angelofdeath

that entire line of thought is faulty. would you rather be poor in a poor country or poor in a rich country? the poor in a poor country cant drink the water or have food to eat. the poor in america are throwing away more food than those other people consume. i find it hilarious that you keep saying i am not facing reality. i just laid out real world cases i was personally involved in. in all honesty, you are the one who needs to get out more. perhaps hop out of your urban bubble for a day. get out in the rest of the country and see how we live. companies making record profits are doing exactly what they should be doing. when bill gates made it so even the poor families in the US can afford a computer, he is helping them. when walmart makes it so the poor people can buy food, they are helping them. when walmart employs wheel chair bound greeters, they are helping the poor. your theories also neglect to realize that most people act in different ways when different institutions are in place. for instance.. if someone is having 40% of their income taken in taxes and the job of a 'responsible' government is do things like dole out other peoples money to people who drive escalades and millionaire lottery winners, they might not feel it is necessary to use the rest of their income to fund something they are already being taxed for. for instance, say you feel that social security taxes need to be raised. do you automatically stroke off a check for 50% of your income just to fund more social security revenues? or do you feel that the government already is taxing you for this purpose, so you just pay what they take? lets say you are taxed to fund a library. are you 'against' the library if you do not donate any extra funds over what you are being taxed, to fund this project? i would never think of using force against you for you exercising your rights to say that you think a large leviathan government with a monopoly on force can provide the best services to the destitute. (although, destitute is no longer destitute in todays america) i happen to disagree. all that i ask is that you leave me alone and agree to not use force against me if i choose to help those in need by other means

i think you are trying to throw together a bunch of different things then say they all caused the housing collapse. your analysis fails to realize that customers are paying 'traders' to do what they want them to do. 'traders' are merely providing a service. the people who are making the bets are just as 'greedy' as any trader. just as the people who were buying homes with ninja loans were greedy because they wanted the biggest house and they thought they were going to get rich by just buying that house. the part you fail to realize is that under a free market monetary policy and market framework, the problems caused by corporatist government are eliminated. the money wouldnt of been to cheap, which spurned massive borrowing and entire industries built around this cheap money. people wouldnt of borrowed to the hilt to make a fortune if cheap money wasnt available from the FED. probably an easier example for you to understand is corn subsidies in the US. basically people sell corn at very cheap market prices and they lose money growing it every year. then the government sends the growers a check for more money and this is their profit. this would not happen in a free market because if you couldnt make a profit at it, you wouldnt grow it. so because the government subsidizes this industry, we have an abundance of cheap corn. which is why its stuffed in everything, fed to cows, etc which all have potentially damaging side effects. now, i can see that the people at fault in this equation is the government for steering the market and directing firms into misallocating resources. yet you would say that its not the governments fault, its the capitalists fault. not surprising because you also think that guns kill people, etc. totally ignoring the fact that there was a person with a motive pulling the trigger. if you say that people providing services that people want through a voluntary framework is wrong and they are responsible for the consumers bad choices... then you must also hate cigarette companies because they are giving people what they want. alcohol companies because they are giving people what they want. mcdonalds because they are giving people what they want. pot sellers because they are giving people what they want. casino owners because they are giving people what they want, etc. yet all these things are all life damaging.

i do not absolve everyone but the government for the problems, i merely acknowledge that government policies steered the markets to do what they did. sure, it was world wide markets. did it ever occur to you that the dollar is the international reserve currency? everything the FED does, affects everyone. and aside from the FED, all governments have the same rules if not more. all governments print money and follow the lead of the FED. yes, everyone is greedy. you are greedy. when you go to work, you do not do so out of benevolence, you do so in order to increase your position in the world. in another words, out of greed. everyone acts in their own self interest. this does not explain the massive cluster of errors that happened in the financial crisis because people ALWAYS tend to act in their own self interest. when you go to work do you try to make as much money as possible or do you try to make the least? these issues you bring up do not explain the cluster of errors made by the market. monetary policy DOES.

claiming my view point is 'ridiculous' is just another way of saying that i disagree with both hilary clinton and john mccain. i understand your plight. i was in the same situation. thankfully, since i am a firm believer in self reliance, i have saved every penny i could my entire life. and when the worst happened, i was prepared. i live so simply, if my income was cut in half, i probably wouldnt even notice, except my savings rate would drop like a rock. i have enough food to last 8 months or more and enough fuel to heat my house and cook for a couple years. i have enough savings to pay my bills for 2 years. and since i am a believer in capitalism, i have alternate income streams. the most important thing someone can do for survival in these situations is to have alternate income streams. i would argue for you to start your own business, but im sure this would be impossible in the UK due to the insane amount of regulations you favor which make it impossible for little companies to compete with the big boys.

then why dont y'all put up or shut up? why arent you giving more? why dont you lead by example? why not just sign your entire paycheck over to the local welfare office? the main problem with the liberal rhetoric on this subject, is that they assume ALL the people on welfare, unemployed, etc are indeed truly incapable of providing for themselves. this is simply not the case. the actual number of truly destitute individuals is probably under 20% of those receiving state handouts. the liberal rhetoric also neglects to realize that this subsidization of poverty gives you more poverty. its basic economics. when you subsidize something/declare 'war' on it, you get more of it. there was a write up in the paper where i used to live not to long ago about urban hipsters/yuppies on food stamps. yes, yuppies on food stamps. and what were they buying with it all? they were going to farmers markets to buy expensive food. i know of to many people to count who draw unemployment so they can travel or hop trains. i know of plenty of 'anarchists' who eat out of dumpsters, yet sell their food stamps/exchange independence card funds for cash in order to buy alcohol, camera equipment, etc. until you can separate the truly needy with the people who are simply using the system to their advantage, you are simply operating on hysterics and emotions and not dealing with the actual issue at hand. it is clouded by phony numbers, arbitrary and changeable poverty lines and a firm reliance on anti capitalist rhetoric.

"They only want to do it through charity, what happens when there is not enough charity to take care of societies down and trodden?" voluntary means. i routinely donate massive amounts of food and clothing every year to private charities, institutions and churches. my neighbors house burned down about a year and a half ago. i gave them a months worth of food and extra clothes. another neighbors' father was in a motorcycle accident, leaving a his mother at home with alzheimers with no one to watch her. he hired a care taker and this care taker was paid for almost solely by people from his church. i fixed the guy's truck for free when it broke down. believe it or not, voluntary cooperation works. in none of these situations did they need any big grants, big inefficient programs funded by theft or a bunch of big government. voluntary organizations to deal with these problems tend to fix the problem with the key element, independence, being pushed. government programs are based on dependency and create more poverty. simple facts. when a private soup kitchen hands out food, they might have some strings attached. for example, they might not hand it out if the person is on drugs or drunk. it matters not for the government "Libertarian Rhetoric. Show me someplace that shows poverty means not having a flat screen TV. Government welfare state, give me a break with that bullshit. People like you act like motherfuckers purposely work to stay poor. " no need to get angry. they continually change the poverty standards. i'd assume they do this in order to show that there are more poor people in order to keep this system in tact. there is much at stake for everyone involved. look at all the industry/workers in the welfare system. not to mention the people who are DEPENDENT on it. why should they be rugged individualistic americans when it much easier to live off their fellow man? do you realize that there are actually people who attempt to SELL government welfare to people? they need to have as many people on it as possible because there is a vested interest in keeping people 'poor.' just like the military industrial complex and the politicians that support them have to continually have 'threats' in order to keep the arms money flowing. the poor vote in politicians who provide the most 'services' at taxpayer expense. the workers who provide these services want to keep their jobs. politicians want to stay in office. this is why poverty is not reduced. whenever the government declares war on something, you get more of it. when it declared war on drugs, terror, illiteracy, sickness, unemployment, etc they get more of it. being broke is a state of finances, being poor is a state of mind. hetty green considered herself 'poor' even though she had 200 million or so in her estate. many americans today, in effect consider themselves poor and take welfare hand outs. which is why you have the lottery winner in michigan on food stamps. people may not 'work' to stay poor, but the welfare state is DESIGNED to keep people dependent. for instance, why would they work for minimum wage when they could possibly figure out the welfare system in order to stay home and make more? another gleaming example is someone in my extended family. she has 2 kids, and her and her boyfriend purposefully will not get married in order for her to keep wic, food stamps, and state medical insurance. perhaps if she had to pay totally out of pocket, she would not of had 2 kids on the states dime. just this past weekend i heard her say they couldnt get married because she wants to go back to school and if she doesnt get married she'll get state money for tuition. need i mention that the guy makes around 100K a year, she drives an escalade, they have a couple ipads, iphones, and spend money like its going out of style? she buys 3 gallons of milk a week in order to keep the WIC flowing, and dumps out 2 down the drain. when the unemployed are on unemployment insurance for 2 years, the incentive is to not look for work for 2 years, screw around until right before the money ends and then they get a job. the stats on this are pretty much perfectly clear. it is my understanding 75% of the people drawing this money find work within the last month or few weeks of their payments ending, NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY RECEIVE PAYMENTS UP TILL THEN. why do you feel the need to forcefully rob other people in order to fund your utopian goals? are you scared that if we didnt have a government using violence that YOU would not take care of 'societies lowest members?' you cannot eliminate the welfare state over night, nor will it probably ever be dramatically scaled back or abolished because of people like you and because of the system its self. various people throughout history have said that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and when people, corporations, etc figure out they can vote themselves this money, the republic is done. but lets say, just for shits and giggles that the welfare state was some how miraculously reduced to just caring for the wheel chair bound mentally handicapped person who no family. (a very small part of welfare recipients.) this would mean all the able bodied men/women would have to provide for themselves or starve. i'd imagine the welfare dependents would have a different outlook on life. the un married mother of 5 on welfare might all of a sudden kick the drug dealing 'father' out of the equation and get married to a person who has a life. while your goal of helping the down trodden is noble, it has to be done on a voluntary basis and it has to be done in a manner that does not keep the person dependent. apply the old adage of 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach him to fish, feed him for the rest of his life.'

