DHS report: right wing = scum

[brodski]

Now wouldn't being anti-immigration AND anti-abortion put you in a double-issue group?

unless you demand that pregnant women wishing to enter the USA need two visas, one for them one for their unborn child.

 

[dudalb]

It is amazing how some people think that political extremism only exists on the OTHER end of the political spectrum.
I hope the FBI is keeping an eye on extreme right wing groups which have the potential for violence, just as I hope they are continuing to keep an eye on extreme left wing groups which might see themselves as the SLA reborn.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

It is amazing how some people think that political extremism only exists on the OTHER end of the political spectrum.

I ceased to be amazed by it years ago, mostly because I find it distressingly common.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It is amazing how some people think that political extremism only exists on the OTHER end of the political spectrum.
I hope the FBI is keeping an eye on extreme right wing groups which have the potential for violence, just as I hope they are continuing to keep an eye on extreme left wing groups which might see themselves as the SLA reborn.

A general observation about the sorry state of the world in general, or are you trying to connect it to the thread somehow?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nor does your sarcasm make me wrong.

I never said I did. But you provided no actual argument to indicate why you were right, which was my point.

However, perhaps I should point out to you exactly where your error lies.

That's what I normally expect in a debate: an actual argument. You didn't provide one in your initial response.

If a zoologist writes: "Mammals can be broadly divided into carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores", then he is not defining mammals as the set of all carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores; nor is he suggesting that these are useful criteria for identifying mammals.

I don't think this is equivalent. A zoologist would provide a definition for mammals (or at least implicitly rely upon a well-established, accepted, and objective definition given elsewhere), so any subsequent categorization would rather obviously not substitute for that definition. But we've got NO definition of "rightwing extremist" in this report, and there is no well-established and objective definition of that category. ALL we have is this categorization, and without a separate definition, categorizations may be used as proxies for a definition, whether or not they should be. Again: I understand that categorization is not the same as definition. I already made that plain in my initial post.

 

[Peephole]

Glenn Greenwald has a nice column on it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/14/surveillance/index.html

 

[332nd]

Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of the Bush administration classifying anyone as a "terrorist" based on their disagreement with the administrations' policies?

Not off the top of my head and I apologize for not making my point clear.

I was referring to a few years ago when the crazier conservatives on the net (and some talk radio, blogs, etc) insisted that speaking against the president in a time of war was akin to treason. Also, the crazier liberals on the web (and some talk radio, blogs, yadda yadda) insisted that nearly every move Bush made was stripping them of rights and/or shredding the constitution.

 

[drkitten]

But we've got NO definition of "rightwing extremist" in this report, and there is no well-established and objective definition of that category.

You know, I would think that the term "rightwing extremist" would be pretty self-defining.

I suggest the definition "an extremist who is rightwing."

Or are you complaining because a political definition -- a definition in an area where nothing is objective --- is not "objective" enough for you?

 

[Gangularis]

All liberals who did not shriek, "According to Bush, I'm a terrorist!" can now chuckle. All liberals who did not moan that the Patriot Act had taken away their rights deserve a round of applause. All liberals who did not say that Bush had shredded the constitution are more rational than the conservatives moaning about this document.

Actually, I did all of those things, and to see the tables now turned, I find this rather amusing. Maybe that's not very ideological of me, but still...

*snickers*

You guys haven't had to face rubber bullets, or macings yet. Hopefully they'll break you in, nice and easy.

 

[Drysdale]

I think he means to imply that Timmy McVeigh was not a "leftist progressive liberal", or whatever they´re being called these days.

Eh, McVeigh was pretty much a loner loser who happened to claim to be libertarian than a libertarian killing in the name of libertarism was'nt he?

I mean you can find idiots from all ends of the political spectrum.
The Weathermen were far left were they not?

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, I would think that the term "rightwing extremist" would be pretty self-defining.

It's not. You may be very comfortable with your own personal definition of the term, but I guarantee you won't find universal agreement.

I suggest the definition "an extremist who is rightwing."

Which just turns it into a question of what's an extremist and what is rightwing?

Or are you complaining because a political definition -- a definition in an area where nothing is objective --- is not "objective" enough for you?

No: I'm complaining because the DHS report is useless pap.

 

[drkitten]

It's not. You may be very comfortable with your own personal definition of the term, but I guarantee you won't find universal agreement.

No. There will always be idiots who disagree with me.

Oh, wait. Did I just violate forum rules?

Which just turns it into a question of what's an extremist and what is rightwing?

Which, as far as I can tell, was not in the remit of the report.

No: I'm complaining because the DHS report is useless pap.

No, you're complaining because the tables are now turned and the fascist powers that you have been systematically defending in Bush's hands now have the potential of being used against you.

I wouldn't worry about it. There are real people who have suffered real abuses from Bush's fascist presidency. I doubt you'll suffer anything more than an opportunity to learn from your mistakes.

 

[applecorped]

No, you're complaining because the tables are now turned and the fascist powers that you have been systematically defending in Bush's hands now have the potential of being used against you.

Thanks. I needed a laugh.

 

[applecorped]

I guess you must be one of that vanishingly rare breed of conservatives who are not "rightwing domestic terrorists".

Why not, by the way? Do you have liberal tendencies, or do you just not know how? If it's the latter, I'm sure kallsop will be able to tell you how to make a pipe bomb.

Pffft. I already know how to make a bomb. I learned it watching a documentary on the Weather Underground. Unfortunately, I blew off my left thumb. Thankfully I'm a righty.

 

[dudalb]

A general observation about the sorry state of the world in general, or are you trying to connect it to the thread somehow?

I am connecting to how people in this thread on both sides of the poltiical spectrum seem to be opposed to investigating extremist on THEIR end of the political spectrum, but cheer when invesitgating is done on the OTHER end.
Clear?

 

[jj]

Once again, we see a deliberate, intentional over-generalization of something so obvious as to be completely unsurprising, with the overall goal of encouraging a civil war.

It's just more of the radical right's WIN AT ALL COSTS strategy, never mind what they will win, if they succeed, is an empty shell much like the one the Bush and Clinton Admini$trations left.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think this is equivalent. A zoologist would provide a definition for mammals (or at least implicitly rely upon a well-established, accepted, and objective definition given elsewhere), so any subsequent categorization would rather obviously not substitute for that definition.

I think there is a well-established definition of the word "extremist". If it was qualified with the adjective: "Islamic", would you think they were talking about someone who prayed six times a day?

But we've got NO definition of "rightwing extremist" in this report, and there is no well-established and objective definition of that category.

And yet you do know what they're talking about ... don't you?

Even if you profess ignorance of the meaning of the word "extremist", their references to terror cells, pipe bombs, and Timothy McVeigh ought to give you some sort of clue.

ALL we have is this categorization, and without a separate definition, categorizations may be used as proxies for a definition, whether or not they should be.

You can lie about the meaning of anything, whether or not you should. But you shouldn't.

Again: I understand that categorization is not the same as definition. I already made that plain in my initial post.

Then will you join me in hoots of derisive laughter at anyone stupid, paranoid, or dishonest enough to misrepresent this document as a general condemnation of conservatives?

---

Honestly, this is so dumb. Whenever possible, wingnuts will twist and distort anything anyone says so that it it has an imaginary meaning that reflects badly on the left, announce that their gibberish is what it really means, and use it to smear the left. Well, that's par for the course. But this goes beyond that: they're taking a statement and distorting it so that it it has an imaginary meaning that reflects badly on the right --- and then complaining that they are being smeared.

Well, dammit, in that case they're smearing themselves. No-one else is spinning this to mean that all conservatives are potential terrorists. Just them.

 

[Brainster]

Glenn Greenwald has a nice column on it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/14/surveillance/index.html

Hilariously, Greenwald seems to think that the government is going to start spying on ordinary right-wingers:

When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity.

So he's actually endorsing the fears while mocking the fear-mongers. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise to me that Greenwald is a crackpot; that sock puppet bit should have made it obvious.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I am connecting to how people in this thread on both sides of the poltiical spectrum seem to be opposed to investigating extremist on THEIR end of the political spectrum, but cheer when invesitgating is done on the OTHER end.
Clear?

So no direct connection then?

 

[Pardalis]

No, you're complaining because the tables are now turned and the fascist powers that you have been systematically defending in Bush's hands now have the potential of being used against you.

So it's fascism no matter who's in power?