manipulation.
Typical neoconservative.
Who is? Neocons are just as bad as socialists, maybe worse, because they speak of capitalism but invoke statism - they hope to get the benefits of capitalism through government manipulation of the economy, and as always, they fail.
In case you haven't noticed, the fruits were already redistributed, from our wallets to a vault owned by some millionaire-turned-billionaire.
Who are you talking about? Care to give any context to your statement, or are you fine with wallowing in ambiguity?
They want to take from the obscenely rich and give it to poor people.
And what right do they have to take someone's property and give it to someone else?
It's pretty fair to say that there's nothing a man can do, who earns a few million dollars a year, to justify that as his fair share.
It's quite easy if he got that money through voluntary trade. You invent a product, I buy it, and everyone else buys it. Now you're rich. Do you suddenly not have a right to your earnings? Was anyone forced to buy your product?
What can a man do to rightfully earn that much over a man who works harder and longer that earns peanuts?
He agreed to those peanuts when he agreed to the job. If he and everyone else would hold out for more, they would get more (that's what a union does). Whose fault is it but his own for not improving his skill set?
I want to know how you, who probably doesn't even make $100k a year can stick up for people who have systematically pillaged both the American Treasury and picked the pockets of Americans for over a generation.
I am not sticking up for politicians, nor for corrupt companies who bribe politicians into getting favorable tax breaks. I am sticking up for companies and businessmen who have made my life better. Everything I have I owe to them - my car, my home, my computer, my job, everything I buy, all the choices I have. That's what made (past tense) America great. A scientist or programmer alone doesn't make a product successful, unless he also becomes the businessman by increasing efficiency of production and user-base.
there is nothing wrong with paying taxes, when you can already afford a roof, transportation and food on your table.
So you're fine with discarding others' individual rights when you deem it convenient to do so? How did you ever get that gig?
If I was an american earning 100k a year, I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my salary in taxes
That's fine. How about those who would rather invest their money in innovative companies that build jobs? Oh, too bad, they have to give it to the government as a handout to the unproductive, who will remain unproductive as long as they're sucking on mama's teat.
The problem with cleaning it up is that he has proposed - like McCain - to make it worse rather than better. You can't fix government interference in the economy with increased interference.
We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.
Yes, because when a lunatic leader sees he can make insane threats and then get a roundtable with the leaders of the world, everbody wins!
I sincerely hope that he can keep all his promises he made to the American people, and with control of the house and senate, it looks likely that he won't have any trouble passing bills.
I also hope he passes everything he promised. Then maybe people will stop blaming "deregulation" (which in reality turns out to be more regulation) and start blaming the real problem.
Me... I had "O Fortuna" playing in my head.
Those "certain inalienable rights" you may have heard of - they went out the window as soon as Obama and McCain became the two choices. Combine Obama's win with the Democratic majorities, and we're ripe to see our individual rights replaced with others' rights to the fruits of our labor - a right to a car, to gas, to healthcare, to other people's property, their privacy, their services, with no choice or input from them. Got a problem with it? Move to another country!
Finally, a reasoned argument for voting for one of the two identical evils. I knew I'd eventually find one somewhere in all these posts. However, the amount of damage that a Dem supermajority and Dem president could do together in the interim still seems too high.
Yeah, people get pissed if you feed them the truth when they're addicted to lies.
However I'd much rather see a moderately left leaning court compared to a steeply right leaning court.
Please dispense with these arbitrary labels. "Liberal" used to mean what "conservative" now means, and the "religious right" can just as easily become the "religious left" with the marriage of faith and environmentalism (for example). Religion in no way represents fiscal conservatism. What you should be promoting is the recognition of individual rights on principle, in each and every circumstance, rather than the pragmatic advancement of one random party over another. Both parties have discarded all principles and are fine with rights violations when convenient.
I would say that the combination of a fillibuster-proof Dem majority Congress with a Dem president is a bad idea. The only way we can be safe from idiotic legislation is to keep the branches mixed. In fact a recent WSJ article showed that America has always done the best economically with a mixed system.