/sigh

sooo, why are we not allowed to feel strongly about an issue?
 
Atown - we are. Just so long as it is one of the government approved issues which encourage big government, socialist programs and other forms of tyranny.
 
in such circumstances is it not our civic duty to rebel? i read the christian manifesto recently that quoted charles finny saying, "i propose now to make several remakrs respecting forms of government, the right and duty of revolution. "
 
Something about the Charles Finney quote does not seem right to me in this context.

I will look that up later.

I see some light in this article:
as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
Click to expand...
That's the way the government was initially set up. And some people believe it could and should be run that way today.

There are also some very terrible things in the article too:

...extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded."
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, it is your duty to voice your opinion and make sure your voice is heard because your opinion matters as much as the next US Citizen's does.

However, there are certainly right and wrong ways to do that. Adopting a racist stance as the groups mentioned in the article have done: "The report says extremist groups have used President Obama as a recruiting tool." is never acceptable and totally unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Odale said:
I see some light in this article:
That's the way the government was initially set up. And some people believe it could and should be run that way today.

There are also some very terrible things in the article too:



You're absolutely right, it is your duty to voice your opinion and make sure your voice is heard because your opinion matters as much as the next US Citizen's does.

However, there are certainly right and wrong ways to do that. Adopting a racist stance as the groups mentioned in the article have done: "The report says extremist groups have used President Obama as a recruiting tool." is never acceptable and totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...


speaking purely politically, it is our right to be racist or bigots,
 
Wait ...what? Are you stating that the government was established w/ the intent of fed over state?

These are very broad issues...first there's the mention of the white supremecy groups...that's one thing...but read a bit further:

It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration
Click to expand...

Yes...you are now considered a threat if you are on the "right" side of these issues.

A correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists,"
Click to expand...

So now owning a gun and having ammunition is being called a paramilitary action. Nice. Further, what's being tossed about is quite a bit more than "gun control"...so yeah, acquiring what you can, when you can, makes a lot of sense to a number of people.
 
Atown said:
speaking purely politically, it is our right to be racist or bigots,
Click to expand...

I understand that, but it is beside the point.

Does this warrant racism or bigotry.

nattyg said:
Wait ...what? Are you stating that the government was established w/ the intent of fed over state?
Click to expand...
I read the whole article and the PDF with it.

I am saying that their belief that they want a small central government is how the government was initially setup.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point...

Those have *always* been an issue.

They're classifying anyone who disagrees with them as a threat - THAT is the point.
 
Odale said:
I understand that, but it is beside the point.

Does this warrant racism or bigotry.
Click to expand...
define "this"


if your talking about a black president inciting others to racism, then yes it does to some americans
 
Atown said:
speaking purely politically, it is our right to be racist or bigots,
Click to expand...

depends on what you mean by your "right".

You're welcome to think what you please, but the moment you action it (e.g. deny someone a job, perform an act of violence, etc...) then no - you don't have a right.
 
nattyg said:
depends on what you mean by your "right".

You're welcome to think what you please, but the moment you action it (e.g. deny someone a job, perform an act of violence, etc...) then no - you don't have a right.
Click to expand...

i can still burn a cross if i wanted to (not that i would) but we are allowed to voice our opinions and thats fine. what im saying is that their getting upset at people for voicing their opinions that they are entitled to, whether it is morally acceptable ones or not.
 
voicing your opinion is fine...burning a cross is a far leap over voicing your opinion. it's a threat of violence.
 
nattyg said:
voicing your opinion is fine...burning a cross is a far leap over voicing your opinion. it's a threat of violence.
Click to expand...

in a virginia court case, it is allowed because it is a religious/group activity and denying it would be denying the right to practice your religious/group beleifs
 
nattyg said:
Those have *always* been an issue.

They're classifying anyone who disagrees with them as a threat - THAT is the point.
Click to expand...

What he said. I don't want to be labeled a "threat" simply because I view abortion as wrong, don't want illegal immigrants in my neighborhood, was strongly oppossed to Obama, and own a gun. And, just maybe on top of that, a white male.
 
This = these commonly held beliefs of the right wing.

nattyg said:
voicing your opinion is fine...burning a cross is a far leap over voicing your opinion. it's a threat of violence.
Click to expand...

Atown said:
i can still burn a cross if i wanted to (not that i would) but we are allowed to voice our opinions and thats fine.
Click to expand...
Burning a cross is far from an innocent expression of yourself. It has different social impacts depending on where you are in the country; and being educated Christians we all know what burning a cross signifies. Just because we legally can does not mean we are given the moral permission to do it.

Anyway, I had a problem with Racism in the article... which was what I was getting at. There is a boundary where threats to someone's life no longer means you have the freedom of expression. (Actions based on your racist/bigoted doctrine are also defined as hate crimes.) I agree with Nattyg's quoted statement.

I am not pointing fingers, but the bottom line I am trying to make is why can't the featured groups in the article disagree and make their voice heard with out turning it into a race issue.
 
Last edited:
Odale said:
Burning a cross is far from an innocent expression of yourself. It has different social impacts depending on where you are in the country; and being educated Christians we all know what burning a cross signifies. Just because we legally can does not mean we are given the moral permission to do it.
I am not pointing fingers, but the bottom line I am trying to make is why can't the featured groups in the article disagree and make their voice heard with out turning it into a race issue.
Click to expand...

Thats why i was speaking purely politically.

it becomes a race issue because of affirmative action, because of people playing the race card, and the culmination of everything any lib and black person could hope for is embodied in barrack obama and even if he was assassinated, there are 2 more people worse than him lined up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top