Right-wing extremists

“There is no doubt there has been an increase in right wing extremism just as there was an increase in left wing extremism when bush was elected.”

Have any examples? I don’t remember hearing about any leftwing extremists murdering people.

“The problem that most conservatives have with the white house rhetoric and the various reports is that the government seems to be trying to paint regular conservatives as extremists.”

Since they were called extremists, I am pretty sure that would exclude “regular” conservatives. And it wasn’t various reports. It was one.

“I have read one such report issued by the DOD which insinuated that anyone who is pro life, or supports ron paul might be a right wing extremist/ domestic terrorist. “

Care to share this report with us? Or should we just take your word for it? Why would the DOD be even involved with any kind of warning like this?

“White supremacist are NOT right wing extremist.”

Are they left wing? Do you think they voted for Obama?

“Hitler was a socialist, not a captialist.”

Hitler was not really a socialist. He was a facist. This is from the wikipedia page on the Nazi Party: “The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis”

“The Tiller killer was probably a right wing extremist but just because someone is pro life does not mean that they are republican.”

Probably? Do you think there is any doubt?

“There are after all a few democrats who are against abortion.”

But they don’t go around killing doctors.

“What Janet said was wrong. I understand that people can blow up sometimes and say some things that they don’t really mean. I am living proof, but when she defends most of what she has said then it is creating an irrational fear. So even the left are guilty of fear mongering. Yes it was just a speech but still speeches can turn into action.”

What are you talking about? I didn’t say she said anything. This was based on a warning issued by the DHS, not any speech. Please try to keep up.

Are you suggesting they should not have issued that warning? That it was unfounded? That it wasn’t accurate? Because that is what most conservatives were saying at the time. Now that those warnings have come to fruition, don’t you think these conservatives should be appologizing for mis-characterising the report?

No, the threat is not real…it’s manufacted and manipulated in the press, by those who seem to feel that dividing the country is somehow a benefit to the liberal cause.

Last month an abortion doctor was murdered

Nothing new here…they were knocking off abortion clinics with bombs and killing Dr’s in the parking lots 20 years ago…

yesterday a white-supremacist shot and killed a security gaurd at the holocost museum.

An 88 year old nutcase…who thinks Obama is a friend of Jews… obviously he hasn’t been listening to the news, and very possibly suffering from demensia… White Supremists have been around forever, and never once have I heard them tagged into the general poplations’s idea of “conservative”…

There isn’t an increase of anything other than the politicalicizing of every crackpot who pokes his head above ground, and acts on his whacko thinking. (AS LONG as he can be passed off in some form of non-liberal light)…when that happens, the killing will be reported as “nutcase kills army recruiter”.

In the past the majority of ALL Americans agreed…”Whack job” when a news worthy assasination or murder took place…today, there is an agenda…and it’s to divide the people, & portray a very few crackpots as “examples” of conservatives. Gee, I wonder who benefits from all this manipulation…Hmmm…

p

Remember Barry Goldwater’s famous quote:

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

Conservatives see themselves as the standard bearers of everything good and right. Therefore to many of them the logical extension of conservativism is the ideal America.

It is inherently insulting to a group to refer to criminals as extremists within their group. Think of how often the media has referred to Middle Eastern terrorists as Muslim extremists. The implication here is that only moderate Muslims are ok; people can follow Islam as long as they don’t take it too seriously. Wouldn’t mainstream Christians feel insulted if Scott Roeder was constantly referred to as a Christian extremist?

I don’t know the exact verbiage used by the Dept of Homeland Security but this may have not even been news if they used less provocative terms to describe the groups they were concerned about.

* Given these recent events, would you say that the report was accurate in describing these warnings and the DHS was doing what it is supposed to do?

A sample of 3 is not statistically significant, and these things were happening before Obama even ran for office, so it seems more hype than reality, even if there is a small amount of reality to it.

My guess is, that there is always a slight uptick in reactionary crimes by the losers in all major elections.

The DHS warning targeted soldiers returning from Iraq…that’s what got them into hot water…

of course the threat is real, as is evidenced by events. Is the threat widespread? .

