If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WREG Memphis)   Extremist right wing groups increase to all time high since election of Obama 4 years ago. But don't you dare call them racists   (wreg.com) divider line 213
    More: Obvious, Southern Poverty Law Center, Mark Potok, right-wing, Mid South, racists, Nation of Islam  
•       •       •

1352 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-06 02:53:02 PM  

gayb: Okay, sure.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.


A) who are you talking to?
B) Neither all Republicans or all Independents have been labeled as racists in any Fark thread I've ever seen
C) if your part of a hate group, you are part of a hate group
 
2013-03-06 02:53:14 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-06 02:58:42 PM  

gayb: Okay, sure.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.


It's not that people who disagree with Obama are racist. It's simple: prominent members of the Republican Party have said the Voting Rights Act should be repealed. The official Republican Party platform is misogynistic and homophobic. Every male Republican in the Senate voted against an amendment that allowed defense contractors to be sued for allowing rape.

If you vote for the Republican Party you either support these points, or don't find them so objectionable as to remove your support. Therefore, you're either actively racist/homophobic/misogynistic or don't think racism/homophobia/misogyny is so bad as to justify voting for another party.

This is especially inane when the other party has a demonstrably better record on protecting "yuh freedoms" and fiscal responsibility.
 
2013-03-06 03:04:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I dunno. He was at Waco and watched 76 American citizens get cooked as it happened. If that doesn't bother you a little, you're one farked up individual. I guess it more than bothered him. But once again...does this justify his actions? Not in any way, shape or form.


It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?
 
Ab3
2013-03-06 03:09:34 PM  

Whiskey Pete: skullkrusher: Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 493x672]

can't we keep the hot women?

Hot Southern Woman pour vous:

[i1162.photobucket.com image 193x261]

You're welcome.


I'd hit it...
 
2013-03-06 03:15:02 PM  

what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?


The sickening irony does not escape me either.
 
2013-03-06 03:17:18 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?

The sickening irony does not escape me either.


You still sympathize with the guy, sure, but at least you can recognize irony.

McVeigh/Koresh in '16: They just want their country back
 
2013-03-06 03:23:00 PM  
Secret Right Wing Manifesto

1)  Believe minorities are born inferior and have inferior culture
2)  But say minorities have the same opportunities as everyone else and we're all created equal
3)  Cut off social programs because they're "racist" against those they help
4)  ?????
5)  Profit, hopefully tax-free
 
2013-03-06 03:24:09 PM  

The Muthaship: Satanic_Hamster: The Muthaship: SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

1. Fail to fully support the agenda of the SPLC with every word and deed.

Citation please.

There are tons of articles that cover it.  But, this is my opinion.  You are not obligated to either read the articles nor agree with me.  The FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage.  That led to a shooting.  But, the list is a cash cow for the SPLC, so it grows.


Typing "Sorry, upon further reflection I must admit that I do, indeed have nothing" would have saved you some effort and avoided racking up Derp points
 
2013-03-06 03:33:32 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: racking up Derp points


I think it would be awesome to have a "Dumbass" button next to "Smart" and "Funny" on each post - once you accumulate a certain number of dumbass points, your posts are automatically hidden like you were ignorelisted.
 
2013-03-06 03:34:52 PM  
Just shriek "RACIST!" because it's so much easier than actually thinking about it.

The dislike of Obama is almost entirely POLITICAL just like your burning hate of Bush was. Get over yourselves and quit lying about the reasons behind it to make yourselves feel more secure.
 
2013-03-06 03:36:41 PM  

randomjsa: almost entirely


Uh-huh.
 
2013-03-06 03:38:41 PM  

The Muthaship: what_now: But if you start defending the Family Research Counsel, you're going to get pushback.

Not defending them, honestly.  I disagree with everything they say.  But, I don't think they are a hate group.  They are fundies for sure.  They believe homosexuality is a sin.  They believe same sex marriage is a sin.  I still can't find anything credible that said they advocate violence of any kind.  The SPLC plays fast and loose with their labeling because it drives donations.  Unfortunately, it has consequences, too.  And, IMO, it casts them in a bad light.


I don't think that the SPLC ever stated that an organization needed to advocate violence to be on the list. You might think the list is too expansive, but I think it would be inaccurate to say they are "fast and loose" as to who goes on the list.
 
2013-03-06 03:41:04 PM  

randomjsa: Just shriek "RACIST!" because it's so much easier than actually thinking about it.

The dislike of Obama is almost entirely POLITICAL just like your burning hate of Bush was. Get over yourselves and quit lying about the reasons behind it to make yourselves feel more secure.


Well, on the upside, DIA hasn't made the most BS posts in this thread anymore. Congratulations.
 
