Apparently it is coming out that he was indeed sympathetic to white supremacist views, although he wasn't a member of any organized groups - just a lone radical, basically.   He was kicked out of the military for "patterns of misconduct" back in the late 1990s, so it's hard to blame this on his military service.

Allons-y!

Definitely wasn't blaming it on any military background, just an FYI. I doubt anyone in the Sikh community would blame military service either, as within Sikhism military service is very important.

He was apparently involved with a couple skinhead bands, so not totally 'lone.'

There was an interview on his band's label's website, which they've pulled, but you can still read it via Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XsgYQhSRpdoJ:www.label56.com/2012/05/end-apathy -interview/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

This is how the tea party takes "their" country back.

Has there been any violence associated with the Tea Party?

Yes.

That's the best you can come up with?

You asked if there had been ANY violence by Tea Partiers. He gave one example. More than you would have done, eh?

One of the chief characteristics of the Tea Party movement has been its lack of violence and respect for the law, don't you think? Especially when contrasted with, for example, the Occupy movement.

Since when did you care what I thought? Why would you ask ME?

Since when did you care what I thought?

Good point. Let's leave all questions unanswered, more or less as usual.

Hey, at least he didn't argue that the bitch was a liberal and thus deserved it.

He would be more careful than to admit his original remarks were outright false or misleading. But thank heavens for small favours.

You mean what indecentspeech wrote?

I was referring to your response to indecentspeech, in which you implied that Tea Partiers have never been violent toward their political opponents. If you followed up that post by saying something like "the bitch was a liberal and thus deserved it", you would be directly contradicting your earlier post, something you don't typically do. Arguably, I was complimenting you.

Since you haven't gone out of your way recently to offend me (for whatever reason), I will even take this opportunity to admit that Tea Partiers have generally been less publicly violent than Occupiers, even as right-wing folks tend to threaten violence more (and spend more time in public appearing angry and/or frustrated) than left-wingers. I will also admit that left-wing "environmentalists" seem every bit as lost in fantasy worlds of their own devising as Birthers.

...right-wing folks tend to threaten violence more (and spend more time in public appearing angry and/or frustrated) than left-wingers

You virtually admitted as much yourself when you took pride in liberals being intimidated by right-wingers, Chuckles, but feel free to play both sides of that street.

The what?

No, it was The Who.

Novy,

I have to ask. Why do you bother?

It's like smashing your head with a hammer.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

On many occasions, Zyx has helped me run up comment numbers on threads I care about, so his usual non-responsiveness doesn't bother me as much as it otherwise would.

Also, tough nut that he can often be, when I do manage to get through to him, it can be gratifying.

But thank you for your concern.

Don't feed into his "violence" trolling. My original comment was more sarcasm than anything, because the Tea Party population is almost entirely Old, White, and Astroturf (via Koch Bros. and AFP). Of course there's less violent incidents then Occupy Wall Street (OWS), because half of the Tea Party population, once they step outside of their retirement homes after watching Fox News for 20 straight hours, is too tired to act in any manner. You're literally comparing 18 to 40 years old with a geriatric community where 1/3 of them have dementia. People with down syndrome don't have many incidents of violence either. Get my point.  

Also: Tea Party members are more likely to have bathed in the past 24 hours than OWSers and less likely to have shit in the street.

Well of course. They get sponge baths, and they have bed pans and diapers.

...even as right-wing folks tend to threaten violence more (and spend more time in public appearing angry and/or frustrated)...

No duh. They are always barking about "second amendment remedies."

With the Tea Party? Never happen...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebehr/4473796334/

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Let me answer your question with another question: have you seen the film "Gun Nuts Say No"?

Are you insulted?

Romney offers prayers because he has nothing else to offer. He represents people who think that even registering purchases of guns or ammo (like registering purchases of cold medicines with pseudoephedrine) would result in Communists coming to take their guns away, so he can't say anything on this subject at all.

This makes me laugh. They DO realize that he was governor of one of the most gun-rights hating states of ALL TIME, right? And how he's there standard bearer? Come on, man!

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Conservatives typically don't worry themselves about such things. When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, he signed legislation legalising abortion years before Roe v. Wade changed American law generally. Did that stop social conservatives from not only voting for him but lionising him? As long as Reagan said what they wanted to hear while he was serving as president, all was well.

When Romney was running Massachusetts, he needed to make peace with lots of people who definitely won't be voting for him for president in 2012. Now that he has Republicans' nomination for president sewn up, he needs to make peace with lots of people that think of Massachusetts as they would some Soviet People's Republic. I bet he'll pull it off, at least to some extent.

I remember people who used to say that Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton were America's best 20th century Republican presidents

I well understand that our respective senses of humour have nothing whatsoever in common, so I won't attempt to explain that joke to you. Suffice it to say that it would make more sense to liberals than it would to doctrinaire Tea Party supporters.

However, I would be willing to argue that Eisenhower and Clinton were America's two best 20th century presidents based on standard of living considerations.

Not to worry, I don't expect you to take me up on it.

like registering purchases of cold medicines with pseudoephedrine

Are you saying that this shit doesn't bother you?  Because it bothers the fuck out of me that I have to give my driver's license to purchase fucking cold medicine, like I'm a common fucking criminal.

Allons-y!

I don't even think amphetamines should be illegal, so regulating pseudoephedrine strikes me as overkill. I was one of those arguing on TnT that Americans should get rid of TSA and let people just walk onto planes, like in 1999.

But Canada already has all sorts of regulations of firearms, and yet nobody has come to take our guns away, so I can't really relate to TnT posters' widespread fears that "liberals" will come to confiscate their arsenals.

Airport security in 1999 was far more similar to current TSA procedure than to "just letting people walk onto planes".

I wasn't there, so I guess I didn't know.

I can't really relate to TnT posters' widespread fears that "liberals" will come to confiscate their arsenals.

And the flip-side:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/Nose+Hill+Park+confrontation+makes+visitors+feel+unsafe /7050028/story.html

I have a working assumption that most gun-nuts are pissing themselves 24/7

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Wonderful article. Americans so used to armed violence and so concerned about their vulnerability if they don't have their guns with them that loud young people seem "dangerous". "Confrontation", indeed.

Gee, I wonder why those kids backed off and didn't pull out weapons? Oh, yeah, "gun control". Those Canadians just don't understand...

I have to agree with you. It seems like the prerequisite to be a gun-nut is constant paranoia/fear of police, armed assailants (or unarmed, depending on how scared you are),  and/or government. They literally think they are going to get assaulted on every corner of their predominantly white, safe neighborhoods.

I am a "gun nut" by the definition used most often in the media: I own a lot of guns and even more ammunition.

Although I do not care for the ridiculous paramilitary police forces now found in most municipalities, I am not paranoid about it nor do I live in fear of them.

I do not live in fear of armed or unarmed assailants. I am relatively confident that I have the mindset and tools to deal with them should the need ever arise.

I am fearful of the havoc our government is wreaking on our personal and economic freedoms, but mainly because I am worried that my children and grandchildren will have much poorer quality lives than I have enjoyed as a result.

I am currently stuck in a house I can't sell in a neighborhood that is euphemistically referred to as being "in transition." It is still predominantly white, but it is certainly no longer "safe" by any definition. I do not believe I will get assaulted on any "corner" here, but unfortunately the probability that I will be assaulted while on my own property is rising.

Got any more bullshit theories about gun nuts you wanna toss out?

[I'm not that guy.]

I hate to be the one to point this out, but your post sounds a lot like a confirmation

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

My responses are about what you'd see from any libertarian-leaning gun owner, so we are all "nuts" who need to be watched? You do realize that somewhere between 40 and 50% of American adults own guns, right?

As you (or novy, I forget which) said about zyx: why do I bother?

[I'm not that guy.]

Aghhh, I can't read.

Between 40 and 50% of American households have guns in them.

[I'm not that guy.]

I have a good feeling that number is just bad statistics.

The lowest number I've seen comes from the Brady Campaign: 39%.

The highest from the NRA: 50%.

You don't see "40-50%" as a relatively fair characterization of that range?

[I'm not that guy.]

No, read my post again. I am saying that statistics themselves seem bad to me. BTW, both parties you mentioned have a interest in overstating gun ownership statistics. The Brady campaign has an interest to overstate so it can push for more gun control, the NRA has an interest to overstate to make it seem gun ownership is an American commonality and hence, a Right. I mean I don't have to make these things obvious.

Never said you "need to be watched". Honestly, I have about a million better things to do.

My point was narrowly aimed at the fear motivation of many gun owners. Which oddly enough, aligns nicely with the fear motivations of most conservatives.

I wonder if there is a correlation?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

Again, as I explicitly stated in my response to the original post, I am not fearful of any of the things listed there except the federal government, and even that is a fear for future generations. I have no illusions that citizens could successfully stand up against the US Army no matter how heavily armed, nor would I advocate that they ever even try.

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

[I'm not that guy.]

Not at all.

You specifically listed a fear of being assaulted while on your own property and of government. Clearly fear motivations...

Now, back to you Slothrop!

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it" ~Sinclair

I wrote that the probability of being assaulted on my property was rising. I did not write that I was fearful of this development. Obviously you do have reading comprehension issues.

