Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Felicity said:
No--there is no significant difference. Homeland Security is defining who may be home grown terrorists. If you MAY be one, they are looking at you. NRL MAY be one based on the way HS is defining the parameters.

Just because they said that single issue groups may be extremist doesn't meant that they are going to be watched. Nothing in the report implies that they are going to be watching all single issue groups. That's absurd. This still sounds like nothing but paranoia.

Sure they are susceptible--do they need to be targeted as suspicious because they are just like the rest of us, but have military training?

Again, I fail to see how they are being targeted as suspicious. The article only said that they are being targeted by these groups. Once again, heavy on the paranoia.

winston53660 · Apr 17, 2009

Does anybody remember when Quakers were targeted ?

Felicity · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
Just because they said that single issue groups may be extremist doesn't meant that they are going to be watched.

It doesn't mean they won't either. It paves the way for justifying unwarranted intrusion upon our freedoms and puts a chill on the free exercise of our 1st amendment rights for fear it may label us as "extremist."

Nothing in the report implies that they are going to be watching all single issue groups. That's absurd. This still sounds like nothing but paranoia.

It is too vague. It is paranoia--in the tradition of the founders.
Thomas Jefferson:
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.

John Adams:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Samuel Adams:
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

Again, I fail to see how they are being targeted as suspicious. The article only said that they are being targeted by these groups. Once again, heavy on the paranoia.

I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW YOU DON'T SEE THAT IT POINTS OUT AND NAMES VETERANS AS POTENTIAL (sorry 'bout caps, just noticed) terrorists. That is indeed what the document presents.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Felicity said:
It doesn't mean they won't either. It paves the way for justifying unwarranted intrusion upon our freedoms and puts a chill on the free exercise of our 1st amendment rights for fear it may label us as "extremist."

But you have no reason to believe that they will other than your own paranoia. I don't trust the government, but I think it's absurd that they would actually go after these groups when there is absolutely no indication that they would.

I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW YOU DON'T SEE THAT IT POINTS OUT AND NAMES VETERANS AS POTENTIAL (sorry 'bout caps, just noticed) terrorists. That is indeed what the document presents.

It points them out as potential recruitment targets for these extremist groups. That's it. Do you disagree that these extremist groups would be on the lookout for veterans to recruit considering their skills and experience?

BulletWounD · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
But you have no reason to believe that they will other than your own paranoia. I don't trust the government, but I think it's absurd that they would actually go after these groups when there is absolutely no indication that they would.

It points them out as potential recruitment targets for these extremist groups. That's it. Do you disagree that these extremist groups would be on the lookout for veterans to recruit considering their skills and experience?

Listen, the DHS is essentially a domestic intelligence organization. It's growing into the "eyes and ears" of the government. It is constitutionally and morally illegitimate. We need to get rid of it before it's too late.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

BulletWounD said:
Listen, the DHS is essentially a domestic intelligence organization. It's growing into the "eyes and ears" of the government. It is constitutionally and morally illegitimate. We need to get rid of it before it's too late.

Maybe so, but that doesn't detract from my point that the report that was given in the OP doesn't say the things that many people are asserting that it does.

What I find particularly ironic and hilarious is that a lot of people on the right seemed to have no problem with the DHS when Bush was President.

BulletWounD · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
Maybe so, but that doesn't detract from my point that the report that was given in the OP doesn't say the things that many people are asserting that it does.

What I find particularly ironic and hilarious is that a lot of people on the right seemed to have no problem with the DHS when Bush was President.

At least one law suit has been launched to discover the source data of these seemingly baseless claims.

Felicity · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
But you have no reason to believe that they will other than your own paranoia. I don't trust the government, but I think it's absurd that they would actually go after these groups when there is absolutely no indication that they would.

It points them out as potential recruitment targets for these extremist groups. That's it. Do you disagree that these extremist groups would be on the lookout for veterans to recruit considering their skills and experience?

The indication is the report itself! Why write it unless there is a purpose for including such broad, general statements?

