Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 108

Thread: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

  1. #91
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    You don't see that pointing out a group, stereotyping is related? Seriously?
    I could see your point if they were stereotyping veterans, but they weren't.

    And I beat that point like a mule my friend. They are LESS likely that society as a whole because they are screened and weeded out. This does not happen in mortal aka civillian life.
    Just because they are screened and weeded out doesn't change the fact that they are still HUMAN BEINGS who are capable of the same stuff that the rest of us are.

    I am. stereotyping vets is wrong, as wrong as stereotyping blacks.

    Wanna do the jews next?
    Stereotyping in all forms is wrong. However, I would be more likely to see your point if vets had experienced 400 years of persecution like black people or the same persecution that Jews have and continue to experience. I personally find it insulting that you would try to compare race relations to a few lines from a DHS report that you find objectionable.

  2. #92
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    I could see your point if they were stereotyping veterans, but they weren't.
    Really. So then why did they apologize?


    YouTube - Napolitano Apologizes To Vets For DHS Report But Adds: Timothy McVeigh 'Was A Vet'



    Not she still attacks vets by comparing them to McVeigh though.... what a bitch.



    Just because they are screened and weeded out doesn't change the fact that they are still HUMAN BEINGS who are capable of the same stuff that the rest of us are.
    Sure they are, but statistically its more likley not to be a vet due to the screening proccess.




    Stereotyping in all forms is wrong. However, I would be more likely to see your point if vets had experienced 400 years of persecution like black people or the same persecution that Jews have and continue to experience. I personally find it insulting that you would try to compare race relations to a few lines from a DHS report that you find objectionable.



    I find your excuse making for stereotyping troops as McVeighs in training rather insulting.


    Again, you got nothing, napolitano apologized.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #93
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Probably because people made a big deal out if it when there was nothing to make a big deal out of.

    Not she still attacks vets by comparing them to McVeigh though.... what a bitch.
    By stating that Timothy McVeigh was a vet, which is a fact, you think she's comparing all vets to him? Give me a break.

    Sure they are, but statistically its more likley not to be a vet due to the screening proccess.
    And you don't think that being a soldier changes them as people? If that screening process is so great why do soldiers come back with psychological damage after their experiences in war?

    I find your excuse making for stereotyping troops as McVeighs in training rather insulting.
    Except they didn't make that comparison. Nice try, though.

    Again, you got nothing, napolitano apologized.
    And he shouldn't have. They probably apologized because they got sick of hearing people piss and moan about it.

  4. #94
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    Probably because people made a big deal out if it when there was nothing to make a big deal out of.
    So then the apology was not sincere? Interesting, so not only did they stereotype the troops, but in your mind, offered an empty apology.


    Now that's class!


    By stating that Timothy McVeigh was a vet, which is a fact, you think she's comparing all vets to him? Give me a break.


    Why would she bring it up at all? what was her point? Please this ought to be good.






    And you don't think that being a soldier changes them as people? If that screening process is so great why do soldiers come back with psychological damage after their experiences in war?
    What percentage? please link to your source.




    Except they didn't make that comparison. Nice try, though.



    And he shouldn't have. They probably apologized because they got sick of hearing people piss and moan about it.
    "she" napolitano is a chick.


    But you make a wonderful Obama apparatchik I suppose you also buy the line that Obama didn't bow in saudi arabia as well.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #95
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    So then the apology was not sincere? Interesting, so not only did they stereotype the troops, but in your mind, offered an empty apology.


    Now that's class!
    You mean like getting upset and overly-paranoid over a stupid report for purely hyper-partisan reasons?

    Why would she bring it up at all? what was her point? Please this ought to be good.
    Probably to give an example of a guy who was a vet and later became an extremist. I think that should be rather obvious.

    What percentage? please link to your source.
    I don't need a percentage to prove that some soldiers come back with psychological damage. Are you asserting that they don't?

    But you make a wonderful Obama apparatchik I suppose you also buy the line that Obama didn't bow in saudi arabia as well.
    Yeah, I'm totally devoted to Obama on every issue, that's why I've been largely disagreeing with his stimulus plan and pouring money into idiotic pet projects like a speed-rail line. Again, nice try.

    As for the bow, he needs to get better PR people because it's a sign of disrespect. I don't think it's that big of a deal so I must be devoted to Obama because I didn't foam at the mouth about it like some people did.

  6. #96
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    You mean like getting upset and overly-paranoid over a stupid report for purely hyper-partisan reasons?

    oh are you really going to pull the "hyper-partisan" card. That bs has been so overplayed, it is nothing but an attempt at intellectual muddling to avoid honest discussion.

    I as a vet found her statements and stereotyping abhorrent.


    Probably to give an example of a guy who was a vet and later became an extremist. I think that should be rather obvious.

    OJ is a murderer, this is just an example how blacks can later become murderers.




    I don't need a percentage to prove that some soldiers come back with psychological damage. Are you asserting that they don't?

    Sure you do. otherwise I am simply going to assume your parroting talking points otherwise.



    Yeah, I'm totally devoted to Obama on every issue, that's why I've been largely disagreeing with his stimulus plan and pouring money into idiotic pet projects like a speed-rail line. Again, nice try.


    Good for you. Then why are you here defending this nonsense, that even old janet has apologized for?

    As for the bow, he needs to get better PR people because it's a sign of disrespect. I don't think it's that big of a deal so I must be devoted to Obama because I didn't foam at the mouth about it like some people did.

    Good for you. this is a discussion board, things get discussed. dont have a fit over it. k? thanks.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #97
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    oh are you really going to pull the "hyper-partisan" card. That bs has been so overplayed, it is nothing but an attempt at intellectual muddling to avoid honest discussion.
    Are you kidding? The entire premise of this thread is hyper-partisan.

    I as a vet found her statements and stereotyping abhorrent.
    Good for you. I didn't.

    OJ is a murderer, this is just an example how blacks can later become murderers.
    Once again with the ridiculous comparisons. Keep 'em coming though. It's amusing to see you try so hard to fit a square peg into the circle hole by trying to compare this issue to racial issues.

    Sure you do. otherwise I am simply going to assume your parroting talking points otherwise.
    If my argument was about trying to prove how big of a percentage of soldiers come back with psychological damage then I could see your point. However, I'm not. We both know that some soldiers come back with psychological damage.

    Good for you. Then why are you here defending this nonsense, that even old janet has apologized for?
    Because I think this is yet another typical non-issue that is brought up for purely hyper-partisan reasons.

    Good for you. this is a discussion board, things get discussed. dont have a fit over it. k? thanks.
    Don't worry. There's nothing that you could possibly say that would make me have a fit. Don't flatter yourself.

  8. #98
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    Are you kidding? The entire premise of this thread is hyper-partisan.

    actually the report itself is hyper-partisan. but crying about hyper-partisanism is an intellectually wanting cop out. why don't you leave this sillyness alone.



    Once again with the ridiculous comparisons. Keep 'em coming though. It's amusing to see you try so hard to fit a square peg into the circle hole by trying to compare this issue to racial issues.

    nice, when you are caught without an argument. pretend it is irrellevant.


    If my argument was about trying to prove how big of a percentage of soldiers come back with psychological damage then I could see your point. However, I'm not. We both know that some soldiers come back with psychological damage.

    What percentage. we also know that some some people from montana are pedophiles. we need to be careful about people from montanna since you know they may be disgruntled and turn to pedophilia.






    Because I think this is yet another typical non-issue that is brought up for purely hyper-partisan reasons.


    And I think crying about hyper-partisanism is a tactic used to avoid intelligent debate. it's funny whenever any thread is started that does not praise Obama, or in this case, critisizes a report, it must be "hyper-partisanism".






    Don't worry. There's nothing that you could possibly say that would make me have a fit. Don't flatter yourself.


    Then what is causing this fit?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #99
    Advisor don'ttreadonme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    TX
    Last Seen
    08-17-11 @ 01:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    340

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    The indication is the report itself! Why write it unless there is a purpose for including such broad, general statements?
    Bit of suspicious timing, too, wouldn't you say? It gets "leaked" (wasn't it just meant for law enforcement?) a day or two before the tea parties, which drew 1/4 million people. Perhaps that was to put them on "notice" that they were being watched?

  10. #100
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    actually the report itself is hyper-partisan. but crying about hyper-partisanism is an intellectually wanting cop out. why don't you leave this sillyness alone.

    nice, when you are caught without an argument. pretend it is irrellevant.

    What percentage. we also know that some some people from montana are pedophiles. we need to be careful about people from montanna since you know they may be disgruntled and turn to pedophilia.

    And I think crying about hyper-partisanism is a tactic used to avoid intelligent debate. it's funny whenever any thread is started that does not praise Obama, or in this case, critisizes a report, it must be "hyper-partisanism".

    Then what is causing this fit?
    It took you that long to respond and this is what you respond with? More insults and completely off topic and irrelevant comparisons? I can see that this discussion is clearly over. Have fun.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •