Town Hall Meeting: `I'm a proud, right-wing terrorist'

[Patrick Degan]

Funny, but Chocula's example "Most Wanted Terrorst" is already "pinging" on the radar (sorta why he's on the FBI "Most Wanted" list, I suppose) and for all the crimes alleged to have been committed by Daniel Andres, they still don't come up to the one act committed by a certain person who fits exactly the DHS profile that's got his knickers in a twist:



That's the Alfred P. Murrah building, BTW. A clue: this bombing was not committed by a left-wing animal rights fanatic.

[Darth Wong]

How the fuck does that make it OK? That document describes the potential rise of white supremacist and radical anti-government groups. Either way, how the fuck does membership in one of these movements make someone praiseworthy? Are you on drugs?

You as well are missing the point. Here's the overview of key findings, from Page 3 of the report:

No, you are missing the point. The report identifies numerous groups which are potential threats. It does not in any way declare that they have been found guilty of terrorism yet. To declare that one is a "proud right-wing terrorist" is still entirely idiotic.

Seriously, how fucking retarded are you? They release a document which essentially says "keep an eye on these people; they may be dangerous" and you say "EEEEVIL GOVERNMENT FINDS PEOPLE GUILTY OF TERRORISM WITHOUT EVIDENCE!" The fact is that a man who declares himself a "proud right-wing terrorist" is not "referencing this document"; he is proudly stating that he is a potential insurgent, and that it would be a good thing.

PS. Don't pretend you came up with this apologist argument all by yourself. Which right-wing website did you crib it off of? Seriously, what's it going to take for you to admit that you run to right-wing websites in search of "talking points" whenever you see news articles like this?

[Surlethe]

Commence the dogpile!

No. No dogpiling: that's one of the things we're trying to avoid in N&P.

[Elfdart]

Well, I don't think there's anything you can really do in this specific case. I think the closest you could come, not being a legal expert myself, is incitement to violence or something similar if some act were carried out which could be tied to what he said, and that would presumably fall under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" bit.

The House can expel members. They can also censure members, so why not introduce a bill of censure? See just how many fellow Republitards want to go on record supporting this assclown.

[Themightytom]

I got as far as "This is America, we EARN what we entitled to" and my head exploded.

[The Spartan]

Well, I don't think there's anything you can really do in this specific case. I think the closest you could come, not being a legal expert myself, is incitement to violence or something similar if some act were carried out which could be tied to what he said, and that would presumably fall under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" bit.

The House can expel members. They can also censure members, so why not introduce a bill of censure? See just how many fellow Republitards want to go on record supporting this assclown.

Yeah, I still mistakenly had the Executive Branch Impeachment clause applying to the Congress as well when I wrote that because of the whole "civil officer" bit. Then I went back after I was corrected and saw that it's in the House/Senate procedures and not directly Constitutional law.

That said, I don't have a Congressman or Senator that would even give a second thought to moving on that, so I'm shit out of luck on this end. Anyone else want to give it a go?

[Count Chocula]

No, you are missing the point. The report identifies numerous groups which are potential threats. It does not in any way declare that they have been found guilty of terrorism yet. To declare that one is a "proud right-wing terrorist" is still entirely idiotic.

Seriously, how fucking retarded are you? They release a document which essentially says "keep an eye on these people; they may be dangerous" and you say "EEEEVIL GOVERNMENT FINDS PEOPLE GUILTY OF TERRORISM WITHOUT EVIDENCE!" The fact is that a man who declares himself a "proud right-wing terrorist" is not "referencing this document"; he is proudly stating that he is a potential insurgent, and that it would be a good thing.

PS. Don't pretend you came up with this apologist argument all by yourself. Which right-wing website did you crib it off of? Seriously, what's it going to take for you to admit that you run to right-wing websites in search of "talking points" whenever you see news articles like this?

I'll address your PS first. No I didn't crib my posts off some right wing Web sites, f you very much, I remembered that I had posted on this topic before. Here's an excerpt from the thread:

The DHS report and the MIAC report from a few weeks ago are reminiscent of the Clinton-era surveillance of the same type of "Conservative radical" with a few differences in terminology. This is nothing new, even though it pisses me off that a Federal department would have the gall to declare that millions of Americans fit the "terrorist" profile, with, um, no actual data to support their conclusions.

