Homeland Security is Watching You!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sexiest_hero**

The new blck panthers numper about2-300, and have the leadership of a wet towel. They amount to no more than an shame, they arn't Islamic like the panthers of old, and they only survive by using the name Black panther. I'd accept Al "I take advantage of tragedy" sharpton though. Eco terrorest have Terrorists in thier name. And tree spikers have Muder charges slapped on them when caught.

I belive your wrong about the hard liners controlling the partys. Weak willed people who follow polls and hope to get re-elected control the parties. The hard liners control the message, and IMHO, I think the Right has lost control of it's hardliners. I saw this in the Republicans blaming the bad rebulicans "I.E Bush's crew" and the fall out between Mccain and Sara Palin. Also the battle for the new Republican message, Outreach vs. Core Values.

**Polonius**

Frazzled wrote:Not correct. Ayers was initially charged with murder in his part in bombings that killed police officers. The police unions of the murdered police officers recently came out and directly accused him of murder. The Weathermen were terrorists and should have been executed to a man/woman. Everything else is hypocrisy.

It's interesting, because I think one of the big differences here is that I judge terrorism and the like by it's effects, whereas you're focused more on the intent or goals of the organization. The weathermen were terrorists, but they were almost laughably bad at it.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Not correct. Ayers was initially charged with murder in his part in bombings that killed police officers. The police unions of the murdered police officers recently came out and directly accused him of murder. The Weathermen were terrorists and should have been executed to a man/woman. Everything else is hypocrisy.

It's interesting, because I think one of the big differences here is that I judge terrorism and the like by it's effects, whereas you're focused more on the intent or goals of the organization. The weathermen were terrorists, but they were almost laughably bad at it.

Judge Frazzled: "Incompetence is no defense."

**halonachos**

People say "Obama will take the guns away!" he won't, he'll just make it impossibly expensive to a)Afford guns, b)Afford ammo.

I love guns and I love shooting paper targets so why make it hard for me when only 1 or 2 nut jobs decide to shoot people. Besides, gun control laws are a failure as only the good guys listen to the law anyway.

Terrorism is any act used by an individual/group to instill terror. Going by this logic, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were terrorist acts. However, the alternatives would have been much worse for both sides.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Don't lump libertarians into that mix. We just don't want to be ed with. Just because its a small party doesn't make it a terrorist organization. Its larger than most European parties...

Secessionist parties aren't necessarily terrorist organizations either, but they do tend to hold at least some general disregard for the law. In my experience many Libertarians also possess such a trait. That's what I was trying to get at.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
You're argument that the extreme left is not in control of the Democratic Party is...interesting in light of Huffington/DailyKos. I am not singling out the Democratic Aprty though, the hardliners control both major political parties in the US, as in most locales. Thats human nature.

I don't know Fraz, it seems like everyone in a position of power in the DNC is pretty moderate. The hardliners tend to control the rhetorical message of any given party, but when it comes time to take action they simply get left out.

For all of Limbaugh's screaming he hasn't had a whole lot of affect on the actual political process.

**Frazzled**

I'd put moderates having no more influence at the Democratic party than the Republican Party. I see a startling lack of moderate democrats -same for republicans at this point.

**halonachos**

Both sides are evil, I think that we need to have a third party victory soon just to keep it fresh.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:I'd put moderates having no more influence at the Democratic party than the Republican Party. I see a startling lack of moderate democrats -same for republicans at this point.

What do you define as a moderate? Someone who works with the other party, or someone who has a moderate opinion with respect to a political issue?

**Frazzled**

Ooh good question dogma. I'd have to proffer both to an extent, but more heavily moderate opinion.

**halonachos**

I believe the political definition is someone of middle opinions.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Ooh good question dogma. I'd have to proffer both to an extent, but more heavily moderate opinion.

Interesting. I suppose that would explain the reason you don't see many moderate, but I see plenty of them. Varying definitions of what a moderate opinion entails with respect to the current climate.

halonachos wrote:I believe the political definition is someone of middle opinions.

Well, yeah. The question is more a matter of what defines that middle. Is it proffered opinions, or is there some kind of 'moderation' which exists outside of the alternatives presented? Personally I tend to believe that factual information dictates the positions which can be regarded as moderate. For example, a hands-off Libertarian take on the current economic matter would be extreme. The same would follow for any form of opinion which directly created a command economy. However, an opinion which regarded the importance of the state with respect to the economic system while also emphasizing an open economic system would be moderate.

**Frazzled**

So would the governor of Texas now qualify as a potential terrorist? (we always knew his hair was a threat)

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Perry_Tea_Party.html

Perry fires up anti-tax crowd
By KELLEY SHANNON

Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package.

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

Texas did secede in 1861, but the North's victory in the Civil War put an end to that.

