Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Patriots are being tracked and reported?


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#46    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 08 May 2013 - 03:45 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 03 May 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

Those who are hostile to our democracy need to be scrutinized.

Seriously, though. Who are THOSE people?

Would you include Liberals that were speaking against the Bush administration for 8 years?

Left wing groups have a longer history of violance for their "cause" than any right wing groups.

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#47    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,446 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 03:52 AM

View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

Seriously, though. Who are THOSE people?

Would you include Liberals that were speaking against the Bush administration for 8 years?

Oh, you know..."those people" who want to keep an us vs them mentality. :whistle:


#48    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:03 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 03 May 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Mental health professionals would decide. Who else?

We need better mental health awareness and intervention in this country. That is simply progress.

If you had a child who was becoming a threat to you and your family, if you did not know what to do, if you called law enforcement for help, hopefully they would send a caseworker and mental health personnel to help.

And what makes a mental health professional the perfect choice to decide?

If you knew anything about Psychology/psychiatry, you would know there are more than a few schools of thought on the subject. So, which is going to be the one used to decide whether or not someone is mentally fit? And who is going to decide which one we go with?

Simply, there is no way to correctly institute a national mental health mandate.

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#49    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 08 May 2013 - 04:04 AM

View PostMichelle, on 08 May 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

Oh, you know..."those people" who want to keep an us vs them mentality. :whistle:

Yankees fans?  :unsure2:

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#50    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,611 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:41 AM

View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:



Seriously, though. Who are THOSE people?

Would you include Liberals that were speaking against the Bush administration for 8 years?

Left wing groups have a longer history of violance for their "cause" than any right wing groups.

This "the left has caused more terrorism throughout history" point being bandied around, if true, is a truth that is attempting to hide another truth.

The truth of which side is causing more terrorism now and in recent history. If it was the left then one would be bandying around the point in terms of "the left is causing the most terrorism now" but since that is not accurate we are hearing about the long view. That is fine but the point being made is a way to sweep away what we all know deep inside.

Terrorism now is from conservatives mainly, homegrown, yes, mostly right-wing, Islamic, yes again, mainly conservatives in their spheres, these are not moderate Muslims or liberal ones.

Now we can look at the long view. Most terrorism in the past 150 years or so was from the left...but what about this: the liberals rejected the extreme of their wing they margianalized them, did not claim them.

Was Kennedy and LBJ supporting red-brigade terror, black power resistance, or eco-terrorists? No! Liberals were calling for law and order. Demanding it. Enforcing it.

Why then today are the moderate Republicans not speaking out? Why are they not distancing themselves except in hushed tones? Why do they silently harbor the extremists in their party?

That is the difference. 1984 might be the moment terrorism and mass shootings and plots switched from being majorly a left-wing to a right-wing phenomenon. Look up the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and what the mass shooter there complained about before doing what he did.

He said he was going to hunt humans. He hated society at large for being this or that, unlike the leftists of yesteryear who did terror against companies or the police but not just randoms in society because they don't like the way society is going.

Look at how similar his complaints are to the ones still being made today by right-wing radicals. But the radicals have been mainstreamed. People seem to be profiting from the extremism and mistrust they breed and grow.

Since then we have had the Koreshes, the McVeighs, the Osamas, the Columbine duo, the Lanzas.

What do they have in common? They are either conservative or have a love of guns or hate society or our government because instead of compromising they would rather attack.

So we do have a problem, people notice, and instead of digging in with fear that they are going to come for our guns, guns that won't allow you to win a war with a modern military (can't beat the feds today without drones of your own and anti-aircraft batteries), the right could instead simply denounce and distance themselves from the new terrorists and become partners in sensible legislation.

There will be blowback and people are craving law and order, not paranoia that our government is out to get us, they are not out to get me.

View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

And what makes a mental health professional the perfect choice to decide?

