tvashtarkatena

This ain't the IRS. You can carry your children up if you wish, however.

A CC annual tradition is born. Granite mountain trail sucks for running...too rocky. MB is mostly turf with good traction on which to kick EricB's sorry, weezing, dragging ass. Before you get too cocky....I am only marginally overweight according to the BMI tables - and some weeks I might actually squeak under depending on whether I weigh myself before or after ~ 9AM. It doesn't matter whether you weigh in at 900 lbs or 90. All that matters is how fast you can drag your carcass up Mailbox Peak, car to summit. Let's hear your best time. Since you're posting pics of fat fucks, you might also want to let us know what your record is for total elevation gain/miles in 24 hours, your time for RAMROD, your best marathon time, your best finishing place for the Eco Challenge and Primal Quest adventure races, and other stats that might support your implied assertion that certain fat fucks can't absolutely kick your ass in any endurance sport. Tag, you're it. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was an endurance athlete? You committed the cardinal sin of providing me with an identifiable TR pic.....surely you wouldn't expect any less from me? I'll take that as an apology. Now, do you want to be eaten feet first while giving Craigjobs, or head first while bending over?

Me too, but no ink. I had a fountain pen, though. And a shirt that seconded as a sponge.

after being used as a sex slave

pussy Somebody's off ignore....

A CC annual tradition is born. Granite mountain trail sucks for running...too rocky. MB is mostly turf with good traction on which to kick EricB's sorry, weezing, dragging ass. Before you get too cocky....I am only marginally overweight according to the BMI tables - and some weeks I might actually squeak under depending on whether I weigh myself before or after ~ 9AM. It doesn't matter whether you weigh in at 900 lbs or 90. All that matters is how fast you can drag your carcass up Mailbox Peak, car to summit. Let's hear your best time. Since you're posting pics of fat fucks, you might also want to let us know what your record is for total elevation gain/miles in 24 hours, your time for RAMROD, your best marathon time, your best finishing place for the Eco Challenge and Primal Quest adventure races, and other stats that might support your implied assertion that certain fat fucks can't absolutely kick your ass in any endurance sport. Tag, you're it.

I'll never call you dumb cunt ever again.

A CC annual tradition is born. Granite mountain trail sucks for running...too rocky. MB is mostly turf with good traction on which to kick EricB's sorry, weezing, dragging ass.

Just hope you don't have to haul them out of a crevasse though! Any time you want to challenge this fat fuck for a race up Mailbox Peak, you just let him know. Unless you can beat 79 minutes, however, I'd STFU if I were you.

People are fatter because of larger portions and more processed, particularly fast food. And ADD is a diagnosable brain disorder that wasn't as 'common' in the 'good ole days' because it hadn't been discovered yet, you moron.

I'm suing all of you cockroaches for copyright infringement.

I loved getting a brand new quill pen every year.

That seemed complimentary enough to me. Any more, uh, pics out there?

Plus, Kucinich's wife is WAY hotter than Linda Ronstadt.

Nobody has yet mentioned the half a billion a year we blow on stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, ray guns, and Iraqi blast walls. That might warrant a tiny little cell on the spreadsheet.

'It seems, by definition'? Just how many of these folks to you actually know, anyway? Pretty general statement without much first hand experience, it seems to me. 'Conventional wisdom' rides again.

Can I interest you in a free range banana?

I'm going to not read your post, make up a number, insult you and be condscending. I'm not even going to bother to try and make it topical though. OK , I'm sorry for being mean. Friends again? Can I offer you a grass fed peach?

it's at 14% cell only vs. 12.3% for landline. The others utilize both. Continue to expectorate out your anus please - that's the only condscension you are worth today Nice feint, and 50% was a speedread misread on my part (we all speed read this shit, don't we?) but your last analogy (that cell phone usage is somehow NOT headed rapidly from from 20/80 to 80/20) is still heading for the Pacific with flames coming out of it's gaping tail pipe. Yes, industries can quickly flip flop, and agriculture is no different. Now, you probably don't even remember the point you were trying to make here, so you're forgiven, dear young Carl. Party on.

