taks

according to mr. moore, yes. i am. dammit! huh? taks

i had none in mine either... well, not after my freshman year. they all left and went to mizzou. fortunately, the real world is not nearly as harsh oh, btw, you can speed up matlab by declaring the size of all of you matrices before running any loops... that way, it does not have to re-allocate memory resources each time you add a single element (matlab does this poorly). taks

not once have i slandered your character PoTC, get off the harp with that... i attack your methods. plain and simple. it is not my fault if you don't understand that difference. my generalizations are backed by the scientific method, a point you so often overlook and fail to implement yourself. if you want to make a claim and have anybody take it seriously, you should heed my advice. keep this in mind as your method of inciting debate is to post a rant and then cry when we disagree. for you to state "I guarentee by the year 2060 we will have proven a lot of things I speak about." is certainly much more of a generalization than anything i've said and certainly much less likely to be true. learn what true debate is before you actually criticize MY methods... at least my arguments are grounded in science and logic. mith and i are obviously well trained in such endeavors. we don't stalk you, we simply do our best to point out flawed reasoning in order to limit the amount of pseudo-science actually propagating through this board. a tall order indeed, but this is where we hang out and you happen to post more than the rest... taks

no, it was several... the percentage worked out to twice as much as the overall US average... keep in mind, only about 1 in 200 are in the US... that means congress only needs to have 4 children to double the average. michael moore did not research this part very well apparently. taks

congress actually has a higher precentage of children in the military than the rest of the US population... taks

nah, no need to be someone else... just ubu. taks, er mark, er...

man, now that's ruthless! taks

no, i didn't take it as such. you've been very concise with the debate as it is... socialism is very tyrannic for one reason: individual rights are trampled for the good of the people. in a socialist society, it is the community that benefits, not the individual. workers are not toiling for themselves, but for the good of society. this is enforced by government threat of violence on your person - if you refuse to pay taxes you will be imprisoned, if the government takes those taxes without your permission, you have no recourse. this is tyranny by any definition. the tyrant, however, is the society itself. missed the request... here goes: socialism puts the government in place of determining production levels for all goods. the government is forced to counter demand based on guesswork. hence long lines for products that have high demand or shortened supply. the socialist system has no way to counter the affects of market forces, which exist in ANY system. capitalism, however, counters demand efficiently simply by price changes (not cost). when demand increases, the prices increase, reducing demand... this is a sort of feedback loop resulting in a stable balance between supply and demand. the companies themselves don't threaten that. the market threatens that. remember, companies are subject to the will of the market. why should a company continue to produce a product nobody wants? further, an inefficient company will be ousted by another, more efficient, competitor. if an employee has a skill or trade that is marketable and in demand, employment is not an issue. they do not hold employees down in the least. if an employee has a skill or trade that the company needs, the company is at the employee's mercy. real, longterm employment is gained by marketable skills. short term jobs are farmed out like that simply because they aren't in demand. why should a company continue to employ somebody that serves no function? not a tyranny... they don't have to work if they don't want to. granted, a stupid notion, but true. in reality, the company is bound by the skills of its employees. if they choose to not pay them what they are worth on the open marketplace, the employees will leave and find a competitor that will. further, in a capitalist society, people are free to choose a career path to their own liking. if they choose a low-demand career, it is their own fault. in a socialist society, there's a problem with this concept... capitalism counters low-demand for a skill by not offering jobs, hence people choose other careers. with socialism, however, either the state dictates your career (tyranny) or you don't work. why hire a boat builder if half of the existing boat builders are already out of work? this is another consequence of the lack of self-adjustment in a socialist system... there is no way to meter supply and demand. true, but still inconsistent with reality... i've never heard this though i do know the government pays farmers not to farm. this is not a problem with capitalism. remember, in a capitalist economy, if there is too much food, prices will drop due to excess supply and farmers will go out of business... in a capitalist economy, only enough food is grown to meet the needs of the society's population. secondly, regarding the medical industry, this theory is flawed. dead people can't buy drugs and disease will ALWAYS exist. most of the big bad diseases that linger for very long times are actually being sold at a loss due to government pressures and immoral foreign contracting policies ("sell this drug without a real profit or we'll violate your patent and make it ourselves!"). also, if one drug company wants to bank its future on such a principle, another company can easily step up and develop a cure (your assumption requires that a cure could in fact be found instead), sell the cure to all the other company's patients and then put the other company out of business... not a very wise business plan. i'll give you that it is ruthless, but it is this ruthless nature that actually provides its greatest benefit... better products and a lower price and above all, choice. hence its inherent morality, not found in socialist systems. in the end, the consumer has control over what a company can do. he decides what price and quality, and refuses to buy if he is not happy with the quality or price. to protect the rights of its citizens. period. this means protecting its borders and its people from harm. not much else to do. personally, why does it matter if the rich have power? in our society, most of that power is from the fact that the government controls aspects of the economy. if they didn't have that control, they couldn't be bought by corporate interests. if the rich have power just from being rich (assume no political control) who cares? let 'em. i have quite a life that would probably not improve much even if i were rich. edit: curiously, i'd like to know why so many people are concerned about being rich and having power? jealousy, envy? are we so shallow we think that happiness can ONLY occur if we're rich? certainly, very few are rich in a socialist society, much less than in a capitalist society (1/15 are millionaires in the US, 1/100 elsewhere). what gives? not inhuman at all. historically, it can be shown that the most prosperous people are those in capitalist societies. EVERYBODY has it better in such a society. not just the rich. the standard of living even for those below the poverty line in developed, capitalist societies is much greater than those in any socialist society, ever. even our poor have it good compared to socialism... coincidentally, the poor usually don't stay below the poverty line for more than a few years, which is another point socialist advocates usually miss. in a socialist society, you cannot ever improve your lot in life. not so here... taks

