Yet the Liberals who complain about all this Fascism still won't arm themselves. They'll just end up being rounded up like the Jews of Europe in the 1930s, and shot. Stupid fuckers.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 16:02 ID:UiuKEg/n
>>2
Haha you're fucking stupid, the OP made it pretty clear he was being sarcastic. If the founders of the US believed the US was heading for tyranny and it's been 232 years it's obvious that "ZOMG TYRANNY EES JUST AROUND TEH CORNAR" is just a platitude.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 17:10 ID:/OZPPbfk
>>1
Actually, the founders believed that the government they were setting up was just temporary, as the country would be torn apart by civil war within a century.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-31 21:00 ID:3iDK8NJH
All government always heads for tyranny. This is not a new idea. Polybius wrote about it in his histories. He spoke of three government forms, each with a corresponding proper and decadent variation: monarchy and tyranny; they are lead to aristocracy and oligarchy; and finally democracy and mob rule -- and back to monarchy. In the end the proper forms invariably led (in his opinion) to the despotic forms, with the end result being a return to tyranny.
Jefferson said that it is the natural order of things for liberty to yield and government to gain. Then there's that whole "blood of patriots and tyrants" thing. He also expected revolution at periodic intervals.
Off the top of my head I can think of no government that willingly gave up power of its own accord and without outside interference. Without fail, government increases its powers. Left alone and devoid of external stimuli, there is no reason to suppose that any government would break with that influx of power. Government feeds off of it, it loves it.
So yes, I'd say the Founders knew the government would become tyrannical. Anyone with an eye on history could see that much.
#8, who's talking about attitude? No revolution is legal. No government ever authorizes its own overthrow. This is fact. That revolutions are illegal is actually a pointless point since you go ahead and do the revolution anyways; the winner will decide what's legal and illegal, and if you win then you automatically exonerate yourself.
#11 has it right. Get a sniper rifle. The Germans couldn't take Stalingrad, the Germans couldn't get all of the Warsaw Ghetto resisters, the Germans couldn't conquer the French Partisans, the US couldn't win the Vietnam War, and the US can't leave Baghdad without constant casualties. The most effective part of any war is a motivated man and his battle rifle. CASE FUCKING CLOSED!
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 19:29 ID:dAWLuI0P
The most effective part of any war is a motivated man and his battle rifle.
Unless they decide to kill anything and everything that moves.
Unlikely, but cool down on the testosterone. If the Internet is believed, every fat nerd is a Rambo.
#13, you're really not listening. In Operation Linebacker during Vietnam, the USA dropped more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than it dropped during all of WWII. The US still lost. The decision to "kill anything and everything that moves" if often made, but it can't succeed against a culture that REFUSES TO SURRENDER.
So, what are you saying? That the Germans didn't TRY to take Stalingrad? That the Germans had too much respect for the lives of the Russians to do everything in their power to make Stalingrad submit? That's ridiculous. The truth is that the natives of Stalingrad refused to give up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 0:02 ID:KbJ5Tu3u
>>12
The Right of Revolution, as Locke put it, is in the Declaration of Independence. I still consider it valid and I would invoke the clause, "when governments become abusive of these ends..." While you are right, our government has no mechanism for a peaceful overthrow, I still consider it a fundamental right. But you make a good point nonetheless.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 0:30 ID:Miy6kjtB
#13, you're really not listening.
I am. I just think you're a testosterone-driven teenager. I'm really not impressed when people start talking tough on the intertubes.
the USA dropped more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than it dropped during all of WWII
Sure. Dropping bombs on a forest. How very effective.
What I meant by killing anything that moves is just that: find every village, and kill everyone, no questions asked. No worrying about the media. My Lai would be been modus operandi 24x7x365.25.
The decision to "kill anything and everything that moves" if often made
No, it isn't. Don't be ridiculous. If that were true, why aren't there more radioactive spots on the Atlas?
That the Germans didn't TRY to take Stalingrad?
Sure they did, with a few big caveats: they were fighting on several fronts, they weren't equiped for the weather, and it's not like Stalingrad was all on its own. There was an entire country mobilizing behind it. Unless those tanks that rolled into Berlin were my imagination?
Firstly, OL wasn't just dropping bombs on forest. You only speak way to cover the fail. On top of that Iraq remains unconquered despite the use of PGMs. No matter which way you try to slice it, bombing campaigns are failsome. There's just too much to bomb, and you just can't bomb an entire nation.
As for your so-called actual "kill everything that moves", please try to note that there are important reasons why actual hunt-and-peck campaigns are not performed. Talk about some dweeb "talking tough on the intertubes"! No organized army will perform such a thing since it's a spectacular danger to the troops. Sure, you'd get the first few villages, and then your troops would be "kill on sight" targets for everyone in the embattled nation. Soldiers have to sleep sometime, dipshit! Why the FUCK do you think the Green Zone in Baghdad was created?
God, what a rube you are. Even if I was some teenager, I'd still have a sense that genocide NEVER WORKS, no matter how it's planned and executed. Eventually there's blowback and a loss of will on the part of the genociders.
As for radioactive spots ... god damn, how fucking moronic can you really be? We're almost as afraid of OUR nuclear weapons as everyone else is. There isn't a nuclear monopoly anyway, so use of nukes will invite serious to violent reprisals from EVERY NATION ON EARTH, including the nuclear ones. Where do you get this form of unthinking aggression? No army marches without thought of CONSEQUENCE.
And finally, once again you speak with the benefit of hindsight about the German assault on Stalingrad. The point is that the Germans TRIED as military tries to take ANY PLACE, you dumbfuck. The will existed to take it; the circumstances proved the Germans were wrong, and a significant part of THAT was the Russian resistance. Read a fucking BOOK for once in your life!
You know, you sound very much like the "testosterone-driven teenager" you claim to be debating against(which you aren't, BTW). I'm sure then you'd know what one sounds like, since it's YOU, barfdog.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 1:00 ID:T0a3L9do
there is nothing lulzier than an educated troll.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 1:46 ID:Miy6kjtB
Awesome. I riled RedCream up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-04 16:32 ID:3Hrpy8oT
The most effective weapon is a 20 megaton hydrogen bomb. The most effective method of ensuring liberty or death is an armed population with the same attitude as King Leonidas.
#22, well, it's the spirit of DEFENSE ... of which the current Western public is staggeringly ignorant. Remember, we Orwellianly called the Department of War another name just to make it look good. The REAL pathological problem here isn't defense, but in the public not understanding the difference indicated.
I find it amusing in the extreme that Americans themselves demand that the Neo-Cronies attack the Middle East in some sort of retarded reaction to 911, but the borders are left wide open INTENTIONALLY since it makes the corporations and yuppies more money or brings them more convenience. Hypocrisy, much?
The real watering of the tree of liberty with blood must happen here at home. That phrase always referred to NATIVE blood, since the Republic was always feared to fall to internal subversion. The Neo-Liberals (essentially, the corporations) and the Neo-Conservatives have essentially subverted the Republic into being an Empire, and for such a crime they all deserve to die ... die, at the hands of the citizens they've routinely wronged. Maybe once the average American jackhole gets poor enough from being raped by those elitist classes, he'll finally wake up to his responsibility, and OVERTHROW.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-05 18:18 ID:1tOKQIfl
>>23
Conjecture. There are other factors. The US is a significant portion of landmass on the globe, it's borders are continental in length. There is also a strong hispanic cultural lobby which wants a more open border policy with their relatives in Mexico and think that would be the greatest thing in the world ever and cure the US of all it's ills with the superior Mexican culture or whatever. A very strong ideal, like nazism.
The hypocrisy is not a conjecture. We leave ourselves open and commit 160K troops overseas on attacks alone (i.e. not counting the more thousands who are permanently stationed in Germany, the Philippines, Australia, etc.), while our borders are left porous despite their length. Troops could patrol known corridors for invasions by illegal aliens. Regardless of WHY this condition exists, it's existence is not in question, and it's that existence that is the base hypocrisy.
That yuppies and corporations WANT uncontrolled immigration is just sauce for the goose, Mr Savik.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-07 20:25 ID:jB8y7/Oh
fucking a RedCream
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-08 20:12 ID:5UiKVHiz
>>25
Why would Mexico try to invade us again? We'd nuke the shit out of them!
>>27
Mexico invades us constantly and it's not unreasonable to say about 10 million Mexicans have already invaded the United States. When are the nukes flyin', as you say? When has the US military acted to put a stop to the invasion, as you imply? Bozo.
calling the open borders lobby nazis, when the white supremacist minutemen who are just as nationalist
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-11 19:33 ID:UmVasg9v
>>4
They didn't believe that, dumbass. They were creating a new and permanent government to replace the failed Articles of Confederation, which had no federal government.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-11 21:38 ID:ssDQSgDi
how about Plato's idea, a philosopher king? any chance that will ever happen?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-11 22:18 ID:5R2sQvYo
>>33
No. The masses don't want a philosopher, and the philosophers don't want to be kings.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-11 22:25 ID:ZI8YmquI
>>34
Yes they do. Yes they do. The masses lap up philosophy, they like big earth mothers or wise gentlemen giving them advice. It reminds them of their grandparents.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-12 0:32 ID:/T3cGEIM
>>35
I dunno, man. I (kinda) wish that was true, but I believe what the people really wants is to be told what they already believe or want to believe.
How do you explain Bush otherwise? And politics in general? Hell, look at bloggers preaching to their choirs. Honest realists just don't win.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-12 1:59 ID:paGl50Za
>>36
You can make anything sound like what people want or already believe.