If you knew anything about Psychology/psychiatry, you would know there are more than a few schools of thought on the subject. So, which is going to be the one used to decide whether or not someone is mentally fit? And who is going to decide which one we go with?

Simply, there is no way to correctly institute a national mental health mandate.

No need for "if you only knew" type of points. If you know then tell us.

But you make a good point, there are psychologist whose therapy is talking and exercises, psychiatrist whose therapy is talking and meds, we have among them different therapies, different meds, and every patient needs a certain mix unique to them for a proper response.

But we cannot just throw up our arms and say forget it. We have a mental health crisis. We need a national response, not just for those saying they hate the government, most of them are not mentally ill, but the ones who are need screening.

Overall we have to begin forming a comprehensive solution to the general mental health crisis, the ones that allow for suicides among vets, to the Jodi Ariases, to Ted Kazinskis (had to mention the favorite target of the right to show the left has terrorists too), and the top dog in the Air Force in charge of sexual harassment (definitely leaning toward some kind of disorder even if just alcoholism.)

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 08 May 2013 - 05:46 AM.


#51    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,446 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 05:52 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 03 May 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Mental health professionals would decide. Who else?

We need better mental health awareness and intervention in this country. That is simply progress.

If you had a child who was becoming a threat to you and your family, if you did not know what to do, if you called law enforcement for help, hopefully they would send a caseworker and mental health personnel to help.

In a perfect world, yes. You can't expect the police do anything, with a dangerous or unruly child, if they haven't actually commited a crime. I know one Mother whose nine year old son would threaten her and his younger siblings with a knife and poisoning from the time he was six. Social services will not intervene and you cannot get help from the majority of mental health professionals because you don't have the insurance needed.

No, it isn't a simple process even to get an adult the care they need, much less a child.


#52    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,446 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:01 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 08 May 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

This "the left has caused more terrorism throughout history" point being bandied around, if true, is a truth that is attempting to hide another truth.

The truth of which side is causing more terrorism now and in recent history. If it was the left then one would be bandying around the point in terms of "the left is causing the most terrorism now" but since that is not accurate we are hearing about the long view. That is fine but the point being made is a way to sweep away what we all know deep inside.

Terrorism now is from conservatives mainly, homegrown, yes, mostly right-wing, Islamic, yes again, mainly conservatives in their spheres, these are not moderate Muslims or liberal ones.

Now we can look at the long view. Most terrorism in the past 150 years or so was from the left...but what about this: the liberals rejected the extreme of their wing they margianalized them, did not claim them.

Was Kennedy and LBJ supporting red-brigade terror, black power resistance, or eco-terrorists? No! Liberals were calling for law and order. Demanding it. Enforcing it.

Why then today are the moderate Republicans not speaking out? Why are they not distancing themselves except in hushed tones? Why do they silently harbor the extremists in their party?

That is the difference. 1984 might be the moment terrorism and mass shootings and plots switched from being majorly a left-wing to a right-wing phenomenon. Look up the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and what the mass shooter there complained about before doing what he did.

He said he was going to hunt humans. He hated society at large for being this or that, unlike the leftists of yesteryear who did terror against companies or the police but not just randoms in society because they don't like the way society is going.

Look at how similar his complaints are to the ones still being made today by right-wing radicals. But the radicals have been mainstreamed. People seem to be profiting from the extremism and mistrust they breed and grow.

Since then we have had the Koreshes, the McVeighs, the Osamas, the Columbine duo, the Lanzas.

What do they have in common? They are either conservative or have a love of guns or hate society or our government because instead of compromising they would rather attack.

So we do have a problem, people notice, and instead of digging in with fear that they are going to come for our guns, guns that won't allow you to win a war with a modern military (can't beat the feds today without drones of your own and anti-aircraft batteries), the right could instead simply denounce and distance themselves from the new terrorists and become partners in sensible legislation.

There will be blowback and people are craving law and order, not paranoia that our government is out to get us, they are not out to get me.



