Sunday's Election

[alvino]

Wow...pretty fierce debate goin' on here...

 

[David Lindon]

Any votes for locking it?

 

[The_Necromancer1]

Lol, here here, that would be 2 yeahs, ) nahs, lol, lock this bad johnny, i could not stand to read another HUGE POST? lol
my eyes my eye< ((((((((((

 

[Giancarlo]

Yes I think it should be locked. I'm getting more and more mad with LK because of his stubborn qualities.

 

[The_Necromancer1]

LOl, well it hard to argue w/ a pop sci major, lol.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Fuck... I have to go through this again... what is the matter with you LK?

This isn't a coalition because it doesn't incorporate different parties into one coalition. The National Alliance in Italy is the example of a coalition. You can continue being stupid as you don't know much about American or European politics for that matter. The republican party is one party, the National Alliance is many parties. Independents depending on the state make a serious amount of the votes. Jesse Ventura for example is an independent, and was elected governor (if I remember right, Ventura is a professional wrestler).

The republican party is one party in theory - but in practice where at least two, maybe three parties stand in any normal democracy - the republicans stand in America. The same with the Democrats

Oh my god, what a moron. You can still fake elections? No shit. I never said you couldn't. But there are standards that the United States must meet. This is a real democracy, and you should shut your mouth for the last time. Republic representation which you try to debunk shows your insanity. It is a better system then the popular vote based system which neglects representation to individual states. This is the United States and here they even invite monitors from international organizations to view elections. That's just a sneaky way for the republicans to get more votes? Actually no that's not true. People claim the republicans hardly get any cities, but this is not the case. They get the same amount of cities as democrats. And the republicans got 61 million votes in the last election. This was in the popular vote. So even in the popular vote they still would of won the election. You need more studying because you don't know the basics.

61 Million is barely over the 30% mark of US Adult Population; considering I've done it in my head its probably a little under as its based on there being 200 Million Voting Adults - which there probably aren't. Its certainly closer than the republic based elections isn't it?

I'm not an american, you ass. I have mentioned this several times and I have made it quite clear. I might be a citizen, but I was born very much so in Europe and have studied politics there in great depth. And there are more liberal people in the democrats... Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton (one who fought for socialized healthcare),

You have said you were proud to be American? Maybe just proud to live in America... Lol - of course? That's what I said wasn't it? Was that you proving me right; or trying to look as if you proved me wrong?

Don't argue with me. You are an economic illiterate. Period. That is a pure fact. A command economy is one of the most evil systems out there and will imprision its people (as shown with North Korea and the Soviet Union). You just don't understand the facts and you never will. Secure private property rights? Why are you backing me up? Why do that to your own argment? You should go to some communist website for your own argument. I told you what economic freedom is, you horrific dumbass. Personal economic freedom is directly tied to social freedoms. This is an undeniable facts. The Soviet Union did not grow faster then any economy in the world (in the 1950s-1960, the United States grew way faster then any economy in the world, brought along by technological advancements).

Secure Private Property Rights? That was in the Italised Quote from the Site I pointed out - it was an extract from the end and it was a requisite form as it were of Economic Freedom. Imprisoning people is nothing to do with Economy - that's a Political thing. If I went to a communist site I'd just get people saying everybody is equal and my ideas are evil - except that they would not be as intelligent as you, and there would be more than one of them. I don't have the time for this - let alone fighting a Communist Forum - presuming they don't ban me for even bringing Meritocracy up. No, you haven't You've given me examples when you don't have it from Politically extreme countries; and told me what it required - you have not to me what it is. Any other country before that then; but in the 1930s a Russia in the Middle Ages, slightly grown from the early Communism grew for only 10 years under Stalin into the second most powerful country in the World. America's Economy may have grown more in the 1950s and 60s but by percentage; when you consider what the Soviet Union was before, and what it was after - its got to be the biggest percentage growth, in the thousands of percent on everything. To go from powerful to more powerful is not as good as to go from practically useless Middle Age Russia to a country America feared, if only by a little. That is amazing and a true achievement of Command Economy.

Still; no comment on why Economic Freedom gives people Freedom? Only more attacking of previous Command Economies. Maybe you don't actually know? From a search of the Internet - nobody seems to comment at all on why Economic Freedom gives people Freedom.

One should seriously question the validity of your beliefs and the intelligence you possess, which is obviously lacking in your regard.

Again, above. Does nobody have an answer to the question? It would be nice to know because even resorting to Google's Search, which apparently finds anything, I cannot find what Economic Freedom is.

Not at all. The American government is not huge. The Russian government isn't as huge as it once was. You want to see a huge government? What about the DPRK for a change?

Lol; I was trying to find an efficient huge Government. But the lack of one just makes the challenge more interesting.

This is more moronism. The government cannot be based on being a company. That's logistically impossible. The government has to be minimal and transaparent. A government cannot hire and fire people quickly (again get in your brain)...

I just said how it does - the Government Section fires the person; and that person has to go and find another job, if the person cannot he either lives on no wages; or goes to a nice non-challenging Primary Industry Job. Your government has to be minimal and transparent; while not even telling me what transparent in a government is - you don't even back up your point of why a government has to be. I say a government can; because if a company can be, a government can.
Its actually very simple; while still a logistical nightmare isn't everything worth while. Say a company owns a few million square miles of land - companies own land all the time, this is a natural progression of that. The company needs workers, so the lets theorise 2 Billion people live on the land the company owns. So the company builds houses, uses houses already there, and employs everybody - giving the afforementioned benifits, just as a country would, and putting into place more administrative divisions that a company wouldn't have that a Company does; including Jurisdiction, a Military, Public Services and Works, Votes and Political Institutions. The company sells to its employees, and carries out International Services like so many huge companies recently to gain oversees profit. All profit made by the company goes into growth and the employees; like bonuses as many companies do, but government-like bonuses to the people in the form of Public Works and superior services.

It doesn't work that way in the real world.

No; because we live in your Capitalist Paradise. I didn't say it works like that - I said it could and should.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Your government is perfectly represented in the book 1984, it shows quite clearly what you want. The fucking government operating every single aspect of our lives. And just as we want economic freedom, the ability to invest without government interference, you want it to get involved. Your ideas are illogical, stupid and would degenerate to dictatorship and mass murder. You again don't understand what you are talking about. Your dictatorial government would lead to a 1% elitist based society. You know what? I was wrong comparing you to the Soviets. Your ideas are more comparable to Tsarist Russia. The government operated everything and was deeply involved in every aspect of the people. I have some strange obsession with gaining wealth through cheating and corruption? You're an idiot. When did I ever say that? You are the one who is stupidly corrupt. I propose a system that reduces corruption, in fact it is widely used in the developed world today... the free market!

The government owns all land, and buildings - it operates in no way everybody's lives. Everything not buildings or land or property of the government like Electrical Services, Internet Services, and so on; is property of whoever brought it, whoever owns it, or whoever it was given to. What is so good about investment? You can easily put your money into a bank, and gain interest like any capitalist bank; you can buy something you think will gain value; you can rent a better house; you can put money into the government like shares - what else would you invest in? Bonds?

Degeneration like that couldn't be marked out - but it can't be marked out in any system in the World. If Bush wanted to; he could sieze control of the Country and with enough Military support he could crush any attempt to stop him. Its the same in any country. That's what votes are for - the people vote for who they think will run the system the best, that involves trust in Capitalism just as it does in Centralism. The difference being the government is so multitiered that indeed if it were got working it would be practically impossible, certainly as possible as in any Capitalist Country for anybody to gain control of the entire government let alone the Military - as different leaders control different things; there being twelve leaders voted in at different times from all the parties; no two being voted in at the same time. I didn't say Meritocracy wan't elitist; but in no way a 1% elitist based society. Everybody needs the people who work below them; everybody starts at the bottom. You're not going to be elitist grown up in Centralism; and even if you are you don't get born into the higher paid jobs and the 'elite' as in Capitalism - you have to get into the higher paid jobs starting from the bottom.

Corruption is all around us in Centralism; when children of rich company executives are given high paid jobs from birth, when people lie and cheat there way to the top, when people with more money buy their education, when people have to go into another job because Science doesn't pay enough, when executive's friends are given jobs over better qualified people... the Free Market does not reduce corruption - it gives people with no intelligence whatsoever the chance to cheat their way into money. Drug Barons; something only in Capitalism. Bonuses given from company to executives on order of executives; something only in Capitalism. Companies falsifying growth; only possible in Capitalism. Assasins; it works best in Capitalism... and the list goes on. Where is the lack of corruption there? Centralism pushes all these things away - because too many people, and even more watching those people, are in on the game to allow any kind of corruption. The people making the decisions for bonuses, salaries and promotions (not all one lot of people) are external to the sections actually doing the work and getting the salaries, bonuses and promotions. Drug Barons would have to sell to the government to make any kind of money - as international trade is not carried out by anybody but the government and short of making it in the country, which is impossible without at least somebody noticing they couldn't bring it in.