News flash…you’re “threatened” everytime you walk out the door…However, the chances are, that you WILL walk back in that door…the chances of your running into a crazy, conservative with murder on his mind are slim.

Hopefully not

OBVIOUSLY not…geeez

There’s one bad nut in every can…like houghtrain said, 99.999999999999999% of ALL Americans aren’t going to go out and shoot somebody…

p

White supremacist are NOT right wing extremist. Hitler was a socialist, not a captialist. The Tiller killer was probably a right wing extremist but just because someone is pro life does not mean that they are republican. There are after all a few democrats who are against abortion.
What Janet said was wrong. I understand that people can blow up sometimes and say some things that they don’t really mean. I am living proof, but when she defends most of what she has said then it is creating an irrational fear. So even the left are guilty of fear mongering. Yes it was just a speech but still speeches can turn into action.

I am a libertarian. There is no doubt there has been an increase in right wing extremism just as there was an increase in left wing extremism when bush was elected. The problem that most conservatives have with the white house rhetoric and the various reports is that the government seems to be trying to paint regular conservatives as extremists. I have read one such report issued by the DOD which insinuated that anyone who is pro life, or supports ron paul might be a right wing extremist/ domestic terrorist.

Let me get this out of the way… were the right pundits hypocritical when denouncing these reports… absolutely… Jimahl… these people are strawmen… tarbabies… they are opportunists looking to sweeten their salaries… pandering to the highest bidder. Those of us who are the subjects of the DHS report regard those you have listed on the same level as Jerry Springer. Yes… they are hypocrits… thats nothing new to me. If this is your question… this is my answer.

My question to you was if you consider this type of profiling justified … you responded yes… You believe innocent citizens should be surveilled by the police because of their Ideology. Lets be clear… these are innocent civilians who have espoused a belief the Feds find troublingly consistent with the ones they consider extreme. These are not criminals… you gave the example of the Intelligence agencies picking up threats and not acting on them… but you should understand that the amount of evidence that would be actionable would also incriminate those that threatened… they would be criminals. You are advocating a new STASI… admit it. Quit dressing it up as precautionary… you are reacting to the paranoia induced by your FED… You are as susceptible to paranoia as any… your sentiments echo this position louder and louder with every post you give.

Yeah we differ greatly. Not only in our political leanings but by virtue of the fact that I would never advocate you being surveilled based on our differences of opinions… this is our major discrepancy. I for one think that it makes you the threat. I will not let this issue die. Your position is a direct threat to my well being. You are paranoid of your fellow man. What does this make you?

When your ideals include treating those that differ from you as second class citizens who ought to be watched… you have no need of the bunker… anything it could have saved you have already forfeited.

So you do endorse profiling? Or you don’t depending upon if it makes you look hypocritical…

You posted this question in order to showcase the strawman right pundits hypocrisy… can you not see your own hypocrisy?… or do you endorse any and all cases of profiling?

Please don’t argue that the DHS report is not profiling… it obviously is. In order to avoid admitting your own hypocrisy you can argue until you are blue in the face that the DHS report targets criminals… but a criminal is a criminal AFTER he commits a crime… not before.

When a report endorses presuming ones guilt in advance of a crime and denying ones expectations of privacy… infringing greatly into ones guaranteed 4th amendment right… it is deserving of more consideration than a nod of approval by so called “liberals.”

Liberal The modern left are not deserving of that moniker as exemplified by the mindset portrayed here. You are not a lover of liberty… only of left aggrandizement. The rest of us be damned.

*Do you not understand the purpose of the reports?

The reports are listing those that are to be watched by local… state and federal police forces. The individuals are listed as being most likely to be recruited by or harboring far right extreme views.

Do you endorse this course of profiling?*

No, not entirely. But I do think there is a need to be aware of violent extremists. Either way the discussion was not about the usefulness, or misuse of such reports. It was about the phonyness of the right wing media, and how they created the story by useing the DHS warning as a weapon against the administration. Any other discussions are completely tangential to my point.

