(05-07-2015 05:47 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: (05-07-2015 02:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Actually, I only responded to the one single article I read on the subject and this was their entire quote of him. I've admitted he is likely creating a mountain out of a molehill for political purposes... but since when is that uncommon for a politician?
Quote:But he also did his share of pandering on this specific issue ("Certainly, I can understand these concerns" ["that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law"]), made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure.
Case in point. You're implying that by saying he 'understands their concerns' that he actually believes they have merit. People with agoraphobia have merit-less fears, but we all understand them, don't we? Is he being a politician? Absolutely... but at least in what you've quoted here (I have no idea about what the guy REALLY thinks) you're similarly cherry-picking quotes and even adding your own parenthetical comments to cast them in their worst light.
If you're going to accuse me of that, then at least read his full statement. I already provided the link. My parenthetical was a direct quote of his words, that "these" referred to.
the parenthetical of 'these' is not what I was referring to and I regret using the term... It is the
made a few wild accusations against the Obama administration, and threw in doses of alleged persecution of Christians and "just across our border" fear-mongering for good measure. comment.
Having said that, your selected quotes are STILL no more complete than mine. If you don't like mine because you think they are the least important, I'd say the exact same thing to you. You intentionally selected 'certain' quotes to make your point, and to make it worse, characterized the rest of of his statements as
wild fear-mongering which only seeks to dismiss them without investigation.
However, it is obviously in those comments where the REAL issues lie.
Bill Clinton said: 'No matter how many millions of Americans al-Qaeda might kill, unless President Obama and Congress are among the victims these Islamists will never bring down the United States Government,” Clinton insisted. “The Tea Partiers, on the other hand, represent a very real threat. It is conceivable that they could overturn the Democratic majority in Congress this November and might even succeed in defeating the President’s bid for a second term.'
So Americans not re-electing Obama and a Democratic Congress are a bigger threat to this country than the death of millions of Americans? You don't honestly believe that, or that he believed that, do you? That is one of the things Gohmert is referring to and it happened.
Obama himself compared atrocities being carried out in the name of Islam in 2014 to atrocities carried out in the name of Christianity in 1100. That is one of the things Gohmert is referring to and it happened.
And of course, in LOCAL elections with far smaller players, FAR worse things have been said.
Those aren't wild accusations.
Now from your own article, a comment that you ignored:
'Having served in the U.S. Army, I can understand why military officials have a goal to see if groups of Special Forces can move around a civilian population without being noticed and can handle various threat scenarios. In military science classes or in my years on active duty, I have participated in or observed military exercises; however, we never named an existing city or state as a “hostile.” We would use fictitious names before we would do such a thing.'
'When the federal government begins, even in practice, games or exercises, to consider any U.S. city or state in 'hostile' control and trying to retake it, the message becomes extremely calloused and suspicious.'
Now you may disagree with him, but does that honestly sound to you like someone who is concerned about an invasion?
It DOES sound like someone who is honestly concerned that the government doesn't seem to mind labeling people with different political beliefs as 'threats to democracy' and 'hostile'. It DOES sound like someone who is honestly concerned that our leaders compare an atrocity that happened last month and is still a risk to happen tomorrow to something that happened in the 1100's (or even from 1890-1965) as remotely equal issues for the government. He is accusing the government of being insensitive and callous. The suspicion is that this is intentional and not merely an oversight... NOT because they would actually invade, but in another attempt to diminish and marginalize those with different opinions than the current administration.
As I said, is it hyperbolic? Absolutely. So were the comments he is responding to. Clinton doesn't REALLY think that the Tea party is a bigger threat to democracy than the death of millions of Americans... and Obama doesn't REALLY think that 12th century Crusaders or even early 1900's Jim Crowe laws are a bigger threat than those who killed people in the last few weeks...
but if you put the same literal and selective quotes that you and others have done, one could EASILY create that impression.