Why is a Constitutional Republic more proper than a democracy?

[IBDaMann]

So why would a marxist not just come out and TELL you that they are marxist?

Marxists are aware that educated people will mock them immediately upon learning they are Marxists, thus causing Marxists to lose all credibility in any discussion. Thus, Marxists conceal their Marxism, or at least they try. All too often, they give themselves away inadvertently.

Note: "a Marxist" is singular, requiring the pronoun "he." The pronoun "they" is plural and requires a plural antecedent.

And, if they don't do that, how would YOU know that they are?

Like I said, they give themselves away.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Marxists are aware that educated people will mock them immediately upon learning they are Marxists, thus causing Marxists to lose all credibility in any discussion

Looks like you don't know many marxists. I studied Marx when I was in college. It was manadatory. Problem with their ideology is simply that it's wrong. But they're conviced their right and that they are the "good guys". I had PLENTY of debates with marxists in the 70s and early 80s.

The minute I hear "marxist" they do lose credibility with me. But they don't think so. Not like they would DENY being marxists. I would certainly spot them in a second. And then I'd be able to explain HOW I spot them in no more than 2 or 3 lines. Instead of a link to a book that I haven't read. Believe me... reading Marx is boooring as hel!! I read the Manifesto because it's short (and it was required). But Das Kapital is like 2000 pages.... forget it! I refused to read anything else.

So thereby my question: if they wanted to HIDE that they are maxists, how wouild you know that they are?

 

[Publius]

The premise of this thread certainly can be an embarrassment to Marxists like yourself who will do most
anything the Marxist leaders of your party continually do to damage and or destroy our beautiful Constitutional
Republic in lieu of forming a socialist/Marxist/globalist community of losers and defeatists around the world. Can't
you and or your anti American cohorts find an American flag to burn to shreds or to find a statue to dismantle
and completely destroy of our founding fathers, or are you too busy feeling all that joy from the communist kamala?

Ayn Rand is a hypocrite.

You make grandiose non substantive declarations about the left without evidence.

Therefore, think it is fair to conclude that you wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit you on your gluteus maximus.

That is slightly better than being a hypocrite, but not by much (imo)

 

[IBDaMann]

Looks like you don't know many marxists.

Looks like you don't know how things look.

I studied Marx when I was in college.

... or maybe you didn't. Who's to say if you were lapping up a bunch of disinformation? We can only see by comparing your assertions to authoritative sources ... and you haven't read the authoritative sources.

Problem with their ideology is simply that it's wrong.

Saying that it has a problem already implies that it is wrong. You need to explain why it's wrong. I'm not convinced that you know.

But they're conviced their right and that they are the "good guys".

How would you explain to a Marxist why he is wrong? I've been explaining to Marxists for decades why their wrong by citing authoritative sources.

I had PLENTY of debates with marxists in the 70s and early 80s.

Were you better in the past than you are today?

The minute I hear "marxist" they do lose credibility with me. But they don't think so.

Correct. The moment Marxists realize they've been "found out" they shift gears and switch to more overt wording and more aggressive tactics, presuming they are then fighting an uphill battle.

Not like they would DENY being marxists.

Many absolutely do, and many try to remain concealed with quips like "what makes you think I'm a Marxist?" or "I never said I was a Marxist."

I would certainly spot them in a second. And then I'd be able to explain HOW I spot them in no more than 2 or 3 lines.

Yep, that's how it works. What amazes me is that they never figure out what it is that gives them away.

Instead of a link to a book that I haven't read.

You should read both of them then. This tells me that you were likely mistaken.

reading Marx is boooring as hel!!

Marx was a shitty writer, but he was an amazing "angry preacher," like a Howard Dean. His publications are the authoritative sources on Marxism ... to be followed by THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM by Giovanni Gentile, to discuss the follow-on flavor of Marxist socialism.

I read the Manifesto because it's short (and it was required). But Das Kapital is like 2000 pages.... forget it! I refused to read anything else.

Das Kapital simply provides insights into Marx's twisted psychology. If you wish to discuss the philosophy/rationale behind the madness, you need to read all of it. The Communist Manifesto explains the mandates without delving much into the "why" of it all. If you wish to merely explain why it's wrong, as you mentioned, then you are correct that you don't need to read any of it; just let a Marxist explain his position and then go to town on him.

So thereby my question: if they wanted to HIDE that they are maxists, how wouild you know that they are?

Like I said, they can't effectively hide because they don't know what it is that gives them away. Some are just stupid and pepper their arguments with phrases like "the means of production" and "the struggle of the working class." Others had more sophisticated indoctrinations and seriously believe that their regurgitations from Das Kapital are truly sound economics.

