Ravi
Diamond Member
No, what was the given definition?Did you actually read the article? I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on extremist groups as long as the proper safeguards are in place...warrants, etc. They aren't targeting the teabaggers, perhaps you missed that.What? you assume i supported the Patriot Act? You have just proven yet again that you have no other agenda than your own partisan pap.
I raise a legitimate constitutional argument and you cannot seem to think beyond the confines of the two political parties and the childish finger pointing and name calling that all political argument has devolved to.
That you can't seem to even fathom the possibility that a person cannot fit into your limited paradigm is obvious.
The larger issue here, which obviously evades you, is that the government is now defining citizens who dissent as threats. That is an argument that is nonpartisan but since you are incapable of being objective you are utterly incapable of seeing this.
it's the loose definition of extremist i was commenting on. Did you even read the actual report from DHS?
I think the government is perfectly justified in keeping an eye on people like this: Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories