When people say you are paranoid about the government taking your guns

[Mead]

looks like you all have been evolving since I checked in last

keep up the good work boys

[eadric]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, the 2nd amendment does not protect your freedom: a stable democracy does.

Except we do not have a democracy; we have a republic - if we can keep it.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by eadric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except we do not have a democracy; we have a republic - if we can keep it.

You're being pedantic (which is to say you're technically correct, but your technical correction didn't add anything to the discussion so everyone would have been better off if you hadn't made it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]).

But hey, I can be pedantic too! While we are a republic, we're not just any republic ... we're a democratic republic:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia (emphasis added)

Theory
Common definitions of the terms democracy and republic often feature overlapping concerns, suggesting that many democracies function as republics, and many republics operate on democratic principles, as shown by these definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives..."[1]
Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."[2]
Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law notes that the United States exemplifies the varied nature of a constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives.[3]

In other words, democratic republics are democracies (and republics). Ha! Now I'm the one who's technically correct! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Thorondor]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so you guys are pro maduro now?

I, am not. I dont know about the hive(s). Bribing people with food, when theyre starving, for votes doesnt jive with me. Fuck all else.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by Thorondor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I, am not. I dont know about the hive(s). Bribing people with food, when theyre starving, for votes doesnt jive with me. Fuck all else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MteLr_BQMmo

[Thorondor]

Yep. Thats what really matters under a tyrannical regime. Disarming the Venezuelan citizenry primarily prevents them from pilfering amongst themselves with arms. The real threat is the prolongued minimal rationing of food that hes orchestrating. If one faction/region gets too unruly he doesnt have to bring the military down upon them, he merely has to withdraw the small rations of food, and when done over a prolongued period you can be fairly certain that initial hoardings have been exhausted so it doesnt even take long to wait em out.

[Thorondor]

Doesnt help that the people of Venezuela put ideology in front of practicality, either. Theres nothing wrong with GmO food. "Organic" and "GMO-free" is just marketting for retards that dont understand that without efficiency increases in our farming practices, we're all going to suffer a Malthusian fate if Africa and South/Central America's population growth isn't stymied.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by Thorondor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yep. Thats what really matters under a tyrannical regime. Disarming the Venezuelan citizenry primarily prevents them from pilfering amongst themselves with arms. The real threat is the prolongued minimal rationing of food that hes orchestrating. If one faction/region gets too unruly he doesnt have to bring the military down upon them, he merely has to withdraw the small rations of food, and when done over a prolongued period you can be fairly certain that initial hoardings have been exhausted so it doesnt even take long to wait em out.

to me, an economic embargo and/or sanctions, means intentionally depriving children of food. what does it mean to you?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MteLr_BQMmo

Normally I hate Youtube links but that one was fun. Surprisingly enough it reminded me a bit of an argument from Noam Chomsky's most recent video. He essentially make the same argument, only with a very different kind of thief (capitalists).

He argues that capitalists love regulations (ie. the walls being closed) because they know that they can soon game the regulations (ie. steal all the food). Once that happens not only do they have everything they want (ie. all the food) but as long as the walls staying closed (ie. if the regulations stick around after industry neuters them) they actually help protect the thieves' interest.

[Thorondor]

Thats why they want you all sterilizing yourselves and stuffing each others assholes, but the western world isnt the prime contributor, so the pogram really should be leveled upon the southern hemisphere if theres any intelligence behind its implement.