taks

yes, it is a straw man. what the country did or did not do 'back in the day' is irrelevant and, due to hindsight, a much weaker argument easier for you to attack. that is the definition of a strawman. to put it into terms even you can understand... try education, perhaps www.fallacyfiles.org. no. i merely pointed out to you the reason you can afford it is due to extra money (in part). of course, your tax rates are much higher, too... which is another problem. hmmm, where are your sources? uh, those don't talk about efficiency at all. try to be on point, please. the first link is about medicare + private, which does not work. it is still medicare, with an attempt to "privatize" part of it. better explanation is that it is private, with socialized control. i.e. less efficient. the reason they want to add privitization is the hope that they can actually make it more efficient, in order to properly compete with private health care. the second link is nothing more than kucinich's hope, which is harldy testament to any real world data. the third, again, is nothing more than a hypothesis, so i'm not sure how this even comes close to proving your point. the real cool part about logical arguments is that whe someone does not know how to put one together, it is easy for someone like me to spot it. your links aren't even a measure of the problems of medicare. btw, it helps if you actually pay taxes into the system to find out what goes in and comes out. dunno, what are you doing? let's review... so far, your "evidence" is a couple links to... hypothetical future implementations without comparison, a problem with semantics regarding nazism, the idea that i haven't provided "sources" (uh, when debating opinion, i am my own source) and what else... oh yeah, nothing. at the very least, i have provided very detailed arguments and, whether you like the sources or not, i have provided them. you have provided nothing but "socialism works" without any proof. you have trounced my arguments without even an explanation as to why your way is better. as a matter of fact, i'm still wondering what it is that constitutes your way. oh yeah, scandinavia has free health care. gee, that last bit is hard to overcome. taks

never said i was better. i said i make mistakes and i admit them when i do. actually, i'm probably much more arrogant than the average bird. but, at least i can back up my claims with solid logic and rational thought. no kidding. you making claims about nazism and then stating "as far as i know"... in other words, "i think this is right, but really, i don't know." that's why i put the ? there. taks

i'll buy that... at least, hitler hated everyone, and his people hopped on the BW. doesn't change the fact that they were by and large a socialist economy. depends, i think... i'll follow up... medicare loses on this front, big time. i agree... given that the people of the US, including the congress that voted it in, were sold a bill of goods at a certain price, yes, it is a bad thing. slip socialist policies under the rug by saying "it won't cost that much" when in fact, the designers more than likely knew the outcome in the first place (history dictates that every socialist program goes deeper than originally planned for, they had to know this). no, it means it is inefficient. private healthcare acheives better ends, with much less money. the people that are defrauding it, no. the people that work in the bloated bureaucracy, no. those that regularly get screwed by red-tape or other related nightmares, yes. it does not work. period. the care medicare patients get is substandard, and they have very little choice in their care givers. there is one case when it succeeds, or at least one type of case. people with long-term care needs(diabetics, for example) probably benefit from the fact that they don't have a constant money siphon in their back pocket. however, they suffer many of theills of the bureaucracy just like everyone else... but there are alternatives to this, which will work better and more efficiently in the end. taks

for the record, i never said "government is bad" either. not sure where reg got that "same ole tired..." claim from. socialism's problem has nothing to do with government inability to implement it. the people working towards socialist policies have every intention of making it work. it is not their fault nor their goverment's fault. the reason socialist systems, and programs, cannot work in reality is the lack of a means to curb demand. there is no way to make people want less of something that has a limited supply. period. capitalism does this by raising prices. supply and demand curves are present in both systems. they are a fact of life, and hence called the law of supply and demand. no economist in the world denies this... the only method socialism can attempt, is to exercise tyrannical control over its people. this includes, but is not limited to, threats of force or harm and "education" in the ways of the system (not sure how many times communists tell me i'm brainwashed, yet they knew how much "better" socialism was over capitalism 10 years before i knew what they were???). it cannot counter demand, therefore it must seek to remove will from people. taks

actually i quite clearly stated that: 1. i said nazism is socialism 2. reg incorrectly attributed me to saying socialism is nazism 3. i followed up with nazi economic policy was socialist, explaining the error in my earlier statement, but noting that the point was not that much different. duh. akaik? incorrect. they were socialist, that's why the nazis were the national socialist german workers party. hard to call yourself something you hate? taks

sorry, difficult to tell one ideology from, well, an identical one. no, the other way around is more true. i make mistakes, and admit them. but i don't continue to make the same, tired, inability to comprehend the material before me mistakes so common in here... taks

