Hello everybody!

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world would be a better place.

Matt


--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Inland Utopia Mail Center (1:218/109)

On 02 Sep 2022, Matt Munson said the following...

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world
would be a better place.

When conservatives resort to "both-sidesism," one knows they're disillusioned with the current state of conservatism. It's the bargaining stage of
political grief.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Hello everybody!

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world would be better place.

Probably. The interesting thing about "progressives" is that, like fundamentalists, they are pretty stuck on their way or no way.


* SLMR 2.1a * Humpty Dumpty was pushed! Well, I saw it on X-Files....
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world would be a better place.

When conservatives resort to "both-sidesism," one knows they're disillusioned with the current state of conservatism. It's the bargaining stage of political grief.

He said fundamentalists, not conservatives. I don't know Matt well but, judging by his posts here and other places, I doubt he is a fundamentalist. IIRC, he has some interesting stories about dealing with fundamentalists
who do not approve of his lifestyle.

But if it makes you feel good to think that...


* SLMR 2.1a * Taglines: the toilet-stall walls of BBSdom.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hello Matt,

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world would be a better place.

There are no fundamentalists or progressives in this new world
of ours. It is only MAGAS and non-MAGAS. With nothing or anybody
in between.

So, what is your solution?

It might be best for non-MAGAS if they vote for a Dem against
a MAGA candidate in order tp defeat the MAGAS and get their party
back. They can switch back to regular Republicans once the MAGAS
are gone.

That's an appeal to Independents and what few remaining non-MAGAS
there are in the Republican party.

For Life,
Lee

--
Be Stupid

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

It might be best for non-MAGAS if they vote for a Dem against
a MAGA candidate in order tp defeat the MAGAS and get their party
back. They can switch back to regular Republicans once the MAGAS
are gone.

I am abstaining in my congressional race in my district. Its so strongly Democrat, where if my congresswoman went after 15 year old boys or killed kittens she'd still win. My congressional nominee does not want people like me backing him so I am abstaining. Its fun being a gay latino union member Republican. lol

... Nine times out of ten the statisticians are wrong

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Inland Utopia Mail Center (1:218/109)

On 03 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the worl would be a better place.

When conservatives resort to "both-sidesism," one knows they're disillus with the current state of conservatism. It's the bargaining stage of political grief.

He said fundamentalists, not conservatives. I don't know Matt well but, judging by his posts here and other places, I doubt he is a fundamentalist. IIRC, he has some interesting stories about dealing with fundamentalists who do not approve of his lifestyle.

Most fundamentalists are conservatives. Fundamentalists and conservatives
have a lot in common in that they both support traditional power structures
and values, and oppose change to the status quo.

But if it makes you feel good to think that...

Not all conservatives are fundamentalists, though, and liberals have varying levels of progressivism, too.

Offering to trade the far-right for the far-left is a form of bargaining, but
a poor one. The far right widely espouses political violence, secession,
and civil war, while violent sentiments on the far-left are extremely rare.
In particular, as of late, the far-right has used violence to threaten democracy and the peaceful transfer of power, while the far-left has done no such thing. Sure, there were the George Floyd riots, but those were more about local police oppression than national political issues.

Attempting to equate the two is nonsensical.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world
would be a better place.

I agree! If something isn't broke, it shouldn't be fixed!

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 03 Sep 2022, Aaron Thomas said the following...

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world would be a better place.

I agree! If something isn't broke, it shouldn't be fixed!

For some definition of "isn't broke," of course.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Offering to trade the far-right for the far-left is a form of bargaining, but a poor one.

I don't think he was offering to trade one for the other, but rather
stating that both extremes are bad. Violence aside, persons at either of
the poles are not going to compromise on anything and make it difficult for anyone else to do so.

The far right widely espouses political violence, secession,
and civil war, while violent sentiments on the far-left are extremely rare.

That second half is BS. You should do some homework there. A previous
breach of the Congressional chambers in the 1950s would be a good start. Various groups of leftist radicals during the 1960s/70s would be another
one that would include violent sentiments and political/government
structural change in their beliefs. Best place to find many of those
involved is to look over the list of pardons handed out by Clinton, Obama,
and to some extent Carter.

Let's not forget the shoot-em-up of the Republican team for the
Congressional baseball game.

There was a sports echo on another network that I used to read. At least it was supposed to be about sports. It had been taken over by politics. The
only person in there who was claiming to be armed and ready for revolution/civil war was in the "not my President!" crowd and claimed to be affiliated with others like himself. Ironically, this would usually come
out after someone made the incorrect assumption, as was recently made here
by Gregory, that "lefties" are not armed. Ironic because he just made that
bad assumption, and ironic because it was you that called him out on it.

Also somewhat ironic because all of that was before COVID and the 2020 riot season.

In particular, as of late, the far-right has used violence to threaten democracy and the peaceful transfer of power, while the far-left has done no such thing. Sure, there were the George Floyd riots, but those were more about
local police oppression than national political issues.

Again, more BS. More came out of the "George Floyd riots" than what you
claim. The true peaceful protesters were indeed protesting police
oppression, while many of the rioters were opportunists who saw an opening
for political change, including anarchists seeking changes to the structure of our government... see Portland and Seattle for two examples. Some of what
went on in Wisconsin and in Louisville, KY, are two more.

I am honestly shocked that you admit to riots now, considering the
narrative here has always been "those were peaceful protests." Also, that
you admit to "riots" plural, while claiming that those violent sentiments are "extremely rare" in comparison to a single riot carried out by one group on
one day.

I have always maintained that, if it had not been for the 2020 Summer riots going mostly unchecked, what happened in January the following year would
also not have happened. One group saw another getting away with all sorts
of crap, saw most of the crap being passed off as "peaceful" or "understandable" by those in power, and decided (incorrectly!) that this form of behavior was now acceptable in our country.


* SLMR 2.1a * Basic Flying Rule #1: Keep the pointy end forward.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Matt Munson wrote to All <=-

If we had a world without fundamentalists and progressives the world
would be a better place.

Agreed. They the are the same thing. The only difference between them is the religion that they profess.


... Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

On 04 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Offering to trade the far-right for the far-left is a form of bargaining a poor one.

I don't think he was offering to trade one for the other, but rather stating that both extremes are bad. Violence aside, persons at either of the poles are not going to compromise on anything and make it difficult for anyone else to do so.

However, violence aside, there are not enough people at either of the poles to make much difference in the bigger picture. That is why there's no "violence aside" for the far-right.

The far right widely espouses political violence, secession,
and civil war, while violent sentiments on the far-left are extremely ra

That second half is BS. You should do some homework there. A previous breach of the Congressional chambers in the 1950s would be a good start. Various groups of leftist radicals during the 1960s/70s would be another one that would include violent sentiments and political/government structural change in their beliefs. Best place to find many of those involved is to look over the list of pardons handed out by Clinton,
Obama, and to some extent Carter.

It's a matter of degree. I didn't say it was non-existent; I said that by comparison they were extremely rare. Dirung the civil rights era,
conservatives were no strangers to violence themselves. Murders, lynchings, church burnings, you name it.

Let's not forget the shoot-em-up of the Republican team for the Congressional baseball game.

Right-wing activists have also been involved in bombings.

There was a sports echo on another network that I used to read. At
least it was supposed to be about sports. It had been taken over by politics. The only person in there who was claiming to be armed and
ready for revolution/civil war was in the "not my President!" crowd and claimed to be affiliated with others like himself. Ironically, this
would usually come out after someone made the incorrect assumption, as
was recently made here by Gregory, that "lefties" are not armed. Ironic because he just made that bad assumption, and ironic because it was you that called him out on it.

Interesting anecdote. What show was this?

In particular, as of late, the far-right has used violence to threaten democracy and the peaceful transfer of power, while the far-left has don such thing. Sure, there were the George Floyd riots, but those were more about
local police oppression than national political issues.

Again, more BS. More came out of the "George Floyd riots" than what you claim. The true peaceful protesters were indeed protesting police oppression, while many of the rioters were opportunists who saw an
opening for political change, including anarchists seeking changes to
the structure of our government... see Portland and Seattle for two examples. Some of what went on in Wisconsin and in Louisville, KY, are two more.

Are anarchists leftist, though? Anarchy doesn't seem like it would have much
of a social safety net. "Every man for himself" doesn't seem very
"socialist." It sounds much more "rugged individualist" to me.

I am honestly shocked that you admit to riots now, considering the narrative here has always been "those were peaceful protests." Also,
that you admit to "riots" plural, while claiming that those violent sentiments are "extremely rare" in comparison to a single riot carried
out by one group on one day.

I never denied that there were riots, but I did try to puch back on the idea that the protests in general were violent, which they were not.

On the other hand, the George Floyd riots were widespread across the US with only a few of them having violence associated with them.

