Right-Wing Extremists

[FLSH_BNG]

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.

*Puts on tinfoil hat*
I agree, it's like Nazi Germany all over again!

One slight difference... With all of the free media available to today's youth, propaganda directed at young people will be far less successful nowadays than it was 70 years ago. Such a regime would have a far more difficult time gaining a foothold because many people would still remember lessons from history and just ride through the storm rather than try anything radical that ended horribly the last time it was tried.

 

[Agayek]

Alright, I got halfway through this thread and need to point something out:

Left and Right wings have nothing to do with Democrat or Republican. Matter of fact, both are fairly far to the left. Facism is also far to the left, just so we're clear.

Left Wing "Ideal" - Government controls everything, dictating exactly how much each person earns, owns and has to share

Right Wing "Ideal" - Government has absolutely no control over anything, leaving them powerless and anarchy reigning supreme.


Democrats and Republicans are both pushing for stronger governmental control, thus they are both left wing, by definition.



Back on topic: this bill terrifies me. "Right-wing extremist" is never clearly defined, thus it can mean almost anything. This gives an excuse to the DHS to seize people for sneezing too loudly if they feel like it. This is another step along the slippery slope towards a dictatorship.

If you can't tell, I'm very heavily right wing and would love for the government to all but cease to exist.

 

[TheSKSpecial]

Now to this: (TheSKSpecial)
first off, how is it the right is full up of loonies who want huge militarys, but the definition of the far right is full up of military haters? (rhetorical)

The political right is full of loonies who want a large military with government funding, the extremist right wants a large military, just not the government's.

no crap nixon fudged things up, i already realise that its the fault of a few on the right that it happend, but it was the left that spun the web around the black population, and yea, it IS their fault, if people werent scared that hiring a black man could result in something being said or done that would cause riots against them, yea,i wouldnt either, WHY WOULD YOU HIRE SOMEONE BELONGING TO A UNION? it doesnt make sense to hire A RISK.
on top of that, some people are just plain rascist.

Don't want protests and such brought against you? Don't perform discriminatory practices. Don't want a union screwing with your employees? Pay them enough to live off of, and try to keep them alive and healthy. A happy employee is a non-striking one.

Simple, ain't it?

BTW, read that article you posted again. It kinda flies in the face of that whole "it's the left's fault blacks and the right don't get along" idea. Not to mention the whole "right wing = smaller government = less assistance for those who need it" thing.

http://www.georgecurry.com/columns/how-the-gop-lost-blacks
here is something i read, it basically lays out what you were trying to say, just -no offense- better. he is one of the people ill sometimes read to check out how certain people react to certain events.

I'd hope he could...him being a professional journalist and all. But that's beside the point.

aaaaand ill respond the the rest at once, makes it cleaner:
um, no, again, there is no fundamentalist religion suffocating the right, its an illusion :/

So why does the right pander to the most fundamentally Christian beliefs? Why are they strictly anti-abortion/stem cell research/gay marriage/welfare/etc? Why are the most common defenses of said positions based in religion?

and to all you other things, yea, i do listen to rush, but funny enough, i only started listening to him within the past couple of weeks, because all the radio stations around orlando seem to suck total ass, he hasnt changed my mind about a single thing, and i often find myself correcting him. I dont pretend that i had bias text books, I DID HAVE THEM, funny though that you, a clearly left wing individual, would NOT think that i left wing book was bias, good job showing me though, RIGHT IN MY FACE!

Except I didn't say you didn't have biased textbooks. I said that you went from a seemingly too far left education to completely right, bypassing the middle.

i can sum up your whole response like this:
"KLHGAWIUGUIGBI;UFBNADJASILUGBHRIGLbnawIGBIAWG"
you did all that just to lead up to calling me a parrot? good job, im glad to see that the brainwashing is working,

I didn't do all of that to call you a parrot. I was saying that going up against leftist teaching by staying firmly to the right does nothing to educate anyone. You're not making any valid points by going so far in the opposite direction (and name calling to boot).

No ideology is completely correct, but blindly hating one side for the sake of it being the "other" side does nothing for either.

