Scary stuff on the right

[Max2147]

Am I the only one who's worried about the way the far right in the US has been acting lately?

I think this article sums up my fears about this pretty well: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?em

Mainstream conservatives need to follow McCain's lead and put a stop to this sort of stuff.

Shepard Smith's now-infamous comments about the people writing to Fox News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI

There are always going to be some nutjobs out there on both sides of the spectrum. But the marked increase in activity from the far-right and their calls for action, not just words, are downright frightening.

[CastleBravo]

Ya know I'd be very wroried about the right in the US if it weren't for the left also making asses of themselves.

[sunvalleyslim]

Bravo CastleBravo........enough nuts on both sides......:nope:

[Max2147]

Indeed, there are nuts on both sides. That's not what I'm afraid of.

As I said in my initial post, what worries me is the dramatic upswing in the nutjob activity on the right since the early part of the election. There's been a very clear change from a year or so ago, as Smith makes clear in his discussion of the Fox News emails.

[CastleBravo]

Bravo CastleBravo........enough nuts on both sides......:nope:

That was my point bud!

[mookiemookie]

You can thank the McCain/Palin campaign for their contributions to the national discourse. Whipping people up in a frenzy over threats, real or imagined, has consequences.

[AVGWarhawk]

There is always a sitting Democratic President when things like this happen. No abortion clinics have been bombed or abortion Dr shot while a Dem is in the White House. The Fed bldging Oklahoma City OK was bombed when Clinton was in. Really, this far right thing has been going on for a long time when a dem is in the White House. Only difference, it must be a slow news day to have the media start pointing it out or DHS saying 'see we were right'. Total nonsense. Again, nothing new going on here for the right while a Dem is in the White House. Welcome to the world of making up good news stories and putting a twist to it.

[CastleBravo]

You can thank the McCain/Palin campaign for their contributions to the national discourse. Whipping people up in a frenzy over threats, real or imagined, has consequences.

Or the Obama Biden campaign in doing the same thing. And continuing. Which politician is wrong?

[AVGWarhawk]

Or the Obama Biden campaign in doing the same thing. And continuing.

Tally ho! :yeah:

[mookiemookie]

Or the Obama Biden campaign in doing the same thing. And continuing.

"Palling around with terrorists" ring a bell? Come on now. :roll:

[CastleBravo]

Tally ho! :yeah:

It is time to remove the political class. And do the people's business.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is time to remove the political class. And do the people's business.

Oh hell, that is an understatement. You know what, were heard that with the Change mantra. Nothing has changed. :03: Scream, 'TERM LIMITS!'

[CastleBravo]

The tea parties show how upset the folks are with the political class in this country. I know many choise to criticize to forum. But many, including the Obama Administration saw it.

[LoBlo]

Currently, the far right holds the most bigoted sections of our population. So when presented with the image of an individual with a different ancestry than their own it fuels the core of their fears.

This didn't happen in the last 3 democratic presidents because Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lydon Johnson were all white southerners, which tends not to set off the *alarms* of most of the countries cores of bigotry. Obama is not a white southerner, so the fear, paranoia, and hate arises more vehemetly than in the previous 40 decades.

The increased rancor that Shepard Smith is seeing is at least partially related to this, IMHO.

[August]

Currently, the far right holds the most bigoted sections of our population.

You have any kind of proof at all to back up this outrageous statement?

[sunvalleyslim]

Right on August............Come on LoBlo.....I will agree to disagree, but show some facts for all us at periscope depth.......

[Max2147]

The tea parties show how upset the folks are with the political class in this country. I know many choise to criticize to forum. But many, including the Obama Administration saw it.
Tea parties and other peaceful events like those are fine. I don't agree with their ideas, some of the people who showed up were a bit nuts, and I sort of wonder where they were when Bush was turning our biggest ever surplus into a record deficit, but ultimately they make our political scene more vibrant and thus stronger.

What I'm worried about is what Smith and Rich were talking about - people believing that they have a responsibility to protect America by taking violent action against people and a President they see as a foreign outsider who's destroying their country.

[Max2147]

You have any kind of proof at all to back up this outrageous statement?
I don't think it's that outrageous. He's not saying that everybody on the right is bigoted, just that most of the bigoted people (at least those racist against non-whites) are on the right.

There are bigoted people on the left too, although they tend to be minorities bigoted against whites or other minorities. But I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people who find Obama offensive solely because of his race/ethnicity/name/background are on the right.

[SUBMAN1]

...But I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people who find Obama offensive solely because of his race/ethnicity/name/background are on the right.

I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement. Even our VP is racists and made racists comments about Obama prior to joining him! SOme of the strongest racists are demo's.

You are totally stereotyping.

-S

[Tchocky]

SOme of the strongest racists are demo's.

You are totally stereotyping.

-S

bwah

[nikimcbee]

not as scary as obama supporters:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

[LoBlo]

You have any kind of proof at all to back up this outrageous statement?

Common observation, life experience, and the professional opinion of the The United States Department of Homeland Security. http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

[OneToughHerring]

Ya know I'd be very wroried about the right in the US if it weren't for the left also making asses of themselves.

The ones on the left rarely resort to violence. Take for example the Bush-era. A time when the left could have resorted to violence and what was there? A couple of measly protests, that's all. I'd say the violent ones usually reside on the right, the Timothy McVeigh - types.

[SteamWake]

and part 2 of the plan comes to fruition.

Whats that part you ask?

It is to pit one side versus the other instead of working to a common goal.

[Max2147]

I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement. Even our VP is racists and made racists comments about Obama prior to joining him! SOme of the strongest racists are demo's.

You are totally stereotyping.

-S
Read my post again. I say right there that there are racists on the left. They exist, and man for man they're just as disgusting as the racists on the right.

However, the type of racist who would be offended by Obama solely because of his race/ethnicity/name/background is more likely to be on the right. There are some of them on the left too for sure, but numbers-wise they are more prevalent on the right.

That isn't to say that all those on the right or all those who dislike Obama are racist - I don't believe that. It's only a small minority of each. But they do exist, and to pretend that your side of the spectrum is completely clean is wrong and dangerous.

You can talk all you want about the radical left, but the fact remains that radical left activity has remained pretty constant since the small anti-globalization upswing in the late 90s. I don't think we've ever seen anything quite like the recent upswing in far right anger for a long time.

I'm also not saying that these people should have their rights or liberty taken away. In fact, I don't think it's up to liberals to stop these people, since they'll never listen to us. I think conservatives need to take a page out of McCain's book and do the honorable thing - grow some backbone, stand up to these dangerous idiots, and set them straight.

It's sort of like the problem we face with radical Islam. The US can't do much to convince radical Muslims to back down. The best way to deal with them is to get moderate Muslims to take a stand against the radicals. Similarly, we need sensible conservatives to stand up against the far right here in America.

[Max2147]

and part 2 of the plan comes to fruition.

Whats that part you ask?

It is to pit one side versus the other instead of working to a common goal.
I think that protecting our country from violent extremists should be a common goal, whether those extremists are foreign or domestic. As far as I can tell, the far right is the only type of extremism that had seen a huge upswing in the past year or so.

[mookiemookie]

Tea parties and other peaceful events like those are fine. I don't agree with their ideas, some of the people who showed up were a bit nuts, and I sort of wonder where they were when Bush was turning our biggest ever surplus into a record deficit, but ultimately they make our political scene more vibrant and thus stronger.

What I'm worried about is what Smith and Rich were talking about - people believing that they have a responsibility to protect America by taking violent action against people and a President they see as a foreign outsider who's destroying their country.

You only had to go to your local tea tantrum...er...party for evidence of racism from the right.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/racism.jpg
http://www.plunderbund.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/monkeyspend.jpg

http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/tea-party-acorn2.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/2j31uv5.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/75473/thumbs/s-RACIST-large.jpg

[SteamWake]

You only had to go to your local tea tantrum...er...party for evidence of racism from the right.


You do know that some of those were plants by ACORN right?

Not there arent nut jobs on both sides of the aisle but saying that only conservatives act in extreme manners is just wrong.

Greenpeace comes to mind.

[mookiemookie]

You do know that some of those were plants by ACORN right?

:roll: Sure. And all of my right wing friends who send me the same kind of garbage in emails are Acorn plants too, right?

[Max2147]

You do know that some of those were plants by ACORN right?

Not there arent nut jobs on both sides of the aisle but saying that only conservatives act in extreme manners is just wrong.

Greenpeace comes to mind.
IT'S ALL ACORN'S FAULT!

So if some skinhead takes a shot at Obama, will he be a plant by ACORN too?

[Max2147]

Another good column that basically says the same thing - conservatives need to stand up and put a stop to this cr*p: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=2

[SteamWake]

Sigh you guys just read to much into everything.

It was known early on in the planning stages of the 'tea partys' that acorn planned to have plants to make the participants look more like loony nut jobs instead of concearned citizens.

Im not saying there werent lunatics in the crowd of course there were. Hell there are lunatics in the crowd when you go to the mall.

[Frame57]

How is "What you talkin about Willis?" being racial? Let's not forget that BO is half white. Racism is present when one race deems itself superior to another and has nothing to do with referencing cultural or ancestral heritage. If someone said, "BO is only qualified to be president of the planet of the Apes." then that would be a racial slur indeed because they would be suggesting he would be an ape, which would be stupid and worthy only to be on a Klan T-shirt. :nope:

[SteamWake]

This post has just been nominated for the "Tinfoil Hat Award of the Year".

