Software
It seems to cover everybody who doesn't agree with the left.
http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf
by tonythetiger
Nobody in Homeland security is going to admit that they leaked it!
by delbertpgh
23 years old, living with his mom, got kicked out of high school and out of Marine basic training. Concerned that Jews were ruining the economy and blacks were contaminating the white gene pool. Started arming up to protect himself during the collapse of civilization he anticipated would follow the current economic troubles. Evidently the election of Obama, and the conviction that Obama was going to take his guns away, was the last straw.
He got into a fight with his mother about his dog, and she called 911. When the police walked in the door, she told them "get his ass out of here." He popped around the corner wearing body armor and shot the two cops with an AK-47. She reportedly screamed "what the hell have you done?" and ran off to hide in the basement. (She is evidently the kind of lady who swears a lot.) He stood around and put extra bullets into the dead cops, and mortally wounded a third who drove up at that moment. He traded fire with other cops for two hours and then surrendered, wounded in the legs. He reportedly showed no remorse and challenged the police who drove him in.
He's pretty much exactly the kind of head case this bulletin warned about, a gun fascination, racism, survivalism, and mental illness wrapped up in a package and looking for some excuse to blow up.
by the 'g-man.'
What if I was three inches taller and twenty pounds lighter?
There was a gun. 'What if' isn't going to bring back three officers.
by road-dog
Antisemitism and racism are inextricably joined with conservatism in a lot of people's minds.
I am a proud right winger. I am not an anti Semite. One might recall that the biggest bunch of antisemites in history were actually left wing as relates to centralized management of economics and of people's lives.
I am a proud right winger. I am not a racist. It is not racist to expect a man of any color to act like a man and take personal responsibility for his own life.
The USMC is a pretty conservative group. This guy didn't cut it. If he were some kind of "right wing" nut, he would have been welcomed, not discharged.
by delbertpgh
I suppose it's not reasonable to say that those two assassins are examples of conservatism or liberalism. Each grew away from his own "wing", one right and one left, though.
I'm not a proud right-winger or left-winger, myself. I'm a moderate.
Poplawski, by the way, got kicked out of Marine basic with either a general discharge or a BCD for attacking his D.I. At least, that's the story his crackpot mother was putting out. If he had gotten a dishonorable discharge, he couldn't have legally bought his guns, and it's my understanding that all his purchases were legal, through gun shops.
by tonythetiger
is by demonizing the messenger. That way, you don't even have to address the message.
These people (the current breed of politicians) need to be taken down from their high horse... from city councilmen who decided to increase city tax 500% to the Congress who is guaranteeing that my grand-daughter will be a million dollars in debt before she's five years old!
They are the enemies of freedom, and those who support them are either woefully ignorant, or patently complicit, and will either learn quickly or be taken down from theirs too.
We're standing on the brink of history, and soon each of us is going to have to choose a side...
As a right-leaning thinker (an individualist), I abhor right-wing extremists - just as left-leaning thinkers (collectivists) probably abhor left-wing extremists. Neither side should automatically paint with a brush so wide that it covers both with one stroke - just as you did.
At one time (before 9-11), environmental terrorism (left-wing extremists) was considered the major terrorist threat to the United States mainland. Moreover, [i]Left-wing extremists caused much of the damage at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle.[/i]
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9236/#6
Don't put your credibility at risk by connecting extremists with main-stream thinkers. And what Tony brought to light seems to do just that - illustrate an attack on main-stream thinkers with a right-leaning bent.
There's a HUGE group of people who believe the federal government has gotten too big and too powerful - the governor of Texas being among them. And the left has apparently waged a full-out war against us. Which side are you on, Delbert?
by delbertpgh
Maybe it was "right-wing meathead," and you thought that term was too inclusive. Would it frost your cupcake if I instead called him a "FAR-right-wing meathead?" Or, would you begin to excuse me if I worked the word "extremist" into the phrase, putting some comfy terminological distance between non-extreme Max and the over-the-edge element who shoots cops?
Do you indicate by your term "left wing extremist" that you think environmental terrorists and violent WTO demonstrators have nothing to do with real left-wing thinkers? I think the riot boys are off in their own bowl of assorted nuts, even if they are nominally leftists. As was Paplowski, cop-killer, nominally a rightist. Correct?
You say, however, "There's a HUGE group of people who believe the federal government has gotten too big... and the left has apparently waged a full-out war against us. Which side are you on?" I can't decry you for thinking the federal government is too big; that's a pretty legitimate argument. However, is the left actually waging war on you? Full-out war? And you're worried that I'm on the wrong side, going full-out against you? That sounds kind of paranoid, old friend. That sounds like a system of thinking that makes any honest debate, any holding of a contrary principle, commensurate with vicious attack. That sounds like Taliban thinking, or Soviet thinking, or Dalek thinking.
Kind of spooky.
by dadspad
by delbertpgh
It also mentions that recently the same agency published a bulletin warning that left-wingers would be energized by the receission, too.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090414/lf_nm_life/us_usa_security_extremists;_ylt=ApIrMNU1GmaXyhHUfgdTBul34T0D
by robo_dev
So let's put the left-wing nutjobs in a 100,000 seat stadium with all the right-wing whackadoodles for a big no-holds barred death-match.
Charge $10,000 a ticket admission and the take would be a Billon dollars per match.
The TV rights alone could be worth millions more.
Lots of jobs get created in the process.
Hold these once a month and boom, recession over, nutjob problem solved.
by the 'g-man.'
Perhaps.
by robo_dev
He used a van packed with explosives. You cannot ban vans, fertilizer, or diesel fuel.
The challenge is to detect and prevent the domestic terrorists without destroying the few liberties we have left in the process.
by the 'g-man.'