I have always maintained that, if it had not been for the 2020 Summer riots going mostly unchecked, what happened in January the following
year would also not have happened. One group saw another getting away with all sorts of crap, saw most of the crap being passed off as "peaceful" or "understandable" by those in power, and decided (incorrectly!) that this form of behavior was now acceptable in our country.

The vast majority of the protesters were, in fact, peaceful. There were hundreds of arrests of those suspected of violence, although they did not get the individual news attention that the insurrectionists are getting.

As far as this form of behavior being acceptable in our country, the insurrection was not only perfectly acceptable to the sitting president at
the time, but also encouraged by him and various other Republicans.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Are anarchists leftist, though? Anarchy doesn't seem like it would have much of a social safety net. "Every man for himself" doesn't seem very "socialist." It sounds much more "rugged individualist" to me.

Anarchy is extreme left wing. It is the eventual (de-)evolution
on the socialism-communism spectrum... your society (d)evolves to the point where it no longer needs government because everyone is doing what they are "supposed to," without threat from a government, to keey the socialist / communist society going.

Practicing Anarchist seem not to have the patience to wait for the (de-)evolution to happen naturally, I will grant you that.

I never denied that there were riots, but I did try to puch back on the idea that the protests in general were violent, which they were not.

On the other hand, the George Floyd riots were widespread across the US with only a few of them having violence associated with them.

Riot, by definition, is a violent disturbance. Unlike the 2020 narrative,
you don't have "peaceful" riots. By your admission, "riots were widespread across the US," which, by the definition of riot, means there was also
violence across the US.

The vast majority of the protesters were, in fact, peaceful. There were hundreds of arrests of those suspected of violence, although they did not get the individual news attention that the insurrectionists are getting.

In hindsight, wouldn't you say they should have?

On the Louisville news, they did a good job of showing some of the rioting
and destruction that happened downtown, but the only time they covered
arrests were when peaceful protesters (in the true sense) were arrested for tresspassing after congregating on, and refusing to leave, private property.

Oh, yeah, and they also covered the arrest of an armed protester who accidentally shot one of his fellow protesters.

To my knowledge, they never made any arrests when it came to the person(s)
who threatened to blow up buildings and cause other harm to state employees
in the Capitol City during 2020, that closed state government for two days.


* SLMR 2.1a * Beware programmers carrying screwdrivers.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Anarchy is extreme left wing. It is the eventual (de-)evolution
on the socialism-communism spectrum...

Anarchy, socilism and communisim are all different things with no connecting "spectrum".

Socialists believe in government and Anarchists do not.

your society (d)evolves to the point
where it no longer needs government because everyone is doing what they are "supposed to," without threat from a government, to keey the socialist / communist society going.

That is anarchy.

Practicing Anarchist seem not to have the patience to wait for the (de-)evolution to happen naturally, I will grant you that.

There is no anarchy today to speak of.

Merriam Webster says this about anarchy.

Definition of anarchist

1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

Today it is the right who use violence to overthrow ...

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

On 05 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Are anarchists leftist, though? Anarchy doesn't seem like it would have of a social safety net. "Every man for himself" doesn't seem very "socialist." It sounds much more "rugged individualist" to me.

Anarchy is extreme left wing. It is the eventual (de-)evolution
on the socialism-communism spectrum... your society (d)evolves to the point where it no longer needs government because everyone is doing what they are "supposed to," without threat from a government, to keey the socialist / communist society going.

Practicing Anarchist seem not to have the patience to wait for the (de-)evolution to happen naturally, I will grant you that.

Anarchy is also extreme right-wing. It's the cross-over behind the political spectrum.

I never denied that there were riots, but I did try to puch back on the that the protests in general were violent, which they were not.
On the other hand, the George Floyd riots were widespread across the US only a few of them having violence associated with them.

Riot, by definition, is a violent disturbance. Unlike the 2020
narrative, you don't have "peaceful" riots. By your admission, "riots were widespread across the US," which, by the definition of riot, means there was also violence across the US.

There was, but in a very limited scope.

The vast majority of the protesters were, in fact, peaceful. There were hundreds of arrests of those suspected of violence, although they did no the individual news attention that the insurrectionists are getting.

In hindsight, wouldn't you say they should have?

Perhaps.

On the Louisville news, they did a good job of showing some of the
rioting and destruction that happened downtown, but the only time they covered arrests were when peaceful protesters (in the true sense) were arrested for tresspassing after congregating on, and refusing to leave, private property.

Yeah, I don't know why they didn't cover the majority of criminal
consequences.

Oh, yeah, and they also covered the arrest of an armed protester who accidentally shot one of his fellow protesters.

