All I can say is I'll have to take your word for it. Maybe you could send me your tax return, and I could figure out what the deal was!

But something's definitely fishy about that, because the top marginal income tax rate is 35%, which means you only get taxed at 35% on income above $373,651, and that's adjusted income, as in after you do all your deductions.

I'd have to whip out a calculator to check what overall % of my income it was when I was all said and done, but mine was more like 12%. Then again I'm pretty much doing most of the normal middle-class stuff that's subsidized (i.e. married, own a home, work for a corporation that provides health insurance, etc.). Only thing missing is the 2.5 kids, and a cache of semi-automatic weapons.

Anyways, here's Turbo Tax's summary of the tax changes for 2010, you tell me what it was that bit you.

As for cutting spending when times are tough, how's that working for Ireland? Greece? Spain? UK? Is it working for them, or are they in even worse shape than they were before they started? How are countries like Sweeden and Canada that did big stimulus (relative to their GDP anyways), currency devaluation and strict bank regulation doing?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
No, my federal income tax went up to 35%. I made significantly less this year, as well. The difference between people like you and people like me, is that I'm freelance and considered to be a small business while you're an employee working for a corporation. My taxes went up. Yours probably went down.

That's the government incentivizing you to work for a corporation or the government.

Taxes aren't the only incentive for working for government and corporations. They have lower taxes to pay, so they can generally pay more and offer great benefits, as well. Freelancers like me cannot afford health or dental insurance. I could if they weren't stealing 35% of my income. Luckily for me, my fiancée works for a corporation so I'm a dependent on her policy.

Also, because I made less this year (thanks to the economy), I have to look at cutting my spending. Logical, right? So I have done so. But my 2010 expenses for doing business haven't gone down, and the cost of living has skyrocketed (especially here in LA). Agriculture is up. Gas is up. My utilities went up. And brilliantly my state and federal taxes have gone up. But really it's the federal income tax that's abhorrent.

Why is it the government can't cut its spending when times are tough? Why do they have to squeeze us during rough times? Why can't they see we're hurting and help us by taking a little less? Maybe if we didn't have to pay for all this defense spending? Maybe if Obama didn't go into Libya? Maybe we can get rid of some of these government departments? I mean, something? Anything?

There's never an answer for this except "pay your fair share". I wish I was paying my fair share, but 35% on top of a financial loss this year isn't fair. And didn't they report that we, the people, paid more in taxes this year than the corporations? Shocker.

So, NR, my taxes did in fact go up. They went way the hell up with everything else... except my income. Where's my reprieve? Where's Obama when the small businesses need him?

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
On taxes, which taxes went up? Income tax rates below $250K (and above!) are the same as they've been, and payroll taxes just got cut a bit. My federal taxes definitely went down, while my state & local have increased slightly, but Obama has nothing to do with those. The only tax increases I know of are on cigarettes, and maybe the expiration of tax cuts that began with the stimulus.

I've always, and still do consider theses Critical Mass rallies as little better than any other protest that blockades a major thoroughfare. It's wrong and people should get arrested and fined at these things more regularly.

That said, this is utterly horrific. There is little difference between this and dispersing the crowd with a spray from a fully automatic weapon. However much I disagree with Critical Mass, this was terrible and nothing can even remotely justify it.

@blankfist well, that's what makes it opinion and not fact.

As for "fear-based politicking", are you saying all statements that evoke fear are bad in some way? For example, I know this guy who likes to post videos about how the Fed is going to destroy America with hyperinflation. Is he doing something wrong?

Setting that aside for a moment, I didn't come away feeling afraid about anything listening to this clip. Instead, I came away feeling sorrow about the thought that maybe something could have been done to at least lessen the scale of the damage that Loughtner did. I didn't hear a recounting of some dire and immediate threat to me in what he said, I heard a pretty scathing admonition that my own indifference on the topic might have contributed to the death of a nine year old girl. That stung a bit.

I haven't really felt like I cared about gun control as an issue since I was a teen. Even then, it was more about being contrarian with my right-wing friends at school than really giving a shit about it.

It's a topic I think is worth having a debate about again. I'm not thinking anything radical here, maybe just simply limiting the size of clips on semi-automatic weapons again.

Since you're something of an absolutist about these kinds of things, I'm happy to hash it out in terms of me simply supporting bans on private ownership of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons.

The majority of the American people aren't buying the leftmedia's BS spin about this lone vermin, whose heinous act was apolitical.

When the spotlight shone on the vermin, it was discovered those around him considered him to be a left-wing crank, who listed the communist manifesto as one of his inspirations.

