Re: Right wing extremist large aircraft threaten our lives...

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 18, 6:06*pm, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:

> How soon you forget about the right wing heroes, Timmy McVeigh who actually
> did manage to blow things up and kill women and children, or David Koresh
> who tried to build his own private army and torched his own followers, Eric
> Rudolph who bombed the Olympics among other things, or more recently Richard
> Poplawski, who killed 3 police officers. * So now you wingnuts want to get
> your panties in a wad because the administration identifies some fringe nuts
> as if there isn't precedent for some of them going off the farm?http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050712/12natsec.htm

Not sure what your point is. None of these guys worked in the
administration. The subject here is a presidential administration
claiming that those that oppose is views may be terrorist. Try to keep
up here.

-Robert

[Mike]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 18, 6:06 pm, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
>
> > How soon you forget about the right wing heroes, Timmy McVeigh who
> > actually
> > did manage to blow things up and kill women and children, or David
> > Koresh
> > who tried to build his own private army and torched his own followers,
> > Eric
> > Rudolph who bombed the Olympics among other things, or more recently
> > Richard
> > Poplawski, who killed 3 police officers. So now you wingnuts want to get
> > your panties in a wad because the administration identifies some fringe
> > nuts
> > as if there isn't precedent for some of them going off the
> > farm?http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050712/12natsec.htm
>
> Not sure what your point is. None of these guys worked in the
> administration. The subject here is a presidential administration
> claiming that those that oppose is views may be terrorist. Try to keep
> up here.

Are you high?

WTF does it matter if they "worked in the administration"?

I'm not sure what you've been smoking, but I am pretty sure I don't really
care to "keep up" with your nonsense.

My "point" was that there's plenty of valid reasons for the DHS report,
which makes pretty much all of the rest of the wingnut rants impotent (as if
they ever had a chance of being valid anyway).

Now if you had actually read the DHS report (and clearly you haven't), you'd
know it didn't simply name those that "oppose" their views. It was
Rightwing extremist groups that are hate-oriented towards religious, racial,
or ethnic groups. Perhaps you think that all who oppose the current
administration fit into that category, no?

Try and take your own advice.

[Jim Logajan]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
> My "point" was that there's plenty of valid reasons for the DHS
> report,

Those valid reasons appear to require a scanning probe microscope to
find. The report didn't name a single organization or group needing
scrutiny. It was entirely speculative - and a reasonably well-read
twelve year old of average intelligence could have produced it. Utterly
useless for its target audience unless one has a low opinion of law
enforcement. Lastly, the author seemed to be cribbing points from the
Stallone movie "First Blood".

> which makes pretty much all of the rest of the wingnut rants
> impotent (as if they ever had a chance of being valid anyway).

The main objection from genuine conservatives and libertarians is that
the DHS report defined "right wing extremism" as also including anyone
that is "...mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor
of state or local authority...."

If you're pro-government, well then I can see why you see nothing of
concern. A chasm between views.

> Now if you had actually read the DHS report (and clearly you haven't),
> you'd know it didn't simply name those that "oppose" their views. It
> was Rightwing extremist groups that are hate-oriented towards
> religious, racial, or ethnic groups. Perhaps you think that all who
> oppose the current administration fit into that category, no?

Ironically one of the statements in the report seems to describe the
liberal and libertarian angst I observed during the Bush II
administration:

"Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending
civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution,
and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of
a failed economy."

(Federal and local government influence in the minutia of our lives
appears to me to have grown irrespective of alleged administration
political leanings.)

The report is only 10 pages long and is available here (among other
places):

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

Save the effort Jim, he is just trolling.

This is Buttlipps former wanna-be sidekick, Mikey Mouth.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 21, 8:17*pm, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:

> Are you high?
>
> WTF does it matter if they "worked in the administration"?

Not sure why you aren't comprehending this. We are talking about a
***PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION**** calling those with opposing views
terrorists. Not sure if you haven't been reading or just not following
along.

-Robert

[Mike]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> Save the effort Jim, he is just trolling.
>
> This is Buttlipps former wanna-be sidekick, Mikey Mouth.

Sez the wannabe pilot and resident inbred Okie, Maxipad. Or should we call
him "Skidder"?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/c71aabefd379bd99/08004447c42c86d8

[Mike]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 21, 8:17 pm, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:

> > Are you high?
> >
> > WTF does it matter if they "worked in the administration"?
>
> Not sure why you aren't comprehending this. We are talking about a
> ***PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION**** calling those with opposing views
> terrorists. Not sure if you haven't been reading or just not following
> along.

