Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby Matthias » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:19 am

Madison wrote:
Matthias wrote:
I mean, point blank, what does it take to get you to get pissed off if these things don't?

Dunno. I'm more ticked off at Bush for hiding behind his skirt in an attempt appease the masses that cannot stomach war instead of doing what needed to be done and actually going to war, than I am upset by anything you listed.

So you don't really care about Constitutional rights is what you're saying. Which is fine, different people have different beliefs on the proper relationship of the individual to the sovereign, just don't present yourself as a small-government libertarian because that's not whose tent you're under.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby Matthias » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:21 am

RugbyD wrote:I don't have a problem with keeping tabs on groups intent on doing violence. Isn't that the point of DHS?

It really doesn't bother you to have your civil rights trampled and vacated just because you don't think it will ever affect you b/c you dont raise a stink about it?

See, RugbyD is a small-government libertarian.

Not saying that I agree with him a whole lot, either, but he knows what's important to him.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby RugbyD » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:23 am

Matthias wrote:
RugbyD wrote:It's common and understandable for most people to contently "go along with 'our' guy" because they find it easy to let others do their thinking for them. Its quite another thing to scream at the top of your lungs en masse without knowledge of what's coming out of your mouth.

"Drill, Baby, Drill"

What does this have to do with me?
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby Matthias » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:25 am

RugbyD wrote:
Matthias wrote:
RugbyD wrote:It's common and understandable for most people to contently "go along with 'our' guy" because they find it easy to let others do their thinking for them. Its quite another thing to scream at the top of your lungs en masse without knowledge of what's coming out of your mouth.

"Drill, Baby, Drill"

What does this have to do with me?

It doesn't... I'm not trying to imply you were a Palin supporter. I'm saying that your characterization of Obama supporters as massively uninformed and blindly supporting someone isn't unique, even in the context of this same election.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby knapplc » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:27 am

RugbyD wrote:
Matthias wrote:
RugbyD wrote:It's common and understandable for most people to contently "go along with 'our' guy" because they find it easy to let others do their thinking for them. Its quite another thing to scream at the top of your lungs en masse without knowledge of what's coming out of your mouth.

"Drill, Baby, Drill"

What does this have to do with me?

Maybe he thinks you're in need of trepanning? :-? :-D

I do not entirely disagree with your earlier post about the electorate hyped up on "Hopium." The only caveat I can offer to that is the starry-eyed believers we see at every single DNC/RNC every election cycle. Maybe there were more of those kinds of people in this election than in others, but percentages aside, none of what you're saying is unique to Obama supporters or the most recent election.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby RugbyD » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:37 am

Matthias wrote:It doesn't... I'm not trying to imply you were a Palin supporter. I'm saying that your characterization of Obama supporters as massively uninformed and blindly supporting someone isn't unique, even in the context of this same election.


knapplc wrote:I do not entirely disagree with your earlier post about the electorate hyped up on "Hopium." The only caveat I can offer to that is the starry-eyed believers we see at every single DNC/RNC every election cycle. Maybe there were more of those kinds of people in this election than in others, but percentages aside, none of what you're saying is unique to Obama supporters or the most recent election.


I fully acknowledged that blind support wasn't unique to Obama supporters. What has been unique in my view was the quantity, volume, and intellectually vacant certainty and self-righteousness relative to anything else I've experienced.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby RugbyD » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:09 am

Matthias wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Matthias wrote:Excuse me while I spit my drink all of my laptop. We just came out of the most recent politicized administration in recent memory and you're saying this about Obama? Do you have specific example on this?

Rahm Emanuel
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
David Axelrod
Hilda Solis
Tom Vilsack
Leon Panetta

and if you want to go back further to his upbringing:
Emil Jones
Saul Alinsky
Tony Rezko

is this really a question?

Is this really an answer?

I figured Emanuel would lead your list since he's known for a brass-knuckle style in politics (which isn't even the same thing as the question asked, just in the same family). But I fail to see how any of the other names you mentioned, including Barack's own, are examples of making, "careers off of inappropriate and/or malicious politicization." You throw out Axelrod's name because, sure, he's a campaign guy, but to my knowledge this is the first time he's even taken part in an administration of any type. So how does he have a history of making a career off of, "inappropriate and/or malicious politicization"?

I wasn't addressing Emanuel's style, I'm addressing his purpose and that goes for everyone on the list. W/r/t Axelrod, he gets paid to win. Leaving him off the list is like not prosecuting the guy that planned a bank robbery but didn't take part. He's just like Rove except worse b/c he's a wolf in sheep's clothing whereas Rove was happy to jsut be a wolf. The people on this list are without a doubt in my mind driven by power for the sake of power or are happy to be accomplices to such an end. Panetta, Solis, Vilsack, Axelrod, and Alinsky fall more into the latter category than the former. Superficial attempts at principled, honest, objective, and collaborative governance are a necessary evil to these people, though much less so to Obama now that he's on the throne and it's his ass on the line. It's his job to try and make something work in spite of the people he's surrounded himself with.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby Matthias » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:27 am

RugbyD wrote:W/r/t Axelrod, he gets paid to win. Leaving him off the list is like not prosecuting the guy that planned a bank robbery but didn't take part. He's just like Rove except worse b/c he's a wolf in sheep's clothing whereas Rove was happy to jsut be a wolf.

Yah, but unless you have something against Axelrod specifically, it's not like this is a new trend.