In any event, the moment I realize that I've got a Marxist, I usually pick him apart in short order.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ayn Rand is a hypocrite.

This is where you explain what you believe you mean. Your conclusion is not simply presumed.

You make grandiose non substantive declarations about the left without evidence.

That's what you just did about Ayn Rand in the line above, hypocrite.

Therefore, think it is fair to conclude that you wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit you on your gluteus maximus.

Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that you wouldn't be able to draw a valid conclusion if it were a "connect the dots" puzzle.

That is bad when combined with being a hypocrite.

 

[Publius]

This is where you explain what you believe you mean. Your conclusion is not simply presumed.


That's what you just did about Ayn Rand in the line above, hypocrite.


Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that you wouldn't be able to draw a valid conclusion if it were a "connect the dots" puzzle.

That is bad when combined with being a hypocrite.

Oh, please, the story on Rand's hypocrisy is widely known and debated on forums throughout the internet.

It didn't occur to me someone would be unaware of that fact.

In the meantime.......

Sorry, I can tolerate jerks, but I do not engage assholes.

Please repeat the above until epiphany is achieved.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't understand the US government or its history.

And Ayn Rand is a right wing goon.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR ILLITERACY ON LIBHATER, AYN RAND, OR ANYBODY ELSE, HUGO!

 

[Into the Night]

The leftist twats don't care. They use the term "democracy" not because it means anything to them or they care about it, but because they think it disparages trump and his supporters. Remember words have "fluid" meanings with leftists. They don't care that America isnt a democracy. They hate America and would hate it all the more if it actually was a democracy.

Democrats tend to use the word "democracy" to refer to The Oligarchy. It's their way of trying to whitewash who and what they are...tyrants.

 

[Into the Night]

Looks like you don't know many marxists. I studied Marx when I was in college. It was manadatory.

You obviously haven't. Don't try to pretend your way out of this.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, please, the story on Rand's hypocrisy is widely known and debated on forums throughout the internet.

It didn't occur to me someone would be unaware of that fact.

In the meantime.......

Sorry, I can tolerate jerks, but I do not engage assholes.

Please repeat the above until epiphany is achieved.

Void argument fallacy. Attempted proof by void. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Oh, please, the story on Rand's hypocrisy is widely known

Nope. Either support your assertion or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed.

... and debated on forums throughout the internet.

Judging by your flub, it just was not debated effectively.

It didn't occur to me someone would be unaware of that fact.

It's not a fact. You should learn what a "fact" is,

In the meantime....... Sorry, I can [barely] tolerate [people who know so much more than I do] , but I do not engage [the people with whom I obsessively engage]

FTFY. You are quite entertaining.

 

[Publius]

Nope. Either support your assertion or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed.


Judging by your flub, it just was not debated effectively.


It's not a fact. You should learn what a "fact" is,


FTFY. You are quite entertaining.

You edit my comments, you go on ignore.

I repeat, I do not engage with assholes.

FYI, I said that the story on Rand's hypocrisy is widely known and debated on the internnet. I did not say her hypocrisy was a fact.

I said I was unaware that some morons like you would be unaware of that fact.

What fact?

The story on Rand's Hypocrisy.

THE STORY is a fact. That it EXISTS is a fact.

That does not say her hypocrisy is fact (though I believe I can make that argument).

Learn how to read.

And don't ask me, I don't engage with assholes. If Libhater asks, I will oblige him, but not you. I tolerate idiocy, but not assholery.

Henceforth, given that you edit my comments, (rewrite them), you go on ignore.

 

[IBDaMann]

You edit my comments, you go on ignore.

I'm sorry, but you leave too much room for improvement.

I repeat, I do not engage with assholes.

I know, I know ... your sole reason for engaging with me so furiously is clearly to ensure I know just how much of an ashsole I really am.

FYI, I said that the story on Rand's hypocrisy is widely known and debated on the internnet.

... and I'm telling you that it's not. I'm correct, you're mistaken, ask anybody.

I did not say her hypocrisy was a fact.

You still need to learn what a fact is.

I said I was unaware that some morons like you would be unaware of that fact.

I read what you wrote. You don't know what a fact is. I'm assuming it's all part of your uneducation package.

And don't ask me, I don't engage with assholes.

Message received! Your redoubled engagment efforts are really paying off. Rest assured that your frenetic engagment with me has made me well aware of the full extent to which you are not engaging with me. It's a bitter pill to swallow.

If Libhater asks, I will oblige him, but not you.