Just google "Acorn Tea Party" and read some of the hundreds of links.

Thats an awful lot of noise for some wacko conspiricy.

But thats okay Ill put on my tinfoil hat and cower under my desk.

[SteamWake]

Okay you know what your right and Im wrong.

There is no creedince in what I say.

Acorn is pure as the driven snow.

Have a nice day :salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

Acorn is pure as the driven snow.



Yes, just like those nice gentlemen from the Black Panthers blocking, I mean, assisting votes in Philadephia:D

Someone said it in this thread, both sides have there nuts. If you read my original post, this is not scary crap. This is the same crap that happens when a Democratic President is elected. Nothing new at all.

[AVGWarhawk]

Currently, the far right holds the most bigoted sections of our population. So when presented with the image of an individual with a different ancestry than their own it fuels the core of their fears.

This didn't happen in the last 3 democratic presidents because Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lydon Johnson were all white southerners, which tends not to set off the *alarms* of most of the countries cores of bigotry. Obama is not a white southerner, so the fear, paranoia, and hate arises more vehemetly than in the previous 40 decades.



What did not happen with the last three democratic presidents?

' Acts of violence against abortion clinics and their employees have been carried out across the United States throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years.
In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics. In 1993, there were 78 death threats aimed at clinic employees. And, in 1996, bombings, threats and harassment affected about one-third of U.S. abortion clinics.'

The OK City Fed Bldg was bombed during the Clinton Administration. This has nothing to do with Obama and being black. Nothing new here. The only difference is these media folks are now accessible by email such as Shepard Smith. So, of course it seems more than normal when it really has not changed at all over the years.

[Aramike]

Common observation, life experience, and the professional opinion of the The United States Department of Homeland Security. http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdfDid you read the document before you posted it? That's not proof, that's a HIGHLY contested opinion. Currently, the far right holds the most bigoted sections of our population. So when presented with the image of an individual with a different ancestry than their own it fuels the core of their fears.In order to prove this statement, you have to show that the far left holds a less bigotted segment of the population.

Frankly, through "common observation" and "life experience" I've always found the left to be THE most bigotted segment when related to matters OTHER than race.I don't think it's that outrageous. He's not saying that everybody on the right is bigoted, just that most of the bigoted people (at least those racist against non-whites) are on the right.

There are bigoted people on the left too, although they tend to be minorities bigoted against whites or other minorities. But I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people who find Obama offensive solely because of his race/ethnicity/name/background are on the right. I think you mischaracterized what he said. All he said was that the far right has the most bigotted section of the population. The qualifications you added are not present in that statement, which is why it is outrageous.
However, the type of racist who would be offended by Obama solely because of his race/ethnicity/name/background is more likely to be on the right. There are some of them on the left too for sure, but numbers-wise they are more prevalent on the right.I agree with this statement. But this isn't what the poster who outraged several of us wrote.

[Aramike]

This post has just been nominated for the "Tinfoil Hat Award of the Year".You DID research the claim before you posted this, right? :down:

And, I'm not quite sure how you think an opposing political group sending troublemakers to infiltrate a political rally is "tin-hatted". It's been standard practice for years, on both sides. :|\\

[mookiemookie]

Even Roger Ebert is criticizing our culture of division and opinions being screamed at each other:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html

[Max2147]

If you read my original post, this is not scary crap. This is the same crap that happens when a Democratic President is elected. Nothing new at all.
Last time we had a Democratic President a domestic terrorist carried out the worst ever terrorist attack on American soil (at the time). Yep, nothing to be scared about.

[Max2147]

You DID research the claim before you posted this, right? :down:

And, I'm not quite sure how you think an opposing political group sending troublemakers to infiltrate a political rally is "tin-hatted". It's been standard practice for years, on both sides. :|\\
But when your first impulse is to blame anything extremist at a protest on boogey man infiltrators, then it is very tin-hatted.

[CastleBravo]

The thread was started to minimize the folks on the right and you (I) fell for it. Stop feeding it and it will die. Just a thought.

[AVGWarhawk]

Last time we had a Democratic President a domestic terrorist carried out the worst ever terrorist attack on American soil (at the time). Yep, nothing to be scared about.

Please read my post on abortion clinics and attacks. It happens through out each presidency. Man Max, they way you talk you might as well stay home and close the blinds for the next 4 years. This is what terrorism is about...terror. It seems to be working on you. :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Who is the lefty and who is the righty in this picture?

http://davefleet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/tin-foil-hat.jpg

[OneToughHerring]

Yes, just like those nice gentlemen from the Black Panthers blocking, I mean, assisting votes in Philadephia:D

Oh so this is a white vs. black issue?

[Aramike]

But when your first impulse is to blame anything extremist at a protest on boogey man infiltrators, then it is very tin-hatted.I suppose you may be right, even though I don't typically parallel being "tin-hatted" with something that is actually happening.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh so this is a white vs. black issue?