The structure of the mobile business proves my point quite well. In 1996 there were a large number of providers who gradually consolidated to a few large carriers (as is the pattern for most businesses). I'd challegne you to find a profitable (or unprofitable for that matter) industry that isn't seeing consolidation in the current era. BTW: This year was the first that the number of cell only homes eclipsed land-line only home. The world is not a yuppie seattle suburb Yes, consolidation can happen as industries mature. Duh. And the trend for cell phone usage (and wireless voice over internet, which is essentially the same physical experience), which you've conveniently omitted, speaks for itself. You also mistated the key statistic. The number of 'cell phone ONLY' homes may be at 50% (which is huge, and growing), but cell phone talk time crushes landline talk time these days. So, in fact, the world IS a Seattle yuppie suburb. I'd like to say nice try on this one, but it was actually a really lame try. You're kind of off your game, today. Agribusiness has already undergone enormous consolidation. Duh. That trend, however, is wavering. A switch to sustainable methods is inevitable: it will either happen voluntarily or be forced by mother nature. The question is whether factory farms will switch, or whether the industry will continue to go more local with smaller sized producers. Time will tell. And that's the problem with historical, cross industrial analogies. They are never 100% repeatable, are they (even assuming, of course, that you present them correctly)?

We're about due for a good public gutting. Cue KKK's 'innocent until proven guilty' sound bite.

dude, that organic section comes from factory farms in the Salinas valley. it's like every other sector of American life - a large number of small niche producers who claim less than 20% of the market and several large manufacturers that claim the rest of the market. If you substitute land line usage verses cell phone usage, then this very same 80/20 statistic applied...in 1996. That has been upended somewhat. I realize that it's hard for the young to grasp this, but...welcome to a dynamic world, my friend.

1 Logging workers 92.4 85 2 Aircraft pilots 92.4 109 3 Fishers and fishing workers 86.4 38 4 Structural iron and steel workers 47.0 31 5 Refuse and recyclable material collectors 43.2 35 6 Farmers and ranchers 37.5 307 7 Roofers 34.9 94 8 Electrical power line installers/repairers 30.0 36 9 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 27.6 905 10 Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 24.2 67 So according to the stats that you guys posted 24.2 of 100,000 people die driving taxi/chauffering, and 37.5 die farming/ranching, and 43.2 die collecting refuse and recyclables. So driving taxi for 8 hours is just about as dangerous as driving tractor and I've never heard a cabi or a dump truck driver touting how dangerous their job is. OK, two things. First, discussions on this board can literally begin with any given topic and end on something completely unrelated. Second, shut up, nobody reads your posts anyway. Uh, you just read my post and replied to it... thanks for coming out Retard. These stats are completely irrelevant to the discussion. People don't shy away from farming because its 'dangerous' (although listing farming as being in the middle of what are probably the top 10 most dangerous jobs actually contradicts your point, if, in fact, you have one.). We don't need immigrant farm labor because the jobs they do are too 'dangerous'. We need them because a) the work is hard and many Americans are unwilling to do it, b) there aren't enough Americans to do the work in those areas when it's needed most and c) they're willing to follow the harvest from place to place. If danger was a deterrent, people wouldn't be lining up down the block to become firemen.

Your ideal equation may provide some insight on paper, but it still doesn't address this logistical problem: the majority of welfare recipients live in cities; too far from farms to provide a labor force. Rural areas with sparse populations can't support the large, migrant populations of workers they need during certain critical times of year. Like it or not, farming communities need a migrant labor force.

Carl, Carl, Carl. You are, if nothing else, the byproduct of a post post modern society. Have you ever heard of a coop? The farmers I met sold part of their production under their own brand names, to local grocery chains, farmers markets, and delivery networks (you know, the box of veggies on your doorstep once a week), and the rest of their production to a coop which serviced larger, more regional/national grocery chains. This reduced the risk you speak of. Have you noticed the organic produce section in EVERY large supermarket nowadays? Where do you think that stuff comes from? Have you also noticed that more people are NOT buying their produce from Safeway anymore? As direct farmer to city supply chains spring up, and they are doing so all across the country very rapidly, the supermarket produce section becomes more irrelavent. If you don't believe this is possible, think about shopping now (via the web) verses 20 years ago. Or any aspect of American life 20 years ago, for that matter. Sustainable agriculture is is hardly a 'niche' anymore, and hasn't been for some time. By definition, sustainable agriculture is a mandate: if the soil dies, so do we.