I am sorry I was an ass about that.
You have the decency to admit you were wrong, and thank you.
I personally have no doubt that if somehow absolute power was handed to Ann Coulter, she would very likely do some of the rather violent things she has stated should happen.I said I had never heard them espouse violence. But much of what Ann Coulter says is sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek - but I suppose a person who was already unhinged could take her seriously.
Are you honestly putting Ann Coulter in the same category with Timothy McVeigh or the people who gun down innocent people? In the first quote, she's advocating self-defense; in the second quote she's talking about discipline.
But since we're cutting and pasting all these quotes from conservatives; how about you add some from the people who wanted Bush assassinated? And have you ever heard the calls from the "Hate Hannity" hot line? Now those are some vile, hateful people
You give her credit for sarcasm, but if you really watch the video of these statements, you would be hard pressed to catch whether she was being sarcastic or not.
A lot of it is probably intentionally outrageous, but you can't say so many violent things like that without meaning at least some of it on some level.
The larger lesson here is that many find it perfectly acceptable that federal law enforcement can brand certain groups and individuals as "extremist" simply on the basis of their beliefs, be it left-wing or right-wing, and proclaim them to be a threat without any actual evidence.
Yes, this latest report was quite piss poor. Or have we entered the age of thought crimes?
I disagree with the premise of the lesson.
So should state and local law enforcement agencies disregard the DHS?
You may be right; but honestly, if I met Nancy Pelosi and could get away with it, I'd slap her face so hard the botox would come out her ears! And I'd like to punch Harry Reid right in his weasley mouth. But that's my personal feelings, I'd never tell people it was the right thing to do.
And I think it's the same with Ann Coulter. She voices her opinion, but she's not saying we should all resort to violent acts in order to advance the conservative agenda. And that's the difference between her and groups like the KKK.
Not what I said.
People with those beliefs aren't necessarily extremists, but right wing extremists could indeed hold those beliefs.
To an extreme.
That is how intel summaries read in general.
One can know very little with absolute certainty, so virtually everything is couched in shades of possibility.
Honestly, I find accounting to be very similar to intel work.
You can never truly get a 100% accurate picture of a flowing process such as a large business. You just shoot for "good enough", unless you have the manpower to explore and test every penny of $1.5Bn worth of transactions.
Crookshanks is quite violent.
I still love how Seth McFarlane is a propagandist. As is the guy who makes 24 I guess, and the producers of SNL, and pretty much anyone who's ever made a ing show worth watching.
Then the DHS bureaucrat who authored the advisory might think about sticking to those actual groups with a history of violence, right or left, and leave the rest of the citizenry who merely are exercising their 1st amendment rights (some in favor of another part of the Bill of Rights) out of it.
Christian values Crookshanks? Love thy neighbor?
I don't know what he is, but he's one rich mofo.
Fox is paying him 100 million and who knows that Google is paying him.
Good for him, though. That's the American dream.
Not to mention that veterans of our armed forces who have seen combat action in service to their country were also slandered by that report.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...remism-report/
Top Dem 'dumbfounded' by 'extremism' report
By Audrey Hudson | Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Washington Times
The top House Democrat overseeing the Department of Homeland Security is demanding that officials there explain how and why they wrote and released a controversial report identifying veterans as potential terrorist threats.
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" such a report would be issued.
"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans -- including war veterans," Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.
"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans -- whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.
The report "blurred the line," and Mr. Thompson said he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide.
Also Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano issued a statement standing by the report, which she personally had reviewed before it was issued. She insisted that DHS never would investigate based on political ideology and agreed to meet the head of the American Legion, who already had expressed anger over the report.
The Washington Times reported Tuesday that the department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) released a report led Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment on April 7. It identified as potential terrorist threats people who collect guns, veterans, supporters of border control, and pro-life advocates.
"I am particularly struck by the report's conclusion which states that I&A 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization,'" Mr. Thompson said, demanding to know what types of activities DHS had planned for "the next several months."
Right.
A small percentage joined extremist right wing groups in the past, so we should pretend it never happened.
I'm trying to find a similar article from Republicans questioning the torture practices during the previous administration, but I can't seem to find one.
No, they weren't. GMAFB.
The report says only that combat veterans were prized recruitment targets for violent groups because of their training and expertise with weapons.
I don't see how that is slander.
Sure they were.
Then perhaps it should have been so described.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/
Bush accepts Sen. McCain’s torture policy
President now agrees with pact banning cruelty against terror suspects
I don't know; I got the feeling when reading it that it was mainly about hate groups and seperatists groups. It's not unreasonable to question whether they may use the current political climate to attract new members to their ranks. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that we should keep an eye on those groups--so long as we do so within the bounds of the law.
I think the report was poorly written and should not have been released, which I am glad to see the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee believes as well. I don't have a problem with the feds pointing out that those groups with a history of violence might take advantage of the current political environment.
That's exactly what they said.
Small percentage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote