At 2/9/08 09:52 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: I hate his talk against pork spending, throwing his own pork amendments into a bill then voting against it knowing it'll pass just so he can say "But look I voted against it." Why would you put something into a bill you wouldn't want passed?

Irrelevant.

At 2/9/08 10:08 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You are an idiot who doesn't even bother to CHECK the websites of campaign...

What does that have to do with anything?

Clinton, Democratic strategists, and Bill nelson are the 3 guys you first see praising the man on his website; What does that tell you about mccain?

Irrelevant.

If you've ever watched a Republican debate, then you know that all the candidates give the same answers to the questions and then bicker about who is the most conservative. For example, when it comes to economic issues, all the candidates say that they are want to cut spending. Ron Paul says he wants to cut spending, but also talks about fiat money and the Federal Reserve and how he believes that they are hampering the economy.

The sad part is that no one ever challenges him on anything he says unless it's the war. Is he right about the Federal Reserve? I don't think I'll ever hear the other side speak on it. And it's like this on every issue that I mentioned above, although I must admit that Romney was big on health care.

At 2/9/08 09:12 PM, ScytheCutter wrote: No. You may not, talking of an issue is not synnomous with acting on it. It is a promise it to get the votes and then forget about it strategy.

You can't possibly think that is what Ron Paul is doing. Look at his Congressional record.

Anyway, I'm not here to shill for him. I'm saying that people shouldn't want him out of the race because he brings to light important issues that have been glazed over for many years in the US.

...at least he talks about the things other Republicans won't:

foreign policy
health care
civil liberties
veterans' issues
property rights
War on Drugs
government surveillance
Federal Reserve and fiat money
THE CONSTITUTION

Can I get an amen?

I have a talk coming up in a little under a month to present some research I have been doing, and I would like to have a graphical representation of my data. My simulation is coded in FORTRAN, and I output data arrays to a multitude of different text files, which are then read in by IDL line-by-line to produce plots. Now I want to include some graphics and different things to help illustrate what is going on. I could do this easily in C++, which I have some familiarity in object-oriented programming, but I would like to use Flash so I can have pretty graphics.

I know to do this in C++ one simple way would be to do a while loop. My pseudocode would look like...

count=0
while not endoffile
read line
array1(count)=line
count++

...and then I could use the data storred in this array later.

I have been unable to find a way to read files like this in ActionScript, as all the tutorials I have found require specific syntax in the file itself.

Thank you very much for your help.

At 6/27/07 06:47 PM, K-RadPie wrote: We've still got 1 and a half months left of G-Dub

Do you know something we don't?

Is there really any other choice?

At 6/23/07 06:19 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: well, the people in that is a result of an experiment called "teenage pregnancies" but yeah, dumb kids dont get to school. However, some poorer kids are quite clever

You have no idea what you are talking about.

At 6/23/07 10:56 AM, Tal-con wrote: So should we privatize education?

Yes.

At 6/22/07 08:35 PM, tony4moroney wrote: A lot.

I have put forth no arugment for laissez faire economics other than the underlying philosophical principles. I did mention that I feel it is a perfect system. If you want to talk about it, make a topic and we can discuss it there. There is no need to derail this.

As far as people starving in America, every single American in the United States has the opportunity for the basic necessities of life. No one is refused these.

At 6/22/07 03:59 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Your missing what im trying to debate.

I know exactly what you are trying to debate. And I'll continue to address it.

in theory communism could work. I know very well that we will never see it happen due to the human element of greed, but on paper communism would take care of plenty of problems.

Why do you idiots say this? "In theory" or "On paper" etc. You think that if everyone was completely selfless then Communism "could" work. I laugh at that argument. By the same logic, if everyone was completely honest then pure laissez-faire capitalism would be perfect (I still think it is). By the same logic, if everyone was completely loyal then feudalism or despotism "could" work. By the same logic, if everyone completely hated everyone but their own race then Nazism "could" work. But no one is that retarded to sit down and actually suggest that because they can conjure up some fantasy land where everyone is exactly the same that it makes for a good theory. No one says feudalism is "good on paper" or "good in theory." For that matter, no one says despotism or Nazism is either. Hell, no one says communism is "good on paper" or "good in theory." That is, except for idiots like you.

education, healthcare, poverty all of them can be dealt with using communism. Yes you lose the ability to get a higher pay than the next guy and the incredibly hard working people that strive for that extra dollar would be gone, but at what benifit. you see the good side of capitalism. people trying and achieving in soceity and that feels great to the people that can do it. but what about the people that can't the people stuck working a 9-5 job going no where and they still can't provide entirely for their family. the people who can't get a job beacuse its so competitive. the people who get steped on and pushed down into the gutter. These are the people we need to think of. it is selfish not to. it is selfish to say "come on you bum, get a damn job."