Returning veterans and Lone wolf extremists were mentioned in the DHS report… suggesting that individual surveillance is advocated… not the militias which have been a target of the government before…albeit wrongly.

I must have missed the part where it said indviduals were to be surveiled without cause. You and I differ greatly in many areas. I do not subscribe to the libertarian POV. I do not want an armed citizenry. And I think criminals are criminals regardless of ideology. If warranted and sanctioned, surveilence is necessary at times.

These reports when taken in conjunction with the Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Acts lay out the blue print for the violation of rights.

Not THESE reports. I was only discussing one report, and for one reason. Others brought up other reports.

I am very much against the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Always have been. That is irrelevant to the question.

You have stated that you are in support of the reports because it is targeting those of a criminal nature. Are you implicating their guilt before they commit crimes… if so… you are suggesting a brand spanking new American STASI.

I stated nothing of the sort. What I stated was that it was proper to WARN law enforcement agencies about evidence of increased extremist group activities, especially given recent events. Think about this. Wwat if there were violent acts committed by islamic extremists, and the DHS had heard chatter and did nothing to warn law enforcement? The right wing pundits be screaming how the Obama adminstration did nothing to keep us safe.

You have to see through this ruse for the good of us all… get on our side… we can differ on polity… but when you regale in the left/right fervor you are fighting the phantom menace.

Our side? Who is our? I am on my side. I can be open minded and cautious without falling into paranoia. I do not regale in politics. I am interested and involved. I do that because I feel that is the only way things will change for the better (not that I think I alone am making any significant change). I see no value in standing completely outside the system and shaking my fists in defiance of it. I see no value, nor change coming that way. I have no illusions that the people at the heart of the political/economic power structure are completely altruistic. They are far from it. But I am not going to abandon my ideals and climb into my fully armed bunker and wait for the government to come, or for the revolution to start. I will work with what is available. And I am not naive, I am a realist.

Do you not understand the purpose of the reports?

The reports are listing those that are to be watched by local… state and federal police forces. The individuals are listed as being most likely to be recruited by or harboring far right extreme views.

Do you endorse this course of profiling?

Returning veterans and Lone wolf extremists were mentioned in the DHS report… suggesting that individual surveillance is advocated… not the militias which have been a target of the government before…albeit wrongly.

“Please show me where in the DHS report it targeted all conservatives and their ideology, or where it suggested violating anyones civil rights?”

These reports when taken in conjunction with the Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Acts lay out the blue print for the violation of rights. These reports suggest domestic terrorists as those of the ideology to be surveilled… the Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Acts describe the manner in which domestic terrorists are to be stripped of constitutional rights. Do you deny this?

You have stated that you are in support of the reports because it is targeting those of a criminal nature. Are you implicating their guilt before they commit crimes… if so… you are suggesting a brand spanking new American STASI.

No Jimahl… I am not suggesting you are in favor of these frightening authoritarian movements… I am suggesting that you are ignorantly facilitating them. I apologize for the curt depictions of your sentiment… but I am highly motivated to oppose them and expose them for the problematic foundations they establish. You are unwittingly working against your fellow man. You have to see through this ruse for the good of us all… get on our side… we can differ on polity… but when you regale in the left/right fervor you are fighting the phantom menace.

Yeah… I agree with your pundit point wholeheartedly… I disavow pretty much the entire media.

Jimahl… you aren’t accurately depicting the DHS report. One can be arrested for plotting to carry out any terroristic act. One isn’t put on a watch list… one is arrested. The report… lists those that law enforcement needs to watch… not terrorists operating in the U. S. Perhaps you should read the report. You are coloring it as a list of known criminals and terrorist groups when it is no such thing. It is a profile of who may be prone to rightwing extreme acts of unlawfullness. No names are given… only descriptions of ideology… past employment…eg disgruntled veterans. This is profiling. I am glad to hear that you don’t support profiling… do you understand that you hold conflicting positions by not supporting profiling while supporting a DHS report that is nothing more than a profile?

