Phi for All

I believe many alleged communists were tried and convicted under the Smith Act during the McCarthy era, but I remember reading where many of the convictions were overturned as well, due to unconstitutionality. I think it's the "forcible" part that makes this legitimately illegal. We have provisions which would allow the electorate to replace government officials and even the whole government, but through voting on legislation designed to do so, not by force outside the law. It's one thing (and possibly a good thing) to be known as someone who wants to change what is wrong with the system by using what is right about it. I would love to see sugar tariffs and subsidies (and any elected official who supports them) removed, as a step towards less influence from lobbies and big business, but only by changing the laws and the lawmakers. "Overthrowing" is completely different and should be, since it bypasses the electoral process and therefore the will of the people, even if all the people agreed that it was needed. An idiot with an enormous following, which makes him a dangerous idiot.

The Smith Act includes the phrase "advocates the desirability" of forcibly overthrowing the government. Aren't "hope" and "desirability" synonymous in this context? Emphasis mine. I fully support the right of anyone who wants to change the system by using the system, but Rush seems to hope the military will take matters into their own hands.

Technically, the Smith Act prohibits even talking about *forcibly* overthrowing the government. Since he's a national radio celebrity, his mention of it also seems to automatically indict all of Rush's listeners who agree with him. How ironic that Rush could be done in by the same law McCarthy used to demonize leftists in the 50s!

Can you propose an event that incorporates most, if not all, of the clubs you've listed? A play using all the other elements (written by the creative writing club, sets painted by the painting club, music/rock concert by the music club, etc) might showcase how different cultural elements can come together to enhance each other.

SWEET! I guess I forgot that your people had completely eliminated greed and won't mind the pure profits we'll make from selling your free surplus. I hope you don't eliminate ambition, innovation, motivation and creativity in the process. Greed can produce some great results, and actually spur people past complacent acceptance of the status quo. My point is that, when questioned about your statement that thousands of people die each day in capitalist countries, you brought up links for hunger, which may proceed starvation but does not equal starvation. And even your last link shows me that around 20,000 worldwide will die from hunger today. While I deplore that it happens, what you call it is important, and your link is wrong, no one dies from just hunger. These poor people died from severe malnutrition and starvation, and while these are extreme cases of hunger, they can't be lumped together with your other statistics for hunger. That would be like saying all poor people go bankrupt. It's just not true. True communism IS possible, and I do take it into consideration. It's just not very probable, and you have to overcome much of the human nature that has gotten us this far. Again, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just some of the things you were claiming about capitalism and communism were wrong. That's the problem with catchy little sound bytes like, "Capitalism kills". The shorter they are, the more they tend to generalize.

Maybe having one fourth of the world's population with most of it in the peasant class had something to do with it. That might be tough to find out, but China is not communist even though they claim to be. Their participation in capitalism is enormous.

Foolish men, smart men and average men rarely get the chance to say anything on national television. Foolish celebrities get them all too often.

"Provide its surplus" how? Would you *give* it to us, the way you did with your own population, or would you sell/trade it to us (gasp! capitalism!)? And either way, how are your people going to feel when we get your surplus and sell it to someone else for a profit? So? As you yourself mentioned, we have social programs that keep our members who can't pay from starving. In the US, we have charitable capitalism. It makes us look good to help the needy, looking good is good for business, and free trade business works. This capitalism thing seems to take care of a number of problems that other economic models can't. So it's all conjecture. It *may* work, it *might* be better than capitalism, *there is a possibility* we'd be happier. That's what I wanted to hear, not these generalized statements phrased as fact that can easily be proven false. That link is for *hunger*, not starvation. There is a difference between undernourished and dying of malnutrition. See above. Again, hunger != starvation. We talked about India before. They have only recently embraced a free market economy, and starvation deaths are improving. India is actually a good example of why capitalism helps distribute resources better than most other types of economy.

Something more than offend the great Rush Limbaugh, you mean? Someone needs to remind Rush that all ideas are liberal until they become conservative.

Did you have an idea of a specific object you want to make invisible? That would help guide practical suggestions quite a bit.

Why dumber? Because you wasted your time reading it? Because you had the same ideas as the OP? Because some of the words were too long for you? (ha-ha).

This will help you if you take some courses that sound interesting to you. It will either show you a new path or shed more light on an old one. A statement with a question mark may mean you're not so sure about quitting science. It's not mystical. Not giving up guarantees that you will know for sure whether your plan was a good one or not. It doesn't, however, guarantee a specific result. Perhaps what you really want to do is not something you have to do for a living. Maybe you could earn a living doing something you *like*, and do what you *love* in your spare time. Perhaps you aren't connecting with the teachers. I had to drop a calculus class once because the teacher just didn't click with me. I took the same class the next semester with a different teacher and got a B. There are private business enterprises that need science-minded types. That's the chocolate talking. Give yourself some credit, you were smart enough to come up with your original plan, you were smart enough to question what you want to do with your life, and you're smart enough to figure this out. Engineering shouldn't definitely be off the list, and none of your learning was wasted if it helps you decide what you want and don't want to do. Environmental engineering is hot these day, and may take advantage of some of your bio studies as well. I wouldn't stick with *exactly* what you're doing without changing some of the things that are making you unhappy. That would be crazy. You'll figure this out, I'm confident you will.

