Right-Wing Extremists

[Lastbayking]

I'd call Islamist extremism pretty right-wing, if by right-wing you mean authoritarian.

They're talking more like American Nazi Party stuff, KKK, Enraged Veterans, and pretty much all race-hater retards...

Actually by stuff just released there saying to be on the look out for people who voted for Ralph Nater, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Devout christians and gun owners, plus those anti illegal immagration and anti abortion.

Also go to your local tea party on the 15, should be fun.

 

[Kazturkey]

Death to all extremists!!!!1!111one!11!

/satire

 

[Aegwadar]

Uh, what? This thread confuses me, though I suppose it just might be because I don't understand the OP. ZorroFonzarelli has my backing though: extremists on both sides are harmful. Just get somebody moderate to fix things up.

I was asking basically if anyone thought that the extremists are going to be a problem near-future. I'm with Zorro on that as well...

 

[TheBluesader]

This kind of assessment first requires you to accept the current "left/right" political theory, which I do not. Because it doesn't help explain why people do what they do, and there's only superficial consistency between the groups on the "left" and "right."

So that leaves us with one thing: extremists, of all varieties. Are we talking about terrorist groups, people with dictatorial political ambitions, or people more interested in grassroots social change? They are not all an equal threat.

And I wouldn't decry them all. The American Founding Fathers technically were extremist terrorists. As were the Soviet founders, who left behind them an empire capable of reaching space. Are we just afraid of people who murder, or are repressive, or what?

I would ask all of you the same thing I'd ask the government: stop raging against things before you've defined them. That's a form of extremism in and of itself.

 

[Ancientgamer]

I'd call Islamist extremism pretty right-wing, if by right-wing you mean authoritarian.

They're talking more like American Nazi Party stuff, KKK, Enraged Veterans, and pretty much all race-hater retards...

That's all well and good, but they don't define "extremist" at all. Do the tea party protest? Stand against abortion? vote against gay marriage? You could be on their list.

 

[Valiance]

Of course this is hilarious and bullshit at the same time.

So now they can come to peoples houses and kill them for complaining about the state of affairs and say that they were "right-wing extremists" trying to "organize a local militia."

Rofl.

More steps taken to destroy the country. Wonderful.

I don't think they can do that... you know, habeas corpus and fair trials and such...

Right-Wing extremists would have guns.

1: Police claim they were threatened.
2: Police shoot R-W Extremists.
3: Police report them as crazed or a militant group.
4: Media portrays them as crazed or militant group. People hate them and justify it.
5: ^_^

 

[Ratman95]

"people who voted for...bob barr"
yep
"gun owners"
uh huh
"anti abortion"
yes
"anti illegal immigration"
well shit, looks like im a terrorist

 

[ygetoff]

Of course this is hilarious and bullshit at the same time.

So now they can come to peoples houses and kill them for complaining about the state of affairs and say that they were "right-wing extremists" trying to "organize a local militia."

Rofl.

More steps taken to destroy the country. Wonderful.

I don't think they can do that... you know, habeas corpus and fair trials and such...

Right-Wing extremists would have guns.

1: Police claim they were threatened.
2: Police shoot R-W Extremists.
3: Police report them as crazed or a militant group.
4: Media portrays them as crazed or militant group. People hate them and justify it.
5: ^_^

It all works pretty well, except the media part. I doubt the entire free press could agree on anything, let alone a controversial shooting.

 

[Danzaivar]

I've never got why racist groups (and authoritarians) are usually banded as being right wing.

Left wing = Group mind-set

Right wing = Individual mind-set

How the hell does making groups of people worth less than other groups be accredited with more power to the individual?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Of course this is hilarious and bullshit at the same time.

So now they can come to peoples houses and kill them for complaining about the state of affairs and say that they were "right-wing extremists" trying to "organize a local militia."

Rofl.

More steps taken to destroy the country. Wonderful.

I don't think they can do that... you know, habeas corpus and fair trials and such...

Right-Wing extremists would have guns.

1: Police claim they were threatened.
2: Police shoot R-W Extremists.
3: Police report them as crazed or a militant group.
4: Media portrays them as crazed or militant group. People hate them and justify it.
5: ^_^

It all works pretty well, except the media part. I doubt the entire free press could agree on anything, let alone a controversial shooting.

They agree on big issues, the same way Republicans and Democrats agree on big issues. When the war in Iraq first began, all the major networks failed to analyze it critically, just as both parties voted in favor of war. On immigration, the networks seem to have reached an agreement, just as the parties have reached an agreement.

The networks are party-operated in every way that matters, and Republicans and Democrats collude because they essentially have the same platform- unlimited expansion of corporate wealth and government control. The only difference is who gets to sit on the throne- but legislation guarantees it will always be one or the other.

 

[Silver Khondji]

First off, allow me to state it is my opinion that any extremist, be it right wing or left wing, is a danger. Their inability to listen to anything besides their own self-righteous bullshit is simply appalling.

HOWEVER I do hold a special place in my bowel for right wing nutjobs simply because of their intolerance. (I really hope I'm on the ball here and we're talking about the KKK, etc, otherwise I'm about to look like a big dummy) I don't give a damn what they've been through, they can't just apply hate to everyone (i.e. racism) because ONE person of a race different from their own MAY have screwed them over in the past. That's like if I took my first bite of oranges, hated it and swore off fruit for the rest of my life. Intolerance is the highest level of human ignorance in my books.

So sure, they may be a public threat. However, unless they make any real movement, there is no reason they should be considered a threat. Unfortunately, there is no law against this sort of thing, but I guess, as long as they keep quiet, they can stay the way they are. Even if their ignorance (if by some dastardly circumstance, was weaponized 0.o) could obliterate a full-grown bull elephant in one shot, America IS a free country, so I suppose (as unpleasant as it is) they can continue their single-minded customs.

 

[crasedmonkey]

Any form of political extremism will impact society negatively. Every political party has it's flaws, you need to see what the best solution for the situation at hand is.

 

[Silver Khondji]

Any form of political extremism will impact society negatively. Every political party has it's flaws, you need to see what the best solution for the situation at hand is.

Agreed.

 

[ygetoff]

Of course this is hilarious and bullshit at the same time.

So now they can come to peoples houses and kill them for complaining about the state of affairs and say that they were "right-wing extremists" trying to "organize a local militia."

Rofl.

More steps taken to destroy the country. Wonderful.

I don't think they can do that... you know, habeas corpus and fair trials and such...

Right-Wing extremists would have guns.

1: Police claim they were threatened.
2: Police shoot R-W Extremists.
3: Police report them as crazed or a militant group.
4: Media portrays them as crazed or militant group. People hate them and justify it.
5: ^_^

It all works pretty well, except the media part. I doubt the entire free press could agree on anything, let alone a controversial shooting.

They agree on big issues, the same way Republicans and Democrats agree on big issues. When the war in Iraq first began, all the major networks failed to analyze it critically, just as both parties voted in favor of war. On immigration, the networks seem to have reached an agreement, just as the parties have reached an agreement.

The networks are party-operated in every way that matters, and Republicans and Democrats collude because they essentially have the same platform- unlimited expansion of corporate wealth and government control. The only difference is who gets to sit on the throne- but legislation guarantees it will always be one or the other.

I don't mean just networks. I mean the whole media: independent blogs and news organizations, newspapers, anything that delivers news.
And I'm pretty sure that Democrats and Republicans are different in quite a few ways.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Of course this is hilarious and bullshit at the same time.

So now they can come to peoples houses and kill them for complaining about the state of affairs and say that they were "right-wing extremists" trying to "organize a local militia."

Rofl.

More steps taken to destroy the country. Wonderful.

I don't think they can do that... you know, habeas corpus and fair trials and such...

Right-Wing extremists would have guns.

1: Police claim they were threatened.
2: Police shoot R-W Extremists.
3: Police report them as crazed or a militant group.
4: Media portrays them as crazed or militant group. People hate them and justify it.
5: ^_^

It all works pretty well, except the media part. I doubt the entire free press could agree on anything, let alone a controversial shooting.

