Anarchists Have Taken Over Congress! - Harry Reid

No, it isn't what you think, dogs and cats are not living together, it isn't mass hysteria.


I have had an epiphany today regarding the definition and implications of the political ideology known as anarchy.

You could say, my ignorance has been denied. Not because of Harry Reid's comment but, because of a confluence of a variety of disparate communications, articles and realizations.

Who are the real anarchists?

Initially, I was appalled and took the comment in the spirit that Harry Reid intended, But, after extensive soul-searching and research that I had simply avoided until now, I have come to the conclusion that the term is appropriate and I have been given a momentary injection of hope and confidence.

“We’re diverted totally from what this bill is about. Why? Because the anarchists have taken over,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “They’ve taken over the House and now they’ve taken over the Senate.

“People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame.”

My only disappointment now is that he was just making a shock comment and that anarchists have not, in fact, taken over.


I would like to hear what folks have to say about this, I can't be the only one who is just realizing that anarchy is, in fact, not synonymous with chaos.

Harry Reid is a blithering idiot.

The only problem? People listen to him.

reply to post by greencmp


Like many ideologies, there are different types of Anarchist. Believing that all anarchists support chaos is sort of like saying all socialists are maoists. At it's core, anarchy is the notion of self governance . It sounds lovely and I wish it were possible, but it's as much a utopian ideology as communism. However, I think we can glean some wisdom from some of the ideas anarchists have. It's the age old debate as to whether a government should have all the power or none at all (or if it is even required), and as usual the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

It's a messy situation we find ourselves in today. The systems that were put in place to give us the illusion of freedom are showing cracks. People are slowly realizing that it's all just a game of power structures, with the odd carrot on a stick dangled in front of us. The wealthy and elite of society don't play by the same rules the rest of us do, and that is the crux of the issue. Economics aside, people need to be given better mechanisms to remove their representatives when they no longer feel they are being properly represented. Further to that, representatives should be held to higher standards of law as they currently seem to be above it, while the rest of us can have our lives ruined for minor infractions.

greencmp
“People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame.”

Funny that the growing sentiment of the public would begin to represent itself in our representatives we send to DC...

Imagine that...

reply to post by benrl

Funny that the growing sentiment of the public would begin to represent itself in our representatives we send to DC...

Imagine that...

For me, this all actually happened today. Don't get me wrong, I am still a firm believer in the constitution but, we don't seem to be getting a fair shake. The original intent of the document is twisted, misunderstood or ignored.

Something has to give here. We had Bush and everybody said we needed a more socialist government. Well, now we have one folks and this is what it is.

We have to try the third option, less government not different government.

I think we have found a possible contender, anarchy. We all know that politics is hyperbole and overreach, we just haven't been reading the playbook. Now we need to demand anarchy and maybe we will have to settle for getting back our republic.

reply to post by greencmp


In reality, you will never get anarchy short of a major disaster capable of taking out existing power structures which would render civilization and government itself a moot point anyways. The people who exist within the upper echelons of society, those who occupy offices of power and wealth, will never give that up willingly. Ever. It would be like you handing over everything you own to a pauper on the street because there were a bunch of paupers outside your window demanding you do so. You would be likely to buy some guns to deter them (DHS ammo purchases) or call the police (army) before you'd ever just willingly sign over all your stuff. They view it in the same terms.

If you want less government in the U.S the only way it will ever happen is to shatter the puppet show that is U.S bipartisan politics. Until people can come to grips that the democrats and the republicans have become two sides of the same coin you will see government grow. People need to make real demands on the existing system by endorsing 3rd party candidates and even abandoning the way elections work in the U.S in favor of a more parliamentary system. This seems counter intuitive to the american mind at first, because they assume more parties = more government, but it also equates to more choice. At that point, it would be possible to vote a party into office that is more libertarian in nature than the current status quo.

But none of that will ever happen, because money talks, and the pubs and dems have plenty to go around given the corporate whores they are in bed with.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

If you want less government in the U.S the only way it will ever happen is to shatter the puppet show that is U.S bipartisan politics.

Yeah, well, that's kinda what I'm saying here, no?

reply to post by greencmp


Well yes, but it seemed to me like you were implying that anarchy (as we are defining it in this thread) was something achievable within the U.S political system. I was expressing my views that it is not attainable, but there are ways to achieve gradual reforms to increase its influence.

“People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame.”

The commies like Harry will use all available tactics to smear.

Even changing meanings of known words are not beneath them.
[ actually nothing is beneath them because they're already bottom feeders ]

Thank God we still have a few politicians that understand economics.

And even a few that know corruption when they see it.

Sorry Harry.

I am curious.

Does ANYONE take seriously anything spoken by Reid or any other criminal in DC?

