They have State militias, police, SWAT, and National Guard divisions as well as thousands of armed citizens-that's not "standing alone" (unless you've deliberately redefined the phrase to suit your fallacious argument). Besides, the Feds can't even stop simple terrorists from the 3rd world, so I think you give them WAY too much credit.

Further, where does the FedGov get the right to prevent any State from seceding? It's certainly nowhere in the founding documents. How interesting that your shoddy logic has put you on the side of the likes of Lincolnesque/Reaganite Republicans you claim to oppose!

Whoever is left in the state when it succedes because there will be a rush for the borders...lol will be left to defend their little country. Which now stands alone with no help from the US anymore. And when the US gets tired of the ******** from said little country, it will just march right in there like we did in Iraq and take it back. So the sucession will be done for nothing.

But like I said it does make one laugh at the thought of it happening and if enough of the lunatic fringe can get it to happen that makes it even funnier. That people would follow those people but hey, people do crazy things sometimes...lol. And then the aftermath of the US taking it back and maybe calling it FUDGEVILLE as punishment, is even funnier.

We've already had over half the states Legally Declaree their Soverignty.
That is the step before seccesion.
Really, though. All we need to do is through out the trash in DC, starting with Hussein.

Its all part of the reptoid draconians plan. Divide and conquer

The lunatic fringe these days is like a bag lady with a megaphone-- their logic is homeless and their shopping carts are full of the crummiest punditry one can find in the worst intellectual section in 'town'.

But they cheer pretty loudly, which makes them all the more annoying, considering the utter unlikeliness of their dreams of anarchy, which they think are somehow going to improve their fortunes.


-Kerry O.

I can't understand their logic at all so you could be right. I see no logic to it.

Anarchy has always improved peoples' fortunes in the past (as I've demonstrated, if you have the courage to read), so there is reason to expect it to work in the future. Government on the other hand, has always failed, even in the best of circumstances (viz. USA).

It seems that from the objective evidence available, it is in fact those who believe in government are the ones "living in a fantasy". Since stable "archy" is far more unlikely than stable anarchy, you might want to think twice before making statements like that quoted above.

(note also that no government has been able to do what its proponents claim with such quasi-religious fervor in the long run)

Try reading for comprehension. I've given you PLENTY of literature, and you should be able to understand it if you can read. Many of the books I've referred you to are also available as "books on tape" if you have a reading disability, and there are programs that can dictate text on your computer monitor (I don't mean that as an insult, just trying to be helpful).

"Anarchy has always improved peoples' fortunes in the past (as I've demonstrated, if you have the courage to read), so there is reason to expect it to work in the future. Government on the other hand, has always failed, even in the best of circumstances (viz. USA). "



From a logical standpoint,, statements of "FACT" that use the qualifier 'always' are almost always more sentimental than factual.

I guess if you're a thug or a pirate, that might be true. Look at modern-day Somalia. If you're such an anarchist, you'd love there, right? No government at all, just a bunch of freebooters and warlords running the show, thumbing their noses at the world and living like kings. Just think, you could be their master strategist. It would be your dream job, wouldn't it?

Mostly, though, anarchy gets people dead. And people as a rule want more stable surroundings to raise children- that's why they build societies with governments.


-Kerry O.

^^^^Dem Liberals sure know how to describe Hussein, Congress and the rest of those crooked politicians running this country.

Sorry, neither. And I doubt anyone is going to take the statement "Obama is a anarchist" very seriously.

Is this what the conservative movement has been reduced to, hurling about pretzel accusations that are really just placemakers for 'stop thinking when you encounter this label'?

-Kerry O.

Just saying.
Your decription fits what we have running our country.
Most are in it for the money, self and special interests.
Show me where I am wrong in stating, most Politicians are owned by special interests and big Corporations

Since the subject of how to manage our lives are subjective (we can't read the future) we can only go by the past. From a logical standpoint, you are unjustified in criticizing my statement because the objective evidence supports it.

Further, if we were to eliminate all statements such as the ones you are criticizing, there would be no debate possible (and a de facto anarchy as people do whatever they want as best they can).

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/

UPDATE:

Nullification: Ballot Drive for Legal Pot in CA

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states resisting DC with legislation on firearms and health care, they almost always miss, or ignore, what I consider to be some of the greatest and most effective state resistance to federal power – marijuana activism.

According to our friends at NORML, there are now 13 states who are openly resisting federal laws on medical marijuana. And now my home state of California is on the verge of taking it to the next level – full legalization.

details in this San Francisco Chronicle story-http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/22/BACP19R095.DTL

It will not happen. Check Texas v. White.

Read the story I quoted in the post above yours-

"According to our friends at NORML, there are now 13 states who are openly resisting federal laws on medical marijuana. And now my home state of California is on the verge of taking it to the next level – full legalization."

I won't say that it will or won't happen, but the precedent is there-so you can't logically say it won't happen for certain.

But that's not anarchy. Corruption, maybe. But not anarchy.

And it's not like either side hasn't had its bad apples. For every Dan Rostenkowski I can probably name someone like John Ensign. During the administration of Bush I, we saw that the Keating 5 could count among it's members both Democrats and Republicans.

That said, I think Obama's extracurricular activities this week with the Olympics committee was dumb politics just begging to be compared to Chicago machine politics of the past.

But I don't think it rose to the level of being called 'Evil' by objective observers.

-Kerry O.

Well, let me say I doubt it. It was a resolution. That's all.

I agree with you.
Take anarchy out of the topic.
As for corrupt or criminals in power, I don't care what side they bat for, if they are either corrupt or criminal, call 'em out and take action.
That goes also for politicians or Gov. officials who break Laws by not enforcing them.
I just posted a list of corrupt Politicians.
How do we go about getting them out of power?