federal reserve and US govt's regulatory apparatus... unless they are removed from the equation, the collapse of the dollar is inevitable. the business cycle aka 'cyclical nature of market failures' is due to central banks and not markets. market failures are essentially the biggest myth promoted by keynesian college professors and economists. they come up with a new one every couple months.

this is GREAT advice. you should try to follow it occasionally. <3

best thing to do is not use credit cards period. the only reason to do so is if you need to buy something on line or need buyer protection. pay the bill off every month and the interest rate matters not. buy the best, pay cash and take delivery. if you cant afford to pay cash, you probably dont need it (with only a few exceptions.)

it is disingenuous to say libertarians done want to take care of societies 'lowest' members. what libertarians are against is robbing someone to give away their property in their name... charity, is a voluntary action, not a coercive action. if charity is forced, it is no charity at all. its great for society to 'take care' of its 'lowest' members, but it should be done on a voluntary basis. and you also neglect the nature of the inefficiencies and dependent unintended consequences of the governments welfare state. when the government declared war on poverty, it essentially subsidized it which has resulted in poverty rates that have not changed since the 60's and to top it off, they keep changing the definition of what 'poverty' is. used to be you couldnt eat, now you are poverty stricken if you dont have a flat screen or cant go grocery shopping at whole foods. the nature of the system creates generations of people dependent on the system and taking away the incentive to provide for its self. it also has incentives to not be a part of a family unit, which is one of the major reasons for poverty in the first place. the road to serfdom probably isnt the easiest reading economics text... so i'd recommend economics in one lesson by hazlitt to get a solid foundation in the subject.

eh, no way 1911's should be relegated to the dust bin i'll agree a first handgun should probably be a glock or something similar, but there is nothing wrong with a 1911 as long as you arent an idiot or a child and dont mind taking care of it. in fact i feel much 'safer' carrying a 1911 cocked and locked than a glock. i like the mechanical safety and light trigger pull. but im definitely a glock fan as well.

