Anarchists

by Keli Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:32 am

Do you think that the supposed anarchist can spell anarchist--let alone define it?

What are the substantive differences between a Libertarian and an Anarchist, Stephanie?

by **Stephanie** Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:09 am

Who is the anarchist?

by Aaron Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:33 am

Are you running aroud creating anarchy Stephanie???

by **Stephanie** Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:37 am

Yeah, that would be me. lol

by Aaron Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:41 am

Speaking of anarchist, I heard an interesting story on the radio yesterday where anarchist protestors were running around Minneapolis and got lost and they had to have a cop direct them to the Excel Energy Center, where the convention is being held.

by ziggy Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:20 pm

"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may."- Mark Twain

Anarchy Forever

by **Stephanie** Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:25 am

Ziggy,

Believe me when I tell you, I wouldn't fair well under anarchy. I suspect very few of us would.

by Keli Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:50 pm

Stephanie wrote:Who is the anarchist?

In a radio interview earlier this week, U.S. congressman Ron Paul said it may become necessary for citizens to resort to physical opposition if the government continues to erode civil liberties and commit international acts of aggression.

Asked by radio show host Alex Jones if he believed in the use of violence or other physical action to oppose an unjust government, Paul, a one-time presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party and a contender for the Republican presidential nomination until he dropped out of the race earlier this year, answered in the affirmative.

"Well, there's always that possibility that, that time will come." he said. "I believe in that."

(Excerpt) Read more at macedoniaonline.eu ...

by **Stephanie** Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:47 pm

I wouldn't call that being an anarchist, Keli.

I'd call that being a revolutionary. That's what this country needs, a revolution. Dr. Paul and I are working to achieve a peaceful revolution. If that doesn't happen, a violent one eventually will.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:43 pm

Stephanie wrote:I wouldn't call that being an anarchist, Keli.

I'd call that being a revolutionary. That's what this country needs, a revolution. Dr. Paul and I are working to achieve a peaceful revolution. If that doesn't happen, a violent one eventually will.

Before I arrest you and Ron Paul in the name of the loo for sedition, I ask you again: What is the substantive difference between Libertarians and anarchists?

by **Stephanie** Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:05 am

An anarchist looks to end all laws and government and excites revolts. Most anarchists use and promote violence to further their goals.

A libertarian seeks to reduce or greatly limit government, not destroy or abolish it. They promote individual liberty, not violence.

Hope this helps.

by Keli Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:33 am

Stephanie wrote:An anarchist looks to end all laws and government and excites revolts. Most anarchists use and promote violence to further their goals.

A libertarian seeks to reduce or greatly limit government, not destroy or abolish it. They promote individual liberty, not violence.

Hope this helps.

Yet, Dr. Paul, the Mother of all Libertarians, seems to advocate the use of "physical opposition if the government continues to erode civil liberties and commit international acts of aggression."

by TerryRC Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:59 am

Yet, Dr. Paul, the Mother of all Libertarians, seems to advocate the use of "physical opposition if the government continues to erode civil liberties and commit international acts of aggression."

If the founding fathers hadn't agreed, we would still be part of the British Empire.

by Keli Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:05 am

TerryRC wrote:Yet, Dr. Paul, the Mother of all Libertarians, seems to advocate the use of "physical opposition if the government continues to erode civil liberties and commit international acts of aggression."

If the founding fathers hadn't agreed, we would still be part of the British Empire.

Sir, I knew the Founding Fathers, the Founding Fathers were friends of mine; and, sir, Ron Paul is not Founding Father.

by TerryRC Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:08 am

Sir, I knew the Founding Fathers, the Founding Fathers were friends of mine; and, sir, Ron Paul is not Founding Father.

And yet you did not rebut my point. Quel surprise...

by **Stephanie** Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:33 am

First of all, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.

Secondly, Dr. Paul has been advocating civil disobedience for years. I think perhaps if more of us had heeded his advice earlier we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Thirdly, what Paul has done is acknowledged that in the face of tyranny and oppression, if the country continues on its current path and the pendulum doesn't swing back in the direction of freedom and individual liberty and away from facism, what he had long hoped would be a peaceful revolution, may have no other option but to turn violent. What are the alternatives?

In recent decades we have moved further and further away from the ideals this nation was founded on. In the beginning the changes were relatively small and people incorporated them into their lives. However, in recent years fundamental civil rights including privacy and freedom of expression and travel have been eroded at an ever quickening pace.

If our government and our elected officials aren't willing to uphold our Constitution, then "we the people" must. If we don't, GWB will be correct and the Constitution will just be a damn piece of paper.

Some things are worth fighting for, don't you agree?

by Aaron Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:20 am

Stephanie wrote:First of all, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.

Sure he is. And sooner or later I'll fing the video in which he said the reason he became a republican, which was ballot access. I'm sure you're familar with it.

by Keli Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:43 pm

TerryRC wrote:Yet, Dr. Paul, the Mother of all Libertarians, seems to advocate the use of "physical opposition if the government continues to erode civil liberties and commit international acts of aggression."

If the founding fathers hadn't agreed, we would still be part of the British Empire.

The Founders were casting off foreign control. Paul is calling for sedition and revolution against our existing government. I personally believe in the American system of government: ballots not bullets.

by ziggy Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:49 pm

I believe in revolution against the current fascist government of the United States. You can call that treason, call it sedition, or you can call it applebutter. It's all the same to me. Either way, my tools of revolution are ballots and not bullets.

by **Stephanie** Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:52 pm

No, Aaron....you will not find a video where he says that is the reason he became a Republican. To my knowledge he has never made such a statement.

What Dr. Paul has said is that he left the GOP and ran on the Libertarian party ticket because the Republicans lost their way and deviates so far from the principles and ideals of the classic conservatives. The GOP has historically held fast to concepts like limited government, nonintervionist foreign policy, and sound monetary policy. Men like Taft & Goldwater represented these concepts very well and should be our examples, but the party has been hijacked by Rhino's and neocons.

He returned to the GOP because that is his party "home". He is a conservative, not a Libertarian. Libertarians and true conservatives share many of the same philosophies and values, so it was easy for someone like Ron Paul to join up with the LP for a period of time.

However, third parties in this nation, at least at this particular time in history are doomed to failure. There is far too much power and wealth in the Republican & Democratic parties for the LP or the CP or any other party. The leaders of these parties have been working in recent years to make ballot access increasingly difficult. It has become futile.

Ron Paul returned to the GOP because he is a conservative. He opposes Roe v. Wade. He favors securing our borders and stemming the tide of illegal immigration. These are conservative stances, not Libertarian positions.

You can call him whatever you like, Aaron. That doesn't change who and what he is. He has served in the House as a Republican for 10 terms. He was holding political office as a Republican while you were still in grade school. He hasn't changed his position or views on more than one or two issues in all those years.

by ziggy Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:55 pm

The Founders were casting off foreign control. Paul is calling for sedition and revolution against our existing government.

What is "foreign control"? Control by a government centered geographically somewhere else?

To the British monarchs, America was not foreign; it was owned by and was a colony of Britain in much the same way Hawaii is a state of the U.S. of A. Does Washington's power over Hawaii or Alsaka constitute "foreign control"?

by ziggy Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:07 pm

The GOP has historically held fast to concepts like limited government, nonintervionist foreign policy, and sound monetary policy. Men like Taft & Goldwater represented these concepts very well and should be our examples, but the party has been hijacked by Rhino's and neocons.

The GOP was even earlier led by folks like Lincoln, and self-styled progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, Bob Lafolette, and President William Howard Taft. Had they, too, hijacked the Republican Party?

by **Stephanie** Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:10 pm

Keli wrote:
TerryRC wrote:Yet, Dr. Paul, the Mother of all Libertarians, seems to advocate the use of "physical opposition if the government continues to erode civil liberties and commit international acts of aggression."

If the founding fathers hadn't agreed, we would still be part of the British Empire.

The Founders were casting off foreign control. Paul is calling for sedition and revolution against our existing government. I personally believe in the American system of government: ballots not bullets.

He isn't calling for sedition. He is calling for a peaceful revolution for years. Our government has been centralizing control and violating the rights of the people and the states for decades. The process is excelerating and something must be done.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that we are trying to cast of control of foreign governments. Organizations such as the UN all make various demands on the US government and her people. I'm not willing to hand over my nation's sovereignty to any other nation, nor am I willing to relinquish it to an international agency.

What he said the other day is it may come to violence because the government has taken away so many of our liberties we will have no other alternative. You show me where in the Constitution it says that it is legal for the federal government to tax me and use that money to purchase tanks for Israel, or even to send rice to North Korea? Where does it say the federal government can require what kind of identification I carry? Where does it state that a small business owner must provide services and goods anybody who demands it? Or prevent a business from allowing a legal activity such as smoking on their premisis? Where does the Constitution say that the government can use your tax dollars to pay for abortions of people on Medicaid or employed by the federal government? Where does it say that the federal government can arrest and prosecute a person for using a substance prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition? Where does the Constitution allow for a private bank to control our currency? The list keeps growing and growing and growing and all three branches of government are actively engaged in this assault on our liberties, sadly, even the US Supreme Court.

I agree.....the time may come where a violent uprising by the people is the only possible way to return to individual liberty. Dr. Paul is 72 years old and he has a wife in extremely poor health. I'm sure as a father and grandfather he doesn't want to see it come to that any more than I do as a mother and grandmother. He's just acknowledging just how grave our situation is rapidly becoming.

by **Stephanie** Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:20 pm

ziggy wrote:
The GOP has historically held fast to concepts like limited government, nonintervionist foreign policy, and sound monetary policy. Men like Taft & Goldwater represented these concepts very well and should be our examples, but the party has been hijacked by Rhino's and neocons.

The GOP was even earlier led by folks like Lincoln, and self-styled progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, Bob Lafolette, and President William Howard Taft. Had they, too, hijacked the Republican Party?

Lincoln is no hero of mine, but I think you all know that.

The Republicans have always been progressive and they remain progressive in many ways. Much of the key Civil Rights legislation was authored by Republicans. That certainly can be viewed as progressive, but it is also an clear example of the Republican Party's historical love of liberty.

I don't think it's "progressive" to take the fruit of Aaron & Ziggy's labor and give it to me and my family because my husband and I have decided that until our son is much older we want him to have a full-time parent. He is our responsibility, not yours. Nor do I think it's "progressive" to prevent access and use of our nation's natural resources for the benefit of our country and our people. I don't think it's "progressive" to create and maintain a system of dependency on the government. That isn't progressive, that is a type of slavery that should have long ago been abolished.

by Aaron Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:29 pm

Stephanie wrote:No, Aaron....you will not find a video

Ron Paul admits to being a libertarian.

I'll await your apology.

Very Happy

by Sponsored content

Anarchists

Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists

Re: Anarchists