The Hidden Threat of Communism in America

[elektra]

LMAO!!!!!!!!


View attachment 698079

OF COURSE YOU SAY THAT!!!!!! LOL!!!!!

Give examples

 

[dblack]

I was describing what it always is and must be.

LOL - ok.

If you want to live in society with an economy, you must have a government.

Who said anything about not having a government??? Are you resorting to strawmen already?

If you want to live and do anything, you must have breath in your nostrils.

Uh... ok.

From the first day people lived in communities whether in caves or in tents of hides, they formed what we can call "governments" to facilitate, protect, and organize their collective lives.

Yes. That's what I oppose. I don't believe organizing our collective lives is a valid power for government. Lots of ambitious leaders want that kind of power, and in varying degrees we given it to them. But it was a mistake.

So "running society" has always been the main and valid purpose for government.

Again, I disagree. You're describing an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian, government.

They would automatically form "vigilante" groups to enforce order of their choice.

Yes. That's why we need to government. To protect us from bullies who want to force their will on others. The last thing we want is those very same bullies using the government to "run society".

 

[Senter]

Give examples

I don't have time for your games but I'll give you one example. The 2nd Amendment. The right wing crazies want to reinterpret it to mean INDIVIDUAL citizens may INDIVIDUALLY AND PRIVATELY AND PERSONALLY buy and own any kind of weapon they may choose and that this somehow constitutes a "militia". They turn a blind eye to the actual history and the historical reason for the wording and its meaning. A militia would be the National Guard and not some loose, random, unorganized, rag-tag assortment of individuals. In the right thread I could prove this.

 

[Senter]

LOL - ok.

Who said anything about not having a government??? Are you resorting to strawmen already?

Uh... ok.

Yes. That's what I oppose. I don't believe organizing our collective lives is a valid power for government. Lots of ambitious leaders want that kind of power, and in varying degrees we given it to them. But it was a mistake.

Again, I disagree. You're describing an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian, government.

Yes. That's why we need to government. To protect us from bullies who want to force their will on others. The last thing we want is those very same bullies using the government to "run society".

You start off impatiently picking out sentences instead of getting the point I was making. And you end by accusing me of "describing an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian government". Are you saying that from the beginning of the Constitution and the formation of this constitutional government that we were all subjected to "an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian government"? Because it was that government and every government of every nation that I described and to which you object on the grounds that it would necessarily be "an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian government".

Bottom line: you aren't discussing/debating/arguing honestly. You look for ways to pull comments out of context and "make them mean" things that weren't meant so you can oppose whatever I say. There's no discussion and no asking for clarification. There is accusation and attempts to corner and trap.

I came back here after months of avoiding to see if anything had changed and try to have a conversation. In the first two posts of this discussion with you I thought it might be possible, but you've pissed on it and stomped it into the dirt. So I'm done. This forum is not salvageable. Have a good life.

 

[dblack]

You start off impatiently picking out sentences instead of getting the point I was making. And you end by accusing me of "describing an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian government". Are you saying that from the beginning of the Constitution and the formation of this constitutional government that we were all subjected to "an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian government"? Because it was that government and every government of every nation that I described and to which you object on the grounds that it would necessarily be "an authoritarian, arguably totalitarian government".

Bottom line: you aren't discussing/debating/arguing honestly. You look for ways to pull comments out of context and "make them mean" things that weren't meant so you can oppose whatever I say. There's no discussion and no asking for clarification. There is accusation and attempts to corner and trap.

I came back here after months of avoiding to see if anything had changed and try to have a conversation. In the first two posts of this discussion with you I thought it might be possible, but you've pissed on it and stomped it into the dirt. So I'm done. This forum is not salvageable. Have a good life.

 

[San Souci]

The only thing that resembled the Gestapo were your people on January 6th.

The filthy BLM and Antifa Mobs did a million times as much damage. But you sanction THAT insurrection. Over the death of a worthless black thug whose destiny was to OD or catch a bullet.