Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it does make them a hate group, because they hate and demonize anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.
I know this is from way back in the thread which I am in the middle of reading but I can't help but say to Young Herman...you are being bated into a debate of semantics which you can never win. This question posed on this thread is one that cannot be answered, that's the point, its a game. We are being asked to determine if a group is hateful for labeling other groups hateful. Quantify hate by criteria. Who is to determine the criteria? I suppose the courts would ultimately decide that. Which leads to my next point. The SPLC shouldn't be accusing, labeling or smearing anyone unless they have filed lawsuits against them and if they lose their suit they should print a public retraction of their allegations. That is what they would do if they were responsible and truly interested in justice. Currently, they show their case docket on their website but they don't show the judgments. But they do not do that, they have a hate map with groups and individuals they are "watching" but have not filed against. If they do not file against a group/individual then they are making public allegations and what they are publically alledging is pathalogical racism/hate toward another group which if it goes unproven in a court of law is a smearing, plain and simple.
Herman, it doesn't matter how many examples you provide of the SPLC being out of line or trigger happy on making allegations of person or group who opposes their agenda it will not convince anyone who already has their mind made up. SPLC has won some very legitimate lawsuits but IMHO they are way, way out of line on what seem to be politcally motivated attempts to discredit perceived enemies of their agenda. If they were as noble as they fancy themselves, they would take great pains to remain as politically neutral as possible but they do not. That's where they lose a lot of credibility with people (me included).
There are almost daily threads here referring to the Tea Party as a "hate group", some posters refer to the NAACP as a "hate group" that's what I'm talking about when I say that that term is subjective.
Ohh- the Tea party has an image problem because they're just being themselves. You know, the only 'real americans'. Their actions defined them, not the media. I'm offended by them for playing into the attack of their countrymen. My opinion of them came from youtube direct testimony, and heavily weighted by this very forum of bloggers. I'd call them blind to a larger reality and deliberately misled. Their hatred is directed at stereotypes and anyone who disagrees with them in this very forum is being bashed as 'liberal commie'. The repetition of propaganda sold for 30 odd years shouldn't get by your radar. For a 'grass roots movement' it's uncanny not one idea emerges from Tea that's original or in any way departs from Newscorp archives. This guy's puppet string routine keeps coming up in odd places... Sky News website sabotaged by hacker with a grudge against Rupert Murdoch - Telegraph
We're all mad. We're all frustrated by the events of this woeful decade. Some of us aren't willing to shoot the wrong man for the crime. Standing above the fray looking through Gods eye, if they were honest jurors, they'd have to menace themselves with their own 2nd amendment right and shoot themselves for their own crimes. Shall I arrest them for the crime of enabling a dozen white Al Sharptons (neocon brand) to rob America blind and sending my brothers in arms on manifestly unsound missions?
That said-- are they a hate group by SPLC standard? No. NAACP standard? They're teetering a line deliberately. Are they acting in a hateful manner? Absolutely. Are they racist? Some are, some aren't, but it's a shame they lacked the self discipline from day one to insist people focus on their core message. What they have is a 20 mile list of complaints for the complaint department that got downsized by reaganomics.
I know this is from way back in the thread which I am in the middle of reading but I can't help but say to Young Herman...you are being bated into a debate of semantics which you can never win. This question posed on this thread is one that cannot be answered, that's the point, its a game. We are being asked to determine if a group is hateful for labeling other groups hateful. Quantify hate by criteria. Who is to determine the criteria? I suppose the courts would ultimately decide that. Which leads to my next point. The SPLC shouldn't be accusing, labeling or smearing anyone unless they have filed lawsuits against them and if they lose their suit they should print a public retraction of their allegations. That is what they would do if they were responsible and truly interested in justice. Currently, they show their case docket on their website but they don't show the judgments. But they do not do that, they have a hate map with groups and individuals they are "watching" but have not filed against. If they do not file against a group/individual then they are making public allegations and what they are publically alledging is pathalogical racism/hate toward another group which if it goes unproven in a court of law is a smearing, plain and simple.
Herman, it doesn't matter how many examples you provide of the SPLC being out of line or trigger happy on making allegations of person or group who opposes their agenda it will not convince anyone who already has their mind made up. SPLC has won some very legitimate lawsuits but IMHO they are way, way out of line on what seem to be politcally motivated attempts to discredit perceived enemies of their agenda. If they were as noble as they fancy themselves, they would take great pains to remain as politically neutral as possible but they do not. That's where they lose a lot of credibility with people (me included).
You're right about that, I'm being trolled here. The people on this thread supporting the SPLC are the ones who support their kind of politics, I might be an idealist, but I'm also an idiot for being baited into a discussion of semantics by trolls. No unbiased person who researches the SPLC can come with any other opinion on them other then they are scumbags.
Semantics wont work here, this isn't a court room. It has been shown here the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group that looks to destroy people and organizations that don't share their views, it has by proven by their own mission statement.
You're right, your semantics won't work here.
You did not provide me a statement that matched what you said. You provided me your spin on what they said.
You're right about that, I'm being trolled here. The people on this thread supporting the SPLC are the ones who support their kind of politics, I might be an idealist, but I'm also an idiot for being baited into a discussion of semantics by trolls. No unbiased person who researches the SPLC can come with any other opinion on them other then they are scumbags.
