Sounds like separatist terrorism to me. Is Guantanamo still open?
Actually, Clinton set the stage during his presidency to 'outlaw' people he considered domestic terrorists.Braddock wrote:
Sounds like separatist terrorism to me. Is Guantanamo still open?
Actually, J. Edgar Hoover set the stage through the COINTELPRO. That goes back to at least Truman. It really gained momentum during Nixon's presidency to include any dissident factions. I thought it was really ironic the complaints now about the government targeting of fringe and dissident groups as if the Obama Administration was the first (or only) to do so. It only matters to some people when its groups they sympathize with that get targeted.imortal wrote:
Actually, Clinton set the stage during his presidency to 'outlaw' people he considered domestic terrorists.Braddock wrote:
Sounds like separatist terrorism to me. Is Guantanamo still open?
Actually, I thought that started back during WWII rounding up Japanese Americans.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually, J. Edgar Hoover set the stage through the COINTELPRO. That goes back to at least Truman. It really gained momentum during Nixon's presidency to include any dissident factions. I thought it was really ironic the complaints now about the government targeting of fringe and dissident groups as if the Obama Administration was the first (or only) to do so. It only matters to some people when its groups they sympathize with that get targeted.
So what groups did "Bush" target? Cause I'm pretty sure that went the other way around.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Perhaps that is so, but it was let to lie fallow until Clinton and Janet Reno came around ad decided they 'needed' to deal with the domestic 'militia' groups. Granted, a lot (but I do not say all) of those militas were a bunch of nutjobs, but there were much more dangerous policies put in place then. If Obama decided to bring them back to light, foreign terrorists at GITMO will have more rights than people the government decided are 'domestic terrorists.'KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually, J. Edgar Hoover set the stage through the COINTELPRO. That goes back to at least Truman. It really gained momentum during Nixon's presidency to include any dissident factions. I thought it was really ironic the complaints now about the government targeting of fringe and dissident groups as if the Obama Administration was the first (or only) to do so. It only matters to some people when its groups they sympathize with that get targeted.imortal wrote:
Actually, Clinton set the stage during his presidency to 'outlaw' people he considered domestic terrorists.Braddock wrote:
Sounds like separatist terrorism to me. Is Guantanamo still open?
The groups targeted during the Bush Administration were peace groups, antiwar groups, environmentalist groups, etc. It's more of the same - it just so happens that a different Administration is in office. It's naive to think policy that has essentially been in place for over 50 years would somehow cease to exist with a new Administration.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Actually, I thought that started back during WWII rounding up Japanese Americans.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually, J. Edgar Hoover set the stage through the COINTELPRO. That goes back to at least Truman. It really gained momentum during Nixon's presidency to include any dissident factions. I thought it was really ironic the complaints now about the government targeting of fringe and dissident groups as if the Obama Administration was the first (or only) to do so. It only matters to some people when its groups they sympathize with that get targeted.
So what groups did "Bush" target? Cause I'm pretty sure that went the other way around.
^^^ to imortal above - like I said, the policy has been in place. It didn't start back up with Clinton (although he was a gross offender), and it didn't die down and then start back up with Obama. It's always been there for Administrations to take advantage of. Clinton was out of line (just like Bush before him and Reagan before Bush), and Obama's Administration seems to be pushing the line too. I don't support it (domestic surveillance and/or classification of domestic dissident groups as terrorist groups), and I never will, regardless of what political side the dissidents are on. Unfortunately much of the public is so caught up in right vs. left factionalism that they fail to see the continuity of policy until the groups they agree with are targeted.
I would laugh my ass of if Texas secedes and is conquered my Mexico.
I guess, since I am not an eco-terrorist, peace activist, or ultra-liberal conspirator, I just did not notice under Bush. It is kind of interesting to see what kind of groups each administration targets. Well, if you can look at it from a distance. Personally, I feel that distance has been declining for people like me.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The groups targeted during the Bush Administration were peace groups, antiwar groups, environmentalist groups, etc. It's more of the same - it just so happens that a different Administration is in office. It's naive to think policy that has essentially been in place for over 50 years would somehow cease to exist with a new Administration.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Actually, I thought that started back during WWII rounding up Japanese Americans.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually, J. Edgar Hoover set the stage through the COINTELPRO. That goes back to at least Truman. It really gained momentum during Nixon's presidency to include any dissident factions. I thought it was really ironic the complaints now about the government targeting of fringe and dissident groups as if the Obama Administration was the first (or only) to do so. It only matters to some people when its groups they sympathize with that get targeted.
So what groups did "Bush" target? Cause I'm pretty sure that went the other way around.
^^^ to imortal above - like I said, the policy has been in place. It didn't start back up with Clinton (although he was a gross offender), and it didn't die down and then start back up with Obama. It's always been there for Administrations to take advantage of. Clinton was out of line (just like Bush before him and Reagan before Bush), and Obama's Administration seems to be pushing the line too. I don't support it (domestic surveillance and/or classification of domestic dissident groups as terrorist groups), and I never will, regardless of what political side the dissidents are on. Unfortunately much of the public is so caught up in right vs. left factionalism that they fail to see the continuity of policy until the groups they agree with are targeted.
If Texas secedes we should build a wall on the US/Texas border to keep those damn Texans out.
