Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-30-2005, 10:46 AM   #31
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
The point was Economists say it works nicely. Economists saying it works nicely does not mean it works. Haha; we've been over the Computer thing... using something created in a system does not mean you agree with that system; you agree with that something.
It works nicely for the people living under the system, at least in the United States and in the developed world. Even Sweden is a capitalist state. I'll bring up the computer thing until you concede total defeat to me in your illogical beliefs. If you use something created in capitalism, and you do not like capitalism, you're a hypocrite.

Quote:
Efficiency is not a requisite of Voting - Voting is not efficient in the first place if you really want efficiency have a Oligarchy or a Dictatorship. Which is half way to what America is. The President is a Dictator who is voted in; one of only two. As in the Simpsons; which is often quick; if Kang and Kodos are both running - what do the people do? Generally the less efficient, the more Democratic the Election - what about the Communists in America? Or more likely, the Nationalists, or Fascists - it's their democratic right to vote for their Party - they can't do that in America.
This is generally a stupid statement to make. Why? Because each of the two parties are very diverse. Or would you rather want a country like 1970s era Italy where the government was very unstable? There has to be a balance struck. You cannot defeat me in this argument and you will not. You never do it. I am right in this regard. The United States is a democratic republic that has strong democratic traditions. In this country, there isn't nationalists or fascists that are strong enough.

Quote:
You can critise you Party in Britain! We do it all the time; the difference being that in Britain you can move your vote - in America, to move your vote you have to vote for somebody completely the opposite generally of who you would have before - its harder in American to change your vote therefore. Politicians in Britain also change their party, and critise their party without changing. Because they can here
You as a people can criticize the party. But party members cannot do it, without being kicked out of the party. I know how the system works. I typed up numerous essays on it. In the United States, in fighting in the party is allowed to happen, and politicans can change their party (Senator Jeffords).

Quote:
60% is a dreadful turnout! I don't know what part of you thinks that 60% is a reasonable turn out but that missing 40% could have easily changed the election - how can George Bush say he has 51% support in his country when that's from a poll of only 60%! Its crazy.
Considering that's 5-10% above what the turn-out is in many other developed nations, I do not think it is a dreadful turn-out. You are speaking foolishly. Additionally, many countries throughout Europe have minority governments. Gee, that's very democratic. Take Sweden I believe, the government only got 20% of the vote! That was the largest portion of the vote and it had to form a coalition government. If we had to use coalition governments we would be in serious trouble.

Quote:
Not really... you can have Freedom without Capitalism. What part of not having Capitalism means you don't have Freedom? You live in your own house for free, like with Capitalism but better, you go to Work, like in Capitalism, you get Free Health care, like in few Capitalist Countries, you get a free transport system, like in few Capitalist Countries indeed if any, you pay no Taxes, money is made for the government through your work and through your custom, no Capitalist Country does that.
This is mostly uneducated blabber.. and it doesn't make much sense either. You can't live in a house for free. You have to pay for the goods you get. Capitalism is the only system that works and you will not dispute that fact. You will not win this debate. Free health care? Lets see where that leads. In Europe for example, the health system is so bad, I often see many reports of Europeans going to the United States for healthcare. We must pay our doctors well, because they take care of us. If we give out free healthcare on a huge scale, we will risk driving down the wages of doctors. This is seen in Sweden. A free transport system? Again, you have to pay for what you get. The $1.25 I pay per ride for the MTA is paying for what I get. Not the best service. In a few countries indeed if any you pay no taxes? That's not possible. The government needs to collect revenue to sustain itself. It can do it in sales tax, income tax or different forms of taxation. Capitalism is the freest form of economic belief.

Quote:
If you want to create a shop; its only a trip to the Local Office, a few forms and if you can you've got the permits to create your own Shop; you get free goods for your shop from a choice of everything the Government makes, you sell it and the set price, you get 10% of that and the rest the government gets. If you don't make money - you're closed down, if you do you're rewarded. You invent things on Government resources at Universities; Colleges; Schools; Labs and in your own home if you work too. If you don't find a job and are not in Education, you are set a job; you can't be Unemployed - there's always something to do.
Okay here is the error in your beliefs. In capitalism, government (the IRS here in the US) collects income tax from the business. What you are stating is what happens in capitalism. If you don't make money, you can't pay for your workers or property and you have to file for bankruptcy and close down. If you do make a lot of sales in capitalism, you get more money. This is done in the private sector every single day. You just don't understand the facts.

Quote:
Where does the lack of Capitalism in that inhibit Freedom?
The lack of economic freedom kills freedom as a whole idea.

I win.

