FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 08:02 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

It didn't indicate an individual dedicated to a single issue is a potential extremist. It would have bothered me if it did.

Neither did the RW report. It said that some extremists are dedicated to a single issue, not that people dedicated to a single issue are extremists. That's the third time now I've pointed that out.

Quote:
Quote:

But I think it's you and others who take offense who are doing the lumping. The report is just categorizing extremists. Folks who are upset about this report have reversed the logic in order to take offense -- because some extremists may be dedicated to a single issue, that must mean the government thinks those who are dedicated to a single issue are extremists. It's illogical.


Then you would agree that any liberal who believes in animal rights is a potential extremist? Logically, this should be your conclusion, based on your view of the DHS reports. Don't forget about those who support the green movement; obviously, by your reckoning, DHS should be notifying local law enforcement about these potential extremists, also.


I'm having trouble seeing how you conclude that the above should be my logical conclusion. If anything, it's your reasoning about that ridiculous footnote that would lead you to such a conclusion. It ignores simple logic -- A is the set of extremists, B is the set of people dedicated to a single issues and C is the intersection of B and A as mentioned in the footnote. A contains C and B contains C but B is not equal to A.

Quote:

According to the report, "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as______.

The thing is, fill in the blank. Either a liberal cause or conservative cause will do.

Do you feel comfortable with a federal law enforcement agency making such a statement? I don't, regardless if it is a cause from either side. I'm surprised you, professing individual and human rights, are ok with this.

Yes, I do. It's true in either the "liberal" or "conservative" case. Extremists often do latch onto a single issue, so what. How does acknowledging this fact violate anyone's human rights?

Quote:

Where does infiltration start and end? Is having an informant in PETA, for example, infiltration? Video taping those marching against the Iraq War is OK?

What actions of federal law enforcement tend to disturb you?

Spying and eavesdropping without a warrant tends to disturb me, especially if done for political purposes. Preventing protesters from actually protesting by cordoning them off in "free speech" zones miles away from where anyone can see or hear them. Politically motivated prosecutions. Those things bother me. You be sure to let me know when any of this happens to people whom you consider targeted by this report and I'll stick up for you.

Quote:
Notifying local law enforcement that any individual who is dedicated to a single issue is a potential extremist seems to be ok in your view.

Except that that's not what this report does and if you're honest you will admit that.

A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 10:58 pm
@parados,
Quote:

An apology doesn't mean anyone admits they were wrong.


Ultimately, some people took the report the wrong way. They were apologized to. Why? Because it is a political expedient thing to do. You don't tell voters they are being stupid and over reacting.



Dang, you are even more cynical of government than I am. I'm impressed.

And I agree the Obama admin feels this way about voters; it reaffirms my belief they are no different from the other stinking, lying politicians we've had there in the past.

And just to clarify, the Bush admin authorized the report. The Obama admin completed it...
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 11:10 pm
If I get the gist of this thread, either Conservatives are the ultimate evil or the Liberals are the ultimate evil. After reflection I can only assume there are many angry people popping off, I really hope that the folks I have been reading are not grossly stupid and unable to engage in critical thinking. After all folks, just because you are unhappy does not mean you have to make a Rush Limbaugh out of yourselves.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 11:33 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:

I'm having trouble seeing how you conclude that the above should be my logical conclusion. If anything, it's your reasoning about that ridiculous footnote that would lead you to such a conclusion. It ignores simple logic -- A is the set of extremists, B is the set of people dedicated to a single issues and C is the intersection of B and A as mentioned in the footnote. A contains C and B contains C but B is not equal to A.



Interesting that Janet Napolitano regretted the footnote, as reported in the media. She actually went against the recommendations of civil right officials in DHS in releasing the report as it was written.

Why do you believe those officials recommended this?

And thanks for describing a Venn Diagram; it makes my point even better, in that DHS is taking a group of individuals and labeling them. Civil rights officials notwithstanding.

Quote:

Spying and eavesdropping without a warrant tends to disturb me, especially if done for political purposes. Preventing protesters from actually protesting by cordoning them off in "free speech" zones miles away from where anyone can see or hear them. Politically motivated prosecutions. Those things bother me. You be sure to let me know when any of this happens to people whom you consider targeted by this report and I'll stick up for you.



And what is the first step that is taken when the government targets a group of individuals for their beliefs? Usually, it is a government law enforcement report detailing the danger those individuals present to the government.

Think of all the FBI files that have been discovered about individuals who have had 'extremist beliefs' for issues such as civil rights, etc.


Quote:

Yes, I do. It's true in either the "liberal" or "conservative" case. Extremists often do latch onto a single issue, so what. How does acknowledging this fact violate anyone's human rights?


And much more often than not, individuals who support single issues do not become extremists. Maybe this is why those civil rights officials in DHS cautioned Napolitano to not release the report?

Guess they thought it might have been an issue to target people solely for their beliefs.

You do know the purpose for DHS reports of this nature? When the local beat cop receives one of these reports, it is with the idea that DHS is advising them of homeland security issues.

And again, when DHS states individuals that are dedicated to a single issue such as abortion or opposing immigration may be extremists, it is taken with the idea that DHS does not release info lightly. It sets a tone, and cautions our local beat cop that maybe that guy with the bumper sticker is a danger.

Maybe that's what those civil rights officials were worried about?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 09:03 am
@A Lone Voice,
I would call it realism. Not cynicism. There will always be idiots that scream about what the politicians do. Then there will be the gullible that are swayed by the idiots and repeat the arguments by those idiots. The gullible make up a large percentage of the voting population. By apologizing, the gullible are appeased and the argument by the idiots is undercut.

It is a political expedient thing to do because it reveals to the gullible that those complaining are idiots.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 09:11 am
@A Lone Voice,
By the way a Republican controlled Congress asked for this report April 19, 2005 and attacked the DHS for NOT including the things you are now complaining about.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/050419_hsc_senate_report_rightwing1.pdf
Quote:
Representative Bennie G. Thompson
Ranking Member
House Committee on Homeland Security

Quote:
Given the FBI’s designation of right-wing
groups as “the most serious domestic threat,” it is surprising that, according to the article,
DHS’ planning document did not name right-wing domestic terrorists or terrorist groups as
a potential threat.

Quote:
Other terrorism experts still consider right-wing terrorists as serious threats, and
were surprised that DHS did not. “They are still a threat, and they will continue to be a
threat,” said Mike German, a 16-year undercover agent for the FBI who spent most of his
career infiltrating radical right-wing groups. “If for some reason the government no longer
considers them a threat, I think they will regret that,” said German, who left the FBI last
year.

Quote:
Recommendations
There are many opportunities for DHS to revise its approach and think as creatively
as some right-wing terrorists may.
DHS must reassess the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorists and revise its long-term
planning to address this risk.
First and foremost, DHS must return to its overall statutory mandate to determine
“the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland” by including in its long-term
planning a genuine consideration of the risks posed by right-wing domestic terrorists.


Now it seems when the DHS does what the Republicans in Congress told it to do, the idiot chorus starts up. But the funny thing about that idiot chorus, they only sing one note.
A Lone Voice
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 11:26 am
@parados,
Quote:

I would call it realism. Not cynicism. There will always be idiots that scream about what the politicians do. Then there will be the gullible that are swayed by the idiots and repeat the arguments by those idiots. The gullible make up a large percentage of the voting population. By apologizing, the gullible are appeased and the argument by the idiots is undercut.



Yeah, I agree. How else would someone like Obama get elected?
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 11:36 am
@parados,
Quote:

Now it seems when the DHS does what the Republicans in Congress told it to do, the idiot chorus starts up. But the funny thing about that idiot chorus, they only sing one note.


Who completed the report? Why do you believe DHS civil rights officials recommended the report not be released?

Bush started the deficit, too. Obama and the dem congress have quadrupled it since.

So what if Bush and a repub congress ordered the report? Glad to see they were on the ball. What's important is how it was finished/completed by the Obama admin.

Actually, I believe Drew Dad is probably accurate here in his dismissing the report:

Quote:

Oh, my. You mean people actually suck up to their bosses?


Either sucking up to their new bosses on the left, or just a biased, political individual writing as they see it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 05:29 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Boy, it sure is too bad that the FBI didn't check up on those people with right wing extremist views.

But I think based on the shooting of Tiller, we see why they SHOULD be keeping an eye on RW extremists.

Scott Roeder posted threats online at antiabortion sites against Tiller and was arrested in the 90s with bomb making materials when he was a tax protestor. It is too bad that LV and others don't realize that the threats come from the crazies on the right as well as the left.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 05:39 pm
@parados,
i wonder if they'll waterboard him to find out if worked alone
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 05:53 pm
@djjd62,
Waterboarding Americans is clearly torture. Waterboarding brown heathen foreigners, however, is just common sense.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 05:55 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Been away. Glad to be back.

I looked around, was surprised I couldn't find a thread on the Department of Homeland Security report on right wing extremists...

If I missed it, my apologies. But wow...

Heard any comparisons to the Nazi Party in 1933 Germany and the Democrat Party in 2009 America?

Not lately, but then, as you noted, you've been away for a while.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 03:56:56