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, 05:47 PM   #51
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

Since this didn't fit...


Quote:
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.
The Soviet Systems didn't work because of human nature. If you can't accept the fact we aren't robots, then you will realize why your system won't work. You are being ridiculous too. You think we will all be cattle for some stupid ass super-state. Well I'll tell you one thing I'll be the first to raise a rifle and fight any attempt at it. I think what you propose is nothing more then Stalinism masked in a sugar-frosting. Not only is it illogical, I think it is quite sick. Another more recent examples of this economic stalinism is in Cambodia with the rise of the Red Khmers (Khmer Rogue). I never brought up the geneva convention. This is more personal philosophical debate, then anything written in a charter. Capitalism ensures a lot of freedom.

You're argument style is fucking dreadful.

Quote:
Again... people voting is not the success - the goal was not for people to vote. The goal was for a Democratic Iraqi; and that has yet to happen - especially considering that the votes had to take place under practical Military Command. Is a Militarily controlled vote democratic anyway? Its a big good; not a big success as nothing has been completed. I don't accept things as you say them... in fact - you just proved me right in that there is more to be done. Success cannot be proclaimed until there is nothing to do.
Again some illogicalities in this style of debating. You say it is not a success? Under the circumstances it is. The people were afraid to get out and vote in this election, and the mere fact they got out and voted shows a great success. They want a change. If you think the goal was not for people to vote, you're a dumb retard. I'm really sorry. The votes had to take place under practical military command because there was no other choice. This election chooses a House of Representatives-like Unicameral Senate. You should accept the facts, and stop being a fool about things. There is more to be done and I have been saying that since the beginning. I prove myself right, I never prove a hapless retard as yourself right.

Quote:
No - the people who already wanted to live in Peace and Prosperity said they wanted to in the Votes. How many of the terrorists voted? How many people against the Vote voted? Forming a government doesn't represent a just and lasting piece - Saddam Hussein had a government in place - there was government before him, and government when the British were in Transjordan. They pushed aside all all these governments; what makes anybody think they can't push aside this? They won't find peace until they have a Civil War and sort the problem out themselves. All we've done is waste our troops' lives.People don't need to do classes to learn things.
No? Damn you're a moron. The people want to live in peace and have jobs. That is why they voted. They signalled the need to change. Dispute me, and you'll be proven an idiot. That simple. Why should terrorists vote? We kill terrorists. How many people against the vote voted? You're an idiot. A true idiot. Forming a government does represent a just and lasting peace, when it is stabilized. Saddam's government was horrible. And you don't know anything about the reality. You should shut the fuck up and let the experts debate this one, because quite frankly I'm tired of your waffling in stating the reality. All we've done is waste our troops' lives? To hell with you! WE MADE SACRIFICES AND WE DID NOT WASTE OUR TROOPS LIVES. WHAT KIND OF PERSON ARE YOU? HOW MANY TROOPS HAVE WE LOST? HOW MANY? HARDLY ANY. This war has had relatively few casualities, so don't you fucking dare talk to me about wasting the lives of our troops. You don't know a god damn thing and you talk like a loser.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 06:03 PM   #52
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

Now, play nicely.
__________________

__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 06:22 PM   #53
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

No! If LK wants to play hard-ball, he will get 120 mph fastballs.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 06:52 PM   #54
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, at least you still have your balls??? w00t w00t lol
wtf does w00t mean??
__________________
For You
The_Necromancer is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 07:12 PM   #55
Fully Optimized
 
airiox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,692
Default Re: Sunday's Election

SO whats this thread about?

Anyways. The Media has declared the elections in Iraq a "resounding success" So for all you nay sayers.

AHAHHAHAHAHHA
__________________
Check out my Counter Strike:Source servers:
***THE DYNASTY***: 74.52.232.130:27015
*** GUNGAME ***: 74.52.232.131:27015
*** SOCCER ***: 74.52.232.133:27015
airiox is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 08:07 PM   #56
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

It was a few slaps in the face of the nay sayers and the negativity spreaders.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 08:25 AM   #57
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
More debunking... you're acting idiotic.

This system works and yes they are third parties on the ballot. These parties do not win enough votes in the district to gain any seats because they are beaten in those districts. There are independents who have won various elections because they have more votes then either the republicans or democrats, so your reasoning is false and stupid.
The two parties still fill huge areas of spectrum very much like a coalition - this is the only way such huge numbers of people would vote for one party. I imagine even the Independents fill a serious amount of spectrum just to get their tiny percentage. Still however, to have two parties which fill together half of the spectrum, the half in which most Americans vote for is a bi-party vote in practice if not in theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
This isn't quite true. This nation is a republic, not a direct democracy. We can't have a parliament like that of Italy's, where parties with 200 or 300 members are given seats. In the United States, elections are based on federal districting. You win a district you get seats for that area. This United States election is based on federal representation (electoral college), not the popular vote. Whether one is better then the other is pure opinion. Personally I like federal representation, or the electoral college, more then direct democracy because it minimizes fraud.
You can still fake elections in a state. Republic electoral college Voting gives more power to a person in Texas, where there are fewer people, than a person in New York where there are more, or California. That's not really democracy and fraud should not even be put up as a possibility - anybody who wants to fake an election will do it in a republic or a direct democracy and not care eitherway. Everybody should have the same vote. That's just a sneaky way for the Republicans (I actually like the Republicans... but its still sneaky) to get more votes as they know that if people voted, not states, they wouldn't win with huge cities full of liberal people voting properly, and generally only sparsely populated states like Texas voting for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
They don't criticize their own party, but members in it. John McCain is as republican as he comes, but not all republicans agree with each other 100% of the time.
Just another sign its a coalition; nobody's going to agree with everybody in a party when it covers three normal parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Don't say "your". I'm from Spain. I know what the facts are. And no Europe did not invent the political spectrum. That has it traces back in Sumer. And no I highly doubt the democrats are as far right as European conservatives. So please spare me this crap.
I thought you were proud to be American? You can't take the position of every member of your direct family. Eurasia then but its still not America is it. And generally they are - there are more liberal people in the Democrats but not those in any position of power. Certainly not Kerry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
This is utter shit. You just don't understand what you are saying again. You don't f--king know what freedom is and nor do you know how a neconomy functions. You can't be free personally and socially, if the economy is not free. You are a bullshit talker like that of Karl Marx. You talk and talk about freedom, but you don't have the slightest clue about how capitalism is tied with social freedom. Economies of scale? You don't know what you are talking about at all! NOT AT ALL! And it is getting tiring. You don't know what the public sector even is. I always back myself up, you crazy fool. You are the one who has the tendency of not backing yourself up. You're just crazy and you never back up your illogical beliefs. It is just so tiring responding to a pile of shit.
Not generally... you have not backed that up? And you have still yet to tell us what Economic Freedom even is. I just read this, mainly to tell me what economic freedom is, but it ended up purely telling me that Economic Freedom is good, Command Economy is not; and not telling me what Economic Freedom it; it is not without its interests every now and then though. Specifically it says this right at the bottom: An economy must have a stable monetary system, secure private property rights, an impartial legal system, low taxes, minimal government, and low barriers to international exchange. If any of these components are missing, an economy will not grow. It seems to make sense; according to the examples given. However; the examples given are not completely accurate. All countries represented to be bad systems had dreadful prosperity beforehand. Even in North Korea; where the demonstration quickly shows that Open is working better in South Korea - North Korea was plundered by the Chinese, and still makes America interested in its affairs. So it seems that personal luxury and safety are what Economic Freedom brings and Command does not; not growth as, especially in the Soviet case under proper incorrupt leadership the Soviets grew faster than any economy in the World ever has.

However; while laying out requisites, advantages, examples; it still does not answer what Economic Freedom is. Or is it me expecting a serious answer to a question whose answer is simply Capitalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
This shows you know nothing about government and the problems with it if it gets too huge.
The American Government is huge; the Russian Government is huge; what is too huge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
No government can be efficient if it is not transparent, small... it can be centralized, but it must be transparent and small. What you speak of, is dangerous. You are advocating a huge massive central government that would collapse on its own weight. Don't bring in Microsoft, a capitalist invention. A capitalist idol. Microsoft is efficient because it can fire and hire people easily. The public sector cannot. I think it is fitting and good that a company gives out insurance. There is a quote "there are no smart minds in government because businesses would steal them away". The bureaucrat is not a businessman. And you cannot even begin to justify your hideously wrong beliefs.
What is a transparent government? My government is based on being a company; working very much like a company - working like a company to get out of the oppression and corruption of Capitalism. A Government can hire and fire people quickly - it just doesn't fire them. It fires them from one section of the government and put them into another section more suited. If all else fails - you can never have too many miners and farmers and fishermen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
You're fucking ridiculous. The people have to pay for the government to sustain itself, whether it be in income taxes or some other form of tax. The government cannot run off for free.
Ok; think of the Work as Tax. Can you understand that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
The government is the company? Now you are starting to sound like a complete fool. Have you ever read the book "1984"? You are starting to sound like an Orwellien on drugs. Your beliefs are horrible. You don't know what you are talking about. The government CANNOT AND WILL NOT OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IN THE ECONOMY. If it does the economy will end up in total collapse (example, Soviet Union 1970s-1980s, Brezhnev/Andropov/Chereneko era). The Soviet Union controlled the entire economy, and acted as the company. It got so inefficent there was logistical breakdowns. Your ideas would starve millions of people.
I have never really thought of 1984 as a useful use of my time; I know people who have read it. I know somebody who thought it was a brilliant idea and worked it into his Military Government (his government was 1984 - mine everybody works for the government to bring a superior country - his everybody works for the army to bring more lavish comfort to the ruling classes and more land to conquer :P) At no point have I told you that my plans involve knowing where everybody is? Everybody works for a company - many people work for the government - the difference is where? You just have some strange obsession with gaining wealth through cheating and corruption and presume any other way of living is opressive and dictatorial?

Lol; that's guerillea talk - we both know a government can - it has happened before. The will not is superfluous; I have no intention of practicing my theories and even if I did - America would be the last place I would attempt it. What about the example of the Soviet Union 1941, pre War half at least. Stalin had the economy better than it ever had been or would be again; there were finally plans set down for the extension of housing plans, the unbringing of people's lives - and that's under Stalin! If Stalin can do such things, and he was none too pleasant as you have said enough times cannot somebody else do better? 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! Adding to that the sheer size of Russia and the lack of any kind of organisation prior to the Soviets its amazing what the Soviets did with Russia in the short time. Putin would not be overseeing such a powerful country without the Soviets - if indeed a country at all.
__________________
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 01-31-2005, 08:28 AM   #58
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
The government doesn't make taxes. It collects taxes. You continue making boneheaded statements like that that just quite frankly, make you look more like a fool in the end. Don't you ever get embarrassed about it?

That's not bad debate, as it is quite true.
Companies make taxes; you seem content on believing taxes are the only way for a government to make money. When as an economist you know how companies make money better than I. They get people to work; they pay them; pay overheads and sell goods; they then make money. That profit, in my government, is the Tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Since this didn't fit...

The Soviet Systems didn't work because of human nature. If you can't accept the fact we aren't robots, then you will realize why your system won't work. You are being ridiculous too. You think we will all be cattle for some stupid ass super-state. Well I'll tell you one thing I'll be the first to raise a rifle and fight any attempt at it. I think what you propose is nothing more then Stalinism masked in a sugar-frosting. Not only is it illogical, I think it is quite sick. Another more recent examples of this economic stalinism is in Cambodia with the rise of the Red Khmers (Khmer Rogue). I never brought up the geneva convention. This is more personal philosophical debate, then anything written in a charter. Capitalism ensures a lot of freedom.

You're argument style is fucking dreadful.
I understand that Communism doesn't work because of Human Nature - that was one of the first things I thought about with Centralism. No two men can be equal; it is quite well shown in the Film Enemy at the Gates. Meritocracy built into Centralism is the only way people will want to work as well as they can in a Centralist System; as Capitalism doesn't, as Meritocracy does, reward the best for being the best, and for getting better; and at the same time reward in comparison the worst for getting better and being the best at their job. You get paid for what you do; not for where you work. Generally this happens in Capitalism; but it doesn't always. Especially right up there at the top; where people do nothing and get paid the most for doing it.

