• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DHS report: right wing = scum

Funny, because Left Wing extremists are often in bed with Right wing ones, almost to the point of being indistinguishable from one another.

888649e4c6398b7a6.jpg

888647547a1b2f3be.jpg
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, let's look at one of those paragraphs:

"The report, however, describes "extremists" more narrowly as those "that are primarily hate-oriented" and those that "reject federal authority," not those who simply oppose abortion or immigration."

Well, not quite. This is what the report says:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Note what got cut off: rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority. And just in case, they add that last sentence which implicates lots of conservatives and has no intrinsic connection to either hate or anti-government sentiments. 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? Doesn't that at least suggest that membership in such groups could qualify one as being extremist? Do you not see why this sort of characterization might upset anti-abortion or anti-illegal immigration groups? 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.

This report is crap. And liberals shouldn't be happy about it either, because whether or not you're upset about possible unfair labeling of conservatives as extremists, it should be clear that it's just shoddy work, and of little use in identifying actual extremists. The excuses for it amount to noting that common sense will prevent mislabeling of people as extremists who at least superficially meet criteria outlined in the report. But that's sort of the point: you're better off relying only on common sense and just ignoring the report altogether. The report is useless. 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.
Click to expand...
Your ability to misread the report and misunderstand its purpose doesn't actually change its meaning or its purpose. Nor does your ability to read it in a stupid way make it stupid.
 
Ziggurat,

:Note what got cut off: rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority. And just in case, they add that last sentence which implicates lots of conservatives and has no intrinsic connection to either hate or anti-government sentiments.
Click to expand...

That's true

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?
Click to expand...

Because the government now plans to go after them too?

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

It is possible.

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

That is actually a very good point...


INRM
 
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.
 
theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sort of broad, but: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
 
Brainster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why, thank you.
 
Upchurch said:
Sort of broad, but: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Click to expand...

Just because I'm in one of those moods; guess who said it:

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
 
Dr Adequate said:
Your ability to misread the report and misunderstand its purpose doesn't actually change its meaning or its purpose. Nor does your ability to read it in a stupid way make it stupid.
Click to expand...

What a remarkably thoughtful, well-reasoned, and detailed response you've just provided. You've enlightened us all, and shown me the error of my ways.
 
Upchurch said:
Sort of broad, but: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Click to expand...
That was more of a "If you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", by my interpretation.
But wasn't part of that original article retracted/clarified when Missouri folks got a bit upset a week or so ago?
However, I guess I should proudly wear the title of "scum", since I would probably fit the mold profile.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Why, thank you.
Click to expand...

Yep, you qualify (although Bush would have had a hard time taking away your rights).

I do think the language is overly broad, but it only really matters if people think Obama's going to open up the FEMA concentration camps to people engaging in legitimate forms of protest. Personally I find the likelihood of this happening vanishingly small.
 
leftysergeant said:
When we start locking and loading on them like they have on us for the last few years, thenthe anchor baby will have something to snivel about.

Fact of the matter is that the biggest and deadliest domestic terrorist attacks of my life time have been by the sorts of people whom DHS is now watching.
Click to expand...

Care to expound on this? What exactly are you talking about?
 
Ziggurat said:
What a remarkably thoughtful, well-reasoned, and detailed response you've just provided. You've enlightened us all, and shown me the error of my ways.
Click to expand...
Nor does your sarcasm make me wrong.

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

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.

If you wished to make out that the zoologist was an idiot, then you might misinterpret him as meaning one or both of these things; but this would in fact reflect rather more poorly on your intelligence than on that of the zoologist.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Nor does your sarcasm make me wrong.

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

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.

If you wished to make out that the zoologist was an idiot, then you might misinterpret him as meaning one or both of these things; but this would in fact reflect rather more poorly on your intelligence than on that of the zoologist.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is incomplete. You have to add, "These may include animals with teeth."
 
Drysdale said:
Care to expound on this? What exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I think he means to imply that Timmy McVeigh was not a "leftist progressive liberal", or whatever they´re being called these days.
 
Pardalis said:
You're being unkind to manatees, whales and anteaters.
Click to expand...

That was the point.

As written it's obvious that:

Not all mammals have teeth. Not all animals with teeth are mammals.

Just as it was obvious in the report that:

Not all single-issue anti-immigration/anti-abortion groups are extremists and not all extremists are single-issue anti-immigration/anti-abortion groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom