PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Obama's Homeland Security ready to start rounding up Right wing extremists


banyon
04-14-2009, 06:43 PM
Recession fueling right-wing extremism, U.S. says

Jane Sutton – Tue Apr 14, 3:56 pm ET
MIAMI (Reuters) – Right-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black U.S. president, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.

The April 7 report, which Reuters and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity" by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.

DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."

But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."

"To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength," DHS said.

The report warned that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society.

The department "is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities," the report said.

DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S." ...


..."These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

The Department of Homeland Security was formed in response to the September 11 attacks of 2001 and has focused largely on threats from Islamist extremists.

The report said domestic right-wing terrorist groups grew during the economic recession of the early 1990s but subsided as the economy improved.

Government scrutiny disrupted violent plots following the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people.

LONE WOLVES

"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," the report said.

The Internet has made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on bombs and weapons, it said.

Extremist groups are preying on fears that President Barack Obama, the first African American U.S. president, would restrict gun ownership, boost immigration and expand social programs for minorities, the report said.

It said such groups were also exploiting anti-Semitic sentiment with accusations that "a cabal of Jewish financial elites" had conspired to collapse the economy.

"This trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen," the report said.

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington, editing by Jim Loney and Alan Elsner


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090414/us_nm/us_usa_security_extremists;_ylt=AsCJYg5r09DDQ61T1LNIVfms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJzaDUwdmY3BGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMD kwNDE0L3VzX3VzYV9zZWN1cml0eV9leHRyZW1pc3RzBGNwb3MDNwRwb3MDMTYEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDcmVjZXNzaW 9uZnVl

banyon
04-14-2009, 06:46 PM
Bout time! :clap: Probably some people on here lately who need to go on the list.




(Note: I do not mean this post in any way, but want to see who I can get to overreact to it)

stevieray
04-14-2009, 06:54 PM
You edited out the line about the radical left wing extremists assessment....

HonestChieffan
04-14-2009, 06:56 PM
This is a no news issue. It was a big deal 2 weeks ago when Mo Highway Patrol did a similar assessment for HS only to be completely drop kicked in the ass for such loony accusations and meritless claims.

stevieray
04-14-2009, 06:59 PM
This is a no news issue. It was a big deal 2 weeks ago when Mo Highway Patrol did a similar assessment for HS only to be completely drop kicked in the ass for such loony accusations and meritless claims.

I was going to quote the left comment, which is followed by the statement of these are done all the time and aren't unusual...

***SPRAYER
04-14-2009, 07:16 PM
Banyon is a trotskyite scumbag.

:whackit:

HonestChieffan
04-14-2009, 07:17 PM
according to a number of people we will all be at tea parties, maybe its a plot to capture the right

Saul Good
04-14-2009, 07:45 PM
Right-wingers will get pissed off when Obama takes our money to pay for illegal immigrangs.

Lefties will continue to defend his every move on message boards.

banyon
04-14-2009, 07:46 PM
Right-wingers will get pissed off when Obama takes our money to pay for illegal immigrangs.

Lefties will continue to defend his every move on message boards.

Ha.

bango
04-14-2009, 08:09 PM
This is good news. When will they come and get the far lefties?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-14-2009, 08:56 PM
founding fathers were terrorists..Oh Noz....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZPg9MdN9Gio&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZPg9MdN9Gio&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28
04-14-2009, 11:38 PM
Bout time! :clap: Probably some people on here lately who need to go on the list.




(Note: I do not mean this post in any way, but want to see who I can get to overreact to it)

You agree with the following?

Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

You're a lawyer. How is that not profiling and even worse an attack on the 1st Amendment?

wild1
04-14-2009, 11:47 PM
i wonder if i would get pulled over if i put a gadsden flag on my car

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 12:34 AM
I was going to quote the left comment
Don't just tell us you were going to quote it. Quote it, already!

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 12:35 AM
You agree with the following?



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

You're a lawyer. How is that not profiling and even worse an attack on the 1st Amendment?
That's not from Banyon's article, that's from World Nut Daily. If you compare his AP article to your WND article about the same thing, you'll see that they tell two different stories.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-15-2009, 12:44 AM
That's not from Banyon's article, that's from World Nut Daily. If you compare his AP article to your WND article about the same thing, you'll see that they tell two different stories.

Due to pressure from Paul, Barr and and Baldwin they rewrote it.

MY RESPONSE TO M.I.A.C. REPORT





By Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

By now, readers should be familiar with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report dated 02/20/09 and titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this dreadfully malicious and slanderous "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members." I would venture to guess that more than 75% of the entire population of the United States would fit the MIAC's broad definition of someone who would fall into the aforementioned category.

According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":

The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration

Again, I would bet that at least 75% of the American people would oppose at least one or more items on the above list. Well, according to the MIAC report, that is sufficient to make them potential dangerous "militia members."

However, it is the following statement contained in the MIAC report that is particularly disturbing to yours truly. Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."

The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous "militia members." The broader implication is that the millions of people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself are likewise categorized as potential dangerous "militia members." This is a classic case of broad-brushed police profiling. Can you imagine the fallout of this preposterous report had the names Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters been used instead of the names Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr?

Accordingly, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I wrote a formal letter to the above-named Missouri officials demanding "that the following-described document be immediately removed from any and all websites associated with or maintained by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof, including the MIAC; that the said document no longer be circulated by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof or associated therewith; and that the state of Missouri repudiate its references to the three of us contained therein."

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 01:19 AM
Due to pressure from Paul, Barr and and Baldwin they rewrote it.

MY RESPONSE TO M.I.A.C. REPORT





By Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

By now, readers should be familiar with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report dated 02/20/09 and titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this dreadfully malicious and slanderous "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members." I would venture to guess that more than 75% of the entire population of the United States would fit the MIAC's broad definition of someone who would fall into the aforementioned category.

According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":

The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration

Again, I would bet that at least 75% of the American people would oppose at least one or more items on the above list. Well, according to the MIAC report, that is sufficient to make them potential dangerous "militia members."

However, it is the following statement contained in the MIAC report that is particularly disturbing to yours truly. Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."

The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous "militia members." The broader implication is that the millions of people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself are likewise categorized as potential dangerous "militia members." This is a classic case of broad-brushed police profiling. Can you imagine the fallout of this preposterous report had the names Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters been used instead of the names Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr?

Accordingly, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I wrote a formal letter to the above-named Missouri officials demanding "that the following-described document be immediately removed from any and all websites associated with or maintained by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof, including the MIAC; that the said document no longer be circulated by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof or associated therewith; and that the state of Missouri repudiate its references to the three of us contained therein."

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
As I suspected, the actual language tells a different story than WND's article suggested. It doesn't suggest that people displaying bumper stickers for those candidates should be viewed as "suspicious." It suggests that adherence to certain political parties that are known to often espouse radical political changes is a common element among militia members. It also lists quite a few others, implying that all of those items are common among the militia, but not implying that anyone who embraces any single position on that list is a suspected terrorist, militia member or right wing extremists. Mr. Baldwin appears to have leapt to conclusions, probably because it was his name that appeared.

In other words, displaying a Ron Paul bumper sticker does not make you a suspicious character. Opposing abortion or illegal immigration does not make you a suspicious character. Opposing abortion and illegal immigration and the Federal Reserve and the UN and the Income Tax and Gun Control and you subcribe to Libertarian newsletters, then you might be viewed as a suspicious individual. But leave it to WND to try to make the argument that any single one of those is going to land you on a terror watch list.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-15-2009, 01:29 AM
As I suspected, the actual language tells a different story than WND's article suggested. It doesn't suggest that people displaying bumper stickers for those candidates should be viewed as "suspicious." It suggests that adherence to certain political parties that are known to often espouse radical political changes is a common element among militia members. It also lists quite a few others, implying that all of those items are common among the militia, but not implying that anyone who embraces any single position on that list is a suspected terrorist, militia member or right wing extremists. Mr. Baldwin appears to have leapt to conclusions, probably because it was his name that appeared.

In other words, displaying a Ron Paul bumper sticker does not make you a suspicious character. Opposing abortion or illegal immigration does not make you a suspicious character. Opposing abortion and illegal immigration and the Federal Reserve and the UN and the Income Tax and Gun Control and you subcribe to Libertarian newsletters, then you might be viewed as a suspicious individual. But leave it to WND to try to make the argument that any single one of those is going to land you on a terror watch list.

ummm I do not understand how you could not see this as dangerous? This kind of thing is over the top and why would it target 3rd party supporters? I haven't a clue unless those positions challenge real issues that will can not be addressed. It certainly had some effect since the language was changed.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 01:59 AM
ummm I do not understand how you could not see this as dangerous?
I don't see it as any more dangerous than any of the other profiling law enforcement agencies do as a matter of course. It's certainly no worse than the CIA, under the Bush administration, putting PTA members on a terror watch list because they spoke in opposition to military recruitment on campus. We're living in an age where terrorism is on the rise, and with 9/11, perhaps it has made some of you forget that there are plenty of terrorists who operate right here in our country without ties to Islam or the Middle East. It's neither unrealistic nor unfair to identify the common threads that seem to run among them. If we were to read over the profiles of Islamist terrorists, even there I'm sure we will find some things that we share with them.

Contrary to how the WND article and the Chuck Baldwin letter are portraying it, these lists aren't being published to the public and sold on the shelves of Barnes and Noble. They aren't telling law enforcement personnel to put a big red flag over any person they observe displaying any of the elements on that list. Rather, they are telling law enforcement to be wary and keep an eye on people who display an unusual number of those qualities together.