I am glad that you feel similarly to me regarding the surveillance of your fellow citizens… that means that you are not on board with this DHS report. If you haven’t yet read the report… I provided the URL in my first post here. It is crucial that you understand what the nature of the report is.

You are better than this Jimahl… Are you seriously suggesting that because I supported Ron Paul I should be scrutinized and put on a watch list? This is a dangerous precedent you are espousing and supporting.

So that none are ignorant… here are the URL to the MIAC report and the April 7 DHS report as well as a take on the question portending it seemingly from one not fooled by the two party shell game… Kurt Nimmo

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13232178/MIAC-Strategic-Report-The-Modern-Militia-Movement

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

http://www.infowars.com/self-righteous-neocon-republicans-complain-about-dhs-report/

Back to the matter at hand…

Are you advocating we resurrect the STASI mein freund? “Cept this one is authored by the Obama administration so it is chock full of “Change” and liberal vitamin and mineral goodness huh?

Will you sign up and do your dutiful best to snitch out all us dissidents to the DHA “Czar”?

While you are taking names… go ahead and write mine down…

I supported Ron Paul… I think the Federal Reserve should be abolished… I believe that the militarization of the police is anathema to civil society. I am considered a threat and according to these reports you are championing… I should be surveilled.

Who is the extremist again?

The ironic thing is… these extremists could read the writing on the wall… they knew that the patriot acts were written with them in mind… they were to be the terrorists whose citizenships were to be stripped and rights denied. Why? Because they had identified the powers that be and opposed them… That cannot be tolerated… can it Jimahl?

Can I ask you where this post originated? Was this completely conjured up in your head… or was it inspired by websites you frequent? If the latter… I inquire their addresses… They need to be watched by those of us they threaten… They are to be feared above and beyond any paltry act listed as justification for the authoritarian reports.

Are you aware that the Southern Poverty Law Center supplied the MIAC report with the suspect statistics? Do you favor political institutions authoring BOLO–Be On the LookOut– reports implicating the opposition routinely or only when you are on the winning side?… P.S. … [there are no winning sides… you may lose later… but you will still lose.] Are you aware that the American National Socialist Workers Party has been exposed as a front for the SPLC and the ADL? When natural born white supremists aren’t born someone has to play the role so that the SPLC and ADL have a villain to justify their existence and buoy their reform acts… eg the MIAC and DHS reports.

It isn’t too late. You don’t have to be the unwilling assailant to your own well being. Wake up! Stop doing the bidding of those that would just as soon see your entire life forfeited if it meant an extra two bits in their coffers. Why is this not obvious to you… Jimahl? Like I said earlier… you are better than this.

hivetyrant, believe it or not, I agree with most of what you said. I too consider myself pro-life, although I obviously don’t base that any religious belief. But I also realize we live in a country of people with many different views and opinions, and mine is just one of them. Right now the majority of people support it. I wish that weren’t so, but it is. But also don’t think you are going to change anyones mind by hitting them over the head with the bible. The problem I have with many pro-lifers is there inconsistancy. If you support the death penalty, yet oppose abortion, to me that is hypocritical. The goal for both sides should be reducing the amount of abortions. You will never eliminate them. Even if they were illegal, they would still be happening. Proper sex ed and easy acces to birth control are the simpliest and most effective ways of reducing unwanted pregnancies.

I would not go as far as to say a that zygote, or a blastocyst needs to be protected. They are only a few cells at that point. Late term abortions, unless the health of the mother is an issue, are wrong in my opinion. There has to be a middle ground. The discussion should be not about banning all abortion, it should be about deciding at what point a fetus has rights separate and apart from its mother. That is the question, and it should have nothing to do with religious belief.

I have read it, and I see nothing really probelmatic or wrong in what they are reporting. I do not see it as demonization of an ideology. I see warnings and assesments of right wing extremist groups who are prone to violence. Our differences may lie in the fact that you might not consider some of these groups (like militias) extremists. I have no desire to see paramilitary groups hunkering down and arming themselves.

Let me get this out of the way… were the right pundits hypocritical when denouncing these reports… absolutely… Jimahl… these people are strawmen… tarbabies… they are opportunists looking to sweeten their salaries… pandering to the highest bidder.

I am glad to see you completely agree with the entire point I was making when posting this question.

Those of us who are the subjects of the DHS report regard those you have listed on the same level as Jerry Springer.

Unless you are a criminal, you were not among the subjects of the DHS report .

My question to you was if you consider this type of profiling justified … you responded yes… You believe innocent citizens should be surveilled by the police because of their Ideology.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. I said nothing of the kind. I do not believe in profiling of any sort. What I said was that warranted and sanctioned (court ordered) survielance is necessary at times. One should need to meet the probable cause standard before being surveiled.

Lets be clear… these are innocent civilians who have espoused a belief the Feds find troublingly consistent with the ones they consider extreme.

Again, if there is probable cause, then they may not be so innocent. If there is evidence of unlawfulness, then it is justified.

These are not criminals…

We wouldn’t know that unless you investigated them. But that invesitagtion MUST have probable cause.

you gave the example of the Intelligence agencies picking up threats and not acting on them…

I gave that example to show the hypcrisy of the right wing punditry. I think we agree on what type of people they are.

but you should understand that the amount of evidence that would be actionable would also incriminate those that threatened… they would be criminals.

We are not talking about the gov just deciding to surveil who ever they feel like. Again, probable cause. If they do it without probable cause, than they are being criminal. As the bush adminsitration was criminal in doing. Too bad no one is willing to hold them responsible.

You are advocating a new STASI… admit it.

I am not, and no I won’t.

Quit dressing it up as precautionary… you are reacting to the paranoia induced by your FED…

I am not dressing anything up. And it is not MY fed. It is all of ours government. And if we choose not to be involved, then we can’t expect change.

You are as susceptible to paranoia as any… your sentiments echo this position louder and louder with every post you give.

I guess I might be susceptible, but my world view is not shaped by it. Paranoia is not a bad thing, but too much of anything is bad for you.

Yeah we differ greatly. Not only in our political leanings but by virtue of the fact that I would never advocate you being surveilled based on our differences of opinions…

Nor I you. I never suggested otherwise.

this is our major discrepancy.

No it isn’t.

I for one think that it makes you the threat. I will not let this issue die. Your position is a direct threat to my well being. You are paranoid of your fellow man. What does this make you?

The only reason you should be threatened is if you are doing something illegal. That is not me who makes that decision, so you have no need to be threatened by me. I have no desire to see you or anyone else being watched just because of you ideology.

When your ideals include treating those that differ from you as second class citizens who ought to be watched… you have no need of the bunker… anything it could have saved you have already forfeited.

Well then all is good, becasue my ideals do not iclude anything like that.

Phrannie, of course the threat is real, as is evidenced by events. Is the threat widespread? Hopefully not. The point was, this DHS warning that the conservative talking heads went nuts over was politicized by THEM. It was a warning issued to law enforcement. One that said to look out for the exact types of situations that just happened. It was probably one of many warnings the DHS sends out to law enforcement all the time. That is their job. It was picked up by the right wing media and used as a propaganda tool against the administration. Otherwise it would never have even been reported on. So who politicized it? I agree with filetofspam that the language could have been better, and the whitehouse agreed. But the warnings themselves were obviously warranted.

There has been a concerted effort coming from the right to ramp up the hate. Look at how things went with the McCain campaign. We had a presidential candidate being called a terrorist at a campaign rally, and calls to kill him at another. We had people accusing him of being an Arab, as if that were something dangerous. Not that I think McCain necessarily did anything to encourage these events, but these people didn’t just come out of the wood work. They were spurred on by the Limbaugh’s, Beck’s, Savage’s, Hannities, and O’Rielly’s of the world. There is no equilavent of this on the left. How many times did O’Reilly call him Tiller the baby killer? That is inciteful, and if he worked anywhere else but Fox, he would have lost his job by now. Now if these people can be spurred on to say these things at campaign rallys, what effect do you think that type of rhetoric has on an extremist?

To think that the election of the first african american president doesn’t warrant keeping a close eye on white supremacist groups and activities is just naive.

—The only time I bring up OT references is when people claim the bible is the infallibale word of god—

So long as it is correctly translated, it is. Funny thing is,it’s been edited and re-edited so many times that it’s not even funny. The original scrolls on which the writers recorded everything most likely had parts blotted out.

—or that the story of genesis is absolutely true—

No, not absolutely. I think at one point or the other, someone mentioned that most scholars agree that a day of man and a day of God are two different things. I agree most heavily in this matter. How do I put it? I believe in evolution, just not to the point that it was the origin of animal and plant life as we know it today. But I do beleive that the Earth is RELATIVELY young.

—or that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin—

Kinda does, depending on how little you cherry pick. But the reasons I do not come out hateful and tell ANYONE(including homosexuals) is because of the commandment,:” Love the sinner but hate the sin,” and because it is only our Father’s right to judge. And since I don’t believe God is one to take sides, he is the most objective one out there, able to see things from everyone’s perspective.

I don’t think I was hitting anyone over the head with a Bible. I generally don’t do that. I think that the New Testament, which is the law Christians are supposed to be abiding by(which is why I hate it when you try to use the Old Testament as negative evidence) has a lot of good ideas by which a person should live by. But even when I was going through my anti-religious stage, I understood the need for human discipline. Even while going through that stage, I did not go on to live an absolutely liberal lifestyle, though it was a bit more liberal than it is now.

My beliefs are my own, not my Father’s, not my Mother’s, not my church’s, not my city’s, not my state’s; they are MINE, coming from the person I am. These all may have had an influence on the person I am(all of the prior stated actually an opposing one, since I do my best to be the opposite of what they all believe I should become), but ultimately, the choice is mine. I respect life in general, and after that, I respect human beings of all kinds. This includes born and not born, freeman and prisoner, educated and not educated. If my religion might have helped me develop this respect, so what? It is still my choice to love and respect, or hate and degrade, and I refuse to allow my choices to be made for me by God, my community, or my family.

amblessed, there have not been 150 million Intact D&X surgeries. If you make no distinction between a zygote, blastocyst, fetus, and a fully born functioning human being, you will never convince anyone that the unborn have rights. If you actually stop using religion to make you argument, then maybe people might take you seriously. Once you start spouting stuff about judgement day, you have lost all credibility with the majority of people. I would have far more respect for pro-lifers if they would put down the bible and discuss things logically. They also need to be consistant about life, like opposing abortion at the same time supporting capital punishment. But I am sure that is asking too much.

Also, people having abortions do not believe they are doing something equivalant to killing a baby. Those who murder abortion doctors know exactly what they are doing is immoral and illegal. They are doing it out of vengence. WWJD? They are not saving any lives either. There will always be another doctor who will perform the procedure.

Still didn’t answer my question. Are you glad Tiller is dead?

You are better than this Jimahl… Are you seriously suggesting that because I supported Ron Paul I should be scrutinized and put on a watch list? This is a dangerous precedent you are espousing and supporting. *

Not at all. I never said that. I never defended the MAIC report. It was wrong, and it was rightfully withdrawn a few weeks after its release. I was not the one who brought that up.

The DHS report made no such claims. It was a warning to law enforcement to be on the look out for EXTREMIST activities. While I think the DHS has been a disaster, this warning IS the kind of stuff they are supposed to do. And given subsequent events, it was warranted.

miscegenymiser, you are throwing a lot of stuff at me here that is completely unwarranted, and based on a false assumption that I support the MAIC report. I am not suggesting violating anyones civil rights, nor targetting anyone simply because of their ideology. I am talking about targeting extremists engaging in criminal activity, regardless of their ideology. That is all. Intelligence pointed to an increase in extremist activities and a warning went out. It was the conservative media who CLAIMED it was targetting all conservatives. They claimed the report was unwarranted and was issued solely for political reasons. My point was that this warning was not put out there for the public. It was meant for law enforcement. It was the right wing media who sensationalized and politicized it.. And since then we have had two high-profile murders happen at the hands of right-wing extremists.

