The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

[editec]

There are no real anarchists.

There are people who fault the current governments (often quite correctly) who then propose another FORM of government and PRETEND that somehow THAT government will not ALSO exist entirely because it lays claim to the FRANCHISE OF VIOLENCE.

The ONLY REAL ANARCHISTS are those people who subscribe to the notion that NO government ought to exist PERIOD!

Most people calling themselves ANARCHISTS are not remotely advocates of REAL anarchism.

Most of them are crypto socialists or communists.

 

[NightFox]

There are no real anarchists.

The ONLY REAL ANARCHISTS are those people who subscribe to the notion that NO government ought to exist PERIOD!

 

[kaz]

First, the Chinese can never invade us

Second, gun owners have nothing to do with defending this country

If I ever need a pointless comment by someone who doesn't follow the conversation ...

... you're my guy!

 

[kaz]

There are no real anarchists.

The ONLY REAL ANARCHISTS are those people who subscribe to the notion that NO government ought to exist PERIOD!

I was thinking the same. WTF?

 

[kaz]

The ONLY REAL ANARCHISTS are those people who subscribe to the notion that NO government ought to exist PERIOD!

They need to come up with a term for that, don't they ed? Anarchists who don't believe there should be any government at all.

 

[kaz]

In the unlikely event that there ever was an actually military invasion the gun owners would be about as effective as the French Resistance were at stopping the Germans in WW2. This lesson was demonstrated again in Iraq where the invading power can seize control of the nation but still cannot fully suppress the remaining resistance. However the resistance cannot overthrow the greater military forces involved either so it becomes a stalemate.

That is way better than a minimal libertarian government, I see why you want that.

One problem is that the Germans actually wanted to occupy France. They were willing to kill lots of people to secure France, but they didn't wipe out cities enmasse. The Chinese would have the objectives of securing energy and technology, they won't hesitate to kill you, your neighbors and your town so you're dead and stop bothering them.

 

[kaz]

While the Chinese might be able to raise an invading army of millions the sheer logistics of moving that much manpower over that distance undetected makes it an impossible task.

Right, I mean sure we do it, fighting countless wars in the middle east. But we have the largest Navy in the world. China's what, #2? No way they could do that.

 

[rightwinger]

While the Chinese might be able to raise an invading army of millions the sheer logistics of moving that much manpower over that distance undetected makes it an impossible task.

Right, I mean sure we do it, fighting countless wars in the middle east. But we have the largest Navy in the world. China's what, #2? No way they could do that.

China has a pissant Navy incapable of projecting power around the globe.

They are currently incapable of invading the 90 miles to Taiwan. How on earth can they invade 8000 miles to the US?

 

[Mac1958]

.

China has no reason to invade us.

Why would you want to break something you own?

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In the unlikely event that there ever was an actually military invasion the gun owners would be about as effective as the French Resistance were at stopping the Germans in WW2. This lesson was demonstrated again in Iraq where the invading power can seize control of the nation but still cannot fully suppress the remaining resistance. However the resistance cannot overthrow the greater military forces involved either so it becomes a stalemate.

That is way better than a minimal libertarian government, I see why you want that.

One problem is that the Germans actually wanted to occupy France. They were willing to kill lots of people to secure France, but they didn't wipe out cities enmasse. The Chinese would have the objectives of securing energy and technology, they won't hesitate to kill you, your neighbors and your town so you're dead and stop bothering them.

Your assumption is fallacious regarding where I stand on the government of We the People. Furthermore your fears that the Chinese want to kill you and everyone else sound like paranoia. There are far more effective means to commit genocide than by using military force. The US government did not kill virtually every man, woman and child of the indigenous tribes by just sending in the cavalry. The destruction of their food sources and the spread of diseases were far more effective.

 

[kaz]

your fears that the Chinese want to kill you and everyone else sound like paranoia

That would be paranoia if I'd ever said that, which I didn't. That you can't address my actual points but have to pull ones out of your ass and address those doesn't speak well to your knowledge or confidence in your position. If you had a clear belief that you were right, you'd insist on arguing what I actually said rather than needing to resort to addressing a point I never made.

BTW, RW, just wanted to point out what an actual strawman argument is since you've never been able to figure that out. The above in red would be exactly that.

 

[rightwinger]

your fears that the Chinese want to kill you and everyone else sound like paranoia

That would be paranoia if I'd ever said that, which I didn't. That you can't address my actual points but have to pull ones out of your ass and address those doesn't speak well to your knowledge or confidence in your position. If you had a clear belief that you were right, you'd insist on arguing what I actually said rather than needing to resort to addressing a point I never made.