This kind of thing is over the top and why would it target 3rd party supporters?
They aren't targeting 3rd party supporters. Nothing in the original language suggests that. They're saying that militia members often are 3rd supporters, not that the 3rd party supporters are often militia members. Some of you seem to be reading those statements as equal, but they are very, very different! And it's not just any 3rd party they're talking, it's very specific 3rd parties which have a history of advocating and promoting what the mainstream would view as "radical" and "violent" politics.

mikey23545
04-15-2009, 05:01 AM
And then they came for me....

stevieray
04-15-2009, 06:02 AM
Don't just tell us you were going to quote it. Quote it, already!

why? the thread was intellectually dishonest from the get go.

if you want to see it, click on the original article.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 06:11 AM
why? the thread was intellectually dishonest from the get go.

if you want to see it, click on the original article.
Ah, now I see why you were afraid to quote it, since it doesn't say what the findings were or whether the findings were similar to those for the right wing.

stevieray
04-15-2009, 06:17 AM
Ah, now I see why you were afraid to quote it, since it doesn't say what the findings were or whether the findings were similar to those for the right wing.


ROFL

afraiid to quote it? GTFO yourself, strawman.

.

Saggysack
04-15-2009, 06:31 AM
You can no longer hide. You can no longer run. We are coming. There isn't anything that can stop us. We won't wait any longer. The time has come. :nosmilie:

KILLER_CLOWN
04-15-2009, 08:58 AM
You can no longer hide. You can no longer run. We are coming. There isn't anything that can stop us. We won't wait any longer. The time has come. :nosmilie:

Night of the Long Knives?

blaise
04-15-2009, 09:11 AM
Whatever. Target them just like the fruits at PETA, the tards that protest at the RNC, and nutjob environmental groups.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:12 AM
The movements in motion with massive militant poetry. :rockon:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rqkMsXcHQYg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rqkMsXcHQYg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Brock
04-15-2009, 09:17 AM
Whatever. Target them just like the fruits at PETA, the tards that protest at the RNC, and nutjob environmental groups.

In other words, tolerate them entirely.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:20 AM
Whatever. Target them just like the fruits at PETA, the tards that protest at the RNC, and nutjob environmental groups.

Yes, the circle of hatred continues unless we react. We’ve got to take the power back. :rockon:

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:23 AM
ROFLROFLROFLROFL

What I think is really funny about the stink the conservatives are making about this is that they are support profiling as long as they aren't being profiled. They don't give a chit about minorities and Arabs being profiled but when a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States see Tim McVeigh, is profiled they raise up in arms against it.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:24 AM
The movements in motion with massive militant poetry. :rockon:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rqkMsXcHQYg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rqkMsXcHQYg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

God, I love irony. You know that Rage is solidly liberal right?

petegz28
04-15-2009, 09:24 AM
That's not from Banyon's article, that's from World Nut Daily. If you compare his AP article to your WND article about the same thing, you'll see that they tell two different stories.

Not hey don't. The WND had the same has the AP plus the additional info.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:28 AM
God, I love irony. You know that Rage is solidly liberal right?

:spock: Who said they weren’t?
Do you think you’re the only one that knows WTF they’re talking about?

petegz28
04-15-2009, 09:28 AM
ROFLROFLROFLROFL

What I think is really funny about the stink the conservatives are making about this is that they are support profiling as long as they aren't being profiled. They don't give a chit about minorities and Arabs being profiled but when a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States see Tim McVeigh, is profiled they raise up in arms against it.

I think you are glossing over the clear attack on the 1st Amendment.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:30 AM
I think you are glossing over the clear attack on the 1st Amendment.

Not at all. It's pretty clear that they are telling law enforcement to be aware of fringe elements. They do the same thing for the lefties. As dumb as some Ron Paul supporters are, they aren't going after them.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:31 AM
ROFLROFLROFLROFL

What I think is really funny about the stink the conservatives are making about this is that they are support profiling as long as they aren't being profiled. They don't give a chit about minorities and Arabs being profiled but when a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States see Tim McVeigh, is profiled they raise up in arms against it.

It’s never a problem until your ox is being gored.
I’m sure when the pendulum swings back to the right and there’s talk of rounding up you whiney libs you’ll be here yucking it up just as hardily.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:32 AM
:spock: Who said they weren’t?
Do you think you’re the only one that knows WTF they’re talking about?

Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8v9yUVgrmPY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8v9yUVgrmPY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

patteeu
04-15-2009, 09:34 AM
ROFLROFLROFLROFL

What I think is really funny about the stink the conservatives are making about this is that they are support profiling as long as they aren't being profiled. They don't give a chit about minorities and Arabs being profiled but when a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States see Tim McVeigh, is profiled they raise up in arms against it.

What right winger group did Tim McVeigh act on behalf of?

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:34 AM
God, I love irony. You know that Rage is solidly liberal right?

Here, KC Native, here’s another liberal. Am I not allowed to listen to him either?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P74WkSoAJeo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P74WkSoAJeo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:35 AM
It’s never a problem until your ox is being gored.
I’m sure when the pendulum swings back to the right and there’s talk of rounding up you whiney libs you’ll be here yucking it up just as hardily.

My ox has already been gored. Police surveillance of peaceable anti-war groups. Infiltration of and spying on said groups.

It's funny how no conservatives were up in arms about that when it was happening.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 09:35 AM
God, I love irony. You know that Rage is solidly liberal right?

Duh. Share some more of your secret knowledge with us, please. :rolleyes:

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:36 AM
Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8v9yUVgrmPY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8v9yUVgrmPY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That you’re piping off about shit you don’t even know? Yes, that is ironic.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-15-2009, 09:36 AM
ROFLROFLROFLROFL

What I think is really funny about the stink the conservatives are making about this is that they are support profiling as long as they aren't being profiled. They don't give a chit about minorities and Arabs being profiled but when a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States see Tim McVeigh, is profiled they raise up in arms against it.

I care about all of it, and have stated so all along. Oklahoma city was an inside job.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:36 AM
Here, KC Native, here’s another liberal. Am I not allowed to listen to him either?



Never said you weren't allowed to listen to them. I just find it incredibly amusing that you use them to make a point.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:38 AM
My ox has already been gored. Police surveillance of peaceable anti-war groups. Infiltration of and spying on said groups.

It's funny how no conservatives were up in arms about that when it was happening.

Oh poor pitiful you, so that makes it OK when it’s someone else then?

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:38 AM
What right winger group did Tim McVeigh act on behalf of?

None, but are you trying to deny he was a right winger?

HonestChieffan
04-15-2009, 09:40 AM
So all right wingers are Tim McVeigh?

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:40 AM
Never said you weren't allowed to listen to them. I just find it incredibly amusing that you use them to make a point.

My “point” was that they have a rock’n song that fits the situation. But then if you’d learn WTF you’re talking about before opening your pole smoker you might’ve known that about me.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:41 AM
Oh poor pitiful you, so that makes it OK when it’s someone else then?

Where did I say it was ok? I just find it incredibly amusing that many conservatives actively supported profiling and now that they are being subjected to the same scrutiny as everyone else you guys have your panties in a bunch.

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 09:44 AM
Left wing extremist groups like ELF are already getting profiled. Bush delisted most of the right wing extremist groups.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:44 AM
Where did I say it was ok? I just find it incredibly amusing that many conservatives actively supported profiling and now that they are being subjected to the same scrutiny as everyone else you guys have your panties in a bunch.

Name them.
And quote where I’ve “had my panties in a bunch” over this profiling.

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 09:44 AM
So all right wingers are Tim McVeigh?

Not by a long shot, but Glenn Beck and Company are trying to change that.

banyon
04-15-2009, 09:45 AM
You agree with the following?



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

You're a lawyer. How is that not profiling and even worse an attack on the 1st Amendment?

Ha, well there's one.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:45 AM
My “point” was that they have a rock’n song that fits the situation. But then if you’d learn WTF you’re talking about before opening your pole smoker you might’ve known that about me.

Oh, this will be good. How does an liberal anti-authoritarian song fit the situation?

Here are the lyrics. Please draw the parallels for me.ROFL


Bring that shit in! Uggh!

Yeah, the movement's in motion with mass militant poetry
Now check this out...uggh!

In the right light, study becomes insight
But the system that dissed us
Teaches us to read and write

So called facts are fraud
They want us to allege and pledge
And bow down to their God
Lost the culture, the culture lost
Spun our minds and through time
Ignorance has taken over
Yo, we gotta take the power back!
Bam! Here's the plan
Motherfuck Uncle Sam
Step back, I know who I am
Raise up your ear, I'll drop the style and clear
It's the beats and the lyrics they fear
The rage is relentless
We need a movement with a quickness
You are the witness of change
And to counteract
We gotta take the power back

Yeah, we gotta take the power back
Come on, come on!
We gotta take the power back

The present curriculum
I put my fist in 'em
Eurocentric every last one of 'em
See right through the red, white and blue disguise
With lecture I puncture the structure of lies
Installed in our minds and attempting
To hold us back
We've got to take it back
Holes in our spirit causin' tears and fears
One-sided stories for years and years and years
I'm inferior? Whose inferior?
Yeah, we need to check the interior
Of the system that cares about only one culture
And that is why
We gotta take the power back

Yeah, we gotta take the power back
Come on, come on!
We gotta take the power back

Hey yo check, we're gonna have to break it, break it,
break it down
Awww shit!

Uggh!

And like this...uggh!

Come on, yeah! Bring it back the other way!