Not at all, there are nuts on both side is the point. Does not matter if they are black or white. I failed to mention these two blocking the booths were targeting Republicans. For some reason everyone thinks these acts of craziness are new or something. They are not. This crap has gone on for years. With all the bickering between left and right both will take anything and run with it like it is golden. Really, media hype, mountain out of a mole hole, pot boils over hype. Nothing more.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/15/left_cries_racist_in_crowded_country_96999.html


In its obvious zeal to create a one-party state, the Democrat-Media Complex (the natural coalition of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media) last week seized upon the horrific murder of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington as an opportunity to ascribe blame to the American conservative movement and to further marginalize the Republican Party.
In record time, the media's blind partisans and their feral friends in the left-wing blogosphere used the alleged "lone wolf" act of James W. von Brunn - an 88-year old self-avowed racist and anti-Semite - to try to affirm the controversial Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that posited " right-wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president" and are a becoming a growing domestic terror threat.



While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates Rupert Murdoch, Fox News (that means you, too, Shep!), George W. Bush and John McCain. And according to the FBI, Mr. von Brunn even had in his vehicle the address of the Weekly Standard, home base of the dreaded "neo-cons."

[OneToughHerring]

With all the bickering between left and right both will take anything and run with it like it is golden.

With the exception that the right wing pretty much is the establishment and decides what the mainstream media runs with.

[AVGWarhawk]

With the exception that the right wing pretty much is the establishment and decides what the mainstream media runs with.

Please provide some sort of proof. Obama has the media in his hip pocket. In fact, he get free run of ABC or one of them to run another infomercial on his health care proposal. That is laughable the right wing decides what mainstream media runs. :har:

Obama TV all the time

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23836.html

[OneToughHerring]

Please provide some sort of proof. Obama has the media in his hip pocket. In fact, he get free run of ABC or one of them to run another infomercial on his health care proposal. That is laughable the right wing decides what mainstream media runs. :har:

Obama TV all the time

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23836.html

Start with this. Yes, it's Wikipedia but it gives an idea about the forces behind mainstream media in the US and around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

The media block-out concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan plus the media embedding program is still continuing. Remind me again what exactly you think has changed under Obama and remember that I'm not really interested in what US political pundits have said. I'm just interested in the body count.

[AVGWarhawk]

Start with this. Yes, it's Wikipedia but it gives an idea about the forces behind mainstream media in the US and around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

The media block-out concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan plus the media embedding program is still continuing. Remind me again what exactly you think has changed under Obama and remember that I'm not really interested in what US political pundits have said. I'm just interested in the body count.

Ok I read the first few paragraphs. It deals with media ownership. You mean to tell me your original post was about media ownership or what decides what the mainstream media runs with.

Runs with what? I thought runs with what they want you to see. This they do. Refer to my Obama TV all the time article. This is what they want you to see. It has been that way since the campaign. As far as Iraq and Afghanistan, sure, it was blocked but Obama has kept Bushes policy in these regions and it is still blocked out. About all he said they could do is show the caskets arriving in Dover AFB. The media control started during the campaign and it has always favor Obama. Now it really favors Obama because it draws viewers.

[SteamWake]

The thread was started to minimize the folks on the right and you (I) fell for it. Stop feeding it and it will die. Just a thought.

I bowed out several posts ago not wanting to look a fool arguing with them.

[Max2147]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/15/left_cries_racist_in_crowded_country_96999.html
Where did I ever say the Republican Party was the problem?

The Republican Party is NOT the problem. The Republican Party and mainstream conservatives are the SOLUTION. That's what I've been trying to say all along! That's why I posted this here, a place frequented by a lot of sensible conservative people!

Us liberals can't fix the problem. Obama can't fix this problem. The ones who CAN fix this problem are sensible conservatives with BALLS. McCain showed us that he was one of them during the campaign, when he stood up in front of his supporters and defended Obama against accusations that he was a Muslim Arab (not that McCain's balls were ever in doubt). Shepard Smith also showed us that he had balls when he called out the far right on Fox News. We need more people like them.

[Max2147]

The thread was started to minimize the folks on the right and you (I) fell for it. Stop feeding it and it will die. Just a thought.
I started the thread as a warning and a call for action among the mainstream right, but you all seem content to blame your side's problems on ACORN.

[AVGWarhawk]

Where did I ever say the Republican Party was the problem?

The Republican Party is NOT the problem. The Republican Party and mainstream conservatives are the SOLUTION. That's what I've been trying to say all along! That's why I posted this here, a place frequented by a lot of sensible conservative people!

