It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Tea party" photo shows huge crowd — at different event

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
No politician has ever had my full support and nor does Obama.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by scorand
i can see why some on the left and center are getting fed up and starting to call out some of this crap from the right.. or these days sould i call it reich.. cause its really starting to sound like this is the case


The problem is that 'movement' conservatism has become mainstream, and the moderate conservatives have been ejected. The party is essentially led by the likes of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, BillO. David Neiwert's recent book is worth a read:

"As America moves forward amid the reality of President Obama, it may want to brace itself for a spate of domestic terrorism and homegrown violence. Because even before Obama's election, it was clear that some of the more violence-prone sectors of the far right were winding themselves up for such an eventuality" (Neiwert, p. 141)

Not a bad prediction. Max Blumenthal's new one is next in line for me.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
When I read that Tea Party" leader Mark Williams calls the President an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief on his blog then such language goes a long way in confirming my low opinion of the right wing.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Then what the hell is your problem with people who would like to restore the constitution? Or at the very least cut our f*n ridiculous Government spending that is leading us to crash and burn?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
When I read that Tea Party" leader Mark Williams calls the President an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief on his blog then such language goes a long way in confirming my low opinion of the right wing.


I know a few decent US conservatives, and they are embarrassed by the current situation. The loons have taken over. They got their just desserts, basically. You play with fire, you tend to get burned.

Most voted Obama. Can't see them voting anything but dem for a while. The dems are pretty right-wing anyway (e.g., Clinton), and they seem to do well fiscally. Ronnie Raygun was the beginning of the downfall. The only issue is how well the current right-wing populism will do - if the socio-economic climate is suitable, it might be a bumpy ride for y'all.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


In default font for what you're talking about and red font for what I'm talking about:


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.


Government PDF

By the vague definitions including the wording 'may include' having a single issue interest. Yes, there are pro life extremists and anti-immigration extremists but that wording leaves it so vague that it places suspicion on many that have nothing to do with the extreme movements.

There was a lot of heat over this one in the media and being a veteran does not necessarily mean right wing but they are included in the document and according to the document, veterans are possible terrorists because they could be more susceptible to extremists in their supposed fragile, post-war state.


DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.


Have there been returning vets that went off the deep end? Absolutely. But the government preemptively places veterans as a whole on a 'look out' list as possibly teaming up with extremists.

Similarly, carefully read the following:


The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.


Like the veteran segment, what exactly is the above saying? It's basically listing everyone with certain right wing stances as potential terrorists or extremists because they may fall prey to proganda. So because I'm pro-life, I may be so weak-minded that I may team up with some extremist group so watch out for me.

When you read between the lines, that is what it's saying. And that is very alarming to me. The document does absolutely address real extremism like you say but you are missing the other parts.

In one part (dealing with gun owners and those who purchase ammunition), the document even differentiates between extremists and law-abiding citizens. So it seems fine until we delve deeper and put the pieces together.

The document is basically saying real extremists are a threat and anyone who has a moderate view on an issue that an extremist has an extreme view on, is a possible recruit. Therefore, those with particular views may be a possible terrorist.

Do you see the problem with this? It's very similar to criminal profiling.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous Avatar
 

Because I have read the constitutionalist party platform and it is a right wing document and does not speak for even a quarter of Americans and nowhere near all of us.

When the right puts away its hysterical rhetoric and is willing to sit down in a sane manner then I will take your assertion seriously.

If the right objects to its portrayal as a bunch of xenophobic...racist...narrow minded idiots then they really need to take a cold hard look at their rhetoric and who proports to speak for them...because its not just liberals and Democrats who view the right wing that way...most thoughtful conservatives and Republicans do as well.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by grover]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by scorand
 


Hey, Scorand. No- don't get me wrong. I can't stand extremists even if they're for 'my issues' like Christianity, pro life, small government, etc. Anyone who engages in violence or terrorism is horrid in my book. Those who bomb abortion clinics, harm people of other races, religions, or sexual orientations, those who bomb government buildings, etc., should be locked up.