You propose nothing; you support a system. And corruption is greater in America than in any other Capitalist Country anyway - so its not really a shining beacon.

Your stupid is horrific. And your rhetoric is just downright nasty. You try to explain yourself but you end up in a bigger hole of stupidity. I just can't stand this. Your ideas just can't fucking work. They haven't worked. Stalin had the economy better then it ever had been? Yep, at the cost of 20 million people. So tell me, little kid how many millions would have to die for your beliefs in gulags? You know the problem with your beliefs... is you are immature and this influences your beliefs... you are just downright immature and you don't understand the facts. It seems like you haven't even had any classes in these subjects as you don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking about. The Soviet Government was corrupt since its beginning in the 1910s, when Lenin rose to power. It wasn't anything new. The government was not capitalist, you skanky fool. It controlled everything. If anything Lenin was the one who allowed some economic freedom in the early 20s (he actually allowed private landsales I believe). I will use it as an example of centralist government because that is what it is was, you illiterate.

Basically yes; that was the Stalin bit of him - he was a crazy bugger. Stalinist economic theories were not the cause of the deaths - his Political theories were. And while yes without the death it would take longer - not a great deal I seriously doubt. Gulags is a term used by Russians for them; if I were to even consider having them, I'd call them Fun Camps, or Happy Camps, to make them sound good. None of my plans however involve Labour Camps thus far. The government was Capitalist I was talking about in the 1970s-1980s; not Lenin's government which was probably the best of the entire lot although it would not have withstood a Nazi attack. '1970s-1980s Soviet Union has a government so dreadfully corrupted they would almost feel at home in the White House instead of the Kremlin - you can't possibly expect to use that as a example of Centralist Government - the government was capitalist!' Is what I said. Most of the government liked to take stroles to Finland to get Capitalist stuff from the boarder - that is why I deemed them Capitalist - they used their countries resources to buy products to make themselves feel better. Corruption... not a good sign.

I didn't say Lenin's New Economic Policy wasn't a Centralist Government, nor did I say before or after that wasn't. I commented on the political ideals of the leaders of the Soviet Union after Khruschev and before Gorbachov - all of whom were useless and I can't even remmember their names.

Taxes are the only way for a government to collect revenues. That's a pure fact. The government collects revenue from companies. That's how it is done. So please spare me this crap. That profit, in my government, is the tax? Your sick in the head. How could you possibly propose that?

I propose that because that is how companies work. I have pointed out the transfer from a company to a company government in this post in quite a lot of detail - a government's profit is tax, profit made from the poeple is protects. A Company which takes the role of a government therefore, selling things like a company to the people, would make profit and not need tax, because the tax is on the products in theory, like how all companies make money.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

The fact is your system is no less different. It won't work because of human nature in wanting to be free, and not in chains. You are the one proposing a varied form of communism (something like what Trotsky wanted). You just can't seem to grasp the basic concepts in this debate and you know what? If you don't begin understanding the facts I won't argue with you. Capitalism is where people are allowed to advance at their own will. There isn't anything hold them down besides laziness. That's all. In your system you are brutalized and forced to work in some lousy business you are overqualified for. Capitalism does award people for being the best, you are a moron for saying otherwise.

You are free; there are no chains beyond the chains to which we have in a Capitalist Country. Of course; in Centralism this happens too, you advance as you want, and stay at the bottom if you wish. Brutalised is a theory you have made up from the fact I said its a Command Economy and you automatically think that. For you to know the system brutalises people into working you'd have to know the sanctions for not working - which I have no told you but are basically that you do not get paid, you do not have health insurance, you cannot travel on transport although you can drive if you have a car and money to fill it up, not park; and you cannot live in a house unless you can pay to live in it. You are allowed to not work; if you're not in full time education or over 60, 65 you don't however get the benifits of working for the government - just like in a Company? They're as qualified as they become during eductaion - anybody over-qualified for a position is quickly promoted by the system which is based on ability and work, not on whether the boss wants to promote you.

Capitalism can award you for being the best; capitalism also awards people who are not the best for their parentage, being in the right place at time so basically luck, and for cheating, corruption, stealing and often killing will allow a person to be rewarded in Capitalism.

That is what you are proposing, you dumbass. I just can't stand this anymore. What makes it so fucking difficult for you to understand common logic? I'm starting to lose my temper because you say the same old god damn thing over and over again. I don't know what is so difficult for you to grasp simple concepts.