No need for "if you only knew" type of points. If you know then tell us.

But you make a good point, there are psychologist whose therapy is talking and exercises, psychiatrist whose therapy is talking and meds, we have among them different therapies, different meds, and every patient needs a certain mix unique to them for a proper response.

But we cannot just throw up our arms and say forget it. We have a mental health crisis. We need a national response, not just for those saying they hate the government, most of them are not mentally ill, but the ones who are need screening.

Overall we have to begin forming a comprehensive solution to the general mental health crisis, the ones that allow for suicides among vets, to the Jodi Ariases, to Ted Kazinskis (had to mention the favorite target of the right to show the left has terrorists too), and the top dog in the Air Force in charge of sexual harassment (definitely leaning toward some kind of disorder even if just alcoholism.)

Good lord...can't you stay on topic without rambling on?


#53    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:17 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 08 May 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:


No need for "if you only knew" type of points. If you know then tell us.

But you make a good point, there are psychologist whose therapy is talking and exercises, psychiatrist whose therapy is talking and meds, we have among them different therapies, different meds, and every patient needs a certain mix unique to them for a proper response.

But we cannot just throw up our arms and say forget it. We have a mental health crisis. We need a national response, not just for those saying they hate the government, most of them are not mentally ill, but the ones who are need screening.

Overall we have to begin forming a comprehensive solution to the general mental health crisis, the ones that allow for suicides among vets, to the Jodi Ariases, to Ted Kazinskis (had to mention the favorite target of the right to show the left has terrorists too), and the top dog in the Air Force in charge of sexual harassment (definitely leaning toward some kind of disorder even if just alcoholism.)

No one knows. THAT is the point.

I'm not even remotely saying that we should "throw up our arms and say forget it". I am saying that anything relating to the medical field, including mental health, should not be dictated or mandated by the government. They want to make a requirement for a screening for something, then that's fine, as long as they accept the results (and pay for it), but they should not dictate any of the guidelines.

"the ones that allow for suicides among vets" please clarify this, as it seems you are in favor of this action.

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#54    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,611 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:32 AM

We might not know how it will work but we still have to move forward and address the mental health crisis including where it intersects with firearms (since some of the mass shootings seem to have both factors as commonalities).

A national inititative on mental health (a war on mental health issues for example, instead of a war on drugs) is needed overall and not just focusing on those who possess firearms since most firearm owners do not have mental health issues compared to the regular population, Where the two meet (firearm owners with mental health issues) becomes a potential mental healh molotov cocktail with potential to become the next mass shooting.

I doubt anyone wants mass shootings to continue and they should be eliminated through every angle possible, not just mental health issues, that is just one angle.  Instead of resisting this angle it should be welcomed and included. There are other areas that have to be addressed: gun safety, gun storage, gun locks, and overall awareness so if too many red flags are raised a relative, friend, or individual can intervene or try to.

Problem is how many gun owners who suffer mental illness or have someone in their home  who will go forward and surrendur or sell their own firearms knowing the risks? If they won't do it someone else has to get the ball rolling...

There is also a need to address suicide rates among our veterans as well as other mental health issues they suffer from. Hopefully this was the clarification requested.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 08 May 2013 - 10:37 AM.


#55    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:41 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 08 May 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

This "the left has caused more terrorism throughout history" point being bandied around, if true, is a truth that is attempting to hide another truth.

The truth of which side is causing more terrorism now and in recent history. If it was the left then one would be bandying around the point in terms of "the left is causing the most terrorism now" but since that is not accurate we are hearing about the long view. That is fine but the point being made is a way to sweep away what we all know deep inside.

Terrorism now is from conservatives mainly, homegrown, yes, mostly right-wing, Islamic, yes again, mainly conservatives in their spheres, these are not moderate Muslims or liberal ones.

