Founding Fathers labeled as "Extremists"

stealthyeliminator · Aug 28, 2013

eye95 said:
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.

eye95 · Aug 29, 2013

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.

EMNofSeattle · Aug 29, 2013

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

OC for ME · Aug 29, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
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.

stealthyeliminator · Aug 29, 2013

eye95 said:
...
Moving on.

Haha

I knew that was coming, and for once I agree

Citizen · Aug 29, 2013

OC for ME said:
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."

There are a great many folks in the south who were just painted as Neo-Confederate and are thus threats to the fedgov.....nice.

Huh!?!!

By your own logic, society ceased to exist during the ratification period.

By your own logic, in the New England state that went for a long period without a state government, society ceased to exist.

By your own logic, a society does not come into existence until it forms a government.

Nope.

Separately, you need to go back and check your history about rule-of-law vs rule-of-kings. By the time of the Hanoverian kings in the early 1700's, the monarch of England was pretty thoroughly tied down. Even Charles II in the mid-1600's only got so far. And, his successor, James II was run out of town.

Only a few English monarchs got away with rule-of-king. The nobles had it with them, and started tying them down with Magna Carta in 1215. Moving forward, several of them were able to play games and screw around on certain subjects. For example, Henry VIII is generally regarded as a tyrant. His daughter, Bloody Mary was oppressive toward Protestants. But, Elizabeth had to pick her way gingerly between factions in Parliament.

countryclubjoe · Aug 30, 2013

47% of the citizens in these United States reply on the Government for some type of aid, be that aid financial or medical, the servitude of the citizen and the reliance on Government exist.

Of those 47%, how many really care about the Constitution,or even about there own rights?

The Government pays them( free Money) feeds them, treats there illness's and often kicks them in the ass. They(citizen) do not care.

They are being feed and treated.. All at the expense of tax payers that may or may not, have a dame clue about " The Constitution"

My .02

CCJ

eye95 · Aug 30, 2013

Citizen said:
Huh!?!!

By your own logic, society ceased to exist during the ratification period.

By your own logic, in the New England state that went for a long period without a state government, society ceased to exist.

By your own logic, a society does not come into existence until it forms a government.

Nope...

That is one BS misrepresentation of what another wrote!

That something was created does not mean that nothing preexisted that creation. He did not write that society only existed because the Republic was founded. As a matter of fact, he talks about how society was changed, clearly acknowledging that preexistence.

As far as I can tell, his point is not that government creates or is society, but that it sure is one helluva big part of the definition of any particular society.

Black_water · Aug 30, 2013

This is not new, Napalitano had something similar back in the beginning of this administration.

The purpose of .gov is to remove rights, they go into session every year to exactly that, either in big chunks or small bites.

HP995 · Aug 30, 2013

They have definitely crossed the line to fearing and hating what they were sworn to defend.

(It's all part of the same general mindset. Including the social policy changes celebrated by some people here.)

Founding Fathers labeled as "Extremists"

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

Black_water

Regular Member

HP995

Regular Member