Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That says a lot about me...sadly.
Christmas is both too.
Both.
He already did that you missed it.
The ending of Mark
Main article: Mark 16
Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[43] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[44] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[44]
The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.[45] Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author's death.[46] Those who believe that 16:8 was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax for the text to end with the conjunction gar (???), as does Mark 16:8, and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end with a note of fear (?f?ß???t? ???, "for they were afraid").[47] If the 16:8 ending was intentional, it could indicate a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". This abrupt ending is also used to support the identification of this book as an example of closet drama, which characteristically ended without resolution and often with a tragic or shocking event that prevents closure.[48]
I do believe the earliest followers of Jesus did 2 things...the Eucharist and the celebration of Easter.
Easter is coming...He has risen.
I agree!
Looks like this is for real.
Wow. That's quite a statement.
Touché.
Also lack of exercise, junk food, xbox, drinking cool aid or soda every meal.
Many reasons....from lack of grocery stores to piss poor choices.
Too much junk food too little exercise.
You missed my point, however, my facts are correct.
Long read sorry
April 13, 2011 Health Topic: Diet and Nutrition | Health Warning | Undercover
The Economics of Obesity: Why Are Poor People Fat?
Share on facebook| Share on twitter| Share on linkedin| Share on print| More Sharing Services34This is what poverty looked like in the Great Depression…
This is what poverty looks like today…
For most of recorded history, fat was revered as a sign of health and prosperity. Plumpness was a status symbol. It showed that you did not have to engage in manual labor for your sustenance. And it meant that you could afford plentiful quantities of food.
For most people, however, being fat was simply not an option. The constant struggle to hunt and harvest ensured that we stayed active. And for those with little money, the supply of calories was meager. This ensured that most of the working class stayed slim.
Rich people were fat. Poor people were thin.
Today, the polar opposite is true. Numerous studies show that low-income children and adults are far more likely to be overweight than those of greater means. And the statistical distribution fits a nice, neat curve – as income falls, the rate of obesity rises.The following graph from a population study in Utah puts this in perspective. The tallest bar on the left represents the lowest income group… and the highest rate of obesity.
Logically, this makes no sense and it is contrary to our historical experience. How is it that the people with the least money to spend are the most likely to be overweight?
There is no shortage of suggestions for why this is the case. Here are just a few I’ve come across:
•Poor people are uneducated and ignorant about nutrition. (They never learned that Doritos and Twinkies are not a healthy meal).
•Poor people are too lazy (or too busy working) to cook real food.
•Poor people are too tired after working two jobs to get enough exercise.
•Poor people don’t have access to fitness centers and farmers markets.
There is some truth in all of these statements. But they certainly do not apply to all lower income workers. Each exhibits a significant misunderstanding. And none of them identify the real reason why modern poverty is so closely correlated with obesity.
The Real Reason Why Poor People Are Fat
Professor and obesity researcher, Dr. Adam Drewnowski set out to determine why income is the most reliable predictor of obesity in the U.S. To do this, he took a hypothetical dollar to the grocery store. His goal was to purchase as many calories as possible per dollar.
What he found is that he could buy well over 1,000 calories of cookies or potato chips. But his dollar would only buy 250 calories of carrots. He could buy almost 900 calories of soda… but only 170 calories of orange juice.
If you are poor and hungry, you are obviously going to buy the cheapest calories you can find. And in today’s world, the cheapest calories come from junk foods – whether those foods are found at the grocery store, the gas station, or in the fast food restaurant, conveniently located just down the street.
But this raises another question. How can industrially-processed foods and their associated marketing costs be so much cheaper than real, whole foods produced from water, seeds and sunlight?
In a New York Times article, author Michael Pollan asks this very question…
“Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudo-cakes for less than a bunch of roots?”
Pollan goes on to answer his own question…
“The Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year.
The primary reason that lower-income people are more overweight is because the unhealthiest and most fattening foods are the cheapest. If you were broke and had just three dollars to spend on food today, would you buy a head of broccoli or a Super Value Meal with French fries, a cheeseburger and a Coke?
Because you’re reading this publication, you might choose the former. But for most people who have very little to spend on food, the choice is clear.
And make no mistake. This does not represent a failure of the capitalist free-market system. Modern agri-business and government food policy represents a perverted version of capitalism – crony capitalism – where those with the most money and the most powerful friends in government control the markets.
What they have done is use your tax dollars to subsidize certain commodity crops (at the expense of others) to ensure that the cost of oils, sugar and grains stay artificially low. With low input costs, food manufacturers can turn a tidy profit. The end result is that processed foods – even though they require more technology, more labor and more marketing to produce and sell – are cheaper to the consumer than real, whole foods.
Consider that between 1985 and 2000, the inflation-adjusted prices of fruits and vegetables increased by an average of 40%. During the same period of time the real price of soft drinks fell by almost 25%.
There is no doubt that obesity has become a public health crisis. But because most politicians either do not understand the issue or because they are too corrupt to do the right thing, most “solutions” to this crisis are completely wrongheaded.
Some politicians are calling for a tax on fat people themselves. Currently, many state governments have imposed taxes on soft drinks and junk foods. And calls are growing louder for similar taxes at the federal level.
It is completely insane that in a country where the surgeon general has identified “an epidemic of obesity” that we are simultaneously subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. It is equally insane that the government is helping to artificially lower the cost of foods that are driving up national healthcare costs (i.e. killing us), while having a national healthcare debate about how we are going to pay for those costs.