Now we can look at the long view. Most terrorism in the past 150 years or so was from the left...but what about this: the liberals rejected the extreme of their wing they margianalized them, did not claim them.

Was Kennedy and LBJ supporting red-brigade terror, black power resistance, or eco-terrorists? No! Liberals were calling for law and order. Demanding it. Enforcing it.

Why then today are the moderate Republicans not speaking out? Why are they not distancing themselves except in hushed tones? Why do they silently harbor the extremists in their party?

That is the difference. 1984 might be the moment terrorism and mass shootings and plots switched from being majorly a left-wing to a right-wing phenomenon. Look up the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and what the mass shooter there complained about before doing what he did.

He said he was going to hunt humans. He hated society at large for being this or that, unlike the leftists of yesteryear who did terror against companies or the police but not just randoms in society because they don't like the way society is going.

Look at how similar his complaints are to the ones still being made today by right-wing radicals. But the radicals have been mainstreamed. People seem to be profiting from the extremism and mistrust they breed and grow.

Since then we have had the Koreshes, the McVeighs, the Osamas, the Columbine duo, the Lanzas.

What do they have in common? They are either conservative or have a love of guns or hate society or our government because instead of compromising they would rather attack.

So we do have a problem, people notice, and instead of digging in with fear that they are going to come for our guns, guns that won't allow you to win a war with a modern military (can't beat the feds today without drones of your own and anti-aircraft batteries), the right could instead simply denounce and distance themselves from the new terrorists and become partners in sensible legislation.

There will be blowback and people are craving law and order, not paranoia that our government is out to get us, they are not out to get me.

"Was Kennedy and LBJ supporting red-brigade terror, black power resistance, or eco-terrorists? No! Liberals were calling for law and order. Demanding it. Enforcing it."

Really? Liberals were calling for law and order on fellow liberals? (and yes, they are liberal groups)

Islamic terrorist groups have much more in common with Liberalism than they do with Conservatism. If you dealt with them on anything more than an (and I use this word very loosely here) academic capacity, you would know this. I have.

Tell me, other than the Islamic terrorists (which aren't right wing), what right wing groups have commited acts of violence?

As for the left, I don't need to go back to the 60s and 70s. I'll give you the "Occupy" Movement. While they claim that the violence and other various criminal activities were done by protestors not part of their group, they did nothing to stop it, nor did they let the police do their jobs to arrest those responsible. So, yes, the Occupy groups were responsible.

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#56    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:56 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 08 May 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

We might not know how it will work but we still have to move forward and address the mental health crisis including where it intersects with firearms (since some of the mass shootings seem to have both factors as commonalities).

A national inititative on mental health (a war on mental health issues for example, instead of a war on drugs) is needed overall and not just focusing on those who possess firearms since most firearm owners do not have mental health issues compared to the regular population, Where the two meet (firearm owners with mental health issues) becomes a potential mental healh molotov cocktail with potential to become the next mass shooting.

I doubt anyone wants mass shootings to continue and they should be eliminated through every angle possible, not just mental health issues, that is just one angle.  Instead of resisting this angle it should be welcomed and included. There are other areas that have to be addressed: gun safety, gun storage, gun locks, and overall awareness so if too many red flags are raised a relative, friend, or individual can intervene or try to.

Problem is how many gun owners who suffer mental illness or have someone in their home  who will go forward and surrendur or sell their own firearms knowing the risks? If they won't do it someone else has to get the ball rolling...

There is also a need to address suicide rates among our veterans as well as other mental health issues they suffer from. Hopefully this was the clarification requested.

To say "we still have to move forward and address the mental health crisis including where it intersects with firearms" is idiotic. That's like saying that we need to address mental health concerns that intersect with sadomasocism because there are people that like to have sex with animals. What needs to be addressed is the underlying cause of mental health issues that cause violence. Period. Not firearms specific (Tim McVeigh used a box truck with explosives, not guns, yet the government hasn't banned household cleaners, fertilizer or box trucks), but violence specific. And I can promise you that a large portion will have been the result of years of being bullied, and no one doing anything about it.