Us liberals can't fix the problem. Obama can't fix this problem. The ones who CAN fix this problem are sensible conservatives with BALLS. McCain showed us that he was one of them during the campaign, when he stood up in front of his supporters and defended Obama against accusations that he was a Muslim Arab (not that McCain's balls were ever in doubt). Shepard Smith also showed us that he had balls when he called out the far right on Fox News. We need more people like them.

All extreme righty understands is his rights and guns are being taken away. Sorry to say the Republicans/Conservatives are all grouped into 'the right'. Extreme or not does not matter. These extemists people simply refuse to listen.

The argument here is the way right are going nuts and carrying on with hateful acts because of Obama. Sorry to say this behavior has gone on for over 30 years. It does not matter Obama is in the White House. Abortion clinics are bombed, abortion doctors are killed, Ok City Fed Bldg destroyed under Democratic Presidents who were white. Truly, Obama has nothing to do with this. This type of behavior becomes more prominent when a Democratic President is elected. Nothing more. It is the media and DHS making a mountain out of a mole hill. It is the DHS saying returning vets are going to go crazy and start shooting up the place. It is sensationalism for ratings and a poke at the right.

[Max2147]

The argument here is the way right are going nuts and carrying on with hateful acts because of Obama.
No. The argument here is that there has been a major increase in the far right going nuts.

[AVGWarhawk]

No. The argument here is that there has been a major increase in the far right going nuts.


I contest there is no more than what we have seen in the past. A few posts back, look at the statistics of abortion clinic attacks and or abortion clinic doctors/nurses assulted. Since the OK City bombing the extremists have been watched closely so this does not happen again. For the most part the FBI is able to keep tabs on these people. Everything brought to their attention is investigated. The people are on the web ranting and raving. They are busy explaining their plans. The increase I see is sensationalism by the media. The media handidly depicts the right as the cause, the O'Reilly's or Smiths causing this. Some attribute this becaus Obama is in the White House. Something to the effect of southerns and presidents from the south. Now one from the north. Come on, the shooting at the museum last week was done by a guy who lived in Annapolis MD from what I heard. Really, this party partisonship and parties working together is such smoke and mirrors. Anything each can dig up on the other and twist to their advantage is the game of the day.

[August]

Common observation, life experience, and the professional opinion of the The United States Department of Homeland Security. http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Except that report, which was politically motivated and extremely controversial as I recall, doesn't actually say that the right wing is any more bigoted than the left wing, so we're pretty much down to your life experience I think.

[LoBlo]

Except that report, which was politically motivated and extremely controversial as I recall, doesn't actually say that the right wing is any more bigoted than the left wing

Its understood:
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing
* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

(U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing

extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.


The far right having more openly bigoted groups than the left is just common knowledge.

Is all this a revelation? Some things are just common knowledge, like the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons (no "proof", but everyone knows it), or that Iran's current regime suppresses women. (What! You mean that some Iranian women don't enjoy being garbed in mummy outfits in the middle of the desert! Prove it!). Some things are just understood.

What did not happen with the last three democratic presidents?

' Acts of violence against abortion clinics and their employees have been carried out across the United States throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years.
In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics. In 1993, there were 78 death threats aimed at clinic employees. And, in 1996, bombings, threats and harassment affected about one-third of U.S. abortion clinics.'

The OK City Fed Bldg was bombed during the Clinton Administration. This has nothing to do with Obama and being black. Nothing new here. The only difference is these media folks are now accessible by email such as Shepard Smith. So, of course it seems more than normal when it really has not changed at all over the years.

I didn't say that right wing extremism didn't exist during previous democratic presidencies. Just that some of the increased rancor that Sheppard Smith is noting is the result of a core of far right bigotry responding to an African American president. Those groups can't handle seeing a president that doesn't look like they do, so there's a increased amount of visible/open hate coming from that sect.

[August]

Its understood:

No it's not. One politically motivated report that uses terms like "may be" and "could create" is only "understood" by those who hope it to be so.

No offense but your common knowledge sounds more to me like left wing propaganda than anything else.

[Aramike]

Is all this a revelation? Some things are just common knowledge, like the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons (no "proof", but everyone knows it), or that Iran's current regime suppresses women. (What! You mean that some Iranian women don't enjoy being garbed in mummy outfits in the middle of the desert! Prove it!). Some things are just understood.So you're saying that there's no proof the Israel has nuclear weapons, or that Iran suppresses woman?

Are you insane?

What do you consider proof? It seems as far as you're concerned, by your logic NOTHING has proof.

[Buddahaid]

Just a thought. As I see it, the biggest difference between current radical (left and right) events and past events, is the communications revolution. News and hype travel so much faster, and from so many smallvilles now, it appears to have grown exponentially. Try reading some newspapers from 1924. All the stories are very familiar regarding corrupt politicians, revolutions in banana republics, crimes of violence, bombings, etc.

