Right-Wing Extremists
- Thread starter Aegwadar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
KKK can be solved easily, just release a lot of games in which you shoot at ghosts. Them people will start doing it IRL, and who looks like ghosts? KKk ofc!
It's a well known fact that most people try to imitate what they see in video games, most poeple who play GTA are criminals, and most people who has played superman has died because they treied to jump off high buildnings and fly.
It's a well known fact that most people try to imitate what they see in video games, most poeple who play GTA are criminals, and most people who has played superman has died because they treied to jump off high buildnings and fly.
Namecalling, always a good opener.Thanatos34 said:
I never said Bush's real reason was oil. I said he lied (which as evidenced by the Iraq Study Group, frmr. counter-terrorism advisor to Bush I and Clinton Richard Clarke, and others) by using evidence from KNOWN faulty sources regarding WMD or saying al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were linked in order to push into war.
Bush had a personal vendetta against Iraq since he was elected. 9/11 was his pass.
Our intelligence agencies weren't at fault, the administration was at fault for pushing the bad info that said what they wanted and ignoring the stronger info that didn't. Admittedly most of the Dems were for the war, but almost as a knee-jerk reaction to the events that unfolded prior. EVERYONE was drumming up the war as "necessary" without thinking of the long-term consequences. Like the stimulus bills of today, the declaration of war was passed without too much reading by any party that voted on it. They just knew that going against it was political suicide.
Like I said, remember when saying anything that went against the administration's belief was "unpatriotic" and "un-American"?
As opposed to the loonies over at Fox News or the op-ed section of the WSJ?
That was the Christian Science Monitor, a renowned socio-conservative publication. But even they admit that:
"Ronald Reagan's legacy was a fascinating mixture: lower inflation and higher deficits; lower taxes and higher levels of government spending; less unemployment and bigger trade deficits; fewer strikes and more government jobs; reduced economic regulation and expanded social regulation; the deepest recession in half a century and the longest peacetime recovery ever.
On the other hand, the budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980 to $155 billion in 1988, while the trade deficit rose from $15 billion to $129 billion during the same period. And, contrary to widespread belief, the portion of the population below the poverty line was 13 percent in both years. One more set of numbers: Real national wealth rose from $11.9 trillion in 1980 to $14.2 trillion in 1988."
I wasn't even saying that just to bash Reagan. I was just saying that the results of some of his economic policies spoke for themselves, and those same results are speaking loud and clear today. Be it from arrogance, manipulation, or old-fashioned greed, the free-market deregulated approach helped speed along our economic failure. People who used the banking system as their own little cash cows carry some heavy responsibility here.
Not to mention budgeting that increased our national debt (both wars) while cutting some of our primary revenue (taxes on the wealthy).
Teddy Roosevelt once said,
"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered, not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." ( http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm )
Deregulation allowed greedy fucks who used the market to gain wealth while not contributing anything to society to flourish, and cutting their taxes kept it going.
To quote one Ben Croshaw (who was talking about gamers but fits pretty well here),
"If you give them any kind of freedom their first instinct will be to abuse it. If you give them guns, they will shoot old ladies. If you give them cars they will run over old ladies. If you give them aircraft they will ascend to the highest possible height, and hurl themselves out, onto an old lady." Just switch the gamers with the average CEO/banker/broker, guns/cars/aircraft with deregulation, and old ladies with the general public.
EDIT: To go back to my Reagan point and make a point that the NY Times article you posted made, Obama faces a much more divisive political climate than 1980. Party lines are emboldened to the point of absurdity and everything is labeled. Very few of the people in power are willing to listen or reason with each other anymore.
EDIT #2: The original reason for going into Iraq was because al-Qaeda was stationed there. Then it became to depose Saddam Hussein and get rid of his WMDs *snicker*. Then it became "liberation of the Iraqi people". For a while I thought Bush would have just said "because I felt like it" and left it at that, but at least he wasn't THAT stupid.
Well, in the situation I mentioned, let's say a group of people are killed (several posts ago).ygetoff said:
Is international news at the place where these people get killed?
Is independent media the media that the police are going to report to?
I doubt the story would get out, and even if it did, it would be overshadowed by many other "mainstream" (lack of a better word) groups.
Really?Aegwadar said:
No this isn't recent. I worked in military services up until 2004, and the mandate was to give all outgoing personnel who were in combat the briefing on how to spot recruitment by anti-government militia groups.
Now I'm beginning to suspect after hearing all sorts of stories here that the military started cutting corners in 2006, and things are getting neglected because stop-gap policy was in place (so it didn't seem necessary to put so much effort into outgoing soldiers). Which is starting to piss me off. I may have to bring it up at the next meeting at Offutt.
Dude, I was in Intel during that period, and no, we did not give Bush faulty intelligence. It doesn't work like that. What happens is we give Bush's advisers the intel, and they conduct the briefing to the President. So the reality is that we got a call for all intelligence involving Iraq and Iran from 1989 to 2001. And then the personal advisers of Bush went through and used whatever the fuck they wanted. Karl Rove was one of the people I know for a fact that had his hand on the intel. He gave Colin Powell the intelligence to use at the UN briefing. Although I wasn't there, I'm also assuming for some reason he also briefed the President on Iraq.Thanatos34 said:
When we actually saw what intelligence the President was using to base an attack on Iraq, we sent forth a complaint that the intel was - in fact - 7+ years old and part of the imagery used was actually from IRAN. However, the SecDef's office ignored our complaint, and the invasion was well underway by the time I got to brief certain members of Congress about the problems involving the manipulation of intelligence by the administration. British and French intelligence were literally knocking our door down asking where the Hell we got our facts, since even with shared intelligence, they did not have the same facts (because they were not aware of the age and misuse of the intelligence presented).
Now, regardless if Bush was in on it or not, his personal advisers were. These are the people Bush chose to surround himself with. The same people who let him go to the podium and ad-lib answers that lead to so many misspoken statements. The same people who ignored Veteran Affairs for 4 years when returning veterans were sitting in a run-down hospital. The same people who convinced Bush that spying on Americans was legal. The same idiots who all bailed ship a year or so before Bush was done.
When you surround yourself by idiots, you look like an idiot. I criticize his administration, which by default is his error in judgment.
I understand what you mean, but my point is that the independent media would have a different point of view than the mainstream media. It doesn't matter what media the police report to, different people are going to have different points of view on the matter. Plus, police officers involved in the incident may be interviewed by independent news sources.Valiance said:
I have tried several times to explain in a few short paragraphs, but I need too many examples to make my case. Instead, I will link a video that I think helps my case. It is posted by a traditional conservative dissatisfied with the current Republican party. I do not have a similar video describing democrats, but I think a very similar case could be made against them. It is 5 minutes 28 seconds, but he is concise and punchy and I think you will enjoy his style.ygetoff said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PH2l_EIPI0&feature=channel
I think you will find that there is little difference between the two parties. And I merely propose that this comes from both parties being more concerned with expanding their own power and wallets then making reasonable, responsible policy. If you want to see how politics should be done, look at Ron Paul. I know what you're thinking- but he has been unfairly branded. He threatens to stop politicians from passing legislation they know to be bad for the country for their own benefit.
All the major networks I know of are party controlled in every way that matters. Too crazy to be true? Well, do you like FOX News? What about MSNBC? Chances are, you answered "no" to at least one of those questions. And your reason probably contained words like "propaganda" and "mouthpiece." And you would be right on both counts. In my opinion, the respective major media outlets are party controlled in every way that matters, and at the very least they are heavily invested in the victory of one party or the other.
And the pay-off comes in forms that have nothing to do with principle, because neither party has any. And after all this, all I am trying to say is that Republicans and Democrats are bad politicians who should be replaced with better ones.
Ron Paul unfairly branded?
Ron Paul thinks you should carry gold around in your pocket, that we should use government domain to take property away from people if there are unused resources under that property, that we should issue "letters of Marquis" to privateers, that alternative energy is a joke and to basically pad social security from a private investment fund.
It's all there on his webpage, so if anyone is branding Ron Paul unfairly, it's Ron Paul.
Ron Paul thinks you should carry gold around in your pocket, that we should use government domain to take property away from people if there are unused resources under that property, that we should issue "letters of Marquis" to privateers, that alternative energy is a joke and to basically pad social security from a private investment fund.
It's all there on his webpage, so if anyone is branding Ron Paul unfairly, it's Ron Paul.
McClaud said:
LOL, No briefing for me... My outprocessing was all about the money that was it. I wasn't once approached about attending force-protection type awareness training. Not once.
I was Intel as well; I became fond of Bush's intentions, good heart but not a good at who he picked to admin with him. Old SECDEF was complete ass, I was in Missile Defense, and that ass shot shit down constantly, nothing got done. It doesn't surprise me they went with old intel. Cheapest, quickest, and whatever they "wanted" to here would work. The average joe could see through the political bull after a year in a high echelon unit...
Moral of the story: Don't look for the obvious answer, there is always more to the story.
Uh... There has been a lot of doubts about extreme right wing on this, but since that's one of my majors at college I'll try to explain it easy. Extreme right wing is a definition used for authoritarian governaments that rose power in the early 1930's in Europe. They seeked to govern their countrys through corporativism. A series of pratice that incluedes the controls of the labor unions (sindicates in Europe), control of the production (state would have the power to say how, and what should be produced), supression of some natural rights in favor of national security (freedom was overrated for them, so was the right of living), protection of the private property.
In essence this served to protect the interest of the big bourgeois. Don't forget kids that you are in 1930 something post 1929 crash and capitalism is facing a very serious crisis. You also need to reach hearts and minds of those people, but how to do it. Appealing to nationalism. If u learned right nation is a conjuction of territory+nation+laws and unifed govern = country (our definition of modern country by the way). And since ethnically speaking the majorities on these areas were very clear they tend to assume racism as a policy.
Note: this form of racism was not policy when facism was created. Nazi created this for a very complicated reason that I'll not explain here.
Since we all know that nazi-facist lost the war, why they still think that it could happen again. Well world changed after 1991 and immigration became a big problem for developed countrys. Opinions appart, many of their residents started feeling that they would be aculturated (loose their culture), crimes were raising, specially in ethnical gettos and that some jobs were lost for them. So many individuals seek again refugee in racial segregationals regimes "to protect their beleved rights".
In US a lot of people belive to be right wing and christian (christian right-wing) a sign of extreme right wing, but this is not entirely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right just to enlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left just to enlight
So when America belive in rise of the extreme right wing they belive that someone might try a Coup d'état and to resolve the Economic Crisis. By the way, all extreme forms of governaments tend to use the same policies. So "ruling" Stalin was not much different of Hitler.
In essence this served to protect the interest of the big bourgeois. Don't forget kids that you are in 1930 something post 1929 crash and capitalism is facing a very serious crisis. You also need to reach hearts and minds of those people, but how to do it. Appealing to nationalism. If u learned right nation is a conjuction of territory+nation+laws and unifed govern = country (our definition of modern country by the way). And since ethnically speaking the majorities on these areas were very clear they tend to assume racism as a policy.
Note: this form of racism was not policy when facism was created. Nazi created this for a very complicated reason that I'll not explain here.
Since we all know that nazi-facist lost the war, why they still think that it could happen again. Well world changed after 1991 and immigration became a big problem for developed countrys. Opinions appart, many of their residents started feeling that they would be aculturated (loose their culture), crimes were raising, specially in ethnical gettos and that some jobs were lost for them. So many individuals seek again refugee in racial segregationals regimes "to protect their beleved rights".
In US a lot of people belive to be right wing and christian (christian right-wing) a sign of extreme right wing, but this is not entirely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right just to enlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left just to enlight
So when America belive in rise of the extreme right wing they belive that someone might try a Coup d'état and to resolve the Economic Crisis. By the way, all extreme forms of governaments tend to use the same policies. So "ruling" Stalin was not much different of Hitler.
Both the political left and right are more dangerous to our people than any of those groups are. American Nazis and the KKK may be white supremists, but they're still minorities themselves in their beliefs, therefore they aren't as dangerous as they wish they could be.Aegwadar said:
You and I have such entirely opposite views, that this is a pointless debate. You think that that cronies like Chris Matthews and his liberal friends can be trusted to report unbiased news and facts. I don't. You think that Fox News cannot be trusted to report unbiased news and facts. I think that all news media are biased, but Fox comes the closest to being balanced. MSNBC was so ridiculously pro-Obama, and is so riducously pro-Democrat, that I can hardly trust them if they said the sky was blue, because of some of what has come out of their mouths lately.TheSKSpecial said:
I believe, and I believe it has been proven quite conclusively, that the absolute worst thing for an economy,is to have the government come in and regulate everything. You lose your economy, and you also lose your democracy. Reaganomics is subject to flaws, as is every economic system, the difference is that you assume that everyone will try to manipulate those flaws, whereas I assume that if we do not use a system such as the one Reagan put into place, but instead have the government control the economy, that they are far, far more likely to abuse their power in so doing. It was once said,
"When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare."
