Current or modern politics in the United States

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

They have nothing to do with me. They are afraid.

The following picture correspond more of my Anarchist style. I've few fears and not afraid to die.
[/URL]

The Bundys weren't afraid to die either -- they've stood down Federal law enforcement on more than one occasion.

Since Waco, the government has not wanted to have a real shootout with a big death toll, but the Sovereign Citizens expect it.

Bottom line is that the US has quite a lot of anarchism and due to our firearms laws, its quite possible for a small number of ideologically committed people to make themselves pretty hard to confront.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

They have nothing to do with me. They are afraid.

The following picture correspond more of my Anarchist style. I've few fears and not afraid to die.

At 94 I guess you aren't afraid of going to the great beyond.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

And aren't we living in at least minor anarchy now? Every morning we wake up to see what the toddler in charge has tweeted and anarchy reigns.

Quite tiresome.

That's an excellent point.
Governments and monetary dictators try to tell us that they follow principles, but are not afraid to manipulate laws in the most anarchist way...

So fuck off leaders and let us live our life in peace.

I agree with deepsepia on one point. If there are some kind of democracies that we have to follow, there are societies in which the government must be transparent and revocable as they are in Scandinavian democracies.
If I doubt about flexibility of democracies (too much inertia), they must at least serve the interests of their citizen.
That's not the fact of a lot of Western democracies, where politicians can run countries during decades even if acting like crooks.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

Sovereign citizens - you don't see this type of crap in Russia or China. Doubt they remain outside a cell for very long in those countries.

And aren't we living in at least minor anarchy now? Every morning we wake up to see what the toddler in charge has tweeted and anarchy reigns.

Quite tiresome.

Back in the days of the Tsar, Russia had a very big anarchist movement- bombs were their preferred way of making a point- killed Tsar Alexander II

Mikhail Bakunin is the big name in Russian anarchism, but hispractical successes were few. Popular with people wasting time and drinking coffee though

We had a few anarchists around the turn of the 20th century in the US, the most famous would be the assassination of William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz (who may be the least famous Presidential assassin in US history).

Czolgosz was a moderate socialist who'd become gradually more radical, identifying as an anarchist.

Its in reference to this assassination that Theodore Roosevelt says:
"When compared with the suppression of anarchy, every other question sinks into insignificance."

Czolgosz' last words were:
""I killed the President because he was the enemy of the good people – the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime. I am sorry I could not see my father.""

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Sounds like a Sovereign Citizen talking. Those "idiots in action" would agree with you %100 -- and they add to that the willingness to take direct action.

So join up. Your political home is the American Mountain West-- the Bundy Militia. These are anarchists devoted to confronting a government they think is illegitimate, your real world anarchists in action:

If I were younger, I wouldn't mind going after the Bundy bunch. To my mind they are stealing public property. If you aren't going to pay the grazing fees to degrade public land and pollute the streams, your damn cows ought to be fair game.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

If I were younger, I wouldn't mind going after the Bundy bunch. To my mind they are stealing public property. If you aren't going to pay the grazing fees to degrade public land and pollute the streams, your damn cows ought to be fair game.

yes, the inability to successfully confront the Bundys is a major failure in the American political system.

Obama basically didn't want to do anything about Malheur-- you can see why. Lotta guys with guns, many of whom were very much in a "Waco" frame of mind. So in DC, the mindset was "well let them sit there-- its the middle of nowhere".

But this was a real problem for Oregon, the Governor wrote to Obama and said "you've got to do something about this". [Oregon couldn't do anything itself, because the Bundys were on Federal not State land]

[bowlinggreen]

Quoting xyzde69:

So, Bowlinggreen, I'll give you the answer:

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

That should actually read:

"From the worker regardless of his means, to the party apparatchik according to his wants."

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

Sovereign citizens - you don't see this type of crap in Russia or China. Doubt they remain outside a cell for very long in those countries.

And aren't we living in at least minor anarchy now? Every morning we wake up to see what the toddler in charge has tweeted and anarchy reigns.

Quite tiresome.

Other countries don't allow their citizens to possess the sorts of guns needed to confront the government.

It's actually been 25 years now since Waco, and we haven't had a big shootout between the government and native grown extremists of any type that I can recall since.

That's an improvement from the madness that seemed to stretch from somewhere in the 60s all the way up to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Our various alphabet agencies probably have enough busywork on their plates with Islamic terrorists these days that they no longer really bother with stirring up the home-grown militias and cults.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

yes, the inability to successfully confront the Bundys is a major failure in the American political system.

Obama basically didn't want to do anything about Malheur-- you can see why. Lotta guys with guns, many of whom were very much in a "Waco" frame of mind. So in DC, the mindset was "well let them sit there-- its the middle of nowhere".

But this was a real problem for Oregon, the Governor wrote to Obama and said "you've got to do something about this". [Oregon couldn't do anything itself, because the Bundys were on Federal not State land]

Find a bunch of hot blooded young Indians, give them assault rifles, chainsaws and butchering tools, turn them loose, and voila, problem solved.

Bundy: "The damn Indians are shooting us and killing our cows."

U.S. Marshall: "Sounds like a personal problem to me."

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

yes, the inability to successfully confront the Bundys is a major failure in the American political system.

Obama basically didn't want to do anything about Malheur-- you can see why. Lotta guys with guns, many of whom were very much in a "Waco" frame of mind. So in DC, the mindset was "well let them sit there-- its the middle of nowhere".

But this was a real problem for Oregon, the Governor wrote to Obama and said "you've got to do something about this". [Oregon couldn't do anything itself, because the Bundys were on Federal not State land]

You just prove how a Federal government can be crap.
Following unfair rules of lazy politicians instead to acting.

But provocation aside ... honestly I'm surprised that a highly authoritarian administration like the American one, that was used to bomb abroad sovereign nations who didn't follow their notion of "free market" and business casts, that is used to perpetrate the most unfair embargos against egalitarian democracies, does not send a division of tanks with two batallions of GI's to annihilate these rebels or at least to send them to a private jail.
I'm very very surprised.

And what does Trump think about Oregon's rebels?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

And what does Trump think about Oregon's rebels?

The question is logically unsound because it is based on a false premise.