there have been more dictatorships in history than any other form of government... it does not work. there is a BIG difference between "designed" and "born" as a matter of fact. it is not just semantics. communism, marxism, etc., are truly "invented" systems. somebody sat down and said "let's do things this way!" with capitalism, somebody sat down and said "wow, look at the way this works in practice!" not just semantics... taks

exactly what was anybody in the whitehouse convicted of? further, the whitehouse is not enron. they are a private enterprise (well, public, but not the government). and like i said, they got busted and paid the price. still not proof of some whitehouse criminal conspriacy. not really relevant, but you missed my point anyway. my point was that anybody can make any connection based on conjecture and circumstance. this does not amount to proof. not a character attack. i've caught you doing it many times. your links above are news articles written by people with an agenda and you've regularly cut-and-pasted from agenda driven websites. it's not a character attack if it's true, PoTC. the point here is that you never offer any alternative views or accept contrary evidence. oh really... exactly what is my bias? you'd be surprised if you knew. i do not defend bush, i defend against rhetoric based on conjecture and hearsay and innuendo. a lot of what you state is just that, so i argue against it. no, the deragatory thing was what you said in the first post. you were directly quoting me and questioning my intelligence. with that latter bit, again, you'd be surprised at what you don't know. i never said he wasn't untouchable to corruption. i said you haven't proved any real link between bush's administration and all these "crimes." jesus is nothing but a man, btw. bush fills his capinet and administration with people he knows, hardly suprising. as i pointed out, when you switch who you're quoting, you should say so... i'm a propagandist? yeah, right... definitive evidence would be more than circumstance. this is all you've provided. i have not made up my mind, you just haven't provided any substance connecting him to criminal activity. taks

hehe, regarding that last bit send him over to yrkoon, they'd get along famously. the heat the military is feeling is mostly that they're tired. we have enough to do the job, but not for the long haul... i.e. we need to rotate these guys out a bit more regularly. taks