Also the Iraqi election has been an overwhelming success. Now you people who thought I was wrong... it turns out my prediction is totally, utterly true. Now apologize to me and concede defeat.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:36 AM   #32
Daemon Poster
 
The_Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via MSN to The_Necromancer
Default Re: Sunday's Election

No wow, thats a post
__________________

__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:41 AM   #33
Daemon Poster
 
The_Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via MSN to The_Necromancer
Default Re: Sunday's Election

Well, we liberals will never, conseed, the irqi elecion is win for democrocy perhaps, however, it could have been a lot easier if bush would have done a few thing differently, like not disbanding the iraqi army, a general over in Iraq said that things would have been 100% better if we would have kept them.

also, the entire premis for going into iraq was flawed, no wmds, yes, he was crtuel, so you could have cried genocide, however, Sudans darfur region was in a worse condition, how can bush call himself a christian if he sent ~1500 soldiers to there death on a life, and countless iraqi soldiers.
__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:46 AM   #34
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

My criticisms: Disbanding the Iraqi army was probably proper in the end because it would of caused ethnic strife. It was the same military that abused the Iraqi people for years. Again you are going back to the same liberal argument of negativity. The entire premise of going into Iraq was not flawed. It was perfectly logical to think Saddam was pursueing these weapons. We intervened in Darfur by sending in assistance and troops (NATO/UN). So please keep the falsely based criticisms to yourself.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:52 AM   #35
Daemon Poster
 
The_Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via MSN to The_Necromancer
Default Re: Sunday's Election

Nato did nothing so did the African union, they sighned a peace trediy like over x-mas break but the sudaniese, have raided 3 villages, already it is not working, There ethnic clensing is still going n, as for edicare, it will cost 2-3 trillion dallors to privatize the social securaty, It is not in a crizis, but it needs to change, we have 30 years to enighiate suddle changes that WORK. even some republicans dont now it.
__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:54 AM   #36
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Necromancer
Nato did nothing so did the African union, they sighned a peace trediy like over x-mas break but the sudaniese, have raided 3 villages, already it is not working, There ethnic clensing is still going n, as for edicare, it will cost 2-3 trillion dallors to privatize the social securaty, It is not in a crizis, but it needs to change, we have 30 years to enighiate suddle changes that WORK. even some republicans dont now it.
There was a monumental peace accord in Sudan that was mostly pushed by the Bush adminstration. There is still ethnic cleansing going on? Please back that up with articles and facts. It will cost $2-$3 trillion dollars to private social security? We aren't going to privatize social security. Just reform it. And it is going to cost $2 trillion over a period of many years, something that is easily affordable for a country lik the US.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:55 AM   #37
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: Sunday's Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
It works nicely for the people living under the system, at least in the United States and in the developed world. Even Sweden is a capitalist state. I'll bring up the computer thing until you concede total defeat to me in your illogical beliefs. If you use something created in capitalism, and you do not like capitalism, you're a hypocrite.
We've already worked out you use things created in systems you do not like; does that make you a hypocrite to? Or is this another Giancarlo is infallable day?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
This is generally a stupid statement to make. Why? Because each of the two parties are very diverse. Or would you rather want a country like 1970s era Italy where the government was very unstable? There has to be a balance struck. You cannot defeat me in this argument and you will not. You never do it. I am right in this regard. The United States is a democratic republic that has strong democratic traditions. In this country, there isn't nationalists or fascists that are strong enough.
Exactly - they're very diverse because there is no middle way; Democracy is about making a middle way. You're either Republican or Democrat - or you don't get a choice in how the country is run. Is that Democracy? Is it proportional representation? It is a country ruled by Capitalists, and designed by Capitalists. The two parties are set up by Capitalists; controlled by people who aren't even politicians, they're businessmen. Both represent Republicanism; just have different ways of going about it. I still can't agree that a country which only allows Republicans and Democrats to Vote is Democratic. Everybody should be allowed to vote and their vote to count - is that not what Democracy is about?

