US released report on Left Wing ExtremistsFollow

Haha. I see. You're right. My mistake.

So we're once again supporting our accusations with imaginary scenarios. Great. No, it wasn't. This is the thin thread you cling as you climb up onto your cross. Nothing more.It's more insulting to be told that anyone who doesn't go along with your fevered little imagination, lacking any evidence aside from "I bet this is it! It all makes sense to me!" is wrong.

I may just call in to his show and ask. Heck. Maybe it's on his website. I already mentioned that he was the first one to write about it and that I didn't know where he got the document from. It's somewhat irrelevant though, the document was published at an incredibly convenient time and contains language that is incredibly broad when defining "Rightwing Extremism".


For kicks. Let's look at the report on "Leftwing Extremism" you linked earlier. Hey. Look at that! They actually define what a "leftwing extremist" is (in two locations in fact):



Earlier in the document can be found the following bit:




That's a whole lot more specific than the definition of "rightwing extremism" in the other document, isn't it? It's made abundantly clear that we're not labeling all environmentalists or animal rights groups as leftwing extremists, isn't it?


If we can assume this document was written for a similar audience, why does it include such a clear and narrow definition while the one about rightwing extremism is left incredibly vague and broad? I don't suppose it could possibly have something to do with who wrote the final revision of the document, and who was in charge of the office releasing the document at the time, could it? Hmmmm...


Yeah. I think so. Unless you honestly believe it's just a coincidence that the Obama administration released a threat assessment document that just happens to paint pretty much every single conservative political position as potentially being part of an extremist threat.

Edited, Apr 16th 2009 6:57pm by gbaji

Doesn't matter. I was pointing out that the audience for both is the same. Or do you not recall just a few posts back insisting that since this was intended just for law enforcement and security organizations that the fact that the document doesn't clearly define what "rightwing extremism" was isn't important cause they all know already?

If that was true, why is there such a clear definition in the case of the leftwing extremism document?


This is not being on a "crazy side", Joph. It's taking note of when language is manipulated for political gain. Looking at those two documents side by side it's like looking at night and day. You may feel free to stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't matter, but it's amazing to me that someone who'll accept the whole "Mission Accomplished" silliness without batting an eyelash just dismisses this out of hand.

But I'm the biased one here. Lol...

It's not about the event itself being "staged" Joph. It was a photo op for a speech. What the hell!? By definition it was staged. What do you think the words mean? Holy strawman batman!!!


The point was the incredibly intricate interpretation of the two words "Mission Accomplished" on the banner behind Bush. It was about the insistence by many on the left that this couldn't possibly be just about the ship accomplishing it's mission (they'd only just completed the longest deployment by an Aircraft Carrier in US history, so that's just silly). No. Despite statements in Bush's speech (while at that staged event) about how long and hard it would be to finish what we started in Iraq, he must really secretly have put the words there in order to make the public think that he was telling them that the war was over and our soldiers would all be home by Christmas. And when that didn't happen, it was perfectly ok for the left to attack Bush for lying about the war being over and our soldiers being home by Christmas. Cause that just makes perfect sense!


That's the comparison. You (and many many others) are perfectly willing to engage in some incredible mental gyrations in order to interpret words in a way that benefits you politically. You accept without any reservation the idea that the Bush administration in this case must have been planting those words in front of the public in order to manipulate their perception of the events at hand. Yet, you can't possibly accept the idea that the language in a threat assessment report might be manipulated in order to play into specific political talking points and stereotypes based on the assumption that it would leak to the public. Cause those reports *never* get leaked to the public, right?


Given the similar content, yet incredibly different definitions and language use in those two documents, it's hard to imagine that the differences were accidental or just a normal part of the editing process. The idea that they'd write a document about a subject, but never actually define exactly what that subject is within the context of the document is strange by itself. When that lapse allows for an incredibly broad implied definition which just happens to perfectly play into existing political stereotypes which benefit the party in power? I'm sorry. That becomes beyond coincidence.


I've yet to ever find anyone who could explain to me what exactly the Bush administration stood to gain by convincing the public that our entire mission was accomplished in Iraq during that speech. Yet it doesn't take a genius to realize immediately what the Dems have to gain by convincing the public that anyone who speaks out against the Obama administration, or supports smaller/local government, or opposes abortion, etc might just be dismissed as a right wing extremist. If you don't see the political advantage of applying an "extremist" label to anyone who opposes you politically, you're either lying or incredibly naive.

Edited, Apr 17th 2009 7:17pm by gbaji

Sure.

The DHS report was intended to allow any Liberal pundit to selectively label, not "all rightwingers", but any specific ones he wished to as "extremists", and know that the sheeplike public will just nod and say "Yup. They fit the criteria, so that must be true...".


It's like a fascist version of a Foxworthy skit:

If you support small government... You might be a right wing extremist.

If you prefer local government over federal authority... You might be a right wing extremist.

If you don't agree with the Obama administration... You might be a right wing extremist.

If you believe in freedom of religion... You might be a right wing extremist.

If you support the 2nd amendment... You might be a right wing extremist.



So yeah. Deal. :)

Edited, Apr 17th 2009 8:08pm by gbaji