So I have no problem with calling a spade a spade with the examples you bring up. What I do have a problem is with labeling moderates as potential extremists. And that is what the government document does in my opinion.

If someone is against illegal immigration then due to those views, according to the government they may be vulnerable to joining an extremist group if they soak up the propaganda. Due to the warrantless surveillance and petty arrests of citizens that is occurring in greater frequency, I see this as being a major problem.

Like I explain above, that is a type of profiling.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I thought that outline was pretty clear cut. As a veteran I can testify how disorienting the first year or so as a civilian can be so yes it is worth considering that vernablity as an issue...the same sort of thing could be written warning about their recruitment into a cult...

but when you think about it the malitias are not so much different from a cult.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by melatonin
 


In default font for what you're talking about and red font for what I'm talking about:


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.


Cheers.

Are you involved in group opposed to abortion that could be considered a source of potential right-wing extremists. For example, Operation Rescue?

Are you involved in some of these border 'minutemen' groups?

As an individual would you carry out extremist activities related to these issues? Consider what extremism is, please.

There's two examples of people covering those already in the last few months (Tiller's murderer and Shawna Ford). Do you think that a general person who has issues with abortion and immigration is covered by that, when it's in the same definition as hate-orientated groups and anti-government militias? You might as well throw any old racist in there - and there's enough of them.

Do you think that it really defines a random person that just doesn't like abortion as an extremist? If you think that you are having semantic issues and completely losing context and focus for a footnote definition in a document that is pretty clear about the groups/individuals it is targetted at.

Considering the report clearly states in its scope that...

"This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States."

..do you really think having an opinion an abortion and immigration is sufficient to be labelled a violent radical and placed in the same category as militias and white supremicists? Do you really think that the article suggested that?

The article is pretty clear in its repeated use of violent/violence in the text about its target. And it clearly separates 'law-abiding' from extremist a number of times.

But, hey, throw yourself up on a cross if it makes you feel good. As I said, I could throw myself in the left-wing extremist group (save the earth or I'll blow ya brains out!) but I'd rather not pretend to be persecuted.

Lets put it simply:


Rightwing extremism in the United States...may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with that comment. It is grammatically sound and does not do what you think it does.

1. Murderers may include individuals of the female sex.

Doesn't say all females can be considered murderers.

2. Chocolate bars may include nuts and raisins.

Doesn't say that nuts and raisins are only found in chocolate bars. I've seen them in cakes as well!

3. Christian congregations may include pedophiles and murderers.

Are all pedophiles and murderers christians?

Does that clarify?

ABE: as for recruitment, yes it's no big surprise that militias would try to recruit ex-military. And again, it provides evidence of this in the past. It doesn't say that ex-military will be hounded and spooked. It's a factual statement. Similarly, are you really surprised that these groups recruit by playing on people's fears? Again, a factual statement of how the groups work. You're being needlessly hysterical on those two points.

ABE2:

and so you do know what the report is saying and that there is a clear distinction between 'pro-life' and right-wing extremist:


So because I'm pro-life, I may be so weak-minded that I may team up with some extremist group so watch out for me.


For this issue, the right-wing extremists will be pro-life, but not all pro-lifers will be RW extremists. We're making progress - well, you basically knew what the report was saying, lol.

Keep that in mind. And, yes, you could be a target and some will be weak-minded (not sure that always applies) and easily radicalised. They don't drop off trees. And it doesn't say watch out for you - that's you embellishing and playing the persecution card.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zetaone
 


Wow. Just watched that Celente video. I like! Man understands things. He did say one thing I think he is wrong on. Not bad average. Thanx.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Record breaking numbers . . . many news outlets to tell you that.

And they cleaned up after themselves as well . . . unlike the other rally that was held there a few months ago.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
I just love the fact that when a bunch of smelly hippies rally in mass numbers we say they are a wonderful example of people excercising their right to "free speech",



Really? I've never heard that stance taken on "smelly hippies".




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

When right wing talk radio blah blah blah's encourage their listeners to show up at town hall meetings packing heat in a not so subtle veiled threat and then justify it as 2nd amendment rights when everyone knows exactly what it is...then yes it is a low level terrorist threat because it only takes one crack pot to take it all too seriously.


So now exercsing your Second Amendment rights in a totally legal manner is a low level terrorist threat? Can't wait to see what other Amendments will qualify for that particular treatment. You are treading down an icy incline there........... Grover, I respect you and your postings for the most part, but you are way off base if you attribute most of the people at these tea party gatherings are Radio or Republican zombies or relatively few in numbers. I personally have had a few people tell me they have attended these events and I guarantee they are/were dyed in the wool Democrats. It is a pretty wide ranging group that has been at these events. We had about 3,000 people attend one here in Metro Detroit the day after Labor Day. Consider that, after a long holiday weekend, that many people STILL decided to go out and protest....to me that said a lot.

Don't belittle the people attending these tea parties, they will be a force to be dealt with at the ballot box, mark my words. The Republicans just decided to hitch a ride on the groundswell, they aren't steering it.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by pavil]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Record breaking numbers . . .



You must be talking about the 2008 election and the Inauguration.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
reply to post by grover
 


Then what the hell is your problem with people who would like to restore the constitution? Or at the very least cut our f*n ridiculous Government spending that is leading us to crash and burn?


Hrmm... restore the constitution?

You mean to the point where women can't vote, and slavery is legal?

Geesh...



[edit on 15-9-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Record breaking numbers . . .



You must be talking about the 2008 election and the Inauguration.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by HunkaHunka]


Perhaps it was. I can't remember



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


First let me admit the fact I'm lazy and didn't read all that. But this is what I'm talking about when I refer to political profiling:

Innocent man profiled and detained for bumper sticker:


Our friends at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemarie in Ball, Louisiana alerting Patriot Depot that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an "extremist" group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased and displayed a conservative "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.

Whole Story.

Why? Because his sticker happened to be on a government watch list:

IMAGE.

Do we see where we can go from here?

You may say it's only targeting militia extremists but obviously innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire of the witch hunt. Detained and scoped because of his bumper sticker.

Do you support profiling?

And no offense but I hear it becomes a nanny state more and more over there across the pond. I'm sorry but I don't want us to go through the same but we appear to be well on our way.

Here's something else you may like to read that relates to what I'm referring to:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I am all for the second amendment rights but carrying guns loaded or not to a political rally is not excercising those rights except in the loosest definiition of the term...it is nothing more than a not so veiled threat and has no place at a public discourse.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Innocent man profiled and detained for bumper sticker:


OK, if you buy that, cool. Not chuffed with inforwars as reliable for anything. I'll ride with it for fun. But it's nothing to do with people spooking random ex-vets and anti-choice people and still completely ignores the original point.

If I even accept that this document is legit, it is supposedly a report detailing the militia phenomenon and outlining potentially identifying paraphenalia in one state in the US. How many have been pulled over since february in Missery? I don't see that it says harrass these people. Probably not a bad thing to know how to potentially identify such people if need be.



Do we see where we can go from here?

You may say it's only targeting militia extremists but obviously innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire of the witch hunt. Detained and scoped because of his bumper sticker.


I can see that your running very quickly with ya goalposts. No idea where they'll end up.


Do you support profiling?


Depends. Not a big fan, but I can see it would be useful under certain situations (i.e., not in general as pretext for suspicion of random crime). But if there was a specific reason, perhaps. Am I meant to suddenly be in uproar now?

Say PC Plod gets info about rather illegal militia activity (murder, bombs, pinched some chick's butt) in a particular area, they have little information except the dude has a criminal mullet, rambled incoherently about his constitutional rights and the Fed, and left the scene in some unknown car. Plod's trundling along the area and sees a car labelled like the local militia batmobile skulking away and a driver with a bad mullet (poor identifier, too many in the town) - does he pull it over?

Probably. I think he should. But specific uncalled for targetting wouldn't be so cool.

You seem to have completely ignored much of my post, though, so I find it hard to engage my give a poop gyrus.

Again, 'christian congregation may include pedophiles and murderers'. Am I saying that all pedos and murderers are christian?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by melatonin]




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join