You didn't answer the question, Robert. You make absolutely no sense
whatsoever, and you obviously simply want to rant for the sake of reading
your own rants. You succeeded brilliantly in that regard.

[Mike]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
>> My "point" was that there's plenty of valid reasons for the DHS
>> report,
>
> Those valid reasons appear to require a scanning probe microscope to
> find. The report didn't name a single organization or group needing
> scrutiny. It was entirely speculative - and a reasonably well-read
> twelve year old of average intelligence could have produced it. Utterly
> useless for its target audience unless one has a low opinion of law
> enforcement. Lastly, the author seemed to be cribbing points from the
> Stallone movie "First Blood".

In order to believe you are correct requires that one completely ignore all
past historical precedent and the current climate of right wing extremism
resurgency. Considering you seem to prefer using revisionist historian
Michelle Malkin as your source of information, I really can't say as I'm all
that surprised.

>
>> which makes pretty much all of the rest of the wingnut rants
>> impotent (as if they ever had a chance of being valid anyway).
>
> The main objection from genuine conservatives and libertarians is that
> the DHS report defined "right wing extremism" as also including anyone
> that is "...mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor
> of state or local authority...."
>
> If you're pro-government, well then I can see why you see nothing of
> concern. A chasm between views.

I suppose if you are the type to cherrypick statements, hack them up, then
draw your own ****ed up conclusions (or more precisely allow wingnut pundits
to do so for you), then I can see your concern.

I do find it rather funny when a wingnut pundit (like Michelle Malkin) comes
up with the most off the wall **** imaginable and the wingnuts come out of
the woodwork swearing to the same nonsense as if the garbage they just
parroted out were their own thoughts. It does give testament to the ability
of the puppets to all march in lockstep with each other, but it doesn't say
much for their ability to think outside what they are told.

[Maxwell[_10_]]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>> Save the effort Jim, he is just trolling.
>>
>> This is Buttlipps former wanna-be sidekick, Mikey Mouth.
>
> Sez the wannabe pilot and resident inbred Okie, Maxipad. Or should we
> call him "Skidder"?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/c71aabefd379bd99/08004447c42c86d8

Yeah dumb ass, that's real relevant. Open your head and let some more ****
run out.

[Maxwell[_10_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 8:17 pm, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:

> Are you high?
>
> WTF does it matter if they "worked in the administration"?

Not sure why you aren't comprehending this. We are talking about a
***PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION**** calling those with opposing views
terrorists. Not sure if you haven't been reading or just not following
along.

-Robert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He is not capable of comprehending anything, he's just a juvenile wanna be
troll. See how he attempts to misdirect folllow-ups, in a childish attempt
to stop those that reply to him.

Dick heads like this are a complete waste of time.

[Jim Logajan]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
> In order to believe you are correct requires that one completely
> ignore all past historical precedent and the current climate of right
> wing extremism resurgency.

At no point have I argued the state of right wing extremism. The issue is
in the quality of the DHS report on that subject. If there are concrete
data buried in that report that authorities could actually act upon to
thwart terrorist acts from right wing wingnuts, it would be useful to point
them out.

> Considering you seem to prefer using
> revisionist historian Michelle Malkin as your source of information, I
> really can't say as I'm all that surprised.

Huh? Are you claiming Malkin authored the report, not DHS? I used the
Malkin URL directly to the PDF only because my Google search yielded it
first. It is not necessary to read the material authored by Malkin. I don't
know anything about the person. Sorry if my selection offended you.

For balance, here's the DHS report I found on left wing extremists:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf

It actually names groups, attack techniques, and profiles of potential
targets (useful for predicting where future attacks will occur). Those are
points of information that authorities could use to act on that were
missing or glossed over in the right wing extremist report.

The interesting thing I found about the DHS left wing extremist report is
that it defines anarchists as extreme left. A few decades ago I recall
seeing some people place anarchists on the extreme right.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 7:53*pm, "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...

> > Not sure why you aren't comprehending this. We are talking about a
> > ***PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION**** calling those with opposing views
> > terrorists. Not sure if you haven't been reading or just not following
> > along.
>
> You didn't answer the question, Robert. *You make absolutely no sense
> whatsoever, and you obviously simply want to rant for the sake of reading
> your own rants. *You succeeded brilliantly in that regard.

You are confused because you don't understand what the thread is
discussing. You're trying to turn the thread into something else. Re-
read the thread from the top OP down. Hopefully you'll figure out what
the subject is by then.

-Robert