taks

because you wear nice shoes. really. taks

you're close enough... think st. louis. taks

clearly something ole taks ain't gonna try. i already don't sleep... something like this would be negative sleep. taks

indeed. the cardinals make up for the blues, IMO. the rams delivered a super bowl and a couple years of excitement, but they've sucked every other year. as a result, i consider them a wash and not part of the equation. the blues are the worst playoff team ever, and the cardinals happen to be one of the best. taks

for your sake, calax, let's hope that the nut fell as far from the tree as possible, hopefully rolling down the hill in the process. taks

cleaning out fans often changes noise levels... taks

why would i expect the state to provide for me? if they already worked enough to survive, then that is their right. um, rethink that a bit. "wage slavery" is not slavery: you are working for yourself, not someone else. that is the mental flyweight's response to knowledge that communism is true slavery... it irks those smart enough to understand, and fills a void in those that aren't. i'm guessing you fall into the latter. taks

there was a movie on about rogue flies the other night... can't recall if i watched it through and was unimpressed or if i simply fell asleep from boredom. no spiders, unfortunately. that would have made it more believable. taks

hehe... taks

sword spiders, eh? i see... you and daaave must be related. strange worlds you two live in, i think. taks

i have, on more than one occasion, referred to capitalism as more of an observation of what happens when people practice free trade, rather than a "system" in and of itself. taks

um, no, unless you can fashion an imaginary world filled with people that ALL have the exact same demands. that's why communism (and several other related collectivist isms) are considered idealist. absolutely. all it takes is one person to not want to work for others to disprove your point: me. you are disproved. um, what punishment? you apparently don't understand capitalism at all. do you even understand the definition of hypocrisy? i think you need a dictionary. edit: hehe... "i don't think that word means what you think it means." taks

this was the kind we had in FL... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephila_clavipes taks

no it doesn't. marx did not understand demand. taks

in other words, no, you are not capable of dealing with my answer. you dodged it. for the record, why does not matter, the simple fact is that they will not. totalitarian force is required, irrespective of why. asking why people work in a capitalist society is a strawman, they are working for themselves. i was right. you aren't that bright. taks

holy schmidt! carp just pitched a one-hit complete game against the brewers. he's now 16-3 with a 2.16 era... cy young. taks

in fact, your exact question was so, rather than going off on a strawman about whether it is good or bad, why don't you try addressing the fact that i gave you one real reason you seem incapable of responding to. communism requires totalitarian rule as long as people have free will. are you capable? taks

if you don't want to, yes. if it is forced, yes. are you incapable of simple reading comprehension? i did clearly state "as long as humans have free will." you cannot get every human to willfully work for another, period. thus totalitarian force is required to make communism "work." what is so hard to understand about that? um, that's not what you asked early, to which i replied. you asked about how communism and totalitarian control united. to which i replied that force is required to implement communism. why don't you try sticking to the question rather than raising a strawman. not one point you raised here addresses that question and answer. are you even capable, or do you wear nice shoes like the rest i so adore in here? taks

because, as long as humans have free will, there is no other way to get them to agree to the slavery that is communism other than through the force of totalitarian rule. oops, guess you didn't think about that one good reason. you're really not that bright, are you? taks

is ANYONE capable of reading? rostere... please read my statements and look at the definition of justice. justice is not "defined by" your three points. justice has its own definition just as rehabilitiation has its own definition. we punish people to serve justice, period. your other three reasons for punishment are byproducts of serving justice. other, less civilized, nations may punish people for the reasons you cite, but that does not change the definition of justice. i have already stated, in multiple places, that rehabilitation is often a goal, but that is not justice in and of itself. did you even bother to read when i said that? i also stated that making an example out of someone often occurs, but it is not part of any civilized legal system. did you read that? i also stated that prevention is rarely a goal simply because it only works for life and death sentences - people get out of prison otherwise. did you read that? none of these is justice. by serving justice and making criminals pay their debt to society, they may get rehabilitated, they may not be able to commit crimes in the future if we execute them, and they may even be made an example of to other would be perpetrators of similar crimes. i said that, too, or are you incapable of gleaning that from my posts? reading comprehension. clearly the most lacking of skills in society and, IMO, part of the reason that people say such stupid things. nobody understands anybody anymore because they make up their own terminology on the fly. taks

no, jeesus... it has a definition, look it up. i can't even believe that i have to argue this point. so, by this idiotic logic, when i call you all retards for making me debate this, don't get offended because i really mean "people who wear nice shoes." taks

hehe, on time for me means before 3:00 a.m. suffice it to say, i did not meet that goal last night. of course, i was rather buzzed and had to hang around the bar till well after they closed, then stopped in at a sonic down the street to eat a bite and kill time. by the time i got home it was 3:30. went out and got john some skis and boots today. used for $100 at colorado ski and golf and i can take them back next year to get a $50 credit. since rentals cost that much anyway, it's worth the price. they have the ski i want, but i'm not sure about the size - 177 cm. for my height (6' 3"), and as aggressive as i intend to be this year, i'm thinking i need to be in a 185 cm ski. michele will get her boots as soon as i get her butt out to the shops to try some one (i already have boots). oh, i'm buying ski gear this weekend because all the sales are going on now. sports authority started sniagrab this weekend and colorado ski and golf followed suit with some trex promotion. i prefer the latter as they have supplied me with a few thousand dollars worth of various gear over the years (including all my racks). taks

gotcha, thanks. taks

and, for the record, rostere, since i did direct my "harsh" in your direction in response to a quote that i had muddied, sorry. taks

sorry, i thought i was quoting rostere. the quote blocks got muddied. i wasn't commenting on sending him home. that's what i don't seem to understand... how could that one word reply that i made have such deeper meaning other than "we punish people for justice." rostere said there are three reasons we punish people, and i simply said "4. justice." it had nothing to do with sending this guy home. my personal view is that he should have stayed in the interest of justice, but that's immaterial. i wasn't commenting on that, i was simiply pointing out that justice is why we (civilized nations) punish criminals. that's not a very difficult concept. certainly less civilized, aka, developing, countries punish people for some of the reasons stated. i have no doubt that saddam used punishment to make an example (though i do doubt he ever cared about rehabilitating anyone). i never doubted this nor did i ever state anything contrary. the three reasons rostere posted are ridiculous, and not the point of any civilized legal system. they may be byproducts of justice, e.g., we hope that a criminal gets rehabilitated, which i clearly admitted (yet nobody seems to have read), but they are not the point of justice, nor are they part of the definition of justice. how am i overboard? and, for the record, i don't claim to be an "expert" at "justice," i simply understand the english language and i know what the word means. i do not redefine words simply to suit my point of view or because i want to find an idiotic nit to pick with someone. the word justice has very specific meaning in the context of what i replied to. not one of rostere's three points is part of that definition, period. how anyone can say otherwise is beyond me. words have specific meanings on purpose so that people can communicate intelligently with one another and not have to worry about these moronic diversions over semantics. i should add, if you were upset that i harshed you (for which i have since apologized), don't follow up with subtle insults expecting me to respond kindly. given that i've never treated you like a troll (and vice versa), you could at least give me the benefit of the doubt and wait for a response before taking full offense at my statements. that said, i do tend to respond harshly when someone misattributes what i've said. there are serial perpetrators of this, and i do not consider you one of those. again, sorry. taks