And as for the Veterans--it ALSO suggests they could be "Lone Wolf" types. It's not just to watch for recruitment--it is suspicion.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 17, 2009

Felicity said:
It doesn't mean they won't either. It paves the way for justifying unwarranted intrusion upon our freedoms and puts a chill on the free exercise of our 1st amendment rights for fear it may label us as "extremist."

It is too vague. It is paranoia--in the tradition of the founders.
Thomas Jefferson:
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.

John Adams:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Samuel Adams:
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW YOU DON'T SEE THAT IT POINTS OUT AND NAMES VETERANS AS POTENTIAL (sorry 'bout caps, just noticed) terrorists. That is indeed what the document presents.

hey you! stop quoting those extremists!

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Felicity said:
The indication is the report itself! Why write it unless there is a purpose for including such broad, general statements?

Reports like that always contain broad statements.

And as for the Veterans--it ALSO suggests they could be "Lone Wolf" types.

And they very well could be. Veterans come from all walks of life and have varied personalities just like normal people do.

It's not just to watch for recruitment--it is suspicion.

Prove it then. Show me the specific statement in the report that says Veterans are under suspicion.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
Reports like that always contain broad statements.

Blacks may become disgruntled and riot.

And they very well could be. Veterans come from all walks of life and have varied personalities just like normal people do.

Each recruit goes through a psych exam and to have the dicipline to last 4 years in a structured society, tends to weed out the nuts. so you not completley accurate here.

Prove it then. Show me the specific statement in the report that says Veterans are under suspicion.

When I see a black man come into my shop, I get nervous, cause you know blacks potentially might rob me.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Blacks may become disgruntled and riot.

What is your point? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If this were discussing a racial issue I could certainly see how that would be a valid statement.

Each recruit goes through a psych exam and to have the dicipline to last 4 years in a structured society, tends to weed out the nuts. so you not completley accurate here.

My point is that they are human beings too and capable of the same things that normal people are.

When I see a black man come into my shop, I get nervous, cause you know blacks potentially might rob me.

Which addresses my point how? Race has absolutely zero to do with this. Please try to stay on topic.

Felicity · Apr 17, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Blacks may become disgruntled and riot.

Each recruit goes through a psych exam and to have the dicipline to last 4 years in a structured society, tends to weed out the nuts. so you not completley accurate here.

When I see a black man come into my shop, I get nervous, cause you know blacks potentially might rob me.

The subtlety of your irony may be lost on some.

GottaHurt · Apr 17, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
hey you! stop quoting those extremists!

I'm going to vote for Samuel Adams Extremist Lager.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
What is your point? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If this were discussing a racial issue I could certainly see how that would be a valid statement.

You don't see that pointing out a group, stereotyping is related? Seriously?

My point is that they are human beings too and capable of the same things that normal people are.

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.

Which addresses my point how? Race has absolutely zero to do with this. Please try to stay on topic.

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

Wanna do the jews next? :lol:

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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? :lol:

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.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
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. :lol:

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. :2wave:

Again, you got nothing, napolitano apologized.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Really. So then why did they apologize?

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

Probably because people made a big deal out if it when there was nothing to make a big deal out of. :roll:

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

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. :lol:

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. :2wave:

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.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
Probably because people made a big deal out if it when there was nothing to make a big deal out of. :roll:

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! :lol:

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. :lol:

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

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.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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! :lol:

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. :lol:

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. :2wave:

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.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 17, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
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. :2wave:

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

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.

Dr_Patrick · Apr 17, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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. :lol:

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? :lol:

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.

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

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 18, 2009

dclxvinoise said:
Are you kidding? The entire premise of this thread is hyper-partisan. :lol:

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".

:lol: 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? :rofl

don'ttreadonme · Apr 18, 2009

Felicity said:
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?

Dr_Patrick · Apr 18, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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? :rofl

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. :lol:

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Androgyne

Androgyne

Well-known member

Androgyne

Well-known member

I don't respect you.

Androgyne

I don't respect you.

Androgyne

Sexual Deviant

I don't respect you.

Androgyne

I don't respect you.

Androgyne

I don't respect you.

Androgyne

I don't respect you.

Androgyne

I don't respect you.

Active member

Androgyne