If you fuel your body with crapohydrates, youre going to get sick and die. No amount of heritagefoundationcare can ever change this fact
I had fun at the gym the other night.
One skinny fat guy on the treadmill was there before I got there, and was still walking after I left there about an hour later. He was snacking on Chipa (Cheesy-bread) the whole time while he was "Speed Walking". He must have eaten at least 500+ calories because he was putting it away like crazy. He probably wonders why he doesn't lose any weight.
The other one was "Disco Bicep
Curls Swings", this young skinny kid who swung his arms like a pendulum, bent at the knees, and thrust his shoulders back and forth to swing the weights up by momentum and reducing the angle, instead of levering the weight properly. Then he looked at himself in the mirror and when "Rooo, harr" like he did something. Lots of girls at the gym the other night.
A friend who just returned from a visit to a burned and looted CVS in Baltimore said all that was left was Father's Day cards. Next door, a Thom McCann shoe store, had everything looted but work boots.....
Okay, that was pretty damned funny.
If you want to know a good reason why Black Men don't stick around to be fathers, look at the BT-1000 Hair Hatted Ratchet Hooligan Hobags.
Sotomayor is pretty controversial, little bit homophobic, but he's dead on.
I read in the Talmud that drinking the blood of Christian Children is a must before Passover.
Hillary Clinton is the Millionaire Voter's Choice.
Hillary Clinton is the favorite U.S. presidential candidate among millionaire voters and would win a head-to-head contest with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, according to the third CNBC Millionaire Survey conducted in March that was released today.
The survey, which polls 750 Americans with a net worth of $1 million or more, found that 53 percent of millionaires would vote for the Democratic ex-Secretary of State, compared with 47 percent for the GOP presidential hopeful, in a hypothetical general-election match-up. Clinton had the support of 91 percent of Democratic millionaires, 13 percent of Republican millionaires and 57 percent of Independent millionaires. (Tweet this)
When asked about the broader field of candidates, Clinton got the most support, with 36 percent of millionaires. Jeb Bush came in second with 20 percent, followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) with 8 percent, and Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.) with 7 percent.
We could also talk about scalping, for which the Colonies and Mexicans paid bounties with innocent Indians and even Mexican farmers being scalped since they were easier to catch than armed, hiding Indians.
The Indian Removal Act, but also the Canadian Indian Act, which forcibly relocated Indians, and eventually, required Passes for them to travel freely and forcibly took children from their parents, where they were sent to Religious Schools so vicious, where children were starved for weeks as a form of discipline, the death rate from malnutrition attendant sickness was very high.
In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce, general medical superintendent for the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA), reported to the department that between 1894 and 1908, mortality rates at some residential schools in Western Canada ranged from 30% to 60% over five years (that is, five years after entry, 30% to 60% of students had died, or 6–12% per annum). These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he alleged that the high mortality rates could have been avoided if healthy children had not been exposed to children with tuberculosis. At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease.
Russia used famine as a political tool. The biggest famine in 32-33 (there was no famine in the late 20's) was simply genocide to break Ukranian resistance.
I agree with everything you wrote, but would say the Holodomor was an attempt to force peasants into cities, those who moved to cities got fed. And it was a Soviet-wide policy that effected Russians, Jews, Caucasians, Germans, and everybody else, in fact two of the worst areas were east of the Don, outside of the Ukraine's borders. Nor is there any documentation in the Soviet Archives that show targeting of Ukrainians because of ethnicity, (and Ukrainian ultranats have been pouring over them like crazy for decades now) only a desire to move stubborn Peasants to the cities. For this reason, it's Oppression, but not Genocide.
Can we consider enclosing of the commons to be a Holodomor of British peasants? "I'm raising sheep here now, piss off to the city or drop dead, you villein!"
Lincoln did get about 1 million Americans killed, ostensibly to abolish slavery, yet no other country had to have a war to abolish slavery.
The British didn't have a war against slavery, but they did stop the slave trade by military force, reserving unilaterally to themselves the right to search any ship suspected of dealing in slaves. I believe there was an exception for the Portuguese for a time going between West Africa and Brazil.