The teacher stands in front of the class
But the lesson plan he can't recall
The student's eyes don't perceive the lies
Bouncing off every fucking wall
His composure is well kept
I guess he fears playing the fool
The complacent students sit and listen to some of that
Bullshit that he learned in school

Europe ain't my rope to swing on
Can't learn a thing from it
Yet we hang from it
Gotta get it, gotta get it together then
Like the motherfuckin' weathermen
To expose and close the doors on those who try
To strangle and mangle the truth
'Cause the circle of hatred continues unless we react
We gotta take the power back

Yeah, we gotta take the power back
Come on, come on!
We gotta take the power back

No more lies
No more lies
No more lies
No more lies
No more lies
No more lies
No more lies
No more lies

Uggh!

Yeah!

Take it back y'all
Take it back, a-take it back
A-take it back y'all, come on!
Take it back y'all
Take it back, a-take it back
A-take it back y'all, come on!

Uggh!

blaise
04-15-2009, 09:45 AM
Where did I say it was ok? I just find it incredibly amusing that many conservatives actively supported profiling and now that they are being subjected to the same scrutiny as everyone else you guys have your panties in a bunch.

Right, and liberals that opposed profiling in the past are rushing to the defense of right wing groups.

stevieray
04-15-2009, 09:47 AM
Not by a long shot, but Glenn Beck and Company are trying to change that.

cue melodramatic music

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 09:49 AM
cue melodramatic music

Cue Glenn Beck gently weeping as he urges all God fearing Americans to buy automatic weapons so they can protect themselves when ACORN comes to drag them away to FEMA concentration camps.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:50 AM
Cue Glenn Beck gently weeps as he urges all god fearing Americans to buy automatic weapons so they can protect themselves when ACORN comes to drag them away to FEMA concentration camps.

ROFL

patteeu
04-15-2009, 09:50 AM
None, but are you trying to deny he was a right winger?

You said "a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States" and then used Tim McVeigh as an example even though he wasn't acting as a part of any right winger group.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:52 AM
You said "a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States" and then used Tim McVeigh as an example even though he wasn't acting as a part of any right winger group.

Quit trying to spin it patty. You know he was a winger. I may not be the most eloquent writer but the point of my statements is still valid nonetheless.

stevieray
04-15-2009, 09:52 AM
Cue Glenn Beck gently weeps as he urges all god fearing Americans to buy automatic weapons so they can protect themselves when ACORN comes to drag them away to FEMA concentration camps.

...don't quit your day job.

Beck used the editor of Popular Mechanics to debunk the FEMA camps.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:55 AM
Oh, this will be good. How does an liberal anti-authoritarian song fit the situation?

Here are the lyrics. Please draw the parallels for me.ROFL

Well this should be even better. How about you explain why, other than the bands expressed political opinions, does that song not fit the general attitude of “conservatives” here, if you can even figure out who the "conservatives" are.

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 09:56 AM
...don't quit your day job.

Beck used the editor of Popular Mechanics to debunk the FEMA camps.

You watch Glenn Beck.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 09:58 AM
Quit trying to spin it patty. You know he was a winger. I may not be the most eloquent writer but the point of my statements is still valid nonetheless.

LMAO @ calling out your overreaching = patt “spinning”.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 09:59 AM
Not at all. It's pretty clear that they are telling law enforcement to be aware of fringe elements. They do the same thing for the lefties. As dumb as some Ron Paul supporters are, they aren't going after them.

Persecuting someone because of their political speech is an attack on the 1st. And singling out people who have 3rd party candidate bumper stickers is doing just that.

KC native
04-15-2009, 09:59 AM
Well this should be even better. How about you explain why, other than the bands expressed political opinions, does that song not fit the general attitude of “conservatives” here, if you can even figure out who the "conservatives" are.

Don't dodge my request and then ask something of me. When you do what I asked then I will do that.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:00 AM
LMAO @ calling out your overreaching = patt “spinning”.

So are you trying to deny Tim McVeigh was a right winger?

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:01 AM
Persecuting someone because of their political speech is an attack on the 1st. And singling out people who have 3rd party candidate bumper stickers is doing just that.

Nightwish already answered this.

As I suspected, the actual language tells a different story than WND's article suggested. It doesn't suggest that people displaying bumper stickers for those candidates should be viewed as "suspicious." It suggests that adherence to certain political parties that are known to often espouse radical political changes is a common element among militia members. It also lists quite a few others, implying that all of those items are common among the militia, but not implying that anyone who embraces any single position on that list is a suspected terrorist, militia member or right wing extremists. Mr. Baldwin appears to have leapt to conclusions, probably because it was his name that appeared.

In other words, displaying a Ron Paul bumper sticker does not make you a suspicious character. Opposing abortion or illegal immigration does not make you a suspicious character. Opposing abortion and illegal immigration and the Federal Reserve and the UN and the Income Tax and Gun Control and you subcribe to Libertarian newsletters, then you might be viewed as a suspicious individual. But leave it to WND to try to make the argument that any single one of those is going to land you on a terror watch list.

stevieray
04-15-2009, 10:05 AM
You watch Glenn Beck.

your post needs more cowbell.

It's on youtube.

blaise
04-15-2009, 10:08 AM
KC Native is one of those people that seems to think hypocrisy is only found with one political party.

MOhillbilly
04-15-2009, 10:09 AM
So the far left can march in the street, riot, burn and loot but the far right will catch the shitstorm?

Seems about right. guns & bibles dont mix with the reds code of conduct.

that about right?

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 10:11 AM
So are you trying to deny Tim McVeigh was a right winger?

Funny, weren’t you just bitching about spin?

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:12 AM
KC Native is one of those people that seems to think hypocrisy is only found with one political party.

Actually, I believe quite the opposite and fully stand behind the idea that the two party system is one of our major problems.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:13 AM
Quit trying to spin it patty. You know he was a winger. I may not be the most eloquent writer but the point of my statements is still valid nonetheless.

Come on man, using McVeigh as a poster child is just ignorant.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Nightwish already answered this.

Yes, and it was a weak answer. Full of deflection.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 10:14 AM
So are you trying to deny Tim McVeigh was a right winger?

Tim McVeigh was not a right winger group. He also wasn't a communist so by your standards I'd assume he counts as a right wing individual.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Funny, weren’t you just bitching about spin?

Please show me where I have spun anything in this thread. I used McVeigh as an example of what they are trying to profile. I never claimed he was acting on behalf of a specific named group. Sorry if that wasn't clear but the point remains valid nonetheless.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:16 AM
Yes, and it was a weak answer. Full of deflection.

ROFL Oh I get it because World Nut Daily is such a reputable news source their word is gold. ROFL

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:16 AM
Come on man, using McVeigh as a poster child is just ignorant.

Was he not a right winger?

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:16 AM
Tim McVeigh was not a right winger group. He also wasn't a communist so by your standards I'd assume he counts as a right wing individual.

Quit playing semantics jackass. Was he or wasn't he a right winger?

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:17 AM
ROFL Oh I get it because World Nut Daily is such a reputable news source their word is gold. ROFL

Ah ok well, I am not a WND fan, but I am also not going to ignore the facts either. You want to pretened they made this up, go right the fuck ahead.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 10:17 AM
Don't dodge my request and then ask something of me. When you do what I asked then I will do that.

Right back at'cha, I owe you nothing.
How about this question, do you think I’m a “conservative”? If so, what has lead you to that conclusion? Whatever it is, BEP will argue with you since she claims I’m a “liberal”.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:18 AM
Ah ok well, I am not a WND fan, but I am also not going to ignore the facts either. You want to pretened they made this up, go right the **** ahead.

I will because they did make this up. Please tell me why they have facts that the AP doesn't.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:18 AM
Quit playing semantics jackass. Was he or wasn't he a right winger?

I fail to understand what the fuck that has to do with anything? So if most people in the inner city are dems, does that mean left wingers are responsible for all the crime in the inner city?

stevieray
04-15-2009, 10:19 AM
Quit playing semantics jackass.

Oh the irony.

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 10:19 AM
I fail to understand what the **** that has to do with anything? So if most people in the inner city are dems, does that mean left wingers are responsible for all the crime in the inner city?

Are these inner city crimes motivated by ideology? Not a good comparison.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:19 AM
I will because they did make this up. Please tell me why they have facts that the AP doesn't.

Oh, I see, so everyone is to follow the AP step for step? Gothca.


The question is why did they have the same article as the AP but provide additional info?

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 10:20 AM
Please show me where I have spun anything in this thread. I used McVeigh as an example of what they are trying to profile. I never claimed he was acting on behalf of a specific named group. Sorry if that wasn't clear but the point remains valid nonetheless.

Right, you backed off the claim after being called on it. Live up to your posts or create more thoughtful ones.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:20 AM
Right back at'cha, I owe you nothing.
How about this question, do you think I’m a “conservative”? If so, what has lead you to that conclusion? Whatever it is, BEP will argue with you since she claims I’m a “liberal”.

BEP is a schmuck who holds just about the most twisted and irrational views out of anyone I've ever seen. Why would you listen to anything she says?

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:20 AM
Are these inner city crimes motivated by ideology? Not a good comparison.

Sure they are......rich man vs. poor man. Class warfare, etc, etc.

HonestChieffan
04-15-2009, 10:22 AM
BEP is a schmuck who holds just about the most twisted and irrational views out of anyone I've ever seen. Why would you listen to anything she says?

She intimadates a lot pf people. You shouldn't let that bother you.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 10:22 AM
Quit playing semantics jackass. Was he or wasn't he a right winger?

I'll guess yes. Why do you ask? It's not like it changes your complete misstatement in post 30.

blaise
04-15-2009, 10:23 AM
Actually, I believe quite the opposite and fully stand behind the idea that the two party system is one of our major problems.

It's merely coincidence that you regularly find the hypocrisy of conservatives so hilarious, and seldom, if ever, the other way around.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:23 AM
Right, you backed off the claim after being called on it. Live up to your posts or create more thoughtful ones.

So, was he a right winger or not? I love how you guys are dodging this question. It's a simple yes or no.

Fish
04-15-2009, 10:24 AM
I don't really like this. It's not like this kind of thing doesn't happen behind the scenes, but why wave this around publicly, if not for future justification?

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 10:24 AM
She intimadates a lot pf people. You shouldn't let that bother you.

Ah, I tried to be nice and civil at first but you can't survive here with so many aggressive flamers.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:24 AM
So, was he a right winger or not? I love how you guys are dodging this question. It's a simple yes or no.


I fail to see what your point is? He was a loose canon. So that is how you are trying to paint all conservatives? Pretty fucking idiotic.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 10:25 AM
BEP is a schmuck who holds just about the most twisted and irrational views out of anyone I've ever seen. Why would you listen to anything she says?

I don’t. The point that you missed there is perspective, everyone has a different one.
I’m starting to see a pattern with the missed point thing, though.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:26 AM
I don't really like this. It's not like this kind of thing doesn't happen behind the scenes, but why wave this around publicly, if not for future justification?

They are trying to scare people into being Democrat or less than conservative. They threw out everything from the race card to illegal immigration. It is a fucking joke. And it is for this reason we have the 2nd Amendment.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 10:26 AM
Please show me where I have spun anything in this thread. I used McVeigh as an example of what they are trying to profile. I never claimed he was acting on behalf of a specific named group. Sorry if that wasn't clear but the point remains valid nonetheless.

Here you go:

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

What I think is really funny about the stink the conservatives are making about this is that they are support profiling as long as they aren't being profiled. They don't give a chit about minorities and Arabs being profiled but when a right winger group, who has already attacked the United States see Tim McVeigh, is profiled they raise up in arms against it.

BTW, it's a pretty narrow profile when it's based on a "group" of one person.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:26 AM
Oh, I see, so everyone is to follow the AP step for step? Gothca.


The question is why did they have the same article as the AP but provide additional info?

I'm sorry but what additional info are you referring to? If it's the MO highway patrol ham handed document that's not really relevant to the DOJ's report.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 10:27 AM
Nah, Rader is a progressive aka liberal on foreign policy. He's for intervention in other countries to replace bad leaders. That's what he has posted on mainly. He doesn't hold conservative views across the board on some issues but I haven't seen him post much on the various issues to say how much.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 10:28 AM
WOW kc native is a real hot headed hater.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:28 AM
Sure they are......rich man vs. poor man. Class warfare, etc, etc.

Wow, really? Inner city crimes are motivated by ideology? It couldn't be hunger, lack of jobs/education, and higher substance abuse rate could it?

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 10:28 AM
So, was he a right winger or not? I love how you guys are dodging this question. It's a simple yes or no.

One good “dodge” deserves another. :shrug:
Until you’ve owned up to what you posted I don’t see why anyone should worry about answering your questions.
What, pissed that someone else is playing in your sand box?

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:29 AM
I fail to see what your point is? He was a loose canon. So that is how you are trying to paint all conservatives? Pretty ****ing idiotic.

How the fuck am I trying to paint all conservatives like this? The report specifically mentions lone wolves and right wing extremists. By and large conservatives are not extremists.

HonestChieffan
04-15-2009, 10:29 AM
Ah, I tried to be nice and civil at first but you can't survive here with so many aggressive flamers.

Oh, you can. Just have to recognize the behaviors and understand it usually repeats. Tolerance is not a strength of those on the far fringes. Those who become most frustrated by discourse resort to the name calling foolishness.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:30 AM
I'm sorry but what additional info are you referring to? If it's the MO highway patrol ham handed document that's not really relevant to the DOJ's report.

Yea, not relevant at all.....;)

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:30 AM
Here you go:



BTW, it's a pretty narrow profile when it's based on a "group" of one person.

And I clarified it later. You just want to play semantics.

El Jefe
04-15-2009, 10:31 AM
Cue Glenn Beck gently weeping as he urges all God fearing Americans to buy automatic weapons so they can protect themselves when ACORN comes to drag them away to FEMA concentration camps.

Yeah that's exactly what he's trying to do :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 10:32 AM
Oh, you can. Just have to recognize the behaviors and understand it usually repeats. Tolerance is not a strength of those on the far fringes. Those who become most frustrated by discourse resort to the name calling foolishness.

The irony.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:32 AM
Yea, not relevant at all.....;)

It's not. How is the DOJ responsible for a ham handed document that the MO highway patrol put out?

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:32 AM
How the **** am I trying to paint all conservatives like this? The report specifically mentions lone wolves and right wing extremists. By and large conservatives are not extremists.

Well for one turning one man into a "Right-Wing Group".

So no Left Wing extremeists every do anything wrong? Is that it?

The article points out the bullshit coming out of DHS and you are supporting it as far as I am concerned. It wasn't enough to say "lone wolves and extremeists". No...Right-Wing HAD to be thrown in there.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 10:33 AM
Nah, Rader is a progressive aka liberal on foreign policy. He's for intervention in other countries to replace bad leaders. That's what he has posted on mainly. He doesn't hold conservative views across the board on some issues but I haven't seen him post much on the various issues to say how much.

It's Radar. Rader is too close to Denis Rader or the Raiders for my comfort. ;)

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:33 AM
It's not. How is the DOJ responsible for a ham handed document that the MO highway patrol put out?

You jsut said the DHS\DOJ released a report specifying Right-Wing extremists. Did you not? Sorry, but I hope you are not a detective.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:34 AM
Well for one turning one man into a "Right-Wing Group".

So no Left Wing extremeists every do anything wrong? Is that it?

The article points out the bullshit coming out of DHS and you are supporting it as far as I am concerned. It wasn't enough to say "lone wolves and extremeists". No...Right-Wing HAD to be thrown in there.

Where did I ever say left wing extremists never do anything wrong? Also, I'd like to see where you can point out that I ever said I supported this.

If you read the AP article you'd notice that they did a similar report for left wing extremists in January.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:36 AM
You jsut said the DHS\DOJ released a report specifying Right-Wing extremists. Did you not? Sorry, but I hope you are not a detective.

Yea and the additional info that World Nut included is old news. It's not relevant in any way to the DHS/DOJ report that conservatives are flipping out about now.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:37 AM
Where did I ever say left wing extremists never do anything wrong? Also, I'd like to see where you can point out that I ever said I supported this.

If you read the AP article you'd notice that they did a similar report for left wing extremists in January.

Perhaps your tact leads one to believe such.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:37 AM
Yea and the additional info that World Nut included is old news. It's not relevant in any way to the DHS/DOJ report that conservatives are flipping out about now.

Sure it isn't.....

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Perhaps your tact leads one to believe such.

Well, if people here wouldn't put words into other people's mouths here then it would have been clear that I found it incredibly amusing that now the right wingers are subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else they get their panties in a bunch. That was my original point and then people have twisted what I said and put words in my mouth.

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Sure it isn't.....

Please tell me how it's relevant to the DHS/DOJ report because I don't see it.

stevieray
04-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Well, if people here wouldn't put words into other people's mouths here then it would have been clear that I found it incredibly amusing that now the right wingers are subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else they get their panties in a bunch. That was my original point and then people have twisted what I said and put words in my mouth.

dizzy?

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:41 AM
I'm dizzy from reading so many words.

FYP

chiefsfan1128
04-15-2009, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE=Nightwish
They aren't targeting 3rd party supporters. Nothing in the original language suggests that. They're saying that militia members often are 3rd supporters, not that the 3rd party supporters are often militia members. Some of you seem to be reading those statements as equal, but they are very, very different! And it's not just any 3rd party they're talking, it's very specific 3rd parties which have a history of advocating and promoting what the mainstream would view as "radical" and "violent" politics.[/QUOTE]

"radical"...."violent"......The real problem here is the "right-wing" targeting. If not where is the references to groups such as PETA, some of whose members advocate violence against those(people) they deem to harm animals, or the radical measures of stripping naked and smearing blood on themselves in public to protest fur. These people are both "radical" and "violent". Oh....they are also "left-wing" and missing from the list.
Posted via Mobile Device

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:48 AM
Well, if people here wouldn't put words into other people's mouths here then it would have been clear that I found it incredibly amusing that now the right wingers are subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else they get their panties in a bunch. That was my original point and then people have twisted what I said and put words in my mouth.

Same scrutiny? We have illegals flowing over the border and a report comes out saying how Right-Wing Extremists might be mad that their government is allowing the law to be broken?

K....

stevieray
04-15-2009, 10:48 AM
FYP

your post ended up where it started.

your and troll

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:49 AM
"radical"...."violent"......The real problem here is the "right-wing" targeting. If not where is the references to groups such as PETA, some of whose members advocate violence against those(people) they deem to harm animals, or the radical measures of stripping naked and smearing blood on themselves in public to protest fur. These people are both "radical" and "violent". Oh....they are also "left-wing" and missing from the list.
Posted via Mobile Device

Read the article. They did a report on left wing extremists in January.

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 10:50 AM
"radical"...."violent"......The real problem here is the "right-wing" targeting. If not where is the references to groups such as PETA, some of whose members advocate violence against those(people) they deem to harm animals, or the radical measures of stripping naked and smearing blood on themselves in public to protest fur. These people are both "radical" and "violent". Oh....they are also "left-wing" and missing from the list.
Posted via Mobile Device

Really, the DHS or other federal law enforcement organizations haven't done any studies on left wing radical groups? Perhaps these other studies just aren't used to stir up sentiment by ideologues like the report that is the topic of this thread?

beer bacon
04-15-2009, 10:50 AM
your post ended up where it started.

your and troll

He isn't.

petegz28
04-15-2009, 10:52 AM
Please tell me how it's relevant to the DHS/DOJ report because I don't want too see it.