Lee Atwater directed the RNC after being George H.W. Bush's campaign manager.
William Casey directed the CIA under Reagan after getting him elected.
Hamilton Jordan became Carter's Chief of Staff.
H.R. Haldeman was Nixon's Chief of Staff.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. Feel free to investigate to prove me wrong, though. The only name missing from that list, sequentially, was James Carville who obviously retained a close relationship with the Clintons but did not take a role in the Clinton White House. If you like, though, we could add George Stephonolous to the list who was a political advisor during the campaign and then was Clinton's Chief of Staff after the election.
RugbyD wrote:The people on this list are without a doubt in my mind driven by power for the sake of power or are happy to be accomplices to such an end.

From the secondary reporting I've heard (have friends/relatives in politics, never gotten into the game directly myself) that's almost a pre-qualification to be a politician of any note. Not saying that it's right, just saying.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby RugbyD » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:45 pm

yay! site finally back up! now i can use what i wrote this morning:
Matthias wrote:
RugbyD wrote:W/r/t Axelrod, he gets paid to win. Leaving him off the list is like not prosecuting the guy that planned a bank robbery but didn't take part. He's just like Rove except worse b/c he's a wolf in sheep's clothing whereas Rove was happy to jsut be a wolf.


Yah, but unless you have something against Axelrod specifically, it's not like this is a new trend.



Lee Atwater directed the RNC after being George H.W. Bush's campaign manager.

William Casey directed the CIA under Reagan after getting him elected.

Hamilton Jordan became Carter's Chief of Staff.

H.R. Haldeman was Nixon's Chief of Staff.



I could go on, but I think the point is made. Feel free to investigate to prove me wrong, though. The only name missing from that list, sequentially, was James Carville who obviously retained a close relationship with the Clintons but did not take a role in the Clinton White House. If you like, though, we could add George Stephonolous to the list who was a political advisor during the campaign and then was Clinton's Chief of Staff after the election.


I absolutely have something against Axelrod specifically, namely his entire existence in Illinois politics in addition to work done for Eliot Spitzer, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack, Hillary Clinton, ASK's 'astroturfing' strategy, etc.





RugbyD wrote:The people on this list are without a doubt in my mind driven by power for the sake of power or are happy to be accomplices to such an end.


From the secondary reporting I've heard (have friends/relatives in politics, never gotten into the game directly myself) that's almost a pre-qualification to be a politician of any note. Not saying that it's right, just saying.


This is precisely my point. My contention is that tons of Obama supporters really thought they were supporting positive “change” instead of a round of serious powermongers. I could never get a consistent response on what “change” was b/c it was nothing but a nebulous sales pitch that allowed people to project onto it whatever they wanted. They had no clue they what they were about to elect b/c they were too blinded by a religious experience instead of being informed by a logical one. The Bush admin certainly made it an easier scam to pull this election cycle.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Right-wing Americans now considered potential terrorist

Postby Neato Torpedo » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:54 pm

RugbyD wrote:
Neato Torpedo wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
This is a huge problem with the release. I understand that an inefficient and duplicative agency like the DHS has to cast a wide net to justify itself, but this steps way over the line into the realm of politicizing the DHS mission away from its appropriate space. This is no surprise considering so many people in the Obama admin made careers off of inappropriate and/or malicious politicization. It just furthers my belief that many Obama voters didn't have the slightest clue what they were voting for.

Dude, do you have the slightest clue as to what you're reading??? If every racist or hate group in the US was a target then 20% of the country would be imprisoned. This is regarding violent groups that intend to manipulate circumstances through the use of fear. I will guarantee you that there's groups out there that would love to bomb the White House or the Capitol as a statement against the power of federal government. I'm far left-wing by most measures and despite all the opposition, I never felt threatened by the Bush administration because I understood that if I remain nonviolent they won't do anything.

When stuff like the PATRIOT Act and HR 1955 passed during the Bush administration, a lot of my fellow left-wingers felt threatened and frightened of being imprisoned for "thoughtcrime" and "voicing your opinion", and I thought that was a bit silly as well because I understood the purpose, no matter the wording. Yes, under the wording PATRIOT Act, one could technically be sent to Guantanamo Bay (or, nowadays, federal prison) for holding a sign that says "I <3 AL QAEDA", but has it happened? Nope.

I don't have a problem with keeping tabs on groups intent on doing violence. Isn't that the point of DHS?

It really doesn't bother you to have your civil rights trampled and vacated just because you don't think it will ever affect you b/c you dont raise a stink about it?

Yes I will raise a stink about it but I don't plan to get violent about things I'm passionate about. I plan to act under lawful channels, gather support, carry signs, pester government officials with petitions, get news time, write articles, convince people that disagree, and inform those that don't know enough.

Call me back when someone gets arrested for having a camera near a government building under the Obama administration's rules.
Image

Rocinante2: you know
Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team
ofanrex: go on
Rocinante2: i'm done
Rocinante2: lmao

Play Brushback Baseball! (we need more people)
Neato Torpedo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerWeb Supporter
Posts: 8618
Joined: 4 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: we don't burn gasoline, we burn our dreams

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Jul. 10
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Chi Cubs at Cincinnati
(12:35 pm)
Philadelphia at Milwaukee
(2:10 pm)
Oakland at San Francisco
(3:45 pm)
Chi White Sox at Boston
(4:05 pm)
Washington at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Atlanta at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
LA Angels at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Detroit at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
San Diego at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Minnesota at Seattle
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact