Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Founding Fathers labeled as "Extremists"

  1. #1
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331

    Founding Fathers labeled as "Extremists"

    This was a disturbing article on FOX today. In short, the Pentagon and DoD are instructing soldiers that those who: “... talk of individual liberties, states’ rights and how to make the world a better place.” are considered "extremists," and participating in such activities is “incompatible with military service and is, therefore prohibited.”

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...xtremists.html

    So applauding states' rights to bear arms and supporting 2A is "extremist"? This is the most back assword thinking I've heard in a long time.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    They were extremist, they also were radicals, confrontational, and called anarchist and traitors by the prevailing empire and their government at the time.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    And the DoD employees are charged with, by oath or affirmation, to defend the very document created by those extremists (some would say terrorists) that is the foundation of our society, how ironic.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    And the DoD employees are charged with, by oath or affirmation, to defend the very document created by those extremists (some would say terrorists) that is the foundation of our society, how ironic.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    This is the line that bothered me the most:

    “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights and how to make the world a better place.”

    I don't do any of the above "instead of wearing a sheet." Screw you and your racism, Obama. I believe in Liberty because I want to protect me and mine from fascists like you and the Goebbels wannabe who wrote that crap.

    Obama, you are the one whose views are extremist when compared to the values that founded this nation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    <snip>

    Obama, you are the one whose views are extremist when compared to the values that founded this nation.
    It seems that a sizable majority of Americans agree with this statement. Though, it certainly does not seem to be the case when it comes time to vote.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It seems that a sizable majority of Americans agree with this statement. Though, it certainly does not seem to be the case when it comes time to vote.
    A large enough portion of America don't have the comprehension skills to even determine what they might "agree" with. They have been suckered into thinking that Obama will take care of them. Period. It is really that simple. Line up here, pick up your shackles there. Here is your "free" food stamp, slave.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Angry

    What is really at the heart of this is the goverment trying to brain wash our soilders as to think the American Citizen is the enemy of the goverment......

    Can anyone say goverment out of control.....

  9. #9
    Regular Member El Guapo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Diego CA and Colorado Springs
    Posts
    14
    Originally Posted by OC for ME
    And the DoD employees are charged with, by oath or affirmation, to defend the very document created by those extremists (some would say terrorists) that is the foundation of our society, how ironic.


    +2
    Last edited by El Guapo; 08-27-2013 at 01:07 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    The definition as described by the DoD of extremist:
    “Extremism – A term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups who take a political idea to its limits, regardless of unfortunate repercussions, and show intolerance toward all views other than their own.
    “Extremist – A person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.
    Typical hyperbolizing. Not every Christian is an extremist, but there are extremist Christians, not every Conservative or Liberal is an extremist, but there are extremist Conservatives and Liberals. I understand how media pundits aren't smart enough to understand the concept of nuance, but I expect our military to be smarter than that, and it seems they are. Another victimhood cry in your beer piece, oh no the Pentagon is out to get conservatives.
    Last edited by beebobby; 08-27-2013 at 04:02 PM.

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Thank you to everyone who put this administration back into office. I really appreciate everything you have done for this country. You have truly shown us what we DON'T want for this country and our lives! Now if you would please leave so we can get back to our constitutional principles and beliefs of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we would really appreciate it.

    American Patriot
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    Thank you to everyone who put this administration back into office. I really appreciate everything you have done for this country. You have truly shown us what we DON'T want for this country and our lives! Now if you would please leave so we can get back to our constitutional principles and beliefs of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we would really appreciate it.

    American Patriot
    ^> Implying that, by telling everyone who doesn't vote, and think, and speak as I do, to get out of the nation, is an 'American Patriot'.

    Because, that's EXACTLY what I want to see out of a COP, Oh, sorry, you don't like being called that, Glockster, I mean't 'Agent of Government'.

    I'm not being sarcastic. I really do like seeing cops talk, and act, and type that way, it really helps those of us disillusioned with the status quo, to see the true nature of our "boys in blue".
    Last edited by DrakeZ07; 08-27-2013 at 05:30 PM.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    And the DoD employees are charged with, by oath or affirmation, to defend the very document created by those extremists (some would say terrorists) that is the foundation of our society, how ironic.

    Small but crucial point.

    The government is not society. The constitution founded the special corporation called the United States. That is the official name of the federal government: the United States.

    One can refer to the country as the United States or America. But, one of the definitions of the United States--the original definition, and still in use--is the federal government.

    For example, the Supreme Court of the United States is not a term referring to a supreme court of a country. The term refers to a certain court of a particular government.

    Nothing but nothing in the constitution authorizes the fedgov to lead society. It was not set up to have the president lead "the nation". The president is the senior position in the executive branch. Nothing more.

    The criminal parasites who rule us, and those who support them, very much want people to not see those distinctions.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-28-2013 at 12:58 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Arguing a technical definition that flies in the face a overwhelming common usage is a pointless intellectual exercise. It is as pointless as one arguing against another using "begging the question" as it is overwhelmingly commonly used because he did not use it according to the technical definition.

    When folks write "United States" or "America," they are almost exclusively referring to the nation and to the People, so much so that anyone using the terms in another way ought, for clarity, to say so.

    I will continue to assume that the titles refer to the nation or to the People, unless the user specifically states otherwise.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This is the line that bothered me the most:

    “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publically espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights and how to make the world a better place.”

    I don't do any of the above "instead of wearing a sheet." Screw you and your racism, Obama. I believe in Liberty because I want to protect me and mine from fascists like you and the Goebbels wannabe who wrote that crap.

    Obama, you are the one whose views are extremist when compared to the values that founded this nation.
    +1 I would extend it to the "conservatives" too.

    That line is infuriating. Let's link liberty, and making the world a better place and the right of people to be governed by consent to a well known symbol and group of bigotry , hate and violence.......

    Distract people from the fact that government and especially any that is a move toward socialism and centralization have been the greatest murderers throughout human history.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Arguing a technical definition that flies in the face a overwhelming common usage is a pointless intellectual exercise. It is as pointless as one arguing against another using "begging the question" as it is overwhelmingly commonly used because he did not use it according to the technical definition.

    When folks write "United States" or "America," they are almost exclusively referring to the nation and to the People, so much so that anyone using the terms in another way ought, for clarity, to say so.

    I will continue to assume that the titles refer to the nation or to the People, unless the user specifically states otherwise.
    I used to feel the same I don't anymore, the nation is not the people the nation is the government, pointing this out to people helps them learn not to conflate the two.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Founding Fathers labeled as "Extremists"

    Then you should advocate for folks to use the term in the way you propose. However, when they do, they ought to say so, because the overwhelming majority of people will assume that they mean the nation or the People.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    The crucial point is the distinction between society and government. The constitution is not the foundation of society. The government is not the bedrock upon which society exists.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The crucial point is the distinction between society and government. The constitution is not the foundation of society. The government is not the bedrock upon which society exists.
    Precisely the topic of Ferdinand Tönnies 1885 Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (tr. 1957 Community and Civil Society). Gesellschaft is now company or corporation, hence the state as corporation.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The crucial point is the distinction between society and government. The constitution is not the foundation of society. The government is not the bedrock upon which society exists.
    Not according to liberals.

  20. #20
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Not according to liberals.
    Or Conservatives.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The crucial point is the distinction between society and government. The constitution is not the foundation of society. The government is not the bedrock upon which society exists.
    However, you were discussing terminology, bucking the tide of what the overwhelming majority of people would mean when saying "the United States" or "America." My only point is that if you are going to use those terms in a way that the vast majority don't, that is entirely up to you. However, it would only be effective if you alerted your readers to that usage and did not expect that usage from everyone else.

    Me? If I say "US" or "America," I am referring to the nation. If I mean the government, I will explicitly say so. Most of the conflation that is occurring is when one infers that conflation by arbitrarily applying definitions that are not generally accepted.

  22. #22
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    However, you were discussing terminology, bucking the tide of what the overwhelming majority of people would mean when saying "the United States" or "America." My only point is that if you are going to use those terms in a way that the vast majority don't, that is entirely up to you. However, it would only be effective if you alerted your readers to that usage and did not expect that usage from everyone else.

    Me? If I say "US" or "America," I am referring to the nation. If I mean the government, I will explicitly say so. Most of the conflation that is occurring is when one infers that conflation by arbitrarily applying definitions that are not generally accepted.
    I could be wrong, but, I'm pretty sure Citizen just attempted to clarify that his point was not one of semantics. I believe the point is simply that the Constitution did not found our society.

    "The government is not society. The constitution founded the special corporation called the United States." - Citizen
    I would ignore the rest of the post. The rest of the post is just chatting, but isn't the point. The quoted part is not an argument about technical definitions. It is simply a deceleration that the assertion that the Constitution founded our society is wrong. Change the terminology however you like, or leave it like it is, the idea is incorrect. The Constitution founded the government. So, the DoD took an oath to uphold the document created by the extremists that founded the government that they're a part of. They did not take an oath to uphold any document created by the extremists that founded our society.

    Right?

    If that isn't actually what he meant, then I believe what I said is an important point to be made. I don't think that an association between the government and the governed should be automatic. I do not want to be held liable for the actions of those who have managed to take physical control of the geographical region I happen to reside in. They are not necessarily my proxy. They are not necessarily empowered by me. Nor do they necessarily represent me.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 08-28-2013 at 11:12 PM.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    His original post on the definitions was clearly one of semantics, intended or not. I am addressing that semantical point only, regardless of any future attempt to escape it.

    Again, he is free to use the terms any way he chooses. If he wants to be effective in that usage, since he is bucking the tide, it behooves him to be the one to define the terms he uses, not expect others to conform to his definitions, and not get on them for not so conforming. That is all.

    Moving on.

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I'm actually reading the document in controversy.... so far the context makes the meaning quite different then what was claimed on the fox article.

    for example, the "prohibited activites" are as follows
    .

    (b)According toDoDDirective 1325.6, military members are prohibited from any of the following activities:


    Participating in organizations that espouse supremacist (NOTE Supremacist is defined differently the extremist in the manual) causes.


    Attempting to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex,religion, or national origin.


    Advocating the use of force or violence.


    Engaging in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rightswhat?! not depriving people of their civil rights? the bastards....
    Also, the types of "Hate groups" documented in the manual

    2.

    Neo-Confederate
    – Primarily celebrate Southern culture and the Civil War; some factions embrace racist attitudes toward Blacks, and some favor White separatism. The neo-Confederate movement includes a number of organizations that generally share the goals of preserving Confederate monuments, honoring the Confederate battle flag, and lauding what is judged to be Southern culture. Many have close ties to the White supremacist League of the South (LOS).3.

    Black Separatist
    – Typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage; want separate institutions or even a separate nation for Blacks. Most forms of Black separatism are strongly anti-White and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that Blacks are the Biblical “chosen people” of God. Other groups espousing the same beliefs would be considered racist. The same criteria should be applied to all groups, regardless of color.4.

    Ku Klux Klan
    – Primarily against Black Americans, its members have also attacked Jews, immigrants, and Catholics. It typically sees itself as a Christian organization fighting for civil rights for Whites and is historically violent as a vigilante group. With its long history of violence, the KKK is the most infamous and oldest of American hate groups.5.

    Neo-Nazi
    – Share a hatred for Jews and a love for Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany; also hate other minorities and homosexuals; believe in Christian White supremacy. While its roots are in Europe, the links with American neo-Nazi groups are strong and growing stronger.a.

    Racist Skinheads
    – Typically form a violent element of the White supremacist movement and have often been referred to as the “shock troops” of the hoped-for revolution. The classic skinhead look is a shaved head, black Doc Martens boots, jeans with suspenders, and an array of typically racist tattoos. A prominent racist skinhead term is “14/88.” The 14 stands for the “14 words” slogan coined by David Lane, who is serving a 190-year sentence for his part in the assassination of a Jewish talk show host: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.” The 88 means “Heil Hitler,” as H is the eighth letter of the alphabet.6.

    White Nationalists
    – Espouse White supremacist or White separatist ideologies, they often focus on the alleged inferiority of non-Whites. Groups listed in a variety of other categories (e.g., Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead, etc.) could also be fairly described as White nationalists.
    The context of the documents in question make it clear they are referring to racial or cultural hate groups and not people who believe in individual rights.

    the entire document in question can be viewed here
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I could be wrong, but, I'm pretty sure Citizen just attempted to clarify that his point was not one of semantics. I believe the point is simply that the Constitution did not found our society.
    Sure it did. As soon as it was ratified, with the BoR, our society immediatly became different from every other society on earth. Our society instantly became accountable to the rule of law and not the rule of kings.

    The national government was "created" to ensure that society would abide by the laws that it "created."

    Neo-Confederate
    – Primarily celebrate Southern culture and the Civil War; some factions embrace racist attitudes toward Blacks, and some favor White separatism. The neo-Confederate movement includes a number of organizations that generally share the goals of preserving Confederate monuments, honoring the Confederate battle flag, and lauding what is judged to be Southern culture. Many have close ties to the White supremacist League of the South (LOS).3.
    There are a great many folks in the south who were just painted as Neo-Confederate and are thus threats to the fedgov.....nice.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •