Homeland Security Considers Conservatives A Threat

[Landis82]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

What if there had been more focus on right wing extremists by the justice department over the past couple of decades.

Would that have had any impact on Oklahoma City?

Look, I said this during the Bush administration when the ET right wingers were blindly defending Bush's abuse of power and expansion of government in the name of "freedom" and "security."

I said that just wait until you get a democrat president who does nothing but implement the expansion of power by Bush to the executive office against the right wing...

The right wingers had no logical response, of course.

They were thinking that America would always have a right wing lap dog in power...

No one, not even Ron Paul, that ran for president in 2008 said their first official act would be to reduce the power of the presidency and rescind all the previous power grabs by presidents for the past generation through executive order.

...and no, what Bush did was not necessary and it is not necessary today.

At least the right wingers should take responsibility for putting Bush/Cheney in power for 8 years...but that will not likely happen...

Well said.
Can anyone say Timothy McVeigh???

Once again, the usual band of ET "neo-cons" have been caught with their FOOT STUCK ALL THE WAY DOWN THEIR THROATS because of their inability to read with rational reading comprehension and intellect combined with their highly predictable ability to mimick LEMMINGS!

Nice going "AAA" and "Cesko" and "Gnome" . . .
you guys are freaking hilarious!!!

Let me know when you're able to get your feet out of your mouths . . . Did anyone of you ever graduate from a 4-year University?

Guess not.

But thanks for the good laugh.
Classic . . . Absolutely classic!

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

wow, someone here takes zzzzenu's side... that's historically relevant... usually even people of his own political persuasion can't disassociate themselves with him fast enough...

It's not about "sides".
It's about LOGIC and READING COMPREHENSION.

And ET's typical pathetic cast of characters totally got spanked, FAILED, and made absolute FOOLS of themselves (once again) by a proposal that came not from President Obama - - - but from their infallible leader and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION!

Yesterday, I asked "AAA" where he went to college and if he graduated with a degree. For some reason, he's avoided answering the question . . . He's got over 10,500 posts on ET but to my recollection has never once said where he went to school. But I guess his "paste and cut" job is all one has to know about his "schooling".

Too funny.
I swear to God, a bunch of middle-schooler's could "out-debate" these idiots!

 

[Burtakus]

Quote from Landis82:

It's not about "sides".
It's about LOGIC and READING COMPREHENSION.

And ET's typical pathetic cast of characters totally got spanked, FAILED, and made absolute FOOLS of themselves (once again) by a proposal that came not from President Obama - - - but from their infallible leader and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION!

Yesterday, I asked "AAA" where he went to college and if he graduated with a degree. For some reason, he's avoided answering the question . . . He's got over 10,500 posts on ET but to my recollection has never once said where he went to school. But I guess his "paste and cut" job is all one has to know about his "schooling".

Too funny.
I swear to God, a bunch of middle-schooler's could "out-debate" these idiots!

I am not real sure what ones going to college has to do with their intelligence or ability to reason.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Burtakus:

I am not real sure what ones going to college has to do with their intelligence or ability to reason.

Agreed 100%

But I do stand by my claim that a middle-school debate team would CRUSH them. Their inability to build a logical argument and reason with intelligence would cause them to FAIL in about 3 minutes flat.

So much for the lemmings . . .

Epic fail.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Burtakus:

I am not real sure what ones going to college has to do with their intelligence or ability to reason.

These days they have little or nothing to do with each other.

in·tel·li·gence

1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason ; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria

ed·u·ca·tion

1 a: the action or process of educating or of being educated ; also : a stage of such a process b: the knowledge and development resulting from an educational process <a person of little education>2: the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools


I've personally known a guy with a Ph.D that didn't have enough common sense to come in out the the rain.

I've also known a number of "uneducated" guys that are as "smart" as anyone here on ET.

You can wallpaper your walls with degrees and still be a dumb ass.

You can be intelligent and never set foot in a formal school. History is full of "uneducated" self taught geniuses.

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Lucrum:

I've also known a number of "uneducated" guys that are as "smart" as anyone here on ET.

I'm afraid THAT comparison is selling the "uneducated" a bit short.

 

[426653478]

Magnolia - Shame on you

<a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1646440">Magnolia - Julianne Moore pharmaceutical meltdown</a><br/><object width="425px" height="360px" ><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="movie" value="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=1646440,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor="/><embed src="http://mediaservices.myspace.com/services/media/embed.aspx/m=1646440,t=1,mt=video,searchID=,primarycolor=,secondarycolor=" width="425" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"/></object>

Young Pharmacy Kid: Strong, strong stuff here. What exactly you have wrong, you need all this stuff?

Linda Partridge: Motherfucker, motherfucker, you fucking asshole!

Young Pharmacy Kid: What are you talking about?

Linda Partridge: Who the fuck are you, who the fuck do you think you are? I come in here, you don't know me, you don't know who I am, what my life is, you have the balls, the indecency to ask me a question about my life?

Old Pharmacist: Please, lady, why don't you calm down - ?

Linda Partridge: Fuck you, too. Don't call me "lady". I come in here, I give these things to you, you check, you make your phone calls, look suspicious, ask questions. I'm sick. I have sickness all around me and you fucking ask me about my life? "What's wrong?" Have you seen death in your bed? In your house? Where's your fucking decency? And then I'm asked fucking questions. What's... wrong? You suck my dick. That's what's wrong. And you, you fucking call me "lady"? Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on both of you.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from Burtakus:

I am not real sure what ones going to college has to do with their intelligence or ability to reason.

True. Universities were set up originally a few hundred years ago to teach Law, Medicine, Mathematics, Physics, Humanities, and Theology. The people who went to College then were the very brightest society produced and they went to school to master a subject and either practice it or teach it.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was ‘Requested By The Bush Administration’

Yesterday, a Department of Homeland Security report about the rising radicalization of “rightwing extremists” was leaked. The right wing was immediately incensed, viewing the report on radical “extremists” as an attack on “conservatives.” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, for example, tried to suggest it was a report about Republican “loyalists.”

However, this morning, Fox News’s Catherine Herridge revealed that the report, along with an earlier report on radicalized left-wing groups, was actually “requested by the Bush administration” but not completed until recently:

HERRIDGE: Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second is on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office.

Herridge’s reporting undermines her network’s own “reporting” over the past 24 hours. Since news of the DHS assessment broke yesterday, Fox anchors and guests have been seizing upon the report as evidence that the administration is trying to intimidate tea party goers or “stifle speech”:

– ANDREA TANTAROS: It’s free speech and the Obama administration is trying to shut it down.

– JAY ALAN SEKULOW: The Obama administration here under Department of Homeland Security has allowed a new regime to come into place that basically says this: Our focus is going to be on the right-wing groups.

– SEAN HANNITY: What do you think of that interpretation, especially coming from a guy that started his political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and capital and sat in Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years?

– DANA PERINO: If Bush had done that we would be having a very different conversation. It wouldn’t have taken a week to find it out. There would have been a special prosecutor. We would have had to come out and apologize.

To recap, the Obama administration was apparently following the lead of the Bush Homeland Security Department in assessing the very real threat of violent right-wing extremism. Indeed, Bush appointees such as FBI Director Robert Mueller have acknowledged the threat of right-wing extremism multiple times.

Of course, we can always trust Fox News to jump to conclusions before fully weighing the facts.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/

The original article in the Washington Times made this point quite clearly, but I couldn't find it on their website to post. The report was indeed begun under Bush, but it was completed and released by Obama's people, so they certainly have to take responsibility for it. We have no way of knowing what changes were made to it.

There were two factors that seemed to distinguish it from the report on leftwing radicals. The report on leftwingers pointed to specific acts of terrorism by such groups, eg the eco terrorists and anti-globalism groups. Thus, there was a legitimate nexus with an actual threat. The rightwing report made no such connection. It targeted groups soley because of their beliefs, beliefs which are clearly protected expression under the First Amendment.

Second, the reference to military vets was very insulting. The only support was a reference to McVeigh. McVeigh was clearly a statistical anomaly rather than a trend. One guy out of of hundreds of thousands who served in the military.

Obama and his liberal backers have repeatedly criticized republicans for using "fear" as a political tactic and for "dividing us." That seems to be an apt description of this report. The scarier aspect is that homeland Security may actually be run by people who think this way, and they are redirecting our security efforts from islamist radicals to angry middle-aged men at tea parties and religiously motivated anti-abortion protestors.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Bush and Cheney manipulated the people through the use of fear.

You had no problem with that on principle, did you?

In eight years of Bush/Cheny you never once complained they were manipulating data, information, etc. implementing fear to fulfill their political agenda.

So now the if dems are doing the exact same thing to advance their agenda, you are shitting your diapers?

LOL!!!

You have no guiding principle beyond partisanship...

If it was right for Bush/Cheney to manipulate through fear, then the dems can't be wrong for implementing the same tools and power that their predecessors used...

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The original article in the Washington Times made this point quite clearly, but I couldn't find it on their website to post. The report was indeed begun under Bush, but it was completed and released by Obama's people, so they certainly have to take responsibility for it. We have no way of knowing what changes were made to it.

There were two factors that seemed to distinguish it from the report on leftwing radicals. The report on leftwingers pointed to specific acts of terrorism by such groups, eg the eco terrorists and anti-globalism groups. Thus, there was a legitimate nexus with an actual threat. The rightwing report made no such connection. It targeted groups soley because of their beliefs, beliefs which are clearly protected expression under the First Amendment.

Second, the reference to military vets was very insulting. The only support was a reference to McVeigh. McVeigh was clearly a statistical anomaly rather than a trend. One guy out of of hundreds of thousands who served in the military.

Obama and his liberal backers have repeatedly criticized republicans for using "fear" as a political tactic and for "dividing us." That seems to be an apt description of this report. The scarier aspect is that homeland Security may actually be run by people who think this way, and they are redirecting our security efforts from islamist radicals to angry middle-aged men at tea parties and religiously motivated anti-abortion protestors.