2,300 kg!
In many countries its purchase and use is restricted to buyers who have obtained the proper license. This restriction is primarily because it is an attractive and simple component used in the production of fertilizer bombs by terrorists.
by robo_dev
'Right Wing Extremists' are your basic neo-nazi skinhead groups.
The report says "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups".
Domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Eric Rudolph are our biggest threat, not Limbaugh and Beck.
by notsochiguy
...there was also a report filed concerning left wing nutjobs:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/14/extremism.report/index.html
"In fact, the Obama administration in January did issue a warning about left-wing extremists. Both reports were initiated during the administration of former President George W. Bush"
The report can be found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf
This doesn't seem to be as high level as the report concerning right wing whackadoodles, but as far as I'm concerned, if you move far enough in either direction on a round world, you'll end up in the same place.
;)
by tonythetiger
but it's clear that they're talking about people who might be targets for recruitment by these extremist groups... which in theory could be nearly half the population.
Thinking about it some more, it may be a sign that the government is becoming increasingly fearful of the citizens... and that could be a good sign :)
by notsochiguy
I promise not to use that word again....
...for the next 20 minutes. Scooting out to beat the lunch rush! ;)
by tonythetiger
to steal it from someone who bought it legitimately.
by puppybreath
is that the word terrorist or terrorism appears 15 times in the 9 page document.
I find this interesting because Janet Napolitano refused to use the term "terrorism" or "terrorist acts" when speaking of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups to Congress. Instead, the politically correct term is now "man caused disasters".
I wonder if "terrorism" is now reserved for the real "extremists" like Judeo-Christians and other conservatives.
edited for typos but for some reason the system doesn't like the word "document".
by robo_dev
//begin rant//
Too often we try to solve a problem the wrong way.
Government policy can have good intentions, but the results are not what we expect or what we want. And government policy should not take the place of things like good parenting, common sense, or personal responsibility.
For example, we want educated and employable young people, so we enact 'zero tolerance policies' with respect to school behavior.
So a kid makes one poor choice, and suddenly he's got some time to hang out on the corner, do some crime, end up in jail.
There's a direct correlation between increases in prison population and reduced numbers of high-school graduates due to zero tolerance policies. Do we want guns and drugs in schools? Of course not, but there needs to be some flexibility so those who can be saved, get saved.
The War on drugs:
We throw all drug dealers in jail while drug users get a slap on the wrist...the decreased supply raises prices, attracting more gangs and thugs to the world of drug dealing. The war on drugs is only a war on the drug SUPPLY...what about the demand side of the equation?
Did prohibition stop anybody in Chicago from getting a drink in 1930? Nope, it just made Al Capone a very rich man.
We can drive ourselves crazy trying to ban/restrict/control every potential weapon (...propane tanks? Nail Guns? Gasoline? nails?), or we can think about more sensible and creative ways to solve our problems.
//End Rant//
by oz_media
The right gets off on downplaying the left, the left gets off on downplaying the right.
Face it you live, breathe and bleed your politics like no other nation on Earth. You actually think it matters too, which is where you get really screwed up.
You guys just jerk each other off for political kicks it seems. "We accept it, we reject it."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/
Face it, you are in a nation that CHOOSES to stay divided at your own expense and chooses to not work toward a common goal. You all have your individual 'hopes and dreams' ideals, as if you actually have anything different than any other free nation on Earth.
I don't know how people can stand living in such a politically motivated nation, unless they are politicians.
Politics don't matter, a country gains might and respect based on the actions of the people, not the government.
However, a political focus will see you weaken and lose strength and respect in very short time. As you have seen for yourselves where nobody, including those who grudgingly fight beside you, has any respect for America anymore, if ever.
What could be your cumulative power is split in half and hell bent on opposing one another instead of acting a a whole.
You may as well just have the north and South again, that civil war didn't solve anything for anyone, you are just as divided as ever.
America has become the world's political circus, with all others watching to see which clown will fall over next.
Posts like the OP just perpetuate that for the world's amusement.
Oz said, [i]...you are in a nation that CHOOSES to stay divided at your own expense and chooses to not work toward a common goal.[/i]
[i].....not work toward a common goal.[/i]
[i].....not work toward a common goal.[/i]
[i].....not work toward a common goal.[/i]
Common goal? And what would that be? One person's [i]common goal[/i] conflicts with another person's [i]common goal[/i]. Moreover, to address that obvious irreconcilable difference, our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty - one that encourages the pursuit of individual goals, not necessarily common ones.
Just because you neither understand it or agree with it, Oz, it doesn't make it wrong.
And let's look at your obvious contradiction:
Oz went on to say, [i].....a country gains might and respect based on the actions of the people, not the government. [/i]
That sounds like a case for individualism - the pursuit of individual goals, not collectivism - the pursuit of a common goal.
Anyone who believes 300 million people can have a [i]common goal[/i] regarding all aspects of life is kidding himself.
by puppybreath
See, according to OZ, you should ignore everything that your politicians are doing since it doesn't matter anyways. But, you are allowed to get upset as you want about politics in another country.
So stop posting about politics in the US and start threads about Canadian politics. Then you'll be just like OZ and he won't get so upset. ;-)
by oz_media
Common goal means that you should all set aside personal political differences and focus on the more important issues such as health care, resourcefulness, poverty, government responsibility to the people as a whole not just a specific party etc.
Of course your blind eye only sees "common goal" as being a collective, socialist dream that would destroy the very foundations of the outdated dogma your country clings to.
The thought of not opposing one another purely for the sake of opposition is simply beyond you as you have only ever learned you must focus on denying opposing political viewpoints, regardless of reason or cost.
