Gotta be somebody they don’t already have. But thanks!
That’s completely reasonable. So what, in your view, would constitute a “right wing extremist?” How would you describe the views of an extremist of this bent? What do these people do that differentiates them from political conservatives?
I could ask the same question about “left wing extremists,” but I think that may lead us somewhat into a hijack. An interesting one, but a slightly different discussion.
-
Rights, schmights. We are at war.
-
If the OP has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.
-
If the OP doesn’t like it, he should feel free to leave.
-
Why does the OP hate America?
As I said, I’ve by no means written either party a free pass on this, and as many have said, it was inappropriate (and un-American in the true sense) under GWB, and tarring people by implication is inappropriate by lumping together political opponents and true felons.
But, the DHS report does not do that. It’s all about keeping an eye on extremists who might become felons. Let’s never have another Timothy McVeigh slip past the radar.
One thing just occurred to me on the veterans angle. Maybe the eventual suggestion is for the veterans themselves to be made aware of the potential that they may be recruited by extremist groups and that they may want to report on any they suspect may be planning actual violence.
Conservatives or other people opposing Obama don’t deserve to be tarred by associated with potentially violent lunatics. Actual lunatics planning or threatening violence should be monitored, and there are certainly some of those out there.
As much as I like Greenwald’s response, I think I know what those worried about the DHS report would say: that Bush never, ever used the government for domestic political motives, and this is the evil Obama abusing natural Presidential powers.
From a link in the OP:
What are “violence attacks”? That’s like frightening scary.
I’m not a fan of tu quoque arguments, but there’s irony aplenty in anti-abortion protesters upset about supposed intimidation/demonization. That’s their stock in trade. And there’s been enough bombing, shooting and other terroristic activity associated with anti-abortion rights extremists for Homeland Security to keep an eye on the movement.
And Rosa Parks’s too, I presume?
I can think offhand of two instances of violence (Eric Rudolph and the Slepian murder). Maybe there are a few more. There are thousands of instances of prayer vigils and pickets (misguided or not). “Intimidation/demonization?” “Stock in trade?”
Well, now we know how you feel on the underlying issue.
Thanks for playing.
That’s a ridiculous analogy. Slepian was murdered because anti-abortion lunatics posted his home address on a web site and tacitly encouraged his murder. Rosa Parks didn’t shoot a bus driver and didn’t tell anybody else to do it either.
That’s because you didn’t understand the actual analogy. The actual analogy was not Parks:Slepian (did you really think it was?). It was Parks:middle aged ladies praying silently outside a clinic. Is their “stock in trade” intimidation and demonization? If not, then my question stands as to the “stock in trade” comment.
No, it most certainly isn’t. But so far I haven’t seen you acknowledge that there actually are violent lunatics in the antiabortion movement and in some of these other movements. They’re a minority but they unquestionably exist. During the last eight years I’ve wondered why they didn’t get more attention, and I still think it might be because of political inconvenience.
Hereby acknowledged.
Proportionality is my point.
Of course there doesn’t need to be a trend. All it takes is one. The right wing, along with certain other movements, is a quarter from which a terrorist or two might emerge. So the DHS should keep an eye out.
Well Huerta88, there was a right wing murder at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. today, and last week Dr. Tiller was murdered by a right winger. Both ostensibly political murders. If you look at the hundreds of attacks on abortion clinics and thousands of threats, it certainly would appear that right wing attacks happen on a regular basis. Whether they are increasing or not would require careful study. But it certainly is supported by evidence that there are right wing organizations that talk a lot about violence and some of the members do it.
What I have to say to anyone on the right who thinks this is a horrific infringement upon their rights.
Welcome to what it felt like to be a leftist for pretty much the entirety of the 20th century.
Of course, the right wing tools like Hannity will never apologize, its simply not in their vocabulary. It feels bittersweet to be proven right though. On one case, its another stark example of Limbaugh’s hot air being all for naught, but then a lot of good people were hurt or killed.