Here is a pic of the brave girl
Wow cute, this will not end well
Unless she is planted by the Mob, then clever, very clever.
^ One of the few times I am hoping the mob has a plant, cause I really hope nothing bad happens to her.
Mob boss is her father.
Iga_Bobovic said:Here is a pic of the brave girl
Wow cute, this will not end well
Unless she is planted by the Mob, then clever, very clever.
Dvader said:^ One of the few times I am hoping the mob has a plant, cause I really hope nothing bad happens to her.
lol.
My opinion of google has been ambivilent to mostly favorable. After reading this I hate them.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
Apparently the US water polo team posing naked for a magazine is related news.
aspro said:My opinion of google has been ambivilent to mostly favorable. After reading this I hate them.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
Misdirected anger. If it were some shady trick, maybe, but this is well known. Direct it at congress
http://www.africanaonline.com/2010/09/911-first-responders-health-care-act/
A bill a few months back to provide health care to 9/11 first responders suffering from health effects relating to their efforts was voted down because attached to the bill was another bill that would close the overseas tax loopholes.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileHow is selling your intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary and then transferring the income generated from those concepts through a tax haven in the Netherlands and Bermuda not a shady trick?
Google's stated guiding mission is "Don't be evil", not "Don't break the law". It is they who claim to operate on a higher moral level than other companies.
They are, however, just like every other corporation that uses the excuse of "we have to do what is best interest of the shareholders" to do whatever is legally allowable to maximise profit.
Meanwhile the US people get shafted out of $58 billion dollars.
Congress is not even the start of the problem, they are a symptom of a mutated form of capitalism, one which Google appears to have been consumed by.
Shady in that it cannot be reasonably suggested that they're cheating the system -- they are merely operating within it. If they were one of the first to be doing this, without the knowledge of the public and congress, even if they could argue that it were legal, then that's what I mean by shady. The government knows this exists, and has actively decided to keep it in place. This is considered valid by United States law. So long as Google is operating in the United States, they would be criminally responsible to their shareholders for not doing what's obviously their best course of action in a business sense.
Look at it this way -- the part of this that would be considered "evil" would be that they're "cheating" the government out of money, but how can they be cheating the government if it's endorsed by the government? It ought to be change, but until it is, any business with the means to do this is stupid not to, and it's such and enormous difference that they'd as I said likely be criminally liable not to.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
at the Netherlands being a tax haven
Wow at the Irish law, they are really screwing themselves over. Make money here, don't pay taxes.
Yodariquo said:Shady in that it cannot be reasonably suggested that they're cheating the system -- they are merely operating within it. If they were one of the first to be doing this, without the knowledge of the public and congress, even if they could argue that it were legal, then that's what I mean by shady. The government knows this exists, and has actively decided to keep it in place. This is considered valid by United States law. So long as Google is operating in the United States, they would be criminally responsible to their shareholders for not doing what's obviously their best course of action in a business sense.
Look at it this way -- the part of this that would be considered "evil" would be that they're "cheating" the government out of money, but how can they be cheating the government if it's endorsed by the government? It ought to be change, but until it is, any business with the means to do this is stupid not to, and it's such and enormous difference that they'd as I said likely be criminally liable not to.
Fair enough.
If they are operating within the law, then legally it is not shady. Morally, inequivocably shady. And with thetheir cute little mission statement of "Don't be evil" they expose themselves to a higher standard, which on this, they fail.
I'm cool with your interpretation, but I'm still down on google, the US governement and capitalism in general.
Well, here is something I think everyone could agree with. In 2008 the US passed a law that prohibited the US from extending aid to countries that enrolled children to be soldiers.
Last week President Obama waived that law for Sudan, Congo, Chad and Yeman providing as the only explanation that it was in the "national interest"
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1029/Obama-waives-sanctions-for-four-countries-that-use-child-soldiers
I heard about this when Jake Tapper (ABC) asked Robert Gibbs about it in the White House Press Conference. Gibbs response was that he hadn't seen it and would get back to the journalist (which is what press secretaries say instead of "why did you ask me that?").
The sad thing about it is that these countires would have had to have lobbied the white house for these waivers, as in "hey we need these kids!". I'm assuming the actual lobbying came from the Pentagon, since Yeman is the source of most of the US' terrorist problems lately and funding is likely needed there for information.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Yodariquo said:
I just heard about that this morning. I love it. Ab-so-lute-ly NUTS.
And to bring things back to Earth, cue the song, "That's what friends are for" -- this is in the state in which I live.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1394146/Man-wanted-Yin-Yang-tattoo,-got-penis
A Queensland man faces criminal charges after allegedly tattooing a 40cm-long penis onto his mate's back, AAP reported
Police said the pair had a disagreement before the tattooing.
"The victim ... said he wanted a Yin and Yang symbol with some dragons," Ipswich Detective Constable Paul Malcolm told the Queensland Times, AFP reported.
"The bloke started doing the tattoo and there was another bloke standing there watching saying, `Mate, it's looking really good.'
"He was told not to go out into the sun and not to show anyone for a few weeks.
"When he got home he showed it to the person he lives with and she said: `I dont think it's the tattoo you were after'."
Police have charged a 21-year-old man from Bundamba, near Ipswich, with two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one offence relating to the public safety act.
Later reports said the man allegedly punched the victim.
Detective Constable Paul Malcolm said a 25-year-old man had gone to the alleged offender's house and "somehow in the course of the conversation the subject of tattoos came up".
It will cost the 25-year-old alleged victim about $2000 to remove the lewd tattoo, which depicts a 40cm-long image of a penis and a misspelled slogan implying the man is gay.
The man who allegedly etched the tattoo will also face a public safety charge because he was not a professional tattoo artist and there could be hygiene issues, AAP reported police as saying.
^I am assuming the misspelling including the ommision of a U after a Q. I don't think you could misspell the other slurs.
gamingeek said:Mob boss is her father.
Really? Or you kidding?
Exactly what it sounds like, a man in the UK has been convicted for trolling on the Internet.
"He was charged under the Communications Act 2003, for sending malicious communications that were grossly offensive."
Despite the schadenfreude of a troll getting his, this is malicious law that is grossly offensive.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
That poor girl.