DHS report: right wing = scum

[Euromutt]

Yes, yes, it only may include those groups, but if membership in anti-abortion or anti-illegal immigrant groups isn't what defines one as extremist, why was that sentence even included?

Does the name "Eric Rudolph" ring a bell? How about Pat Buchanan's assertion on MSNBC's Morning Joe on April 10th, regarding Obama's proposals for immigration reform, that "they will face a bloodbath if he tries try to legalize 12 million illegal aliens when the unemployment rate is rising"?

Doesn't that at least suggest that membership in such groups could qualify one as being extremist?

No. If the DHS says "these are issues that might motivate certain people to engage in violence for political purposes," which is what they are doing here, it does not necessarily follow that everyone who is politically active with regard to these issues will engage in violence.

Do you not see why this sort of characterization might upset anti-abortion or anti-illegal immigration groups?

Maybe they ought to try cleaning their own house. I found it quite remarkable how a lot of people who were willing to label Sulejman Talovic (the Trolley Square Mall shooter) as a "muslim terrorist" conspicuously failed to apply the label "Protestant terrorist" to Derik "If you’re not Christian, you’re going to die" Bonestroo.

If such groups are upset that violent extremists are associated with them, they need to do more to disassociate themselves from such violent criminals.

Hell, under this definition, it could be argued that the framers of the constitution were rightwing extremists: they definitely rejected federal authority in favor of state authority on a whole lot of issues.

The intellectual sloppiness of the report doesn't help "secure" the homeland at all, but is just a waste product of a clearly inefficient bureaucracy. Someone working at DHS is earning a salary for doing nothing of any use.

I hope you've been saying this about the DHS since 2002, because that's pretty much been true of much of the DHS's work since its inception.

 

[Pardalis]

Hell, under this definition, it could be argued that the framers of the constitution were rightwing extremists: they definitely rejected federal authority in favor of state authority on a whole lot of issues.

Is that why most of them became presidents?

 

[theprestige]

For the record, as a conservative "right-winger", I'm pretty sure Obama's DHS isn't going to be investigating me anytime soon, just like I'm pretty sure Bush's DHS never investigated my counterparts on the left (if it had, DemocraticUnderground would've been shut down years ago).

The way I see it, Obama's DHS is welcome to investigate any suspected terrorist group it wants to, on the "right" or the "left"... So long as actual terrorist acts are being prevented, and so long as terrorist attacks from one side or the other don't occur due to ideological blinders on the part of the Executive branch.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does the name "Eric Rudolph" ring a bell?

Did I ever claim that there were no extremists who were opposed to abortion? No, I did not.

How about Pat Buchanan's assertion

Pat Buchanan is a horse's ass.

Maybe they ought to try cleaning their own house.

Who is this "they" you speak of? It's quite easy to make sweeping accusations against a group when you never specify who that group is.

I found it quite remarkable how a lot of people who were willing to label Sulejman Talovic (the Trolley Square Mall shooter) as a "muslim terrorist" conspicuously failed to apply the label "Protestant terrorist" to Derik "If you’re not Christian, you’re going to die" Bonestroo.

I'm not in that group, so what's your point? That lots of people paint with too broad a brush, especially against groups they don't like? Yes, that's true. I never said otherwise. But unless you're trying to engage in tu quoque, this is irrelevant. And if you are, well, it's still a fallacy.

I hope you've been saying this about the DHS since 2002, because that's pretty much been true of much of the DHS's work since its inception.

I never claimed otherwise.

 

[drkitten]

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

Identical powers have identical potential for abuse. That shouldn't be surprising -- in fact, it was one of the arguments that many of the liberals and moderates were making while Bush was in power. The idea that Bush and the right-wing nutcases didn't have a permanent monopoly on power should have given people who ordinarily distrust the government pause for thought. (And yes, I consider the untrammelled power of the executive, and in particular its assertion that it is above the other branches of government, to be fascist.)

It demonstrably didn't.

As to whether Obama and Bush have identical likelihood for abuse of the powers,.... so far, I think Obama has a better track record (although not as good as I would like); I have yet, for example, to see mass arrests of demonstrators on Obama's watch or a claim that the federal courts don't have authority over the presidency.

 

[Pardalis]

I have yet, for example, to see mass arrests of demonstrators

As this happened under Bush?

What do you mean by "mass", at every demonstrations there are always arrests of Hooligans and troublemakers, no matter who's president, as far as I know.

or a claim that the federal courts don't have authority over the presidency.

Has Obama rescinded the Patriot Act yet?

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

This actually illustrates my point perfectly: there is NO consensus about what Islamic extremist means. Some people would include anyone who advocates adoption of Sharia law, for example. Others would only include those who commit or advocate violence. Still others would exclude those who advocate violence as part of a "resistance" movement (ie, excuse Palestinian terrorism against Israel but not terrorist attacks in the west). That I have definite opinions about what the word means does not mean that everyone else who sees it will agree with me.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Oh, please. This is simply pathetic. I have not defended "fascist powers", and I haven't claimed that any powers (fascist or otherwise) are being turned against me.

One of the primary skills in any debate is to be able to understand the position of your opponent. You have shown rather clearly that you don't have a clue about what my position is.

 

[varwoche]

I'm pretty sure Bush's DHS never investigated my counterparts on the left (if it had, DemocraticUnderground would've been shut down years ago).

Surveilance was placed on Quakers for protesting the war. Does that count?