And there's that.

To my knowledge, they never made any arrests when it came to the
person(s) who threatened to blow up buildings and cause other harm to state employees in the Capitol City during 2020, that closed state government for two days.

Our knowledge is often limited.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 06 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

But, in your words, they were also "widespread." Which is it?

I misspoke. The protests were widespread.

On the Louisville news, they did a good job of showing some of the rioting and destruction that happened downtown, but the only time t covered arrests were when peaceful protesters (in the true sense) w arrested for tresspassing after congregating on, and refusing to le private property.

Yeah, I don't know why they didn't cover the majority of criminal consequences.

In this case, I don't think they caught them, so they went unpunished.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Hundreds were punished, and there are cameras
everywhere in big cities nowadays.

To my knowledge, they never made any arrests when it came to the person(s) who threatened to blow up buildings and cause other harm state employees in the Capitol City during 2020, that closed state government for two days.

Our knowledge is often limited.

Not in a small town like this. If there was an arrest for it, it would
be known.

The far-right threatens violence on a daily basis, issuing death threats to anyone who dares to stand up to them. I don't think very many of them get arrested, either.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Anarchy, socilism and communisim are all different things with no connecting "
ectrum".

Socialists believe in government and Anarchists do not.

They are all left-wing, with anarchy being the most radical.

your society (d)evolves to the point
where it no longer needs government because everyone is doing what they are "supposed to," without threat from a government, to keey the socialist / communist society going.

That is anarchy.

Thank you for your confirmation.


* SLMR 2.1a * Save the whales.... Collect the entire set!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I never denied that there were riots, but I did try to puch back on the
that the protests in general were violent, which they were not.
On the other hand, the George Floyd riots were widespread across the US
only a few of them having violence associated with them.

Riot, by definition, is a violent disturbance. Unlike the 2020 narrative, you don't have "peaceful" riots. By your admission, "riots were widespread across the US," which, by the definition of riot, means there was also violence across the US.

There was, but in a very limited scope.

But, in your words, they were also "widespread." Which is it?

On the Louisville news, they did a good job of showing some of the rioting and destruction that happened downtown, but the only time they covered arrests were when peaceful protesters (in the true sense) were arrested for tresspassing after congregating on, and refusing to leave, private property.

Yeah, I don't know why they didn't cover the majority of criminal consequences.

In this case, I don't think they caught them, so they went unpunished.

To my knowledge, they never made any arrests when it came to the person(s) who threatened to blow up buildings and cause other harm to state employees in the Capitol City during 2020, that closed state government for two days.

Our knowledge is often limited.

Not in a small town like this. If there was an arrest for it, it would be known.


* SLMR 2.1a * None of you exist. The sysop types it all in...
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Socialists believe in government and Anarchists do not.

They are all left-wing, with anarchy being the most radical.

Anarchy being a lack of government doesn't fit left or right very well.

It seems to fit the right wing better since they advocate for less government.

It is always right wingers who try to fly this "anarchy is left wing philosophy".

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Not in a small town like this. If there was an arrest for it, it would be known.

The far-right threatens violence on a daily basis, issuing death threats to anyone who dares to stand up to them. I don't think very many of them get arrested, either.

At yet, these are not on the news, and apparently are not shutting down
much.


* SLMR 2.1a * Tagline dispenser temporarily out of order.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

They are all left-wing, with anarchy being the most radical.

Anarchy being a lack of government doesn't fit left or right very well.

It seems to fit the right wing better since they advocate for less government.

It is always right wingers who try to fly this "anarchy is left wing philosoph
.

Who took control of several blocks of Seattle during 2020, declaring that
they did not recognize the authority of the government or police,
i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to
where you are.


* SLMR 2.1a * We're lost, yes.....but we're making good time.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Who took control of several blocks of Seattle during 2020, declaring that they did not recognize the authority of the government or police,

Anarchists.

i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to where you are.

Those were not "left wing" protesters either. They were anarchists.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

On 07 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Not in a small town like this. If there was an arrest for it, it w be known.

The far-right threatens violence on a daily basis, issuing death threats anyone who dares to stand up to them. I don't think very many of them ge arrested, either.

At yet, these are not on the news, and apparently are not shutting down much.

Whenever anyone mentions the far-right as being the biggest threat to the nation (in the news or elsewhere), these are the scum to whom they're referring.

Alex Jones is also in the middle of a bunch of lawsuits for claiming that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a "false flag." How does that tie in with right-wing politics? Well, the reasong for the "false flag" school shooting
was apparently to get Americans more in the mood for gun control, which the right (and especially the far-right) don't want. Nevermind that the school shooting wasn't a "false flag" at all; far-right followers of Jones have been sending non-stop death threats to the families who lost their children in a most violent way, forcing them to move multiple times over at least a decade.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 07 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

It is always right wingers who try to fly this "anarchy is left wing philosoph

Who took control of several blocks of Seattle during 2020, declaring that they did not recognize the authority of the government or police,
i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think
anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to where you are.

Who took control of public lands in Nevada in 2014, declaring that they did
not recognize the authority of the government or police, i.e. anarchy? Those were not left-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you.

Who took control of the Malheur National Wildlife refuge during 2016,
declaring that they did not recognize the authority of the government or police, i.e. anarchy? Those were not left-wing protesters. I don't think
anyone would make that mistake, even you.

Who are the people who declare that they are not subject to any government statutes or proceedings, unless they consent to them, i.e. anarchy? (Hint: It rhymes with schmovereign schmitizen.) Those are not left-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Mike Powell wrote to ALAN IANSON <=-

Who took control of several blocks of Seattle during 2020, declaring
that they did not recognize the authority of the government or police, i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think
anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to where you are.

"... and what makes them [Lefties] tremendously dangerous is that facts that contradict what they believe are simply ignored or evaded." -- Thomas Sowell


... ...I love children! They taste just like chicken.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Alan Ianson wrote to Mike Powell <=-

i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to where you are.

Those were not "left wing" protesters either. They were anarchists.

And we have the evasion. Alan wants to redefine the word "anarchist" to be "non-left wing" when, by defintion, an anarchist is left-wing.


... 50 states, and I had to pick one of confusion...
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Those were not "left wing" protesters either. They were anarchists.

And we have the evasion.

What evasion? I have evaded nothing.

Alan wants to redefine the word "anarchist" to be "non-left wing" when, by defintion, an anarchist is left-wing.

Since you bring it up let's look at the definition of anarchist. This is from The Century Dictionary.

anarchist
noun

1. Properly, one who advocates anarchy or the absence of government as a political ideal; a believer in an anarchic theory of society; especially, an adherent of the social theory of Proudhon.

2. In popular use, one who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, all law and order, and all rights of property, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed; especially, such a person when actuated by mere lust of plunder.

3. Any person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against an established rule, law, or custom.

I don't see anything "left-wing" in the definition.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Who took control of several blocks of Seattle during 2020, declaring that they did not recognize the authority of the government or police,

Anarchists.

i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to where you are.

Those were not "left wing" protesters either. They were anarchists.

Ummmm, yes they were both.


* SLMR 2.1a * The bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Whenever anyone mentions the far-right as being the biggest threat to the nation (in the news or elsewhere), these are the scum to whom they're referring.

But if they don't offer any examples...

Alex Jones is also in the middle of a bunch of lawsuits for claiming that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a "false flag." How does that tie in with right-wing politics? Well, the reasong for the "false flag" school shooting was apparently to get Americans more in the mood for gun control, which the right (and especially the far-right) don't want. Nevermind that the school shooting wasn't a "false flag" at all; far-right followers of Jones have been sending non-stop death threats to the families who lost their children in a most violent way, forcing them to move multiple times over at least a decade.

"False flag" like he claims it didn't happen?


* SLMR 2.1a * Shh! Be vewy qwiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

It is always right wingers who try to fly this "anarchy is left wing philosoph

Who took control of several blocks of Seattle during 2020, declaring that
they did not recognize the authority of the government or police,
i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to where you are.

[TL;DR]

Who are the people who declare that they are not subject to any government statutes or proceedings, unless they consent to them, i.e. anarchy? (Hint: It rhymes with schmovereign schmitizen.) Those are not left-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you.

Some soverign citizens might be anarchist, but not all of them are. I am
sure not all anti-government persons are left-wing, either, but your
typical anarachist are looking to create *communal* societies where there is
no government, like the CHAZ/CHOP. Soverign citizens are not always
looking to be included in any such society.

If we are going to expand the definition of anarchist to anyone who doesn't like the government and/or believes they have some soverignity from the government (which, since you claim you don't like authoritarianism, would include YOU), then we are casing an awful wide net and, yes, it most
certainly would include right-wingers, left-wingers, and everything in
between.


* SLMR 2.1a * WORK HARDER!... Millions on Welfare depend on YOU!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Alan Ianson wrote to Mike Powell <=-

i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was so close to where you are.

Those were not "left wing" protesters either. They were anarchists.

And we have the evasion. Alan wants to redefine the word "anarchist" to be "non-left wing" when, by defintion, an anarchist is left-wing.

Apparently, the definition *now* means anyone who believes they have some soverignity from their government. So, that would include everyone here
except possibly Alan.

Between the two of them, Alan and Jeff, I am pretty sure that the Amish are also anarchists, per their definitions.


* SLMR 2.1a * You're so vain / I bet you think this tagline's about you
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 08 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Whenever anyone mentions the far-right as being the biggest threat to th nation (in the news or elsewhere), these are the scum to whom they're referring.

But if they don't offer any examples...

The "patriot" milita movements, white supremacists, white nationalists, and Christian nationalists are the threat. That is spelled out in the reports.

Alex Jones is also in the middle of a bunch of lawsuits for claiming tha Sandy Hook school shooting was a "false flag." How does that tie in with right-wing politics? Well, the reasong for the "false flag" school shoot was apparently to get Americans more in the mood for gun control, which right (and especially the far-right) don't want. Nevermind that the scho shooting wasn't a "false flag" at all; far-right followers of Jones have sending non-stop death threats to the families who lost their children i most violent way, forcing them to move multiple times over at least a de

"False flag" like he claims it didn't happen?

It didn't happen, or it was staged, or any number of conspiracy theories. He claims now that it actually happened, but that's only after over a decade of spreading lies for profit.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 08 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Who took control of several blocks of Seattle during 2020, declarin that
they did not recognize the authority of the government or police, i.e. anarchy? Those were not right-wing protesters. I don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you, especially since that was close to where you are.

[TL;DR]

You can't be bothered to read a couple of paragraphs? Or is it that you don't want to admit that the movements inspired by Cliven and Ammon Bundy meet your definition of anarchism?

Who are the people who declare that they are not subject to any governme statutes or proceedings, unless they consent to them, i.e. anarchy? (Hin rhymes with schmovereign schmitizen.) Those are not left-wing protesters don't think anyone would make that mistake, even you.

Some soverign citizens might be anarchist, but not all of them are. I am sure not all anti-government persons are left-wing, either, but your typical anarachist are looking to create *communal* societies where
there is no government, like the CHAZ/CHOP. Soverign citizens are not always looking to be included in any such society.

What society are they looking to be included in, then? I think we can both agree that it's not one that involves them being subject to the laws of any government.

If we are going to expand the definition of anarchist to anyone who doesn't like the government and/or believes they have some soverignity from the government (which, since you claim you don't like authoritarianism, would include YOU), then we are casing an awful wide
net and, yes, it most certainly would include right-wingers,
left-wingers, and everything in between.

You are attempting to change the definition of anarchists from people who do not accept the authority of the government or police (your original
definition) to people who do not "like" the government. That's moving the goalposts. Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, and "sovereign citizens" all have a refusal to accept the authority of government or the police in common.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 08 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Apparently, the definition *now* means anyone who believes they have some soverignity from their government. So, that would include everyone here except possibly Alan.
Between the two of them, Alan and Jeff, I am pretty sure that the Amish are also anarchists, per their definitions.

That would be by your definition of anarchism: anyone who refuses to accept
the authority of the government or police.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

Apparently, the definition *now* means anyone who believes they have
some soverignity from their government. So, that would include
everyone here except possibly Alan.

Between the two of them, Alan and Jeff, I am pretty sure that the Amish are also anarchists, per their definitions.

Yup. Standard Leftie Tactics: Redefine the meaning of words until they don't really mean anything - especially what they used to mean.

Racist. Facist. White Supremicist. And the list goes on.


... In zen skiing, you learn to become one with the snow.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

No I am not trying to change it. I am accusing others here of doing so. Alan, for example, apparentlly believes that MAGA Republicans are
anarchists. By definintion, a MAGA Republican wants Donald Trump to be
their President. A President, by definition, is a head of state. Persons who want a head of state do not want "no government," which means they are not anarchists.

No, I think MAGA republicans want Trump to be president in spite of the fact that he lost the election.

I know that's a real bummer to lose an election but it happens. The people have spoken.

It wasn't really a surprise. Donald wasn't expected to win the election and indeed, he didn't.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Alex Jones is also in the middle of a bunch of lawsuits for claiming th
Sandy Hook school shooting was a "false flag." How does that tie in wit
right-wing politics? Well, the reasong for the "false flag" school shoo
was apparently to get Americans more in the mood for gun control, which
right (and especially the far-right) don't want. Nevermind that the sch
shooting wasn't a "false flag" at all; far-right followers of Jones hav
sending non-stop death threats to the families who lost their children most violent way, forcing them to move multiple times over at least a d

"False flag" like he claims it didn't happen?

