Giancarlo said:
You do get a choice. There are third parties. These third parties don't have enough popularity to get any seats. But there are plenty. There is proportional representation. Capitalism is the system of the free, and if you dispute then to hell with you. You are just not thinking and not thinking properly. You need to understand the true facts: America is one of the best functioning capitalist democracies in the world. It functions very fluidly and nicely.
There are third parties... third parties who aren't in the vote; you vote Republican or Democrat - the existance of the other Parties is superfluous. Many things function - that doesn't make them right.
Giancarlo said:
They wouldn't get much that would allow for representation in the house or senate because they would not be able to defeat the two big parties.
Touchet; they wouldn't. But Democracy should allow everybody to try and be represented; just because they may never get even a person to represent them doesn't mean they should be left out of the vote - it is always possible. Is Democracy not about having the chance to be able to be represented whatever your opinions are; whether they're against the administration or not; whether they're against majority beliefs or not.
Giancarlo said:
In the United States, party members often criticize the leader, and the party.. and they stay. John McCain for one is one of these people.
If they critise their own party; are they not hypocrites if they don't leave?
Giancarlo said:
No it isn't a coalition government. Again spoken from somebody who quite frankly does not have the slightest clue about anything. You aren't thinking. I think you should stop typing and actually think about you are typing. You just don't understand the facts. Democrat based values are center-left, Republican based values on the center-right. There is no coalition government in this country.
Haha.... your Democrats are as far right as our conservatives - and as we and Europe Invented the Political Spectrum its based on how it was always based, not based on the American System to make it look like it has two directions. They're a dozen parties squashed into two because if you could have all the parties people want; then the two parties would split up into Parties.
Giancarlo said:
This is spoken by a true idiot. I'm sorry but you just quite frankly know nothing about the facts. I like to be free and pay society back for what I get. A house can't be free. The private sector is far better then the public sector. You just don't understand the facts or how things function. Your mere suggestions that the public sector can make a profit is none less then idiotic. I'm tired of debating with you. You can't back yourself up, you never have and you never will. You aren't educated in this topic and I'm just about tired of it. Your theories just don't hold up to practicality, or applicability.
You pay society back by working - can you not understand paying in effort rather than money? How are you not free? You have yet to point this out. And I have already told you have a house can be free - are you saying companies cannot give Company Houses? They don't hold up to Economics; nor indeed am I educated in Economics. We all however know the Economics of Scale - are they or are they not about bigger things being less costly, more efficient, and making more profit. As far as most of this goes - you're backing up nothing you are saying, unless backing something up is based on saying I know nothing
For instance; saying the Private Sector is better than the Public Sector - you have yet to back that up?
Giancarlo said:
Yes many private companies cover health insurance that allow for free health care. But somebody must pay for it. You can't just give things out for free. The government is incredibly inefficient. I would not put it in charge of my health.
You're putting the problems, corruption and inefficiencies of your government into place in a government I have only told you a minor bit about. Are you saying no government can ever be efficient? Companies can be use and efficient; you have already commented on your respect of Microsoft - Microsoft is a huge business, as large as a few governments in the World - its efficient and works well. A Government that Works like a Company could just as easily have that efficiency, could it not? Microsoft, as a good explaination, gives Free Health Insurance to 50,000 People, and Company Houses to a good few too. Scale this up - you get the government I am talking about and hence it can work. Of course somebody pays for it - the Government pays for it just as a Company would.
Giancarlo said:
A free transport system is not logical. It has to be funded by either subsidies or taxing people to use its services. Either way the people have to pay for public transportation, so it isn't free.
Of course; but its free like a Company Car - you don't pay for it in that sense so its thought of as Free. I'm not saying nobody pays for these things - I'm saying the people don't.
Giancarlo said:
Taxes aren't required in a system like that? You don't have a single clue about what you are talking about. You need to understand the facts. I mean what kind of idiot are you? The government needs taxes to operate. There is just no other way around it. You are speaking illogically and I will not continue to debate with someone of such ignorance. Furthermore you should speak nothing of economics as you know nothing about it!
You're forgetting, the government is the company. The company is the government. Taxes aren't required because that is represented through the profit they make selling the products you make to you and the people, and International Trade. Just like a company makes profit - the government makes taxes. The best example again being Microsoft - they pay 50,000 people extremely good wages, they pay for innumerable things which don't make money - they give Free Health Care and Company Cars and Company Houses - they still make 8 to 9 Billion a Quarter.
Giancarlo said:
That's just plain bad debate Giancarlo
Giancarlo said:
Talk about idiotic inefficency. This was tried under the Soviet Union and it did not work. You cannot have collectivization. This is just ridiculous and you are getting more ridiculous in every post you make. You just can't seem to grasp the basics of efficency...
Its a company; plain and simple - the Soviet Systems didn't work because of dreadful corruption, because of unpleasant leaders, and dreadful War - including an Arms Race with America that was not particularly wise. If a company does it; and you say its the best way to do it - what is different from a large company owning land, to a company the size of a government owning a country?
Giancarlo said:
Capitalism is the most free form of economic and political belief. It very much ahs to do with freedom you idiot. Social freedom, economic freedom and personal freedom. I'm just tired of debating with you when you totally f--king refuse to accept anything other then your own illogical set of ideas that just can't work. Capitalism complements freedom and builds it up. Anything else destroys it. I've backed myself up very well.
You still haven't said anything about Economic Freedoms; where are they in the Geneva Convention? What are they the Freedom to do? Or are they just the laying down of why Capitalism must be kept?
Answers to those would be helpful if you're going to actually back yourself up to anybody here who has read this far.