I don't think anybody would be cattle for a stupid arsed super-state. That is not a prerequiste for Centralism. Again; many work for the government and companies, there is no difference. The government merely replaces all of the companies people work for - often in twos to create competition between the government departments to work better than each other. (This is actually after taking into account a debate on competition which somebody on here; probably yourself )

I sugar coat nothing; it is a Democratic-Oligarchal-Stalinist-Meritocracy if you want to be anal with the origins of the theories. I was, and to a certain extent still am trying to work out what Economic Freedom is because there is nothing Democracy has which mine does not other than Economic Freedom - and it would be nice to find somewhere what it is explained in non-economic terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Again some illogicalities in this style of debating. You say it is not a success? Under the circumstances it is. The people were afraid to get out and vote in this election, and the mere fact they got out and voted shows a great success. They want a change. If you think the goal was not for people to vote, you're a dumb retard. I'm really sorry. The votes had to take place under practical military command because there was no other choice. This election chooses a House of Representatives-like Unicameral Senate. You should accept the facts, and stop being a fool about things. There is more to be done and I have been saying that since the beginning. I prove myself right, I never prove a hapless retard as yourself right.
The goal was for a democratic Iraq. I'm all up for this it is quite interesting; I just don't think sucess can be proclaimed when democracy has not been brought into Iraq - a vote carried out by everybody is Democratic - a vote carried out only by those who agree with the Americans is not. A House of Representatives is not a sign of democracy - its the beginning of democracy. Sucess will be for the democracy to work on its own for a reasonable amount of time without the American Army. I accept all of that is working - I don't accept a vote is Sucess - and vote is a way to sucess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
No? Damn you're a moron. The people want to live in peace and have jobs. That is why they voted. They signalled the need to change. Dispute me, and you'll be proven an idiot. That simple. Why should terrorists vote? We kill terrorists. How many people against the vote voted? You're an idiot. A true idiot. Forming a government does represent a just and lasting peace, when it is stabilized. Saddam's government was horrible. And you don't know anything about the reality. You should shut the fuck up and let the experts debate this one, because quite frankly I'm tired of your waffling in stating the reality. All we've done is waste our troops' lives? To hell with you! WE MADE SACRIFICES AND WE DID NOT WASTE OUR TROOPS LIVES. WHAT KIND OF PERSON ARE YOU? HOW MANY TROOPS HAVE WE LOST? HOW MANY? HARDLY ANY. This war has had relatively few casualities, so don't you fucking dare talk to me about wasting the lives of our troops. You don't know a god damn thing and you talk like a loser.
Saddam's Government was horrible to you, to the west, not to Saddam's Government. Its too easy to judge the abilities of a government - especially when its under UN Sanctions. Terrorists are people too; people with different beliefs. I'm sure a terrorist probably wouldn't much like your liberal views either. A lasting Government working on its own represents a just and lasting peace and I'll be just as happy as you when that happens - but forming a government merely means you have supporters in Iraq and the Military Power to get them into a Government.

Yeah; lol. I told you in the other thread - they killed more of their own that the Iraqis I thought you were Spanish? You shouldn't be saying 'your' Anyway; all our troops made sacrifices - but most didn't need to happen and were due more to military incompetance from the Americans than the war itself. That's why most of the deaths were wastes.
__________________
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 01-31-2005, 12:15 PM   #59
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
The two parties still fill huge areas of spectrum very much like a coalition - this is the only way such huge numbers of people would vote for one party. I imagine even the Independents fill a serious amount of spectrum just to get their tiny percentage. Still however, to have two parties which fill together half of the spectrum, the half in which most Americans vote for is a bi-party vote in practice if not in theory.
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).

Quote:
You can still fake elections in a state. Republic electoral college Voting gives more power to a person in Texas, where there are fewer people, than a person in New York where there are more, or California. That's not really democracy and fraud should not even be put up as a possibility - anybody who wants to fake an election will do it in a republic or a direct democracy and not care eitherway. Everybody should have the same vote. That's just a sneaky way for the Republicans (I actually like the Republicans... but its still sneaky) to get more votes as they know that if people voted, not states, they wouldn't win with huge cities full of liberal people voting properly, and generally only sparsely populated states like Texas voting for them.
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.

Quote:
Just another sign its a coalition; nobody's going to agree with everybody in a party when it covers three normal parties.
No it is not, because it is one party.

Quote:
I thought you were proud to be American? You can't take the position of every member of your direct family. Eurasia then but its still not America is it. And generally they are - there are more liberal people in the Democrats but not those in any position of power. Certainly not Kerry.
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),

Quote:
Not generally... you have not backed that up? And you have still yet to tell us what Economic Freedom even is. ... However; the examples given are not completely accurate. All countries represented to be bad systems had dreadful prosperity beforehand. Even in North Korea; where the demonstration quickly shows that Open is working better in South Korea - North Korea was plundered by the Chinese, and still makes America interested in its affairs. So it seems that personal luxury and safety are what Economic Freedom brings and Command does not; not growth as, especially in the Soviet case under proper incorrupt leadership the Soviets grew faster than any economy in the World ever has.
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).