~Kershner's First Law
And that is indeed what Obama wishes to do. He wants to share the wealth, in his own words. You do not give the government control over the economy.
Put simply, I trust the people more than the group of morons, (Republicans and Democrats, as nearly all of them are), over in Washington.
One of my best friends, and my dad, was working in Intel, (and my friend still is, my dad is now a professor), and your story almost directly contradicts theirs.McClaud said:
The media needs a new sensation, because nothing is happening. So they take a political group and call them extremists for having a radically different point of view. There's the political point of view, with the left apparently being normal, and the right, now being thrown into the same group as Nazi's, terrorists, and the KKK.
There's a big different in the "political extremism" that was just made up and the actual "i'll-kill-you-if-you-don't-think-like-i-do" extremism. The right has a different perspective, and the left (and the news media) has a different one, and so the left, being a bunch of whining pansies who blindly follow what the party leader says and does, or, if not that, simply agree with him and attempt to destabilize the other side by name calling and making fun.
Not meant at all leftists, because not everyone is like that, but I mean, come on, quit being biased twats and give us actual news about what is really happening, not edited biased crap. <- statment meant for the media douchebags who cant do anything with out some sort of bias. That goes for all of them.
There's a big different in the "political extremism" that was just made up and the actual "i'll-kill-you-if-you-don't-think-like-i-do" extremism. The right has a different perspective, and the left (and the news media) has a different one, and so the left, being a bunch of whining pansies who blindly follow what the party leader says and does, or, if not that, simply agree with him and attempt to destabilize the other side by name calling and making fun.
Not meant at all leftists, because not everyone is like that, but I mean, come on, quit being biased twats and give us actual news about what is really happening, not edited biased crap. <- statment meant for the media douchebags who cant do anything with out some sort of bias. That goes for all of them.
Even if each of those was true in the worst way, stack it up next to unlimited expansion of government, the War on Drugs, and the Iraq War. Considering the downright kooky stuff our current government is engaged in, its almost trivial by comparison.McClaud said:
Man, that sucks. That was the last place I thought they'd cut corners, but with the problems that have been building since 2005 ... yeah, I can believe it.Aegwadar said:
Then I have to ask where you dad and his friend were stationed, because I worked directly for STRATCOMM under Admiral Ellis and General Cartwright. The problem wasn't the intel, it was how the intel was handled at the Executive level. We sent the White House reports of Al-Q activity for years, including the warning of another impending attack, and the White House staff DISREGARDED the warning.Thanatos34 said:
You can't fault military Intel for doing their job when no one at the administration level was even paying attention. And then asking for a wide spectrum of military intelligence and misusing it when it came to determining the invasion of Iraq.
Now, the CIA on the other hand ... they're like the Keystone Cops of the Intelligence world at times. They blundered enough intel warnings for years, and then part of them got absorbed into Homeland Security. Which was the worst thing that could happen to an agency designed to increase awareness and prevent attacks.
So the appropriate measure is to totally disregard all "trivial" kooky stuff he says because of previous mistakes of previous administrations?Rooster Cogburn said:
Man, your problem solving skills are MIRACULOUS. {/sarcasm}
I get your point that politicians are bad. I whole-heartedly agree with that. But, that is our own fault. We all have the power to elect better ones, but we don't. And I don't believe that Fox and MSNBC are party-controlled, at least not completely. The reason they broadcast that stuff is because people out there agree with them. They get viewers by saying what some people don't. The same principle applies with people like Rush Limbaugh (did I spell that right?). He says things that a lot of people agree with. Scott Adams once said, "Most people's definition of 'right', is, 'agrees with me, but even more so.'" That's why Fox and MSNBC air that stuff. It gets viewers. When people stop obsessing over parties and start to look at the individual merits of politicians themselves, then that sort of thing will die out a little. I think we've both been misinterpreting each other, and I'm sorry if the "conspiracy theorist" thing offended you.Rooster Cogburn said:
EDIT: About the video: you were right, it's very good. I now get your point about how the parties are getting closer together (the right is sliding left), but by party similarities I mean not what their current "faces" stand for, but what is at the heart of their philosophy. At their hearts, most conservatives think that the government is far too big, and that can't be changed by what John McCain says. However, it's all moot because the party system needs to be reevaluated. Did you know that most of the Founding Fathers were against "factions" in government? (what we now call parties)