DoD EEO Training Manual Refers to Founding Fathers as Extremists!

[Katzndogz]

Isn't this just what you would expect from a country on the brink of civil war, upheaval or just approaching the critical mass of division?

 

[rightwinger]

So do modern liberals.

Our founding fathers WERE Liberals

It was the CONSERVATIVES of the day who considered them extremist

Liberalism then has nothing in common with liberalism today.

And conservatism then has nothing in common with conservatism today.

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

 

[Snookie]

Judicial Watch: DOD training docs suggest conservative views 'extremist' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

•Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
...
•“[A]ctive participation…with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited.” [Emphasis in original]...

"The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

“And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces,” he added.

Wow, so George Washington could not enlist in todays Army, Navy or Air Force.

How charming.

As usual, this is taken out of context by dishonest conservatives who are willing to lie in an effort to promote their ignorant, hateful agenda.

As the document’s introduction notes:

All nations have an ideology, something in which they believe. When a political ideology falls outside the norms of a society, it is known as extremism.

2161 docs

In the context of the British Empire during the late 18th Century, therefore, the politics of the colonists seeking independence constituted extremism as perceived by the government in London at the time, not that the ideals of freedom expressed by the colonists should be considered ‘extremism’ today.

And the same is true with regard to the Confederacy, where the politics of secession were outside the norms of American society, as the people sought to preserve the Union.

Conservatives clearly have no shame, and conservatism is clearly a blight on America.

Well said.

I would like to add that most conservatives suck. The only thing they want to conserve is their wealth.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Extremism is subjective. The winning side gets to determine who is an extremist..."

True, dat.

"...Were our founding fathers extremist? Taking up arms against your country can be called extreme. So we're their political views. All men are created equal? Where did you get that crap from? The difference between a political extremist and a patriot is whether you win or not..."

Indeed. Entirely accurate, with respect to subjective analysis. I agree.

"...And yes, the Rebels were extremist..."

Only from the perspective of the victors, and, consequently and subsequently, history.

But not so much at the time, especially from their own defend-our-rights perspective.

"...Racist..."

So were the vast majority of people in the North, as well.

A fair number of Americans in the North wanted the slaves set free, but they also wanted to ship 'em back to Africa, and viewed them as only marginally human, unequal, and truly incapable of ever attaining equality based upon their own merits and intellects.

That, too, is Racist, by our standards today, but such views (in the North, as well) were the Norm, and perceived as Kindly and Accommodating and Generous in dealing with pitiable and supposedly intellectually inferior Blacks.

Southern agriculturalists who required slave-labor merely practiced a different and more brutal form of Racism, but - outside the framework of involuntarily servitude and the buying and selling of them like cattle and the corporal punishments that could be inflicted upon them - the core of the Southern White perception of Blacks was not all that different than could be seen in vast numbers of White Northerners of those times.

And, of course, the vast majority of Rebels who took up arms did NOT own slaves nor was it about Slavery, from their perspective; it was about a Central Government attempting to encroach upon Home Rule at an ever-increasing and accelerating pace; with Slavery being merely the most prominent and volatile of a variety of such examples that had been building and festering in the Southern Mind for the first four decades of the life of The Republic.

What was that second-sight maxim? "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumter".

That is the stuff of urban legends and was only articulated, insofar as I know, in a popular movie about the Civil War, but, at its core, such sentiments were oftentimes expressed in connection with the Southern Cause, if not exactly in those words, and most of the Rebels were (a) not slaveholders and (b) largely disinterested in the matter and (c) were fighting because their State had stood-up against Federal encroachments of Home Rule.

"...totalitarian extremists at that" "

That's funny.

The Rebels were accusing the Federal Government of totalitarianism (tyranny); encroaching to an unacceptable degree upon Home Rule (States Rights); it's the main reason why they broke away, even if Slavery was the flashpoint that brought the thing to the point of explosion.

And, other than the Exigencies of War (currency manipulation, property requisitions, conscription, etc.), I seriously doubt that the Confederate Government was much more or less 'totalitarian' than the Federal Government while the War Emergency was underway.

After all, Honest Abe suspended Habeus Corpus, authorized the first-ever Draft (military conscription), seized the property (slaves, land, goods, etc.) of the residents of States in rebellion [including mostly folks who were not actively engaged in the Rebellion], got himself into trouble on the foreign diplomacy front (especially the UK), and did a great many things under the pressure of civil warfare that neither he nor the Federal Government might have resorted to under more peaceful circumstances; with Lincoln being branded Tyrant and his Administration(s) a Tyranny and an offense against the Constitution, Man and God.