So to sum up your whole response: blah blah black people suck blah blah you're brainwashed lalala I'M NOT LISTENING!!!11!one!.

 

[Agayek]

Will people please stop using "Right" as a synonym for "Republican" and "Left" for "Democrat"?

It's not only completely wrong, it's downright absurd.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

Watch that, explains it much better than I'm inclined to.

 

[TheSKSpecial]

oh no, i do believe they do, the problem is, its the parties people, and they are all to eager to swear allegance to a letter, republicans have soiled their name with all these rinos and corrupt leaders, while democrats have soiled their name by embracing socialism and its good buddy communism

Equal opportunity, health care, and rights = socialism now. Just wanted to clear that up.

a real democrat is a good thing, a real republican is a good thing...just that they arent in politics, Ronald Reagan himself was a democrat, until he realised the party was shit, and if republicans would have stayed with reagan, it would have all been better, but it seemed like post-Reagan everybody thought it was a good idea to go insane, to where now, what were republicans then, are "reagan conservatives"

Except the laissez-faire/free-market deregulation policies Reagan championed were behind the S&L crash in the 80's and the economy collapse we see today.

the purpose of the parties are to keep balance, check.

the democrats ignore this by creating an absolute power, they seek to take control of house and senate,to create an all powerful government, which takes your intrests, and throws them out the window because everbody gets a slice of bread a day and you should be damn happy, they are all puppetiers, and the people are their marionettes

Damn, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton must have missed that memo.

the republicans ignore this by seeking control over house and senate to increase the military power, to ensure that the US is the super power, and nobody will screw with us, then, we can slowly, one by one, take places we dont like, and slap them up a bit, and let them rebuild, hopefully learning their lesson, and becoming an ally.

Because that plan has worked so well in Kore-...no, Vietn-...no Afgha-...not them...how about Ira-...not there either. And I don't want to get into the military spending on projects that don't work and probably never will as opposed to primarily maintaining the equipment the troops have now and trying out new products second.

to be honest, the right always has better intrests, people claim its full of militaristic heathens who start holy wars in the name of their god, but considering most people on the right cant even agree with each other on which god is the real one, i somehow doubt that.

You're right, it's a toss-up between God and the dollar. And the folks on the dollar side love invoking God whenever they want their way.

i completely support the war in iraq, i support the uprooting of any opressive dictatorship, i think we need to destroy iran next, the people hate it there, yet they can do nothing, break the government, and let the people choose how they want to recreate it, GIVE THEM THE SAME CHANCE WE GAVE OURSELVES, tell britan to get the hell out of ireland, because we wont stand to the occupation.

Dictatorship, bad. Democracy, good. Overthrowing dictator, good. Overthrowing dictator while imprisoning and killing people you seek to "liberate"? Not so good. Overthrowing dictator while destroying said country's infrastructure and offering very little in the way of rebuilding it? REALLY not good.

I won't speak on the situation in N. Ireland because I don't know enough about it. But killing civilians under the guise of spreading fear (be it from the group or from the government) is the textbook definition of terrorism.

 

[TheSKSpecial]

BTW, I'm more moderate/left-leaning. I don't like debate points losing strength due to having to be politically correct and not offending anyone. I prefer a strong military, but not at the sake of domestic affairs or the economy. I'm both pro-death penalty (with indisputable proof of guilt) and pro-choice (within a certain time frame). I'd prefer a large enough government to ensure every American citizen gets as fair a shake as possible, but not large enough that corruption becomes common and money dictates rule. I'd rather the government focus more on controlling major entities such as corporations than individual rights. I believe in gun-control, but only on weapons not used for hunting (there is no reason for any civilian at any time to own anything fully automatic).

I'll answer more questions about my positions on issues if requested.

 

[bjj hero]

*snip*

Good counter points, you have more patience than me, I just reported it and moved on.

When times are bad people turn to anyone claiming to have an answer or scape goat.

1st off, i find it ironic that you would say that last line there, considering thats what the entire democrat party has been doing for the longest time. making excuses

second, i like how you pulled the classic leftard move of "ME NO LIKE HIS WORDS, ME SMASH, ME SMASH"
how the hell do you report someone for disagreeing with you? oh you.