How I envy him. Maybe I really should rethink my thoroughly ashsole nature and perhaps not spank you up and down the square. If I were to but refrain from smacking you around, perhaps I too could enjoy all the benefits of your answers and your wisdom.

I tolerate idiocy, but not assholery.

I know, I know ... I've had to learn my lesson the hard way about just how fiercely you aren't tolerating me in your responses to every single one of my posts. I'm just going to have to find a way to cope.

Henceforth, given that you edit my comments, (rewrite them), [I will flee yet again in abject terror over my inability to handle your posts].

FTFY. I really didn't mean to spook you. If I had only known that disallowing you to control the conversation would strike at the very core of your cowardice, I might have simply fixed the wording of your quote.

 

[Libhater]

Therefore, think it is fair to conclude that you wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit you on your gluteus maximus.

[/QUOTE]

I would shoot any Marxist that got close enough to bring harm to me. Ayn Rand perfectly identified what
Marxists are, and I and other pro American Righties know full well just how the Dem Party, especially the
high up elites like obama et al have tried their best to undermine our Constitution and to fully change the
direction our nation where it would become government controlled, thus silencing the free will of the
people, thus subordinating them to lives dictated by the govt elites. Wake up and smell the dead rats in
your party.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Saying that it has a problem already implies that it is wrong. You need to explain why it's wrong. I'm not convinced that you know.

Basically because it's not feasible. It's been tried but has never succeeded in even being implemented. States stay... basically forever, in the intermediate "socialist" state and never advance into real communism. But I don't have to convince you. You are the one accusing somebody of being a Marxist. If that's easy for you to know why somebody is a marxist, you should be able to point out how you know.

The ball is in your side of the court. Of course, you can deflect. But then you just confirm that you're just using it as an insult but don't really know what it means.

How would you explain to a Marxist why he is wrong?

I would simply ask them to point out any nation at any point in history in which communism was implemented. It's not "wrong". It would be great. But it doesn't work

I'm in no way an expert on marxism But what I sutidied in college and my debates with marxist are know enough so that if I were debating a marxist I would know that they are even if they didn't specifically say it, and I would be able to explain how I know without demanding that anybody read Marx.

I've been explaining to Marxists for decades why their wrong by citing authoritative sources.

Cool! Explaining to marxists why marxism is wrong requires way more time and knowledge than it takes to explain how you know somebody is a marxist. So it should be easy for you to tell us how you know that poster is a marxist. That's waaaay easier than explaining to a marxist why they're wrong. IF you know what you're talking about, that is.

So you accused the poster of being a marxist. Well.... tell us how you know..... Very simple!

Like I said, they can't effectively hide because they don't know what it is that gives them away.

I most definitely agree that it's EASY to spot a marxist in many ways. But then you should be able to explain specifically HOW you spotted them.

Please use quotes....

 

[Feynman Lives!]

You obviously haven't. Don't try to pretend your way out of this.

Why not? You seem to think that studying marxism in college is a big deal. Doesn't everybody? It was just a course in which Marxism was ONE of the topics. They had you read the Manifesto which is.... about 25 pages long.

You appear to think that taking a course that includes Marxism in college is some sort of "great achievement". it's not! I assumed EVERYBODY did.

 

[Publius]

I would shoot any Marxist that got close enough to bring harm to me.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you an idiot? Are you really advocating violence? Let me know and I will alert the FBI.

Ayn Rand perfectly identified what
Marxists are,

She's a hypocrite, she went on the dole later in life when her money ran out, while spending her life arguing that welfare was aligned with Marxist philosophy, which, to many, like some of the morons on this forum, claim IS 'Marxism', which it isn't.

Even the famous conservative, William F Buckley said he had to flog himself in order to read 'Atlas Shrugged'. And, her philosophy
she called 'objectivism' as if her philosophy, and no other, was objective as hers, which is arrogance, and add a lot of tobacco smoke and viola, you got Ayn Rand, hypocrite extraordinaire.

and I and other pro American Righties know full well just how the Dem Party, especially the
high up elites like obama et al have tried their best to undermine our Constitution

Oh yeah, well

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's pressuring state officials to 'find' votes to overturn a lawful election in Georgia.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's attempting to coerce the Vice President into rejecting certified electoral votes.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's inciting an insurrection against the United States Capitol.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's obstructing Congress's certification of the Electoral College results.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's misusing the Department of Justice to promote false claims of election fraud.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election by asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's violating the Emoluments Clause by profiting from foreign governments at his properties.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's repeatedly attacking the free press, calling them the 'enemy of the people,' undermining the First Amendment.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's interfering with the Russia investigation and firing FBI Director James Comey in an effort to obstruct justice.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's separating thousands of immigrant families at the border in violation of due process and human rights.

