Will Oregon Republicans denounce those who call for violent overthrow of the United States?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven, lay off our veterans!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Looking for more boogy men Steve? Still equating Islamic terrorists with gun toting consevatives? There is a whole history of radical violent organizations on the left that you would not associate with the mainstream progressive movement, would you? This is a silly, and non-productive track you have taken.

Nice misrepresentation of what I've saying. Here I'll put in quote marks so you can copy and paste for future reference.

"Right Wing Extremists who are calling for the violent overthrow of our government are no less extreme than Radical Islamists calling for the downfall of America."

....

To say there aren't Right Wing Extremists with dangerous ideas out there drumming up support is being in denial. Even the DHS has acknowledged them as a threat to national security.

Where are they? I think they are nightmares that keep you up at night. Leave a light on, Stephen.

Bill, what part of this doesn't make sense to you or you don't agree with...

The term extremist is often used with reference to those who use or advocate violence against the will of society at large, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency. Those described as extremist would in general not accept that what they practice or advocate constitutes violence and would instead speak in terms of acts of resistance"or militant action or the use of force. The word violence cannot be regarded as value-neutral. Ideology and methodology often become inextricably linked under the single term extremism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremist

I helped a lot of folks from another war and another generation feel better about themselves after what the left did to them. Some of those activists are still sitting in office. I don't want to see the same thing happen to another generation. You continue to pursue this issue, and that is where it is going to lead.

Try and stay focused on what I"m talking about. This doesn't have to do squat with war veterans.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Liberals are known to hate the military and veterans. Steven, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Looking for more boogy men Steve? Still equating Islamic terrorists with gun toting consevatives? There is a whole history of radical violent organizations on the left that you would not associate with the mainstream progressive movement, would you? This is a silly, and non-productive track you have taken.

Nice misrepresentation of what I've saying. Here I'll put in quote marks so you can copy and paste for future reference.

"Right Wing Extremists who are calling for the violent overthrow of our government are no less extreme than Radical Islamists calling for the downfall of America."

....

To say there aren't Right Wing Extremists with dangerous ideas out there drumming up support is being in denial. Even the DHS has acknowledged them as a threat to national security.

Where are they? I think they are nightmares that keep you up at night. Leave a light on, Stephen.

Bill, what part of this doesn't make sense to you or you don't agree with...

The term extremist is often used with reference to those who use or advocate violence against the will of society at large, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency. Those described as extremist would in general not accept that what they practice or advocate constitutes violence and would instead speak in terms of acts of resistance"or militant action or the use of force. The word violence cannot be regarded as value-neutral. Ideology and methodology often become inextricably linked under the single term extremism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremist

I helped a lot of folks from another war and another generation feel better about themselves after what the left did to them. Some of those activists are still sitting in office. I don't want to see the same thing happen to another generation. You continue to pursue this issue, and that is where it is going to lead.

Try and stay focused on what I"m talking about. This doesn't have to do squat with war veterans.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized today to U.S. military veterans who took offense at being mentioned in a domestic intelligence report that concluded that a declining economy and the nation's political climate could fuel a resurgence of right-wing extremism, saying any slight was unintended.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...r.html?wprss=44

Try and understand what you are talking about.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It is extremely naive for a nation as militaristic as ours to not expect that militarism to seep back into domestic society when veterans return from overseas wars. Since we sent them there, we oughta embrace their militarism instead of being scared of it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is extremely naive for a nation as militaristic as ours to not expect that militarism to seep back into domestic society when veterans return from overseas wars. Since we sent them there, we oughta embrace their militarism instead of being scared of it.

Thanks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Try and stay focused on what I"m talking about. This doesn't have to do squat with war veterans.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized today to U.S. military veterans who took offense at being mentioned in a domestic intelligence report that concluded that a declining economy and the nation's political climate could fuel a resurgence of right-wing extremism, saying any slight was unintended.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...r.html?wprss=44

Try and understand what you are talking about.

Bahhh...Boehner is playing dirty politics with this. Nothing in that report was a slight on returning war veterans. Bait and switch, Bill...bait and switch.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In the report, dated April 7 but begun last year, the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence section stated, "The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...s_to_veter.html

Edited April 20, 2009 by Randomizer

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In the report, dated April 7 but begun last year, the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence section stated, "The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/0...s_to_veter.html

I don't read that as a slight to military veterans, but identifying a potential danger. It is the job of DHS is to investigate all threats to our national security, both foreign and domestic. The focus should be on the accuracy of that report and what can be done to better reintegrate veterans back into society with proper medical and psychological treatment.

In terms of the reactions to the report by the Right...

It seems like here we go again with an attempt to try and frame the Democrats as not caring about our veterans, meanwhile look who cut veteran benefits. Paying them lip service isn't going to help them recover from their psychological wounds.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists

makes returning vets having trouble reintegrating sound like a bunch of nutjobs. it's simply not a fair characterization and even though you don't realize it, DHS does... which is why napolitano apologized.

[justashooter 430]

He had bought in to the silly rhetoric on the right that President Obama wants to take away people's guns...

it's on obama's website. he's on record as supporting a ban on handguns and semi-automatic "sport utility" rifles nationwide, and wants to prohibit liscensed concealed carry. why else would he be in mexico prepetuating the already de-bunked lie that "90% of mexican gang guns come from US gun dealers" after the ATF already said "less than 17% of the guns were made in America", but neglected to say how many were lend lease M16's the US government had given to panama in the 80's?.

read the news.

Edited April 20, 2009 by justashooter

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Whaddaya know, justashooter isn't entirely wrong.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/:

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[almaty 19]

wow, imagine that..i am sure he is on google right now ..getting a rebuttal ready

Edited April 20, 2009 by almaty

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(love that 'Constitution Under Attack' ticker....Fox News is so awesome)

Beck and NRA's LaPierre warn of insidious Obama plot to grab our guns

Edited April 20, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[mawilson 2,133]

... perpetuating the already de-bunked lie that "90% of mexican gang guns come from US gun dealers"

I don't really understand this argument. Wouldn't this be a good thing for our economy? A new market for guns?

Why do we manufacture guns, if not to sell them to other countries? If they use the guns we sell them to kill

each other, how is it our problem?