Common goal does not mean you become Borg and lose individual liberties, it wasn't a contradiction unless you are a single sighted American. I understand personal liberties far more than you'll ever let your brain comprehend.
I am actually one Canadian resident who is COMPLETELY focused on my personal liberties and not allowing government intervention into my life. It doesn't mean I have to oppose those who don't agree with my political views though.
Political preference, does not play an important part in people's judgement of each other or each other's goals and objectives, we ACCEPT people's personal freedoms, unlike yourself who simply see Americans as half right and half wrong depending on political preference.
Take GW for example, not all Canadians buy into GW, some think its the only way to survive.
This doesn't mean we must purposely oppose the idea and blatantly waste energy while others conserve it (simply to oppose/spite them), as the recent GW awareness hour recently showed US citizens do.
Instead, most people regardless of belief, understand that we must be more responsible with our resources and will do what they can personally to conserve energy. Its a common goal without the need for political agreement on GW (we just don't care about politics enough to let it blind our sight).
In the US it is NOT that way at all, in fact people will purposely waste energy just to spite those on the left who support conservation, kinda like little kiddies do when they don't get their way.
.....politics and principle. The former often trumps the latter; but the latter should always transcend the former. I always try to discuss (or debate) principle, but all too often, people fall back on tired-old political arguments.
I would challenge anyone to find one off-topic discussion at TR that started as a debate or discussion on principle, that didn't find itself falling into the trap of politics.
I'll debate principle with anyone, anywhere, and at any time. But I guarantee they will be the ones to interject politics - OZ included. And it's ironic that Oz criticizes [i]politics[/i] so much, yet continually favors it over principle. Oz falls so short in discussing principle. He's admitted more times than I can count that he simply capitulates to the [i]political system[/i].
by oz_media
American politics is everything to Americans, we see the proof over and over again day in and day out. This site is but one minuscule example.
Your politics divide your nation, there is NO possible way you can contest that.
Your politics blind citizens when it comes to working towards a common goal. While I understand it is beyond the scope of your education, you can share a common goal without becoming a lefty or losing your personal liberties.
I come back to the recent hour of energy awareness, which you personally started a thread on just so you could have yet another shot at calling conservationists blind idiots.
Your view is that if the GW scare is not a real and imminent threat, there is no reason to conserve energy or become more environmentally aware because it steps on your personal freedoms and liberties to waste or save as you personally choose to.
It has nothing to do with responsibility, it is purely a way for the government to control people and take money from those who earned it and give it to those who did not...again illustrating your greatest nightmare of helping fellow citizens without writing a personal cheque.
In contrast, Canadians, whether buying into GW warming or not, understand a need to be more resourceful and protect the resources we do have that make our lives more comfortable. We don't waste simply to get back at conservationists, as your thread showed many Americans would.
That's what I mean, you oppose just to oppose becaus ethey are politically different. I am not saying the right is worse than the left, it is equal there, you MUST oppose or else you are on the fence, unpatriotic, pushing American freedoms aside, etc.
You simply cannot see nor fathom any other way as you have never experienced it, whereas I have resided in and worked in the US and see both sides quite well. I just don't think politics are more important than people. Again, most Canadians don't know nor care what political preference their friends or even family are, which is simply unheard of in the USA where it holds so much importance to ones views or acceptance of others.
Face it, your American, you couldn't possibly understand.
by tonythetiger
by robo_dev
therefore you must be a terrorist :)
But Seriously:
My only hope is that the free exchange of ideas on this great Internet of ours will have some positive results.
This free exchange, however warped/twisted/misguided those ideas are, will have two results:
1) By expressing the anger, outrage, and wackadoodle ideas online, these individuals are less likely to go all Ted Kaczynski on the world.
2) By speaking out and showing the world how smart they are, we learn a little more about who they are, and more importantly, where they live.
Thus if I am wrong about benefit #1, our friends in the charcoal-gray crown victorias with the governement plates can make use of information gathered as a result of benefit #2.
by tonythetiger
by tonythetiger
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1239817562001.shtm
Of course, I have to point out the contradictory statements...
"Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States."
and
"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not ? nor will we ever ? monitor ideology or political beliefs."
Uhhh... if you don't monitor ideologies or beliefs, how do you know that they're "rightwing extremists"?
by tonythetiger
Oz reminds me of the kid who's walking down the street, minding his own business, wanting to just get on with his own life, but he encounters a bully (the government) who demands a nickel in order to let him pass - lest he gets beaten to a pulp. Oz pays the nickel, and justifies it by suggesting he can now get on with his life as he sees fit. Moreover, Oz apparently approves of a system of laws that favors the bully.
You and I want to fight the bully, but Oz simply bends over and gives in.
Edit: Of course, the bully also justifies it all by citing the [i]common good[/i]. So now, not only does Oz give into the bully, but he actually [i]feels good[/i] about it.
by tonythetiger
by oz_media
Common good, I never said anything about the Canadian government YOU saw it in a political light, while trumpeting how you don't view things politically first, what a hypocrite!
Do you have ANY real values, that you so proudly tout all the time, besides your political preference? They sure as hell don't show up too often.
Common goal is a people's view. To explain it so you may be able to understand, IF our government said "don't worry about GW, its all a hoax" the right AND left would still work together to find ways to conserve and reduce our resource waste, as we don't attach such issues to political preference and oppose them simply because they are the other side.
That is how a collective goal is reached regardless of government.
You see ANYTHING other than strict opposition to the left as being giving in and bending over for the government, which it simply childish.
Why can't you both conserve energy? Because the left is too radical and the right is too tight arsed to budge?
Because it would be giving in to the Democrats and being unfaithful to your political hard-coding?