The Union Government was no collection of saints, either, and, of course, the Confederate Government never existed outside the framework of civil warfare, so, we do not know with any certainty whether it could objectively have been called 'totalitarian', in all honesty, under 'normal' peacetime conditions.

A vast majority of modern-day Northerners, and even a very sizable percentage of Southerners who are proud of their Rebel heritage, will concede at a distance of 148 years that (a) ending the despicable practice of slavery and (b) preserving the Union - proved to be good things - that things worked out for the best...

But let's not kid ourselves or pretend that the vast majority of Southerners were in it for anything other than fighting for the primacy of Home Rule, or that, in that respect, they were all that different, philosophically, from folks who prefer Less Government rather than More.

And it is THAT aspect (the Home Rule aspect) of the motivation for rebelling that continues to draw the admiration of much of the American Public (well, not so much amongst our Black fellow-citizens, but amongst many of the rest of us), and explains, in large part, why we continue to remain fascinated with that struggle, and why we continue to admire some of the more righteous and gallant leadership (Robert E. Lee, Thomas [Stonewall] Jackson, etc.) attached to that (rightfully) doomed cause.

"With malice towards none, with charity for all..."'

What Old Abe was hoping for, from us...

 

[Snookie]

"...Extremism is subjective. The winning side gets to determine who is an extremist..."

True, dat.

"...Were our founding fathers extremist? Taking up arms against your country can be called extreme. So we're their political views. All men are created equal? Where did you get that crap from? The difference between a political extremist and a patriot is whether you win or not..."

Indeed. Entirely accurate, from a subject-analysis perspective. I agree.



Only from the perspective of the victors, and, consequently and subsequently, history.

But not so much at the time, especially from their own defend-our-rights perspective.

"...Racist..."

So were the vast majority of people in the North, as well.

A fair number of Americans in the North wanted the slaves set free, but they also wanted to ship 'em back to Africa, and viewed them as only marginally human, unequal, and truly incapable of ever attaining equality based upon their own merits and intellects.

That, too, is Racist, by our standards today, but such views (in the North, as well) were the Norm, and perceived as Kindly and Accommodating and Generous in dealing with pitiable and supposedly intellectually inferior Black.

Southern agriculturalists who required slave-labor merely practiced a different and more brutal form of Racism, but - outside the framework of involuntarily servitude and the buying and selling of them like cattle and the corporal punishments that could be inflicted upon them - the core of the Southern White perception of Blacks was not all that different than could be seen in vast numbers of White Northerners of those times.

And, of course, the vast majority of Rebels who took up arms did NOT own slaves nor was it about Slavery, from their perspective; it was about a Central Government attempting to encroach upon Home Rule at an ever-increasing and accelerating pace; with Slavery being merely the most prominent and volatile of a variety of such examples that had been building and festering in the Southern Mind for the first four decades of the life of The Republic.

What was that second-sight maxim? "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumter".

That is the stuff of urban legends and was only articulated, insofar as I know, in a popular movie about the Civil War, but, at its core, such sentiments were oftentimes expressed in connection with the Southern Cause, if not exactly in those words, and most fo the Rebels were (a) not slaveholders and (b) largely disinterested in the matter and (c) were fighting because their State had stood-up against Federal encroachments of Home Rule.

"...totalitarian extremists at that" "

That's funny.

The Rebels were accusing the Federal Government of totalitarianism (tyranny); encroaching to an unacceptable degree upon Home Rule (States Rights); it's the main reason why they broke away, even if Slavery was the flashpoint that brought the thing to the point of explosion.

And, other than the Exigencies of War (currency manipulation, property requisitions, conscription, etc.), I seriously doubt that the Confederate Government was much more or less 'totalitarian' than the Federal Government while the War Emergency was underway.

After all, Honest Abe suspended Habeus Corpus, authorized the first-ever Draft (military conscription), seized the property (slaves, land, goods, etc.) of the residents of States in rebellion [including mostly folks who were not actively engaged in the Rebellion], got himself into trouble on the foreign diplomacy front (especially the UK), and did a great many things under the pressure of civil warfare that neither he nor the Federal Government might have resorted to more peaceful circumstances; with Lincoln being branded Tyrant and his Administration(s) a Tyranny and an offense against the Constitution, Man and God.

The Union Government was no collection of saints, either, and, of course, the Confederate Government never existed outside the framework of civil warfare, so, we do not know with any certainty whether it could objectively have been called 'totalitarian', in all honesty, under 'normal' peacetime conditions.

A vast majority of modern-day Northerners, and even a very sizable percentage of Southerners who are proud of their Rebel heritage, will concede at a distance of 148 years that (a) ending the despicable practice of slavery and (b) preserving the Union - proved to be good things - that things worked out for the best...

But let's not kid ourselves or pretend that the vast majority of Southerners were in it for anything other than fighting for the primacy of Home Rule, or that, in that respect, they were all that different, philosophically, from folks who prefer Less Government rather than More.

And it is THAT aspect (the Home Rule aspect) of the motivation for rebelling that continues to draw the admiration of much of the American Public (well, not so much amongst our Black fellow-citizens, but amongst many of the rest of us), and explains, in large part, why we continue to remain fascinated with that struggle, and why we continue to admire some of the more righteous and gallant leadership (Robert E. Lee, Thomas [Stonewall] Jackson, etc.) attached to that (rightfully) doomed cause.

"With malice towards none, with charity for all..."'

What Old Abe was hoping for, from us...

"Southerners loved them as people {Negroes} but hated them as a race. Northerners loved them as a race but hated them as people." John Faulkner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Faulkner_(author)

 

[daveman]

Our founding fathers WERE Liberals

It was the CONSERVATIVES of the day who considered them extremist

Liberalism then has nothing in common with liberalism today.

And conservatism then has nothing in common with conservatism today.

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

As I recall, you've posted in numerous threads agreeing that modern liberals are just like the Founding Fathers.

 

[Snookie]

Liberalism then has nothing in common with liberalism today.

And conservatism then has nothing in common with conservatism today.

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

As I recall, you've posted in numerous

So what? What ya gonna do bout it? Throw a hissy fit?

 

[Kondor3]

"...'Southerners loved them as people {Negroes} but hated them as a race. Northerners loved them as a race but hated them as people.' John Faulkner"

I confess to never encountering that maxim until now, but it is a good one, and I think I will probably remember it. Simple. Largely true, quite possibly. Impressive. Thanks.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberalism then has nothing in common with liberalism today.

And conservatism then has nothing in common with conservatism today.

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

As I recall, you've posted in numerous threads agreeing that modern liberals are just like the Founding Fathers.

Our founding fathers were 18th century aristocrats....how can today's liberals be like them?

 

[Snookie]

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

As I recall, you've posted in numerous threads agreeing that modern liberals are just like the Founding Fathers.

Our founding fathers were 18th century aristocrats....how can today's liberals be like them?

Pot heads?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Judicial Watch: DOD training docs suggest conservative views 'extremist' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

•Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
...
•“[A]ctive participation…with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited.” [Emphasis in original]...

"The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

“And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces,” he added.

Wow, so George Washington could not enlist in todays Army, Navy or Air Force.

How charming.

As usual, this is taken out of context by dishonest conservatives who are willing to lie in an effort to promote their ignorant, hateful agenda.

As the document’s introduction notes:

All nations have an ideology, something in which they believe. When a political ideology falls outside the norms of a society, it is known as extremism.

2161 docs

In the context of the British Empire during the late 18th Century, therefore, the politics of the colonists seeking independence constituted extremism as perceived by the government in London at the time, not that the ideals of freedom expressed by the colonists should be considered ‘extremism’ today.

And the same is true with regard to the Confederacy, where the politics of secession were outside the norms of American society, as the people sought to preserve the Union.

Conservatives clearly have no shame, and conservatism is clearly a blight on America.

Dude, that is just a bald-faced lie. The context of the comment is clearly with US history in mind, not British Imperial history nor their perspective.

“In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

You libtards just cant help but suck the hind tit of every tyranny the Earth has ever seen from Augustus to George III to Stalin.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Try again

We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind despite enlisting blacks, women and queers

You mean we STILL have the most powerful Armed Forces despite this communist/community organizer's best efforts to destroy it?

p.s. LAME SHIT you including blacks in your reply...you're too far gone to pay attention to....see ya.

Blacks? You mean those blacks who were going to destroy our military strength if we integrated? Those blacks who were not fit for positions of responsibility?

I remember those blacks. Why don't you?

N o one complained about it except DEMOCRATS, so don't hang that shit on everyone else, liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Judicial Watch: DOD training docs suggest conservative views 'extremist' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com



Wow, so George Washington could not enlist in todays Army, Navy or Air Force.

How charming.

As usual, this is taken out of context by dishonest conservatives who are willing to lie in an effort to promote their ignorant, hateful agenda.