Yeah, I get it. You're emotional. I am sure your arguments really appeal to the kids in middle school. You have said all that crap before, and I have systematically refuted it before. Every honest transaction in a market economy where value is traded for value benefits everyone else participating in that market. I will address your view of the "people who get steped on and pushed down into the gutter" below.

maybe they can, but maybe the can't. maybe they are so far down the road of mal-education and in that vicious circle of drug child and spouse abuse that plauges the lower class

I am going to explain to you what is fundamentally wrong with your view. To quote my favorite politician, Ron Paul. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Congressman Paul was mainly addressing racism, but his words are just as relevant to the topic of classism/class oppression. The market is blind to class, race, gender, etcetra. Anyone that can provide a service or produce a product that has appeal can be successful. It may not be easy for everyone to find opportunities to get training or education, but they most certainly exist. In a free society anyone that wants to and is willing to do what it takes can be successful, but only as long as these classifications of race, ethnicity, class, gender, etcetra do not impede the natural order of the market.

communism can prevent this from happening. sending kids to school on the gov't's dime. Dont try and say i'm wanting a free ride beacuse its not a lazy thing its a poor thing. maybe if we gave people some hope a gangbanger wouldnt have to steal to provide for his family.

More silly emotional arguements. And remember that nothing is on the "government's dime." All of that money is taken from the people in some way or another, so what you should say is "sending other kids to school on your dime without your consent." Do you think you can spend MY money that I painstakingly earned using some of the limited, precious time that I have in life better than I can?

sure they have a better standard of living then people in ethiopia, but the standard of living is so low there anyway you cant possibly compare it to that.

How about Russia? How about Cuba? How about North Korea? Get it yet?

the fact is that there are people are starving in our country.

No one starves in America, unless they want to. What is it with you and all the emotion?

there will always be people needing a job, and jobs to fit the peoples qualifactations.

I agree, so why do we need the government to employ them?

and sure money isnt the problem with soceity. its what people will do for it. sure it might help drive an industry, but people will kill for it. dont you see that is a problem.

I see it as the solution to every threat the human race has ever faced.

im not saying we would give money to the poor, just give them oppurtunity. something their not used to. you can't say that people don't get left behind in this "land of oppurtunity" it happens everyday. You think there aren't people who can't afford education for their kid. That alone can put a kid so far behind the 8-ball he can't get out. if you want a decent job anymore you need a college education. Denying that is wrong to do to any child. they don't diserive that. And why should you not invent something if you can't profit off of it. if it helps the common man you shouldn't be so selfish. You would have enough to provide why should you want anymore. and if you wanted to be a rockstar i guess you would have to be passionate enough to do it alongside your job. maybe if you got successful enough the gov't could pay for your tour. all these minute details could be hammered out. And im sry that i got the gov't ownership of industry wrong. but it doesnt change the fact that their will be a market for "stuff" we need to spend our money on. and as long as their is a market for it there will need to be a place of business for it, thus a need for a skyscraper. just beacuse there is no inscentive to achieve doesnt mean no one would work. it would slow down the people who would make less but i bet it would inspire thouse who made more. your just too selfish. i would work just as hard to help push soceity forward. i bet scientist dont even care as long as they have their name on it. which im sure they would it wouldnt say "so-and-so nation discovered". Communism can work. if humans wouldnt be so slefish. but too bad. it was a good thought.

More of the same crap we have already been over at least twice now. If you want to continue this then address my arguments. You obviously have a very shallow understanding of ecnomics and a very limited ability to argue from reason rather than emotion. Provide fresh, logical arguments based in reality or you will just be ignored by anyone above the age of fifteen.

At 6/21/07 11:42 PM, slackerzac wrote: Great another Communism thread. Why do people post this stuff? All we do is say the same stuff of how much communism sucks just like we did in the last communism thread.

My hope is that by putting one of these idiots in his place that we can stop many threads in the future before they even start.

At 6/21/07 11:14 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Hhhhmmm i wonder who made the point about people not being able to ACHIEVE in society.

And isn't productive achievement one of the most noble goals in life? That does not include standing in line at the welfare office.

Hell i would work anywhere as long as i could bring home enough to feed the family. the only reason we see these jobs as lesser is beacuse of their pay.

Haha. Crawling through sewers sure sounds like a great job to me!

