DHS 9-page Report on Rightwing Extremism

[PiercedE30]

The gov. should do a PPV of Navy snipers taking out 3 teenage black pirates off the coast of Somalia - you know they have footage from many angles, just declassify it - that would set a viewership record & could help retire some of our deficit. No, it's not arrogant, it's reality TV at its finest!!.

THAT would be totally badass.

[Collin]

No sale. The "leftwing" extremist PDF lists some of the far left whack nut groups that have commited acts of violence by name.

The "rightwing" extremist PDF makes sweeping generalizations that anyone who doesn't agree with Obama policy as a right-wing extremist.

Dear Mr. E30 Cabrio,

You are confusing:

"Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use."

Which is true.

With:

"A rightwing extremist is anyone antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use."

Which is false.




Let me isolate the important lines for you, because you're reading comprehension seems to need some help:

A. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic

is different from, as in not the same as

B. A rightwing extremist is anyone antagonistic

Letter A. is the only one actually in the report. Letter B. seems to be what your rage clouded mind has created for you.

Calling someone's perfectly valid and fact-supported (which I bothered to post in the thread to back up my stance) argument false because you are too hopped up on endorphins from your orgy of angry misreading is, in itself, a false argument.




Please, if I could go so far as to post some more facts to back up my argument...

From the left wing PDF:

— (U//FOUO) Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable. Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks—all of which extremists regard as nonviolent—to bombings and arson.

Does this mean that every vandal/hacker/thief is a left wing nutjob bent on taking down the government? No. It means that many left wing nut jobs are vandals/hackers/thieves.

From the right wing PDF:

— (U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

Does this mean that everyone that dislikes Obama is a right wing nut job bent on taking down the government? No. It means that many right wing nut jobs dislike Obama.

Eagerly awaiting your...

1. calling this a false argument
2. urging me to use google to find evidence that doesn't exist
3. rabid cackling over my being a left wing nut job bent on freeing all the animals and taking your guns
4. completely ignoring everything I just said and changing the subject

[E30 Cabrio]

You're arguing semantics. The inference is clear. You're playing the "it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is" game.

Again, no sale. The Obama administration is trying to smear anyone who disagrees with his policies as extremists.

Don't play dumb. We all know what's going on here.

[Collin]

You're arguing semantics. The inference is clear. You're playing the "it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is" game.

Again, no sale. The Obama administration is trying to smear anyone who disagrees with his policies as extremists.

Don't play dumb. We all know what's going on here.

Option #4? Good choice.

The difference between

A. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic

and

B. A rightwing extremist is anyone antagonistic

is much much more than semantics. I really don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

I'll give it a shot:

"Many people that are assholes disagree with me."

is very different from

"Everyone that disagrees with me is an asshole."

[E30 Cabrio]

It's pretty obvious what the Obama administration is trying to do here.

Well, to most people anyways.

Regardless, it's part of his M.O. dating back to his earlier campaigns when he smeared his opponents like he did when he had an opponents sealed divorce records unsealed thru a friendly court, then made the information public.

[ThePotsy]

It's pretty obvious what the Obama administration is trying to do here.

Well, to most people anyways.

Most people meaning right wing extremists right?

Since all right wing people are extremists?

What about people in the middle, do we get a nifty little PDF file on us?

Middle extremists? Midstremist?

Nevermind, that sounds gross.

[Hallen]

From the left wing PDF:

— (U//FOUO) Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable. Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks—all of which extremists regard as nonviolent—to bombings and arson.

Does this mean that every vandal/hacker/thief is a left wing nutjob bent on taking down the government? No. It means that many left wing nut jobs are vandals/hackers/thieves.

From the right wing PDF:

— (U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

Does this mean that everyone that dislikes Obama is a right wing nut job bent on taking down the government? No. It means that many right wing nut jobs dislike Obama.

What do you know, I was wrong. This thing is real. The level of complete incompetence at DHS to release something like this with that kind of verbiage in it is astounding. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/...y_extremists_9

The major difference between those two passages quoted above is one of potential actions by left-wind extremists and the definition and causational factors for a right-wing extremist.

The first does not try to define a left-wing extremist's motivations. It only talks about their potential attack vectors, which is mostly based on experience.

The right-wing extremist definition above is vague and obviously worded to imply any dissension with the current administration's policies is an indication of a possible right-wing extremist. Yes, it is worded in such a way as to qualify this type of dissension as belonging to right-wing extremists, but by doing so, they imply that dissension of this type indicates a right-wing extremist.

So, there are huge procedural differences between the two passages above and an obvious attempt at discrediting and undermining any dissension with the current administration.

I suspect the motivating factors behind this are because of the rising wave of dissatisfaction with the current administration's policies which the powers that be will perceive as right-wing extremist activities and propaganda when in fact, it is the average Joe American who is simply communicating their core values. 99.9% of the people attending things like the Tea Parties today, are just like me. They want responsibility in actions, accountability and ethical behaviour out of our government. They will use their votes and their communication ability to see that it happens. They won't be starting an armed revolution. It is just the extreme fear and distrust of this administration that paints it that way.

This kind of fear mongering and political maneuvering should never, ever find its way into an "intelligence" document like this one. Whether your are left-leaning or right-leaning, you all should be appalled at this document and start to seriously question the integrity of the people who produced it.

[CorvallisBMW]

easy - where have you been as his record tax increases take effect?

what record tax increase are you talking about? There are no tax increases! 95% of the population is getting a tax cut, and even the top 1% isn't seeing a tax increase until 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...xes/index.html

I think you're confusing 'tax cut' with 'tax increase'. Can you point me in the direction of some data, or evidence, or anything to support your claims?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Well, I do know someone is gonna have to pay for his spending plans. Sounds like enough proof to me.

[E30 Cabrio]

what record tax increase are you talking about? There are no tax increases! 95% of the population is getting a tax cut, and even the top 1% isn't seeing a tax increase until 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...xes/index.html

I think you're confusing 'tax cut' with 'tax increase'. Can you point me in the direction of some data, or evidence, or anything to support your claims?

Who is going to pay for the Trillions of dollars of spending Obama has proposed and/or implemented?

What happens when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire next year?

Smoker's (of which I'm not) just got hit with a huge per pack tax increase, directly countering Obama's promise that 95% of people would not see tax increases.

Obama can say anything he wants, but someone is going to have to pay for the Trillions of spending he has proposed/implemented.

Who do you think is going to pay for it?

The "rich"?

Nope. The math doesn't work.

The Wall Street Journal just did an article on this subject showing how the math doesn't work.

Obama is going to throw you a bone or two in an attempt to get reelected in 2012

After that, the bill is going to come due and it is not going to be pleasant.

Congress is complicit in this as well. At least the Dems in Congress as every "R" voted against this massive spending bill by Obama.

Paul Begala can spin it how he likes, but the facts are a huge bill is coming due and its going to have to be paid.

Obama will be sneaking off right around then, leaving the bill for the next President and us and our children and their children and their children...

Who is going to bail out America?

[E30 Cabrio]

What do you know, I was wrong. This thing is real. The level of complete incompetence at DHS to release something like this with that kind of verbiage in it is astounding. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/...y_extremists_9

The major difference between those two passages quoted above is one of potential actions by left-wind extremists and the definition and causational factors for a right-wing extremist.

The first does not try to define a left-wing extremist's motivations. It only talks about their potential attack vectors, which is mostly based on experience.

The right-wing extremist definition above is vague and obviously worded to imply any dissension with the current administration's policies is an indication of a possible right-wing extremist. Yes, it is worded in such a way as to qualify this type of dissension as belonging to right-wing extremists, but by doing so, they imply that dissension of this type indicates a right-wing extremist.

So, there are huge procedural differences between the two passages above and an obvious attempt at discrediting and undermining any dissension with the current administration.

I suspect the motivating factors behind this are because of the rising wave of dissatisfaction with the current administration's policies which the powers that be will perceive as right-wing extremist activities and propaganda when in fact, it is the average Joe American who is simply communicating their core values. 99.9% of the people attending things like the Tea Parties today, are just like me. They want responsibility in actions, accountability and ethical behaviour out of our government. They will use their votes and their communication ability to see that it happens. They won't be starting an armed revolution. It is just the extreme fear and distrust of this administration that paints it that way.

This kind of fear mongering and political maneuvering should never, ever find its way into an "intelligence" document like this one. Whether your are left-leaning or right-leaning, you all should be appalled at this document and start to seriously question the integrity of the people who produced it.

The inference of this PDF, which I didn't believe to be genuine at first shows an absolutely clear intent in who it is attempting to smear as "extremists" and "radicals"

The left chooses to play dumb, parse words and split hairs to make their argument.

The PDF makes my argument for me and it concerns me far more then anything I've ever seen from the Government. Even gun confiscation.

The message is clear: If you oppose "Dear Leader" you are an extremist and a threat to the country.

Obama is following Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals" and this is straight of his playbook.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see the inference of this document.

[Maluco]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97JU0881&show_article=1

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the report was issued before officials resolved problems raised by the agency's civil rights division.

The senior Democrat of the House committee with oversight of the department said the report raises privacy and civil liberty issues. "This report appears to have blurred the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not,"

[Farbin Kaiber]

[E30 Cabrio]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/17/right-wing-extremism-report-released-despite-civil-rights-conc/

[Pinepig]

Where the fuck is the ALCU in all this......oh nevermind, they only protect left wing issues.