From what I've glanced at Limbaugh, Hedgecock, Beck et al are just absolutely raving mad at the Obama administration for allowing these outrageous inflammatory reports to be published. They seem to not understand that the funding for these studies would have been disbursed when Bush was President. Oops.

If you were to put on your tinfoil hat and think a little more about the studies, they would indicate that some people in the Federal government (and the Fed-funding-assisted MIAC) think millions of Americans are a threat to the government. In other words, this ain't a Democrat vs. Republican thing, it's an example of institutional paranoia.

To your second point, specifically where you assert I concluded "EEEEVIL GOVERNMENT FINDS PEOPLE GUILTY OF TERRORISM WITHOUT EVIDENCE!": Bullshit. Show me where I reached that conclusion, or even asserted that as fact. Here's my quote from page 1:

In condensed form, Mike, this DHS report casts such a wide net of potential "right wing terrorist" suspects that actual threat identification becomes impossible to determine.

Here's another point from my Page 1 post:

"Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms."

59,934,814 Americans voted against Obama in 2008, or 45.7% of all voters. Guess what: their (yes, and my) votes against him were votes against his perceived stances; that's how the election cycle works in the US. Does that mean that 60 million Americans are 'rightwing extremists?' Does a Federal government document to fed, state and local police agencies that says tens of millions of Americans "may be dangerous" do anything productive to actually catch terrorists, instead of making law enforcement personnel suspicious of everyone they encounter? Probably not, and that's the point of my post: the DHS publication that this Town Hall participant deliberately mocked includes so many people that it's impossible to use as any reasonable guideline. You simply attacked me and not the basis for my conclusions. By the way, did you see the guy who was blustering? Do you really think he's a "potential insurgent?" That was pure rhetoric IMO.

To your first point: the guy at the town hall acknowledged himself that he's an oddball. I don't disagree with him. You AGAIN are missing the point, however: his statement that he's "a proud right wing terrorist," and the Congressman's statement "You're a great American," are both big "FUCK YOU" declarations that the DHS paper (and maybe MIAC's as well) are 'maybe, potentially, could be' lists of possible suspects that by DHS' own admission have done nothing, and who are possibly, maybe, could be any one or several of 60 million people! Maybe you have the answer: how the fuck can ANY government monitor 1/5 of its population or more for terrorist activity, or more properly suspected terrorist activity, effectively, without turning into a Soviet-style informer state? I'm all ears.

You apparently chose to misrepresent every point I made and resort to name-calling, because you don't agree with my conclusions. Fine; I can handle disagreement, and if I'm wrong I'll acknowledge it. It's a little hard to argue against "Are you on drugs?"(your post page 1), "how fucking retarded are you?" and Republican sock puppet accusations. When I do reference conservative Web sites I cite them, and you know it. Address my points instead of pulling out the "retard conservatard lolbertarian IWIN" card, if you please.

[Akumz Razor]

I didn't think it was worthy of a new thread but I'd be interested in hearing the boards' thoughts on the finger biting incident that occurred at a town hall near my hometown.

[Darth Wong]

I'll address your PS first. No I didn't crib my posts off some right wing Web sites, f you very much, I remembered that I had posted on this topic before.

And that disproves the idea that you've been cribbing your ideas from right-wing websites even though they invariably happen to perfectly coincide with right-wing talking points ... how?

To your second point, specifically where you assert I concluded "EEEEVIL GOVERNMENT FINDS PEOPLE GUILTY OF TERRORISM WITHOUT EVIDENCE!": Bullshit. Show me where I reached that conclusion, or even asserted that as fact.

The part where you said that the document was related to a man proudly calling himself a right-wing terrorist. Not a POTENTIAL right-wing terrorist as per a security document, but a right-wing terrorist.

Here's my quote from page 1:

In condensed form, Mike, this DHS report casts such a wide net of potential "right wing terrorist" suspects that actual threat identification becomes impossible to determine.