Buddahaid

[heartc]

No. The argument here is that there has been a major increase in the far right going nuts.

What is happening though is that the media zooms in on a few far right-wing nutjobs and people (you) start blaming all the right for "not stepping up". Wait a minute, isn't that guilt by association I'm smelling here, just hidden behind an impossible appeal (change the mind of a lunatic)?

You know, next time a guy like Michael Moore releases some drivel so that public opinion about America here or across Europe goes all wonky and is more comparable to the streets of Teheran (though this might change), which in turn compromises US security in the long run and isn't a fun experience for those who have a problem with insanity, I will also think that all Democrats are traitors to their country because they didn't "step up" (and shot him or what?).

[Tribesman]

One politically motivated report
That report was complied under the last administration wasn't it.
So does that mean it was politically motivated by the republicans?

Iran suppresses woman

Of course they do, not as much as Saudi does though.
Both countries are extremely conservative in their politics, throw in some religious fundamentalism for good measure and what do we get ?
Religiously fundamentalist conservatives, that sounds like a good definition of right wing extremist doesn't it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Just a thought. As I see it, the biggest difference between current radical (left and right) events and past events, is the communications revolution. News and hype travel so much faster, and from so many smallvilles now, it appears to have grown exponentially. Try reading some newspapers from 1924. All the stories are very familiar regarding corrupt politicians, revolutions in banana republics, crimes of violence, bombings, etc.

Buddahaid

Good thought and I'm will to buy this idea that we certainly know more now from the electronic revolution than the old tin can and string method. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

What is happening though is that the media zooms in on a few far right-wing nutjobs and people (you) start blaming all the right for "not stepping up". Wait a minute, isn't that guilt by association I'm smelling here, just hidden behind an impossible appeal (change the mind of a lunatic)?



Certainly guilt by association is used in this instance. It is politically motivated. Good point. Tribesman asked if this report was made under the previous administration. No, it was done under the new head of DHS who was appointed by Obama.

[Max2147]

What is happening though is that the media zooms in on a few far right-wing nutjobs and people (you) start blaming all the right for "not stepping up". Wait a minute, isn't that guilt by association I'm smelling here, just hidden behind an impossible appeal (change the mind of a lunatic)?

You know, next time a guy like Michael Moore releases some drivel so that public opinion about America here or across Europe goes all wonky and is more comparable to the streets of Teheran (though this might change), which in turn compromises US security in the long run and isn't a fun experience for those who have a problem with insanity, I will also think that all Democrats are traitors to their country because they didn't "step up" (and shot him or what?).
Did you read my initial post? I gave several examples of conservatives with balls who stood up against the madness.

It's not the media suddenly deciding to focus on right wing nutjobs, it's the media suddenly noticing right wing nutjobs because those nutjobs have become a lot more active in the past year or so. The point of Smith's talk wasn't to say "Fox News gets a lot of crazy mail," since I'm sure Fox News and every other network has always gotten their fair share of crazy mail. His point was that the amount of crazy mail has increased dramatically in the past year or so, and that the increase is what's scary.

[AVGWarhawk]

Did you read my initial post? I gave several examples of conservatives with balls who stood up against the madness.

It's not the media suddenly deciding to focus on right wing nutjobs, it's the media suddenly noticing right wing nutjobs because those nutjobs have become a lot more active in the past year or so. The point of Smith's talk wasn't to say "Fox News gets a lot of crazy mail," since I'm sure Fox News and every other network has always gotten their fair share of crazy mail. His point was that the amount of crazy mail has increased dramatically in the past year or so, and that the increase is what's scary.

I have to refer you to post #66. It is truly a communication revolution were every Tom, Dick and Harry can send emails. It does not mean more is happening. I could mean more are just find way to voice their discontent via email because they have a laptop now.

[Max2147]

I have to refer you to post #66. It is truly a communication revolution were every Tom, Dick and Harry can send emails. It does not mean more is happening. I could mean more are just find way to voice their discontent via email because they have a laptop now.
But that communications revolution happened way before early 2008.

[August]

That report was complied under the last administration wasn't it.
So does that mean it was politically motivated by the republicans?

The report was published in April of this year Dude. Long after the Republicans had left office. You might try reading something before commenting on it. :yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

But that communications revolution happened way before early 2008.

Not in every bean town. You have to realize Bush was around for 8 years. That is a long time for every Tinytown to get online and up with the major metro centers. I know a lot are still on dial up and still need a converter box to get the now digital TV via their old rabbit ears. Just because you live in a advanced area for communication does not mean the rest of American is the same. The revolution has grown 100 fold in 8 years. A few of these crazy folk have figure it out.

[heartc]

Yeah not fair man. This kind of canard works only with muslims extremists, don't you ever learn something on your liberal media ? sheesh


(cue "this is different because" tune in 3... 2...)

I've never blamed all Muslims for the crimes committed by the radical Islamists. At some point I worked two jobs and one of my employers was Iranian and one of the best bosses I've ever worked with. Neither did I feel the need to ask him "Hey, btw, why don't you go and beat up Osama Bin Laden, since you're Muslim and all?"
Find another strawman or tell me I didn't ask that because I wanted to keep the job in 3...2...1...

[Tribesman]

The report was published in April of this year Dude.
So what.
You might try reading something before commenting on it.
Ah reading, lets see.....
I wrote about it being compiled and you came back with published. If you read that you should be able to see they are two different things.
But hey its old news, it doesn't take much of a memory to go back to the news a few months ago. After all the publication did make big news stories
If you can't manage the memory thing then how about a little headline to refresh your memory.


DHS 'Right Wing Extremists' Report Was Ordered by the Bush Administraion

Posted:
04/16/09

So the actual report was started on January 23rd, 2007 which means for two years it was compiled under the last administration

[August]

So what.

Making up a headline proves nothing Tribesman, and even if it were true the conclusions that were drawn are pure unadulterated politics.

[Tribesman]

Making up a headline proves nothing Tribesman
Blame the journalists that wrote it then.
So if you want to prove the headline wrong why not try and prove that the report into extremism was not commisioned under Bush and it didn't start getting compiled on January 23 2007

[mookiemookie]

Don;t you know? If you go down to your local Klan meeting, they're all dyed in the wool liberals! :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

This thread is still going on? Is the leftist Communist scared of the right Conservatives? I guess not much changes in this world. Different day, same crap.

I will say however that the left should damn well be scared of the right if the right thinks his 'rights' are being tromped on. The right probably has good reason to get upset as well. The left - looks to pass laws to limit the rights freedoms so that the left can have ultimate control, under the guise of course that what is good for one, is good for all!!! They feel good doing things like this too! The right however seeks to keep freedoms for all and is willing to do what is necessary to open back up those freedoms if that is what it takes.

So take your pick what side you want to be on - robotic controlled dogs on the left who give up their freedom for security, or free loving love your neighbor types that would rather have death if they can't have liberty? Take your pick.

The wealthiest, most prosperous countries the world has ever known follow only one model. I'll let you figure out which one that is.

History buffs will know that Patrick Henry once said, "Give me freedom or give me death". There is no greater power for ones country that to give a man freedom to make his own destiny. Many men with freedom to make their own destiny creates a power so strong that none can resist it. I give you America as an example. Anything else is suppression and a pathetic excuse for existence.

The real question is - Can America fail to fall into the trap of control that seems to be growing ever greater by the day? I have my doubts I tell you. Lets see if America is up to the challenge.

-S

[August]

Don;t you know? If you go down to your local Klan meeting, they're all dyed in the wool liberals! :rotfl:

Well racial hatred is a pretty liberal concept in this country whereas conservatives tend to favor equal rights and treatment under the law.

[Max2147]

Well racial hatred is a pretty liberal concept in this country whereas conservatives tend to favor equal rights and treatment under the law.
Sure, traditional conservatism advocates equal rights and equal treatment under the law, but so does liberalism. Neither advocates racial hatred, although as we've already established there are racists on both sides of the spectrum.

SUBMAN - What if the right things he's having his rights trampled on, but he's wrong? What if he's feeling oppression that isn't there?

Generally when a radical - be they on the left or right - gets scared, they're not scared of something that's actually happening, they're scared of something that one of their fellow extremists says is happening. It becomes a sort of conspiracy theory circle jerk.

[Sea Demon]

Sure, traditional conservatism advocates equal rights and equal treatment under the law, but so does liberalism. Neither advocates racial hatred, although as we've already established there are racists on both sides of the spectrum.


In a general sense, I also look at policies advanced by both and see liberal policy destroying concepts of personal responsibility in minority circles, promoting a sense of entitlement which creates an unrealistic expectation and government co-dependancy with the liberal minority voter. While I agree that there are racists on both sides, conservatives traditionally put the primacy on equal treatment under the law, while liberals are concerned about "leveling the playing field". More often than not...on racial terms. In these wys, the liberal truly benefits nobody. I'm not saying that's the intent, but intentions suck when you get down to it as applied politically. Racial hatred.???.You be the judge.

Anybody see something similar?

[CastleBravo]

I'm hard pressed to make changes because a few are afraid. Life will never be about compassion, as defined by one group of people, but individualism which will always be about everyone. Laying the actions one or two people, Heller's murderer, and this Von Brunn fellow, is like laying the assasinations of JFK, RFK and the Manson murders at the feet of the left, none is true and all should be rejected out of hand.

It is like saying the Columbine shooters killed because they were picked on. Crazy. It is impossible to predict and or make assumptions based on political affiliation, regardless of what a politically motivated homeland security department says.