The other reason the British could abolish slavery is that it was primarily used in their Sugar Islands, where armed resistance to liberation by a handful White plantation owners was utterly impossible.
Contrast to the American South with a White population of millions and a large contiguous territory. Furthermore, the South was aggressively pushing for more Slave States, and angry that the North was trying to stop the extension of Slavery westwards. The population of Slaves increased dramatically from the Revolution to the Civil War. There were NO signs that the South was ratcheting down the use of slaves; all the evidence is that they wanted to extend it. They even proposed annexing Cuba and making it a state in order to expand the area where slavery was practiced in order to gain more votes to preserve and expand it.
Southerners even organized into terrorist bands called "Bushwhackers" or "Border Ruffians" who assaulted Free Farmers in Kansas, for the purpose of scaring free staters away so they could dominate the territory and create another Slave State.
Here's a terrorist named Quantrill, he killed more than almost 200 men and boys ("Anyone old enough to hold a rifle") in one night in Lawrence, Kansas, dragging them from their homes and executing them in front of their families, then burning the whole town down:
There are neo-Confederates today who celebrate him; many of his followers emerged in the West where they became famous Outlaws, like the James Brothers.
Another one, Bloody Bill Anderson:
I read that in Vietnam they fired 50,000 shots for 1 kill and 1.33 shots for 1 kill from a sniper
And in Iraq, Afghanistan it is around 250,000 per kill.
You don't need good aim when all you gotta do in Movement to Contact and then call for Bert...
(BTW, I'm reading your article, disagree with some of it, like what the RN losing out to the US has to do with controlling the interior of India given the US is not competing with Britain in that space, or that control of the countless tons of Indian Cotton didn't help the British Textile Industry, but it's interesting)
Reality, would you agree with me that 1870-1913 was probably the peak of laissez-faire capitalism in the US?
Colonialism is not a form of free market, but a form of central planning.
So when the King gives a Company a charter to settle Massachusetts, that's central planning. Is it central planning when the government leases Alaska Oil Fields to Exxon?
In fact, large socialist countries were / are indeed run like a colonial empire: with commissioners / commissars / governors appointed from above instead of being selected by local elections.
So 19th Century Britain was Socialist?
The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China were not at all caused by wars. The one in the USSR took place in the late 1920's. The Soviet regime had been well established by then. In fact, it was precisely the political "omnipotence" of the Soviet regime that made "collectivization" possible, to the extent that the regime was able to starve tens of millions of people after robbing them of food: it was the lower and middle rank cadres in thorough control of the country side who violently collected all the food because they did not at all need local political support but only answerable to their superiors in an idealized pyramid management system.
Emphasis mine - but this is not my complaint. My complaint is that including the 1921 Famine in the "100 Million" as a "Mass Murder" - conflating the aftermath of nearly a decade of internal and external warfare to the policies of a government that was in control for about a year (and didn't collectivize yet).
If the Authors of the Black Book of Communism get to blame every death by famine on Communism, regardless of the factors, then there's a great case for blaming the Irish Potato Famine on Colonialism in Ireland, since the dependence of millions of Irish on the Potato is directly linked to the Corn Laws and the Distribution of the best Land for cash crop growing by Absentee Landlords - a UK Policy, not mere accident of nature. Had these policies not existed, then the Irish wouldn't have been so dependent on the Potato.
By extension, we could also blame every death from malnutrition 1929-1932 on Hoover, since his inability to prevent this was directly related to his preference for laissez faire policies.
As well as all the famines in India that happened under the Raj - and there were many, like the Great Famine of 1876, which is attributed to the policies that encouraged cash crops over grain growing, and despite the Famine, the British "Free market" exported countless tons of grain to the UK. Can we assign those millions of death to Colonialism or Capitalism too? After all, distributing grain to those who can pay the highest price is a policy.
Likewise, the same thing happened in Communist China in the late 1950 ' s to early 1960's. Once again, it had nothing to do with war, but thorough top-down control of the population by the regime and it's pyramid of bureaucrats who did not need local support from below but only answerable to their superiors in the centralized power structure.