Yes, that made things more clear (though, I didn't think you were condoning suicide among Vets).

I have my own theory about mental health issues from Veterans that would lead to suicide (being a vet and having close friends that were vets that killed themselves after coming home).

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#57    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,705 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 May 2013 - 11:53 AM

I have a question for all the Pro-Gunners who claimed that instead of trying to ban guns, the "government" should focus on mental health.

If you are objecting to this program, then how exactly are you imagining the "government" going about finding people with mental health issues which could result in harm to themselves or others?  Isn't this sort of program pretty much exactly what would be needed?

Looking at the original article (as opposed to an article from a conspiracy site taken from an article in another conspiracy site) the claim is:

"Bradshaw is readying a hotline and is planning public service announcements to encourage local citizens to report their neighbors, friends or family members if they fear they could harm themselves or others.
The goal won’t be to arrest troubled people but to get them help before there’s violence, Bradshaw said. As a side benefit, law enforcement will have needed information to keep a close eye on things."

Now, note that people already have the ability to get on the phone and call the police if they have neighbors whom they already suspect specifically of being a danger to themselves or others.  The problem is that they have a belief (not entirely unfounded) that doing so will ultimately result in nothing, being that they have no evidence and no desire to go out and collect any.  Well, now they have been specifically told that, yes, the police will listen to you, and yes, the police will respond, and no, they will not respond by going in with guns blazing.  It will be a reasonable, intelligent response, designed specifically to not inflame any existing situation, and with full knowledge that the situation may not be what it seems.

Unlike some of the responses in this thread, this program does not assume that the people on the other end are idiots, willing traitors to the country, or unrepentant killers just waiting for an excuse to kill people.


#58    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Seeker

  • Member
  • 11,126 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Dark side of the Moon

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:20 PM

aq, how have you been? Long time no see.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#59    Ellapennella

Ellapennella

    wishes upon stars

  • Member
  • 2,691 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:37 PM

View Postkrillen, on 03 May 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

You may find this information useful. Enjoy it!

---------------

A new $1 million dollar program led by Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw aimed at “violence prevention” is encouraging Floridians to report their neighbors for making hateful comments about the government, a chilling reminder of how dissent is being characterized as an extremist threat.
%20http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/March20124/fbi-cia-to-monitor-facebook-profiles1.jpg

“Bradshaw plans to use the extra $1 million to launch “prevention intervention” units featuring specially trained deputies, mental health professionals and caseworkers. The teams will respond to citizen phone calls to a 24-hour hotline with a knock on the door and a referral to services, if needed,” reports the Palm Beach Post.

Details:  Floridians Encouraged To Report Neighbors Who “Hate Government”

Well well! If we hate someone, we could easily pick up our phones, and call 911: "The dude next to my door hates the government!!!". How convenient =))
Ha . That's not going to go very well. I  just don't think that people will be calling in on normal  law abiding citizens that are not happy with every aspect of governemnt , mainly the corrupt aspect within it . People  have the RIGHT to their own personal  feelings towards the corruption  going on within  the government / bamkers/globalist . I would like to see  government officals start reporting one another, like the ones that know the dirty dealings and all , they ought to have a law passed to report and observe themselves .Though I do think that if anyone makes a serious threat against anyone , not just the  government , but towards anyone ,  i think that it's wise to inform the proper authorities.That's just common sense . The government  shouldn't be telling people  to spy on citizens for them , seriously, anyone can make a false claim and cause problems . I think it's a waste of money and i think that particular area in Fl.  has plenty of money to waste.

West Palm Beach is weird anyway. I know that most of Floridians don't feel the same as that community does.

Edited by Reann, 08 May 2013 - 12:39 PM.