See above, douchenozzle.

Here's another point from my Page 1 post:

"Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms."

59,934,814 Americans voted against Obama in 2008, or 45.7% of all voters. Guess what: their (yes, and my) votes against him were votes against his perceived stances; that's how the election cycle works in the US. Does that mean that 60 million Americans are 'rightwing extremists?'

Are you intentionally being a goddamned idiot? The fact that certain political movements are associated with right-wing extremism does not mean that every single person who has any sympathy for those ideas (or antipathy for opponents to those ideas) must necessarily be an extremist. Where the fuck do you get off accusing people of misrepresenting anything you say, when you pull outrageous bullshit like this?

[Count Chocula]

Funny, but Chocula's example "Most Wanted Terrorst" is already "pinging" on the radar (sorta why he's on the FBI "Most Wanted" list, I suppose) and for all the crimes alleged to have been committed by Daniel Andres, they still don't come up to the one act committed by a certain person who fits exactly the DHS profile that's got his knickers in a twist:(image of the bombed-out Murrah building)

Ah, so since Andreas hasn't killed anyone yet, I guess he doesn't rate a BOLO? Why hasn't DHS come out with a threat assessment of Earth First!, their offshoot Earth Liberation Front, or the Animal Liberation Front? Gee, I guess they're not a threat since they've only taken credit for 600 crimes and $100 million in property damage since 1996, but they haven't killed anyone. I guess it was just luck that Andreas' second round of bombs, set to detonate once the paramedics showed up, didn't go off. Oh no wait, that was incompetence. Thank [insert deity, person, or force of nature].

McVeigh was a murderous, aimless, misguided asshole who deserved the death he got. However, his "profile" matches tens of millions of Americans in the US. Shit, I fit the profile. So does my cousin, the cop. My neighbor two houses down from me fits the profile. Half of my coworkers fit the profile. Yet, to my knowledge, none of us are terrorists. The DHS paper simply includes too many people in its 'threat' profile to be useful.

By the way, profiling or "right-wing terrist threat" assessment wasn't what nabbed McVeigh. He was arrested on a traffic stop and it was only after interrogation that he was linked to the Murrah bombing. The traffic stop was for a license plate violation IIRC, and what got him arrested was not the pistol in an open carry holster but the concealed knife in his pocket. Even after years of the Clinton administration 'cracking down' on so-called survivalists and anti-government types (ref. Waco and Ruby Ridge for spectacularly bad examples of the crackdown), the perpetrator of our worst incident of domestic terrorism was caught by a state trooper. So much for profiling.

[Questor]

Ah, so since Andreas hasn't killed anyone yet, I guess he doesn't rate a BOLO? Why hasn't DHS come out with a threat assessment of Earth First!, their offshoot Earth Liberation Front, or the Animal Liberation Front? Gee, I guess they're not a threat since they've only taken credit for 600 crimes and $100 million in property damage since 1996, but they haven't killed anyone. I guess it was just luck that Andreas' second round of bombs, set to detonate once the paramedics showed up, didn't go off. Oh no wait, that was incompetence. Thank [insert deity, person, or force of nature].

Perhaps because everyone and their mother already acknowledge these wackos as terrorists? Seriously, how do you compare the known threat level from these morons, which hasn't changed one bit in the last few months, to the increased threat from the fucking right wing loonies?

That report wasn't about the people we already knew were a threat, but about the people that were becoming a threat because of their increasing disagreement with the government. They willingness of these people to self-identify as terrorists shows you just how far out of the main stream they have gone. Now that someone who is farther away from their ideals is setting policy, of course they become a bigger threat.

Are you really too stupid to understand the difference between a continuing threat that everyone is aware of and a newly developing one?