no, let's review... i said nazism is socialism. he said that i reversed it and said socialism is nazism. the first statement, while a little off, is true in that the nazi economy was based on a socialist economy. the second statement, however, is not true at all. socialism has many forms, communist being one of them. oh, and nazis did not hate socialists, they hated communists. and you're getting used to it, i suppose. and i've explained three times why it makes a difference, and i also gave the reasons why, individually, denmark and sweden both have the same benefit. no, i said, quite clearly, that ALL of scandinavia has a trade surplus. can you read? really... what does good exports have to do with anything? the US has great exports, but still a deficit. i said, let's repeat, a trade surplus. that means more exports than imports which means more money, from the outside, for the economy. countries with surpluses tend to do better on the whole for this reason. oil rich countries are just ONE example. taks

curious what your source for that is... unemployment is at record lows, taxes are up in spite of tax cuts, our growth is sitting at 3.6%, which hasn't happened since the reagan era. uh, a VERY long time ago, and our economy was VERY different then. straw man argument anyway, since we aren't there now, are we (do you need a definition for straw man?) show me one quote where i said it was necessary. you have a small group of countries (less than 20M people) that are rich. they are rich because of a trade surplus, which allows spending on socialist concepts. countries that do not have such beneficial surpluses don't have the extra revenue and are therefore forced to rely on much higher taxes to afford such "niceties." taks

which i've done, and you dismissed as... evil? hehe... whatever. try the US census. 2.3 million engineers, about as many doctors and a few more laywers. go to salary.com if you'd like to find out how much engineers, at the bottom of the pile, are making... (hint: average is about 10 years and a BS degree, i'm 10 years and an MS degree). there ya go, more references just "dismissed" by you. isn't this just your opinion? works both ways. no it's not. it's grown 7 times faster than expected and always short, as well as marred by corruption and fraud. have you ever known anyone in the US that needed medicare help? i have, ain't pretty. btw, how about your sources. i don't know, maybe because some of us are smart enough to take care of ourselves. not everbody wants to sit around and pray for mommy government to help us through our lives. self sufficiency, what a concept. taks

oh, now i get it... gripe about sources till i provide one and what do we get? "oh no, i can't stand differing opinions, it may offend my sensibilities." can't have your cake and eat it too. if you want sources, you're just going to have to buckle down and understand that evidence is applicable even if it doesn't support your position. talk about living life in a fish bowl. do you actually read anything that opposes your world view? unbelievable. and mkreku called me narrow minded... sheesh. taks

uh, excuse me? we have a trade deficit nearing a trilliion dollars. other way around. in simple terms, that means we import more than we export. big difference. do you actually read the news? taks

whatever, same difference. but i didn't say socialism is nazism, which is what you said. again, you apparently missed it. ini other words "i'm grasping at straws"? you claimed scandinavia had good welfare, which maybe it does... but of the three countries, one is oil rich and the other two have trade surpluses. simple concept really. taks

uh, you said scandinavia had working welfare state and i showed you why. norway, in particular, is oil rich. denmark and sweden are resource rich. all three together have what's known as a trade surplus... taks btw, try here if you'd like the primer on capitalism that you never had.

norway is fully 25% of the population of scandinavia and a corresponding ratio of the GDP. taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> i did not say socialism was nazism, i said nazism is based on socialism. the economic system was socialist. again with the reading comprehension thing... taks

and what were those? that you need some catching up to do? with the exception of a few student loans and about 50% tuition from my folks for the first degree, i've payed for all of it out of my own pocket, too. the money was earned while working full time, as much as 90 hours/week at one point... are you that industrious? sometimes generally accepted correlations need no sources. uh, it's still a degree, and most economists don't make diddly. lawyers, doctors and engineers, in that order, make the most money. most economists are now supply side, since it works, and that tends to imply conservative, btw... yes, all humans are likewise selfish. study ayn rand. worth a read. yeah, but i'm not childish enough to actually think an insult really does anything other than make me look like a fool... you keep lobbing them, you keep looking the part. it's also a sign of immaturity. given that most of this is philosophical, sources really aren't a big deal. sources for what? the fact that every social program in the US is overspent and about to fail? sources that show the richest nations in the world either have massive natural resources at their beck and call or they have capitalist economies? tired, maybe, but true. government is there to protect us, not mother us. i've already made that clear. they have the added riches due to trade surpluses. duh. taks

uh, i didn't say oil was the only reason, did i? no, but reading comprehension is... well... denmark and sweden have more exports than imports, and i clearly stated that. please review. taks