They agree on big issues, the same way Republicans and Democrats agree on big issues. When the war in Iraq first began, all the major networks failed to analyze it critically, just as both parties voted in favor of war. On immigration, the networks seem to have reached an agreement, just as the parties have reached an agreement.

The networks are party-operated in every way that matters, and Republicans and Democrats collude because they essentially have the same platform- unlimited expansion of corporate wealth and government control. The only difference is who gets to sit on the throne- but legislation guarantees it will always be one or the other.

I don't mean just networks. I mean the whole media: independent blogs and news organizations, newspapers, anything that delivers news.
And I'm pretty sure that Democrats and Republicans are different in quite a few ways.

Major networks are all that is required to guide public perception. And yes, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans, especially regarding social issues. But their war policy is the same, their economic policies are the same, and their immigration policies are the same. Everything that really matters. I expect to be called out on none of these but the economy- but I stand by it. The biggest spender in history is Obama, and the second biggest is Bush. The two parties have been moving increasingly closer together since Nixon, and at current, there is hardly a lick of difference.

That gap may widen again, as Republicans seem to remember that they fundamentally oppose expansion of government when it's not they who are expanding it.

 

[ygetoff]

Of course this is hilarious and bullshit at the same time.

So now they can come to peoples houses and kill them for complaining about the state of affairs and say that they were "right-wing extremists" trying to "organize a local militia."

Rofl.

More steps taken to destroy the country. Wonderful.

I don't think they can do that... you know, habeas corpus and fair trials and such...

Right-Wing extremists would have guns.

1: Police claim they were threatened.
2: Police shoot R-W Extremists.
3: Police report them as crazed or a militant group.
4: Media portrays them as crazed or militant group. People hate them and justify it.
5: ^_^

It all works pretty well, except the media part. I doubt the entire free press could agree on anything, let alone a controversial shooting.

They agree on big issues, the same way Republicans and Democrats agree on big issues. When the war in Iraq first began, all the major networks failed to analyze it critically, just as both parties voted in favor of war. On immigration, the networks seem to have reached an agreement, just as the parties have reached an agreement.

The networks are party-operated in every way that matters, and Republicans and Democrats collude because they essentially have the same platform- unlimited expansion of corporate wealth and government control. The only difference is who gets to sit on the throne- but legislation guarantees it will always be one or the other.

I don't mean just networks. I mean the whole media: independent blogs and news organizations, newspapers, anything that delivers news.
And I'm pretty sure that Democrats and Republicans are different in quite a few ways.

Major networks are all that is required to guide public perception. And yes, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans, especially regarding social issues. But their war policy is the same, their economic policies are the same, and their immigration policies are the same. Everything that really matters. I expect to be called out on none of these but the economy- but I stand by it. The biggest spender in history is Obama, and the second biggest is Bush. The two parties have been moving increasingly closer together since Nixon, and at current, there is hardly a lick of difference.

That gap may widen again, as Republicans seem to remember that they fundamentally oppose expansion of government when it's not they who are expanding it.

What exactly do you mean by "immigration policy"?
Because I'm quite sure that, whereas both sides agree that entering the country illegally is, well, illegal, the parties differ on how to deal with immigration. Democrats tend to favor giving immigrants better access to education, whereas Republicans take a harder line towards them.
EDIT: Also, on economics, Republicans favor spending lots of money with less taxes (also spending more money on defense), but Democrats spend lots of money with more taxes (spending more of the money on fair trade and education)

 

[bookboy]

Actually, there are right-wing, publicly Facist groups gaing power through election (not that much power, but enough to be scary) in Austria, one of them is even admittedly tied to a neo-Nazi group.

 

[toasterslayer]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, so I am going to post this

to prove my intelligence

LOLZ

agreed, i forget, what are the right-wing extremist? (the "wing" thing always confuses me)

 

[Booze Zombie]

Godwin's Law, but... they're worried about a Nazi scenario.

 

[Inarticulate_Underachiever]

But Rorschach's a right wing extremist and he dispenses justice...