Leftmedia MADE this political to preserve democrat power, aid ratings-crippled obama and denounce Palin (who, if she wasn't a real threat to the left's power, would be ignored).

Why attack Palin? Oh, that's right.....Rule 11 from Scum Alinksy's Rules for Radicals

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.



What's this?

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

Violent imagery!

But those aren't crosshairs! you say. Are these?


Compared to (paraphrased from memory):
Don't retreat, reload
First to the ballot box, if that doesn't work, then to the bullet box
The recent news story of the gun manufacturer who was offering a limited edition run of a automatic weapon gun part inscribed with "you lie"
Water the tree of liberty with blood

Metaphors all, like when liberals accuse conservatives of trying to "kill children" for suggesting cutbacks to government programs.


Water the tree quote? Democrat T. Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

I think you have to give it up, Q. That, or find some better examples. These don't make it.

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." ---Scum Alinksy. Again.

I'm on VS for fun. It is not necessary for me to provide examples to counter a leftmedia fabrication, and the stupid quotes from liberals are their own monument, whether or not they exactly fit the occasion.

The real required response to recent rampant liberalism was delivered November 2nd.

The pertinent bits of each example given by Qmush (hi, Qmush!):

slap him
I'd spit on her
I am only hoping that when Glen Beck does put a gun to his head
It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here
The Iraqis ... are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win
there has never been an army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.
I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter
This administration is waging war on poor children

Compared to (paraphrased from memory):
Don't retreat, reload
First to the ballot box, if that doesn't work, then to the bullet box
The recent news story of the gun manufacturer who was offering a limited edition run of a automatic weapon gun part inscribed with "you lie"
Water the tree of liberty with blood


The Dems hoped someone would make an omelet. That's their big threat. Feed them. Ratchet it up a bit to ... Slap someone. Spit on them. Plus a couple of ugly and maybe not ugly observations about what other people might do of their own accord.

No direct threats that incite violent action that would lead to loss of life. None.

That intifada thing is the closest thing about inciting to violence. It wasn't a politician who said it, it was clearly not a planned speech, it was something said in the heat of the moment. But I'll halfway grant you that one. Reluctantly.

I think you have to give it up, Q. That, or find some better examples. These don't make it.

This was clearly the most awesome and epic thing I have ever, and will ever witness.

A few comments:

1) Your personal firearms collection is very nice.
2) You do have a well-sculpted body. Kudos.
3) You have obviously never had any sort of combat training in your life, otherwise, you would know that:

a) Grenades have a second safety thumb clip that needs to come off before pulling the pin
b) you don't put grease paint on to blend in and then take your shirt off
c) you apply grease paint in such a way that it's actually effective with darker colors on high-shine areas
d) you don't throw a knife away when you're holding a gun, especially without looking. If you miss, you can't fire another knife.
e) you don't wear reflective material like chain necklaces
f) you don't use 9mm SMGs in open terrain
g) you don't silhouette yourself by standing on top of a cliff
h) you don't rest a weapon on the magazine. It can lead to jamming.
i) you don't need a black mask in broad daylight
j) you don't roll around on the ground whilst firing. You won't hit anything.
k) you don't spin around a corner and immediately fire. You won't hit anything.
l) you don't walk through big bushes. You can't see anything and you will give yourself away.
m) you don't hold a weapon right-handed and look through the left eye.
n) squatting and letting wildlife crawl around you doesn't accomplish anything.
o) you don't fire an automatic weapon with one hand
p) You don't hold fire on full auto without having a weapon fed by a belt.
q) you don't jerk the trigger on a rifle. Your aim will be off.
r) You don't stand in a window to screw a suppressor on. You're easier to see and will get shot. Same as (g).

Other than all that, you're fuckin' awesome.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.
Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?
Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.
How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?
Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.
It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.
In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.
Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.


Cops are allowed to do break the law only in the case of an emergency.

A citizen is not afforded the lawful power to stop someone from moving freely on the street, or in the commission of a misdemeanor, or felony.

When was the last time you saw Special Weapons and Tactics carrying around fully automatic weapons on a beat, or a QRT for that matter? No, they cannot just walk around with their fully automatic weapons while patrolling. That argument is bogus. Force proportion. A peace officer does not need an M-4 to perform a traffic stop.

Cops are allowed the erect barricades only in case of emergency. Traffic redirection is case of emergency or special occasion, funerals and the like. In some cases officers have the legal authority to setup checkpoints for license and registration checks. That's been argued that they cannot do that because it hinders freedom of movement, and the police didn't have a legal reason to stop. Other than to check if someone committed an offense.