ah, ah, ah, ah... remember, capitalism wasn't really "designed"... it's more of a result of the free market concept. hence it is not referred to as an ideal (except by those who do not agree with its principles). and no, dictatorship cannot be wonderful. absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. no dictator can replace the will of the market, nor can he truly understand the will or needs of the people. taks

it would seem you need no extra help from me! taks

that you are... i do not stalk you. what point is posting an opinion without eliciting debate on said opinion? would you rather everybody just agree with out outright? another sign of pseudo-science, ahem... so? i'm not allowed to comment on something i find worthy of my attention? taks

yes, actually you did claim otherwise... post #25 on this very board. man, do you have issues or what? taks

what? MC's comment regarding the "oxymoron" was about allende being a democratic socialist vs. a totalitarian stalinist... that's what i was referring to... my argument IS what actually lies underneath a socialist system. regardless of the type of government you implement, socialism is tyranny. different degrees of the same thing, actually... but different, i agree. edit: the swedish system is very similar to much of what europe is adopting dubbed the "social democracy" system. unfortunately, while said systems are on the surface "the best of both worlds" they will bankrupt themselves in the end. ALL socialist programs are by nature inefficient and lack the ability to self-adjust due to market forces. this limited version of socialism is still oppressive, and tyrannical, it just happens to have nifty gift wrapping to give the appearance of a better system. uh, actually it evolved much earlier than that... the roman and greek free markets, maybe even as early as egypt. no. not true at all. the capitalist ideal is that anybody has the ability to freely market their goods and work TOWARDS the highest peaks... not that anybody can rise to them. this is a common misconception... capitalism ONLY offers freedom... nothing else. not true, either. the economic elite are actually beholden to those that work for them. the market demands they offer a competitive wage, and to not do so decreases efficiency and thusly, profit. those that are talented enough (in whatever manner) will rise to the top (though that is not a guarantee). those with skills that are in demand will do better in the end... this the same misconception in different clothing. there are no guarantees. not true again. there is not "very best" or "cheapest" guarantee. the consumer gets competition, which results in reduced prices. the consumer pays a price he is willing to pay for ANY product. if the product is of lesser quality than he wants, or costs too much, he stops paying for it. this is where the door opens to alternative products offering either a higher quality for the same price or a lower price for the same quality. you keep assuming that capitalism guarantees certain aspects of itself, when in fact capitalism only offers the opportunity for such things. this is why it is not referred to as an ideal, but an observation of market forces. again, it is not flawed simply because it is NOT an ideal. it is an observation. capitalism is nothing more than observed behavior based on the free market principle. period. i'm failing to see how this is indicative of an economic system? capitalism has nothing to do with our elected officials. if anything, our government is the number one impediment to capitalism as it should be. i call straw-man alert on this one - you used a counter based on an unrelated, and weaker, argument... the rich white male thing is actually something i'm not too happy with either, but it is not a result of capitalism... quite the opposite, actually, as a real capitalist society would breed better politicians due to the lack of coporate influence in our system. they'd have nothing to regulate in terms of the economy other than military spending! though parhaps a tad inaccurate. this was not really an argument against what i was originally stating, however, which i pointed out in the first line... taks

ah, yes, 35 is the enlistment cutoff... taks

hehe, sign one of pseudo-science is the statement "i guarantee"... there are no guarantees, and even commonly acceptec scientific principles are regularly refuted. many of your arguments have already been proven false or flawed. you said "things aren't always what they appear" when in fact, they are, sometimes even MORE simple than they appear. study occam. taks

the first article was dated almost a year ago... more recent statements have been contrary to the renewed draft position. i'm 36 so it won't directly affect me (35 is the cutoff usually) and my son is under 2. either way, a doubtful happening... taks

a true scientist is willing to admit when his theory has been proved wrong. a good example is stephen hawking and his latest admission that his original thoughts concerning black holes was incorrect... amazing bit of courage that took. but he's an amazing person. objectivity is my soapbox, something not found very often. what is objectivity? not just a thought experiment. it is TRUE science. start with a theory. then, do your best to REFUTE it. yeah folks, try to disprove it first. that's the best way to earn credibility. examining all evidence, not just that which supports your theory, is what a real scientist does as a matter of principle. this is a feature lacking in nearly all pseudo-science these days. good post whitemithrandir... taks

