Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Somebody's going to take a lone nut and manufacture an event around him to vindicate this whole leaked document, and the press is going to parade around with a copy clenched in their piggy little fists going WE TOLD YOU SOOOOOOOOOOO.

You watch.

AxeMental wrote:Foster, your starting to sound a bit like an apologist. I know you'll disagree with this.

Imagine if this was reversed. What if some Conservative Republican administration started using the DHS to put together a list of possible left wing liberals that "might" attempt terrorist activity. The DHS didn't collect information only on those that had criminal records or associated with criminals but instructed cops on the beat to be on the watch out for cars with Obama stickers on the back (insinuating anyone that supports him is radical and "might" be a terrorist). I mean, please, this isn't a complicated issue. You should be as disgusted at this as much as any of us.

You're acting like this is an outrageous hypothetical situation, but I'm fairly certain that's exactly what happened over the last 8 years. We know for a fact that, for instance, the FBI infiltrated groups of anti-war Quakers (link). And, of course, that's not what this report is about anyway.

The thing is Ron Paul is totally normal (would make a great president in the mold of a Reagan for instance), I He's not an extremist, but by putting him on this list it makes him out to be. Reasonable people are going to (perhaps subconsciously) disassociate themselves with him and anyone that supports him (sorry Semaj, your now infected).

If nothing else, it will push those who believe in the conservative platform (small govt., low taxes, strong military, support for small business, etc.) to be more quiet about thier beliefs. Suddenly I feel like I need to take a shower because I'm not an Obama-big government guy. Go figure.

PS if the DHS sent out a message to watch out for cars with "go Taliban" that would be reasonable. But to pick a guy probably 90% of the Republicans would be happy with (so 100 million people give ortake) is outragous. The fact is this Janet Reno clone really thinks Ron Paul is radical, and people that follow him are unstable (so what % of people can be crazy before crazy is normal. If Ron Paul hadn't had the press and a huge part of the Republican party against him (not to mention Bush) he might be the sitting president today.

You're conflating two entirely different issues here. The DHS report on rightwing extremism doesn't mention Ron Paul. There was a memo prepared as part of a state police training manual in Missouri that did, but that memo has been retracted, disavowed, and apologized for (and rightly so) (link). A stupid move by someone in Missouri which has since been corrected is not the same as official U.S. federal government policy, and it does nobody any credit to conflate them.

As I mentioned in my response to RA above I get now why this report rubs people the wrong way, and am willing to concede that the report was perhaps poorly written and could've used some more editing to make clearer what it's actually saying. But I still won't concede that this report reflects an actual intent to stifle the political expression of people with rightwing beliefs.

On a side note, the anti-christ married a portugeuse water dog, an incarnation of Satan, in a closed ceremony. Lookers on wondered why the game D&D also known as "Satan's game" was not played at the reception banquet. We went to "internet D&D blabbermouth" Gene Weigel for comment:

They don't make it like they used to. Demonoids don't like it anymore. Its too childish.

Couldn't they just play the more adult and therefore Satanic-leaning version?

Its got a bad wrap just like W Bush. We all know the Dems are responsible for the eco-...

WHOAH... Back to you, Chuck!

Foster, I never supported Bush's illegal wire taps or infiltration of American organizations, muslim mosks etc. (looking for terrorist) nor would I ever. remember, I was one of the voices saying this DHS and Patriot Act is going to be used against NRA members, and any other conservative by the next sitting president...and now were seeing it in action. Plus, most Republicans now see Bush as a closet moderate liberal and pro-1 world order guy (actually you told me he was a duffus from teh beginning, I should have listened).

Foster: "Oh, I know. And I totally get why people who sense an opportunity to gain an advantage politically (or ratings-wise) from this story are all over it, I just had trouble grasping why that sentiment is also filtering down to "regular folks."

I think your miss-understanding something very basic and fundamental (and your not alone most Democrats do). News Flash: the rating-wise guys (Limbaugh, Hanity, etc.) actually believe what their saying (they aren't saying it for ratings, they're saying it because their passionate about it. They really could give a fuck about how much money they're making (they didn't start out thinking they were going to make 100s of millions, but rather next months rent). They are just like you or me, except instead of just sitting around some hidden chat room talking about it they actually got off their butts and did something about it. Look, they want to keep the "bad guys" (ie. liberals = today code for communists and socialist (the same sort that used communism to set up huge government organizations that amounted to dictatorships) just too afraid to fly their true colors) from taking power and destroying a country they love. Another huge misconseption liberals have is that people listen to talk radio to "get marching orders". Sorry, but I'll bet Limbaugh has converted about as many liberals to changing their stripes as I have. People that tune into Rush are already in 90% (ie. economic conservatives) agreement with him (he's just the only person that sees things the same way they do thats actually on the air). Its not "give me my orders" its "thank God, I thought I was the only one to see Clinton, Kennedy, Obama (fill in the blank) as a communist (or socialist)" not because we were told to think that way, but because we figured it out on our own (remember, there were Republicans before Limbaugh or Talk Radio existed, we did afterall elect Reagan for two terms without it).