You will find that police only radio channels are often encrypted, because the public can listen to them, and hijack them. Which is illegal and those laws are enforced by the FCC.

Your argument above has many sections I would say are crazy talk. The video producer's argument is simply stating if a officer who is at rest and is illegally parked he or she is violating the same law he or she is sworn to uphold. There is a reason that area is illegal to park in; fire hydrants, bus-stops, bicycle path, or whatever reason the municipality decided citizens can't park there. What is the officer doing? The exact same thing a citizen would be doing, except he has a different hat on.

This has been argued over and over. The only time an officer can lawfully break the law is in case of emergency. It's the same case when an officer is speeding without his or her lights and sirens active. The only time anything ever gets done to stop unlawful activity is when someone raises the red flags, otherwise it will continue.

Whether the producer's a douche or not is beside the base argument of this video.

They're in an area where no government exists. And the areas of Somalia where the government is the main controlling faction, it's still just a faction. I'm all for people to own their own guns. But you've got an uncontrolled area selling rpgs and automatic weapons to anyone with money. That kind of activity destabalizes their government and the region.>> ^QuadraPixel:

Fun to watch, but when the dude in the white shirt (Kaj Larsen) says that the proliferation small arms creates instability in countries it really boils my blood. That is totally false, it is a fact that countries that allow their citizens to own firearms are safer (with the exception of violent militia ruled countries such as Somalia). He's making a senseless comparison between countries in totally different situations.

>> ^HugeJerk:

Here's the funny thing about criminals... they don't obey the laws and will use guns even if they're illegal.

Thats why countries with stricter gun controls are overrun by gun crime.

Americans absolutely need guns because you never know when Britain will come and demand its empire back. Your distrust of government certainly isn't irrational paranoia.

Ok, so admitedly gun crime in the states probably has more to do with poverty and its social problems, but when you throw in automatic weapons into the mix for people to "protect themselves" and all you ever hear about is criminals "protecting themselves" from innocent people...well then something is wrong.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama's taking America forward...into tyranny.


What do you call 8 years under Bush??? Pissed all over the Constitution and tore up the Bill of Rights. Oh except he let you fools keep your automatic weapons so you could keep killing each other.

>> ^ronin165:
Oh, and for those excited to move to AZ for the guns, it doesn't stop with assault rifles...there's an indoor gun range in Scottsdale, AZ where you can rent (and keep on location, obviously) any number of FULLY automatic weapons (thompsons, AK-47, MP5, M16s...and big guns, like an M249 SAW). http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/mga/index.php
And if you're particularly wealthy, and don't mind being put on a short list and pay a $200 license fee...you can OWN fully automatic weapons. I say wealthy because they tend to start at like $5k.


HAHA! It's so cute that you called a measly M249 SAW a big gun!

Oh, and for those excited to move to AZ for the guns, it doesn't stop with assault rifles...there's an indoor gun range in Scottsdale, AZ where you can rent (and keep on location, obviously) any number of FULLY automatic weapons (thompsons, AK-47, MP5, M16s...and big guns, like an M249 SAW). http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/mga/index.php

And if you're particularly wealthy, and don't mind being put on a short list and pay a $200 license fee...you can OWN fully automatic weapons. I say wealthy because they tend to start at like $5k.

Fighting angels with automatic weapons and explosives seems silly. Still, at least it makes *religion exciting.

Wait wait wait... aren't fully-automatic weapons illegal in all of US??? AK-47s and 74s usually aren't semi-automatic.

On a separate note, great to see you back on here, mint

BF, you have an idealistic view of our justice system. There are many guilty people on the streets, and many innocents on death row.

With gun laws, I don't think the founders' intent was that bandits and brigands should be able to terrorize and hold as virtual hostage law-abiding citizens. That law was to defend against the tyranny of the state. Since the state and society has evolved and grown more complex in the ensuing 200-plus years, we have to use our discretion on where to apply these rights. A mafia collecting a debt or a drug dealer defending his turf, or simply some idiot intimidating people are not defending against the state.

Also, there are certain types of weapons that are not legal. I don't think people should be allowed to walk around with or even own semi-automatic weapons.

Your argument about the private theater is also unrealistic. Your constitutional rights apply in public or private spaces. The restrictions on these rights apply as well. I don't know how any movie theater manager can tell who will yell "fire", beforehand, so he can kick them out preventatively.

But for the sake of argument, let's change "movie theater" to "crowded public space".