[mookiemookie]

robotic controlled dogs on the left who give up their freedom for security, or free loving love your neighbor types that would rather have death if they can't have liberty?

lol wut:

http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/Gallery/32/goto.jpg

[August]

lol wut:

Funny cartoon but in spite of all the bashing the Patriot act has recieved at the hands of the liberals they haven't repealed it yet even though they have been in power for almost three years now.

[Max2147]

Funny cartoon but in spite of all the bashing the Patriot act has recieved at the hands of the liberals they haven't repealed it yet even though they have been in power for almost three years now.
Most of the controversial parts of it expired, didn't they?

Either way, the Patriot Act alone wasn't that bad. It had channels in it for complains about civil liberties violations, and as far as I'm aware they were never used. Unfortunately it wasn't the only intrusion on our liberties (wiretapping springs to mind).

But that stuff's not really relevant for this thread. Neither major political party is about to quash Americans' liberties.

[Aramike]

Most of the controversial parts of it expired, didn't they?

Either way, the Patriot Act alone wasn't that bad. It had channels in it for complains about civil liberties violations, and as far as I'm aware they were never used. Unfortunately it wasn't the only intrusion on our liberties (wiretapping springs to mind).

But that stuff's not really relevant for this thread. Neither major political party is about to quash Americans' liberties.I agree with this assessment.

But the thing I find funny (and ironic) about the left is the complete about face the party has taken as soon as it achieved power. The left is heavily comprised of "anti-establishment" types - even Obama, in his earlier years, somewhat subscribed to this philosophy.

Now that they've been put in power, can anyone here HONESTLY remember ANY political movement that has been MORE pro-establishment than the Democratic Party? This administration and congress has unashamedly moved in on the banks, the auto-industry, and now Obama doesn't "think" he'll have to raise taxes on the middle-class (quite different from a promise, I think).

[Max2147]

The 'dirty little secret' about Obama is that his pragmatic streak is a lot stronger than a lot of people think. It comes across very strongly when you read his books and listen to his more substantive speeches.

It's one of the main reasons I supported him, but they had to hide it during the election to keep the left-wing ideologues onboard. Now that he's in power, they don't have to keep it under wraps anymore. I have a feeling that a lot of the left wing dreamers are going to be pretty disappointed in 4 years.

The real irony is that the left is always stereotypically wrapped up in ideology, with its head in the clouds, while the right is supposed to be more practical. But Bush was one of the most ideological presidents we've ever had, and I think Obama will end up being very pragmatic by comparison.

[SUBMAN1]

Most of the controversial parts of it expired, didn't they?...

No they didn't. The Democrats expanded on it and renewed it. Obama expanded the wire tapping too. EFF is in my Inbox daily because of it. Weird having a liberal political organization bashing heads with liberals. Anyway, here is the latest on the wiretapping:

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush)

Commentary (http://www.eff.org/blog-categories/commentary) by Tim Jones (http://www.eff.org/about/staff/tim)
We had hoped this would go differently.
Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss (http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05) Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/) that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.
For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html) and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/shut_up_its_still_a_secret.php). American intelligence agencies have been accused of spying on the emails of millions of Americans, including those of former president Bill Clinton...

"Ordinary Americans' most private emails have been and still are being intercepted in bulk and then stored in secret NSA databases, without probable cause," said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the campaign group Electronic Frontier Foundation.
How many you want? EFF is full of this crap lately.

That is change we can believe in! Oh... Maybe another Obama said that? This Obama isn't doing any of it.

-S

[sunvalleyslim]

My take has always been.........If you ain't doing anything wrong, you never have to worry.........

[Sailor Steve]

History buffs will know that Patrick Henry once said, "Give me freedom or give me death".
Actually it was "Give me liberty or give me death!" And true history buffs will know that Patrick Henry was vehemently anti-Constitution, and hated the Federal Government. There is also a chance that he never even said it, as the only account comes from William Wirt, who wrote it seventeen years after Henry's death. There are no actual records, and other accounts claim he used threats of indian attacks and some name-calling to stir up Virginia sympathies against the British.

[Sailor Steve]

My take has always been.........If you ain't doing anything wrong, you never have to worry.........
But that's the statement first uttered by anyone who wants more intrusive government. The side or political philosophy doesn't matter, if they want to check your home, office or beliefs the first answer to any objection is "What are you afraid of?"

[Takeda Shingen]

Actually it was "Give me liberty or give me death!" And true history buffs will know that Patrick Henry was vehemently anti-Constitution, and hated the Federal Government. There is also a chance that he never even said it, as the only account comes from William Wirt, who wrote it seventeen years after Henry's death. There are no actual records, and other accounts claim he used threats of indian attacks and some name-calling to stir up Virginia sympathies against the British.

Correct on all accounts. Someone is rather well-read.