I wasn't going to answer this badly structured rant but you did ask me a question; so here we go.

"income =/= melanin level, just because the right believes you keep what you earn, doesnt make them racists because blacks happen to be poor as a result of being retardedly lazy because of people like sharpton and jackson."

The above statement is the reason I reported the post. I'm all for discussion but labelling an entire ethnic minority as "retardedly lazy" is racist. What happened to treating people as individuals based on personal merits? I have no issue with people who disagree, just dont be offensive.

You seem to assume that Im a lefty. For the record I'm not. Extremism is destructive; left or right, I'll hold the centre ground. There's room for both depending on the situation and issues.

Finally, You shouldn't hold the IRA up as heroes. They killed and maimed hoards of innocent civilians, ran protection rackets, murdered and tortured those living in N. Ireland and terrorised people who were no threat to them. They had a genuine grievance but lost all sympathy because of their methods.

I will not support them for the same reasons I will not support middle eastern terrorists. Their actions are not excusable.

Its not as simple as "giving it back". There are at least as many people in Northern Ireland that want to be part of the UK, if not more. Ever heard of the Ulster Unionists? They were the pro Brit adversary to the IRA. Do some research before commenting on international affairs.

 

[TheSKSpecial]

Its about time- under bush's administration left wing groups such as Earth first and ALF were treated as terrorist groups- those that terrorize abortion clinics and have militias should have scrutiny as well.

Good analogy there. All extremist groups should be scrutinized and persecuted if they wish to overthrow the government.

 

[ygetoff]

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)

Move past the rhetoric and the action is all the same. Movements exist in both parties to provide amnesty and benefits to illegal immigrants. And their greatest proponents are George W. Bush and John McCain. I could name even nuttier Republicans *Lindsey Graham*. Also, neither party has assumed the responsibility of securing our borders. Complacency is therefore the policy of both. They say it is unattainable, but that is hogwash. If we had the will, we could bring illegal immigration to a trickle in a matter of months.

On economics, that sounds like a pretty paltry difference to me. And it's outdated, considering George W. Bush made huge increases in education spending and Obama claims he intends to cut taxes for most Americans. Bush, McCain, and Obama all introduced, or would have introduced, tax cuts and unprecedented spending. The differences between Republicans and Democrats are, in part, a ruse. It is all rhetoric. They fight for control and rage over peanuts, but there is little substantive difference between them that makes any difference to most Americans.

EDIT: Sorry for being so far off topic.

Don't worry. It's partly my fault that we're so off-topic.

On topic (our topic, that is), who is the ruse being perpetrated by? And why haven't I heard anything about this before? No offense, but this is starting to sound really conspiracy-theorist to me.

 

[TheSKSpecial]

Look up the documentary "The Obama Conspiracy" from Alex Jones. He pretty much says that the government is owned by the Federal Reserve now and the presidency is a puppet post and has been since Kennedy was assassinated.

 

[ygetoff]

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

Government controls media though? ^^;

I mean the whole media. Independent media. And what about international news? I doubt the government controls them.

 

[Thanatos34]

I had to reply to this:

Except the laissez-faire/free-market deregulation policies Reagan championed were behind the S&L crash in the 80's and the economy collapse we see today.

This is absolute bullshit. Source?

 

[TheSKSpecial]

I had to reply to this:

Except the laissez-faire/free-market deregulation policies Reagan championed were behind the S&L crash in the 80's and the economy collapse we see today.

This is absolute bullshit. Source?

http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1997/12/18/opin/opin.2.html

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/reagan/interactives/Reaganomics/default.asp

http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/04/12/debt-is-not-money-%E2%80%93-and-must-be-regulated/

Not to mention simple comparisons between the last time we saw ACTUAL reform and "belt-tightening" (post-WWII to about the 80's) and today.

EDIT: not post WWII, pre-WWII. The FDR years.

 

[cordeos]

I remember several stories after Obama's election where gun sales went up because some people were afraid Obama would take away the right to own guns. I really wouldn't be surprised to see a Wako/Oklahoma City type event during Obama's presidency. There already was the Man who shot police in Pittsburgh who quoted Glenn Beck.

