Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 62 times


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 05:07 PM by Grambler
reply to post by maybereal11


I agree with you that this amendment does not specifically mention all of the groups being discussed on this thread. The problem is says what measurement can be taken against hate groups in general, without defining what those groups are, it merely allows the AG to decide for themselves.

This taken in conjunction with all f the memos etc. that have been coming out in the past couple of months paints a very frightening picture.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread was the fastest place I saw it, but the first post links to an article that explains exactly what the Department of Homeland Security defines as "extremism". Keep in mind, this is the DHS own words.

'Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.'

People against abortion, immigration, and those evil people who want states rights. This is down right scary. Under that definition, someone who protests the federal governments authority to say, attack Iraq, could be extremist. Its easy to see how the average person can now be considered a terrorist just for disagreeing with the government. To make matters worse, the bill in the OP allows the AG to now decide on thier own who fits the definition.

Heres just a few threads on this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah thats right, got a Ron Paul sticker your an extremist. Would be funny if it wasn't true.



reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 05:36 PM by maybereal11
Originally posted by Grambler
Keep in mind, this is the DHS own words.

'Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.'

People against abortion, immigration, and those evil people who want states rights.


A little boolean logic here should help.

The article begins with Rightwing Extremists can be broadly divided into two groups....

The entire passage is discussing a pie chart of motivations for extremists...imagine a circle encompassing just extremists...or those who support their view with actionable violence..and then it is divided into most likely motivations.

This passage is NOT defining those who are anti-abortion (for example) as extremists...they are saying that AMONG Extremists SOME are motivated by the anti-abortion issue.

Something like...Rotten apples can be red or green in color...does not mean all red apples are rotten.

Which is accurate when we tally doctors that have been shot and killed and domestic bombings etc.

Your interpretation is a specific fallacy of logic...I can track it down if you like...but on way out right now.


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 06:45 PM by medicis
reply to post by GorehoundLarry


Unfortunately, you fail to recall the history repeats itself and those that don't learn the lessons are fools.

It is has happened thus, many times before. Why do ignore and or minimize that truth?


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 06:48 PM by medicis
Originally posted by maybereal11
Originally posted by Grambler
Keep in mind, this is the DHS own words.

'Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.'

People against abortion, immigration, and those evil people who want states rights.


A little boolean logic here should help.

The article begins with Rightwing Extremists can be broadly divided into two groups....

The entire passage is discussing a pie chart of motivations for extremists...imagine a circle encompassing just extremists...or those who support their view with actionable violence..and then it is divided into most likely motivations.

This passage is NOT defining those who are anti-abortion (for example) as extremists...they are saying that AMONG Extremists SOME are motivated by the anti-abortion issue.

Something like...Rotten apples can be red or green in color...does not mean all red apples are rotten.

Which is accurate when we tally doctors that have been shot and killed and domestic bombings etc.

Your interpretation is a specific fallacy of logic...I can track it down if you like...but on way out right now.


[edit on 7-7-2009 by medicis]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by medicis]


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 07:10 PM by medicis
reply to post by medicis


I apologize ... still haven't gotten the hang of this system....

in any case, my reply to the above:

The philosophy of logic does not deal with the truth or falseness of a specific proposition. It deals with whether or not conclusions follow from their premises.

Regardless of whether or not the premises are true (and that is a whole different discussion)

Into the set of the various propositions that might be included in a logical argument are those that propose specific facts to be true or not true.

History gives us a set of propositions based upon what has happened before. The erosion of liberty has often followed a path similar to what we are experiencing today.

The use of ambiguity (in defining whatevers, in associating whatevers with other whatevers, ad nausea - who all happen to be enemies of the state.

In addition, the utilization of previous exemplars of an issue or event to reliably predict the occurrence of another similar event given various precursors, while inductive, nevertheless is mainstay of scientific knowledge ... nevertheless that it is based upon a formal logical fallacy...

So, yes, the language in this document leaves open the path for many variations of interpretation ... (as each term is defined as the PTB wishes it to be) and you had better believe that 'power' will be used to eliminate any obstacles in its path. Whatever group you may be in, however it thinks it is defined, will be removed if is perceived as a threat. It has always been so. It is so now.


reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 07:26 PM by glevel
reply to post by maybereal11

not trying to burst your bubble, but it also has a provision that allows people to be lumped in with these groups if there is "evidence" of ties to one of those groups. That little clause is very ambiguous and since we all know that lawyers for the justice dept. thrive on ambiguity in the written law ( see waterboarding , the patriot act abuses etc. ) that little clause right there is what gives me the heebie jeebies .



reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 08:07 PM by GorehoundLarry
Originally posted by medicis
reply to post by GorehoundLarry


Unfortunately, you fail to recall the history repeats itself and those that don't learn the lessons are fools.

It is has happened thus, many times before. Why do ignore and or minimize that truth?


Of course.

Why this site is being overrun by right wingers is beyond me. Do you really need a weapon of destruction in your home? No, you don't. But of course, everyone wants to protect their fragile little 2nd amendment to bear arms.

I've noticed that the Republican Party isn't a party but instead, like Gore Vidal said, a mindset.

The right wing America has moved into the sea and has sunk. They are a bunch of loons and I think this thread is proving that.

Need a gun? No, you don't. Need a reason to be bitter about a black guy in office & bash everything he does because it makes you feel better? Especially ONLINE? Yeah, you do.

Enjoy, because this is exactly what the liberals did when Bush was in office.

Rights gone then.

Rights gone now.

No president is perfect. And for the last time, no one is going to remove your weapons from your home. So relax, k? Thanks!!


*prepares flaming from those angry gun owners*

[edit on 7-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Rothschild Speaks: Want\'s One World Currency
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags
ACTA and You - Important Video - It has Begun
  Posted 13 days ago with 15 member flags
Know Thine Enemy! Iran Warns of Coming Great Event.
  Posted 8 days ago with 12 member flags
MSM Try To Debunk Illuminati Denver Airport Underground Facility
  Posted 19 days ago with 10 member flags
Overpopulation is a scam
  Posted 8 days ago with 8 member flags