Well, if you're a radical, the government will take notice of you. That's not exclusive to the American government either.imortal wrote:
I guess, since I am not an eco-terrorist, peace activist, or ultra-liberal conspirator, I just did not notice under Bush. It is kind of interesting to see what kind of groups each administration targets. Well, if you can look at it from a distance. Personally, I feel that distance has been declining for people like me.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The groups targeted during the Bush Administration were peace groups, antiwar groups, environmentalist groups, etc. It's more of the same - it just so happens that a different Administration is in office. It's naive to think policy that has essentially been in place for over 50 years would somehow cease to exist with a new Administration.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Actually, I thought that started back during WWII rounding up Japanese Americans.
So what groups did "Bush" target? Cause I'm pretty sure that went the other way around.
^^^ to imortal above - like I said, the policy has been in place. It didn't start back up with Clinton (although he was a gross offender), and it didn't die down and then start back up with Obama. It's always been there for Administrations to take advantage of. Clinton was out of line (just like Bush before him and Reagan before Bush), and Obama's Administration seems to be pushing the line too. I don't support it (domestic surveillance and/or classification of domestic dissident groups as terrorist groups), and I never will, regardless of what political side the dissidents are on. Unfortunately much of the public is so caught up in right vs. left factionalism that they fail to see the continuity of policy until the groups they agree with are targeted.
All societies have limits to what they tolerate without suspicion or surveillance.
So if texas secedes, gl on getting recognized by other countries as its own republic. either the mexican cartels would take it over or texans would shoot everyone who crosses the border...which in turn would initiate war with mexico.
TBH the govenor is abusing the 10th amendment by using it as a threat and bargaining chip to get special treatment over less productive states. we all know the feds would never let texas secede
TBH the govenor is abusing the 10th amendment by using it as a threat and bargaining chip to get special treatment over less productive states. we all know the feds would never let texas secede
Abusing the 10th? How?
And Bush targeted them how? War Protesters? Like how he met with Cindy Sheehan? I'd argue those groups you named restlessly, harassed Bush and were even glorified by the media for doing so (how'd the media cover the teabagg...er tea party get covered?)... How'd Bush target ELF and the likes? Or you don't think groups like that are bad? Is it naive in the way people bought into the change promised of 'transparent government' free of lobbyist? This is most certainly not more of the same. This is change.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The groups targeted during the Bush Administration were peace groups, antiwar groups, environmentalist groups, etc. It's more of the same - it just so happens that a different Administration is in office. It's naive to think policy that has essentially been in place for over 50 years would somehow cease to exist with a new Administration.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Actually, I thought that started back during WWII rounding up Japanese Americans.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually, J. Edgar Hoover set the stage through the COINTELPRO. That goes back to at least Truman. It really gained momentum during Nixon's presidency to include any dissident factions. I thought it was really ironic the complaints now about the government targeting of fringe and dissident groups as if the Obama Administration was the first (or only) to do so. It only matters to some people when its groups they sympathize with that get targeted.
So what groups did "Bush" target? Cause I'm pretty sure that went the other way around.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
he is basically blackmailing the gov't with the threat of seceding to get preferencial treatment over other states.RAIMIUS wrote:
Abusing the 10th? How?
Yeah, like not being forced to take "stimulus" money.destruktion_6143 wrote:
he is basically blackmailing the gov't with the threat of seceding to get preferencial treatment over other states.RAIMIUS wrote:
Abusing the 10th? How?
lol at this thread.
Texas is not going anywhere.
Gov Perry is just positioning himself for his next attention whoring moment. And someone yelled something out.
Media overblown story...keep moving...nothing to see here
Oh, I forgot to mention:
It's because he's going to lose the next election to Kay Hutchinson. He's doing everything he can to keep his name in the headlines.
Texas is not going anywhere.
Gov Perry is just positioning himself for his next attention whoring moment. And someone yelled something out.
Media overblown story...keep moving...nothing to see here
Oh, I forgot to mention:
It's because he's going to lose the next election to Kay Hutchinson. He's doing everything he can to keep his name in the headlines.
Last edited by Pug (2009-04-17 11:26:19)
It's because all right-wingers are a threat. Saw it on MSNBC. They're so NOT biased.Pug wrote:
lol at this thread.
Texas is not going anywhere.
Gov Perry is just positioning himself for his next attention whoring moment. And someone yelled something out.
Media overblown story...keep moving...nothing to see here
Oh, I forgot to mention:
It's because he's going to lose the next election to Kay Hutchinson. He's doing everything he can to keep his name in the headlines.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
DING!Pug wrote:
It's because he's going to lose the next election to Kay Hutchinson. He's doing everything he can to keep his name in the headlines.
Good. I'll be back in TX in time to vote in that election.RAIMIUS wrote:
DING!Pug wrote:
It's because he's going to lose the next election to Kay Hutchinson. He's doing everything he can to keep his name in the headlines.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
He's right though. Perry is going for a power grab, not really promoting states' rights.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Yeah, like not being forced to take "stimulus" money.destruktion_6143 wrote:
he is basically blackmailing the gov't with the threat of seceding to get preferencial treatment over other states.RAIMIUS wrote:
Abusing the 10th? How?
Besides, Lincoln killed any possibility of secession for any state. Perry needs to keep up with the times.