That's because they're not actually running, they're invading.
Everyone else lived under tyrants for most of history. The people still there today have a whole world of examples they could be following.
Degenerates
They need to be "given" institutions to teach them what the problems are and fix them?
The funny thing is, when you originally started hiding behind your Marxist strawman, you acknowledged that I DID give you an answer about what the Founders believed. "Finally" even though, again, I'd been explaining their beliefs literally from the very beginning when I was educating you about the kinds of taxation they thought were legitimate.
"Now I finally have an answer. Collective. You really think the Constitution is about the collective?!? If we were about the collective we would be a fascist, socialist and/or communist style state."
But now that I'm tearing apart your shitty strawman you have to go back to pretending I haven't answered. It must take a huge amount of desperation to be so shamelessly dishonest when everything I've said is still right there, clear as day. You just have no response.
"Public" refers to the civilian population as a whole
"as a whole", otherwise known as "collectively"
"collective" in a political sense means you view the public as a singular entity with no unique characteristics among individuals.
LMAO that's not even true for the actual Marxist collectivism you're trying to conflate it with. That'd be some kind of Star Trek Borg hivemind shit. You're really flexing those brain cells and proving how super qualified you are to be talking about this, huh? Pretending to be the real bulwark against commies and globalism when you don't even comprehend what a commie is.
Numb nuts I gave you an answer- the main body spells out exactly what the government can do, meaning they cannot do anything not explicitly written. But due to concerns of no individual rights being recognized the first ten amendments were ratified. That's why the language is different, that's why there's the divide. The main drafters thought they were redundant but acquiesced.
Nope. My response to that was this: "The Federal government. Not state governments, or city councils, or town halls, or village elders, or cult leaders. To a libertarian, it should make no difference what level of government it is. Yet, if a power wasn't stated for the Federal government in the Constitution, it was reserved for those other levels of government and for the people. The only limitations are the Bill of Rights: a specific handful of things forbidden, and whatever Federal laws happen to be created."
Still no answer.
Which is what the founders wanted to avoid dumbass because they were afraid of mob rule cause they studied what happened to Greece. That's why things are clearly spelled out in the constitution.
Very interesting. Here I was thinking the mob-rule issue was about direct elections and solved by only allowing whichever classes are best qualified to represent the people to actually vote. But no, apparently the Founders wanted to avoid the people being able to make the decision at all. Which is crazy, because when I read the Declaration of Independence it seems like they thought the exact fucking opposite of that and the people should be able to organize their government's powers "in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". Guess not, then?
Putting the nation before the individual worked out great for Wuhan, China didn't do anything at first to save face and when they did they welded doors shut and left people to die in their homes. Hospitals won't admit new patients in order to keep the records clean of new cases.
This is the Chinese Communist Party putting the Chinese Communist Party before the nation. It's very telling that you're gonna use the exact same mental gymnastics the Chi-Coms themselves actually use to claim what they do is "for the nation".
We've gone over the same shit repeatedly because you have no other defenses or responses besides to either pretend I haven't made an argument or pretend you've already refuted them. Notice how when I say I've done that I can just scroll up and copy-paste where I did it? Notice how you haven't said shit else about the quotes from your CNN-worthy propaganda website?
Trump is not a libertarian. Trump is a populist conservative. Libertarians have always been right alongside communists with their globalist bullshit, which is why they work so hard to inject themselves into conservative politics, and screech nonstop against the nationalist movement Trump's ignited.
"B-B-BUT WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY I SHOULDN'T DO BUSINESS WITH FOREIGN COMMIE SCUM??? LET THE FREEEEEEE MARKET DECIDE!!! GOVERNMENT DOING THINGS IS BAD!!! IMMIGRANTS ARE FINE AS LONG AS THEY WORK HARD!!!"
Trump will be reelected, there will continue to be more and more Americans caring about the welfare of our culture and society, and less and less Americans caring about individual people's freedom to be degenerate retards or act against American interests. Because we can see more clearly than ever what your deluded philosophy leads to.
None of that's about the debate either, so it's fine; no distraction.
What is your native language?
Like I said, just curious. So what is it?
Just curious, what is your native language?
Well no shit dumbass, anybody living today knows that referring to people as a collective is a marxist/socialist bent idea.
Not in the slightest. That's you still trying to conflate the concept of collectives with Marxism because you have no response. Referring to a group of people as a nation is you referring to them as a collective.
If that isn't what you meant it's on you to explain how yours is different. Which I said you needed to do, but instead you deflect once again with "it didn't exist back then..." then explain what the fuck you actually mean.
I'm not your 4th grade teacher. If you can't wrap your head around what basic English words like collective means, maybe you're not up to scratch for this debate? All I was telling you is that the Founders considered the collective to be a real, concrete thing, real enough to be weighed against the individuals that comprise it. I even GAVE you multiple examples expounding and demonstrating that, like conscription. There is literally nothing for me to explain. Yet here you are, continuing to play dumb.
Bullshit. You make an assertion you back it up,
My assertion is the Founders were not libertarians. I've backed that up extensively. Your assertion here is that the Founders' view of the population as a collective, as I've described it, is equivalent to Marxism. Feel free to back that up. Or just stop strawmanning and acting dumb.
In order to argue they aren't libertarian you have to actually explain what the hell they actually were.
I've been explaining their beliefs constantly, and how they do not align with libertarianism.
America spawned the internet, modern computers, phones followed by smart phones. We do the overwhelming majority of global medical research. Cars, planes, ships, etc. Everything modern is the result of our ingenuity and tenacity. Other nations have profited from our investments and inventions.
Thank goodness for wartime/cold war state-funded technology investments, huh? I'm not sure why other nations profiting from our work is good, but that's fine.
You fucking know this was what I was talking about. It took weeks but you've steadily outed yourself as a globalist shill by your behavior. Your argument can't hold up under scrutiny so you try to pull the typical bullshit.
I thought you were also talking about our ORIGINAL principles of freedom. The ones which were already dead or on their deathbed by the 1900's when these great advancements started to really pick up. But now you're trying to call me a globalist shill when I'm the one repudiating those advancements in favor of the good old America that just said "Pay your tariffs, sell your shit and leave me alone".
I honestly don't know how well my argument holds up under scrutiny since you've hardly been coherent enough to scrutinize it.
Oh no you're right, that site did cut off the quote... except so did you.
Nope. I already posted that full quote. In fact that was the very first thing I did after you originally linked your propaganda site and referenced the deceitfully cut fragment. Nice try, though.
Funny how you keep going on how they didn't want everyone to vote. Yet Jefferson is off the opinion that a government chosen by an imperfect people is so valuable because of taxation with representation.
Also commented on that part: "In other words he completely approved of the power of Congress to tax people, because the representatives are directly elected. Not only that but he thought the people weren't smart enough to have an effective hand in their own country's laws."
Interesting to see your own barely coherent take on it, though. What point are you trying to make? You're saying "yet" as if those two things you said conflict with each other...? They didn't want everyone to vote (in general, not just Congress). And everyone DIDN'T vote. Only the small minorities who were considered best qualified to represent the people. And still Jefferson thought they were ill-qualified to legislate. He thought it was a BAD thing in itself. That's what I was highlighting. Yes he thought it was more important that the people have direct representation in the body that taxes them; that's the entire point of what he was saying. But what's that got to do with anything?
Seems rather focused on individual liberty doesn't he?
Specifically, focused on having the already-implicit liberties be made explicit in the Constitution so they could use the power of the Federal government to intervene against states.
What's your point?
(Restrictions against monopolies btw; yeah, very individualist. Libertarians love government interfering in the economy huh?)
They're called emergency powers because the government can only invoke them in case of national emergencies of a specific nature.
of a specific nature arbitrarily decided by the government itself. They're called emergency powers because the government wants them to seem more tolerable.
Court of law is a normal function of government and is not dependent on a crisis to be used.
"crisis" means nothing. I'm sure a child having his parents murdered in front of him would consider that a crisis. Lo and behold, the power of a government to execute the scumbag responsible is dependent on just such scenarios.
I paraphrased Article 1, Section 8 with the only major difference being I used rebellion instead of insurrection, which are synonyms. You then proceeded to call it false only to restate what I said... That's a new level of low.
I know what you paraphrased. It has nothing to do with when YOU can be forced to serve in the militia. It's about when the MILITIA can be called by the Federal government.
My only mistake is saying "...of the union of in cases..." when I meant "or in cases".
Then how about you pay attention to what you write? It sounded like you were saying it can only be called to execute the laws in the case of insurrection or rebellion. Made sense, since you just got done claiming we can only be drafted in wartime.
No, they cannot. The militia is legally divided into the organized militia, the national guard and naval militia, and the unorganized militia, which is every able bodied man between 17 to 45 years old.
Yes, they can. The bullshit structures they've created to centralize the militia over the years are completely irrelevant. The Constitution is the supreme law.
This raises a huge constitutional issue but that is a different topic.
Which you only raised to pretend like you're informed, despite not even being able to find something on Google that was actually relevant.
The first peacetime draft was instituted by the paragon of constitutionalism known as FDR in 1940.
first peacetime national draft for the Federal Army. And? Being forced into your local militia because of Indian raids is enough to qualify as wartime, I guess.
Ironic? "As much as possible" inherently means that exceptions must exist. Logically those exceptions must be for clear and concise reasons, which is what our constitution does.
Explain. The Constitution makes the "exceptions" clear and concise? So a county in Texas being able to ban the sale of alcohol because it's a sinful drink; that's one of the "exceptions" the Constitution makes clear and concise?
"Preserving the union" is a vague-ass term which can mean whatever the fuck people want it to mean as I've said.
Well first of all yes, that's the entire point. It means whatever the people decide it means. THE PEOPLE. Not you. Not any individual. Second, the actual basis for all the powers granted by the Constitution are laid out in the preamble.
Hmmm... let's have a look... perfecting the union? Justice? tranquility? general "welfare"? "common" defense? blessings of liberty? Obviously all of those things are completely objective and nobody could possibly ever have their own interpretations of what they actually entail, ain't that right?
Who decides what constitutes a threat? The hordes of SJW's clamoring for the imprisonment of climate deniers?!?
The people.
Communists have a right to free speech
Debatable.
And sedition doesn't have to be anything more than a person talking, which is still perfectly objective and provable in court with hard evidence. Either way, your minimization of communists to just "idiots talking", as opposed to a national threat, is interesting.
Notice how I already explained it to you clearly but you never responded to it because it blew your argument the fuck up? I'll restate it again.
Maybe you're hallucinating? You were talking about differences in "language" but now you seem to be backtracking all the way to a very weak non-answer you gave which didn't even ADDRESS the argument I had made, had nothing to do with "language", and which I absolutely DID respond to?
This is what you're "restating" right? "As for the constitution... 1.) The document was written explicitly outlining what the government could do, period. If a power wasn't stated then it wasn't granted. But many were concerned that a future government would stomp on liberties if not explicitly forbidden from doing so. Thus the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, is a redundancy to protect what people considered the most vital of rights."
You said that in response to me saying beforehand: "It only protects a very specific handful of rights overall, the rest limits the Federal government. All other powers are left to the states, or the people, per the 10th. If the Founders were libertarian and their first concern was maximum freedom, why create this divide? Why not simply apply the Constitutional model of enumerated powers across the board?"
Your response didn't even come close to being an ANSWER to that argument, let alone blowing it up. In fact it was just a clumsy, weaselly attempt to avoid it. So I replied and tried again: "The Federal government. Not state governments, or city councils, or town halls, or village elders, or cult leaders. To a libertarian, it should make no difference what level of government it is. Yet, if a power wasn't stated for the Federal government in the Constitution, it was reserved for those other levels of government and for the people. The only limitations are the Bill of Rights: a specific handful of things forbidden, and whatever Federal laws happen to be created."
You never responded. Crickets. This was when you claimed "we" (you?) needed a reboot in the debate because "we" (you?) couldn't follow the lengthy replies.
you have repeatedly made assertions that the founders, in your words, "viewed the population as a collective, not a plurality of individuals" and "put the nation before the individual" whenever I asserted that they valued individual rights.
Utterly false. You are lying. That was never in dispute on either side, anyway, so why would you have asserted it? At least before you made up your desperate little Marxist strawman.
Valuing individual rights = valuing maximum freedom
Those are two separate questions. "Individual rights", like silencers and full auto guns, are specific and countable. "Freedom", like bearing arms, is broad and uncountable. That's how so much BS happens with the 2nd.
(as possible, exceptions are needed but must be given clear reasons and specifications)
(which can apparently be whatever people want)
Also once again, you've failed (or maybe it's refused?) to explain your assertion that you're using these terms differently from Marxist/authoritarians.
Which happened first, A or B:
A) You claimed I'm using the term in the same meaning as Marxists/authoritarians
B) I said I'm not
And the underlying principle of republicanism is that the nation is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. There's no way you didn't try to purposely misstate that definition.
Congratulations, you can Google.
"Public" = collective. It's obvious now, you literally just don't have a clue what that word means. Please learn.
Sure it is. We all know the main casualties of world wars are the tiny fractions of weak elderly in society and others with health complications, and that for the vast vast overwhelming majority of people they're no worse than a nasty bar fight.
Buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords.
Nobody would be stopping you from making your points, if you had any.
It's okay, better luck next time. The rest of us will keep demanding justice and you can keep shilling for us to be patient.
"Trump brutalizing reporters (10 hours version) (Volume 1)"
Lethal injections should be protested imo, it's a stupidly expensive, unreliable way to do it and makes the state dependent on the companies who sell the drugs. That's part of why Oklahoma switched to gassing. Nice big tank of nitrogen, airtight chamber, pretty hard to fuck up.
Sadly that's when even the worst sanctuary city shitholes would suddenly start being the most committed defenders of the law. Probably send you straight to some Feds, then bring the hammer down as hard as possible for whatever you originally did. And make your life hell in the meantime.
Only people who'll help destroy America get to claim the coveted untouchable status of "poor undocumented immigrant just looking for a better life". There'd be a massive black market of fake foreign identities otherwise, like the reverse of illegals stealing our SSNs. Would be hilarious, but they know better
Hope you look like the right "type" of illegal, otherwise that'll backfire quick.
Many residents aren't pleased with the fucking drones telling them to worry about staying home and social distancing
Who isn't sick of them, to be fair. It's basically just another cringy social media trend everyone hopped on so they felt included.
No dual loyalties, no hyphenated Americans. You are the extreme one, parroting communist bullshit that's meant to undermine the concept of nation-states.
B-but muhh gravitas
I suppose "being a mindless lemming" and "being a petty tyrant" are both technically something.
Economies aren't shut down world wide over nothing.
Yes they are.
"But Truuuuump", without fail lol
The hospitals don't need advice, besides to stop shilling against HCQ just because they want a more expensive bill for their patients.
crazy huh
who knew you had to start getting prosecuted for the crimes you yourself are committing and are aware of before you can prepare defenses.
I guess these deepstate international mega-criminals with near unlimited resources really are just totally retarded
It's behavioral genetics I think, not eugenics. Do all those issues just magically manifest themselves?