You can't see beyond politics, and yet you claim the opposite.
No matter what it is, you are either opposing being forced by the government or are supporting the government, there is no other way for your brain to work..
As with your nickel example. YOu see opposing and arguing with a bully wanting a nickel as more important than coughing up a nickel and laughing at the sorry bastard and moving on with your day.
Who gives a crap ITS ONLY A NICKEL!
Now if it was MORE than a nickel, something I needed or valued, I would oppose the bully just fine and most others would too. regardless of their political view or agreement with my own political view, right is right and wrong is wrong.
Its not a matter of politics or the government having control, IT"S ONLY A NICKEL!
THAT'S where we differ and what I am trying to explain to you.
YOU will oppose paying the nickel NOT because its a nickel and you are being bullied, but because the left thinks you SHOULD pay a nickel.
If the right felt you should pay a nickel, you would justify it as a necessary means of supporting what is right. You would not hang onto personal liberties and cry about freedoms, you would FIND a way to justify it. Just as the right wing can justify spending billions/trillions on an unjustified war, no matter what the cost, it opposes teh left and that's all that matters.
You talk about bending over for the government and yet that's all you have done, bought into ANYTHING they told you in order to justify the war and support your personal choices in a leader, whether factual or proven lies, you still supported it just because it was your political preference calling th3 shots.
Of course you won't see it, you''ll find some way to justify it and make it appear I am a collectivist that kneels for the government, but you couldn't be farther from the truth. i don't care what the government does or says as long as it doesn't effect my life and my way of living. I will act as I seem fit to act and not when the government tells me to or when not to. I will support the right and the left views, depending on what is right in my mind.
In contrast you just join the like minded sheeple of the US and plod along in line as if you are being unique and independent.
by jdclyde
What if it was someone stealing half of everything you work for?
At what point does it become to much?
Should over half the country pay zero in federal taxes AND vote for people looking to increase the burden on the minority who work for a living?
I am unique, just like everyone else! :D
by robo_dev
Moderate is an adjecitive, not a noun. (Unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion of redefining the language to suit your desired outcome.) Anyone who claims to be a [i]moderate[/i], at least in my opinion, is afraid to define his own core principles.
You might be a moderate drinker, a moderate sports enthusiast, or a moderate anything-else; but it's not possible to be a blanket [i]moderate[/i].
Define you own core principles, Delbert, and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, I know, it takes courage, because you run the risk of being pelted with criticism.
by delbertpgh
Just as conservative is an adjective, and liberal, so is moderate; and just as one can be a conservative, or a liberal, one can be a moderate. As am I, and I violate no syntax in so doing.
The heart of moderation is in being able to detect when convictions are driving the country off a cliff, and being able to back away from convictions and principles, once they cease to serve the cause of human happiness. Call it positivism.
Successful living depends on maintaining a balance. That's not done by planting both feet immovably in cement, standing on narrow principles that are important for their own sake.
While I do agree you need to find a balance - after all, the Bible says "...let your moderation be known to all..." - There are some absolutes I must take a stand on: According to the Bible, human life is specially created by God and is, therefore, sacred so I must appose murdering pre-born babies. The Bible say I must love my enemies and pray for those who abuse me so I will respectfully disagree with those who wish to destroy this country and ask God to bless our leaders and reveal the truth to them.
There are more but I think you get the point.
by tonythetiger
by delbertpgh
by tonythetiger
by delbertpgh
By age 23, he'd had enough already, and was ready to go to war with society.
He's nuts.
by tonythetiger
People (or governments) intent to control (other) people often resort to making associations in the hope of making you afraid to speak out... lest you be associated with "him" or "those people".
by delbertpgh
The Bible, much as I regard that book, is a poor guide for structuring politics and civil society, and it gets more inadequate as the complexity of society advances. Western moderns learned that in the Enlightenment, and they're still working on the lessons. Look at the Wahabis in Arabia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for quick examples of what can go wrong when religion figures too large in life. Islam says that God is the source of everything that happens in nature and human affairs. It also holds that Mohammed was the purest man ever to speak, made thus by his meeting with God, and that he could speak no inaccuracy or falsehood; and that he was so excellent that any man of good will who listened to him could not fail to understand his meaning, nor fail to repeat it accurately. Thus, the Koran, the Haddiths, and the Sharia, all assembled 1300 years ago by political players in the Arabic imperial entourage who "heard" Mohammed, stand today as a mental prison that holds Muslims back from modernity and prosperity. They haven't had their Enlightenment yet. Let's hope it comes, for their sake and ours.
Your examples of abortion ("murdering pre-born babies"), the Godly state ("ask God to bless our leaders,") and your characterization of political opponents as sinister enemies ("those who abuse me" and "those who wish to destroy this country") seem pretty angry to me, almost calculated to drive you and your critics further apart than to reconcile differences and build a common society where all can prosper.
Without taking up the morality of abortion, it is hard to argue that making it illegal will make a large difference in the number of procedures performed. In the 1960's, Reader's Digest campaigned for legalization, saying research showed there were well over a million abortions done per year, almost all of them unsafe. Legal or no, women will choose it; and it is so easy to do (you only need a speculum and a piece of string) that any entrepreneur can set himself up as an abortionist and rake in the easy thousands. Moderation says to tolerate it, and leave it to individuals to choose not to.
While I hardly wish to destroy this country, I wouldn't be surprised to find types like Michele Malkin or Gordon Liddy saying that's exactly what I'm up to. I guess they just enjoy the power of being listened to, much as their audience loves the thrill of being threatened by something. I abhor these speakers as demagogues, who work crowds in the mode of Stalin and Hitler, preying on latent primitiveness in otherwise modern people. The longer actors like these play the parts of conservative spokesmen, the more dismal the prospects of the country become.