[Patrick Degan]

Funny, but Chocula's example "Most Wanted Terrorst" is already "pinging" on the radar (sorta why he's on the FBI "Most Wanted" list, I suppose) and for all the crimes alleged to have been committed by Daniel Andres, they still don't come up to the one act committed by a certain person who fits exactly the DHS profile that's got his knickers in a twist:(image of the bombed-out Murrah building)

Ah, so since Andreas hasn't killed anyone yet, I guess he doesn't rate a BOLO? Why hasn't DHS come out with a threat assessment of Earth First!, their offshoot Earth Liberation Front, or the Animal Liberation Front? Gee, I guess they're not a threat since they've only taken credit for 600 crimes and $100 million in property damage since 1996, but they haven't killed anyone. I guess it was just luck that Andreas' second round of bombs, set to detonate once the paramedics showed up, didn't go off. Oh no wait, that was incompetence. Thank [insert deity, person, or force of nature].

How predictable. From the Virginia 2009 Terrorism Threat Assessment Report:

Terrorist/Extremist Group Presence
The primary group of note in Division 3 is the Muslims of America (MOA), a known front group for Jama’at ul Fuqra. MOA has two isolationist compounds that feature community and residential trailers that help to insulate members from contact with the influences of Western society. In addition to MOA, Division 3 has reported a presence of anarchists and group-affiliated activity. A number of environmental extremist groups have developed in and around the Blue Ridge Mountains, including Earth First affiliates and sympathizers.

And from the Federal Office of Intelligence Assessment on the threat-profiles of left wing extremists, link provided by WhoRunsGov.org:

(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected
underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.

— (U//LES) Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times, violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal
Defense LeagueUSPER, and Earth First!USPER.

— (U//FOUO) Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social, political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include entities within CrimethincUSPER, the Ruckus SocietyUSPER ,and Recreate 68 USPER

Additionally, enviro-terrorists have been on the Federal radar screen since at least 2001, as per Louis Freeh's testimony before Congress:

Special interest extremists. Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect more widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including, the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other political and social movements. Some special interest extremists -- most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements -- have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) -- an extremist animal rights movement -- has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. A distinct but related group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail, Colorado, ski resort in October 1998 that destroyed eight separate structures and caused $12 million dollars in damages. In a communique issued after the fires, ELF claimed that the fires were in retaliation for the resort's planned expansion that would destroy the last remaining habitat in Colorado for the lynx. Eight of the terrorist incidents occurring in the United States during 1999 have been attributed to either ALF or ELF. Several additional acts committed during 2000 and 2001 are currently being reviewed for possible designation as terrorist incidents.

Really, Chocula, you are an endlessly stupid little man, and you are way out of your depth on this board.

McVeigh was a murderous, aimless, misguided asshole who deserved the death he got. However, his "profile" matches tens of millions of Americans in the US. Shit, I fit the profile. So does my cousin, the cop. My neighbor two houses down from me fits the profile. Half of my coworkers fit the profile. Yet, to my knowledge, none of us are terrorists. The DHS paper simply includes too many people in its 'threat' profile to be useful.

The report identifies the type of individuals likely to commit or support acts of terrorism and does not, as has been pointed out to you, make a blanket judgement of guilt. Your ravings do not defeat that observation, no matter how much you like to think they do.

By the way, profiling or "right-wing terrist threat" assessment wasn't what nabbed McVeigh. He was arrested on a traffic stop and it was only after interrogation that he was linked to the Murrah bombing. The traffic stop was for a license plate violation IIRC, and what got him arrested was not the pistol in an open carry holster but the concealed knife in his pocket. Even after years of the Clinton administration 'cracking down' on so-called survivalists and anti-government types (ref. Waco and Ruby Ridge for spectacularly bad examples of the crackdown), the perpetrator of our worst incident of domestic terrorism was caught by a state trooper. So much for profiling.

The Koresh cult opened fire on cops and Feds first. The Ruby Ridge people shot and killed an FBI agent. Hate to tell you this, but it is actually illegal to shoot at law enforcement people. As it is, however, Ruby Ridge and Waco, like rest of your babble, is a red herring with respect to the general issue under discussion in this thread.

Now go play in traffic.

[Frank Hipper]

I didn't think it was worthy of a new thread but I'd be interested in hearing the boards' thoughts on the finger biting incident that occurred at a town hall near my hometown.

I'd prefer more facts in an article, but I find that the victim having his bills paid for by Medicare, and that he supposedly just stopped to say "Huh, wots going on?" yet was standing with the Moveon counter group rather interesting.

