Members Thunderbroom Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 From the Office of Homeland Security: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment Link to PDF From the bottom of Page 2: Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. I'm the bolded/underlined part as I support states' rights. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hearafter Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 Why do you hate America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 Supporting states rights and rejecting federal authority aren't exactly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted April 15, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 Supporting states rights and rejecting federal authority aren't exactly the same thing. Please elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted April 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 15, 2009 Well there is the whole supremacy clause. You can support state rights to the fullest without rejecting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted April 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 15, 2009 There's also the whole point of how you wouldn't fall into that classification if you aren't also a terrorist. You can't just pick one attribute and claim to be an identified member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 There's also the whole point of how you wouldn't fall into that classification if you aren't also a terrorist. You can't just pick one attribute and claim to be an identified member. I would contest that inclusion in just one thing on that list would be a reason for justifiable cause to vector on other activities. I know the whole 'if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear' argument, but I still don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted April 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 15, 2009 I hope that isn't 1tallbassguy they're referring to on page 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted April 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 15, 2009 I would contest that inclusion in just one thing on that list would be a reason for justifiable cause to vector on other activities. I know the whole 'if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear' argument, but I still don't buy it. I don't know what you're saying, but if you explain it to me, I'll respond as well as I can. My point was you could classify a "dangerous dog" as one that was loose and rabid. That wouldn't mean a loose dog would fall into that categorization if it wasn't also rabid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 I don't know what you're saying, but if you explain it to me, I'll respond as well as I can. My point was you could classify a "dangerous dog" as one that was loose and rabid. That wouldn't mean a loose dog would fall into that categorization if it wasn't also rabid. My point is that this list has the potential of classifying all dogs that can bite as being 'dangerous'. I'm an avid state's rights advocate. Could that give Homeland Security cause to search my activities based upon a single fact? I'd say it's more than likely. McCarthyism never went away, it just hid for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny_Crab Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 I'm SURE this won't get inverted to include certain groups entertaining the notion that "Christians" need to convert or be killed. Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), Geez!Guess my voting district puts me in trouble eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted April 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 15, 2009 My point is that this list has the potential of classifying all dogs that can bite as being 'dangerous'. I'm an avid state's rights advocate. Could that give Homeland Security cause to search my activities based upon a single fact? I'd say it's more than likely. McCarthyism never went away, it just hid for a while. I see what you are saying. The document isn't giving anyone/any organization any authority to act, its just trying to share information. I think it does a poor job, but that's what it's doing. I also appears to not be intended for release. Hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 I see what you are saying. The document isn't giving anyone/any organization any authority to act, its just trying to share information. I think it does a poor job, but that's what it's doing.I also appears to not be intended for release. Hmm... That's also my point. It HAS been released. I cherish my right to say whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want, and this makes me afraid to do so. That seems like a pretty big civil liberty violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members collinwho Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 That's also my point. It HAS been released. I cherish my right to say whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want, and this makes me afraid to do so. That seems like a pretty big civil liberty violation. This might need some more explaining. Regardless of whether it scares your or not, how does a document that explains (poorly) some possible traits of terrorists, but doesn't provide any authority whatsoever to do anything about it, violate civil liberties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 This might need some more explaining. Regardless of whether it scares your or not, how does a document that explains (poorly) some possible traits of terrorists, but doesn't provide any authority whatsoever to do anything about it, violate civil liberties? It's more the fear of using my first amendment rights because big brother may be watching than anything else. Slightly off-topic analogy: I was drinking a beer with a friend, who is a police officer. I asked him if the driving while talking on a phone law was a secondary (IE an offense that doesn't justify a stop) offense. He said 'yeah, but we can pull you over for anything we want. Come a millimeter within the white line and they can pull you over for suspicion of drunk driving and then get you with the cell phone ticket. I equate this as the same thing. If the government wants to find something wrong with you, they will. Doesn't mean it's rational or reasonable. Just means they have the legal right to get in my backyard because of my beliefs. That's a civil liberty violation by the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 I also appears to not be intended for release. Hmm... Well its unclassified at least:D Although FOUO is normally internal and I agree this is merely informational; probably distributed to a lot of different agencies to give a general idea of what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members collinwho Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 It's more the fear of using my first amendment rights because big brother may be watching than anything else. Slightly off-topic analogy: I was drinking a beer with a friend, who is a police officer. I asked him if the driving while talking on a phone law was a secondary (IE an offense that doesn't justify a stop) offense. He said 'yeah, but we can pull you over for anything we want. Come a millimeter within the white line and they can pull you over for suspicion of drunk driving and then get you with the cell phone ticket. I equate this as the same thing. If the government wants to find something wrong with you, they will. Doesn't mean it's rational or reasonable. Just means they have the legal right to get in my backyard because of my beliefs. That's a civil liberty violation by the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Good analogy. I definitely understand your position better now. I still don't think I buy it as a violation of civil liberties, either in spirit or letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 Good analogy. I definitely understand your position better now. I still don't think I buy it as a violation of civil liberties, either in spirit or letter. Its not a violation of anything, it's basically an internal memo. Think about it as a TPS report:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 Good analogy. I definitely understand your position better now. I still don't think I buy it as a violation of civil liberties, either in spirit or letter. Identifying potential threats to the government based on ideal is on the same wavelength as racial profiling, but it's way more sticky in that you're judging someone based on what's inside, not what colour of skin you have. I understand that there are a lot of radicals out there; ultrafundamentalists blowing up abortion clinics, militia men defying the authority of their state, etc etc. However, not every pit bull bites, and not every person who is anti-organized religion burns down churches. The idea that the threat umbrella just included a vast cross section of law-abiding, tax-paying, responsible Americans brings my blood to a boil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted April 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 15, 2009 Think about it as a TPS report:D Exactly. Just as well written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members willsellout Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 Exactly. Just as well written. I get these a few times a week and they are always horrible. I'm not sure if I got this one though as I lost all my god damn mail when my profile got corrupted:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted April 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted April 15, 2009 Identifying potential threats to the government based on ideal is on the same wavelength as racial profiling, but it's way more sticky in that you're judging someone based on what's inside, not what colour of skin you have. I understand that there are a lot of radicals out there; ultrafundamentalists blowing up abortion clinics, militia men defying the authority of their state, etc etc. However, not every pit bull bites, and not every person who is anti-organized religion burns down churches. The idea that the threat umbrella just included a vast cross section of law-abiding, tax-paying, responsible Americans brings my blood to a boil. But this document recognizes the very point you are making. Not very clearly (like I said it is poorly written), but it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 And you guys thought I was off my rocker a couple of weeks ago. http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2279957 I heard about this earlier today, but decided not to post it as too many people are turning a blind eye to this type of thing. If enough people dismiss this, it will only embolden those who are trying to clamp down on your freedoms. If not by action, then by policy and perception. I also heard rumors that there will be plenty of "watchdogs" at the tea parties to start identifying any potential "troublemakers'. They are reinforcing this mantra of "If you believe in states rights, if you vote outside the 2 party system, if you are against abortion, etc etc, well....we think you might possibly be a problem." Too many things lining up for me to think this is a poorly written TPS report without a cover sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted April 15, 2009 Members Share Posted April 15, 2009 The other thing to consider is that according to the 10th ammendment, as Indiana and other states are getting around to realizing, in most every case, states rights SHOULD outweigh federal authority. And the federal government repeatedly oversteps their bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.