I definitely support Rush's right to talk this way. He's an ass but he has the right idea, just the wrong target. If anyone needs overthrowing, it's Congress. But we shouldn't need the military to do it, we need to ignite the passions already present in the voting public, and call for some real change in the way our tax dollars are spent to skew the free market for big business. IMO.

The forum policy for starting new sub-forums is to wait until enough threads are posted discussing a subject to show a valid interest. Since we don't allow pseudoscientific stances to go unchallenged anywhere in the whole forum, shouldn't we drop it altogether from the title of this sub-forum to discourage its use? I think Speculations is enough. Simple and elegant may encourage the same.

I guess it can never decrease fast enough if even one person dies from insufficiencies in an abundant world. Famine is an extreme insufficiency of food and can be caused by many things. Communism and socialism aren't immune to drought and diseases. For this latest all-inclusive statement to hold true, you need to show why capitalism is not making food available to its members when there is abundance. And remember, a communist state is not going to include non-communist states in its food distribution, so don't set a double standard with regard to capitalism. Remember please, there is a difference between starvation, famine and hunger. You were unable to show us any capitalist countries that have a significant level of starvation, much less claim it now as "fact". Please show me where any communist or socialist country has never experienced famine.

I think the Pseudoscience part should be dropped altogether. We really don't discuss actual pseudoscience here much, unless the thread is opened in the context of, "Look at this piece of rubbish someone wants to put forth as actual science!" We point out fallacies and bad logic all the time, especially the kind pseudoscience requires in order to bridge the gaps it can't cross with rigor and scientific method. We don't care much for discussions that purposely ignore a lack of rigor, so why have a sub-forum partly dedicated to it? Speculations are a great way for people to discuss ideas that are being formulated, and a great way to participate in a mild peer review that helps hone one's critical thinking as well. Dropping the pejorative term "pseudoscience" altogether keeps the integrity of the site, discourages topics we are tired of hearing about and hopefully will quell the objections that typically arise when threads are moved there.

Might take forever. I've worked with companies with component facilities in India and have made some good friends there. They will all tell you (the younger ones, at least) that their country is a lot more prosperous under a free market capitalist economy. Famine still exists, but the evidence that their new approach is reducing starvation deaths is abundant.

I think it crams as many ideologies as possible into two small boxes which force us to justify the poor fit, and makes it cheaper for corporations to support the winner. You are more charitable than I, sir. But if no one corrects her, isn't that as good as intentional? Would she have corrected herself on her own if no one caught it? That's the problem with right-wing pundit rapid-rabid-speak where everyone is like-minded; the audience is riddled with misinformation and has no time to digest while the enemy reloads.

Well, in her defense, we *didn't* have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term if we choose not to face up to it and call it what it was. Not facing up to terrorist attacks means they can all be treated either equally, or with more or less importance depending on how it suits our purpose. Since 9/11 and Ft Hood could equally be called or not called terrorist attacks, this proves that Republicans and Democrats are equally corrupt, at least with regards to whether or not FOX is a news organization. I think Perino and Hannity were counting on their rapid-rabid-speak to engage the Dopeler Effect.

That's called changing the goalposts. You claimed people were dying of starvation *by the hundreds if not thousand* *daily* *in the US*. Those are *world* hunger statistics. Scary. I rarely agree with the OT. You, I tend to side with a lot, though.

Not an equal share, I agree. I'd support what I call a minimum subsistence standard for the US. Provide basic shelter, food, clothing and healthcare for whoever needs it. Nothing fancy, it's meant as a fallback, not a lifestyle (but if that's the way you want to live all the time, you won't be denied). Any society of humans should take care of it's citizens on the most basic of levels, imo, because we're all worth it. People shouldn't have to be homeless or hungry in a country as prosperous as the US. But I can also see why an equal division of resources will never work. There will always be people who don't want to do their fair share for their fair share, so we should set a minimum standard and support it. But I think humans need incentives to exceed what is expected of them, rewards for going above and beyond.

But I thought you said you weren't qualified to judge what is equal and what is fair. Oh, well, I didn't know you had the last PS3 system in the world. Maybe we could share it like Betty and Johnny might share the last job in the world. The poor, the travelers, the needy, the orphans, the widows. Basically, those indigents who may need help to get over hard times. But not the lazy and slothful who want a fair share without doing anything to earn it. Romans 12:11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; Hebrews 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Proverbs 12:27 The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting: but the substance of a diligent man is precious. Proverbs 18:9 He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster. Proverbs 10:4 He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. Proverbs 20:4 The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing. Proverbs 19:15 Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger. Proverbs 13:4 The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. Proverbs 21:25 The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour. Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Proverbs 6:9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?

Bible say reap what's sown, not reap what's sown, keep some, give rest to sloths. [/Tarzan] In yet other words, according to Christianity, we're supposed to enjoy the fruits of our labor, not work hard so people who don't want to work can have some fruit. Christianity praises charitable acts, but not those that reward the lazy on an equal footing with the hard-working. Sorry if I used a confusing combination of words. I must need a new slab on my mantelpiece.

Read it again. You assumed wrong.

Oooh, I hope they don't. I rather like it, and if you are responding to two or more different people, use the muli-quote button next to the quote button. Click on the buttons in the order you're addressing them, as many as you want, and then hit reply at the end. Then it looks like this: Exactly. He was cranky because he thought he was being ridiculed, and when he found out it wasn't true, he took a swing at vB. The +5 Compression Hammer vs Post Whores, to RPG fans. And it's combating, with one t, no mater how sily it loks.