I am proposing nothing of the sort - we've been discussing economics - not policing policy or jurisdiction. If somebody doesn't like the system they leave the country or pay to live in the country. Simple enough really without forcing anything on anybody.

You want me to believe against all common sense or knowledge that Free-Market = Good, Command Economy = Bad; which no information put into the equation, no ideas to make the equation multicoloured - just a simple black and white concept of what is bad and good? You and I both know that nothing is black and white.

Just don't think it can be a success? Well dumbass, guess what? It happened. I don't think you nay sayers can continue going on your rants after January 30th. Thank you very much. I'm sorry little kid, but you need to understand the facts. Additionally, the United States is a democratic republic. I like republics more because they are more interesting and more representative of the people. The House of Representatives is a sign of a democracy. The Iraqi government will build up its military spending $2.2bn USD this year for military expenditures. A good amount.

No, lol, 'I just don't think sucess can be proclaimed when democracy has not been brought into Iraq' is what i said. All of that is good - but they have American and British Soldiers in there keeping the peace; when they keep the peace for a reasonable amount of time; six months, a year, two years, and so on - then it will be a success. Until that happens there can be no proclaimations of nothing unless of course you do actually have Sun Tzu's Time Machine and you were lying when you said I invented it in my head? Then you would know whether it is a success.

You just don't fucking get it do you? You are a terrorist loving shit. I'm tired of this. You want to see how horrible Saddam's government was? You want to? Time and time again... there were atrocities under the Saddam government. People always say Saddam went after Shi'as and Kurds. Totally true. But he also murdered 50,000 sunnis in 1982-1983. He murdered even his own. So please tell me how shitty you are. And I don't have liberal views. I'm a neo-liberal. A lasting government working on its own represents a just and lasting peace, and this is what will happen. Iraq will transform into a democracy.

No; I respect terrorists for standing up for their beliefs against overwealming odds. I do not respect the ways they go about it - or the innocent people they kill. However; there are other organisations in the world like the American Army who kill innocent people for something they don't believe in, in some cases don't even know about - and that is wrong in so many more ways. Lol; I didn't say it didn't - in fact I said just what you said there in the quote you put on your post... I also said I would be happy when this happens - you seem to take me for a disliker of freedom and democracy and that would not be true - I am a disliker of Capitalism.

Haha, you are a crackpot: 'Iraq will transform into a democracy.' are you saying that it isn't? How can you say its been a success and then say its not a democracy?

You need to shut up. I am of dual citizenship. The troops have made sacrifices and will continue to make sacrifices for a unifed, and democratic Iraq. And your notion they killed more of their own is false and idiotic. You should get a punch in the head for that one. You are the one who has showed your gross incompetence in arguing with me. I have crushed you once again. Your brain is a waste.

The American casualties I do not know, but I know there are a lot dead from friendly fire. I do however know that of all the dead on the British side - over half were killed by Americans. I do not say anything against the sacrifices made by any of the coalition troops; I say things against the sacrifices made due to Military Incompetence - those killed by the Americans did not need to die, unless you believe they did?

Your definition of crushed is interesting; as I am still debating and my argument is far from lost. Everytime you say you have beaten me and yet your arguments to each of my quotes are rarely differing from each set of posts to the next. I continue to write more explanations, while you continue to insult.

You sugar-coat everything. And you are just being stupid. That's how I see you right now. You aren't even worth replies anymore. Your views are not justified, and not explained. You haven't gone into great detail how your system would actually work when taking in structural requirements.

I have to admit I have not had the time to even start to plan in theory any kind of government based structural planning, jurisdiction, education, health, and so on - budget and economy of course being the most complicated things. However the simple fact that I have discussed with you a system I have not planned for at least 50 thousand charactors says that I have not merely thrown together a couple of theories while I'm typing to annoy you.

And it is true; and still you don't tell myself or whoever reads this - what Economic Freedom - the only real thing you're debating against me in this theory about - is. Not what it needs, not examples of how it works; a to the point comment of what Economic Freedom gives people the ability to do. This is something I cannot find anywhere on the Internet - and I'm starting to believe nobody knows.


I hate it when its only just over the 20,000 Limit; but you still need to split it into three. Deadful...

LOl, well it hard to argue w/ a pop sci major, lol.

Haha, just more of a challenge

Lol, here here, that would be 2 yeahs, ) nahs, lol, lock this bad johnny, i could not stand to read another HUGE POST? lol
my eyes my eye< ((((((((((

Bah, I suppose... but if you want it reopenned Giancarlo! Go right ahead and ask.