FYP.....no need to thank me.

stevieray
04-15-2009, 10:53 AM
He isn't.

cue melodramatic music

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!

KC native
04-15-2009, 10:54 AM
FYP.....no need to thank me.

:rolleyes:So you can't demonstrate how a state agency's ham handed simplistic document is in any way relevant to a national agency's (DHS/DOJ) report?

patteeu
04-15-2009, 10:57 AM
Well for one turning one man into a "Right-Wing Group".

So no Left Wing extremeists every do anything wrong? Is that it?

The article points out the bullshit coming out of DHS and you are supporting it as far as I am concerned. It wasn't enough to say "lone wolves and extremeists". No...Right-Wing HAD to be thrown in there.

Left wing groups are doing crazy shit all the time. Take Ted Kaczynski for example! LMAO

chiefsfan1128
04-15-2009, 11:15 AM
Read the article. They did a report on left wing extremists in January.

I appologize. I still disagree with targeting or "profiling" ANYONE for any of these reasons. IMO, it gives law enforcement more excuses if something "goes wrong" (Rodney King, Waco, etc). They can then say well he had 3rd party candate, gun rights, anti-abortion, PETA bumper stickers everywhere. This is what the report warns against. They may "feel" threatened, someone could end up dead. It wouldn't be their fault, just a tragic accident.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
04-15-2009, 11:22 AM
You must give us the names.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 11:27 AM
I don't have a problem with legitimate profiling, even if it gores my conservative ox. Political strawgoating is another thing altogether. When a politician stands up and blames the Jews for tough economic conditions, or right wing talk radio for bombings of federal buildings, or Rush Limbaugh for whatever it was that the Obama administration was recently blaming him for, I've got a problem with it.

P.S. Who knew there was such a thing as a straw goat? :shrug:

http://4imgs.com/306/x/660109_FULL.jpg

orange
04-15-2009, 11:53 AM
Jumping in late here with a few observations:

First, some theme music:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WFfURSTLvfw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WFfURSTLvfw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Next, about Timothy McVeigh and the "group of one" (i.e. the idea that he was the only right-wing terrorist out there): Of course, there was also Terry Nichols, but beside that - don't abortion clinic bombings, church burnings, machinegunning of liberal talk-radio hosts, etc. count as terrorist acts?


Some notes on profiling past for comparison:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=154466&highlight=profiling
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=145385&highlight=profiling

... And someone alluded to PETA being "completely tolerated." Your advertising dollars at work:

"The standoff between CHRISSIE HYNDE and radio right-winger RUSH LIMBAUGH is finally over. Since 1984, Limbaugh had been using the "My City Was Gone," the Pretenders lament about the mall-ification of America, without Hynde's consent. According to Hynde's manager, Limbaugh had not licensed the song for his nationally syndicated radio show, nor had he even asked for permission to use it -- something that didn't seem to bother Hynde all that much until Limbaugh told a pair of reporters in 1997 that "it was icing on the cake that it was [written by] an environmentalist, animal rights wacko and was an anti-conservative song. It is anti-development, anti-capitalist, and here I am going to take a liberal song and make fun of [liberals] at the same time." Last month, Hynde finally got Limbaugh to pull the song but then did an about face on Aug. 18, telling him that he could use the song if he donated all the royalties to the animal right's organization PETA, after PETA campaign manager Dan Mathews told her Limbaugh had a soft-spot for animals. She fired off the following missive to PETA to let them know of the recent developments. "In light of Rush Limbaugh's vocal support of PETA's campaign against the Environmental Protection Agency's foolish plan to test some 3,000 chemicals on animals, I have decided to allow him to keep my song, 'My City Was Gone,' as his signature tune and to donate all proceeds from the deal to further PETA's efforts in that regard" ... "
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923659/really_randoms_chrissie_hynde_ricky_martin_jimmy_page

patteeu
04-15-2009, 11:57 AM
Next, about Timothy McVeigh and the "group of one" (i.e. the idea that he was the only right-wing terrorist out there): Of course, there was also Terry Nichols, but beside that - don't abortion clinic bombings, church burnings, machinegunning of liberal talk-radio hosts, etc. count as terrorist acts?

The issue that created the stir here wasn't really about whether or not there has ever been any right wing violence in the country, AFAIC. It was about the way KC Native described McVeigh as a right wing group and how he wouldn't simply admit that he said something dumb.

Calcountry
04-15-2009, 12:44 PM
your post needs more cowbell.

It's on youtube.This

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 02:58 PM
Not hey don't. The WND had the same has the AP plus the additional info.
They told two different stories. The WND article didn't have "additional info." It had additional allegations that weren't supported by evidence, something WND has never been above doing.

One story told of profiling that identified common traits among right-wing extremists, terrorists and militia groups, but did not imply that law enforcement was being instructed to label anyone and everyone who bore a 3rd party bumper sticker or espoused a position on that list as a suspicious person or potential domestic terrorist. The other filled in the blanks using information that simply wasn't there to tell us that's exactly what law enforcement is being instructed to do. The WND article implied that it is, in part, a deliberate attack on Christian beliefs, while the AP article, containing the actual language of the report, did not mention the word "Christian." So no, they don't tell the same story.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 03:18 PM
I fail to understand what the **** that has to do with anything? So if most people in the inner city are dems, does that mean left wingers are responsible for all the crime in the inner city?
Oh, good grief! Where are y'all coming up with this stuff?

The AP article suggests that Timothy McVeigh was a right-wing terrorist (and yes, the article mentions him specifically, KC Native is not the one who brought him up). It suggests that there are others out there like him. It lists common threads among people like Timothy McVeigh and other right-wing extremists and militia members that might be a threat to the security of the United States. It suggests that these common threads might be a good means of analysis to identify if someone is a threat, especially the more of those positions they espouse together. That's all it suggests, it does not suggest anything beyond that. It does not suggest that all right wingers are right wing extremists. It does not suggest that all right wingers are going to become Timothy McVeighs. It does not suggest that anyone who espouses a right wing or conservative Christian opinion should be carefully watched, arrested, locked up, or that we should cower behind locked doors and shuttered windows when such walk down the street. It simply suggests that there is an element within the right wing that is dangerous and represents a security threat (and you'd have to be pretty daft to believe that isn't true). It doesn't suggest the element is large or that everyone on the right is part of it. So for gods' sake, get your panties out of your cracks! The police aren't coming to knock down your doors (well, maybe a couple of you should be on the lookout for the Stoopid Police, but not the regular ones).

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 03:21 PM
The issue that created the stir here wasn't really about whether or not there has ever been any right wing violence in the country, AFAIC. It was about the way KC Native described McVeigh as a right wing group and how he wouldn't simply admit that he said something dumb.
Since the article itself doesn't limit the profiling to groups, but to any individual or group that fits the criteria, then it would seem the only issue involved here is that he used the word "group" instead of "individual," and had he correctly used the term "individual," his point would have still been valid, especially since the article itself specifically holds forth McVeigh as an example. In other words, you're taking issue with semantics but not with substance.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 03:28 PM
When a politician stands up and blames the Jews for tough economic conditions, or right wing talk radio for bombings of federal buildings, or Rush Limbaugh for whatever it was that the Obama administration was recently blaming him for ...
or war dissenters for the problems we had in Iraq, or ...

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 03:33 PM
I'm sorry but what additional info are you referring to? If it's the MO highway patrol ham handed document that's not really relevant to the DOJ's report.
Plus, it isn't additional info, since it was also included in the AP article.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 03:39 PM
Wow, really? Inner city crimes are motivated by ideology? It couldn't be hunger, lack of jobs/education, and higher substance abuse rate could it?
To be fair, although these things do certainly contribute, there is nevertheless a lot of ideological warfare in the inner cities, especially among the street gangs. There's plenty of "whitey [or "the man"] is keeping us down" rhetoric floating around those neighborhoods, stirring up aggression. Still, even those groups are usually more motivated by other things - drugs, guns and whatnot, but it's still there.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 03:52 PM
The article points out the bullshit coming out of DHS and you are supporting it as far as I am concerned. It wasn't enough to say "lone wolves and extremeists". No...Right-Wing HAD to be thrown in there.
They did it for both sides. I doubt that this was something the DHS intended to be made available to the public. More likely, someone leaked it, and it founds it way to the desk of Chuck Baldwin, and from there it found its way to the media.

I doubt the DHS was more unfair to the right-wing than they were to the left-wing, but right-wing extremists are probably of greater concern as a genuine threat than left-wing extremists. What do left-wing extremists do? They throw red paint on fur coats, they spike trees and halt logging operations, they break into testing facilities and free lab animals, they unfurl large banners that resemble cracks on the surface of hydroelectric dams. But by and large, they don't murder, they don't blow things up. Yes, there are a few isolated incidents where their tactics were more deadly and destructive, but side by side, you'll find the death toll considerably smaller from left-wing extremist tactics when compared to right-wing extremist tactics. If I learn that a group of people is planning to chain themselves to trees to stop bulldozers, I'm going to be far less concerned about it than if I learn a group is arming themselves to the teeth and planning to march into City Hall and take "back" the government by force.

memyselfI
04-15-2009, 03:53 PM
This was reprehensible when it was Bush's bitches and his enablers claiming that the anti-war movement was a danger or terrorist sympathizers. It's equally appalling and reprehensible now that it's Obummer's bitch and his enablers. ANYONE defending this has completely lost their mind and sold their soul to something very dangerous and evil that could happen in this country...

and it's not coming from the citizens rather the government itself.

orange
04-15-2009, 03:55 PM
What do left-wing extremists do?