You'll have to actually read the link. I won't spoon feed it to you. Suffice it to say it involved the Oklahoma City bombing.
Thank you for sharing your sources. I read the link. ALL of it. The problem is each citation in the trail of evidence comes to a dead link. Page does not exist. There's a pdf file I could download but I'm not feeling a great deal of confidence in this website. I get the feeling someone read lots of conspiracy theory novels. Those novels are great to be aware of strategies employed by master manipulators. Those novels are NOT great when people get so caught up in their head they lose track of reality and paranoia dominates them. Usually the kind of people that fall prey to that downside already have it in their minds they're victims of the world and are seeking answers that feed the belief.
I saw the glint of SPLC providing information to the FBI- blurbs out of context. Good citizens witnessing criminal conspiracy activity are supposed to call the law. The law is supposed to investigate if criminal activity is taking place. Huttaree, for example, were flipped in by militia men who knew those people crossed a line they shouldn't have crossed. I'm glad those militia men did, and I'm glad they police their own because conspiring to kill Law Enforcement officers, or anyone, is illegal. There's no evidence or explanation about how SPLC got its information. There is no actual evidence of unlawful spying in this link. Just the leap to conclusion that it had occurred.
I want you to think hard about this question. If this were in court, shoe being on the other foot because someone accused you of the same, should I convict you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AimfulDrifter
Other disreputable endeavors were brought to light in the same mid-1990s time period by the Montgomery Advertiser, which is the mainstream newspaper in the SPLC's Alabama hometown. It ran a series of investigative reports about the organization's sleazy and shoddy fundraising. Harper's magazine and the Baltimore Sun have also offered critical coverage of the Morris Dees Money Machine more recently:
I read ALL of this, including the reference links. CD really needs a cross eyed smiley. What is evident to me about Dees/ SPLC's mission has gotten flabby and it's not for profit status is dubious if the money donated is being hoarded. I think that issue merits confrontation. Everyone should examine that, not just about SPLC, but any charity that's gotten flabby collecting more and delivering less. Other examples... The Curious Spending of Republicans for Choice - The Center for Public Integrity Vet's Charities Pocket Money - CBS News Video
I'd like to see tighter standards the IRS can impose to exclude them from exemption for failure to comply with mission statement. Small biz has a higher hoop to jump through than 501c and IMO it should be reversed (give small biz more latitude and 501c less). As far as salary for a senior partner in a firm- that salary isn't out of line for law firms of comparable status, but I 'd have to say his peers know a thing or two.
Quote:
"You are a fraud and a ******," the Southern Center's director, Stephen Bright, wrote in a 1996 letter to Dees, and proceeded to list his many reasons for thinking so, which included "your failure to respond to the most desperate needs of the poor and powerless despite your millions upon millions, your fund-raising techniques, the fact that you spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly."
Here's what is evidenced about this group (and it's affiliates) reporting about Dees. They've got a horrible habit of ginning things up themselves. They went on a dirt digging campaign, threw in the kitchen sink, then repeated the same allegations in rearranged order to fluff up the case. They claim that SPLC has generated 'propaganda' but it was never actually produced materially on the page or associated link chain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AimfulDrifter
Most annoying is that the SPLC acts to stifle dissent by Americans with legitimate, heartfelt concerns that have nothing to do with racial hatred. It uses the race card, liberal guilt and our extensive capacity to "fear thy neighbor" to fool otherwise good people into thinking that race is an "elephant in the closet" when it would otherwise be increasingly irrelevant.
There are 2 people I feel either don't belong there or the author failed to provide evidence to support his supposition. Catherine Bleish is, in this portrayal of her, simply stating her case of heartfelt concerns. SPLC did not smear her, but is apparently in disagreement with her suppositions. No evidence presented, no quotes, no recorded behavior. It appears they've gone over the top in this case. Unless they have evidence to support otherwise it does take the appearance of targeting a legit voice of dissent. I think confronting them about their policy, their reasoning, and their direction as an organization in this case is 100% legit. I'd like to hear their answer for their own behavior.
Another is Al Garza. The statement posted represents the same position as gallop poll majority americans deeply disturbed that our laws only apply to americans, not to illegals. Their presence is offensive and disruptive not based on race, but because their conduct undermines order and fairness. I happen to share that sentiment, so SPLC, I've got to wonder to what's the difference between myself and this man? I don't see any evidence of wrongdoing, nor did SPLC engage in character assassination, but on what grounds does this man warrant scrutiny/ concern?
The overwhelming majority of the people named in this website do fit the criteria, but just like the socialcontract website, none have provided substantiated material evidence. This renders the quality of the information to hearsay. If we're going to be in the business of telling the truth and being fair, the standard is the standard. Perhaps those bashing moderates for 'flip flopping' or being 'lazy sheep' can appreciate our function in a democracy right about now.
They lie.
I am acquainted with their tactics of character assassination and faked reports, regurgitated in the mass media.
I'm disappointed you'd lean on hearsay as heavily as you are on this topic, but insist the higher standard apply to others in your posting history. Crying foul while engaged in unfair treatment seriously discredits your position. No one is refusing to listen, we're just burnt out on false allegations trotted out one too many times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
