Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 108

Thread: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

  1. #41
    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 Felicity View Post
    No--I'm saying this document pommulgates a definition of "extremist groups" that can include NRL and the like.
    The problem is that you are interpreting the report to say that a single issue group is defined as an extremist group simply because it's a single issue group. That is incorrect. It only stated that single issue groups MAY be extremist. That's true, is it not? There are extremist abortion and immigration groups out there. That's my only point.

    The definition in the footnote is to clarify what is extremist. Yes--it says "may"--are we not to be suspicious of the govenment and follow blindly like sheep? "May" is a very dangerous word.
    We should be suspicious absolutely. And may can be a dangerous word, but I don't think it is in this particular case.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    Because groups continue to change, shift around, etc. And you are right, these documents do contain very general language. My argument is that Felicity's previous assertion of the NRL being considered an extremist organization simply because it's a single issue group is wrong.
    You want me to re-word the OP?

    Okay--

    I "may" participate in "right wing extremism" because I belong to National Right to Life? --a single issue group opposed to abortion-- ...


    The point is the same.

  3. #43
    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 don'ttreadonme View Post
    Weren't they specific with left-wing groups?
    Perhaps they were and that may be why they were more general with this one. I don't know and I don't really care. I don't think that there's anything to be concerned about here. Every group has extremists.
    The vague wording is purposeful and I agree with Felicity here (not surprisingly). The point of that wording is to cast a huge net.
    It is done on purpose, but I still don't think it's a cause for concern. Obviously there would have to be other qualifying factors for a single issue group to be considered extremist other than the fact that it's a single issue group.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    The problem is that you are interpreting the report to say that a single issue group is defined as an extremist group simply because it's a single issue group. That is incorrect. It only stated that single issue groups MAY be extremist. That's true, is it not? There are extremist abortion and immigration groups out there. That's my only point.
    The question should be WHY are they being so broad and general if they do not intend to apply the definition broadly and generally?



    We should be suspicious absolutely. And may can be a dangerous word, but I don't think it is in this particular case.
    Why do you not think so? Is it just a "feeling" or do you have a specific reason to not think they would use the definition broadly if it suited a political purpose?

  5. #45
    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 Felicity View Post
    You want me to re-word the OP?

    Okay--

    I "may" participate in "right wing extremism" because I belong to National Right to Life? --a single issue group opposed to abortion-- ...


    The point is the same.
    No, that's not what it said. It said that right wing extremism may include individuals and groups who are dedicated to single issues such as abortion and immigration. Essentially it means that there may be extremist single issue groups out there. It doesn't mean that all single issue groups are extremist or that all people who support single issue groups are extremist. I seriously don't know how you could interpret it that way.

  6. #46
    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 Felicity View Post
    The question should be WHY are they being so broad and general if they do not intend to apply the definition broadly and generally?
    I think they are being cautious. I don't think it's a right wing witch hunt. The moment I see legitimate evidence of such I will condemn their actions. However, what I've seen mostly so far is extreme paranoia.

    Why do you not think so? Is it just a "feeling" or do you have a specific reason to not think they would use the definition broadly if it suited a political purpose?
    I don't think so because I'm not prone to wild government conspiracy theories. It seems very far-fetched and absurd to me. Like I said, the moment I see legitimate evidence of it I'll be right there with you ready to condemn it.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    No, that's not what it said. It said that right wing extremism may include individuals and groups who are dedicated to single issues such as abortion and immigration. Essentially it means that there may be extremist single issue groups out there. It doesn't mean that all single issue groups are extremist or that all people who support single issue groups are extremist. I seriously don't know how you could interpret it that way.
    Where do I say all actually ARE considered? It is such a broad definition, however that all COULD be considered such, and Napolitano didn't back away from the criticism.

    I, however, am more appalled by the way returning vets are characterized. That is just...well, appalling disrespect.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    I think they are being cautious. I don't think it's a right wing witch hunt. The moment I see legitimate evidence of such I will condemn their actions. However, what I've seen mostly so far is extreme paranoia.



    I don't think so because I'm not prone to wild government conspiracy theories. It seems very far-fetched and absurd to me. Like I said, the moment I see legitimate evidence of it I'll be right there with you ready to condemn it.
    Okay--I'll remember that

  9. #49
    Student 7thKeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    07-23-11 @ 01:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    158

    Re: Federal agency warns of radicals on right

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    Link? I'd like to see it.
    I'll try to find it for ya. I saw it talked about at militaryphotos.net in a thread about this same report.

    Ah, think I found it. Just needed to google "report left-wing extremists". Here's two links to the same pdf-file.

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp...nuary-2009.pdf

    http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...ist_Threat.pdf

    I'll have to read the two side-by-side and see how the language differs.
    ...we honor leaders for what they achieve, but we often prefer to close our eyes to the way they achieve it...

    In the real world, politics is compromise and democracy is politics. Anyone who would be a statesman has to be a successful politician first. Also, a leader has to deal with people and nations as they are, not as they should be. As a result, the qualities required for leadership are not necessary those that we would want our children to emulate - unless we wanted them to be leaders.

  10. #50
    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 Felicity View Post
    Where do I say all actually ARE considered? It is such a broad definition, however that all COULD be considered such, and Napolitano didn't back away from the criticism.
    Earlier you said that the NRL fits the definition of an extremist group. However, the report doesn't define single issue groups as extremist.

    I, however, am more appalled by the way returning vets are characterized. That is just...well, appalling disrespect.
    How is it disrespectful? They aren't even characterized. It says that some right wing groups may target them because of their skills and experience. And are you seriously going to suggest that troops are somehow not susceptible to the same things that all of us are?

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •