peacefully overthrow the government yay or nay

if the government is overthrown, I'll be trying to survive and hide.

 

I agree with that.
Where in AZ do you live? I live in North Phoenix.

 

Yavapai County.

 

I have no clue where that is.

 

In response to the (very old) op: "fuck yeah"-Ghandi

But in a state such as the us, it would be utterly foolish. If there where enough people ready to abandon the government and destroy massive amounts, all it would take would be a little bit of personal responsability. Educate yourself, make the right voting choices. All fixed. But that would make too much sense. Also then big oil and pharm wouldn't take your descision making burden for you.

 

The government has already been brought down, haven't you been paying attention?

 

I totally love the idea of scrapping the current governments and starting again, but I think it's completely impossible. As has been said, everyone has different ideas on what they view as freedom etc and even though I have so many issues with every government in every country and have so many ideas on things that I personally think would make a better world, I also know of many people who would disagree with each thing that I think is important or necessary

 

It's been my experience that while most every person has a personal idea of what government should be, and do, any government that allows itself, even with a majority mandate (democracy), to impose upon some in ways perceived to be of benefit to others, sets itself on a path of degradation and eventual destruction. Freedom born from the government can only gain universal acceptance by the elimination of those who must give up their freedom as a means of accomplishing the desired result. China has the best record in this area so far. Equality of the ruled can only be accomplished when the rulers possess unconquerable power. No government can remain in power without maintaining a balance of power, essentially one in which the scale remains tilted in favor of the rulers, not the ruled.

 

Elect Ron Paul for President

 

Ron Paul is a racist, against women's rights, anti gay, who doesn't believe in evolution, conservative who hides behind state rights. He doesn't give a shit of what states do as long as it isn't the federal government doing it.

 

I support Wen Jiabao to head a one world government, and would like to see the Renminbi become the single world currency.

 

reason?

 

Looks like that's the direction we're headed. And if so, it pays to back a winner.

 

He is not all those things you say you believe the media brainwashing who does not want someone who will not be their puppet.Yea he would also end the war on drugs..Which is one of the most racist things happening in this country. What is wrong with the states deciding what laws it wants? I don't know where you get that other stuff but he is for individual freedom not government take over of your life. Can you live you life without the government telling you what to do?

 

So a state should be able to bring back slavery if it wants?

How about taking away women's equal rights?

Should they be able to make laws that make having sex with children legal?

In an ideal world, where the majority of people were intelligent and actually used that intelligence, your idea could work...

In the real world... not a chance.

Unless of course you think things like I listed should be allowed if the majority approve of them.

 

Shut up, I actually wrote in Ron Paul in the 2008 election and now I feel dirty for doing it. Ron Paul is a racist, ect, ect.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787
this one is pretty good overall.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
(his argument that sodomy laws are supposed stupid but needed by the constitution)
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric
http://www.calemployeerightsblog.co...hts-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/02/ron-paul-evolution-denial-upda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw"]YouTube- Ron Paul: I don't believe in evolution
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

Now I'll just ignore his "strict interpretation of the constitution means sodomy laws must stand" position but he's never quite explained why for being so anti federal government he voted in favor of the defense of marriage act in which the federal government defined marriage.

 

the statement of;

pretty much sums up his racial views.

 

Which state are you claiming would like to bring back slavery? take away women's equal rights? pass laws legalizing sex with children?
Suppose the federal government were to take those actions, would that be acceptable? Or suppose a democratic majority of the entire nation were to support those actions, would that make them acceptable?
The nice thing about state laws is that you can move to another state if they create laws you find unacceptable, not so when the federal government does so. Then you are left only with the option to leave the country, and I would hope that more of the wealthy and intelligent would begin to do so.

 

Why does it matter what state may want to do these things? Either they have the right to make the laws they see fit according to their constituents or they don't.

Trying to argue anything along the lines of, they should have that right, UNLESS.... is a crock of shit...

Either each state has that right, or they do not. You can not pick and choose and then say, they have the right because they agree with you, but not if they don't.

 

1. It matters only that you seem to feel that states are less competent than the federal government in creating laws. And yes, states should have the right to create laws according to their constituents democratic desires. And constituents who fervently disagree with any laws passed also have the right to try and change the law, or move to another state as they feel necessary.
2. UNLESS what?