I can think of people who really would like to destroy this country, such as Kim Jong Il and the North Korean army. I have to remind myself that a teenaged Korean soldier with a gun is as much one of God's lambs as am I, even if Kim has estranged himself. If some day I have to fight that kid (or more likely send my son off to fight him), I hope that some charity and compassion toward our nominal enemy works in our soldiers, along side the realistic need to kill the human tool of our opposition.
That's moderation, as I see it.
by tonythetiger
by robo_dev
I want to argue till I'm blue in the face, yet some computer program won't let me.
ARGGHHH tyranny o:
"You have reached your maximum message level"
"You have reached your maximum message level"
"You have reached your maximum message level"
PFFFFFTTTTT
by tonythetiger
by the 'g-man.'
I want to post at more than 5 levels....
Hmmmph
by oz_media
I know I know, that was really clever...at a 6 year old's birthday party.
If that's really how you see it, it just illustrates your lack of understanding and why your country remains and will always remain divided.
GO ahead, bash Canadian politics, we all do and are on teh same page with it, not simply supporting or denying political decisions purely because it is left vs right. Canadians don't care WHO's in charge when it comes to invalidating political actions.
Whether you support the left or the right doesn't matter at all, everyone agrees Canadian politicians, and all others, are crooks and a-holes with government jobs.
we look at individuals as individuals, not as left wing or right wing supporters, it doesn't matter WHO you support as they all suck and as a collective, Canadians know it.
So have at er, look outwards instead of looking inwards, its the American way after all.
by jdclyde
by tonythetiger
by oz_media
There's no choice, Americans are so 'kin loud an obnoxious, thrusting their politics down everyone's throats like they are so important as they screw up people's peace and privacy
When was the last time Canadian politics played a part in your life or were thrust down your throat via media or loud, overly proud Canadians? When was the last time Canada's foreign affairs placed your nation in jeopardy or placed you in harms way?
Not just Canada but Australia, England, France, Belgium, Hungary, Germany, Brazil, Tanzania, NeverNeverLand?
You screw with another country's ELECTED DEMOCRATIC government by toppling it, you screw with another country's government by offering support and then toppling it when it doesn't play your games.
You create all these reasons for foreigners to hate America, you bring this terrorism on yourselves, but then you spend years blaming everyone else for your mistakes that have put free nations at risk of attack. 'kin yankees!
by oz_media
You put politics in the forefront of your concerns, you can blame politics for everything you want if that's how you see politics.
It is obvious that you despise your government and the fact that you have to pay taxes and let an 'elected' few choose what to do with it.
I see paying taxes as almost like paying off an extortionist. They take it, I don't expect to see a penny from it and they stay the hell out of my face.
There's no point in showing concern because what I care about others don't and vice versa. So who does the government have to please? Everyone or just some people sometimes and other people other times, which is all you can hope for without making politics a focal point of your life.
You take such personal offense when they spend where you don't deem it necessary, yet others feel such offense when they spend as YOU would deem important.
So you will either spend the rest of your life worrying about what the government spends your money on, and no you will never resolve that issue by making a stand, or you will simply get on with your life, realize that all countries will take a portion of your income and just get on with your life.
I don't even look at my gross income or how much the government takes, I don't care, its gone and always will be no matter where I live.
the bottom line is how much money I take home, that's it, I don't care at all about the rest. If I don't take enough home, I seek more.
You seem to count that money as if it was yours or as if you think you can change who much is taken off the top (just like the racetrack keeps 16% right off the top and you have no chance of getting paid on that money if you win).
You can't beat it, give up and live your life instead, they take no matter who you voted for and it doesn't matter if a dem or a republican or Marvin the Martian runs your country, your government isn't worth 10 minutes of your time and attention.
They are screwed up, have always been screwed up and will screw you as long as you are living, face it, it's reality.
Regardless of how you might THINK your country is all about the people and the government working in the best interests of all individuals, you are sadly mistaken. your government like any other is made up of politicians out to make the most money they can for themselves while furthering their own personal agenda and career.
Its their job/career, why would they act any different than anyone else looking to move ahead in their career?
by oz_media
You deny my comment as it was an extreme example; Maxwell came up with the ridiculous, nickle analogy, not me.
But then you come up with an equally absurd analogy yourself. "Stealing half of everything you work for". I don't know about you but I work for a paycheck, I get an entire paycheck, not half a paycheck.
I ensure that I get earn enough so that I don't care what they take, my take home paycheck is what I feel I am worth and that's what I take home and do as I wish with. Let them take more taxes, you'll just have to pay me more to balance it out so I am taking home what I feel I am worth.
Since when did you fit in to the 50% tax bracket anyway? I thought you were recently unemployed? They tax you 50% when you are unemployed and you complain about people on the lower income scale not paying taxes? Isn't the average taxation there around the 25-26% mark? Or is it now 50% since Obama screwed up your little world?
ANY American citizen, regardless of how much they earn, take or pay, has a right to vote, or are you now going to complain about the foundations of democracy too? Only those who pay taxes can vote?!
You guys just don't give up, you will find fault and spend your time complaining about government fault until you die, great life that works out to be.
Disgruntled, frustrated with half your nation's citizens, complain about your government every time YOUR preference isn't elected and then rot away for 80 or so years until you're dead, the end result is nothing changes and nothing is achieved, great life plan, way to go!!
by oz_media
Even that takes time effort an costs more than a nickel. Let the sad bugger keep his nickel so he can have euphoric sexual feelings about his gains , I'm going fishing.
