1.“Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception.”
2.“Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions.”
3.“Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it.”
4.“This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored.”
5.“To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing.”
6.“Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified.”
7.“Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties.”
8.“Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels.”
9.“Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags.”
10.“In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment.”
11.“The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration.”
12.“A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions.”
The cultural revolution is a thing of the 70’s you fucking illiterate moron. The campaign for harvest was a part of the great leap forward, which was implemented in the late 50’s. We see this increase in life expectancy already at the beginning of chinese communist rule, yet somehow the alleviation of these things is what explains the increase in life expectancy from the onset of communist rule. How do you explain this? Time travel?
It’s quite poetic that communists resort to such language much earlier in discussion than others, and also achieve much less than others when given opportunity. Be it in statesmanship or in their lives really (that part is sad).
It is quite fitting that libs choose to tone police rather than relate to the discussion at hand. They do this because they know, deep down, that they are fools, basing their worldview on vibes instead of factual observations. It is also quite revealing that right-wing doofuses always lack a back bone, they cannot stand by their world-view and so they attempt to hide it. It seeps into their very language, were basic honesty is a struggle. Instead of directly relating to the person they are conversing with, they often choose passive language that hides what they say. This allows them to deny themselves, when they are rightfully called out. This is cowardice.
Answer my question. If it makes you feel better you can use adult language too.
The answer to your question is:
Carelessness in combination with bad memory. I don’t care about winning or losing this argument, because you are not going to be close to implementing your views and I’m not going to interact with you while trying.
That’s pretty rich considering Communists already control the world’s factories
Ah, the table-flip moment
-Is proven wrong
-tries to reframe the discussion
-gets called out on it
-“whatever, I don’t even care, also you can’t do anything anyway”
You’re pathetic. Please educate yourself.
I also work with city planning and manage to implement my “views” in every project lol.
Yeah, I’ve already said that you are wrong and why. You may keep repeating whatever you like.
That sucks, but yeah, I’ve met such people too.
Is this you vaguely referring to your argument about things that happened in the 70’s and late 50’s to explain events from the early 50’s or are you trying to vaguely refer to something else? Also I thought you didn’t care about proving me wrong, so you wouldn’t even try, but now it seems to be that you’ve in fact already proved me wrong? Impressive.
Hey, nobody can respect you that much to remember them all.
Every one except for that one about hunger in China, where I said that I made a factual mistake. Which doesn’t affect the whole - see Duhem-Quine which communists bring up when put against scientific method.
So you’ve proven me wrong by mentioning a thing which you admit was factually wrong, and then a vague gesture towards “every one”? Does this every one refer to every one of your arguments, or do you mean “every one” as in “every one thinks so”? And now you mention Duhem-quine, which you refute by mentioning the scientific method. A discussion we have not had, yet you somehow believe we have? You manage to construct an argument you’ve had with no one here in a single sentence. Congrats.
This is sad, even for a libertarian.
The Duhem-Quine thesis can be true and we can work with what appears to be most useful without divesting in it completely. I’m surprised to see it mentioned, I’m unsure if it’s something you are knowledgeable on (even if in passing) or an anachronism that folks on the internet tend to use when they’ve heard of something and reflexively use it as a non-sequitur for convenience’s sake.
At any rate why not clearly acknowledge the theses you put forth and the apparent empirical evidence which is contradictory? One could still argue (where argue is related to its older latin form, arguere; to make clear) and work towards a discussion instead of ignoring claims or finding exceptions to discredit, all the while ignoring the ethos of what is being argued?
A reasonable claim is you are close-minded (refusing to engage with claims on their level) or looking to be intentionally belligerent and for the life of me I can’t understand why. What I won’t do in the less than pleasant space of not knowing why–which is what my comrades tend towards–is accuse or otherwise dismiss claims and make attacks on character. Not that it doesn’t have its place and is not well-reasoned in its own way, rather it’s not something I am particularly fond of.
Surely you don’t think I type these comments all the time.
Caring about participating and caring about winning are two different things obviously. Don’t pretend you are too dumb to understand that.
For someone not caring, you’ve spent a lot of hours in here
You’re being called illiterate because you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know the history of the events you are speaking so confidently on. You’ve claimed that Chinese communists are at fault for repression that predates their existence, while mashing up historical events that happened decades apart. You’ve shown no actual understanding of history, and your entire ideology shows that - you would rather engage in utopian fantasies than look at how systems have actually been implemented in reality. You back an ideology that is nothing but a wordy justification for “give the rich more power” and bolster it with a propagandized child’s understanding of history (communism means famine and repression right?).
People in this thread have replied with shitposts, but also well-sourced refutations for your claims. You’ve given us your thoughts on things with nothing backing them up.
It’s quite poetic that you pulled this card after being proven wrong
First in space, first cancer vaccine, first to weld titanium, and first to recognize you deserve a punch in the mouth.
Well, you’re wrong cause you were mean! Take that communists!
Yeah bro, you’re real persuasive with that one