that you started by calling me stupid. notice, too, that i did not resort to such a tactic. taks

the existence of motive is not a crime, nor is the implication of crime. powerful people are regularly charged with unwarranted crimes for political reasons... again, nothing to see here. oh, and as for those convicted of wrongdoing... well they were convicted, right? they were busted and paid the price for it. nothing unusual there. the items they were convicted of selling, btw, were designated for drilling purposes, btw... they just have a dual use. halliburton openly argued that they felt the restrictions on the drilling heads was politically motivated based on some domestic issue. oh well... uh, my statement was expressly pointed at links to corporate america... what's that got to do with the "axis of evil"? halliburton got busted and paid the price, and they publicly disagreed with the policy. hardly ties the entire bush administration to some conspiracy, PoTC. bs. plenty actually are saying the pope is the anti-christ. i am contributing to real debate PoTC... your claims of the links are equally laughable, my entire point with that statement. still no "proof" of a criminal conspiracy here folks. here's where your argument (no "e" after the "u) fails on a regular basis. this automatic assumption of big bad corporate america. sometimes, PoTC, looking too deep you'll dig up nonsense without a true connection, but circumstantial conspiracies. half the time you post "proof" it's nothing more than quotes from agenda driven websites or news articles from same. get real. "I stopped taking it seriously the second PotC said that he had been "investigating" this matter in-depth. This is all obviously copied and pasted off of some site or some forum" first of all, when you switch who made a quote, you should point out who you're quoting, JN* in this case... but anyway, speaking as if you quoted me... because you do it so often... not my fault you have such an agenda and hard to hide bias. maybe you should try another tactic and i wouldn't criticize you for it so often? not sure if you've noticed, but i'm not the only person around here that's noted this obvious failure on your part... not to mention you start off by admitting you deleted the first posting after getting called out on the ad-hominem attack on me. for shame PoTC, even trying to cover up your flawed arguments. but so rarely they are... i'm not the one quoting agenda driven websites and news articles. i read ALL evidence and evaluate each piece individually based on its own merits. you see somebody post "this guy is bad" and automatically assume the very worst connection. not yet, anywhere in this thread, have i seen a single piece of evidence to back up the claim that "criminals are in the white house." not once. you provided proof that halliburton did a bad thing and cheney disagreed with US policy. you also provided proof that corporate and political connections are the basis for appointments to administrative posts in the white house. as if this is unexpected? appointments are made based on associations, nothing unusual. i'm actually glad they are, since they'll (presidents) probably pick people they already know to be capable... however, no proof that the white house is "full of criminals" has been provided... where's the hate? where did I call YOU stupid? never. oh wait, you deleted that part of YOUR hate, right? can't let anyone know your argument is so weak you need to resort to ad-hominems... oh no! what i'd like to see is proof of the CONNECTION YOU CLAIM. nowhere does that exist. i have shown repeatedly that none does, based on your evidence. i never said you were a democrat. where am i claiming kerry married a woman to control a corporation? i have stated he likes to marry for money... (they have no control over heinz, about 4% of the holdings...) i said you had an agenda (likely liberal). you have not provided anything other than circumstantial evidence and drawn a conclusion based on worst case scenarios... hardly objective reasoning. keep on banging the drum, PoTC. few listen and even fewer care. i just enjoy shredding your conspiracies... nothing else to do other than watch cars rust. taks

i see what you're saying... an implication that some see this as control, which is not true. gotcha... taks

but that is what i was arguing about. we're not supposed to have control. we're ONLY supposed to have influence. that's the whole point of a republic. put the control where it needs to be: the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. this removes the problem of mob rule. there's no comparison to a country like china, where the common man doesn't even have influence. he's nothing. taks

at least it's not monte cristo... the sandwich! taks