They also blow themselves up a lot better than the right-wingers do.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 03:58 PM
This was reprehensible when it was Bush's bitches and his enablers claiming that the anti-war movement was a danger or terrorist sympathizers. It's equally appalling and reprehensible now that it's Obummer's bitch and his enablers. ANYONE defending this has completely lost their mind and sold their soul to something very dangerous and evil that could happen in this country...

and it's not coming from the citizens rather the government itself.
Profiling is a very valuable tool in law enforcement. The profiling itself isn't the problem. It becomes a problem when people cherry-pick profiling data in order to further a political agenda, as Bush did with his labeling dissenters as terrorist enablers or sympathizers. This incident of profiling could also be abused in a similar manner, but the AP article doesn't suggest that (the WND article does, but that's what WND does day in and day out, so who cares). But without such profiling, our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies would have a far more difficult time locating and shutting down terrorist cells and plots.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 04:02 PM
They also blow themselves up a lot better than the right-wingers do.
These articles are about domestic right and left wing extremists, not the middle eastern versions. It isn't their left-wing politics that makes islamists so willing to become suicide bombers, it is their fundamentalist relgious beliefs. America's left-wing extremists tend to come from Christian, Jewish or folk religion stock, so they tend to lack the suicidal/homicidal element of their islamist counterparts.

orange
04-15-2009, 04:04 PM
These articles are about domestic right and left wing extremists, not the middle eastern versions. It isn't their left-wing politics that makes islamists so willing to become suicide bombers, it is their fundamentalist relgious beliefs. America's left-wing extremists tend to come from Christian, Jewish or folk religion stock, so they tend to lack the suicidal/homicidal element of their islamist counterparts.

I'm talking about the Weather Underground.

Left-wing terrorism in the US has a history of incompetence and irrelevance.

WilliamTheIrish
04-15-2009, 04:04 PM
Is everybody still alive? I was wondering when the gov't was going to round folks up and put them in the camps prisonplanet.com has been warning me about.


Anybody seen Mikey? Anybody? Mikey?

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 04:07 PM
I'm talking about the Weather Underground.

Left-wing terrorism in the US has a history of incompetence and irrelevance.

There was that time when one killed the president. That was kind of a big deal.

orange
04-15-2009, 04:08 PM
There was that time when one killed the president. That was kind of a big deal.

Who? Are you claiming Oswald as a left-winger? I see him more as a chameleon.

Especially considering the conspiracy theories around him involve lefties like the CIA killing Kennedy because he was soft on communism.

Radar Chief
04-15-2009, 04:08 PM
Is everybody still alive? I was wondering when the gov't was going to round folks up and put them in the camps prisonplanet.com has been warning me about.


Anybody seen Mikey? Anybody? Mikey?

Well, Denise just posted so they’re obviously not doing their jobs yet. ;)

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 04:11 PM
I'm talking about the Weather Underground.
Well, there was that group, but they were more the exception than the rule when it comes to left-wing extremists.

Left-wing terrorism in the US has a history of incompetence and irrelevance.
For the most part, wing terrorism of either stripe in the US has a history of incompetence and irrelevance. But in those rare instances where they've actually managed to succeed at what they intended, the death toll from the right-wing attacks is higher (granted, McVeigh gets the credit for much of that). But all in all, I'd say there have been more incidents (where the attackers intended to take the lives of others) from the right than from the left.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 04:15 PM
Who? Are you claiming Oswald as a left-winger? I see him more as a chameleon.

Especially considering the conspiracy theories around him involve lefties like the CIA.
I agree. If I had to chose between the two, I'd see him more as a right-winger than a left-winger. But I don't think he really fits either.

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 04:18 PM
Who? Are you claiming Oswald as a left-winger? I see him more as a chameleon.

Especially considering the conspiracy theories around him involve lefties like the CIA killing Kennedy because he was soft on communism.

No, I was thinking of Leon Czolgosz (killed McKinley).

orange
04-15-2009, 04:21 PM
No, I was thinking of Leon Czolgosz (killed McKinley).

Okay. I really didn't know any more about the McKinley assassination than the bare fact that it happened.

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 04:26 PM
The anarcho-socialists around that time were like the actual threat that the Hollywood/university communists in the 1950s were thought to be. They killed a number of officials and leaders throughout Europe and yeah, into America. Pretty stressful time to be the head of a country.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 06:24 PM
Since the article itself doesn't limit the profiling to groups, but to any individual or group that fits the criteria, then it would seem the only issue involved here is that he used the word "group" instead of "individual," and had he correctly used the term "individual," his point would have still been valid, especially since the article itself specifically holds forth McVeigh as an example. In other words, you're taking issue with semantics but not with substance.

I'm taking issue with exaggeration. That's not semantics.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 06:26 PM
or war dissenters for the problems we had in Iraq, or ...

I'd distinguish between basic war dissenters who were responsible with their dissent and those who sought to undermine our efforts in Iraq. The latter are unlike the examples I offered in that they actually were at fault for that of which they were accused.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 06:42 PM
I'm taking issue with exaggeration. That's not semantics.
I'm not sure what exaggeration you saw. He made the error of saying McVeigh was part of a group (which is technically true, as there were two of them working together on the plot). It doesn't take anything away from McVeigh's relevance to the topic. There are individuals who are a threat, and there are groups who are a threat, and the article holds them equal, as it should.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 06:45 PM
I'd distinguish between basic war dissenters who were responsible with their dissent and those who sought to undermine our efforts in Iraq.
As I recall, back when Bush was still in office, you routinely poo-pooed any distinctions between the two.

The latter are unlike the examples I offered in that they actually were at fault for that of which they were accused.
So goes the rhetoric anyway, though I'd wager you'd have an extremely difficult time making a case for that, especially considering that at the time, you were pretty much lumping anyone who voiced an opinion against the war, especially in a public forum, into the latter category.

banyon
04-15-2009, 06:52 PM
Okay. I really didn't know any more about the McKinley assassination than the bare fact that it happened.

He did it for a girl and wouldn't you know it she wasn't even impressed like he thought she would be.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 07:35 PM
I'm not sure what exaggeration you saw. He made the error of saying McVeigh was part of a group (which is technically true, as there were two of them working together on the plot). It doesn't take anything away from McVeigh's relevance to the topic. There are individuals who are a threat, and there are groups who are a threat, and the article holds them equal, as it should.

It's an exaggeration to describe a guy who was basically a lone wolf as a "right wing group". It's not semantics.

patteeu
04-15-2009, 07:35 PM
As I recall, back when Bush was still in office, you routinely poo-pooed any distinctions between the two.


So goes the rhetoric anyway, though I'd wager you'd have an extremely difficult time making a case for that, especially considering that at the time, you were pretty much lumping anyone who voiced an opinion against the war, especially in a public forum, into the latter category.

As usual, your recollection is off the mark.

orange
04-15-2009, 07:46 PM
He did it for a girl and wouldn't you know it she wasn't even impressed like he thought she would be.

http://addictedtostars.com/images/captivating-jodie-foster.jpg ?

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 07:46 PM
The anarcho-socialists around that time were like the actual threat that the Hollywood/university communists in the 1950s were thought to be. They killed a number of officials and leaders throughout Europe and yeah, into America. Pretty stressful time to be the head of a country.

Speaking of anarcho-socialists, Hamas claims to be one. Guess he doesn't make the list because he's left-wing. The left-wing administrations target their enemies—the right. The right-wing administrations target their enemies—the left.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 07:49 PM
They also blow themselves up a lot better than the right-wingers do.

Like Ayers?

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 07:58 PM
Speaking of anarcho-socialists, Hamas claims to be one. Guess he doesn't make the list because he's left-wing. The left-wing administrations target their enemies—the right. The right-wing administrations target their enemies—the left.

The anarcho-socialists seem to be a lot more non-violent these days. I think Chomsky claims to be one, or close to one, as well.

memyselfI
04-15-2009, 08:41 PM
Profiling is a very valuable tool in law enforcement. The profiling itself isn't the problem. It becomes a problem when people cherry-pick profiling data in order to further a political agenda, as Bush did with his labeling dissenters as terrorist enablers or sympathizers. This incident of profiling could also be abused in a similar manner, but the AP article doesn't suggest that (the WND article does, but that's what WND does day in and day out, so who cares). But without such profiling, our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies would have a far more difficult time locating and shutting down terrorist cells and plots.

Obummer's administration has started this THREE MONTHS IN OFFICE. Give them time. They've shown a propensity to go back on their previous pledges and to continue policies they've previously decried. The fact that they have used spying tactics against the RW is not what is shocking. What is shocking is that they are continuing questionable Bush anti-civil liberty policies on so many levels on the DOMESTIC front.

On another note, I might be one who ends up on watch lists under two different administrations and parties and it's not because THEIR POLICIES or POLITICS ARE DIFFERENT...:shake::rolleyes::cuss:

memyselfI
04-15-2009, 08:44 PM
As I recall, back when Bush was still in office, you routinely poo-pooed any distinctions between the two.


So goes the rhetoric anyway, though I'd wager you'd have an extremely difficult time making a case for that, especially considering that at the time, you were pretty much lumping anyone who voiced an opinion against the war, especially in a public forum, into the latter category.

I have to disagree with this. Initially Patt would fall in to the category you described but as the war dragged on he began to admit that some of us had concerns and were coming from a matter of principle and not necessarily party or personality based.