So your saying that without a capitalistic soceity their will be nothing to tell people to quit there dreams and settle with the meanial.

Here you say that in Communist Wonderland people are not satisfied with menial jobs, and...

Im sry to dissapoint but im sure nothing un-productive would be enforced. remeber there will always be people looking for a job. and im sure they will be happy, as i said before, as long as they can provide for their family.

Here you say that in Communist Wonderland people will be happy with whatever job they have. So which is it? Either way you're wrong.

Maybe beacuse its the only thing we've ever known. think about all we have ever had is a classed society with people accelling and people down in the gutter. Maybe a change would be good. As i said the strive for money and that is the problem. Beacuse in the strive for money people forget about everyone else.

I really wish that you would read this, but I am sure you will not, so I will just go ahead and state this real bluntly. The problem is not the strive for money, because money is merely a tool for placing value on goods and services made by the virtuous who produce them. The true problem is the fools like you that disrupt this system by taking what you have not earned. The only ones forgotten in the strive for money are people like you that fail to recognize what it really is.

Ya im sure all the people in ghettos are blinded by the benifits. they are so happy to be where they are and only getting a 900 dollars a month, getting shot down for a good job beacuse they couldnt afford to go to college. all this could change they could have a decent house, go to school for free, and not be part of a horrible circle of hood life.

To say that a handout from the government is going to fix "hood life" is foolish. In a free capitalist society the opportunities for advancement exist. However, it takes courage and perseverance to seek this path. Anyone that wants to can make it, and this has never been more true than today.

so, although it is possible, you think that a person with an invention will start production, make a store to sell his idea, and grow with need. when just as easily some huge corporation can make a knock-off of it and sell it in their wal-mart and if it comes to a court case probably get it won.

The point is that the patent owner can do whatever they want with their property, whether they sell it to someone else to market, choose to market it themselves, keep it to themselves, or wipe their ass with it. As someone who is studying to become a research physicist, I can tell you that I enjoy science and I enjoy research, but only so long as the product of my mind--my own thoughts--are recognized as mine and I have full authority over them.

Not everyone is gonna be a rockstar. and you'll need to have some type of job. all of this can be sorted out by the people handing out the money. and to my last recolection i dont recall recieving a paycheck for being a rockstar. sounds like you would just have to persuade the common person to spend their money on your album. As i said before there will always be people looking for a job and a job to fit the persons quailfactions.

But the government owns the record label and they have to give everyone a fair shake. So either anyone can be a rockstar by profession or no one can. And after a long day of flipping burgers at McGovernment's I doubt many people will feel like pursuing avant-garde arts.

Yup. tell that to the black guy who couldnt get a job beacuse he is black. he'll just have to stop being black. or the bum who couldnt afford an education. come on god damnit get on your feet you peice of shit.

This is so trite and mostly irrelevant. In a free society anyone can make it if they want to. Generalizations like this are just silly.

I dont know how having a job is a free ride. as long as there is a need for a skyscraper there will be someone to build it, some one to run it, and someone to clean it. People need to still buy stuff from companies and those companies need skyscrapers.

This is a free market principle. In Communism the collective or government decides what is needed and not the market. Get your shit straight.

Yes lets look back at all the good capitalism has brought us. first you see the skyscrapers then you see the ghettos around it. with every person that succedds there are 5 who dont. 5 who get to scrap by flipping burgers providing for their 4 children.

More generalizations. The fact is that these people who you claim do not succeed and live in "ghettos" have a higher standard of living than most of the rest of the world. This is because in capitalism everyone that participates in the market benefits themselves and everyone else participating in the market.

I think you just can't get over the fact that everyone can be provided for in communism. No one has to go hungry. as long as the gears turn money can be made and dinners can be served. too bad for those kids in the ghetto with nothing in their stomachs.

The problem is that in Communism the gears do not turn because all incentive is eliminated and individualism is thwarted. Why should I go to pursue my study of physics if I do not even own my own thoughts? If everything I produce is just stolen from me, then what is the point in producing it at all when I can do something like being a super cool rockstar in my awesome garage band and still make as much money! Yeah!

O and appluase on the creative?

Thanks! I am glad you can appreciate it. Good thing this is a capitalist society, and I am not too tired of my hard eight hour shift of flipping burgers at McGovernment's to make fun of you and your stupid ideas.

At 6/21/07 08:19 PM, Nitroglys wrote: sure you lose the ability to achieve

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean, but it sure does not sound good to me.

but you dont lose choice in your career you just get paid the same as everyone else.

