Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"you've gone from them having power to just being influential."You've made an obvious and conscious decision to not understand what I am saying. Either you don't feel like reading my responses until you understand them or you feel it is better to lie, either way I am disappointed. I have maintained from the beginning that they have the most say, not all of it. I have repeated this again and again and again and again. If you are going to have no respect for my arguments I will stop debating with you. You can disagree with my point of view all you want, but don't lie about, misrepresent, or refuse to understand what my point of view actually is. "who will control the media?"Everyone, the people. It would be a public service separate from but funded by the government (like the BBC or PBS). Private cooperatives are welcome to start their own media operations as well, these cooperatives would be owned and operated by the people who work in them and the population they serve.No censorship, no control by either the government or the wealthy, only the people themselves have a say in what gets aired. Welcome to a new world of thought, I know this can be scary to someone who has such a narrow view of what is possible."it seems you're more on insulting me than actually explaining thing, and that's very sad."If you want to whine take your debate somewhere else. You don't listen to my actual arguments and I am not one to withhold my opinion of a person. If you don't like being told the truth, such as you having poor debating and critical thinking skills, you should debate someone who isn't honest or forthright. It is a disservice to you, in my opinion, to withhold from you the really sad fact: you don't know what you are talking about and you have no intention of changing that circumstance."it's free when the government doesn't get involved. if you level the playing field (supposed equality) that's not equal treatment. hence, us losing our freedoms."I find it strange you would find that it is freedom when the government doesn't get involved in...well....the government. Are you really trying to tell me that it isn't freedom if the government made regulations that gave everyone an equal chance at running the government? On the one hand you are saying it is okay for the government to be controlled by a minority, on the other hand you say it is tyranny if the government steps in to make sure the majority of the people control the government (otherwise known as democracy).What you are telling me is that you think democracy is tyranny, that democracy isn't freedom. You, apparently, are in favor of dictatorship by your own words and logic. How very odd."democracy is the people voting in every idea put fourth... we're a republic, where we vote in represenatives (democratic republic since we vote in ammendments too). so far, i still see the people voting in who they want to become elected officials. if the rich are rigging elections, that's a different story that involves breaking the law."The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, and many other nations which were obviously not democracies or democratic Republics allowed voting, sometimes for multiple parties. Of course, who you got to vote for was very limited (just like now). Who you knew was running was very limited. Apparently those countries are democratic, according to you. I am sure they'd appreciate your praise. People in the United States can vote for whoever they want; the problem is their choices are limited (especially on the national stage) to the wealthy. The media which informs them on who is running and what their opinions are is largely owned, operated, and censored by the rich. After these people get elected they are most influenced by the rich, who they needed to get where they are. In one case a republic's political structure is controlled by the military and/or political parties, in the other a republic's political structure is controlled by oligarchs, the rich and their organizations. In both cases there is no real democracy. But, again, it is okay when rich people do it, not when political groups do it. You are the king of the double-standard, I have a mind to elect you to the position of hypocritic general should you ever decide to run for office.