See, thats why "regular folks" are up in arms over this. If political pundents didn't exist we'd be just as riled. Its not a "top to the bottom" movement, its a "bottom to the top". People like Rush are popular not because he built his fan base, but rather because a fan base was just sitting around frustrated as hell and he got permission from someone in the media to vocalize clearly what we've been thinking for years (and thought we were the only ones).

In a wierd way talk radio AM had the first "internet" kind of feel to it. It united alot of people that thought they were alone in their thinking (common sense). Too afraid to vocalize these ideas fearing what people might say or label them as. Suddenly it became ok to admit to others a fear of big government or a distaste for affirmitive action etc. And others could say "yeah, I heard Rush talking about that on the radio and totally agree as well", or "I totally disagree". Nobody's mind was changed or made up, it just brought icky feelings about government to the surface and in public.

Foster: "You're conflating two entirely different issues here. The DHS report on rightwing extremism doesn't mention Ron Paul. There was a memo prepared as part of a state police training manual in Missouri that did, but that memo has been retracted, disavowed, and apologized for (and rightly so) (link). A stupid move by someone in Missouri which has since been corrected is not the same as official U.S. federal government policy, and it does nobody any credit to conflate them. "

Hehe, yeah but we all know Obama and his team of socialist agree with it 100%. There just trying to take cover from the political flack.

Remember Foster, I told you this guy wasn't a centrist. I know it in my gutt, he's a leftist control freak, and in his mind a demigod out to save the world with his brand of heavy handed wealth re-distribution. Remember that skit in Mel Brook's "History of the World Part I" Obama's like that Roman general with some guy behind him wispering "remember though art mortal...though art mortal"

I tell you, its a good thing this country is armed and loaded, thats probably been the only thing keeping our power hungry govt. in check all these years (both parties).

Axe wrote:

Obama's liberal agenda

As Foster cited the liberal corollary to this, from what I understand this legislation, both anti-left and anti-right, was originally drafted by the Bush Administration.

In a wierd way talk radio AM had the first "internet" kind of feel to it.

Interesting take.

Ska wrote:

The Dep. of Homeland Security will now focus almost exclusively on any organization or person of public acceptance that is a conservative. They will attempt to use federal intimidation to shut down free speech and destroy the opposition.

Now? Where were you for the past eight years? As Foster noted the FBI and CIA were all over progressives and liberals. Moreover what do you think Free Speech Zones were about, or cops video taping demonstators?

Melan wrote:

Methinks they could send these malcontents to Gitmo or something; if it's good for Arab terrorists, it is good for Ron Paul fans, and delicious, delicious irony.

Clever, but I think Semaj is right about Bushites.

Rogatny wrote:

Other point... That liberal extremist pamphlet named specific groups and their specific activities. If this most recent pamphlet said "watch out for a resurgence of the KKK based on such and such evidence" or something to that extent, I don't think there'd be anywhere near the hubbub. Rather, this was a broadly phrased shot across the bow at American Conservatism.

That could also mean two other things: one, there are so many right-wing extremist groups in operation that one could not name them all with priority; two, none are specifically tagged as the pamphlet lacks the teeth of specifics meaning that the document is not entirely sincere (I must admit this seems pretty unlikely).

Napolitano's responses to this on the various news shows this morning was downright awesome in its pure Orwellian-ness...

Here, I really have to agree.

Foster wrote:

As I mentioned in my response to RA above I get now why this report rubs people the wrong way, and am willing to concede that the report was perhaps poorly written and could've used some more editing to make clearer what it's actually saying. But I still won't concede that this report reflects an actual intent to stifle the political expression of people with rightwing beliefs.

I have to admit Foster - you do sound like an apologist. If the legislation could be drafted against progressive and left-leaning liberals during the past eight years what's to stop a centrist administration from carrying out the other half of the legislation.

Sep: "I have to admit Foster - you do sound like an apologist. If the legislation could be drafted against progressive and left-leaning liberals during the past eight years what's to stop a centrist administration from carrying out the other half of the legislation"

I don't think the public was sold on the DHS as being used as a political tool but thats exactly how its being used. And why wouldn't it be. The person in power gets to determine who's radical to the "reasonable voter".
Now lets unite the 3 branches of government into 1 and be done with it. Why not? It'd run more efficiently (just like the DHS) right? Forget checks and balances, lets squash anyone that stands in our way.

In this country we essentially have a monopoly state tied to the hip of certain big business (though give the appearance of not being so with supposedly two parties). One example of this was GE calling CNBC in to a "secret meeting" to direct the group to stop bashing Obama. http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/04/16/no- ... g-at-cnbc/

If the press is owned by "Big Business" and the politicians in power (both sides) are also owned by "Big Business" where the hell does that leave us? No matter which candidate we vote for "we the people" loose (because we've lost real choice). How is the present system we have any different then what the Soviet Union had when their people elected a person to power (they had one party, now so do we. I certainly saw no real difference between Obama and McCain for instance/ or Clinton and Bush for that matter). Its no longer the Republicans vs. the Democrats its the "Centrists" vs. the "extremists"-not our label theres (and who wants to be considered or vote for an extremist).

Labels have never been more powerful.

I presently feel more akin to the fringe Republicans and libertarians like Ron Paul and the wacko far leftists then I do my own party (at least I know they aren't giving me lip service and are anti-government).

Its a very frustrating time.