 

[TheSKSpecial]

I remember several stories after Obama's election where gun sales went up because some people were afraid Obama would take away the right to own guns. I really wouldn't be surprised to see a Wako/Oklahoma City type event during Obama's presidency. There already was the Man who shot police in Pittsburgh who quoted Glenn Beck.

Isn't that the ultimate irony? When the government actually DID infringe on your rights (Patriot Act with its warrantless wiretaps, suspended writ of Habeas Corpus, etc.) these nuts were standing on the sidelines quiet...I guess because they were more scared of Musli- pardon me- terrorists back then and they could relate to ol' George Dubya more than some good-speakin book-readin' negro with a funny name. So NOW the government is a problem. NOW the government is spending too much money.

That's just my take on it, though.

 

[cordeos]

Isn't that the ultimate irony? When the government actually DID infringe on your rights (Patriot Act with its warrantless wiretaps, suspended writ of Habeas Corpus, etc.) these nuts were standing on the sidelines quiet...I guess because they were more scared of Musli- pardon me- terrorists back then and they could relate to ol' George Dubya more than some good-speakin book-readin' negro with a funny name. So NOW the government is a problem. NOW the government is spending too much money.

That's just my take on it, though.

its like all the republican congresspeople and senators that are making all that noise about the government spending to much, who voted for every enormous war budget bush ever put forward

 

[TheSKSpecial]

Remember when anyone questioning the President or the government was deemed "unpatriotic" or a "terrorist sympathizer"? Remember when the country disowned the Dixie Chicks for saying they weren't proud Bush was from Texas?

EDIT: Remember when Clinton lying about getting a blowjob was grounds for impeachment but Bush lying about the reasons for going into Iraq wasn't?

Those were the good old days weren't they?

 

[Thanatos34]

Remember when anyone questioning the President or the government was deemed "unpatriotic" or a "terrorist sympathizer"? Remember when the country disowned the Dixie Chicks for saying they weren't proud Bush was from Texas?

EDIT: Remember when Clinton lying about getting a blowjob was grounds for impeachment but Bush lying about the reasons for going into Iraq wasn't?

Those were the good old days weren't they?

Yes, of course, it's all Bush's fault. Continue your mindless parroting of liberal agendas if it makes you feel any better. If Bush's real reason for going into Iraq was to get oil, why haven't we taken over their oil supply?

Bush honestly believed there were WMD in Iraq, and so did practically everyone else. It was our Intelligence agencies that were at fault, not Bush, as the latest insane conspiracy theory to come out of the Democrats' bag of lies claims. Most of the Dems were for the war in Iraq, and now suddenly act like they were always against it. I'll give credit where it's due: Obama never wanted to go to war. At the time, however, based on the information we had, Bush's decision to enter Iraq was the right one. You can't assume that the information given to you by the Intelligence Agency is false.

http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1997/12/18/opin/opin.2.html

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/reagan/interactives/Reaganomics/default.asp

http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/04/12/debt-is-not-money-%E2%80%93-and-must-be-regulated/

Not to mention simple comparisons between the last time we saw ACTUAL reform and "belt-tightening" (post-WWII to about the 80's) and today.

EDIT: not post WWII, pre-WWII. The FDR years.

At least you have sources, completely incorrect though they are. I guess if you want to trust the loonies over at msnbc, that's your decision.

One of your links is not even really against Reagan. It says he did some good things, and some bad things, but that

"Warts and all, the Reagan presidency was a high-water mark for the American economy, especially as measured by the more positive attitude that most Americans had toward themselves, their society, and the future."

Sources against your theory:
http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/obamas-reagan-transformation/
http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2009/02/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics/
http://americanmissive.com/2008/12/20/the-singular-economic-genious-of-ronald-reagan-and-his-reaganomics/

 

[mipegg]

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?

Whilst this is true, right wing beliefs tend to get confused with authoritarian ideals.

To be honest with you, extremist ideas of any side tend to be bad and only followed when people are really desperate. They rarely work too...