Oh really? Who is going to clean the sewers or work in the landfill? How about flipping burgers at McGovernment's? Are YOU going to be the one to do these by choice? I know when I fill out my application for my weekly government handout that I will be putting down garage band guitarist!

Thats the problem with people they are so worried about getting more money than people they can't just work to work.

Haha. That's not the problem, it's why our species is still alive.

They are just so blinded by the capitalist way of life.

Blinded by the benefits, right?

And whos to say that your personal works of art or inventions aren't taken by the next greedier man who for his own persoanal ambition takes it and sells it.

http://www.copyright.gov/

THAT is whats wrong with the capitalistic soceity. Personal ambition is stepping on the guy below you to make that extra dollar. not helping him up when hes down like in communism. The economic market is the problem. Maybe if we built skyscrapers for the better of humanity we would all be able to stay in one.

Who would waste their time building skyscrapers for the better(ment) of humanity when we could all be garage band ROCKSTARS, leaving your house once a week to walk down to the welfare office? You only live so long afterall, and if everyone's time is worth the same amount of money no matter what they are doing then hell why not?

Maybe there would be no one in front of the skyscraper begging for money. maybe if someone got hurt while building the skyscraper they wouldn't have to worry about some huge hospital bill.

Yep. Life sucks when you suck. All the more incentive to stop sucking.

Maybe the janitor that works in the skyscraper would be able to provide for his family just as much as the CEO of the company skyscraper.

If that were true then the skyscraper would never have existed in the first place and the janitor would have no job at all. Then again, I guess this is what you pinkos really want afterall: a free ride and someone else to foot the bill.

Its these selfless qualites that make communism so great. maybe thats why i would be so quick for a change from homelessness, a change from giant companies controlling everything we buy and stepping on the little guy, a change for the better.

You are really fortunate that most of the world is full of people like me that care too much to let you fools actually try this. I could just see this silly idealism flowing out of you with every tear after your entire family starves to death and all the shitty music you enjoy is just telling you to kill yourself anyway. It may not happen in a year, or five, or ten. Hell, your little dream society might actually last a few decades. But you can only live on borrowed wealth for so long, and after you have cashed the last check that all the greedy fortune-seeking CEOs wrote for you before they went extinct you might finally understand the evil that you so passionately support.

At 6/21/07 06:52 PM, Tal-con wrote: Because it costs thousands to build even a simple bridge, and leaving the people to pay for it would fuck over poor towns.

One of the revolutionary things about America back in the 18th century was the freedom to live wherever you wanted. I do not believe for a second that this has changed. If the bridge, or anything else for that matter, is really necessary or has some other incentive to it, rather than the government "making jobs" (you are actually destroying jobs) then the private sector will build it, find another way to cope, or people will use their three century old freedom to move somewhere where they can provide for their needs.

At 6/21/07 03:05 PM, JoS wrote: I would argue its mroe productive then wlefare. Welfare you give someone the money and recieve essentially ntohing in return. Create public works projects and you get a new rec center, university or bridge. Not only does this create jobs now in building it, but gives vital services to the public and creates future jobs.

That's just pork. Why spend my money so you can have a bridge in your town? I may never even see that bridge, but yet I still have to pay for it. Why not just tax people less, and if there is a real demand for the bridge, or the service is truly "vital," then let the people who will be using it or desire to profit off of it pay for it themselves.

At 6/21/07 12:32 PM, Nitroglys wrote: i want you to look at marx's theories i posted before. no where does he ever mention fascism. The theory of communism and what has happend in a communist state before are completly different.

I really do not need a lesson, not from Marx and especially not from you. Nothing I have mentioned is related to anything but the economic system of Communism. Without a sense of property, you, as an individual, cease to exist. Your basic freedom to choosing who to engage in business relations with and who to build economic partnerships with is lost. Do you understand what this means? Even your own thoughts do not belong to you. If you invent something, it is not yours. It you create art, it is not yours. Your ambition and your goals are not yours. You are no longer an individual. And keep in mind, man did not leave their caves and erect skyscrapers so that the community would be bettered. Man does things for his own glory, and hispersonal ambition serves the common good. Through trading value for value mutual prosperity is achieved. These are the principles that make the economic market so powerful, so what makes you so afraid that you would want to destroy this?

At 6/21/07 01:42 PM, Elfer wrote: Does nobody understand that communism is an economic policy rather than a social one?

All of those things were meant in a purely economic and business sense. It seemed kind of obvious, actually.