gotcha. agreed. by definition, faith is, well, faith. sort of an inborn feeling i suppose. i do not have it (for this particular issue), so i cannot understand the actual implications. agreed, and i've made this very clear in my discussions. taks

that's not true... provability is not the issue walsingham, testability is the issue. a scientist can consider untestable hypotheses only as philosophical considerations, but not scientific ones. ID is not testable therefore not considered by science. taks

government planned does not mean government controlled. the US was planned to be capitalist, and i'd argue it is THE most successful economy. and btw, the world can take notes all it wants, the dollar still runs the economy. that's a good theory, but not based in observation. it is a theory put forth by marx, if i'm not mistaken, as an argument in favor of socialist policies. i think the contrary is true, that if we were all poor, and had nowhere to go, we would uprise in an attempt to better our lives. as it stands, why uprise in a capitalist society when all you have to do is get some education, learn a skill/trade or simply work harder? also, making the extension from feudalism to capitalism is a false analogy. two completely different situations. to equate the problems of fuedalism, particularly tyrannical rule, with capitalism is invalid. notably so since capitalism does not require any specific form of government (though democratic rule is preferred, i'm sure). socialism is collectivism. i realize that, but note that my original points covered how well socialist policies work. they don't. none of them do. they are all over budget, out of control spending nightmares. as an example, our educational system is a mess, and the only solution "give them more money!" money is not the problem, competition is the problem. without competition, there is no incentive to do better. public schools are government enforced monopolies, and as such, they are bloated and inefficient. they don't work because they are based on socialist ideas. private schools actually spend less per pupil, make a profit AND outperform their public counterparts all while paying their teachers better. taks

uh, my statement came out wrong... i meant, back up the concept that just because china has 35:1 wages (revised from the 36 i suppose, but still significant) equilibrium will result in the same for us. we'd have to compete, i agree. the US has, btw, resources that not everyone has as well as historical capability. i'm not in favor of sucking off the teet of the poor if we have to cheat to do it (and keeping developing nations down is cheating). i know they are arguing for it, but evidence is not in their favor. with a few exceptions, particularly oil rich nations, socialism fails globally. every socialist program in the US is a time bomb. the most notable, btw, is SS, but i bet medicare/medicaid will be worse once all those baby boomers actually retire. ah yes, if corporations try to create their own structure, then they are treading on the elected government's responsibility. this type of interference and legislation is not only legal, but required. the governments sole responsibility is to protect trade. there's really never been a fully socialist society, but the concept of socialism requires equality. at least, relative equality. the difference between common man at the bottom and top of the scales is negligible. there are the elite, of course, which run the system, and the disparity between those elite and the average man is far greater than in any capitalist society. aha! the closest, right? but not quite a monopoly, AND, they really did cheat. they got to where they are in the beginning by forcing retailers to pay them even if selling other OS products. they got caught, too. also, their share is slipping away... it is not besides the point. government interference is the only way monopolies can exist. i dare anyone to find an example otherwise (a real example, controlling a market of a relatively small population, i.e. very small business, does not really count). the fact that governments have never ceased to interfere is further evidence. my point is that they need to stop interfering. yes and no. socialism is more than just an economic system. it is socio-economic whereas captialism is stricly about economics of the free market. rather, capitalism does not have to be "implimented," it just happens (capitalism is really more of an observation of the free market). socialism requires implementation, but it can only be implemented in theory, not reality. a pure capitalist society could easily exist, but the same is not true for socialist. taks

referring to the bible as evidence of design is just as fallacious as using contradictions in the bible to refute it. it can't be both ways. and no, he's not using the term "evidence" to suggest undeniable proof. evidence must be, in some fashion, tangible. "the word of god" or whomever is the intelligent designer, is based on faith, therefore untestable. the term untestable does not mean that the hypothesis (intelligent designer) is true or false. untestable means it can't be tested (and as a corollary, unprovable, too). science is based on testability, therefore ID is not science, even if your faith turns out to be the true answer (it's mormon, according to south park, btw, the correct answer is mormon). taks

that's my point. there is no evidence, just the fallacy that's put forth as evidence. hence the quotes around "evidence." taks

as mentioned, irreducible complexity is the primary "evidence" for ID. also, worth noting, the discovery institute is the source of the concept of ID. at least, they're the prime movers in this case (eh, pun sorta intended). if you browse their site, you'll see they're not trying only to explain first cause, they really are trying to push a toned down version of creationism... sleight of hand i guess. taks

need more information... in particular: what OS on BOTH systems (the one that runs it and the one that doesn't), what CPU on BOTH systems? taks