2013-03-06 03:42:12 PM  

randomjsa: Just shriek "RACIST!" because it's so much easier than actually thinking about it.

The dislike of Obama is almost entirely POLITICAL just like your burning hate of Bush was. Get over yourselves and quit lying about the reasons behind it to make yourselves feel more secure.


cdnl.complex.com
 
2013-03-06 03:43:25 PM  

verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.


LOl'd
 
2013-03-06 03:50:08 PM  

Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd


Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.
 
2013-03-06 03:52:27 PM  

verbal_jizm: Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd

Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.


what percentage of the dislike for Obama is based in politics?
 
2013-03-06 03:53:21 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?

The sickening irony does not escape me either.


His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic.  He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.

I'm not saying those people individually deserved what they got.  But by working for the federal government, they were willing collaborators with the vast left wing conspiracy; little Eichmanns.  And in war, collateral damage sometimes happens.  McVeigh was trying to blow up a Federal building, it wasn't his fault there were people inside.  Isn't that the rationale you libs use when you defend 0bama's cowardly drone strikes?

I'm not necessarily defending McVeigh, not in public.  I'm just asking questions.  But you can see why, in the face of liberal tyranny, why doing that might have made sense.  Assuming it was his idea, and that it wasn't a false flag operation conducted by the CIA, MK-ULTRA, ACORN, and George Soros to justify rounding up real American patriots, of course.
 
2013-03-06 04:02:47 PM  

Parthenogenetic: His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic.


Not in the least.
 
2013-03-06 04:03:16 PM  

mediablitz: Dancin_In_Anson: adamgreeney: I'm with you, the guy would have found some justification for what he did

He had it in Ruby Ridge as well. I just think that Waco pushed him over the edge.

So Dancin_In_Anson admits he thinks the OKC bombing was justified.

And he has guns...


Stating McVeigh's justification = personally think it is justified?  Wow the derp is strong in this one.
 
2013-03-06 04:04:03 PM  

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd

Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.

what percentage of the dislike for Obama is based in politics?


It's hard to say much of the disagreement is over politics when the GOP is disagreeing on stuff that used to be their own policy.
 
2013-03-06 04:04:04 PM  

Parthenogenetic: His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic. He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.


Uh, you realize that Ruby Ridge happened under Bush the first, correct?
 
2013-03-06 04:10:28 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Parthenogenetic: His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic.

Not in the least.


Are you saying you support Clinton's attempted subversion of American sovereignty?

Just so you don't look bad in front of a bunch of libs in a Fark thread?

F*cking CINO.  You lack the courage of your convictions.

Come on, say it.  "McVeigh was right in principle, but his method of resisting liberal tyranny was not helpful to the movement."

Say it.   SAY IT!

www.movieactors.com
 
2013-03-06 04:10:30 PM  

HeadLever: Parthenogenetic: His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic. He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.

Uh, you realize that Ruby Ridge happened under Bush the first, correct?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 04:11:23 PM  

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd

Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.

what percentage of the dislike for Obama is based in politics?


The root of it is that like Clinton, he is a Democrat.  The fact he is black is really just icing on the cake.

Add in that he has managed to adopt some of the platform of the GOP, much like Clinton did, despite claims that he is the libbiest lib to ever lib and you have the grasping at straws (and arugula, and mustard choice, and all sorts of crying wolf) we see today.
 
2013-03-06 04:12:38 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Parthenogenetic: His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic.

Not in the least.


Oh, never mind.

I just realized that I misread your post.  You were responding to the first phrase in that sentence, not the second.

Carry on, then.
 
2013-03-06 04:14:02 PM  

meat0918: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd

Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.

what percentage of the dislike for Obama is based in politics?

The root of it is that like Clinton, he is a Democrat.  The fact he is black is really just icing on the cake.

Add in that he has managed to adopt some of the platform of the GOP, much like Clinton did, despite claims that he is the libbiest lib to ever lib and you have the grasping at straws (and arugula, and mustard choice, and all sorts of crying wolf) we see today.


Remember that he's an elitist (who was born into a broken family during a much more racist era and pulled himself up from those humble beginnings), but rich white guys of privilege are somehow men of the people. Never understood those talking points either...
 
2013-03-06 04:14:09 PM  

meat0918: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd

Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.

what percentage of the dislike for Obama is based in politics?

The root of it is that like Clinton, he is a Democrat.  The fact he is black is really just icing on the cake.

Add in that he has managed to adopt some of the platform of the GOP, much like Clinton did, despite claims that he is the libbiest lib to ever lib and you have the grasping at straws (and arugula, and mustard choice, and all sorts of crying wolf) we see today.


remember at the time that Clinton was the libbiest lib ever to lib even while in mid-triagulation?
 
2013-03-06 04:15:17 PM  

verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd

Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.

what percentage of the dislike for Obama is based in politics?

It's hard to say much of the disagreement is over politics when the GOP is disagreeing on stuff that used to be their own policy.


not really. If he were a black Republican taking those positions, I'd imagine he'd be "one of the good ones"
 
2013-03-06 04:18:51 PM  
They arent racist.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-06 04:29:30 PM  

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: Isitoveryet: verbal_jizm: randomjsa: almost entirely

Uh-huh.

LOl'd

Too bad he won't be back to defend his little thread shiat.

what percentage of the dislike for Obama is based in politics?

The root of it is that like Clinton, he is a Democrat.  The fact he is black is really just icing on the cake.

Add in that he has managed to adopt some of the platform of the GOP, much like Clinton did, despite claims that he is the libbiest lib to ever lib and you have the grasping at straws (and arugula, and mustard choice, and all sorts of crying wolf) we see today.

remember at the time that Clinton was the libbiest lib ever to lib even while in mid-triagulation?


I vaguely remember it from the time, but I was a hella confused teenager regarding politics and civics and who was what and why that mattered.

I do much more clearly remember during GWB's presidency hearing about how Clinton was super liberal and he was at fault for a whole host of issues Bush was facing, but I was a bit older then.
 
2013-03-06 05:12:08 PM  
Lumpmoose:
"[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of ...

Wow that's a lot of lies and bullshiat
 
2013-03-06 05:16:33 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?

The sickening irony does not escape me either.

His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic.  He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.

I'm not saying those people individually deserved what they got.  But by working for the federal government, they were willing collaborators with the vast left wing conspiracy; little Eichmanns.  And in war, collateral damage sometimes happens.  McVeigh was trying to blow up a Federal building, it wasn't his fault there were people inside.  Isn't that the rationale you libs use when you defend 0bama's cowardly drone strikes?

I'm not necessarily defending McVeigh, not in public.  I'm just asking questions.  But you can see why, in the face of liberal tyranny, why doing that might have made sense.  Assuming it was his idea, and that it wasn't a false flag operation conducted by the CIA, MK-ULTRA, ACORN, and George Soros to justify rounding up real American patriots, of course.


So, the UnaBomber should be revered too as well then?.....
 
2013-03-06 05:20:42 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Parthenogenetic: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?

The sickening irony does not escape me either.

His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic.  He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.

I'm not saying those people individually deserved what they got.  But by working for the federal government, they were willing collaborators with the vast left wing conspiracy; little Eichmanns.  And in war, collateral damage sometimes happens.  McVeigh was trying to blow up a Federal building, it wasn't his fault there were people inside.  Isn't that the rationale you libs use when you defend 0bama's cowardly drone strikes?

I'm not necessarily defending McVeigh, not in public.  I'm just asking questions.  But you can see why, in the face of liberal tyranny, why doing that might have made sense.  Assuming it was his idea, and that it wasn't a false flag operation conducted by the CIA, MK-ULTRA, ACORN, and George Soros to justify rounding up real American patriots, of course.

So, the UnaBomber should be revered too as well then?.....


*sigh*  The "Little Eichmanns" reference didn't trigger a little red flag?  Fine.

No.  No, the UnaBomber is completely different.  So were the Weather Underground.  You see, they were liberal terrorists, not patriots.
 
2013-03-06 05:36:05 PM  
Polly Ester 2013-03-06 12:49:35 PM

DERP!! DERP!! Derpity dooooooooooooooooo!!


(farky'd as: 7453966 carrying health insurance is childish & irresponsible)
 
2013-03-06 05:42:01 PM  

gayb: Okay, sure.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.


that's why the GOP will keep losing. They think a little racist-woman-hating is a-okay, so long as the dow's up.
 
2013-03-06 06:09:58 PM  

gayb: Okay, sure.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.


Rewind to 2001:

"Terrorist sympathizer" now includes not only all Democrats, but even nominal Republicans like myself who value sh*t President Bush doesn't.  Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms.  Because if you aren't an apologist for Bush's incompetence, you're part of the f*cking "I hate America, viva Bin Laden" hate group.

So yeah, I feel your pain.  But both sides are bad.  So, um, vote Republican.

/not Republican any longer
 
2013-03-06 06:22:45 PM  

Parthenogenetic: /not Republican any longer


That's pretty much how I felt in 2002. I wasn't quite prepared for how evil-intentioned the patriot act was at the time, but it didn't take long for it to sink in.

I still vote, but fill in only a tiny percentage of the ballot. Bible-thumping nationalists and mindless condescending liberals are two sides of the same highly destructive coin.
 
2013-03-06 06:42:00 PM  

gayb: Parthenogenetic: /not Republican any longer

That's pretty much how I felt in 2002. I wasn't quite prepared for how evil-intentioned the patriot act was at the time, but it didn't take long for it to sink in.

I still vote, but fill in only a tiny percentage of the ballot. Bible-thumping nationalists and mindless condescending liberals are two sides of the same highly destructive coin.


Well, mindless liberals might be more destructive if they were represented by anyone in the House, Senate, or White House.
 
2013-03-06 06:48:20 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-06 07:53:04 PM  

EyeballKid: And the biggest tragedy of Dave Koresh and Tim McVeigh is that had they managed to stay alive to now, there's a strong likelihood they'd have been strong contenders for the 2016 Tea Party ticket.


Bacon & Boom-Boom in 2016!
 
2013-03-06 08:23:18 PM  
These right-wingers who criticize Obama make me sick.  He should authorize some drone strikes on their ass.  If they surrender they should be waterboarded to determine the locations of their sympathizers.
 
2013-03-06 09:08:48 PM  

Swagulus: These right-wingers who criticize Obama make me sick.  He should authorize some drone strikes on their ass.  If they surrender they should be waterboarded to determine the locations of their sympathizers.


no, that's your play in Iraq and Afghanistan. We libruls just show them clips of Sarah Palin eating corn dogs until they break; it never takes too long.
 
2013-03-06 09:10:44 PM  
(we've got a special CG three way with palin, scalia, and coulter lined up for you, my friend)
 
2013-03-06 09:10:54 PM  
What is with this Southern Poverty Law Center anyway? Most victims of Southern poverty are White, far right, and uptight. They probably feel kinship with these groups SPLC is trying to combat. Maybe they ought to just change their name.
 
2013-03-06 10:13:00 PM  

i upped my meds-up yours: What is with this Southern Poverty Law Center anyway? Most victims of Southern poverty are White, far right, and uptight. They probably feel kinship with these groups SPLC is trying to combat. Maybe they ought to just change their name.


1.bp.blogspot.com

you do know lots and lots of unsuccessful yet mesmerizingly attractive people live there, right? Something about being forced to work without pay or representation at gun point and on the pain of death for a couple hundred of years. perhaps you history no good. no thinky. more thinky next time!
 
2013-03-06 10:54:36 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Reverend Monkeypants: Parthenogenetic: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?

The sickening irony does not escape me either.

His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic.  He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.

I'm not saying those people individually deserved what they got.  But by working for the federal government, they were willing collaborators with the vast left wing conspiracy; little Eichmanns.  And in war, collateral damage sometimes happens.  McVeigh was trying to blow up a Federal building, it wasn't his fault there were people inside.  Isn't that the rationale you libs use when you defend 0bama's cowardly drone strikes?

I'm not necessarily defending McVeigh, not in public.  I'm just asking questions.  But you can see why, in the face of liberal tyranny, why doing that might have made sense.  Assuming it was his idea, and that it wasn't a false flag operation conducted by the CIA, MK-ULTRA, ACORN, and George Soros to justify rounding up real American patriots, of course.

So, the UnaBomber should be revered too as well then?.....

*sigh*  The "Little Eichmanns" reference didn't trigger a little red flag?  Fine.

No.  No, the UnaBomber is completely different.  So were the Weather Underground.  You see, they were liberal terrorists, not patriots.


As someone who actually sat down and read his manifesto, you'll actually find the Unabomber was incredibly conservative.  He hated liberalism, advocated bootstrappiness, the whole thing was about the defense of liberty and how the evil liberals and scientists were going to destroy freedom.
 
2013-03-06 11:13:39 PM  

ColdFusion: As someone who actually sat down and read his manifesto, you'll actually find the Unabomber was incredibly conservative.  He hated liberalism, advocated bootstrappiness, the whole thing was about the defense of liberty and how the evil liberals and scientists were going to destroy freedom.


I've read his manifesto as well.  He's somewhat difficult to pigeonhole into one of the standard contemporary political camps.

I thought his fears of a dark, technological dystopia were interesting.  The hippies who hate pervasive corporatism and the sovereign citizens who fear the New World Order probably share the same enemy.
 
2013-03-07 04:30:30 AM  

Parthenogenetic: I thought his fears of a dark, technological dystopia were interesting. The hippies who hate pervasive corporatism and the sovereign citizens who fear the New World Order probably share the same enemy.


...because the right-wingers fear the evil jack-booted corporations.

Wait...most of them think those corporations are the ones keeping the big, bad, EEEEEEBIL gubmint in check.

/If you're not as scared of corporations as you are of the government, there is something wrong with you.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report