It didn't happen, or it was staged, or any number of conspiracy theories. He claims now that it actually happened, but that's only after over a decade of spreading lies for profit.

Thanks. I have heard people mention him a time or two here but, when I ask them what he did they usually don't elaborate. This is the first
explanation I have read of what he did. Very irresponsible.


* SLMR 2.1a * Software Independent: Won't work with ANY software.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

If we are going to expand the definition of anarchist to anyone who doesn't like the government and/or believes they have some soverignity from the government (which, since you claim you don't like authoritarianism, would include YOU), then we are casing an awful wide net and, yes, it most certainly would include right-wingers, left-wingers, and everything in between.

You are attempting to change the definition of anarchists from people who do not accept the authority of the government or police (your original definition) to people who do not "like" the government. That's moving the goalposts. Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, and "sovereign citizens" all have a refusal to accept the authority of government or the police in common.

No I am not trying to change it. I am accusing others here of doing so.

Alan, for example, apparentlly believes that MAGA Republicans are
anarchists. By definintion, a MAGA Republican wants Donald Trump to be
their President. A President, by definition, is a head of state. Persons
who want a head of state do not want "no government," which means they are
not anarchists.

IIRC, you yourself have mentioned conservatives who don't trust the
government during the anarchy discussion. The government they don't seem
to trust is the current one. I don't remember most of them having as many issues when the government was being run by Trump, a Bush, Reagan, etc.

Not trusting the FBI <> not trusting the government as a whole. The FBI
has a reputation of doing some backhanded things.

I am not certain that the persons you have listed are "conservatives." I have no doubt they are also not "liberals." I do not know their beliefs about government as a whole, only that they did indeed believe that the government had no right to prevent them from being on/using the land in question.

There are more than a few people who wonder why the government owns so much land out west, but I would not call them all anti-government or even anti-authority.


* SLMR 2.1a * I idiot-proof my programs, but along comes a bigger idiot
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hello Everybody,

The entity known as Mike Powell attempted to say -

No I am not trying to change it. I am accusing others here of doing so.

Alan, for example, apparentlly believes that MAGA Republicans are anarchists. By definintion, a MAGA Republican wants Donald Trump to be their President. A President, by definition, is a head of state. Persons who want a head of state do not want "no government," which means they are not anarchists.

Alan's reference to MAGA Republicans was clearly misunderstood by
the entity known as Mike Powell, who knows nothing about anarchy or
what this movement is all about.

The issue is domestic terrorism, inclusive of all who participated
in the events of January 6, 2021 and who continue to support those who
continue to conduct such violent activities.

Let's call this movement the Trump Insurgency in the United States
(TITUS). Has a nice ring to it, and is easy to remember.

And appropriately named, as it is led by Donald J. Trump himself.

Chief Domestic Terrorist of the USA.

IIRC, you yourself have mentioned conservatives who don't trust the government during the anarchy discussion.

Those who participated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection were
not "conservatives" but domestic terrorists. That includes Donald
Trump, the leader of the gang.

The government they don't seem to trust is the current one.

Domestic terrorsts (such as Donald J. Trump) do not trust anybody,
especially those who beat him soundly in the polls.

I don't remember most of them having as many issues when the government was
being run by Trump, a Bush, Reagan, etc.

Donald J. Trump was POTUS as he urged his merry band of domestic
terrorists to storm the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
No other POTUS in the history of the United States has done that,
or even harbored the thought, of doing so.

Not trusting the FBI <> not trusting the government as a whole. The FBI has
a reputation of doing some backhanded things.

The FBI was not responsible for the events of January 6, 2021.
Donald J. Trump and his merry band of domestic terrorists were.

I am not certain that the persons you have listed are "conservatives."

They are domestic terrorists. Each and every one of them.
Including Donald J. Trump, former POTUS, chief domestic terrorist
among them.

I have no doubt they are also not "liberals."

Domestic terrorists are domestic terrorists.

I do not know their beliefs about government as a whole,

Domestic terrorists want to kill Americans.

only that they did indeed believe that the government had no right to prevent them from being on/using the land in question.

Domestic terrorists have no right to kill anybody, period.

There are more than a few people who wonder why the government owns so much
land out west, but I would not call them all anti-government or even anti-authority.