They are all irrelevant. The fact that they maintain the semblance of "authority" they currently do is nothing more than a veneer. When the curtain finally falls, people such as this imbecile and those of his ilk will finally receive the justice they so deserve.

SPIT...

In truth? CRIMINALS have taken over CONgress.

benrl

greencmp
“People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame.”

Funny that the growing sentiment of the public would begin to represent itself in our representatives we send to DC...

Imagine that...

indeed, self serving seems a better descriptor than idiotic for Don harry's statement.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by greencmp

 

Well yes, but it seemed to me like you were implying that anarchy (as we are defining it in this thread) was something achievable within the U.S political system. I was expressing my views that it is not attainable, but there are ways to achieve gradual reforms to increase its influence.

We all know that politics is hyperbole and overreach, we just haven't been reading the playbook. Now we need to demand anarchy and maybe we will have to settle for getting back our republic.

Catch my drift?

reply to post by greencmp


Harry Reed is runner up in Obama's douche-bag of the year award.

The people in Nevada particularly in Las Vegas need to wise up and vote this idiot out of office!

Dinosaurs like Harry, Nancy, McCain and Lindsey Gram all need to disappear. IMO

reply to post by bozzchem

Does ANYONE take seriously anything spoken by Reid or any other criminal in DC?

Unfortunately, the socialists, er, um, Democrats do.

reply to post by xuenchen

Thank God we still have a few politicians that understand economics.

That may very well be the number, a few (i.e. 3).

reply to post by TheMagus

indeed, self serving seems a better descriptor than idiotic for Don harry's statement.

Indeed, I was watching Eleanor Norton go on and on today about how shutting down the government would be inconvenient to those who live in Washington. The brazen nerve of that gentlelady is astounding!

reply to post by Diisenchanted

Harry Reed is runner up in Obama's douche-bag of the year award.

The people in Nevada particularly in Las Vegas need to wise up and vote this idiot out of office!

Dinosaurs like Harry, Nancy, McCain and Lindsey Gram all need to disappear. IMO

I would have to award first place to Pelosi too.


McCain and Graham are in the pack with the rest of them, although McCain is working his way up to the front.

reply to post by greencmp


Yes, to an extent, the sycophants of this criminal cabal do listen. At the same time, even their cheerleading MSM turns on them from time to time.

These "officials" are struggling to maintain their semblance of power. Hell, they know they are despised and it doesn't bother them a bit. How many jobs out there allow for an approval rating of 10% and yet you keep your job? Only CONgress!

ONLY in government can you be completely inept, completely corrupt and completely worthless - YET still maintain your job!!!

Just like only in government can you borrow money to pay off your debt! The lunacy is mind boggling!

These people are EMPLOYEES. They are not officials, authorities or whatever other term du jour they choose to present themselves as something special. At the end of the day, they are all miscreants looking to maintain their semblance of power since they ultimately fear the awakening of the masses that TRULY have authority.

Look at their latest pathetic attempt at control.....THEY plan to decide what constitutes a journalist and then regulate said profession. How convenient for them. That means THEY will decide who is and isn't allowed to provide We the People with information. Make no mistake, this is an Infowar..(no credit to the current holder of that web domain).

Until heads are removed from backsides, this travesty will continue.

I have no doubt that given a thorough investigation, there isn't one member of CONgress who wouldn't be tried and convicted by a jury of their peers for treason against the Constitution. NOT ONE.

The trillion dollar question??? What do we DO about it?

We can complain on forums, we can complain at work, we can complain here and there and everywhere.

At what point do we follow in the footsteps of those who established this nation to eradicate the tyranny corrupting and destroying it? My God.......the original colonists had it EASY compared to the tyranny we are under.

Tick. Tock..........

reply to post by bozzchem

The trillion dollar question??? What do we DO about it?

I have some ideas, no not those ideas

I have come to believe that we really have to use the progressive playbook. I was thinking of ground up grassroots local civil legislative action.

Step one, pick something everyone agrees with like say ...eliminating all meter maids and meters in our home towns (didn't I say I had a plan?). If we can do this across the country it eliminates the low hanging fruit with 0.. I mean ZERO resistance (who likes meter maids?) and also gives a taste of success and a sense of capability/practicality for the next phase.

We could create a thread here for the assembly of arguments and best practices for each of our local campaigns.

This is totally doable.

It would be good for everyone.

It isn't just sitting here on ATS griping (though we can still sit here on ATS griping of course)

I, by the way, I AM serious.

the best thing that could happen for this country, is that harry reid was gone from the senate. or at least somehow be replaced as majority leader. then maybe the senate could vote on and we might get rid of obamacare.

it's plain to see that the house sees that it's a bad thing seeing how they have voted 40 times for it to be defunded. but reid won't even let it come to the floor.

Boehner Seeks to Force Senate Health-Care Vote in Budget