I don't care about the nickel, if he wants a nickel and I need $5.00, I just make sure I am paid $5.05 then he can have his nickel and it doesn't effect me in any way shape or form, my employer can pay the skimmer instead.
by puppybreath
Tell us how you really feel.
:-)
by jdclyde
by the time you add up all the taxes, from going out to dinner to purchasing a car, to income taxes to property taxes....
As for unemployment. Sure, I got a check that they were not taking taxes out of, but at the end of the year, that is taxable income that I am going to get nailed hard for. With the new job, even being on Winter break for two months, I expect to make as much as on a normal year.
That extra money going out for taxes could have been going to a college for my boys, or getting a second car for the house (they will have their licenses within the month).
by jdclyde
All I did was ask you what point does it have to get before it DOES matter to you?
Seemed simple, and fair.
How much does "the bully" have to take before The Oz says no more?
by jdclyde
So, you have found yourself in harms way because of American politics?
So, you have found your way of life hindered because of American politics?
So, your life is not been enriched because of your profits of working with and for Amercian companies?
As the Brit, living in Canada, how has YOUR life been adversely effected by US politics?
Yeah, the terrorists in the world would all be living in harmony if were not for US influence in the world, right? Kumbayaaaaaa......
by tonythetiger
by tonythetiger
[i]Let them take more taxes, you'll just have to pay me more to balance it out so I am taking home what I feel I am worth.[/i]
A friend of mine who is a landlord did the same thing... when his property taxes were raised, he increased the rent to cover it, plus enough to cover the extra income.
What a racket.
Tony started the discussion by suggesting, [i]"It seems to cover everybody who doesn't agree with the left."[/i] The way I read it, he makes valid observation.
Instead of commenting on Tony's concern, you replied directly to his comment by saying, [i]"We had a right-wing meathead in Pittsburgh who killed three cops..... He's pretty much exactly the kind of head case this bulletin warned about, a gun fascination, racism, survivalism, and mental illness wrapped up in a package and looking for some excuse to blow up."[/i]
The report was poorly conceived, poorly written, and ill-advised. And Tony and I aren't the only ones who think so.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97JU0881&show_article=1
And an apology was even issued:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/?iref=mpstoryview
By supporting the document, you made a connection, whether intended or not - because the document, itself, paints with too wide a brush. (And people thought the Bush Administration was [i]divisive[/i].)
by delbertpgh
DHS is charged with assessing domestic threats before they happen. The report you cite, and others before it, attempt to do just that: describe the environment, the human elements of possible terrorism, and where they could be coming from. It may be hurtful to some right-spectrum guys that one of their buddies who goes maybe a little too far, gets himself a little too angry, could be labeled "extremist" or even "terrorist", but its fair to the bulk of us who see a bullet spray or a fertilizer bomb as more than an outburst of some guy who just needs a little more love, to apply and make use of such labels. (Incidentally, if you think I'm just making this up, check out http://www.jaynadavis.com/wnd.html There are people, some with published books or radio shows, who so desperately want to believe that it was impossible for a freedom-loving army veteran to commit an act of terrorism. This is cult thinking.)
But, getting back to the DHS report, it did not say that the Army manufactured right-wing terrorists. It suggested that loonies who love guns, demonize imaginary enemies, and idealize the man of action often come to rest in the Army, and when they leave (or are ejected) they can be a special problem because training with arms, explosives, and coordinated behavior makes them highly dangerous, should they go off the cliff. Tim McVeigh was an exact example of this kind of guy. Pittsburgh Meathead was another.
Pointing out that rightist nutbags can be found in conservative-minded organizations, such as the Army, is in no way a condemnation of the army. People are just getting too sensitive here. Look at it this way: you tend to find Al Qaeda people among populations with Arabic names. You tend to find black liberationist militants among people who are black. You find Earth First bombers among environmentalists. Does being aware of the connections make you a racist, or mean that you label a general population as terrorists? Nope.
The document, by the way, was commissioned at the time of the Bush administration, and was largely composed prior to the 90 days of the Obama administration. If you want to rant, I guess you can call it another typical example of Bush divisiveness and fumbled execution.
by oz_media
Who's controlling you, Tony?
Have you informed the authorities yet? If so, better lock the doors to avoid the men with the white jackets and the net.
Did you hear that? I think they're coming to get you now! They are going to steal your thoughts and give them to people who can't think for themselves (God help us all).
Run for your lives, save your souls, here comes the government, eeeeeeeek!!!
by delbertpgh
by oz_media
by oz_media
That if you didn't pay taxes you'd have a lot more money?
You should write a book on that, I am sure people have never considered it.
It still doesn't support your comment that half of your income is taxes, even with the extra taxes you pay as you go.
Si lets see a simple example> You earn $1.00 Gross, the government takes 26% off the top, you now have $0.74 left.
You buy a pack of gum and pay sales tax, what's that another 7%? 7% of 74 cents (-4 cents) leaves you with 70 cents.
So now 'they' have stolen 30 cents from your dollar. Lets even say that 11% (0.08 cents) of the gum expense is also going to federal tax (we pay GST instead now)now they have taken 38 cents form you and all you got was gum! but you still feel they take 50% of your income?
What expense do you have, that costs you 50% in taxes?
by oz_media
Enough that I care because it changes my daily routine or causes me to adjust what I am able to do or enjoy.
Income taxes, I've already explained are irrelevant to me, I make sure my net leaves me with what I feel I am worth, anything else is gravy and I don't count nor expect to see those dollars in any country.
If it imposed on my lifestyle and my ability to do as I pleased, I wouldn't bother complaining about it, I'd just go for more money.
It's like people are looking to the government to solve their problems, as usual. "if you didn't take my taxes I'd live happily ever after." sure.
Don't take home enough money? Go earn more.