Quote:
However; while laying out requisites, advantages, examples; it still does not answer what Economic Freedom is. Or is it me expecting a serious answer to a question whose answer is simply Capitalism.
One should seriously question the validity of your beliefs and the intelligence you possess, which is obviously lacking in your regard.

Quote:
The American Government is huge; the Russian Government is huge; what is too huge?
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?

Quote:
What is a transparent government? My government is based on being a company; working very much like a company - working like a company to get out of the oppression and corruption of Capitalism. A Government can hire and fire people quickly - it just doesn't fire them. It fires them from one section of the government and put them into another section more suited. If all else fails - you can never have too many miners and farmers and fishermen
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)...

Quote:
Ok; think of the Work as Tax. Can you understand that?
It doesn't work that way in the real world.

Quote:
I have never really thought of 1984 as a useful use of my time; I know people who have read it. Everybody works for a company - many people work for the government - the difference is where? You just have some strange obsession with gaining wealth through cheating and corruption and presume any other way of living is opressive and dictatorial?
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!

Quote:
Lol; that's guerillea talk - we both know a government can - it has happened before. The will not is superfluous; 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! Adding to that the sheer size of Russia and the lack of any kind of organisation prior to the Soviets its amazing what the Soviets did with Russia in the short time. Putin would not be overseeing such a powerful country without the Soviets - if indeed a country at all.
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.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 12:26 PM   #60
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Sunday's Election

You should consider jumping off a cliff because you're too much of a fool to live... you realize what you are saying? The slightest clue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
Companies make taxes; you seem content on believing taxes are the only way for a government to make money. When as an economist you know how companies make money better than I. They get people to work; they pay them; pay overheads and sell goods; they then make money. That profit, in my government, is the Tax.
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?

Quote:
I understand that Communism doesn't work because of Human Nature - that was one of the first things I thought about with Centralism. No two men can be equal; it is quite well shown in the Film Enemy at the Gates. Meritocracy built into Centralism is the only way people will want to work as well as they can in a Centralist System; as Capitalism doesn't, as Meritocracy does, reward the best for being the best, and for getting better; and at the same time reward in comparison the worst for getting better and being the best at their job. You get paid for what you do; not for where you work. Generally this happens in Capitalism; but it doesn't always. Especially right up there at the top; where people do nothing and get paid the most for doing it.
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.

Quote:
I don't think anybody would be cattle for a stupid arsed super-state. That is not a prerequiste for Centralism. Again; many work for the government and companies, there is no difference. The government merely replaces all of the companies people work for - often in twos to create competition between the government departments to work better than each other. (This is actually after taking into account a debate on competition which somebody on here; probably yourself )
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.

Quote:
I sugar coat nothing; it is a Democratic-Oligarchal-Stalinist-Meritocracy if you want to be anal with the origins of the theories. I was, and to a certain extent still am trying to work out what Economic Freedom is because there is nothing Democracy has which mine does not other than Economic Freedom - and it would be nice to find somewhere what it is explained in non-economic terms.
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.

Quote:
The goal was for a democratic Iraq. I'm all up for this it is quite interesting; I just don't think sucess can be proclaimed when democracy has not been brought into Iraq - a vote carried out by everybody is Democratic - a vote carried out only by those who agree with the Americans is not. A House of Representatives is not a sign of democracy - its the beginning of democracy. Sucess will be for the democracy to work on its own for a reasonable amount of time without the American Army. I accept all of that is working - I don't accept a vote is Sucess - and vote is a way to sucess.
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.

Quote:
Saddam's Government was horrible to you, to the west, not to Saddam's Government. Its too easy to judge the abilities of a government - especially when its under UN Sanctions. Terrorists are people too; people with different beliefs. I'm sure a terrorist probably wouldn't much like your liberal views either. A lasting Government working on its own represents a just and lasting peace and I'll be just as happy as you when that happens - but forming a government merely means you have supporters in Iraq and the Military Power to get them into a Government.
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.

Quote:
Yeah; lol. I told you in the other thread - they killed more of their own that the Iraqis I thought you were Spanish? You shouldn't be saying 'your' Anyway; all our troops made sacrifices - but most didn't need to happen and were due more to military incompetance from the Americans than the war itself. That's why most of the deaths were wastes.
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.
__________________

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 03:24 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