That is why it's so humorous to see Obummer supporters crying foul now when they are perpetuating many of the same tactics they previously decried.

memyselfI
04-15-2009, 08:50 PM
What is funny about this is the document itself will probably do more to ferment anti-government antagonism than anything the government has already done...

and perhaps that was by design. :doh!:

patteeu
04-15-2009, 08:59 PM
I have to disagree with this. Initially Patt would fall in to the category you described but as the war dragged on he began to admit that some of us had concerns and were coming from a matter of principle and not necessarily party or personality based.

That is why it's so humorous to see Obummer supporters crying foul now when they are perpetuating many of the same tactics they previously decried.

I wasn't even in that category in the beginning. I defended jAZ when Logical went off in a major way on him for being opposed to the pending Iraq war. I've always distinguished between responsible dissent and efforts to undermine our country when we're at war. I'd imagine that we'd find plenty of room to disagree on where I draw that line, but I've been drawing it from the beginning. Thanks for the support though.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 11:20 PM
I wasn't even in that category in the beginning. I defended jAZ when Logical went off in a major way on him for being opposed to the pending Iraq war. I've always distinguished between responsible dissent and efforts to undermine our country when we're at war. I'd imagine that we'd find plenty of room to disagree on where I draw that line, but I've been drawing it from the beginning. Thanks for the support though.
You may have been acknowledging that distinction off the boards, and you have have done so before the war started, when the lines weren't so clearly drawn, but once it started, I never once saw you entertain the idea that there was a distinction. You directly accused people on this board of being enablers simply because they voiced their opinion that the war was wrong. And it has never been your place to decide whether someone was dissenting responsibly or not.

Nightwish
04-15-2009, 11:23 PM
It's an exaggeration to describe a guy who was basically a lone wolf as a "right wing group". It's not semantics.
There were two of them, so technically "group" is correct. You don't have to have dozens of members to be a "group."

patteeu
04-16-2009, 01:36 AM
There were two of them, so technically "group" is correct. You don't have to have dozens of members to be a "group."

It's not much of a group. AFAIC, that's still enough of an exaggeration to warrant ridicule. I'm not surprised that you're defending it as if you life depended on it.

patteeu
04-16-2009, 01:39 AM
You may have been acknowledging that distinction off the boards, and you have have done so before the war started, when the lines weren't so clearly drawn, but once it started, I never once saw you entertain the idea that there was a distinction. You directly accused people on this board of being enablers simply because they voiced their opinion that the war was wrong. And it has never been your place to decide whether someone was dissenting responsibly or not.

Wrong. I've always drawn a line. For example, I've never criticized Pat Buchanan for his dissent and on several occasions I pointed him out as an example of loyal opposition. If I called someone an enabler, it was because they were an enabler (although I certainly don't remember using that word). I think it's well past time for you to stop making shit up.

KC native
04-16-2009, 11:00 AM
It's an exaggeration to describe a guy who was basically a lone wolf as a "right wing group". It's not semantics.

Except it is semantics. My initial post wasn't clear and I clarified it later. The point remains valid.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-16-2009, 11:45 AM
Speaking of anarcho-socialists, Hamas claims to be one. Guess he doesn't make the list because he's left-wing. The left-wing administrations target their enemies—the right. The right-wing administrations target their enemies—the left.

ya it's a fun little game we play in America, while offshore banks rob us blind and shut down industry, make us pay taxes while most of those in charge and those "too big to fail" not only pay no taxes but take ours through the ponzi scheme known as the (private) federal reserve. They have one half of the nation at the others halfs throat while they take everything.

patteeu
04-16-2009, 11:45 AM
Except it is semantics. My initial post wasn't clear and I clarified it later. The point remains valid.

The fact that you had to "clarify" it, vindicates my point.

KC native
04-16-2009, 12:55 PM
The fact that you had to "clarify" it, vindicates my point.

No it doesn't. You were playing semantics instead of refuting my point. The point remains valid even though I had worded it poorly.

Nightwish
04-16-2009, 01:02 PM
If I called someone an enabler, it was because they were an enabler (although I certainly don't remember using that word).
No it wasn't, it was because you couldn't stand having your Lord and Savior Bush criticized, and the you couldn't stand the idea that not everyone was in lockstep with your Savior's pet war, which you vivaciously chearled from the start.

patteeu
04-16-2009, 01:03 PM
No it doesn't. You were playing semantics instead of refuting my point. The point remains valid even though I had worded it poorly.

I wasn't addressing your point, dumbass. I was addressing your "poor wording", which IMO was an exaggeration.

patteeu
04-16-2009, 01:05 PM
No it wasn't, it was because you couldn't stand having your Lord and Savior Bush criticized, and the you couldn't stand the idea that not everyone was in lockstep with your Savior's pet war, which you vivaciously chearled from the start.

Another substance-free accusation from Nightwish. Good times.

Nightwish
04-16-2009, 01:16 PM
Another substance-free accusation from Nightwish. Good times.
Well, you claim that you've defended criticisms of the Iraq War, and that you've distinguished between enablers and "responsible" dissenters, yet I've never seen you come close to doing either. Obviously, one can't prove a negative, so I can't prove that you have never done either, but I am going to challenge you to produce some of these alleged posts of yours.

patteeu
04-16-2009, 01:31 PM
Well, you claim that you've defended criticisms of the Iraq War, and that you've distinguished between enablers and "responsible" dissenters, yet I've never seen you come close to doing either. Obviously, one can't prove a negative, so I can't prove that you have never done either, but I am going to challenge you to produce some of these alleged posts of yours.

No. Memyselfi already vouched for me on this point... to you no less. That ought to be enough, but obviously you'll continue arguing against reality no matter what evidence is presented so I'm not going to waste my time.

Nightwish
04-16-2009, 01:34 PM
No. Memyselfi already vouched for me on this point... to you no less.
Please, Meme thinks she has a newfound ally, but she's still one of the least credible posters on this board. You'll have to do better than that.

That ought to be enough, but obviously you'll continue arguing against reality no matter what evidence is presented so I'm not going to waste my time.
Uh huh, that's what I thought.

patteeu
04-16-2009, 01:55 PM
Please, Meme thinks she has a newfound ally, but she's still one of the least credible posters on this board. You'll have to do better than that.

No I won't.

Nightwish
04-16-2009, 04:40 PM
No I won't.
Yeah, you will. Unless you want me to write you off as I always have as having only the most tenuous grasp of reality.

Oh, and as far as your signature goes, there's a key difference between Obama's spending and Bush's. Obama's spending is geared toward stimulating the economy and earning the money back. Bush's had no such foresight. Bush spent with no intention of having the money earned back. To right the ship, Obama will have to earn back his spending, and Bush's as well.

patteeu
04-16-2009, 04:54 PM
Yeah, you will. Unless you want me to write you off as I always have as having only the most tenuous grasp of reality.

Oh, and as far as your signature goes, there's a key difference between Obama's spending and Bush's. Obama's spending is geared toward stimulating the economy and earning the money back. Bush's had no such foresight. Bush spent with no intention of having the money earned back. To right the ship, Obama will have to earn back his spending, and Bush's as well.

*yawn*

Nightwish
04-16-2009, 06:20 PM
*yawn*
Yeah, I know, you don't really care how badly Bush messed up this country, nor how much of a financial burden the rest of us have incurred because of his (and your) pet war. You've proven that post after post after post.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2009, 06:55 PM
Come Nightwish you can't be for real if you think Bush only is responsible for the current economic climate. You can start pointing fingers at the Fed/Greenspan economy of the past 16 years if you're going to be intellectually honest about it. Obama stimulus stimulates conversation mostly.

***SPRAYER
04-16-2009, 07:32 PM
Just look at the latest moonbat B.O. hired:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/04/16/rosa_brooks_the_pentagons_far_left_adviser

ROFL

The guy is a greasy scumbag.

Nightwish
04-17-2009, 02:18 AM
Come Nightwish you can't be for real if you think Bush only is responsible for the current economic climate. You can start pointing fingers at the Fed/Greenspan economy of the past 16 years if you're going to be intellectually honest about it.
I never said he was solely responsible. But it would intellectually dishonest to deny that he had a big hand in it.

Obama stimulus stimulates conversation mostly.
It's far, far too early for you or anyone else to say what it will or will not stimulate. You can guess right along with the rest of 'em and the best of 'em, but in the end, that's all you've got right - speculation.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2009, 10:39 AM
I never said he was solely responsible. But it would intellectually dishonest to deny that he had a big hand in it.


It's far, far too early for you or anyone else to say what it will or will not stimulate. You can guess right along with the rest of 'em and the best of 'em, but in the end, that's all you've got right - speculation.

No it's not too early. For the simple fact, that it's been tried before and is more of the same thing. You missed a lot of those discussions when you were gone. But it was a decline in govt spending that ended the Great Depression no matter the Keynesian nonsense that claims otherwise. Bush inherited Clinton's recession who inherited Bush Sr's recession. It has to do with monetary policy which is the same no matter who is in office and a lot to do with the past 16 years under Greenspan. All Obama is doing is a massive amount of the same Keynesian stimulus just applied to other areas more. He's even increasing the military and plans on a surge in Afghanistan. There isn't a lot of things in there that stimulate as much as he is doing what Rahm Emmanuel said: taking advantage of a crisis to implement a socialist agenda. Sorry, I'll stick with the economic school that predicted this mess and what's going to come with Obama's stimulus. Govt is the problem—not the solution.