RP is non violent. when the presidential campaign aka ron paul speaking/lecture tour is over, he can then seek change through other means. he hasnt changed much in DC being a politician, but what he has done is educated many people and is responsible for interjecting actual issues into the daily political banter.

he announced today he is not seeking re-election for his house seat. this is great news. there is no way to reform washington from within. now he can seek change by other means.

cool. i would definitely go the trust route next time. i've been studying this stuff for a few years in anticipation... trust seems the best way to go for sure.

Re: Agent: ATF partly to blame for Mexico violence Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/vide ^^^ indeed. just another example of why ATF should be a convenience store and not a government agency. boot the BATFE!

indeed.

agreed... its not religion or lack of religion that is bad, its when these bodies either use the state to their advantage to enforce their will or act as the state that we had these inquisitions, witch trials, etc. in a free society, no one holds any coercive force over another. the government is a night watchman state that does not have the power to exercise these extraneous powers in the first place. let us not forget, in a free society, no one is forced to go to church nor fund it and the church holds no power over anyone, unless they use the force of the monopoly called government. the common denominator is the state. as always. democide to the tune of 262 million people just in the 20th century alone.

F you obombie

they are not 'illegal' unless you possess one without the proper government hoops ie. class III licensing/ATF form 4

right on. do you hold the suppressor as a trust or individual?

i think they work your whole core. work up to these: and good luck.

good stuff... maybe one day i'll jump into the form 4 game

got ya. you may want to move into a more hypertrophy/body building sort of routine then. strength training isnt the BEST way to get looking good. size/definition comes as a side effect to moving big weight. and strength comes as a side effect to working out to get big. the routine i favor sort of incorporates both training philosophies. i want to get strong, but im also not that huge of a dude, nor do i want to be 250 lbs either. so by doing work sets sort of like this: bench warm up bar x 30 95 x 15 135 x 12 185 x 8 200 x 6 225 x 4 you'll get some good repetition work in, and get stronger. which will make you be able to do more reps in your hypertrophy and/or fat burning rep range. there is a big difference between doing 5 reps and doing 20. when you are doing 20 reps, you are breaking down serious muscle, going for endurance, and feeling a burn. when you do 1-5 reps, you arent going to have a pump anything like doing 20 reps. its the reason why you see power lifters who are benching 500-800 lbs hardly ever doing any sets above 5 reps and they are just big thick guys, usually high body fat. more weight=more strength. in general. and you never see body builders like jay cutler or *insert hot new body building dude here * doing a lot of 3RM or 1RM work. they wants to get big, not lift the most weight. also, if you are struggling with losing body fat and are already doing long cardio sessions, i'd recommend throwing in some serious barbell, dumb bell/kettlebell, body weight complexes as finishers. as well as throwing in lots of HIIT, tabata type jump rope work, etc if you arent already. i would do the complexes in waves. finish your weight lifting. then do say 2 sets of the complex of your choice 2 times a week the first week. next week, do 3 sets, with shorter rest time. next week, 4 sets, shorter rest time. try to go to five if you can, then change the complex to another. if doing a barbell complex on say monday and friday, throw in a body weight complex, timed mile runs or things like 100 push ups in fastest time possible, 100 lunges in fastest time possible, 50 chins in a set amount of time, on wednesday

i've gotta agree with that. last weekend my little bro was doing squats. he had me spot him while he did his 'max effort' for 3 reps (3RM). after watching him do 3 easy, i was like, 'keep going!' he ended up doing 7 on what he thought was his 3RM. we threw 50 pounds on the bar and he then failed @ 3. i'd recommend doing your main lift of the day working up to final set of 5-6 reps or under, balls to the wall, and all other assistance stuff with higher reps. 12-20/25 depending on what you are doing. and sounds like you just need to keep losing weight to see what you have under your belly fat. unless you carry a naturally low body fat, you generally have to lose an ASS load of weight to see abs. weighted abs of all kinds will also make sure they pop. but this is coming from a guy who has had true visible abs only for 1 summer in his entire life. im more worried about getting strong than keeping my body fat under 10%

congress apparently declares war and funds the military. the president apparently can do whatever he wants. the supremes and CILONE said so that is how it works.