 

[jj]

I have yet, for example, to see mass arrests of demonstrators on Obama's watch or a claim that the federal courts don't have authority over the presidency.

<sarcasm ON>
But, Dr. K, you don't understand. All those people were imprisoned in Seattle for 4 hours in the "free speech zone" for their own good, to protect them from the press. Ditto the people attempting to protest outside political rallys, etc.

 

[drkitten]

As this happened under Bush?

My understanding is that there were more than 200 arrests of demonstrators on August 31, 2004 at the Republican National Convention. On Sept 2, 2008, there were nearly 300 arrests of demonstrators, again at the Republican National Convention. On Sept 5, 2008, there were something like 400. (Among those 400 were nearly 20 journalists, many of whom had their equipment confiscated.)

Has Obama rescinded the Patriot Act yet?

He doesn't have that authority. Re-read your ConLaw text.

 

[Pardalis]

<sarcasm ON>
But, Dr. K, you don't understand. All those people were imprisoned in Seattle for 4 hours in the "free speech zone" for their own good, to protect them from the press. Ditto the people attempting to protest outside political rallys, etc.

You mean the 100 demonstrators arrested in 2000, or the 600 in 1999, both under Clinton?

 

[Pardalis]

My understanding is that there were more than 200 arrests of demonstrators on August 31, 2004 at the Republican National Convention. On Sept 2, 2008, there were nearly 300 arrests of demonstrators, again at the Republican National Convention. On Sept 5, 2008, there were something like 400. (Among those 400 were nearly 20 journalists, many of whom had their equipment confiscated.)

Maybe if left wing kooks could behave themselves and let the Republicans have their convention without stirring trouble.

As I showed, 600 people were arrested at one protest, on Clinton's watch.

He doesn't have that authority. Re-read your ConLaw text.

Can you provide a link?

 

[jj]

You mean the 100 demonstrators arrested in 2000, or the 600 in 1999, both under Clinton?

And who said Clinton was innocent?

Bush and Clinton were both supported by heavy intervention and "free speech zones".

 

[quixotecoyote]

You mean the 100 demonstrators arrested in 2000, or the 600 in 1999, both under Clinton?

The Battle in Seattle is not the best example to use of peaceful protesters being arrested/unjustly confined, given that there was a lot of violence from the protesters. I'm sure you can find Clinton-era examples of protesters being mistreated and marginalized, but that's a spectacularly bad example.

 

[drkitten]

Maybe if left wing kooks could behave themselves and let the Republicans have their convention without stirring trouble.

... then they'd still be arrested. The case law from the "Battle in Seattle" is quite clear on this, but Bush ignored it anyway.

As I showed, 600 people were arrested at one protest, on Clinton's watch.

Which would be relevant if,.... wait! No, there are no possible circumstances under which an event under Clinton would be relevant to a comparison between Bush and Obama.

Can you provide a link?

Certainly. The text of the US Constitution can be found right here.

 

[theprestige]

Surveilance was placed on Quakers for protesting the war. Does that count?

Yeah, sure, I guess... depending on what you mean by "surveillance" and "protesting".

So are you saying that the Obama DHS is going to place surveillance on me for reading The Corner and disagreeing with the administration's stimulus plan?

 

[Pardalis]

The Battle in Seattle is not the best example to use of peaceful protesters being arrested/unjustly confined, given that there was a lot of violence from the protesters. I'm sure you can find Clinton-era examples of protesters being mistreated and marginalized, but that's a spectacularly bad example.

There wasn't violence at the Republican conventions?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...can-Convention-protest-descends-violence.html

Some, hiding their faces with with black kerchiefs, smashed shop windows, overturned rubbish bins and vandalized police cars.
Others pushed a flaming dumpster into a car with police in it, officers and witnesses said.
The riot, in St Paul, Minnesota, happened a short distance from the XCel Convention Center where Republicans are holding their conference.
Police arrested around 250 of the protesters and some have been charged with offences ranging from trespassing to property damage and assault.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/rnc-protests.html

Road flares were thrown into garbage dumpsters, and then the fiery receptacles were pushed into position to to block traffic. Shop windows were busted. So were police car windows. Protesters threw rocks, bottles, even garbage at the thickening rows of police in riot gear.
[...]

One protester wrestled with 83-year-old Fred Biebel andstole his credentials. Another spit on Lila Healy, the mother of the state’s GOP party chairman, and hit her in the face
When former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, who used to work for the CIA, stepped in front to protect her from the crowd, a bottle full of water and bleach was thrown in his face.

Three people were charged Friday with second-degree assault after authorities identified them as participants among a group of protesters that threw a large metal road sign off the Marion Street bridge on Sept. 1, the first day of the Republican National Convention.

http://www.startribune.com/politics...:D3aDhUec7PaP3E7_0c:5D:aPc:iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr

 

[Pardalis]

Which would be relevant if,.... wait! No, there are no possible circumstances under which an event under Clinton would be relevant to a comparison between Bush and Obama.

OK, so you concede the point, thank you.

Certainly. The text of the US Constitution can be found right here.

OK, so you can't provide information to support your claim, thank you.

 

[quixotecoyote]

There wasn't violence at the Republican conventions?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...can-Convention-protest-descends-violence.html



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/rnc-protests.html




http://www.startribune.com/politics...:D3aDhUec7PaP3E7_0c:5D:aPc:iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr

Sorry, I thought you were trying to make a stronger argument.

If you were aiming for "they did it too", you nailed it.