I think for myself. This question originated with me. When the incident at the holocost musem happened, it made me remember the way the a-holes in conservative media went nuts over the DHS report. I was attempting to highlight their hypocrisy.

Please show me where in the DHS report it targeted all conservatives and their ideology, or where it suggested violating anyones civil rights?

I think he answered it quite clearly.

—ANY loss of Life is tragic—

Well, you see, for some of us, our beliefs helped us become who we are, and are a part of who we are. In many cases, religion has significant influence in these beliefs. As I’ve stated before, my opinion is that abortions are wrong except when it is done to save the mother’s life. If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t practice unsafe sex. Condoms, birth control, morning-after pills, and spermicide are all cheaper and more morale alternatives to creating an “unwanted baby”. I don’t consider it a baby until the zygote has embedded itself into the uterus, where it quickly develops into an embryo.

But I find it sad that even married couples are getting abortions because it’s not “financially convenient.” Being the eldest in what is now an average middle-class family, I know for a fact that none of my 3 younger siblings, who are very dear to me, would have been born if my parents lived by that philosophy.

I never said you were hitting anyone over the head. I was refering to amblessed and other fundamentalists. You seem to be a bit more open-minded and tolerant than that. I have found that most believers do not subscribe to that type of extreme ideology, my wife being one.

I actualy agree with you that the new testament has a lot of good advice on how to live your life and how to treat one another. I try to live my life that way except for going to church and believing in god. The only time I bring up OT references is when people claim the bible is the infallibale word of god, or that the story of genesis is absolutely true, or that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin. That is all OT stuff, and it is a bunch of nonsense to me.

“The DHS warning targeted soldiers returning from Iraq…that’s what got them into hot water…”

Hot water? I wouldn’t characterize it that way. Thatt was part of it. But they heard chatter that pinted to hate groups targeting returning soldiers, you know since they already know how to fight and use guns. It was a proper warning.

“News flash…you’re “threatened” everytime you walk out the door…However, the chances are, that you WILL walk back in that door…the chances of your running into a crazy, conservative with murder on his mind are slim.”

When did I say that I felt threatened? I never once said anything about these incidents being so widespread that we needed to be constantly looking over our sholders.

You are completely missing the point. This was a very appropriate warning issued for LAW ENFORCEMENT. Not the public. It was the right wing that publicized and politicized it as an attack on conservatism, when it was nothing of the sort. And recent events have proven the wanring to LAW ENFORCEMENT was warranted.

“so it seems more hype than reality”

Whose hype? It was the right wing media that brought it up in the first place.

“My guess is, that there is always a slight uptick in reactionary crimes by the losers in all major elections.”

I don’t remember anything like these incidents happening when Bush was appointed in 2000, or when he stole the election in 2004. And there was plenty for the left wing to be mad about. I am not saying there aren’t any leftist extremists out there. But I don’t see them being encouraged by progressive talk show hosts.

Have any examples? I don’t remember hearing about any leftwing extremists murdering people.

Anti war riots

Since they were called extremists, I am pretty sure that would exclude “regular” conservatives. And it wasn’t various reports. It was one.

You know that, and I know that. Now go tell that to president Obama. It was more than one. One by Homeland, some slandering by Napolitano herself, and one by the state of Missouri.

Care to share this report with us? Or should we just take your word for it? Why would the DOD be even involved with any kind of warning like this?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13121

Are they left wing? Do you think they voted for Obama?

White supremacists are off on their own planet somewhere. They might be more left wing. Obama and the supremacists both dislike Jews.

Hitler was not really a socialist. He was a facist. This is from the wikipedia page on the Nazi Party: “The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis”

wrong. “NATIONAL SOCIALSIM”, the “GERMAN WORKERS PARTY” doesn’t sound very right wing to me.

Probably? Do you think there is any doubt? yes. He could very well be a pro life democrat, None of that matters anyway. Bottom line he was a psycho.