Mike Powell is one sick puppy to believe that anybody has an excuse
to kill Americans. And yet, that is his belief. That Donald J. Trump
and his merry band of domestic terrorists have every right to kill
anybody they want, in cold blood, including members of Congress -
along with anybody else who gets in their way.

For Life,
Lee

--
Nothing sucks like an Electrolux

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Hello Alan,

No I am not trying to change it. I am accusing others here of doing so.
Alan, for example, apparentlly believes that MAGA Republicans are
anarchists. By definintion, a MAGA Republican wants Donald Trump to be
their President. A President, by definition, is a head of state. Persons
who want a head of state do not want "no government," which means they are
not anarchists.

No, I think MAGA republicans want Trump to be president in spite of the fact
that he lost the election.

They are not MAGA republicans, but domestic terrorists.
That includes Donald J. Trump, leader of them all.

I know that's a real bummer to lose an election but it happens. The people have spoken.

So have the domestic terrorists. On January 6, 2021 - including
the main instigator Donald J. Trump.

It wasn't really a surprise.

Donald J. Trump planned it. In cahoots with his group of domestic
terrorists. As such, why should anybody have been surprised?

Donald wasn't expected to win the election and indeed, he didn't.

Donald J. Trump continues to falsely claim he won the election,
and that he won by millions of votes. The election was rigged, and
therefore his merry band of domestic terrorists had every right to
storm the Capitol Building and try to hang Mike Pence and do away
with Nancy Pelosi.

This movement (led by Donald J. Trump) is still a work in progress.
Let's call it the Trump Insurgency in the United States (TITUS).
How does that sound? It is a gathering movement, open to all domestic terrorists, by any name they want to call themselves.

The people who support TITUS (in the USA) include your neighbors.
Why? Because right-wing violent-extremist terrorists, insurrectionists,
and insurgents are your neighbors.

Let's hope no such movement in Canada ever gets started.

These are the folks who want America to turn away from democracy,
in favor of authoritarianism. Kind of like what Russia did, years
ago, embracing Vladimir Putin as their dictator for life. Only
with an orange clown at the helm rather than a Russian thug.

And they want to do so by force - if that is what it takes.

They proved it on January 6, 2021. So did Donald J. Trump, who
praised them for their action. These domestic terrorists, led by
Donald J. Trump himself, were responsible for the deaths of five
people on that fateful day. None of those domestic terrorists,
including Donald J. Trump, have apologized for any of their actions.

These are the people who want to kill Americans. It is time to call
them who and what they are, and always have been - domestic terrorists.

Beginning with Donald J. Trump at the top of the list.

For Life,
Lee

--
You're fired, Donald!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

On 09 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

You are attempting to change the definition of anarchists from people wh not accept the authority of the government or police (your original definition) to people who do not "like" the government. That's moving th goalposts. Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, and "sovereign citizens" all have refusal to accept the authority of government or the police in common.

No I am not trying to change it. I am accusing others here of doing so. Alan, for example, apparentlly believes that MAGA Republicans are anarchists. By definintion, a MAGA Republican wants Donald Trump to be their President. A President, by definition, is a head of state.
Persons who want a head of state do not want "no government," which
means they are not anarchists.

I don't recall Alan saying that all MAGA Republicans are inherently
anarchist, only that there are right-wing and left-wing anarchists.

IIRC, you yourself have mentioned conservatives who don't trust the government during the anarchy discussion. The government they don't seem to trust is the current one. I don't remember most of them having as
many issues when the government was being run by Trump, a Bush, Reagan, etc.

Enforcement actions weren't taken against Cliven Bundy's land grab under Bush or Reagan, but he was doing it then. If I were illegally using federal property, I'd probably be happy with an administration that turned a blind
eye against it, too. But once the government started to enforce their
ownership of the land, all of a sudden he starts crying that the federal government has no authority over him, etc.

Not trusting the FBI <> not trusting the government as a whole. The FBI has a reputation of doing some backhanded things.

True, as does the government itself.

I am not certain that the persons you have listed are "conservatives."
I have no doubt they are also not "liberals." I do not know their
beliefs about government as a whole, only that they did indeed believe that the government had no right to prevent them from being on/using the land in question.

Look at the people who flocked to their defense. They were indeed conservatives. Look at who got outraged when Robert Finicum was shot while reaching for a weapon. They were indeed conservatives.

There are more than a few people who wonder why the government owns so much land out west, but I would not call them all anti-government or even anti-authority.

Nor would I. But the people I mentioned (and their followers) explicitly
stated their opinions on the matter.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)