[Instant Sunrise]

I like that you used Ruby Ridge as an example of Clinton cracking down on right-wing groups.

That incident was in 1992, William Jefferson Clinton was not sworn in until January of 1993. If you're going to blame the sitting president for what happened there, blame George H.W. Bush.

[Axis Kast]

And that disproves the idea that you've been cribbing your ideas from right-wing websites even though they invariably happen to perfectly coincide with right-wing talking points ... how?

It is, strictly speaking, impossible for him to prove a negative. In order for your argument to stick, you'd have to deliver the evidence yourself.

The Koresh cult opened fire on cops and Feds first. The Ruby Ridge people shot and killed an FBI agent. Hate to tell you this, but it is actually illegal to shoot at law enforcement people. As it is, however, Ruby Ridge and Waco, like rest of your babble, is a red herring with respect to the general issue under discussion in this thread.

It reads to me as if Chocula is making a (correct) tongue-in-cheek remark to the public relations disasters that surrounded Waco and Ruby Ridge, which have become iconic rallying points for militia movements. He didn't deny that the guilty parties involved deserved apprehension or punishment.

[Count Chocula]

And from the Federal Office of Intelligence Assessment on the threat-profiles of left wing extremists, link provided by WhoRunsGov.org:

I did not know the Feds completed a report in Jan '09 on left wing extremists; I concede the fact. I forgot that the news of the report was in the papers and network and cable news back in February; oh wait, it wasn't, and only got mentioned tangentially when the April report on right wing threats got out. Following your link, I read the entire assessment. In my opinion it's less vaguely worded than the right-wing assessment and focuses on one particular type of threat that may be perpetrated by left-wing extremists. Further, it goes on to actually name specific groups of left-wing extremists to be aware of:

• Animal Liberation Front
• Earth Liberation Front
• Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
• Animal Defense League (some chapters, not the whole group)
• Earth First!
• Crimethinc (some members)
• the Ruckus Society
• Recreate '68

So the January '09 Fed report on left-wingers cites a specific area of concern, and identifies potential left-wing groups that may undertake computer network attacks.

Degan, your fed report, and the Virgina report, and Freeh's testimony, FUCKING PROVE MY POINT! You are completely ignoring my pointing out of the vagueness of the right-wing Fed report, and the Town Hall meeting speaker's and Congressman's mocking of it. The problems with the right-wing report can be summed up in the authors' own words:

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. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.

The whole report is speculation speculation speculation without any specifics. And, as I've noted repeatedly in this thread, it identifies too many groups of people as potential terrorists to be even remotely useful as a law enforcement tool.

The report identifies the type of individuals likely to commit or support acts of terrorism and does not, as has been pointed out to you, make a blanket judgement of guilt. Your ravings do not defeat that observation, no matter how much you like to think they do.

Show me where I said the report makes a blanket judgement of guilt. Bone up on your reading comprehension before you sling the accusations, you "stupid little man."

The Koresh cult opened fire on cops and Feds first. The Ruby Ridge people shot and killed an FBI agent. Hate to tell you this, but it is actually illegal to shoot at law enforcement people. As it is, however, Ruby Ridge and Waco, like rest of your babble, is a red herring with respect to the general issue under discussion in this thread.

Both episodes were extremely poorly handled, especially WRT the deaths of innocent parties (Vickie and Sammy Weaver, plus the dog, in Idaho, and most of Khoresh's followers - that'd be mainly women and children - at Waco), the rules of engagement, and the PR disasters of both operations. Waco, in particular, stands out: the BATF called it "Operation Showtime" and had the media standing by as they did their "dynamic entry" of the Branch Davidian "compound." Neither episode was exactly a shining moment for American law enforcement, and BTW Randy Weaver was convicted of missing a court date and violating bail and served 4 months. The Feds settled out of court with the Weaver family survivors for $3.1 million. I brought them up as examples of poor PR and bad police work, because the circumstances that led to both were contrived. To Jason Miles' observation, he is correct, I got the dates wrong on Ruby Ridge; they happened a year apart, and I lumped RR and Waco together under Clinton, when they were both examples of institutional paranoia.

Regardless of the January 09 federal left wing extremist report, regardless of your turning my offhand comment about Ruby Ridge and Waco into a bone of contention, and regardless of your typical insulting behavior, you completely fucking ignored the points I was making about the Town Hall meeting. To wit: the speaker's a self-acknowledged kook, his comment was most likely snarky rhetoric, the report is too general, and the Congressman knew to what he referred and played to the crowd. Maybe you need to take your sense-of-humor-o-meter in for calibration.

Now go play in traffic.

To paraphrase your parting shot, go jump in front of the public transit vehicle of your choice.

[Patrick Degan]

Degan, your fed report, and the Virgina report, and Freeh's testimony, FUCKING PROVE MY POINT! You are completely ignoring my pointing out of the vagueness of the right-wing Fed report, and the Town Hall meeting speaker's and Congressman's mocking of it.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies, asswipe. You asserted that Federal law enforcement was paying nowhere near as much attention to left-wing extremists as right wing extremists, and the reports cited clearly indicate otherwise. To put it plainly, you're full of shit, as usual.

The problems with the right-wing report can be summed up in the authors' own words:

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. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.

The whole report is speculation speculation speculation without any specifics. And, as I've noted repeatedly in this thread, it identifies too many groups of people as potential terrorists to be even remotely useful as a law enforcement tool.

And you've already had this non-argument of yours responded to as well, asswipe: the purpose is to sum up a profile of possible sources of extremist sentiment, not to make blanket judgements of guilt which exists only in your tiny mind.

The report identifies the type of individuals likely to commit or support acts of terrorism and does not, as has been pointed out to you, make a blanket judgement of guilt. Your ravings do not defeat that observation, no matter how much you like to think they do.

Show me where I said the report makes a blanket judgement of guilt. Bone up on your reading comprehension before you sling the accusations, you "stupid little man."

Your own words, asswipe:

The key findings are speculation, directly contradicted by evidence or intelligence, yet the report is presented as an authoritative list of people to consider as potential domestic terrorists.

Really, you slink underground for several days and this is the best you come up with as a "rebuttal"?

Again, go play in traffic.

The Koresh cult opened fire on cops and Feds first. The Ruby Ridge people shot and killed an FBI agent. Hate to tell you this, but it is actually illegal to shoot at law enforcement people. As it is, however, Ruby Ridge and Waco, like rest of your babble, is a red herring with respect to the general issue under discussion in this thread.

Both episodes were extremely poorly handled, especially WRT the deaths of innocent parties (Vickie and Sammy Weaver, plus the dog, in Idaho, and most of Khoresh's followers - that'd be mainly women and children - at Waco), the rules of engagement, and the PR disasters of both operations. Waco, in particular, stands out: the BATF called it "Operation Showtime" and had the media standing by as they did their "dynamic entry" of the Branch Davidian "compound." Neither episode was exactly a shining moment for American law enforcement, and BTW Randy Weaver was convicted of missing a court date and violating bail and served 4 months. The Feds settled out of court with the Weaver family survivors for $3.1 million. I brought them up as examples of poor PR and bad police work, because the circumstances that led to both were contrived. To Jason Miles' observation, he is correct, I got the dates wrong on Ruby Ridge; they happened a year apart, and I lumped RR and Waco together under Clinton, when they were both examples of institutional paranoia.

Granting the fuckups on the part of law enforcement, the fact remains that the Branch Davidians opened fire first and chose an apocalyptic last stand/mass suicide with children in their compound. The fact remains that Kevin Harris opened fire first and killed a deputy U.S. Marshall. Lon Horuchi's shooting of Vicki Weaver and the bungling of the investigation as well as prosecutorial misconduct made the verdict handed down at the trial inevitable. But both situations could well have been avoided if Koresh and his group, and the Weavers, had made the rational choice, surrendered, and then pursued their legal remedies afterward with a good chance of success in both cases —particularly for Randy Weaver, who was clearly a victim of attempted entrapment.