Have a nice day. I am done.

[I'm not that guy.]

The probability is rising because more brown-skinned people are moving into your neighborhood (euphemistically "in transition").

More poor people. Some of them are brown, many are not. This subdivision was originally 100% owner-occupied. Now something like 30% of the homes are rentals, and that is growing almost daily.

[I'm not that guy.]

The browner a neighborhood is the more crime it will have, because brown skins commit crimes at higher rates than whites.

Tslothrop, I love how you take all my gun posts personally and you think that relating your personal experience, which I can't verify, will change my opinion about this. It's just not going to happen. For one you're special, you got a disability (ADA-level!) and yet you still have supernatural reloading capabilities. You're already a special, special case, exceptional to the rule, and all that.

You know, if you are really stupid enough to think that five seconds to change a rifle magazine is "supernatural", you have done nothing but prove how abjectly fucking ignorant you are on this topic.

I have a mild presentation of cerebral palsy, you dumb fuck. This CAN be verified by at least two regular posters here. Please feel free to make fun of me some more.

Asshole.

[I'm not that guy.]

Well okay, so you understood that I was mocking you ("make fun of me some more") yet you also think that I believe you have supernatural ability. ???

Keep cursing, keep calling me names, keep making it very clear you're overly-sensitive.

But I have to say, if it makes me an asshole that I literally laughed out loud when you posted about the ADA-accommodation about being able to shoot things, then you're absolutely right, I am an asshole.

Please feel free to continue demonstrating the accuracy of my characterization of you.

[I'm not that guy.]

You know what's damn funny about crap like that? I kept hearing about how we need to revitalize our inner cities and all that. Give back to the community. Etc. So the wife and I bought a house in a "transitional neighborhood" in inner city Buffalo where we were the ethnic minority. Our street was prime because it didn't have a burned out or abandoned house on it. True story. However, due to insane levels of violent or property crime (10% of the homes on our street were broken into every year) we felt unsafe in our homes. Now the same people (the government, folks like you, etc) that were so insistent that somebody sacrifice the best years of their lives (as long as it wasn't them) to rebuild a dystopian shithole from within were suddenly insistent that the folks that lived there couldn't/shouldn't do anything to protect themselves. That's beyond screwed up.

And don't say people should just learn to call the cops  --- my home alarm went off back in 2007 or 2008 and I'm pretty sure the cops still haven't shown up yet. If you did call 911 they wouldn't show anyway.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

Now the same people (the government, folks like you, etc) that were so insistent that somebody sacrifice the best years of their lives (as long as it wasn't them) to rebuild a dystopian shithole from within were suddenly insistent that the folks that lived there couldn't/shouldn't do anything to protect themselves.

I don't remember insisting on anyone to live anywhere they didn't want to live. I don't remember twisting your arm or holding a gun to your head asking you to treat a city like a charity case. I mean my parents and I moved from a developing country to the US in attempt to get away from undesirable living conditions, why would I want to others to live in undesirable conditions?

I don't live in best area either, but I choose to live where I live because it is encompasses most of the needs I have until it doesn't. When it doesn't (which is coming around) then I'll move. I don't believe in city pride or regional nationalism or some shit like that.

BTW, how is possible to take pride in your city if you're holed up in your house out of fear?

And the gun[s] only protect you essentially, they don't do anything for your neighbors or other members of your community. It seems to me your city's problem is an inadequate police force. And if that changed then everyone would benefit, not only you. Your solution is like having a problem with electric system in your city, but instead of fixing the whole system so everyone benefits,  you just buy yourself a generator and think ah well, at least I got power.

I mean my parents and I moved from a developing country to the US in attempt to get away from undesirable living conditions

Ah.

[I'm not that guy.]

"I mean my parents and I moved from a developing country to the US in attempt to get away from undesirable living conditions."

Ditto.

I've never seen you make fun of disabled people, novy.

[I'm not that guy.]

I can be slow sometimes and don't get this particular joke.

Of course, all I meant was that my family and I also left our own developing country (OK, not developing particularly quickly) for better living conditions.

It wasn't a joke. I was commenting on why I reacted as I did to indecentspeech's revelation. I know you left a developing country to immigrate to Canada. However - although I do not agree with most of your political opinions - I have never seen you post anything in the way of egregious personal attacks here.

See posts 82, 86, 87, and 89 for the genesis of the exchange.

[I'm not that guy.]

It was certainly not my intention to say "ditto" to any other elements of your exchange with indecentspeech, only that part I quoted. Truth to tell, I so often hang in my own little world that I didn't realise that his reference to your "disability" was anything other than "egregious personal attack", and thus I didn't really understand your response to him.

