Which countries are "second world," exactly? I know what that term meant during the Cold War. I don't know what it means now.
Dunno I say all the countries that have functioning economies and governments but not quite at the level of first world countries. you know most of eastern europe, the better parts of latin america and south america, and the best parts of africa.
You do realize that CEOs can be fired like any other employee, right? They aren't there by some divine right or something. How do you determine how "hard" someone works? Is being an accountant harder than being a butcher? Is being an attorney harder than being a construction worker? Is being a CEO harder than being a janitor? And since you believe that "need" should determine the extent of our rights to our property, would you be okay with someone taking all your shit at gunpoint and giving it to people who "need" it more? In other words, you support people's right to their own property as long as they adhere to your demands to give it all away?
Only if they don't have majority share of the company. Easy, how much they make. There are no butchers making millions on cutting meat. It simply a matter of taxing people based on how much they can give without harming their abilities to provide their basic needs. The Poor should not pay taxes because they have to spend all their money on food and shelter, the rich on the other hand can be taxed more. Here a simplified tax system for you, a flat tax percentage minus a minimum income: So say 40%-$20,000, if say you make $20,000 you pay nothing (negative numbers don't count) and no one until they reach $50,000 dollars starts paying income tax, if you make $100,000 you pay 20%, $250,000 you would pay 33%. As a pragmatist though I much rather abolish the federal tax on individuals and just have the federal government tax each state according a flat percentage of its GDP, and leave it to the states to explore how they gather the money from individuals, this would make states experiment with a variety of tax scheme and then we could physically see which works best as well as have taxes optimized to each local economy. who said anything about gunpoint? Second I never said ALL, paying 38% taxes when you make 1 million dollars of personal income is not ALL "your shit" what a slippery slope you can generate!
If you think you can do it in the U.S. it is only because you have been thoroughly mis-educated (brainwashed). http://www.scribd.com/doc/15945451/...ogy-and-Teratology-Vol-17-No-2-pp-169177-1995
Functioning economies and functioning governments? Wow, we're a heart beat away from falling into second world status. Actually, I think we're a nation of a split personality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My eight year old knows that a construction worker works harder than a wall street commodity trader that makes ten times as much. How much one earns for a living in no way reflects how "hard" a person works, it reflects how much their position is valued by society. It is one of the fundamental flaws of the free market economic system that causes lower classes to despise the upper classes. . . they work twice as hard for half the money. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, they have had the misfortune of being born to poor family that have not had the capital outlay to invest in their education, and thus they do not KSA's to acquire positions that by their nature require a specialized skill set that require more knowledge, skills and training, though in reality, are far easier to do. Sometime these jobs may be one of high stress that consume large amounts of time, others exist for the adequately trained worker that again, are, what the lower class worker would call, "cushy." More money does not equal, "harder work."
I can do it in my home city, I get the water bill and water contamination test results every month. I'm educated enough to know how to make appropriate risk assessments and not freak out over one report that run contrary to many others. I can ask my self, huuum should I risk proven tooth decay over highly dubious reports of long term illness from fluoridated water. I bet you don't vaccinate your kids either. Exactly, with few exceptions the less you work the more you make, as long as your got the right education and connections.
Clearly you have watched too much T.V. and mainstream media. You have no scientific reports or congressional hearings to back this up. Why does none of continental Europe Fluoridate their water? And how about Canada? Fluoride only works topically, not ingested. A report from Harvard is dubious now? I see. . . . If it's so damn good for your teeth to ingest it, why does your tooth paste say contact poison control if swallowed? Go on, go to your bathroom and LOOK, I'll wait, go check it out. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Appeal to popularity, you failed logic. In standard amounts it does no harm ingesting it. HAHA that appeal to authority made me laugh! you failed logic again! Because the amounts are far in excess? Many things are not poisons in small amounts but are in large amounts, here a test for you: drink 2 gallons of water in a single sitting, it can be any water, distilled if your so concerned about contamination, I dare you! Now are you going to tell me that just because you can die from water intoxication that we should avoid water because clearly its bad for you? Actually the worst chemical around DHMO and strangely no one gives a dam.
Actually, I was on the fence on this issue. But, when I found out that Obama didn't get a vaccine, and didn't have his kids get a vaccine, and when I found out that none of the health care providers in England were getting the vaccine? I decided against it. Do a little in depth research instead of just trusting what your told. Again. . . follow the money. Who gains by having everyone vaccinated. I was never vaccinated for flu when I was a kid. Guess I'll just have to take my chances and go with vitamin D3 supplements and trust my bodies own immune system.
Nahh. . . It's not an appeal to authority, it's called defending the source of a study. You said it was a "dubious" study. Why? Compared to the numerous studies YOU posted? ooops. . . I forgot. lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just because it came from Harvard does not make it credible. Lets take a look a microwaves for a second, we have over 50 years of medical surveys of people that worked in high microwave environments, radar maintenance technicians and the like, and after decades of never seen increase brain cancer rate from it and yet hand full of studies on cell cultures cause a world wide uproar on the possibility of brain cancer from cellphones. Now your going to tell me a study that found neurological side-effects on rats makes sense for human despite decades of research on humans, many of whom had very very high dosages of fluoride fucking up their teeth and skeletons and yet no one noticed their mental functions impaired, believable? No, I'll wait for it to be replicate by others repeatedly and proven in humans before I believe it.