#60    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,611 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:58 PM

View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

"Was Kennedy and LBJ supporting red-brigade terror, black power resistance, or eco-terrorists? No! Liberals were calling for law and order. Demanding it. Enforcing it."

Really? Liberals were calling for law and order on fellow liberals? (and yes, they are liberal groups)

Yes, the radical left opposed liberalism and liberalism was not a term they adopted.

JFK pleased many liberals but did move against the far left (Communism) in both resolving to defeat it in Vietnam (LBJ later sent the first ground troops in 1965) and in authorizing wiretaps against MLK and his assocites after warning MLK to distance himself from "communists".

Spoiler

The New Left opposed LBJ. It can even be stated that Nixon won because both the right and the New Left opposed liberalism.

Quote

Liberalism came under attack from both the New Left in the early 1960s and the right in the late 1960s.

Kazin (1998) says, "The liberals who anxiously turned back the assault of the postwar Right wereconfronted in the 1960s by a very different adversary: a radical movement led, in the main, by their own children. The white New Left."

This new element, says Kazin, worked to "topple the corrupted liberal order." Indeed, as Maurice Isserman notes, the New Left" "came to use the word 'liberal' as a political epithet."

The attack was not confined to the United States, as the New Left was a worldwide movement with strength in parts of Western Europe as well as Japan. Massive demonstrations in France, for example, denounced American imperialism and its "helpers" in Western European governments.

The main activity of the New Left became Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War as conducted by liberal President Lyndon Johnson. The anti-war movement escalated the rhetorical heat, as violence broke out on both sides.

The climax came in sustained protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Liberals fought back, with Zbigniew Brzezinski, chief foreign policy advisor of the 1968 Humphrey campaign saying...

the New Left "threatened American liberalism"

...in a manner reminiscent of McCarthyism. While the New Left considered Humphrey a war criminal, Nixon attacked him as the New Left's enabler—a man with "a personal attitude of indulgence and permissiveness toward the lawless." Beinart concludes that "with the country divided against itself, contempt for Hubert Humphrey was the one thing on which left and right could agree." After 1968, the New Left lost strength and the more serious attacks on liberalism came from the right. Nevertheless the liberal ideology lost its attractiveness. Liberal commentator E. J. Dionne contends that,

"If liberal ideology began to crumble intellectually in the 1960s it did so in part because the New Left represented a highly articulate and able wrecking crew."
[link]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Islamic terrorist groups have much more in common with Liberalism than they do with Conservatism. If you dealt with them on anything more than an (and I use this word very loosely here) academic capacity, you would know this. I have.

Tell me, other than the Islamic terrorists (which aren't right wing),

Islamic terrorists might or might not commit what they consider sin as individuals but the governments they support are fundamentalists units that abhor homosexuality, women's education, or cooperation with any who do not agree with them unless they are getting payed. Hypocritical, yes. Right-wing? Defintiely.

If you have proof that Islamic terrorists are liberals, provide it, if not could you at least give us your rationale?

One should not assume because the far-right wing in America opposes Islamic-extremists that they are not both conservatives.

Spoiler


View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

what right wing groups have commited acts of violence?

Before I answer I should be up front.

Full disclosure: In the '90s I began to dabble heavily in conspiracy theories and feared the government taking over, entering my home through force, and locking us up in FEMA concentration camps.

I opposed cameras on the highways when they were first rolled out in 1995, opposed NAFTA, opposed the Clinton Crime Bills that seem targeted at patriots and those with anti-government sentiments including instilling the death penalty for acts that were not covered before such as blowing up bridges or train tracks even if no one died.

I opposed the UN, opposed the New World Order, sympathized with Spc. Michael New, and used to buy milita-related materials in the '90s at our alternative book store but I have never joined a militia myself or any other group which advocated violence toward our government.

I have legally purchased firearms during the Clinton-era and the Bush II-era including rifles, plenty of ammo, mostly in a 7.62x39 caliber but also rounds of different types for handguns, bought banana clips and bayonet attachments before the ban (1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban), and am no stranger to the shooting range including having a favorite one here in town.

