WheelsRCool

Sounds great Be careful with stretching before a workout, as that can weaken the muscle making it more injury-prone. Not saying don't stretch, but it needs to be light stretching. Heavy extensive stretching should only come afterwards.

Well I am not talking startup capital of a super-huge amount, just enough to start a small business and build from there. But I am curious, how does one start a business without at least some money initially?

No one has met me yet. I am very into healthy eating. I mostly completely avoid junk food and have done so for years. I eat a lot of raw vegetables. I love cooked vegetables, but raw I make a point to eat as well, especially raw spinach and kale. I eat a lot of healthy carbs (whole grain pasta, brown rice, oatmeal, potatoes) but not a vegan. I am not saying I will not eat out and have a hamburger and fries for example, but keep that stuff to a minimum.

Yes; my life hasn't quite had the standard playing out that the ordinary person's has. If the average person is a railroad train starting along on the track of life, my train basically never got out of the station until recently you could say. Regarding the goal I posted, that's why I stated it as a longer-term goal.

I have a goal of getting a very ripped physique so yes. I was well on my way, started skinny at 145 lbs and squatting 120 lbs for 5 sets of 5, then worked up to squatting 220 5x5, started benching 120 for 5x5 but then up to benching 180 5x5, and deadlifting from 120 up to 250 5x5. Went up to 170 lbs with abs still visible, so bodyfat percentage was remaining steady, but then injured my adductor squatting so have had to slack off for some months to let it heal. Had to thus stave off the upper-body working out to a degree so I don't end up like Johnny Bravo.

Knew you were going to say something like that Fortis, I don't quite get what you mean. You say you won't save up enough in a lifetime to start an enterprise. I am assuming you mean that metaphorically, that you'll never have "enough" money as you see it to start the enterprise and thus always will want to "save up some more." Like the person always waiting for "the right time" in life to start. If that is what you mean, I understand that, however there is a base minimum one needs to start a business right? I am talking about saving up for the basic essentials to get the plan going.

Plenty of people have saved for some time then started their business.

Hopefully soon. Am finally in a position where I should be able to start saving up some money to start an enterprise, so will work out a plan and take the dive.

You are right that you need a caloric deficit to lose fat and a caloric surplus to build muscle, but my thinking was that building muscle increases your metabolism and thus can help to burn fat, at least from my understanding. I never said anything about recommending crunches. I said that Fortis said he was doing those things, and I was mentioning that building muscle can help with fat burning. I think you would be surprised at my knowledge of fitness

Fortis had mentioned about doing crunches and some light working out as part of his quest for abs, so I thought I'd mention that additional muscle building can help aid fat loss. Yeah I wasn't thinking like magazine cover, I just meant like visible. Magazine cover yes, you definitely need to get a good deal below 12%. Regarding goals, my longer-term goal is to start a manufacturing company. I also want to start some other companies in other industries as well, but I love manufacturing as a subject so I want to get into that. I would like to maybe get into making workholding and toolholding products for machine tools, and the other products. My goal is to find a very small niche of a product first and start making that (maybe not even in manufacturing, but something) and then build from there.

To get a six pack generally means taking your body overall down to a low bodyfat percentage, around 12% bodyfat I think or less. Building additional muscle tissue up can also help with the fat burning because it will rev up the metabolism.

That is why I said one of the problems is that.

Don't confuse the overall firearms industry with firearms manufacturing. Firearms manufacturing is smaller. I had read previously it about $12-$15 billion, but now according to IBISWorld, it is about $17 billion, so I suppose it has increased some since: LINK That said, even if you consider the total firearms industry as a whole, it is still peanuts in comparison to the size of other industries and still smaller than the individual companies in other industries. Look at the quarterly sales numbers of some of the gun companies for example: they are in the hundreds of millions, which would mean maybe close to a billion in revenue for the one year, and those are the largest gun manufacturers. By contrast, Amazon, as ONE company, had sales of $177.87 billion in 2017. Johnson & Johnson (the medical/pharmaceuticals company) had 2017 revenues of $76.5 billion. Lockheed-Martin, the defense contractor, had revenues of $51.5 billion in 2017. Bank of America made $87.35 billion in 2017. Those are lobbies. Serious financial muscle. The defense, oil and gas, banking and financial, pharmaceutical, retail, etc...lobbies absolutely dwarf the gun manufacturing industry and the gun industry overall.

Believe it or not, gun manufacturing in the United States is actually a very tiny industry overall. It's only about $12-$15 billion a year. That is just a fraction of the revenues of individual companies in other industries. It's just a fraction of the profits of some of those companies even. The 800 pound (or 363 kilograms for you non-Americans ) gorilla in American politics is the National Rifle Association. According to the gun-ban proponents, it is a powerful industrial lobbying group for the heartless gun manufacturers, but the reality is that it is just a grassroots civil rights organization, America's oldest. That is why it is so influential. Regarding mental health, one problem was that due to changes in the civil rights laws starting around the late 1970s to early 1980s, it was made extremely difficult to commit someone. It's to protect people who are fine from being wrongly committed against their will, but the problem is that it leads to a whole lot of legitimately mentally ill people out there who should be in a facility receiving treatment who are not. But yes, it is a very complex problem.

On huge bugs, I think there is only **so** large they could breed them today, due to the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere. In prehistoric times when the Earth had a much more highly oxygenated atmosphere, a lot of the bugs were enormous, like a nine-foot millipede, and foot-plus long dragonflies. Also meat-eating predatory cockroaches.