At 6/21/07 02:08 AM, Nitroglys wrote: fascism is merely a tool for strugling communist countries. the topic is about true communism. and in true communism everyone is working for the better of the country so all freedoms are granted.

Like hell. All of the freedoms I mentioned before, the very ones that make you an individual, are forfeited for the good of the collective.

You are all fools. What about sacrificing the things that make you individuals--ambition, goals, property, both intellectual and physical, and most of all your freedom to engage in relationships and partnerships voluntarily, in other words, your free will--turns you all on so much? Are you really that weak or insecure that you fear freedom?

At 6/20/07 04:19 PM, ReiperX wrote: Allow you to choose if you want to pay federal taxes or not. But if you don't you cannot:

This is not a question of whether or not we should be taxed, but rather how we should be taxed.

At 7/5/06 02:01 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Don't you get it? If you don't pay income tax you'll just have to pay more of other taxes to compensate. Whatever you do, you're still obligated to contribute the same amount of money to society. Don't give me that "I worked hard for my money" bullshit because you pay sales tax using money you "worked hard" for and you pay property tax with the money you "worked hard for". In fact you pay every tax with income money dont you?

In 2006 the federal budget was $2.7 trillion. Federal income tax accounted for approximately one-third of the total federal revenue. So, assume that the federal income tax was abolished and Congress did not budget for it. The budget would then be $1.8 trillion. Guess what. The 2000 federal budget was less than that. You think we cannot cut out enough unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unfair federal programs and fire enough beaurecrats to bring our spending levels down to where they were just seven years ago after having a Democrat in the White House?

In any case, everyone works or has worked hard for their money so get off your fucking crucifix.

You're kidding, right? Take a look at the entitlement system that steals thousands of your hard earned dollars and just gives it to someone else.

And don't you make this a fucking class war arguement, I'm not the rich elitus and you aren't the poor masses, ok. Theres not gonna be some glorious proletarian revolution over income tax.

There does not need to be if we can start holding our government accountable for the way it spends its money. That means voting out these corrupt charlatans that have been bought by interests groups or evil collectivists that proclaim that you should sacrifice your individualism in the interest of "community."

At 6/19/07 07:53 PM, Philly-Almighty wrote: i want ron paul to win

Ditto.

At 6/19/07 06:59 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Excuse me? People in the military get promotions do to how GOOD OF A SOLDIER THEY ARE. That's a basic fact. They do not get promotions because a higher up decides that they're views of supply side economics are riveting. Plumbers get promoted for being good plumbers, lawyers get promoted for being good lawyers, and soldiers get promoted for being good soldiers.

Did you forget that the military is a government organization? The military does not operate on market principles. Take it from someone who was in. It works like any other government job. Once you are in (and they will take just about anybody) stay out of any major trouble and you will get promoted, and your pay will increase, based on certain timetables. Glowing evaluations from commanding officers will only help get you through the few bottlenecks that exist, but even then it is simply a numbers game.

Allow taxpayers to take the per student funding that the government gives to public schools to any school of their choice and open up education to the same competition found in a free market and maybe we can get some decent schools to interest students. Otherwise, I guess you can just suffer your way through another six years of lunch time Pokemon tournaments and peer editing the worst drivel you can imagine. Like papers that start with "Ask 100 people and they'll all say..."

At 6/19/07 06:34 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: People in the Military are promoted due to their skill and valor IN COMBAT, not do to their political savvy.

You have no idea.

At 6/16/07 01:52 PM, Tal-con wrote: You see, for this insult to work, there would have to be some sort of indication that I was insane.

That's like saying "Pot. Kettle. Black." when you condemn Hitler. Completely out of context, because there are no similarities between the two.

You're right. I am glad you now understand how retarded it was to call Ron Paul a lunatic.

Any interference with the market is bad for everyone.

At 6/14/07 10:29 PM, Tal-con wrote: Ron Paul is a fucking lunatic.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Ron Paul is the embodiment of every value and ideal America strived for back in 1776 but failed miserably to achieve. I will be a Ron Paul supporter for the rest of my life, because he has given me something that is so hard to come by in this country of ever-expanding government power and regulation that goes unchecked as it meddles in private affairs with excessive taxation, entangling wars, and an unbridled entitlement system. He has given me hope for tomorrow through a vision of America that is finally free, an image that would make even our founding fathers proud.

At 9/20/06 05:53 PM, RedSkunk wrote: It is this contradiction.

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Fail.

The United States would settle for nothing less than an unconditional surrender, had to act quickly to keep the menacing Soviet Union out of the conflict, and had intelligence that the Japenese were close to their own atomic weapon.