Instead it seems that if people don't earn enough money, instead of pushing for more, finding a better job and moving forward with careers, people just want to stay where they are, do what they do and have the government reduce their expenses for them so they have more.
Face it, no amount of whining and complaining is going to reduce or eliminate your taxes. if you haven't figured that out yet, you are going to have a long frustrating life.
You want more at the end of the day? Earn more. At least THAT can be done and in a pretty short time frame. YOU control your income, not the government.
by oz_media
The government raised his costs, and he raised your costs. How else would he go about it, simply be a nice guy and let you pay the same and take the bullet for you?
I don't see why you bother whining about taxes, what do you possibly hope to achieve?
If you spent as much time increasing your income as you do whining about your government being crooks, you'd be earning billions by now (as if anyone didn't already know that governments are ALL crooks, even in glorious America).
Beat then at their own game, create an income for yourself where it doesn't matter what they take, you still have what you want.
They can nickel and dime the crap out of me and I don't care, I still do what I want to do when I want to do it and nobody is there to say I can't.
Your the type of guy who would win 30 million on a lottery and complain about being taxed on it and only getting 18 million afterwards.
by oz_media
Would you rather I said,
"I'm sorry! I don't know why the world hates Americans. You are all so wise and worldly, your government has always acted in the best interests of others and I don't think its fair that you get such a bad reputation!"
I think my fingers were laughing as I typed that.
by oz_media
First of all, my comment was in response to a really stupid comment.
"It sure seems you and a lot of people around the world spend a more time looking outwards TOWARDS the US than inward."
Oh, that's right...it was YOUR stupid comment! Forgot already?
Your politics are thrust upon other each day without apology. You insist people follow your politics and political beliefs or they are your enemy. However, if people question or doubt your politics, they are wrong in doing so and should look inward and not to the USA? This is where you get horribly delusional.
Canada is at war in Afghanistan, our solders die each day, more and more since you removed the bulk of your support in order to fight some ridiculous war in Iraq, and that's a war I supported (Afghan not Iraq).
I currently have two friends in Afghanistan, plus one who died while working there to rebuild infrastructure last year.
American politics have screwed the global economy, it seems you've personally haven't seen the effects.
As for my US income, I make more money from European income than I do with double the business conducted in the US.
But I have to admit, the US market is easy pickins, one positive trait you have there anyway, stupid consumers.
This changes nothing though and your questions completely ignore the comment I was reply to to begin with. You asked why people are focused on America, YOU made it that way. look inwards? We do it all the time, that's how we overturn our government when they get out of hand and elect new leaders.
I was asked why people (and myself I assume) am focused on US politics and how Americans don't complain about others, please show me how Canadian politics have changed the way you live?
To help get you started, Canada is North (that's the opposite direction to Mexico) of America. Oh and I mean negatively, not positively.
I simply tell you the reality that the world hates America, even your so called allies, and you come back at me as if it is just my feelings. LOL, go outside one day, watch something other than the US propaganda network. You'll soon see that it isn't just terrorists that hate America for your actions.
by oz_media
While typing my last reply to you, I made $63.80 on a $6 bet at Freehold raceway and another $21.40 at The Meadows less than 2 minutes later.
Why you bother whining about taxes is beyond me, get on with your life and f**k what the government does or has to say, you guys place WAY too much importance on your government, supporting their decisions and contesting those at the helm.
Vote every 4 years and let them fester for the rest, the more attention you give them, the more important they feel and then they feel it necessary to do something to 'better the world', and we all know what that means. Pi$$ off some third world nation, push allies away and create a stir so that they can sit in the limelight and call the shots as if they actually run the planet or something.
Stick to making money and screw the elected losers, then they just don't matter.
Edit: While typing THIS post I cashed in another $43.20, so I am up nearly $120.00 (after the cost of bets) and its only 11 AM
That's $40.00/hr on top of my salary, while increasing company revenue and my annual bonus too, and you are whining about the government taxing you?
Give your head a shake and get with the program, spend less time worrying about the realities of life and start making money instead.
Edit#2: okay, won again! It's obviously a good day for racing so I am taking off for the day, the track beckons me.
have a great weekend y'all.
by tonythetiger
It's how the taxes are USED.
The government should treat all citizens equally. Taking money away from one citizen to give it to someone else is not treating them equally.
There's an old joke...
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth.
She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.
She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.
The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party"
by tonythetiger
I can't smoke in my own house while the baby sitter is there.
I can't sit on my own front porch and drink a beer.
I can't paint my house the color I want.
I can't display used items I want to sell in my own yard.
I can't cook outside without a permit.
I can't raise my own meat or eggs.
I can't buy ammunition without having a background check.
I cannot carry a switch-blade knife, nor any folding knife with greater than a three inch blade.
I cannot post a sign in my yard without a permit.
I cannot park a vehicle on the street that has a commercial sign, or displays a sign or sticker containing obscene words or pictures.
I cannot sell my sexual services (this one really upsets me :) )
There are many others...
by tonythetiger
some people call views.
For example, I'm angry at a government that won't let gay people do what other people can do (get married), yet I am not a "liberal". It's all the same thing with me Oz. Treat ALL citizens equally!
by jamesrl
Not sure about smoking in the house, as far as I know its not deemed a workplace fro babysiters, but I'm not up on current precedents.
I can sit on my front step and drink a beer. Been there, done that.
I can paint my house any colour I want. (who checks by the way? Do they have to approve the colour in the paint store?)
I can sell items on my front yard, and have done so. I'm sure dozens of my neighbours will be doing it tomorrow.
I could raise my own meat and eggs outside the city. I've heard Toronto is considering amending the by laws to allow chickens to be raised in the city.