Perry is running for re-election against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican. His anti-Washington remarks have become more strident the past few weeks as that 2010 race gets going and since Perry rejected $550 million in federal economic stimulus money slated to help Texas' unemployment trust fund.

Perry said the stimulus money would come with strings attached that would leave Texas paying the bill once the federal money ran out.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, also Republicans, have been outspoken against the federal economic stimulus spending and were supportive of tea parties in their states. The protests were being held throughout the country on federal income tax deadline day to imitate the original Boston Tea Party of American revolutionary times.

In an appearance at the Texas Capitol last week, Perry joined state lawmakers in pushing a resolution that supports states' rights protected in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He said the federal government has become oppressive in its size and interference with states.

Since then, Perry has been featured on the online Drudge Report, and other conservative commentators and citizens have latched on to his words.

After praising veterans in the cheering crowd Wednesday, he said: "I'm just not real sure you're a bunch of right-wing extremists. But if you are, we're with you."

Perry said he believes he could be at the center of a national movement that is coordinated and focused in its opposition to the actions of the federal government.

"It's a very organic thing," he said. "It is a very powerful moment, I think, in American history."

For her part, Hutchison issued a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for spending on the stimulus bill and the $1 trillion appropriations bill.

"On April 15 — Tax Day — some in Congress may need a reminder of just who is underwriting this spending: the American taxpayer. I am deeply concerned over the swelling tax burden that will be imposed on all Texas families," she wrote.

The crowd at the Austin tea party appeared to be decidedly anti-Democrat. Many of the speakers were Republicans and Libertarians.

One placard said, "Stop Obama's Socialism." Another read, "Some Pirates Are in America," and it showed photographs of Obama, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wearing pirate hats.

Rebecca Knowlton, 45, of Smithville, said she took the day off of home-schooling her three children and brought them to the rally to teach them about civic duty. Knowlton, a critic of the Social Security system and the United Nations, said she felt camaraderie at the demonstration.

"The movement is growing stronger," she said. "You're not alone."

**dogma**

Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess."

Interesting point, but not really considering that Texas receives only slightly less money than it contributes to the overall tax coffer. Data here.

**sexiest_hero**

More whining,, and lets pick up out ball and go home. It's been 3 months, Nobody has paid a dime more on thier tax returns than they would have had too before. They are getting more rash and off the rocker. Where was the outrage when money was going to the iraqi surplus as my brothers-in-arms were being blasted to bits?

**reds8n**

Perry called his supporters patriots.

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

So... the people elected by the people are thumbing their noses at the people who elected them to do what they're doing ?

Good to see the somewhat partisan crowd are gracious losers who, like, totally "respect the office" etc. These presumably would be the same people who were calling for anti war protesters/similar to be shot or arrested for their unamerican behaviour ? Because you've al got to pull together or something when one is at war ? Or does that only apply when their guy is in office ?

**Frazzled**

I saw the Tea Party downtown here. Looked like fun and several gals were real easy on the eyes.

This is great. This is like watching the machinery of the First Amendment in action. No violence no BS, just a fun protest. Reminds me of the good old days of college, sitting in front of the student union in the sun with a coke and some fries, watching the weekly protest against (insert whatever here it was California after all). Ah lots of gals were easy on the eyes back then.

Sweet youth is so wasted on the young.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote: Sweet youth is so wasted on the young.

QFT.

...I never really saw you as the radical protesting type.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote: Sweet youth is so wasted on the young.

QFT.

...I never really saw you as the radical protesting type.

Its great fun. My interest in protests, however, is directly proportional to the ratio of "hotties" in the protest group. Unfortuntately the more I get interested, the less I notice the actual protest. I don't think I ever noticed what any of the protests were actually about.

You have to picture Captain redneck in boots, beltbuckle, rolled up shirt in the middle of Southern California, watching Cali girls. Going to the apartment to occassionaly see which drug house was being raided by lots of cops playing army commando wannabes, or driving past the daily drive by scene. Then on the weekend driving up the mountain with the county rangemaster and a bunch of Vietnam era ex rangers to blow up lots of stuff and then eat biscuits and gravy. The whole experience could play with your mind.

Son of Hank Williams Jr. vs. the Zombie Surfer Nazis now in Cali vision!

**sexiest_hero**

I'm all for protests, if these guys want to teabag the USA over phantom taxs, phantom gun rights violations, and money to keep thier states afloat, then more power to them. I been called everything under the sun by democrat protesters of the school of Americas in Ft. Benning every year for 6 years. More power to them both. I can't wait to see if some hardliners try and push the mob a little bit to faras the Economey starts to slowly improve.

**Frazzled**

You think the economy is going to improve do ya?

**sexiest_hero**

I do, for the simple fact that things never stay the same forever. The question is when. Barring the zombie invasion, of course.

**Frazzled**

It could go...down...

or stabilize and then drop in 2011.

**halonachos**

Technically, a true american can support/ not support their leaders as long as they support the ideal of the free country in which we live.

In an extreme example, a leader wants to do things that will get rid of jobs for americans, make the country weak, sell of the military, and is just a total nut job like that iranian fellow. If he was to be killed by a citizen, I would consider that person a good american for saving the country from destruction.

The reason for the 2nd amendment is to allow americans the ability to revolt against tyrannical government. Obama isn't tyrannical, but texas opposes what he is doing and is trying to send a strong message to them.

**reds8n**

And of course the entirety of Texas feels or thinks that.

So... then the Texans that don't agree with the govenor are they they still "true Americans" or what then ?

**dietrich**

halonachos wrote:In an extreme example, a leader wants to do things that will get rid of jobs for americans, make the country weak, sell of the military, and is just a total nut job like that iranian fellow. If he was to be killed by a citizen, I would consider that person a good american for saving the country from destruction.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to go the route of either: 1) voting example nutjob out of office or 2) letting Congress impeach him to remove him from office. Yeah, murder is a much better solution.

And you know what's funny, I read that description, and I thought you were talking about Bush.

**halonachos**

Yes they are, they believe that Obama is going against what America stands for and that the government in all is not what it should be. They think that we should restructure it so it would be more like the government the founding fathers wanted.

You know, I didn't like Bush too much but I think he was better than Obama so far.

**sexiest_hero**

What that nut-job in texas and a few others don't understand is that America is made up of many points of view, Both conservative and libral points of view are valid, America chose that not only did they want a more librial leader but that rase is no longer the barrier it used to be. America stands for the people, the people voted. The Texas Governor wasn't Sending a message or being brave. He was being a YELLOW BELLY CHICKEN! Being brave is Accepting the fact that you lost, looking at what you did wrong, dusting yourself off, and geting back in the game. Losing, then saying your gonna quit because things don't go the way you want them to, is just being a bad sport and a sore loser. You win some and you lose some, but only cowards pick up thier ball and run home to mama when things get tough.

Of course things are being ran a way they don't think is anny good, they are republicans, Obama is a democrat. Do they have any grasp of how political parties work?

The Iranian President is many things, lots of them bad, but an Idiot is not one of them. Remember when we underestimated Iraq?

What has Obama done that makes him much worse than Bush, I'd love to hear this.

Edit: Assanination and murder don't fly here in the USA, Cold blooded murder from the shadows on an un-armed man makes a person scum. Look at Lincon, Kennedy, and, King. All assassinated over the plight of a group of Americans. Are their Murderers "real Americans?"

**barlio**

sexiest_hero wrote:What that nut-job in texas and a few others don't understand is that America is made up of many points of view, Both conservative and libral points of view are valid, America chose that not only did they want a more librial leader but that rase is no longer the barrier it used to be. America stands for the people, the people voted. The Texas Governor wasn't Sending a message or being brave. He was being a YELLOW BELLY CHICKEN! Being brave is Accepting the fact that you lost, looking at what you did wrong, dusting yourself off, and geting back in the game. Losing, then saying your gonna quit because things don't go the way you want them to, is just being a bad sport and a sore loser. You win some and you lose some, but only cowards pick up thier ball and run home to mama when things get tough.

America is also made up of 50 unique states. The Civil War wasn't just about Slavery. The confederate states felt that their rights and freedom was being oppressed (not justifying slavery or their beliefs). They felt that they had an obligation to try and break-away. Perry feels that their rights and freedoms are being restricted. I doubt the state of Texas feels the same (saw a poll that said 72% don't believe Texas should seperate from the US). This didn't start with Obama. At some point in our recent history, the country (in general) is feeling that the governing powers don't have the interest of the American people at heart.

The goal of our representatives should be to do what we want. Not give us what we need. When any Administration feels that they should give the American people what they need instead of what they want then there is going to be strife. Yes, we don't always want the "thing" that is best for us, but that is the price of freedom.

**sexiest_hero**

I didn't say the Civil war was about slavery, Licons assassination was directly due with doing things people didn't want. That was the point i was getting at.

The goal of our representives is to do what's best for the nation, not whats popular at the moment. Presidents Need to make the hard, sometimes un-popular choices (I.E Intergrating southern schools using the national guard) We vote for people we think will make the best choices in our best interests and follow the Ideals of the party. We don't vote for a puppet to do whatever is popular. What happens if two groups want the same thing, we hold an election, more people want it one way, it wins, they do things they feel is best.

Bush did plenty of unpopular things, like torture and the patriot act, that he felt was needed, Like the war in Iraq, or the sub-par treatment of our armed forces. Sometimes in big wars drafts are needed, sometimes food must be rationed, Unpoplular laws made and enforced.

Think about if we all only did what was popular.