Nothing spells 'upholding the Constitution' like Trump's threatening to jail political opponents, a blatant abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law.

and to fully change the
direction our nation where it would become government controlled, thus silencing the free will of the
people, thus subordinating them to lives dictated by the govt elites. Wake up and smell the dead rats in
your party.

You guys on the right have been peddling such right wing tired tropes for some 60 years now, and, i swear, it's like a broken tape player that doesn't quit playing the same, boring tune, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. It wouldn't be so bad it it was a good tune, but it really sucks.

yeah, nothing spells decentralizing the government than Trump's stated desire to 'deconstruct the administrative state', by firing thousands of career civil servants and replace with Trump sycophants, reinstituting schedule F which makes it easier for Trump to fire them, thus giving him heightened centralized power that no prior president hitherto ever achieved. On top of this, with Scotus's new 'president has absolute immunity' which will go to his head and make him think he has the same powers as Putin has over his government, and viola, Trump is a dictator in training, now all he needs is dictator 101 lessons which he will no doubt schedule more of those 'private telephone conversations' with Putin like he did when he was last in office.

Libhater, you are blind as to who Trump is, what he is up to, and your fears are the objective of Trump, not dems and you are totally ignorant about what Dems are all about.

Not only that, your avatar reeks of hate. And now you want to 'shoot Marxists'?

You are a sick puppy, you need help.

Not to mention the fact that you got it bass ackwards.

 

[IBDaMann]

Basically because it's not feasible.

Being "not feasible" is already covered in "it doesn't work", i.e. there is nothing that "doesn't work" that is nonetheless perfectly feasible. You should still seek to learn why this is with Marxism.

It's been tried but has never succeeded in even being implemented.

Socialism has been tried many times and has failed every time. Communism has never lasted for any reasonable amount of time because it cannot sustain itself. In both instances, why is this the case?

States stay... basically forever, in the intermediate "socialist" state and never advance into real communism.

This is why communists only trust communists and why communists HATE socialists.

You are the one accusing somebody of being a Marxist.

I am relishing your wording of "accusing somebody of being a Marxist," as if the mere observation of such does not provide sufficient drama.

If that's easy for you to know why somebody is a marxist, you should be able to point out how you know.

Incorrect. It's not that easy. You're asking me to teach you how to spot a Marxist, and that takes training and experience.

The ball is in your side of the court. Of course, you can deflect.

If you wish to pay my fees and register for some of my courses, we can get started immediately.

I would simply ask them to point out any nation at any point in history in which communism was implemented.

Chaz. It lasted a few weeks.

I'm in no way an expert on marxism

I gathered that much, so I am recommending you re-read The Communist Manifesto and actually dig into Das Kapital.

But what I sutidied in college and my debates with marxist are know enough so that if I were debating a marxist I would know that they are even if they didn't specifically say it, and I would be able to explain how I know without demanding that anybody read Marx.

I don't think you can.

So you accused the poster of being a marxist. Well.... tell us how you know..... Very simple!

I was asking you, as sort of a puzzle, because an example happened to pop up. Since you don't really have any idea, nevermind.

I most definitely agree that it's EASY to spot a marxist in many ways.

You weren't able to spot the one about which I asked you.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Being "not feasible" is already covered in "it doesn't work"

Cool! Then, your question is answered.

Anyway... you're just going around and around in circles without answering the question.. Which tells us that my first instinct was correct: you don't know....

Thanks for playing....

 

[Into the Night]

You edit my comments, you go on ignore.

Run, Coward, run!

I repeat, I do not engage with assholes.

You can't make yourself leave yourself.

FYI, I said that the story on Rand's hypocrisy is widely known and debated on the internnet. I did not say her hypocrisy was a fact.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Bulverism fallacy.

I said I was unaware that some morons like you would be unaware of that fact.

Learn what "fact" means.

What fact?

The story on Rand's Hypocrisy.

THE STORY is a fact. That it EXISTS is a fact.

Learn what "fact" means. It does NOT mean "Universal Truth" or "proof".

That does not say her hypocrisy is fact (though I believe I can make that argument).

Learn how to read.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR ILLITERACY ON IBDAMANN OR ANYBODY ELSE!

And don't ask me, I don't engage with assholes. If Libhater asks, I will oblige him, but not you. I tolerate idiocy, but not assholery.

Henceforth, given that you edit my comments, (rewrite them), you go on ignore.

Run, Coward. Run. Back to the Kiddie Pool for you!