BTW, RW, just wanted to point out what an actual strawman argument is since you've never been able to figure that out. The above in red would be exactly that.

Right, I mean sure we do it, fighting countless wars in the middle east. But we have the largest Navy in the world. China's what, #2? No way they could do that.

Your statement....shows your ignorance of military power

 

[Derideo_Te]

your fears that the Chinese want to kill you and everyone else sound like paranoia

That would be paranoia if I'd ever said that, which I didn't. That you can't address my actual points but have to pull ones out of your ass and address those doesn't speak well to your knowledge or confidence in your position. If you had a clear belief that you were right, you'd insist on arguing what I actually said rather than needing to resort to addressing a point I never made.

BTW, RW, just wanted to point out what an actual strawman argument is since you've never been able to figure that out. The above in red would be exactly that.

This is the paranoia that YOU posted;

One problem is that the Germans actually wanted to occupy France. They were willing to kill lots of people to secure France, but they didn't wipe out cities enmasse. The Chinese would have the objectives of securing energy and technology, they won't hesitate to kill you, your neighbors and your town so you're dead and stop bothering them.

If you want to backtrack on your own words you are more than welcome to do so but please refrain from denying what you actually said since it is part of the thread.

 

[kaz]

your fears that the Chinese want to kill you and everyone else sound like paranoia

That would be paranoia if I'd ever said that, which I didn't. That you can't address my actual points but have to pull ones out of your ass and address those doesn't speak well to your knowledge or confidence in your position. If you had a clear belief that you were right, you'd insist on arguing what I actually said rather than needing to resort to addressing a point I never made.

BTW, RW, just wanted to point out what an actual strawman argument is since you've never been able to figure that out. The above in red would be exactly that.

This is the paranoia that YOU posted;

One problem is that the Germans actually wanted to occupy France. They were willing to kill lots of people to secure France, but they didn't wipe out cities enmasse. The Chinese would have the objectives of securing energy and technology, they won't hesitate to kill you, your neighbors and your town so you're dead and stop bothering them.

If you want to backtrack on your own words you are more than welcome to do so but please refrain from denying what you actually said since it is part of the thread.

No, I want to call you a dumb ass because you apparently don't know the difference between "wanting" to do something and "not hesitating" to do it.

So here we go. Dumb ass.

Again, if you were secure in your position, you'd focus on what I said, you wouldn't change it. And your point of "paranoia" was based on your alteration of what I said. It is paranoia to say they "want" to, it's not paranoia to say they wouldn't "hesitate" to.

Does the name Tienanmen Square mean anything to you?

 

[kaz]

your fears that the Chinese want to kill you and everyone else sound like paranoia

That would be paranoia if I'd ever said that, which I didn't. That you can't address my actual points but have to pull ones out of your ass and address those doesn't speak well to your knowledge or confidence in your position. If you had a clear belief that you were right, you'd insist on arguing what I actually said rather than needing to resort to addressing a point I never made.

BTW, RW, just wanted to point out what an actual strawman argument is since you've never been able to figure that out. The above in red would be exactly that.

Right, I mean sure we do it, fighting countless wars in the middle east. But we have the largest Navy in the world. China's what, #2? No way they could do that.

Your statement....shows your ignorance of military power

In what way?

 

[rightwinger]

That would be paranoia if I'd ever said that, which I didn't. That you can't address my actual points but have to pull ones out of your ass and address those doesn't speak well to your knowledge or confidence in your position. If you had a clear belief that you were right, you'd insist on arguing what I actually said rather than needing to resort to addressing a point I never made.

BTW, RW, just wanted to point out what an actual strawman argument is since you've never been able to figure that out. The above in red would be exactly that.

This is the paranoia that YOU posted;

One problem is that the Germans actually wanted to occupy France. They were willing to kill lots of people to secure France, but they didn't wipe out cities enmasse. The Chinese would have the objectives of securing energy and technology, they won't hesitate to kill you, your neighbors and your town so you're dead and stop bothering them.

If you want to backtrack on your own words you are more than welcome to do so but please refrain from denying what you actually said since it is part of the thread.

No, I want to call you a dumb ass because you apparently don't know the difference between "wanting" to do something and "not hesitating" to do it.

So here we go. Dumb ass.

Again, if you were secure in your position, you'd focus on what I said, you wouldn't change it. And your point of "paranoia" was based on your alteration of what I said. It is paranoia to say they "want" to, it's not paranoia to say they wouldn't "hesitate" to.

