Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism (illegal immigration, abortion, biased)

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Would you like more examples?

Perhaps posters calling for the death of Bush?

Google images helps a lot in this respect.

I'm sure google does help. But it doesn't take away from the fact that there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. Extremists always pose a threat. The article the OP cited headed with the analysis that Homeland Security made of the threat the right-wing extremists pose, but also cited the analysis of the left-wing extremists. The article didn't make a case that either report was partisan, but in fact that Homeland Security's job is to make such analyses, and that differentiation between the two threats was integral to such analyses.

No one has said that left-wing extremists don't pose a threat. So you can post pictures all day, but it doesn't really further the argument here. The OP wanted to paint Obama and his administration as persecuting conservatives. The article shows only that Homeland Security has been performing due diligence in assessing threat risk from domestic sources from BOTH ends of the political spectrum.

Unless your argument is that right-wing extremists don't pose a threat? At all? In which case, the history of right-wing extremism would seem to contra-indicate such a position.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I disagree. It is very indicative of the anti-military left, and represents the view of many liberal freaks. They may not be at airports spitting upon the troops as they return home, like they did during the Vietnam war, but they are just as extreme and just as anti-military and anti-American then as they are today. At least the Democrat Senators did not go around comparing our soldiers to NAZIs during Vietnam like they do today.

They are extremists. THe very definition of extremism would be that it does not represent the views of the majority. You can choose to paint all liberals with the same brush, but that isn't very realistic. It certainly isn't realistic of a liberal to assume that all conservatives are cast from the same mold. I can name several conservatives who post here who have very different opinions on Bush, who hold different positions on abortion and stem-cell research, who have different views on how to approach the piracy problem. No two people have the same opinion on every issue. People don't agree. But we have the opportunity to share our views and explain our positions, and to hear what other people have to say and to gain a better understanding of why people feel the way they do. Liberal extremists, or conservative extremists, they have reasons for what they believe. But the reasons are as varied as the beliefs.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

No one has said that left-wing extremists don't pose a threat. So you can post pictures all day, but it doesn't really further the argument here. The OP wanted to paint Obama and his administration as persecuting conservatives. The article shows only that Homeland Security has been performing due diligence in assessing threat risk from domestic sources from BOTH ends of the political spectrum.

The document mentions the leftwing extremists as well???

Obama considering leftist terrorists friends is a little troubling as well....

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

The document mentions the leftwing extremists as well???

Obama considering leftist terrorists friends is a little troubling as well....

Why don't you go back and read the article again? Especially the last three paragraphs.

And Obama didn't write the assessments. Homeland Security did.

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Why don't you go back and read the article again? Especially the last three paragraphs.

And Obama didn't write the assessments. Homeland Security did.

Yes, and the FEDERAL workers who wrote the report focusing on one side are still employed.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

They are extremists. THe very definition of extremism would be that it does not represent the views of the majority. You can choose to paint all liberals with the same brush, but that isn't very realistic. It certainly isn't realistic of a liberal to assume that all conservatives are cast from the same mold. I can name several conservatives who post here who have very different opinions on Bush, who hold different positions on abortion and stem-cell research, who have different views on how to approach the piracy problem. No two people have the same opinion on every issue. People don't agree. But we have the opportunity to share our views and explain our positions, and to hear what other people have to say and to gain a better understanding of why people feel the way they do. Liberal extremists, or conservative extremists, they have reasons for what they believe. But the reasons are as varied as the beliefs.

They may not be a majority, yet, but they are certainly no minority among the left. When Senators feel the need to denigrate those serving in the military, they are representing the majority view of their constituents.

If they were such a small minority, as you suggest, then explain how Kerry could have been nominated in 2004. If it is anti-military and anti-American, you can be absolutely certain a very large segment of the liberal freaks will support the position. They are the "Blame America First" wackos. Which includes the current administration.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Why don't you go back and read the article again? Especially the last three paragraphs.

And Obama didn't write the assessments. Homeland Security did.

Three paragraphs....well that is certainly an unbiased report.

Do you honestly believe that this same report would have come out this time last year?

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak

Yes, and the FEDERAL workers who wrote the report focusing on one side are still employed.

So you think the report is partisan? That's fine. I'm sure there are liberals out there who think the report on left-wing extremists was partisan as well. Or do you think that Homeland Security shouldn't make assessments on potential threats? Or should only focus on one group, ignoring the possible threats from other groups? Or do you also think that right-wing extremists don't pose any threat at all?

If your argument is any of the above, then you should make the argument. Otherwise, I don't see how it is Obama's fault that an agency charged with assessing risks to homeland security actually did it's job. Regardless if they are government employees or employees in the private sector. Of course, you could make an argument that homeland security would be better served by private sector companies performing analyses and making recommendations. Not that that would remove the partisanship problems since people would simply comb over the political contributions made by the private sector employees. But an argument could be made.

[cobolt]

I thought we weren't using the term "terrorism" anymore, but rather "man-made disaster." Oh, that's right---we only use that when referring to credible threats such as Al-Queda, Hamas, etc. But people who don't agree with Govt policies, big government, abortion etc, basically anyone who doesn't agree with the bad policies being shoved down our throats, then they're lumped in with extremists such as McVeigh or skinheads and called "terrorists." Nice to think my 90 year old grandma finally made it to "terrorist" status. What a bunch of losers.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Three paragraphs....well that is certainly an unbiased report.

Do you honestly believe that this same report would have come out this time last year?

Three paragraphs in the article---out of what, eight paragraphs at most. There are two reports---one on left-wing extremists and one on right-wing extremists----done by Homeland Security. It's not like Homeland Security wrote forty reports on right-wing extremists and two on left-wing extremists. One for each group. And no, the reports would not be the same as last year. The political climate has shifted since April of 2008, so the threat assessments of politically-motivated extremists would have to reflect the changes that both ends of the political spectrum have gone through as a result of that political shift. If Homeland Security ignored that the groups would change, in both temperament and goals, as a result of political shift, it wouldn't be doing its job, would it?