As the document’s introduction notes:

All nations have an ideology, something in which they believe. When a political ideology falls outside the norms of a society, it is known as extremism.

2161 docs

In the context of the British Empire during the late 18th Century, therefore, the politics of the colonists seeking independence constituted extremism as perceived by the government in London at the time, not that the ideals of freedom expressed by the colonists should be considered ‘extremism’ today.

And the same is true with regard to the Confederacy, where the politics of secession were outside the norms of American society, as the people sought to preserve the Union.

Conservatives clearly have no shame, and conservatism is clearly a blight on America.

In case you haven't noticed, this is not the British Empire during the late 18th Century.

This is America, the nation founded on those "extremists'" principles -- principles held dearly by conservatives today.

Now, run off and denounce me to Attack Watch!!

And this is US DoD training doc, not British.

Libtards are so multi-cultural they cant remember what country they live in and are supposedly loyal to.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Our founding fathers WERE Liberals

It was the CONSERVATIVES of the day who considered them extremist

Liberalism then has nothing in common with liberalism today.

And conservatism then has nothing in common with conservatism today.

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

You just keep tossing one lie after another out to see what sticks.

The Founding Fathers ideology of 1776 was FAR closer to the Tea PArty Movement of today than any neoMArxist libtard can ever understand and through the amendment process it was among the first governments designed to evolve with society, but through the proscribed process.

And your lies don't change jack.

 

[daveman]

So what? What ya gonna do bout it? Throw a hissy fit?

No, I'm not a progressive.

Do YOU think today's liberals are just like the Founding Fathers? Because that idea is ludicrous.

 

[daveman]

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

As I recall, you've posted in numerous threads agreeing that modern liberals are just like the Founding Fathers.

Our founding fathers were 18th century aristocrats....how can today's liberals be like them?

Beats heck outta me. Perhaps you might want to tell your fellow lefties that.

 

[daveman]

As usual, this is taken out of context by dishonest conservatives who are willing to lie in an effort to promote their ignorant, hateful agenda.

As the document’s introduction notes:



In the context of the British Empire during the late 18th Century, therefore, the politics of the colonists seeking independence constituted extremism as perceived by the government in London at the time, not that the ideals of freedom expressed by the colonists should be considered ‘extremism’ today.

And the same is true with regard to the Confederacy, where the politics of secession were outside the norms of American society, as the people sought to preserve the Union.

Conservatives clearly have no shame, and conservatism is clearly a blight on America.

In case you haven't noticed, this is not the British Empire during the late 18th Century.

This is America, the nation founded on those "extremists'" principles -- principles held dearly by conservatives today.

Now, run off and denounce me to Attack Watch!!

And this is US DoD training doc, not British.

Libtards are so multi-cultural they cant remember what country they live in and are supposedly loyal to.

True, although some of them remember.

It's just not this country they're loyal to.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In case you haven't noticed, this is not the British Empire during the late 18th Century.

This is America, the nation founded on those "extremists'" principles -- principles held dearly by conservatives today.

Now, run off and denounce me to Attack Watch!!

And this is US DoD training doc, not British.

Libtards are so multi-cultural they cant remember what country they live in and are supposedly loyal to.

True, although some of them remember.

It's just not this country they're loyal to.

They are not loyal to any country, they are loyal to an ideology born in the 19th century, a ruthless ideology that knows no mercy, no genuine love of anything familiar, and which will throw anything and anyone under the bus to promote their agenda.

 

[bodecea]

Judicial Watch: DOD training docs suggest conservative views 'extremist' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

•Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
...
•“[A]ctive participation…with regard to extremist organizations is incompatible with military service and, is therefore prohibited.” [Emphasis in original]...

"The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

“And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces,” he added.

Wow, so George Washington could not enlist in todays Army, Navy or Air Force.

How charming.

For that time period they most certainly were. And we are the better for it.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberalism then has nothing in common with liberalism today.

And conservatism then has nothing in common with conservatism today.

Nor should it

liberalism evolves to meet emerging challenges. It is conservatives who remain the same

You just keep tossing one lie after another out to see what sticks.

The Founding Fathers ideology of 1776 was FAR closer to the Tea PArty Movement of today than any neoMArxist libtard can ever understand and through the amendment process it was among the first governments designed to evolve with society, but through the proscribed process.

And your lies don't change jack.

The group that came closest to our founding fathers was the blacks fighting for Civil Rights in the 50s and 60s. True American Patriots

The TeaTards are just a bunch of older white men running around in three cornered hats