Does the name Tienanmen Square mean anything to you?

What evidence do you have of China whiping out civilian populations during wartime?

Is it paranoia on your part or do you just want it to be true?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That would be paranoia if I'd ever said that, which I didn't. That you can't address my actual points but have to pull ones out of your ass and address those doesn't speak well to your knowledge or confidence in your position. If you had a clear belief that you were right, you'd insist on arguing what I actually said rather than needing to resort to addressing a point I never made.

BTW, RW, just wanted to point out what an actual strawman argument is since you've never been able to figure that out. The above in red would be exactly that.

This is the paranoia that YOU posted;

One problem is that the Germans actually wanted to occupy France. They were willing to kill lots of people to secure France, but they didn't wipe out cities enmasse. The Chinese would have the objectives of securing energy and technology, they won't hesitate to kill you, your neighbors and your town so you're dead and stop bothering them.

If you want to backtrack on your own words you are more than welcome to do so but please refrain from denying what you actually said since it is part of the thread.

No, I want to call you a dumb ass because you apparently don't know the difference between "wanting" to do something and "not hesitating" to do it.

So here we go. Dumb ass.

Again, if you were secure in your position, you'd focus on what I said, you wouldn't change it. And your point of "paranoia" was based on your alteration of what I said. It is paranoia to say they "want" to, it's not paranoia to say they wouldn't "hesitate" to.

Does the name Tienanmen Square mean anything to you?

Two can play the semantics game. I can just as easily parse the term "sound like paranoia" to claim that you not focusing on what I posted. But that is just a waste of time. Either you stand by your own words or you want to play games. If you choose the latter you will end up playing with yourself. Have a nice day.

 

[kaz]

This is the paranoia that YOU posted;



If you want to backtrack on your own words you are more than welcome to do so but please refrain from denying what you actually said since it is part of the thread.

No, I want to call you a dumb ass because you apparently don't know the difference between "wanting" to do something and "not hesitating" to do it.

So here we go. Dumb ass.

Again, if you were secure in your position, you'd focus on what I said, you wouldn't change it. And your point of "paranoia" was based on your alteration of what I said. It is paranoia to say they "want" to, it's not paranoia to say they wouldn't "hesitate" to.

Does the name Tienanmen Square mean anything to you?

What evidence do you have of China whiping out civilian populations during wartime?

Is it paranoia on your part or do you just want it to be true?

Are you trying to be cute or are you really this lost?

 

[kaz]

This is the paranoia that YOU posted;



If you want to backtrack on your own words you are more than welcome to do so but please refrain from denying what you actually said since it is part of the thread.

No, I want to call you a dumb ass because you apparently don't know the difference between "wanting" to do something and "not hesitating" to do it.

So here we go. Dumb ass.

Again, if you were secure in your position, you'd focus on what I said, you wouldn't change it. And your point of "paranoia" was based on your alteration of what I said. It is paranoia to say they "want" to, it's not paranoia to say they wouldn't "hesitate" to.

Does the name Tienanmen Square mean anything to you?

Two can play the semantics game. I can just as easily parse the term "sound like paranoia" to claim that you not focusing on what I posted. But that is just a waste of time. Either you stand by your own words or you want to play games. If you choose the latter you will end up playing with yourself. Have a nice day.

I stand by my words that they would not "hesitate" to kill to achieve their military objectives.

I did not say nor do I stand by YOUR word that they "want" to kill people.

You seriously don't understand the difference? It's just a word "parse" to you?

 

[FA_Q2]

And you are all acting like China would not have these objectives in mind, would not be capable of fighting a conflict this far way and would not do so based on the fact that WE HAVE A MILITARY. You realize that anarchy means that there is no more military. That was the point. If America, being EXTREMELY rich in resource, were to have nothing that resembles an army protecting her borders, I have no doubt that various nations would make a bid to control it. That is simple logic. The idea that you don’t think this is possible is utterly insane. China would have no problem executing a war over here and killing as many were required to instill control should we have a lack of government entirely. Any other place where this has stalled was for other reasons. In Iraq it is because we are trying to set THEM up, not assume control. Had we tried to assume control, this would have been accomplished a decade ago (to our detriment as we don’t want that pile). In Afghanistan, you have similar reasons as well as the fact that there is nothing to base a stable economy on over there. No real resources exist in Afghanistan. The Russians only failed there because we were fighting a proxy war with Russia using them. Vietnam, same story as Iraq.

In the end we can essentially say that conquering works but nation building does not. See how long you remain free without any force behind that.