KC native
04-17-2009, 11:15 AM
No it's not too early. For the simple fact, that it's been tried before and is more of the same thing. You missed a lot of those discussions when you were gone. But it was a decline in govt spending that ended the Great Depression no matter the Keynesian nonsense that claims otherwise. Bush inherited Clinton's recession who inherited Bush Sr's recession. It has to do with monetary policy which is the same no matter who is in office and a lot to do with the past 16 years under Greenspan. All Obama is doing is a massive amount of the same Keynesian stimulus just applied to other areas more. He's even increasing the military and plans on a surge in Afghanistan. There isn't a lot of things in there that stimulate as much as he is doing what Rahm Emmanuel said: taking advantage of a crisis to implement a socialist agenda. Sorry, I'll stick with the economic school that predicted this mess and what's going to come with Obama's stimulus. Govt is the problem—not the solution.

:rolleyes: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Otter
04-17-2009, 04:09 PM
:rolleyes: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You're such a petty little punk. Don't forget a smiley face in that response to validate your statement.

KC native
04-17-2009, 04:19 PM
You're such a petty little punk. Don't forget a smiley face in that response to validate your statement.

I thought you were through being an internet tough guy?

***SPRAYER
04-17-2009, 08:30 PM
B.O. is a POS.

StcChief
04-17-2009, 09:16 PM
B.O. is a POS. so tell me something new....

The pitchforks will be up soon enough. Teaparty is just beginning.

Nightwish
04-18-2009, 05:09 PM
No it's not too early. For the simple fact, that it's been tried before and is more of the same thing. You missed a lot of those discussions when you were gone. But it was a decline in govt spending that ended the Great Depression no matter the Keynesian nonsense that claims otherwise. Bush inherited Clinton's recession who inherited Bush Sr's recession. It has to do with monetary policy which is the same no matter who is in office and a lot to do with the past 16 years under Greenspan. All Obama is doing is a massive amount of the same Keynesian stimulus just applied to other areas more. He's even increasing the military and plans on a surge in Afghanistan. There isn't a lot of things in there that stimulate as much as he is doing what Rahm Emmanuel said: taking advantage of a crisis to implement a socialist agenda. Sorry, I'll stick with the economic school that predicted this mess and what's going to come with Obama's stimulus. Govt is the problem—not the solution.
Yes, it is too early. Basically what you're doing is looking a few isolated incidents in the past, assuming incorrectly that all things are equal, and that because those stimuli didn't work (or at least you want to claim they didn't work, but didn't give a very impressive argument for your position - yes, I read it) in those instances with those factors all being what they were (but not being what they are now), that this stimulus, being applied when factors are entirely different than they were 75 years ago, won't work either. In other words, you're guessing, just as I said you were.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2009, 05:53 PM
You're such a petty little punk. Don't forget a smiley face in that response to validate your statement.

Or a half dozen of them.ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

He really adds panache to his points.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2009, 05:54 PM
Yes, it is too early. Basically what you're doing is looking a few isolated incidents in the past,

Not on your life am I looking at a few isolated incidents of the past.

In other words, you're guessing, just as I said you were.

Nope. I said we were in recession as early as 2006 and things were getting worse. My economists predicted things EXACTLY!

Nightwish
04-18-2009, 05:58 PM
Not on your life am I looking at a few isolated incidents of the past.
Given that recessions of this type haven't exactly been commonplace, then yes you are.

Nope. I said we were in recession as early as 2006 and things were getting worse. My economists predicted things EXACTLY!
You didn't need economists to make that prediction in 2006. A 5th grader could have made that prediction in 2006. When the mortgage crisis struck in 2005, it was pretty easy to see coming on. In 2006, the only people who weren't predicting a recession were the Bush faithful who simply didn't want another thing blamed on him. It doesn't change the fact that you're still guessing right along with the rest of 'em. I know that you prefer to skip the trial and jump right to sentencing when it comes to this topic, and you've slammed me before for taking the "wait and see" approach instead of just giving in to your rhetoric and taking the "jump to conclusions" approach, but I'm sorry, I'm not biting.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2009, 06:38 PM
Given that recessions of this type haven't exactly been commonplace, then yes you are.
Nope it's the same type of thing the Austrian school of economics has preached against for at least 70 years...and they go back further tracing it into the 19th century. A lot of these incidents have been discussed here in detail while you were gone. The Boom/Bust cycles we have are due to monetary policy. And now Obama and his team socialist are going to up the ante big-time.


You didn't need economists to make that prediction in 2006. A 5th grader could have made that prediction in 2006.
Well then you simply haven't been paying attention. There's been You Tube videos posted here on Laffer and other economists talking on tv, who denied things were getting bad, that the economy was fundamentally sound right while Peter Schiff said the opposite and they laughed at him. It was 2006 maybe even earlier. So the so called experts, who you are relying on once again, who were all wrong then and still are now.

Besides, according to some hard-core Keynesians on this board, you can't use personal observation or anecdotal evidence to claim such things. ( not that this is my opinion)

"wait and see" approach instead of just giving in to your rhetoric and taking the "jump to conclusions" approach, but I'm sorry, I'm not biting.
No need to bite....just trying to forewarn and prepare. Obama has been studying FDR who turned a nasty recession into a Depression we didn't get out of until after the war. It ended when the govt spending declined sparking a boom. These Keynesians basically are just trying to let the govt and the wealthy monetize their own debt with cheaper dollars which hurts the rest of us. Deflation they don't want...that hurts the guys who caused the bust. Meanwhile, we get more bread and circuses. Sorry, it even goes back to Rome.

Radar Chief
04-18-2009, 07:31 PM
so tell me something new....

If not for constantly swallowing mucus your stomach would digest itself.

:D

|Zach|
05-31-2009, 04:23 PM
Bump.

***SPRAYER
05-31-2009, 07:30 PM
I wouldn't doubt if Rohm--- I mean Tiller's--- killer was a plant so B.O. can sick Homeland Security on people who are against abortion.

Sort of like his Reichstag.

patteeu
05-31-2009, 09:12 PM
Bump.

Why? :shrug:

|Zach|
05-31-2009, 09:13 PM
Why? :shrug:
RW Extremism struck and I thought it made this discussion more interesting.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2009, 09:42 PM
RW Extremism struck and I thought it made this discussion more interesting.

No it was clearly a left wing extremist.

banyon
05-31-2009, 09:44 PM
No it was clearly a left wing extremist.

huh?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2009, 09:48 PM
huh?

Let's not be so quick to rush to judgement.

Velvet_Jones
06-01-2009, 03:44 AM
Modern Day Trotsky/Stalin. If the public had a clue they would be scared. Good thing the DOE has dumbed-down the public to the point they have no idea what is going on.

orange
06-01-2009, 05:01 AM
Modern Day Trotsky/Stalin. If the public had a clue they would be scared. Good thing the DOE has dumbed-down the public to the point they have no idea what is going on.

Actually, he was a Freeman*. So sorry, you're wrong again.

*You know - a right-wing militia like the kind this report called extremists.

patteeu
06-01-2009, 06:58 AM
RW Extremism struck and I thought it made this discussion more interesting.

OK, I get it. It's not all that often that a thug turns out to be a right winger so I guess it's worth noting.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2nk45jt.jpg

Velvet_Jones
06-01-2009, 08:07 AM
Actually, he was a Freeman*. So sorry, you're wrong again.

*You know - a right-wing militia like the kind this report called extremists.

Wrong again. You apparently know nothing of Trotsky or Stalin.

SBK
06-01-2009, 08:17 AM
OK, I get it. It's not all that often that a thug turns out to be a right winger so I guess it's worth noting.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2nk45jt.jpg

Don't act like you didn't laugh when you read this people.

Chief Henry
06-01-2009, 08:33 AM
Don't act like you didn't laugh when you read this people.

LOL at those pics

J Diddy
06-01-2009, 08:59 AM
No it was clearly a left wing extremist.




yes clearly


:spock:

KcFanInGA
06-10-2009, 10:38 PM
Dammit! Im about fed up here. Im glad Ga is trying to use the 10th amendment rights granted to us by the constitution. May my also beloved Missouri do the same.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-10-2009, 10:46 PM
yes clearly


:spock:


I'm sure you know the left/right wing label is a fraud right? Simply a way to get people to fight while criminals make off with all of our worth.

KcFanInGA
06-10-2009, 10:53 PM
Yeah, you will. Unless you want me to write you off as I always have as having only the most tenuous grasp of reality.

Oh, and as far as your signature goes, there's a key difference between Obama's spending and Bush's. Obama's spending is geared toward stimulating the economy and earning the money back. Bush's had no such foresight. Bush spent with no intention of having the money earned back. To right the ship, Obama will have to earn back his spending, and Bush's as well.

LMAO. Please tell me you are joking. We need to wake up people. How long will we let this stand? America is in REAL trouble here, I am not someone who worries about these things to excess, but we have good reason to fear. The New World Order will not include any posters on this board, that I am sure of.

jAZ
06-10-2009, 11:09 PM
Bump.

Any chance the Republicans who tried to exploit this report for political reasons will apologize?

jAZ
06-10-2009, 11:47 PM
Any chance the Republicans who tried to exploit this report for political reasons will apologize?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/NzkzMS0yNzUxNw"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/NzkzMS0yNzUxNw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Direckshun
06-11-2009, 02:11 AM
I was hoping someone would bump this.

googlegoogle
06-11-2009, 02:50 AM
Most criminal & rapists are left wingers.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 07:03 AM
Most criminal & rapists are left wingers.

I suspect that's a big Obama constituency that rivals blacks, socialists, abortion-on-demand supporters (aka the "pro-abortion" lobby per irishjayhawk) and the transgendered.