Tell that to GE.

http://videosift.com/video/Giant-US-Corp-General-Electric-Pays-No-Taxes
>> ^lantern53:

They are already taxed at the highest percentage.


>> ^bobknight33:


Quit your wining and pay your fair share of taxes.

The main stream media is the liberal media that's my point. Society needs more people figuring that out. For as much as people hate them (FOX news, Glen Beck etc,) they do bring stories forth stories that the main stream does not. EX. Main stream imply that Muslims are a peaceful religion. Its not. The true desire of this religion is to convert or kill. They treat their women like dogs. How can Americans tolerate that? But yet main stream media play stories that they are a nice bunch of people. >> ^alcom:

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."
More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:
"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."
>> ^bobknight33:
This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."

More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:

"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."

>> ^bobknight33:

This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

This guy, like the left is wrong!

GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.

2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner

Who owns what in Media link

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

You think that for one second I should believe the lies coming out of this turd's mouth?

"Of the 3.7 trillion budget, more than 2.6 trillion, or about 72%, is covered by existing taxes. It’s understandable that we would run something of a deficit during a recession (when a family member has to take a temporary pay cut, for instance, the family may temporarily shift some spending to credit cards until full income is restored), and you can’t argue that SOME increase in tax on the highest income levels – and cleaning up the loopholes that let GE pay no taxes at all – would destroy the economy."

Plus, his "assumptions" dismiss the reality that redistributive tax funds don't disappear, the poor put literally all of their money back into the economy, because, believe it or not they need to eat and live indoors too.

Plus his initial numbers on net income of Exxon and Walmart are wrong, how many of his other numbers are wrong?

I'm just surprised. It's one thing to know that U.S. corporations don't like paying taxes, but another to read it in the report.

The issue here being that it is government who is picking & choosing who does & doesn't get the plum breaks. It is changing (literally) from election to election. Government should NOT be in the position to be the power-broker who determines what companies/industries get massive subsidies and tax breaks year by year. All that does it create an environment of arbitrary modern patronage where companies are far more beholden to politicians than they are to the public. Think about it. GE could literally fall on its face as a company, but it would be OK because it is getting 'green' money shovelled at it along with tax-breaks, subsidies, and other gimmies. Why should they care jack-squat about whether they manufacture crap that no one wants when they have their CEO on Obama's cabinet?

That's the problem here. Government is the problem. Slap down government. Remove them from the marketplace. Set up a system of basic rules that ALL companies have to obey and that government cannot change and then put the government in a box and lock it away forever.

this is very simple sirs, MSNBC is 1. a subsidiary of GE 2. a corporate master and 3. completely and utterly ran and funded by the same entities the ows movement rallying against.
of course they're not going to cover it.

and sarzy, i think you need to give ows a harder look. >> ^Sarzy:

Oh okay, I see. I don't know though -- MSNBC probably should have given some coverage to OWS that night, but Steve Jobs' death is pretty darn important, isn't it? I mean, 10 years from now, people are definitely going to remember Steve Jobs. I don't know if you can say the same about OWS, which essentially strikes me as the left's answer to the tea party.

If they had any sense they'd be protesting in front of the White House against Obama who bailed out these businesses that got us here in the first place.Why don't they protest Obama for hiring Jeffrey Immelt of GE, a CEO of a company that paid no taxes? What about the crony system of giving money to companies like Solyndra that are buddies of Obama?

If they had any sense they'd be protesting in front of the White House against Obama who bailed out these businesses that got us here in the first place.Why don't they protest Obama for hiring Jeffrey Immelt of GE, a CEO of a company that paid no taxes? What about the crony system of giving money to companies like Solyndra that are buddies of Obama?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

Blind me! Sorry to be a bit of a snob, but what a garbage of a trailer? From what I can see, it's more like a Michael Bay movie with Chinese gravity. Ya it was fun when Crouching tiger hidden dragon came out, but it has gotten really old.

The quality of movies exported from China just get worse and worse! What the hell happened to the absolute gems that Zhang Yi Mou used to make which got banned in China? What about the emotional roller coasters of Chen Kai Ge? The best movies of his I watched in recent years is "Forever Enthralled", even that was nothing more than a rehash of "Farewell my concubine".

*sign* Jiang Wen is the only director keeping my hope up, I just hope his next movie is better than "Let bullets fly".

4k would be in addition to whatever you're paying now. That would be if the distribution were flat, which realistically it wouldn't be, so YMMV. I'm with you in that I'd happily put aside my share, but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a significant portion of Americans to join us.

>> ^My_design:

That would be $12,000 a year for me, my wife and my child?
Done! That would be a rather nice deduction from my current tax bill. But I don't think the families making under $20K per year could afford it.
Tell you what, get rid of all of the corporate and personal exemptions and put everyone on a flat 23.5% tax rate and you would raise the % of tax revenue vs the GDP by 5% and lower the corporate and personal tax rate by 12.5%. But that would mean GE and Exxon would have to start paying their share. It would also mean no more tax deductions for donations to non-profits, yet more people would have more money to give. Plus more money in people's pockets to spend at places like Target.
To bad you can't tag individual lines as sarcasm.
>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
a balanced budget takes $4000 out of the pocket of every man woman and child every year in perpetuity (on average). If you're serious about a balanced budget, start putting that money aside now.

That would be $12,000 a year for me, my wife and my child?
Done! That would be a rather nice deduction from my current tax bill. But I don't think the families making under $20K per year could afford it.
Tell you what, get rid of all of the corporate and personal exemptions and put everyone on a flat 23.5% tax rate and you would raise the % of tax revenue vs the GDP by 5% and lower the corporate and personal tax rate by 12.5%. But that would mean GE and Exxon would have to start paying their share. It would also mean no more tax deductions for donations to non-profits, yet more people would have more money to give. Plus more money in people's pockets to spend at places like Target.
To bad you can't tag individual lines as sarcasm.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

a balanced budget takes $4000 out of the pocket of every man woman and child every year in perpetuity (on average). If you're serious about a balanced budget, start putting that money aside now.

I looked at the YouTube page you linked it from: the guy who posted that clip is a budding sound engineer and this was a soundtrack build he made from several other sources. He says: "this is my first try for making an audio track."

A commentor asked where he got the sound from and he says: "I recorded the voices with the mac, then I created the audio track in logic pro and then I synchronized the video and the audio track with soundbooth."

I'm also a recording engineer which is why I heard weirdness. It wasn't a dupe, though. At least, I didn't mean to imply that it was. You might've been able to sift it with this title: "See If You Can Hear the Difference" or something like that, you know?

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
This is way better quality than mine. Don't know how I missed it as I was looking for it.
Thanks!

In reply to this comment by shuac:
This sounds like it's been dubbed: it doesn't sound like Al at all. Weird.

Compare to this:

http://videosift.com/video/Say-hello-to-my-little-friend-Langua
ge-Violence-NSFW

See what I mean?