Yep, just like the bureaucrats at Investment Banks and Ratings Firms with MBS. Or Enron. Or Global Crossing.
Just like the Soviets had to turn to foreign grain imports, the Financial Sector had to turn to taxpayer bailouts.
Good luck with that. A BA/MA liberal arts degree is not in high demand and the labor pool is saturated with would-be PhD students.
Wait, are you saying that supply and demand, not individual merit or accomplishment, determines compensation?
WHICH phase of our freedom struggle won for us Independence? Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India movement or The INA army launched by Netaji Bose to free India or the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946? According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, it was the INA and the RIN Mutiny of February 18-23 1946 that made the British realise that their time was up in India.
An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’."
No, most of the 100 million did not die during wars. In fact, war deaths were excluded from the count. The 100 million was peace time death count; far more people died under those regimes during peace time than during the wars. The enormous famines in those countries starving tens of millions of people were direct results of their misrule: called "collectivization."
I didn't say they did - I said they died from a famine that FOLLOWED almost a decade on constant warfare, both internal and external, with all contestants looting and stealing to maintain themselves, as well as general chaos and disorder. Something not unheard of in history. There was also a famine 1946-1947, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Germans marching to the Don, and then burning and destroying everything during their retreat which went right over and back again across the most fertile Black Earth of Southern Russia and Ukraine SSR, or because the Russians mobilized every male and most women into the Army or Industrial production, leaving the farms denuded of workers.Reality says
Ghandi's peaceful approach provided a route for the emergence of a political leadership that can continue the overseeing of trade and division of labor after indpendence. The violent alternatives would be a pointless exercise in terms of evicting the British. The communal violence between two ethnic groups after the British exit was fighting for a different set of competing interests altogether.
Gandhi was a non-entity after the 30s. He may have had a role in changing British opinion, but the INA strike made continued control of India impossible, as they lost the unwavering support of their Sepoys, the vast bulk of their enforcers in the Raj. When asked what role Gandhi played in the decision to Quit India, Atlee said "minimal".
Exactly, Rin. Economics determined that it didn't pay to run an empire, expecially when there are challengers. All the British colonies were headed towards independence and self-government simply because the cost of administration would be lower.
Yes, when sugar is no longer a high value commodity, Britain won't fuss much when Caribbean states want self-rule or to leave entirely. However, when they are very profitable... they'll station a huge portion of the British Navy to maintain them. When Rubber declines in value due to replacement by synthetic rubber and plastics, the Colonial power will leave Malaysia as the account books don't make the investment of foreign domination machinery worth it.
Churchill was bitterly opposed to any self-rule for India, much less Independence.
This all being said, it also helped that the Labor Party was in power.
But this doesn't explain Indochina and North Africa being held by the French and/or Spanish (Algeria/Morocco).
I suppose he viewed it as a tool, and powerful where applicable, but that it does not preclude other tools of a violent nature.
Which is precisely how the Civil Rights Activists viewed non-violence - as a tool, but they all were loaded down with small arms in case of Midnight Riders and other assassins.
Basically, if neither Gandhi nor Bose were around, along with those who'd advocated for them, I don't believe that Mountbatten would have left in '47. Instead, it would have been a decade long handover, more likely leading to a better outcome for independent India.
Hard to say, because the British Public wanted demobilization ASAP; the British only slowly demobilized after WW2*. Also, Labor's prime urban industrial constituency did not like Colonialism, period.
The British knew in the 30s they'd have to resort to trickery to keep India, so proposed plans to give self-rule to "Princely States" that would have control over everyday matters, but all the guns and final authority would still rest in British Governors and the Central Government headed by a veto-wielding British Viceroy.
* As an aside - Britain's Babyboom was delayed about 5-10 years after the US one. And crime in Britain began collapsing in the late 90s, when their last Boomer passed 30 (1965+30). Whereas in the US, whose Babyboom was about 5-10 earlier, started dropping in the early 90s (1960+30). Also interesting: countries whose babyboom corresponded to the US also had a similar drop off in crime, even when they didn't implement more prisons, mandatory minimums, community policing, or pursued incarceration for drug possession.