I am addressing generational poverty not poverty caused by a hardship or bad luck.
I saw that.... what a mess.
Yes it has.... if a child is pregnant at 15-16 do the math. I deal with grandmothers who are 38.
Can't we just forget about them......please?
CULTURE OF POVERTY
Another theory for the perpetual cycle of poverty is that poor people have their own culture with a different set of values and beliefs which keep them trapped within that cycle generation to generation. This theory has been explored by Ruby K. Payne in her book A Framework for Understanding Poverty. In this book she explains how there is a class system in the United States where there is a wealthy upper class, a middle class, and the working poor class. These classes each have their own set of rules and values which differ from each other. In order to understand the culture of poverty and how the poor class’s set of rules tend to keep them trapped in this continual cycle Payne describes these rules and how they affect the poor class. Time is something that is treated differently by the poor; they generally do not plan ahead but simply live in the moment which keeps them from saving money which will help their children escape poverty. Payne expresses how important it is when working with the poor to understand their unique cultural differences so that one does not get frustrated but instead tries to work with them on their ideologies and help them to understand how they can help themselves and their children escape the cycle. One aspect of generational poverty is a learned helplessness that is passed from parents to children and on down the line. This learned helplessness can be explained as the ideology that there is no way for one to get out of poverty and so in order to make the best of their situation one must live in the moment and experience what they can when they can. This leads to people spending money right as they get it, often on unnecessary goods such as alcohol and cigarettes, thus teaching their children to do the same which also creates a trap for children keeping them and their children in poverty. Another important point Payne makes is that leaving poverty is not as simple as acquiring a lot of money and moving up but also includes giving up relationships in exchange for achievement. This helps to explain why the culture of poverty tends to keep families in poverty from generation to generation as this is the culture they know and the relationships they have are all within that class. [8]
The "culture of poverty" theory has been debated and critiqued by many people including Eleanor Burke Leacock (and others) in her book The Culture of Poverty: A Critique.[9] Leacock claims that people who use the term, "culture of poverty" only "contribute to the distorted characterizations of the poor." Aligning with Leacock's beliefs on the subject, Michael Hannan in an essay [10] argues that the "culture of poverty" is "essentially untestable." This is due to many things including the highly subjective nature of poverty and issues concerning the universal act of classifying only some impoverished people as trapped in the culture.
Gods own food it seems.
Most studies examining the effects of pistachios nuts on cholesterol involved people consuming pistachios -- about 15 to 20 percent of their daily caloric intake. Additionally, participants with and without high cholesterol were studied. Most studies indicate that eating three ounces of pistachio nuts a day for one month can raise high-density lipoprotein (HDL), or "good" cholesterol, up to an average of 15 percent. This roughly equals to about two handfuls of pistachio nuts a day.
No lectures please, I have that guy on Iggy.....play with that snake as much as you want. I won't and I don't need a lecture about it.
As I have posted before, only in America are the poor fat, with free medical, and free education. Everywhere else in the world, they are thin and starving. Like it or not, there is a political and economic agenda to keep poor people poor. After 9 generations of welfare, there is a group of Americans who are in the bottom caste system due to their choices. This is what I've seen else where
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u2FRwcCgjNQ/Ti8ueNHPGbI/AAAAAAAAJYo/i-5st71b1ZI/s1600/haiti-+starving.jpg
Penny stock pumper or basher...read his posts.
I'm doing one for the board iggy...him only.
Yep just mine. I agree.
You should leave...you have nothing to add here.
I know plenty...you have nothing to add here ...it's not a pump and dump.
Stay on the penny boards bitch.
No unlike your statements it's not.
How is that plagiarizing ...it's wiki meant to be down loaded. Fuck off.
Thanks I can be smart when I want to be.
In economics, the cycle of poverty is the "set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."[1]
The cycle of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon were poor families become trapped in poverty for at least three generations, i.e., for enough time that the family includes no surviving ancestors who possess and can transmit the intellectual, social, and cultural capital necessary to stay out of or escape poverty; in calculations of expected generation length and ancestor lifespan, the lower median age of parents in these families is offset by the shorter lifespans in many of these groups.
Such families have either limited or no resources. There are many disadvantages that collectively work in a circular process making it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle.[2] This occurs when poor people do not have the resources necessary to get out of poverty, such as financial capital, education, or connections. In other words, poverty-stricken individuals experience disadvantages as a result of their poverty, which in turn increases their poverty. This would mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives.[1] This cycle has also been referred to as a "pattern" of behaviors and situations which cannot easily be changed.[3]
The poverty cycle is usually called "development trap" when it is applied to countries.[1]
Ruby K. Payne, author of A Framework for Understanding Poverty, distinguishes between situational poverty, which can generally be traced to a specific incident within the lifetimes of the person or family members in poverty, and generational poverty, which is a cycle that passes from generation to generation, and goes on to argue that generational poverty has its own distinct culture and belief patterns.[4]
People who have sudden poverty crawl out....people who have grown use to it....well.
Again I will post this and take shit.....poor people in America..... Are poor because they choose it.
Nobody is.
A sales tax is uncomplicated .......01 on the sale.
HR block showed me what it would cost me to not be insured in 2015.... 2500 hundred bucks penalty.... So do people on welfare going to pay this cost?
A sales tax is fair....point blank..... You buy a 300K car.......that's a lot of tax.