My disagreements with others' political opinions (especially those of Americans) don't move me to attack them because I just don't care enough to feel emotionally damaged by such disagreements, as so many people around here do. I can't even get emotionally involved enough to take umbrage anymore at Zyx or Alf, who have both gone out of their way to insult me.

I apologise for appearing to approve of personal attacks on you. I don't approve of personal attacks on anyone, which I think cheapen this site and those who engage in them.

No worries. I knew your "ditto" was not about the entire exchange.

[I'm not that guy.]

Canadian firearms laws render possession of guns for self defense purposes virtually impossible. The guns may as well have been confiscated. You are being extremely disingenuous.

[I'm not that guy.]

If that Michigan cop could just have had his gun for "self-defence" purposes, he could have really shown those two kids how things work in America.

That cop's story sounds so retarded it's not even funny.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

My only point is that all legal handguns in Canada are in your "restricted" category, meaning that they can only be loaded and fired at a government-approved shooting range / gun club. If the owner wants to take his or her own firearm home, it must first be rendered inoperable by means of partial disassembly or a through-the-bolt locking mechanism. The firearm must remain in that state until it is returned to the range. Merely assembling / unlocking and then loading a handgun on private property is a violation of the law, let alone actually - god forbid - firing it.

Explain to me how that differs from confiscation in anything but the most academic sense.

[I'm not that guy.]

OK. As I understand Second Amendment rhetoric, Americans reserve their right to use weapons to overthrow their government if it becomes repressive. If Canada's government became repressive enough to need some overthrowing, we have guns at our disposal for that purpose. Furthermore, if we want to go hunting, we can do that too.

I understand how Americans feel about self-defence, but Mr. Michigan Cop notwithstanding, we don't need quite as much defending as you Americans do. I can walk in downtown Vancouver by myself late at night without wondering if I will survive to tell my tale. I might run into some rude kids, but I don't worry about them attacking me, let alone killing me. By comparison, most Americans can't walk around in their cities late at night, but if they did and they ran into any punk kids as they wandered about they would have good reason to fear because those kids might well be armed and dangerous.

Patriotism can be ennobling. By all means, love your country and its freedoms. But as for your vaunted "gun rights", you can keep them, thanks.

As I understand Second Amendment rhetoric, Americans reserve their right to use weapons to overthrow their government if it becomes repressive

Fine, contradict your previous posts on this same subject. No problem.

Our type of "common defence" up here seems to work better than your version of "common defence" down there, if comparing my level of personal security with yours means anything.

Fine, contradict your previous posts on this same subject

...comparing my level of personal security with yours...

You've been in dozens of conversations about guns, not all of which still can be accessed on this site, and some of which were on plastic.

I feel safe walking at night by myself because I can be reasonably confident no one will attack me. Americans feel safe walking at night because they carry guns just in case, like Mr. Michigan cop. Chacun a son gout.

You've been in dozens of conversations about guns...

Americans feel safe walking at night because they carry guns just in case, like Mr. Michigan cop

Does that mean you deny believing that America's Second Amendment was intended to ensure that Americans would be able to revolt against oppressive government?

Of course. You do, too. You usually follow up by calling it "humour". You only find generalisation annoying when someone else does it.

I think the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that the right to own weapons was not infringed by the federal government. Some states at the time had similar protections written into their constitutions - some were as strong as the Second Amendment, some were weaker.

I have never claimed that the Second Amendment was about revolt.

Fine. I'll remember that for next time.

Really? It really bothers you that much? Are buying cold medicine that often?

I'll admit it's silly (because it is COLD medicine... I'm sure a nonsense gun comparison will follow) but I can't see you going back to your car and sitting around for 15 minutes in the parking lot crying because your rights and dignity have been validated because you had to show your driver's license.

I don't cry, but it does make me angry.  It bothers me that the state keeps records of what medication I'm purchasing, and I am somewhat worried about how far the surveillance state might go within our lifetimes.  With the increasing use of CCTV cameras, and now possibly adding drones to that mix, and the ease with which the government can mine the Internet and wiretap private communications....it's scary to think about what they could easily do.  Maybe the solution is to just accept that it's inevitable, and you can't roll back the clock, and fight to make sure that as many protections are in place as possible to make sure that they data they have isn't used inappropriately, but I'd still also like to make sure that they aren't just collecting data pointlessly or unnecessarily.  Considering how easily meth makers seem to get around those ID requirements for buying Sudafed, I think that's one we can definitely put in the "pointless" category.

Allons-y!

I'm not a foreign government, pal.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

More's the pity.  If you were you could have as many as you could pay for.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

more like an approximation airedale than a copy cat then

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!