Regardless of the January 09 federal left wing extremist report, regardless of your turning my offhand comment about Ruby Ridge and Waco into a bone of contention, and regardless of your typical insulting behavior, you completely fucking ignored the points I was making about the Town Hall meeting. To wit: the speaker's a self-acknowledged kook, his comment was most likely snarky rhetoric, the report is too general, and the Congressman knew to what he referred and played to the crowd. Maybe you need to take your sense-of-humor-o-meter in for calibration.

Uh uh, asswipe, you are NOT getting away with that one. Your points have been anything but ignored. It is you who is trying to sweep under the rug the clear spectacle of a U.S. congressman giving a smirk and a wink to somebody's proud declaration of extremist sympathy; in effect, pouring lighter fluid on a fire instead of trying to calm that sort of rhetoric down. And you can whine and bitch about the DHS report as much as you like: it's been pointed out to you, again, that the object of the exercise was to identify those who fit the profile for possible extremist activity and that is ALL it does, while you've been trying to allude evil intentions behind the report.

[Axis Kast]

Your points have been anything but ignored. It is you who is trying to sweep under the rug the clear spectacle of a U.S. congressman giving a smirk and a wink to somebody's proud declaration of extremist sympathy; in effect, pouring lighter fluid on a fire instead of trying to calm that sort of rhetoric down.

I don't see how anybody could watch that video, even short of the context of the DHS report, and conclude anything but that the speaker was being smarmy. Much more likely than that he's in sympathy with extremists is that he has swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, those interpretations that identify report as thinly-veiled criticism of anybody who voted for John McCain. He was making a joke which you simply didn't find funny.

[Liberty]

The problem is, even when they are making jokes, most of these people are at least partly serious. Dead serious.

I should know. I was raised by some of them.

Much of it is rhetoric, that is true. Saying things like that gives one the feeling that he is actually doing something for the cause. But the rhetoric is underscored by beliefs, and these beliefs are no joking matter.

The the question becomes: How do we differentiate between beliefs and actions? Is it okay to have the first if one does not resort to the second? And is someone who has beliefs but does not act on them dangerous?

My father pointed to the armory every time we drove by it and told us children that that would be our first goal if the federal government resorted to tyranny. We would take over the armory and use the weapons there to start our new revolution. Just rhetoric, nothing more; is that dangerous?

Each summer in high school, my siblings and I were sent to Camp American (http://www.campamerica.org/), where we learned that the UN is using environmental restrictions to take over the world and initiate one world government, that the founding fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation (i.e., fundamentalist Christian), that our right to bear arms was extremely important, and under threat, that the federal government had usurped the power of the states, that the United States is being taken over by socialism, an evil ideology of lazy, unproductive people, and much more. The place dripped of conspiracy theories, but we children believed every word of it. And we loved it. In order to win cabin inspections, we arranged the rocks outside the cabins to say "Get American out of the UN" and "America Bless God," and even rigged up and labeled OSHA violations, because we knew that would get us extra points. It's hard to describe the sense of purpose we all had. It's an incredibly invigorating feeling. Some of my very best childhood memories come from Camp American.

You may be wondering - what is my point? My point is thus: Is it dangerous to teach children beliefs like this, to indoctrinate them in right wing politics? It's all rhetoric - we didn't actually do anything. However, that sense of purpose is intoxicating. The sense of mission. The sense of right against wrong. Were we taught to break the law? Yes and no. We were told that if the government's laws became unjust, we must break them. If the government tried to take our weapons, we must hide them. If the government banned homeschooling, we must go underground. If the government closed the doors to our churches, we must meet in secret. The only current laws that we were encouraged to break were environmental regulations, interestingly enough.

I went off to a state college and learned to think for myself. Unfortunately, not everyone does.

So - it seems to me that the discussion should hinge on whether the rhetoric in and of itself, without the actual actions, is dangerous. Because, in a sense, that is what the man in the video clip had. And that is what was applauded.

[Thanas]

Any extremist rhetoric is dangerous because sooner or later someone will act on it. Europe was aswill with anti-semitic rhetoric which nobody considered dangerous unless someone took them literally.

Rhetoric is dangerous and no laughing matter.