Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The people do not care when a corporation undercuts the local economy, or Walmart wouldn't be everywhere.That's their problem.
OMG, it's an old white guy!>Argentines
Which is not a sustainable solution. And if people heard that Starbucks was undercutting the local economy, they could boycott it.It is government intervention that causes this problem. Lets take Starbucks. Starbucks don't pay any tax in the UK because of our dumb tax code that is designed to help big business by allowing multi-nationals to offshore their accounts. Now if I want to open a coffee shop I will be paying 24% corporation tax. So if I'm paying 24% and Starbucks are paying 0%, how am I supposed to compete with that? The answer is I can't, which is why we have a f'ing Starbucks on every high street. So rather than a British entrepreneur paying tax to Britian, we have an American company sending the money abroad and effectively asset stripping our economy.There is a reason we have no libertarians. Libertarians would destroy the Bank of England in favour of sound money, stop all wars for profit, axe the welfare gravy train and smash corporate monopoly so that small local businesses can flourish. Who on earth is going to finance that? They are all policies that empower and enrich the middle and lower class at the expense of the wealthy ruling class? And it costs money to run for election. I don't have that kind of money. Most people don't have that kind of money. You need rich people to back you, hence the reason all policies in the Uk are made for the wealthy few.
I'm curious as to how this is done without government interference.
Another example might be a supermarket. How is it cheaper for them to sell beef that is shipped from France than it is for a local butcher to sell meat that is grown up the road? The answer is again tax breaks, but also EU farming subsidies.
By removing government special rules for special interests, the entrepreneurs in a society flourish. What we have is a system where everyone ends up as a wage slave for one of a few large corporations and all small business is crushed.
Libertarians believe in the free-market and removing government intervention. Needless to say, big business hates libertarians.
Except that Starbucks can draw from its large cash reserves to underprice their product and cause the little guy to go bankrupt.
Those boxers are also a lot leaner than me, at about 9%bf. Also, a lot of boxers have pretty small legs for the rest of their physique so their upper bodies will look a lot more swole for their mass. The Hodge twins are about at the natural limit.Thork doesn't know muscle.Yeah, you have the genetics of a tyrannosaur.
If you are 6 foot, 200lbs is too heavy. In boxing that would make you too heavy for cruiser weight.
Above is obvious roids muncher David Haye, who weighs less than you in that picture.
Above is a young roid filled Evander Holyfied as a cruiser weight (lighter than you.)
Above is 5' 11" sprinter Harry Aikines-Aryeetey who weighs in at 93 kgs.
And below is a man of 200lbs not on steroids.
So, are you on steroids or are you a fatty?Thork is short.I'm 5' 10".6 foot and 14 stone is fine. I'm 6'3 and 16 stone and only about 15% body fat. I do need to get down to about 12% though.As for you, you're either a liar or on steroids.
At 230 lbs we are into the realms of Barry Bonds or Frank Bruno pictured below (left) at 6' 3" and 228lbs fighting Tyson for the heavyweight title.
And below is a 230 lb man not on steroids.
This modern idea of men being heavy makes them strong is laughable. It makes you fat.
So I was hanging out with some girls last night and I mentioned I wasn't going to drink because I'm on a diet for a week and two of them were like "whaaaaat". And I said yeah, well I haven't been able to run in the cold so I'm trying to tighten up a little. But they were both talking about how they love fat asses. One girl was about my size and said she wanted her fat ass back. The other girl was fairly chunky and said she liked her fat ass while I'm thinking "gross, your neck fat isn't too cute either." I'm not sure if they realize that a naturally giant butt is different to a jiggly, lumpy, ass with cellulite.To be fair, big ass glutes do=sexy. It doesn't happen often, though.
America, where fat = sexy.
Also, the ancient Britons were building these 5000 years ago. Out of practically pure chalk as well, so they gleamed white. It doesn't mean an advanced civilisation.
My most humble of apologies. The great wall of China has been humiliated. The Taj Mahal has been ridiculed. The sphinx and valley of Kings is a joke. The palace of Versailles made to look ugly and plain.
Because the Native Americans have built ... a hill.
Lots of shit that is unconstitutional is allowed in the name of the war on terror. Unwarranted wiretaps, collecting information, indefinite detention without due process. Drone strikes on American citizens.But this mostly affects Muslims (so far at least), a small-ish section of society. When Joe Bloggs has to spread them cheeks for some big government it will be a whole other kettle of fish.
How can you separate myth from fact? There may have been a charismatic preacher named Jesus, who called himself a prophet, and had followers, but... so? What is the purpose of the mythological framework? If Jesus was truly divine, then why did his followers need to borrow from mythology?Or maybe, you know, the mythology is right? What with everyone essentially saying the same thing, it makes sense there is a kernel of truth in there. If anything, dismissing the existence if the universe as 'shit happens' is just as much a dodge as 'God did it'.
He's saying I'm wrong, not you.Then why do the Bedwin wear black?
The robes the men wear are designed to protect from the sun, but they're not black. Go out in a black robe and stand in the sun for a bit, come back and let us know how protected you felt.
Abrams tanks also drink jet fuel. They need tanker to get to the end of your street. And I would like to see a modern MBT cross a regular bridge in the countryside. They would be practically useless in a non-supply rich environment, like a civil uprising (you know those oil refinery workers? They're using that petrol to make molotovs about now).Tanks are used against personnel, bunkers, buildings, bridges, vehicles, etc. They are multipurpose weapons. They also move, so being mobile will not really save you.Tanks are slow. They aim slow and fire slow. They are only good against slow moving or stationary targets. Or large groups of people.
We are no longer limited by WWI technology. Modern tanks are fast, aim fast, fire fast, and can hit moving targets.
Bullshit.At least the first part is wrong. The burkha is similar to desert robes worn by men in Arabia, the only real difference is it is black and has a veil to cover the face as opposed to just tying it across. These robes were designed to cover from the sun.
It's original intent was not to protect women from the sun, and it isn't worn so that women will be accepted based on their personalities.
I firmly believe that all nations should ban the burkha.>I dislike seeing burkhas
It's worn because apparently it is physically impossible for an Arab man to not lay his hands on a pure Arabic woman. Consequently, whenever I see a burkha, I view it as something that legitimizes rape.
Tell me again why feminists aren't up in arms over this vile piece of clothing?
Can you name the anti-gun lobby that perpetrated the Sandy Hook shooting?The Democratic Party.
Fixed.so is this post to believe that no one actually died or that the Anti-gun lobby was in charge of this?I think it happened and the anti-gun lobby were behind it. If the 2nd amendment goes, the rest can very easily follow as there would be no effective resistance.
If you really think that the guns that most Afghans have would be able to prevent the Commies using armored vehicles and carpet bombing to take their freedums, you, sir, are an idiot.
so is this post to believe that no one actually died or that the Anti-gun lobby was in charge of this?I think it happened and the anti-gun lobby were behind it. If the 2nd amendment goes, the rest can very easily follow as there would be no effective resistance.
Nope.I don't know why roids are banned for personal use, though.And you couldn't hazard a guess?
Because protein is an essential macronutrient. Injecting oil into your arms is just ridiculous. I don't know why roids are banned for personal use, thoughmIt's quite blatantly synthol. Blood tests wouldn't show shit, just put a pin in his arms and see if they pop. Any doubt synthol is blown away by the triceps, no actual triceps do that.
Pop as in the synthol will flow out? Ewwww. I do wonder why synthol isn't allowed, and other muscle enhancing substances like chicken are.