Yes but they should be allowed to vote, and they should be allowed to get their percentage of representation. Even if that precentage isn't enough to get any kind of representation; they should have the chance to do so under a truely Democratic System.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
You as a people can criticize the party. But party members cannot do it, without being kicked out of the party. I know how the system works. I typed up numerous essays on it. In the United States, in fighting in the party is allowed to happen, and politicans can change their party (Senator Jeffords).
Party Members often critisise their party; some who do it hugely are kicked out, most who do it - especially in the Iraq War with Labour and the Conservative - are small backbenchers and don't leave the party; they just don't agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Considering that's 5-10% above what the turn-out is in many other developed nations, I do not think it is a dreadful turn-out. You are speaking foolishly. Additionally, many countries throughout Europe have minority governments. Gee, that's very democratic. Take Sweden I believe, the government only got 20% of the vote! That was the largest portion of the vote and it had to form a coalition government. If we had to use coalition governments we would be in serious trouble.
Your two party system is a Coalition Government. Its all of the parties which have Republican-based values or are on the Right; and all of the parties who have Democrat-based values or are on the Centre-Right. You just call them two parties - in truth its half a dozen parties squashed into two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
This is mostly uneducated blabber.. and it doesn't make much sense either. You can't live in a house for free. You have to pay for the goods you get. Capitalism is the only system that works and you will not dispute that fact. You will not win this debate. Free health care? Lets see where that leads. In Europe for example, the health system is so bad, I often see many reports of Europeans going to the United States for healthcare. We must pay our doctors well, because they take care of us. If we give out free healthcare on a huge scale, we will risk driving down the wages of doctors. This is seen in Sweden. A free transport system? Again, you have to pay for what you get. The $1.25 I pay per ride for the MTA is paying for what I get. Not the best service. In a few countries indeed if any you pay no taxes? That's not possible. The government needs to collect revenue to sustain itself. It can do it in sales tax, income tax or different forms of taxation. Capitalism is the freest form of economic belief.
Why can't you live in a house for free? It is built by the Government you work for... many companies if you want to think of it that way offer Company Cars and Company Accommodation - the difference is? Of course you pay for goods you get - you pay it in your work. You get wages; but you get wages like any company would give you - you don't get paid for the work you do, you get paid by the least they think you'll work for. This profit, that the government makes in theory instead of the company, transfers down into sections which build houses, and maintain houses and services. Once a house is built - only services cost anymore. Everybody pays for everybody's living, the better you do in work the better house the government can allow you. You work for the country to make it better; the better you make it the better your life is upheld.

Many countries in Europe do do this; but its in a Capitalist Free Health Care System. Again, companies give workers Free Health Care, to pay a System like the American Health System when the worker is Ill. Now; if the company is the government as I pointed out above for these examples; what is the difference between a company giving Free Health Care, and paying the Health System, and a government giving Free Health Care to pay a System. The systems are the same; the Health Care is the same; the government pays the same for the work the employee gives; and so the service will be just as good, if not better when you tally that the government then puts in money other than the Free Health Service money to grow the Health Service externally as well as internally.

A Free transport system is just the same as all the above explanations; companies often pay for their employees travel; sometimes on a weekly basis because its cheaper than 5 days. That way the employee gets free transport. When you tally in roads and airtravel; its more it has to be said but its still possible; so you'd have just as effective system as you would in any Country - plus a large part of government spending - dole - is illiminated.

That's the whole point - the revenue is the money the government makes from your work selling the products you make to you; and others through International Trade. Taxes aren't required in a system like that; because the Tax you pay is work, instead of the Tax you pay being money and work in Capitalism. As an economist you should realise; when you seperate out the supply chain of a large company the prices go up - more middlemen as it were. Companies are a useless Middleman which take money and resources from a country.

The comment on Economic Freedom is below as it made more sense there...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Okay here is the error in your beliefs. In capitalism, government (the IRS here in the US) collects income tax from the business. What you are stating is what happens in capitalism. If you don't make money, you can't pay for your workers or property and you have to file for bankruptcy and close down. If you do make a lot of sales in capitalism, you get more money. This is done in the private sector every single day. You just don't understand the facts.
I know how companies work; and I know that's what the IRS and Inland Revenue here do. The difference being the shop manager is a first level middleman - not a second level middleman. The products come from the government; the government and the shop manager make money on it. Instead of the products coming from a company which makes money, the shop manager, which makes money, and the government, which makes a little money in comparison. Cutting down the company level removes cost which not only the Government gains on; but the public gain through the lower prices and the public gain through the superior public services offered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
The lack of economic freedom kills freedom as a whole idea.

I win.
That's because you are an amazingly Economic person - I'm not sure I know of a person who take Economics as a way of life quite the way you do. Capitalism if the most Free Form of Economic Belief is probably true - but Economic belief has nothing to do with Freedom. Freedom is about what we are allowed to do as people. Economics don't come into that ability. You've yet to even tell me where the lack of capitalism in the above comments kills freedom - you've merely said it would not work; which is an easier way out if you can't actually tell us where the freedom is lost?

