Of course the whole thing is silly and Biden didn't say anything about threatening to nuke the civilian population, but as thought exercise I think people underestimate how much of the US Military might comes from the industrial base standing behind it.
Then civilians don't even need guns. We just need to not give guns, food, etc to the military right?
Nobody is saying we won anything, funny coming from a person who sounds like a Trump or Republican but do you really think that if the US Military used all that they have it wouldn't have turned out differently. Granted the Taliban are great fighters who have been fighting their whole lives on their home turf. This is the major difference between what happened in Afghanistan and what would happen if the militia tried to take over the country. You do not have home field advantage.
I guess you must still play with green army men and make up these scenarios as a way to entertain yourself. Hilarious stuff thanks for a good laugh.
Although, I think Tucker and Fox News are attempting to undermine this. They’re insulting the military’s “woke” Leadership in an attempt to split the military into two groups, the “cuck PC RINO woke libtard” Gen Milley group loyal to that fake president sleepy creepy uncle pedo Joe Biden. and the “true Patriot MAGA build the wall lock her up save the children” Michael Flynn loyal to the one and only great leader whose piss heals wounds group.
I never had green army men, but I don’t know how anyone doesn’t like to pick ideas up and play with them. That is not how I’m built. I’m glad you find it as entertaining as I do.
The armed forces of the U.S. is made up of 1.4 million individuals (quick google search for that number). They not only come from every nook and cranny of the United States, but also include people who are using military service as a path to citizenship.
The man’s a devious little *****
theintercept.com
Honestly, if you've never heard conservatives say that ideas like providing a safety net for all people, preventing monopolies, strengthening weak unions, weakening exploitative owners, protecting consumers, workers, and environments from big business, taxing the richest more than the middle class, redistributing pilfered wealth, guaranteeing basic incomes, trying to end poverty and removing the profit motive from essential life sectors like education, healthcare, utilities, mass media, and incarceration are anti-business, etc., I don't know what you have been listening to.
1) Language changes depending on the context. When you are engaging in a post-modernist-style recontextualization, the language changes. The 2 + 2 = 5 illustrations were examples of the importance of context.
I don't see any lack of effort to communicate on Kendi's part. Mostly, I see obstructions, far-reaching misinterpretations, and deliberate misuse on the part of those in opposition.
With the possible exception of UBI (and even that is not a slam dunk), every one of those is not Marxism. Everyone using Marxism to describe those things doesn't know what they are talking about. I've never said that those who count themselves on the political right are without their fair share of those who speak steadfast opinions on topics they don't grasp but it is a mistake to let people who muddy language through inept understanding or malicious intent to control the conversation.
That is what you've said. You say that he is perfectly understandable, so please give me your interpretation of Kendi's definition of capitalism. I don't want a cut-and-pasted quote. I don't want examples of this situation being capitalism or that situation being capitalism. I want a definition. I want your understanding of Kendi's understanding of what capitalism is.
I agree completely.
Again, it was right there in post #22:
Is there something there you have having trouble understanding?
Yes, because capitalism isn't a word that Kendi made up. It has a definition. Can you find any reputable source that agrees with the definition for capitalism you just gave?
I fully agree Kendi's definition is by no means complete. However, if you look at the rhetoric of the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzes, capitalism absolutely includes all the items Kendi states. So, let me ask you: what did Kendi say about capitalism that you think if not true? What did he attribute to capitalism that is you think is not a part of capitalism in practice?
All of it is wrong. Capitalism is an economic concept while freedoms are a political concept. It may be possible to have some of those political freedoms in a capitalist economy but that is not the same thing as saying those political freedoms are the definition of a capitalist economy.
You think economics and politics are easily separable things?
Hypothetically, capitalism can absolutely work with every item on that list. There is nothing preventing private property rights coexisting with any of those things. Bits and pieces of each have been adopted by various governments at various times. The entire collection has never been adopted but it isn’t because it is impossible but rather it is because no society has chosen to do it. In reality, many of those things are antagonistic to economic growth and people tend to vote out political leaders whose policies cause the economy to stagnate. The problem with achieving your list isn’t limitations built into capitalism but rather democracy combined with people thinking equity is good but the new iPhone is way better.
Vietnam also used the Chinese army.
I wonder if you noticed the self-contradiction in what you typed.
Not at all. Kendi was writing that he is anticapitalist, not anti-American. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if you think he meant "anti-American" I don't have a strong argument against that interpretation.