1 in 2.6 for families with a professional/graduate degree,
So if I get a Master's in Social Work or Art History, I'll be a millionaire?
Free speech was not the cause of her using the free speech but she lied and said that was the cause. She did not say the true cause, Zionism.
All speech has a cause, otherwise why waste your breath/ink?
Hey, Atlas, Shrug. The Euros have nukes. Their standing armies are the equal quantitatively of Russia, and their quality superior - without US assistance. Just like the South Koreans can field a force equal to that of North Korea and vastly superior in quality.
Our military budget should be 2% of spending, and we could start building domestic SAM facilities, given that all our major cities and infrastructure are utterly undefended.
For a country that outspends the next 15 big spenders and has half the world's military spending, you'd think we'd have more than a couple of fighters and not a single ready AA battery to defend the entire East and West Coasts. The US is totally vulnerable to any aerial attack and still is, despite the lessons of 9/11. An attack sub off the Coast of California could obliterate multiple large electrical plants and send the whole Western Third of the US into darkness for months, and there isn't even a small chance that at least some of the NON-nuclear warhead missiles could be shot down.
One USN Frigate that isn't a dedicated SAM platform has more anti-air capacity that our own ready national air defense.
Before we talk about ABMs and Star Wars, we ought to give ourselves at least a token defense of the CONUS to start with.
As for the legitimacy of secession - there is no excuse for treason, unless you win.
High school history textbooks are actually much more accurate than college history textbooks which only exist to exalt the oppressed minorities and denigrate the evil white man. I read the currently used college american history textbooks (part 1 and part 2) not that long ago, both were a total joke. So much for higher education.
I feel that primary sources are the key to teaching history.
Out of curiousity, what is your take on histories portrayal of Abraham Lincoln?
Which kind of history? My take is that he was over his head in the first year or two, and because of that, had to turn to less than desirable authoritarian actions later. He should have stood up and managed the Army leadership more aggressively, but then again, he went in with no experience in the military, but did eventually educate himself and gain the confidence to sack the horrible McClelland, that pompous butternut.
I actually blame Buchanan for the Civil War. Both Action Jackson and Old Rough n' Ready Taylor, knew the Southern Life and knew how to handle Loud Talkin' Bullies down there: Tell them you promise to come down there and hang them with pleasure if they persist in their treason. Both Jackson and Taylor said basically the same thing and nobody doubted they would literally do it and do it well.
John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body.
(On South Carolina secession threats): "Hang every leader...of that infatuated people, sir, by martial law, irrespective of his name, or political or social position." (then sent 4 ships and hundreds of muskets to the Federal Fort of Charleston) - Jackson
My only two regrets in life are that I did not hang Calhoun and shoot Clay.
I'll hang every secessionist there is, starting with that son-in-law (Jefferson Davis) of mine. (paraphrased from a long rant)
Buchanan let them whip themselves into an ardor and prepare themselves by building up militias and seizing Federal property before Lincoln arrived at the WH to take the Oath of Office. A Taylor or Jackson would have gathered a huge armed force by pure Charisma and personally led it to South Carolina to swing Calhoun, Davis, and the rest of the treacherous bastards from a tree within weeks of hearing sedition threatening an election. Jackson, not Lincoln, was the first President to insist that secession was impossible.
Wow, somebody coded a survey. That's really difficult programming. Even a layman amateur very occasional hobbyist like me couldn't possibly code a multiple choice survey form and display the results in less than 24 hours, provided with a good guide or manual.
We should tax the shit out of cigarettes to reflect the medical costs that affect everyone's insurance bill.
We should tax the fuck out of Vegans, to make up for all the iron anemia deficiency admissions.
And tax the fuck out of everybody over 80 and not obese, since they cost Medicare a fortune when they break their hip but are otherwise mentally aware.
And give smokers an Soc Sec rebate, since many of them won't survive to collect much of it.
India, not so much, though it must be said they don't have the same collective footprint we do, given their endemic poverty.
Amartya Sen has much to say about China v. India. The bottom is much higher in China. India has some of the most bonecrushing poverty and still has widespread illiteracy.
I can tolerate a lot of inequity, as long as I can lord it over somebody else.