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.
Frankly, having read your posts for sometime now, I could care less about what you think is hard hitting civil rights work.
And what exactly do you mean by that? I'm curious...
I think that you should know by now that we don't debate each other to change the others mind. You're probably not going to change my mind and I am probably not going to change yours. What we do debate each other to influence any third parties that might be reading our arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
To paraphrase my Christianly grandmother, I don't care when they come to Jesus as long as they come.
Sounds like he stood on the sidelines* when the Civil Rights Movement actually needed help and then joined in once the fight was over and painted himself as some brave crusader when he had little risk and much to gain.
*I am not going to make too much out of the fact that he once defended a Klansman. Lawyers often defend or represent people they disagree with or even despise. The ACLU does it all the time and they have my respect. Still doesn't explain why he worked for George Wallace at the height of his popularity though...
Interestingly, this one which tugs at the heartstrings has gotten Fs for over a decade
Quote:
The Christian relief group Feed the Children has been called by AIP "the most outrageous charity in America." It has earned F grades for more than a decade for everything from forged audits to inflating the value of medicines it distributes in developing countries.
There is this link from Charity Watch itself, but it does not mention SPLC
I had never heard of them but then they were interviewed on Fox News by Bill Oreilly, I think, some years back. Whoever they had as a representative didn't do them any favors in giving them a favorable impression to viewers. Their spokesman was shifty eyed and smarmy and seemed more intent on a partisan agenda than actually trying to help people. Oreilly was pretty civil with him but did ask him soem tough questions which the guy evaded or double talked around. In short, he was a putz.
Probably at one point they did serve a legitimate purpose but that was years ago. Now they've sold out and lack credibility and integrity. If they've made efforts to go after La Raza or the New Black Panthers, maybe I'll rethink my views of them.
I had never heard of them but then they were interviewed on Fox News by Bill Oreilly, I think, some years back. Whoever they had as a representative didn't do them any favors in giving them a favorable impression to viewers. Their spokesman was shifty eyed and smarmy and seemed more intent on a partisan agenda than actually trying to help people. Oreilly was pretty civil with him but did ask him soem tough questions which the guy evaded or double talked around. In short, he was a putz.
Probably at one point they did serve a legitimate purpose but that was years ago. Now they've sold out and lack credibility and integrity. If they've made efforts to go after La Raza or the New Black Panthers, maybe I'll rethink my views of them.
In all fairness, they actually they do keep track of the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers.
Almost 90% of what they do is fundraising, maybe 2% is keeping track of extremist groups known to preach violence, and the rest is trying to associate conservatives, libertarians, and SPLC critics to those same extremist groups.
If you look at the profiles of groups and certain individuals, they pretty on the level. A lot of neo-nazis, Klansmen, Holocaust Deniers, Black Separatists, and anti-gay groups like Westboro Bapist Church (although they seem to set the bar a little lower for their definition of anti-gay). So far so good. If you were to come up with a list of "hate groups" those organizations would fit the profile. Then when you look at their "Intelligence Reports" you see a lot more partisan shilling and a lot more guilt by association and a lot more of the SPLC appointing themselves as the PC police. Then you look into their activities and see that they spend almost all their efforts on fundraising. Oh. All of a sudden this group doesn't seem so noble. It seems like a source of income for its directors first, a partisan attack group second, and resource on potentially violent hate groups a distant third.
Yes, we know, anyone that points out radical right wing domestic terror cells is an extremist left wing group
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.