People who proclaim their victory prior to actual victory are generally laughed at.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:56 AM   #38
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Also the Iraqi election has been an overwhelming success. Now you people who thought I was wrong... it turns out my prediction is totally, utterly true. Now apologize to me and concede defeat.
Did anybody here say the Iraqi Election wouldn't work? Success however... is a little premature. People voting is not success; especially considering most of the people who voted aren't the people you're trying to get on your side, they're people already on your side. I could have told you the election would work - around hundreds of thousands of troops its hard for it not to.

Success however, is not achieved yet; until the people of Iraq are living together in peace and prosperity as the majority wish there will be no success. That was afterall the goal of the War? It wasn't just to give them an election. I, as I said, don't believe such Success will work until there has been a serious Civil War, and the differences are fought out of them until they all agree. Again; how would you think the British Army and Navy stopping the American Civil War and setting up a British type Government in America; getting everybody who agreed with it, holding an election knowing nobody else would vote, proclaiming that victory and leaving American to be. America would still have had a Civil War, just later. All the War did was postpone a Civil War and remove Saddam Hussein who it wasn't our job to remove.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 11:59 AM   #39
Daemon Poster
 
The_Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via MSN to The_Necromancer
Default Re: Sunday's Election

http://money.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...0/wsudan10.xml

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/vi...111sudan.shtml

there,
__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 12:10 PM   #40
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

Another heap load of trash I have to go through...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
We've already worked out you use things created in systems you do not like; does that make you a hypocrite to? Or is this another Giancarlo is infallable day?
You are such a hypocrite and you don't really know much of the facts and the reality in any regard. You need to consider the reality and stop acting foolish.

Quote:
The two parties are set up by Capitalists; controlled by people who aren't even politicians, they're businessmen. Both represent Republicanism; just have different ways of going about it. I still can't agree that a country which only allows Republicans and Democrats to Vote is Democratic. Everybody should be allowed to vote and their vote to count - is that not what Democracy is about?
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.

Quote:
Yes but they should be allowed to vote, and they should be allowed to get their percentage of representation. Even if that precentage isn't enough to get any kind of representation; they should have the chance to do so under a truely Democratic System.
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.

Quote:
Party Members often critisise their party; some who do it hugely are kicked out, most who do it - especially in the Iraq War with Labour and the Conservative - are small backbenchers and don't leave the party; they just don't agree.
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.

Quote:
Your two party system is a Coalition Government. Its all of the parties which have Republican-based values or are on the Right; and all of the parties who have Democrat-based values or are on the Centre-Right. You just call them two parties - in truth its half a dozen parties squashed into two.
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.

Quote:
Of course you pay for goods you get - you pay it in your work. You get wages; but you get wages like any company would give you - you don't get paid for the work you do, you get paid by the least they think you'll work for. This profit, that the government makes in theory instead of the company, transfers down into sections which build houses, and maintain houses and services. Once a house is built - only services cost anymore. Everybody pays for everybody's living, the better you do in work the better house the government can allow you. You work for the country to make it better; the better you make it the better your life is upheld.
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.

Quote:
Again, companies give workers Free Health Care, to pay a System like the American Health System when the worker is Ill. Now; if the company is the government as I pointed out above for these examples; what is the difference between a company giving Free Health Care, and paying the Health System, and a government giving Free Health Care to pay a System.
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.

Quote:
A Free transport system is just the same as all the above explanations; companies often pay for their employees travel; sometimes on a weekly basis because its cheaper than 5 days.
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.

Quote:
That's the whole point - the revenue is the money the government makes from your work selling the products you make to you; and others through International Trade. Taxes aren't required in a system like that; because the Tax you pay is work, instead of the Tax you pay being money and work in Capitalism. As an economist you should realise; when you seperate out the supply chain of a large company the prices go up - more middlemen as it were. Companies are a useless Middleman which take money and resources from a country.
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!

Quote:

I know how companies work
No you don't.

Quote:
The products come from the government; the government and the shop manager make money on it. Instead of the products coming from a company which makes money, the shop manager, which makes money, and the government, which makes a little money in comparison. Cutting down the company level removes cost which not only the Government gains on; but the public gain through the lower prices and the public gain through the superior public services offered.
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...

Quote:
That's because you are an amazingly Economic person - I'm not sure I know of a person who take Economics as a way of life quite the way you do. Capitalism if the most Free Form of Economic Belief is probably true - but Economic belief has nothing to do with Freedom. Freedom is about what we are allowed to do as people. Economics don't come into that ability. You've yet to even tell me where the lack of capitalism in the above comments kills freedom - you've merely said it would not work; which is an easier way out if you can't actually tell us where the freedom is lost?

People who proclaim their victory prior to actual victory are generally laughed at.
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.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0