As for these kids from the school, they are idiots who are being used as tools by the Gun Control Complex. They literally have no idea what they are talking about. It is sad what happened to them, but it does not give them a right to demand violation of others' rights or to accuse others who resist their crusade as having blood on their hands.

IMO, gun control should no more be discussed in the United States as a solution than restrictions on any of the other rights we cherish. The guns are not the problem here, because the gun technology being used has been around far longer than the mass shootings have been, which means that something else is at hand. The only form of gun control that might make a difference would be a complete, 100% ban on all semiautomatic weapons that take detachable magazines. The thing is, without total confiscation (which is not doable here), it would take decades to a lifetime for the tens to hundreds of millions of such firearms in circulation to begin to truly decline, and by then, we probably will have solved the problem by other means, thus negating the banning of the firearms in the first place. But also, such a ban would constitute a very blatant violation and infringement on people's right to keep and bear arms. And you do not violate rights in the name of security. My reasoning, on the surface, is that the right to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct and sacred as any of the other rights we cherish and so protect. But to delve more into detail, let's suppose that instead of mass shootings having become more frequent, we instead were having frequent equivalents of the Boston bombing. A bombing here, a bombing there, a truck massacre here, a truck massacre there, 20 killed here, 30 killed there, 60 killed, etc...and let's say that the common denominator in all of these attacks was Muslim terrorists. Let us also remember that three of the recent mass shootings have in fact been Muslim terrorists (Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub). Does anybody really think the media would start saying, "Look, the common denominator in all of these attacks is Muslims. We really need to start looking into restrictions on Muslim privacy, due process, and interaction with law enforcement. And also on free speech. People should not be allowed to hold something like a Muslim cartoon contest. And it shouldn't be that a police officer or F.B.I. agent can knock on a Muslim's door and be told, "No" in response to a request to ask some questions. lt shouldn't be that nothing can be done if people suspect a Muslim or Muslims of doing something related to terrorism. We need to really consider a law whereby such people could be temporarily detained against their will until things are figured out." Then you have certain states: "If the Congress is going to continue to bow to the whims of the ACLU and refuse to pass sensible Terrorism Safety legislation, then WE the states, will enact our own laws." So we then see laws banning speech mocking of Muslims and allowing violations of privacy, due process, and right to remain silent passing in various states. Now, as I've said, does anyone really even think the media or anyone would be talking in this way if repeated terrorist attacks were occurring? And even if some of the states or a locality tried any such laws, the courts would smack them down faster than you can blink an eye. After 9/11, in which we had 3,000 people killed, to the extent that anything was done (Patriot Act, wiretapping, waterboarding, enhanced interrogation techniques, CIA black sites, Guantanamo Bay, No Fly Lists, etc...) the Bush administration was lambasted. Bush was called the works, "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," etc...I am sure if he had talked about a temporary Muslim ban as Trump has, he'd have gotten heavy criticism too. This is because of how much Americans value our freedoms. So why are gun rights different? Why is it that in the face of an increase in mass shootings (three recent ones of which have been terrorists), that all-of-a-sudden, gun rights are supposed to be so expendable? And especially when we know that the mass shootings can't be due to the guns as the guns have been around for far longer than the mass shootings. Many say, "Why is it that we are the only country in the civilized world where this happens!?" Well for one, we aren't, we just have been the one suffering them more as of late, but two, they historically haven't happened much in our own country, despite the guns having been just as available. Only in recent times have the mass shootings increased for some reason. Going back to my original assertion, this is why I say that gun control should never be a topic of discussion. It should no more be a topic of discussion then restrictions of the right to free speech, privacy, religion, right to remain silent, due process, and so forth, violations of which ALL could be justified in the name of "security." You cannot violate people's rights of any kind, including guns, because someone is abusing the rights. The right to keep and bear arms should be considered as sacred as any of the other rights cherished in the Constitution.

Did some Googling, turns out some piranhas are vegetarians.

Is Fugu the one where people get like a slightly euphoric sensation or something due to the slight toxic effect it has?

So I just read that Amazon's Jeff Bezos is currently worth $118 billion (!!!!!!!). I mean CRIPES, I had no idea he had gotten to that level. The others aren't far off either though, Bill Gates is at $97 billion and Mark Zuckerberg at $76 billion. Elon Musk is at $20 billion. Man I feel poor.

My apologies, didn't mean to violate anything. I know it's frowned upon to ask what a Lambo owner's specific profession is, and probably to ask in general a specific profession, but I just had meant was that like the area you were in, not what your specific job was. But it was just out of general curiosity because you are so knowledgeable about all things audio/video, no malice intended

VCR, just curious, is audio/video electronics your profession, or just a major hobby?

Lammo joke: Two shepherds are out in the field tending to the sheep. Suddenly, one of them sees a pack of wolves approaching from the distance? So what does the shepherd who sees the wolves say to the other? "Let's get the flock out of here!"

How are Third World hellholes "clients/customers/staff" of the United States? And Donald Trump doesn't shun the world, the world wants to shun him because he doesn't kowtow to their ideas about things. To his liberal critics, the U.S. is shunning its role as the world leader. But IMO, it is now finally acting like a real leader. Their idea of "leadership" is like the U.S. being the lead bird in a V-shaped flock of birds flying along. The lead bird after a point looks over its shoulder and sees that the rest of the flock has changed direction. So it then maneuvers and flies to the front of the flock. After awhile, it notices again that the flock has changed direction. So it again maneuvers and flies to the lead position. That is not real leadership though. Trump is the lead bird saying, "The rest of the flock is wrong, I'm going in another direction."