I can't buy ammo without a firearms acquisition permit. But I don't consider firearms a right but a privelege, so I am ok with that.
I can't carry a switchblade, but I have carried a folding knife with a 5 inch blade.
I can post signs on my lawn.
I don't have on street parking after 11 PM. But I can park whatever I want up till then.
I could sell my sexual services, legally. However I couldn't offer them (communicate them). Its solicitation thats illegal in Canada, presumably donations would be ok.
How many of these Tony are not crimes but By laws?
James
by tonythetiger
the paint. They can't jail you, but they can have you paint over it(or do it themselves and add it to your tax bill). It's some historical thing...
The others are punishable by fine/jail.
The only exceptions to the smoking ban are that nursing homes must set aside an indoor area for residents but no employees are allowed to enter), stand-alone businesses (separate building) where ALL of the employees are relatives, and stand-alone tobacco stores. Oh yeah, and truckers got an exemption... (by threatening a rolling blockade (running exactly 15 mph under the posted limit) on all the state's expressways) but you can't smoke in any other company-owned vehicle, even if you're alone.
[i]I could sell my sexual services, legally. However I couldn't offer them (communicate them). Its solicitation thats illegal in Canada, presumably donations would be ok.[/i]
I thought I had a way around that... tell them you're not charging them for the sex... you're charging them to leave afterward! :)
by mr stumper
(Stereotype notice)
But during the face off. The Lefty would be stating how much they needed to talk about this, which would then dissolve into him saying "not the face, NOT THE FACE!"
And of course the Righty, in defiance of the rules, would pull out his .50 caliber machine gun which he feels he needs to have for personal protection and feels is guaranteed by the 2nd ammendment.
[i]I make sure my net leaves me with what I feel I am worth, anything else is gravy and I don't count nor expect to see those dollars in any country.[/i]
In terms of percentages, what percentage would be too much? If the government takes 40 percent, you're content? What about 50 percent? What about 60 percent? What about 80 percent?
Where does your threshold of tolerance end?
The way it is now, you probably work three or four months for free - all for the benefit of giving the fruits of your labor to others. Hell, Oz, with your attitude, why not give 100 percent to others ? I mean to the government?
Like I asked, Where does your threshold of tolerance end?
Edit:
And the thing is, you don't get to decide that answer. You simply go along with the scam - because you don't get involved.
by mr stumper
Is this a city ordinance, or state. Please refer the statute number.
As far as I have seen, most paint restrictions are due to some small city governments or Homeowner associations.
In my own experience, both H.O Associations and small towns were run by people who didn't want to live next to people who paint their houses tye-dye.
If it's a city statute, fight to change it, or move. If it's a H.O.A. statute, move.
Nobody is keeping you from fighting it and nobody is keeping you from moving. You have that freedom.
If you cannot fight either, then you have to deal with the fact that society is moving into a direction that you do not like. Deal with it, we are a democracy...majority rules.
by mr stumper
What do you think of the actions of government performed during the last administration against the other end of the spectrum to their political agenda?
If you cannot itemize them, then this just shows that you only pay attention to "fair and balanced" media. It has been documented quite well, but not by the corporate media. So you should have no problem listing them.
Just wondering whether or not you are concerned about the government monitoring U.S. citizens in general, or if you are just concerned about the government monitoring those with your own political persuasion.
Please, let us know.
Thanks!
by tonythetiger
by mr stumper
You admit that is wasn't targeted at the Repubzombies, that's good. At least, I'm guessing here, that you remember how everyone against it was called un-patriotic by the wingnuts?
But gimme specifics...Tell me exactly how the Bush Administration went after left-wingers.
'cmon..it's out there...there are many, many examples just off of the top of my head which do not require google. it's really, really easy unless you are such a wingnut that you can't see straight.
You don't know...do you...
(edited, in order to be more, like, conciser)
by tonythetiger
by tonythetiger
[i]Where does your threshold of tolerance end?
[/i]
If they increase his tax, he'll demand his customers/employers pay more to make sure his take-home is what he wants. Of course, everybody else's taxes are going up too, leaving them with less to pay him with, so they'll have to demand THEIR employers pay them more.... And then those companies will have to raise their prices to pay those wages, so if Oz buys anything from those companies, he's going to have to raise his prices again, etc.
by tonythetiger
[i]I don't see why you bother whining about taxes, what do you possibly hope to achieve?[/i]
How about a leaner, more agile, more effective (at the things it's [b]supposed[/b] to be doing) government? If it has less to work with, there'll be less to waste! If it's smaller, the corrupt elements can more easily be spotted and eliminated.
Just look at our public school systems. Their average cost per student is twice as high as similarly located private and charter schools, yet their test scores are dismal by comparison. It's painfully obvious that throwing money at it isn't making a difference for the students, just making teacher's unions richer.
I honestly believe that those in power in government (both parties) have a vested interest in keeping the population as dumb as possible. You see similar things in the social services arena, and even in law enforcement! And Congress... You heard them piss and moan about AIG raises and bonuses even though the company wasn't very successful... but you never heard one of them bitch about THEIR raises and bonuses even though THEIR company, the US of A, isn't very successful.
Tea parties are quaint and all, but what we REALLY need is to bring back another old custom... Tar and Feathers! (and maybe even the STOCKS!)
by boxfiddler
[i]things like good parenting, common sense, or personal responsibility.[/i]
Uncle Sam isn't my daddy? :0
by boxfiddler
by boxfiddler
Homeowners Societies. Come into existence for the purpose of maintaining someone's notion of the monetary value of property.
Never mind where 'real' value lies to the person who 'owns' the property.
These groups are a bane of my existence...
Sort by Trending