I know FFL dealers, know how to shoot, where to aim: body mass, and in what situations I am allowed to use a firerarm on another: when in "fear of my life", in defense of another who could suffer grave bodily injury or worse, or under the castle doctrine, and in my state it is legal to shoot someone after dark to stop vandals or burglars if I cannot stop them another way to recover any stolen items or hold them liable to recoup the costs of any damage they caused...although I would never want to shoot anyone and would not shoot a running thief or vandal in the back over a property crime even if it is legal in this state.

I have been shot at in more than one situation and am no stranger to the CAC card but was never enlisted.

I also knew skinheads in the 1980s and early 1990s and am familiar with the 14 words to live by but I was never a skinhead.

Not, quite as old as other keep insisting, but whatever, won't mention it again.)

My position has evolved but I am no stranger to some elements of the right-wing.

Used to be pro-life and anti-choice but am pro-pro on both issues now (fuzzy I know, that is postmodernism) and have held quite a few other platforms of the right-wing.

I am a progressive now who advocates functionalism and believes in supporting our government even when I disagree with certain issues because I know the mechanisms of democracy are in place.  Local politics are also important to me and my neighborhood and city have greatly improved.

Generally I favor cooperation in life and have largely abandoned the conflict theory which ironically was invented by Marx even if many in the right now hold that position, liberals too, but I am a progressive and not a liberal. There is a difference even if we can agree on many platforms and even progressives and liberals can agree on some of the same ends there is also a difference in the means to those ends.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

what right wing groups have commited acts of violence?

We also have to discuss lone-wolf individuals with right-wing agendas or conservative outlooks. But OK, groups...

We won't discuss Ruby Ridge or Waco but their willingness to hold onto their guns and fight our government was there. (Personally, it was a raw deal, I sympathized with both the Weavers and the Branch Davidians, the government killed them it seems!)

So, does McVeigh, Nichols, and company count? Or just McVeigh and Nichols if you wish?

If not then let us skip past terror duos and focus on three-person cells or greater.


Terror From the Right: Plots, Conspiracies and Racist Rampages Since Oklahoma City

Below are 30+ right-wing generated incidents. Click the link below or above for the full list that includes lone-wolves and two-man operations. Most will be hidden in spoiler tags. The ones since 2010 will be displayed.

Spoiler

Quote

March 27-28, 2010
Nine members of the Hutaree Militia are arrested in raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana and charged with seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. The group, whose website said it was preparing for the imminent arrival of the anti-Christ, allegedly planned to murder a Michigan police officer, then use bombs and homemade missiles to kill other officers attending the funeral, all in a bid to set off a war with the government. Joshua Clough pleads guilty to a weapons charge in December 2011. A federal judge dismisses charges against seven members of the group during a trial in March 2012, saying their hatred of law enforcement did not amount to a conspiracy. Militia leader David Stone and his son Joshua Stone plead guilty to gun charges two days after the trial. In August 2012, a federal judge chooses not to send the Stones back to prison. They are each fined $100 and placed on two years’ supervision. Another member, Jacob Ward, awaits a separate trial.

March 10, 2011
Six members of the antigovernment Alaska Peacemakers Militia, including its leader, Francis Schaeffer Cox, 28, are arrested and charged with plotting to kill or kidnap state troopers and a Fairbanks judge. The group already has a large cache of weapons, including a .50-caliber machine gun, grenades and a grenade launcher. Cox earlier identified himself as a “sovereign citizen.” Cox is convicted in June 2012 on nine counts, including conspiring to kill a judge and law enforcement officials. He is sentenced in January 2013 to almost 26 years in federal prison. Lonnie Vernon, 56, and his wife, Karen, 66, plead guilty in August to charges they plotted to kill a federal judge and an IRS agent involved in a tax case against them. The Vernons are also sentenced in January 2013. Lonnie receives almost 25 years in federal prison while his wife receives 12 years. Another member, Coleman Barney, 38, is found guilty of weapons charges and sentenced in September 2012 to five years in federal prison.