“There are after all a few democrats who are against abortion.”

“But they don’t go around killing doctors.” Neither do 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of pro life republicans.

“What Janet said was wrong. I understand that people can blow up sometimes and say some things that they don’t

Are you suggesting they should not have issued that warning? That it was unfounded? That it wasn’t accurate? Because that is what most conservatives were saying at the time. Now that those warnings have come to fruition, don’t you think these conservatives should be appologizing for mis-characterising the report?

Absolutly not. It was not mis characterised. I could call all liberals terrorists, then find three instances where it looks like left wing extremism and then boast how right I am. that is exactly what has happened.

“I think the report was wrong to lump pro-lifers, gun right advocates, returning veterans, and small government minded people, as potential terrorists.”

That is not what it did. That is what conservative talking heads SAID it did.

“It is equivalent to me to the way they labeled those who were anti-war as threats to american freedom (a crock), or it is like saying Environmentalists are terrorists because of groups like ELF, or that muslims are terrorists, because of groups like Al Qaeda.”

It was a warning. One that was obviously warranted. The report says nothing about labeling conservative ideology as a porblem bad. It labels EXTREMISM for what it is, dangerous, just as it does for other extrmist activities, like ELF and al Qaeda.

“Pretty much the report is useless because, saying that it is possible that one or a few of the 100 million pro-lifers could be a terrorist does nothing to stop those terrorist, because 99,999,997 others of that same group aren’t terrorists.”

So when the DHS has evidence of extremist activities or hears chatter among extremist groups, they should not make law enforcement aware? It is part of their job.

“As a leftwingnut I don’t think you have the best opinion as to whether it is fair. “

Call me a wingnut all you want, I care not. I am a proud progressive liberal, but I also am honest, and do not spin facts to suit my ideology. There is a difference.

“While I disagree heavily with Republicans on many issues (especially war, and the size of our government) and with Democrats on many issues, my opinion is less likely to be biased.”

Obvioulsy not, since you are still claiming that the report lumped right wing extremists with all conservatives, and labeled their entire ideology as extremist. It did not.

ANY loss of Life is tragic - since Roe vs Wade: Aborted: 150 million Abortion Dr’s 5 Tragic - should never have happened - all will give account, judgement day.

“Fact: George Tiller specialized in what is euphemistically called late-term abortion.”

Fact: Intact D&X surgery represents .17% of all abortions. Fact: The right wing targeted Tiller and constantly refered to him as Tiller the baby killer.
Fact: Geroge Tiller was investigated and found to be doing nothing illegal. Fact: George Tiller was bruatally murdered is his church.

amblessed, are you glad Tiller he is dead? Please answer this.

I think the report was wrong to lump pro-lifers, gun right advocates, returning veterans, and small government minded people, as potential terrorists. It is equivalent to me to the way they labeled those who were anti-war as threats to american freedom (a crock), or it is like saying Environmentalists are terrorists because of groups like ELF, or that muslims are terrorists, because of groups like Al Qaeda.

Pretty much the report is useless because, saying that it is possible that one or a few of the 100 million pro-lifers could be a terrorist does nothing to stop those terrorist, because 99,999,997 others of that same group aren’t terrorists.

As a leftwingnut I don’t think you have the best opinion as to whether it is fair. While I disagree heavily with Republicans on many issues (especially war, and the size of our government) and with Democrats on many issues, my opinion is less likely to be biased.

Fact: George Tiller specialized in what is euphemistically called late-term abortion. It involves the breech (feet first) delivery of a full-term baby to the point where only the head remains inside the birth canal…ostensibly to soothe the conscience of the mother by muffling the child’s screams as scissors penetrate the back of his tiny skull and the contents are brutally suctioned out. The lifeless little body is then fully removed and discarded, in pieces, into a trash sack - apparently he couldn’t tell that it was a Life there in front of him.

Your words Hopefully not gave me the feeling that you might not see what is obviously to me…That a couple lone wolves aren’t evidence of some sort conservative uprising…I’m glad to hear that’s not the case… :)

p