May 14, 2011
Three masked men break into the Madrasah Islamiah, an Islamic center in Houston, and douse prayer rugs with gasoline in an apparent attempt to burn the center down. Images of the men are captured on surveillance cameras, but they are not identified. The fire is put out before doing major damage.

November 1, 2011
Four members of an unnamed North Georgia militia are arrested in an alleged plot to bomb federal buildings, attack cities including Atlanta with deadly ricin, and murder law enforcement officials. The men – Frederick Thomas, 73, Samuel J. Crump, 68, Dan Roberts, 67, and Ray H. Adams, 65 – allegedly discussed dispersing ricin powder in a series of cities, "taking out" a list of officials to "make the country right again," and scouting buildings in Atlanta to bomb. Authorities say the plot was inspired by an online novel, Absolved, written by longtime Alabama militiaman Mike Vanderboegh. Thomas, the accused ringleader, and Roberts plead guilty in April 2012 to charges of conspiring to possess explosives and firearms. Thomas and Roberts are each sentenced in August 2012 to five years in federal prison for conspiring to obtain an unregistered explosive device. Crump and Adams are awaiting trial.

December 10, 2011
Four soldiers, later identified as members of a militia-type group called Forever Enduring, Always Ready (FEAR), are arrested for murdering 19-year-old former soldier and group member Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York, because they feared the pair would talk about the group’s plans. Officials say the group, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., planned to take over the Army base, assassinate President Obama and overthrow the government, and had spent $87,000 on guns and bomb parts. Group leader Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, 22, Sgt. Anthony Peden, 26, Pvt. Christopher Salmon, 25, and Pfc. Michael Burnett, 26, also allegedly discussed blowing up a dam and poisoning fruit crops in Washington state. Officials say Aguigui funded the group with a $500,000 insurance payment for the death of his pregnant wife. In 2012, seven more people are arrested in connection with the group’s activities; several accept plea bargains and agree to testify against their comrades. In April 2013, the Army charges Aguigui with killing his wife.

August 16, 2012
Seven people with ties to the antigovernment “sovereign citizens” movement allegedly ambush and murder Louisiana sheriff’s deputies Brandon Nielsen, 34, and Jeremy Triche, 27. The attack comes in a trailer park near New Orleans, where the deputies pursued suspects following the shooting and wounding of another deputy working as an off-duty security guard at an oil refinery. Those arrested include the group’s leader, Terry Lyn Smith, 44, Smith’s wife, Chanel Skains, and his sons, Derrik Smith and Brian Smith. Others are Brittany Keith, Kyle David Joekel and Teniecha Bright. Brian Smith is charged with first-degree murder and the others with related charges. The group, which traveled the country doing construction work, possess a stockpile of weapons. Its members have outstanding warrants in Nebraska, Tennessee and Louisiana.

Terror From the Right: Plots, Conspiracies and Racist Rampages Since Oklahoma City


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


View PostMstrMsn, on 08 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

As for the left, I don't need to go back to the 60s and 70s. I'll give you the "Occupy" Movement. While they claim that the violence and other various criminal activities were done by protestors not part of their group, they did nothing to stop it, nor did they let the police do their jobs to arrest those responsible. So, yes, the Occupy groups were responsible.

The Occupy Movement as terrorists? Well keep in mind the quote directly above (yours) takes into consideration the 99%-ers as noteworthy due to their insinuated (by you) involvement in "the violence and other various criminal activities" that surrounded the Occupy Movement protests.

Keep that in mind when comparing that to the list of 30+ right-wing groups and their actions which rise above the level of any 99%-related activity that I am presently aware of.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 08 May 2013 - 01:21 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users