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
 
2013-03-06 11:03:37 AM  
i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 11:04:53 AM  
Awww ... just like the last time a Democrat was president.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:05 AM  
Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....
 
2013-03-06 11:06:39 AM  

The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....


Oh, PLEASE elaborate!
 
2013-03-06 11:07:35 AM  
It takes a lot of nerve for an organization who's acronym spells "SPlC" to accuse other groups of being racist.
 
2013-03-06 11:07:37 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

"What's wrong with being racy?"
 
2013-03-06 11:08:19 AM  
Ric Romero reporting.
 
2013-03-06 11:09:04 AM  

Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!


Care to tell us why the Southern Poverty Law Center is a bad citation? Or better yet, care to provide some conflicting documentation?
 
2013-03-06 11:10:34 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Awww ... just like the last time a Democrat was president.


This.
 
2013-03-06 11:12:05 AM  

Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!


SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

1. Fail to fully support the agenda of the SPLC with every word and deed.
 
2013-03-06 11:12:46 AM  
The  Republican base seems to always grow when a democrat is in charge.
 
2013-03-06 11:13:03 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-06 11:14:35 AM  
Racists are not "right wing" but we shouldn't expect much from a left wing baby butcher.
 
2013-03-06 11:14:37 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Awww ... just like the last time a Democrat was president.


Yeah, these people still have the democrat=liberal=socialist=communist=facists=dictator=hitler mentality.  So anytime there is a democrat in office they panic.
The fact that the president is a Black Demcrat with a funny name only adds to their fears.
 
2013-03-06 11:15:31 AM  

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.


OH? Can you provide the name of a group on the list that you feel isn't hateful?
 
2013-03-06 11:16:40 AM  

The Muthaship: Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!

SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

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


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 11:16:55 AM  
eyeopenpodcast.com

/Not this shiat again
 
2013-03-06 11:17:34 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-06 11:17:49 AM  

The Muthaship: Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!

SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

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


Yes, perhaps the Aryan Terror Brigade is really a knitting club?
 
2013-03-06 11:17:52 AM  
A lot of Socialists and black separatist on that list. This list would double if they would count the unions.
 
2013-03-06 11:18:21 AM  

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.


Are these Storm Front or Townhall articles?
 
2013-03-06 11:20:11 AM  

angrymonday: A lot of Socialists and black separatist on that list. This list would double if they would count the unions.


Yes, because I see a lot of Unions hating on particular groups of people because of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
 
2013-03-06 11:20:19 AM  
I've always wondered, and maybe you can help answer this for me, The Muthaship: who ranks higher, a Grand Wizard, or a Grand Dragon?
 
2013-03-06 11:20:28 AM  

The Muthaship: he FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage.


The Family Research Counsel? That's what your going with? The organization that calls homosexuals pedophiles?
 
2013-03-06 11:22:22 AM  
Hey The Muthaship , do you think  discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is acceptable?
 
2013-03-06 11:22:23 AM  

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.


Then it should be easy to present one.
 
2013-03-06 11:22:38 AM  

The Muthaship: 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.


Really?  I was under the impression it was because they advocated violence, incarceration, and hatred of homosexuals and due to their constant demonizing of gays, including claiming that all gays plan to rape children.
 
2013-03-06 11:24:10 AM  
Neo Nazis in New Berlin, WI.

Words.  They escape me.
 
2013-03-06 11:24:12 AM  

what_now: The Muthaship: he FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage.

The Family Research Counsel? That's what your going with? The organization that calls homosexuals pedophiles?


FRC : Advocates of traditional marriage

KKK : Advocates of traditional knot tying
 
2013-03-06 11:24:24 AM  

what_now: The Muthaship: Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!

SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

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

Yes, perhaps the Aryan Terror Brigade is really a knitting club?


You've never seen one of their tea cozies.  I'm still having PTSD.
 
2013-03-06 11:24:37 AM  

The Muthaship: Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!

SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

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


Aaaaaand with that we may now safely dismiss anything you say ever again. Thank you for your service.
 
2013-03-06 11:25:04 AM  
You guys really can't take a little dissent in the CJ, can you?

Satanic_Hamster: I was under the impression it was because they advocated violence, incarceration, and hatred of homosexuals and due to their constant demonizing of gays, including claiming that all gays plan to rape children.


First I've heard of that, but I will look into it without bothering to ask you to do my Googling for me.
 
2013-03-06 11:25:54 AM  

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.


Let's look at some of the fun:

"The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. ...It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."
- Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

"Those who understand the homosexual community-the activists-they're very aggressive, they're-everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."
-Tony Perkins, Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

"We believe the evidence shows ... that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."
- Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011.

"While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. ... It is a homosexual problem."
- FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

"[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force - in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military."
- Peter Sprigg, "Homosexual Assault in the Military," 2010

"A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."
-- Timothy Dailey, FRC publication, "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," 2002

"Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement."
- Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

"[Homosexuality] ... embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion."
- Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in "Desecrating Corpus Christi," 1999

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."
-1999 FRC publication, "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," Robert Knight and Frank York


It has nothing to do with marriage.
 
2013-03-06 11:26:11 AM  
Hey The Muthaship, why do you hate gays and therefore X-Men, Lord of the Rings and Apt Pupil?
 
2013-03-06 11:26:24 AM  
was kinda scanning and saw "Dozens of these groups were found in the tri-state."

NY, NJ and CT????! WTF??

Then went back and saw where the article was from.
Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.

ah, ok. Carry on.
 
2013-03-06 11:27:38 AM  

The Muthaship: You guys really can't take a little dissent in the CJ, can you?

Satanic_Hamster: I was under the impression it was because they advocated violence, incarceration, and hatred of homosexuals and due to their constant demonizing of gays, including claiming that all gays plan to rape children.

First I've heard of that, but I will look into it without bothering to ask you to do my Googling for me.


No, I'm happy to hear anything you have to say. But if you start defending the Family Research Counsel, you're going to get pushback. These are bad people who do bad things.
 
2013-03-06 11:27:55 AM  
The Non-hateful NRC's stance on Homosexuality from Wiki:


Statements on homosexualityAccording to the Family Research Council, "homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed" and it is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects."[19] The Council also asserts that "there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn".[19] An , the case that overturned sodomy laws on privacy grounds.[20] The summary of the amicus curiae brief declares that "States may discourage the 'evils' ... of sexual acts outside of marriage by means up to and including criminal prohibition" and that it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#cite_note-21">[21 ] acts".[22] Similar positions have been advocated by representatives of the organisation since the Supreme Court case was decided in 2003.

In February 2010, the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, [25][26] Perkins repeated the FRC's association of gay men with pedophilia, stating: "If you look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#cite_note-Nov29Ha rdball-25">[25][26] The opinions expressed by Perkins are contradicted by mainstream social science research on same-sex parenting,[27] and on the likelihood of child molestation by homosexuals and [27][28] Some scientists whose work is cited by the American College of Pediatricians - a small conservative organization which was formed when the [29] The opinions and statements made by Sprigg and Perkins in 2010 contributed to the decision by the Intelligence Report.[30]
 
2013-03-06 11:28:08 AM  

tnpir: The Muthaship: Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!

SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

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

Aaaaaand with that we may now safely dismiss anything you say ever again. Thank you for your service.


The sad thing is, he MIGHT have an argument against the SPLC, but using the FRC as an example.... he has chosen..... pooooorly.
 
2013-03-06 11:29:02 AM  
It doesn't necessarily indicate that they're racist.  The entire "Obama is a Muslim socialist fascist that is coming to take your guns and force feed your children kale" tone that has been pushed by the right wing since his first election is enough to convince the type of mentally handicapped individuals that would be willing to join these types of groups in the first place to do so.
 
2013-03-06 11:29:03 AM  
It's almost like the spread of social media does more than just allows hipsters to take pictures of food and post them on them on Instagram. It's not really that big of a deal since by using social media they lose the one strength they had before, anonymity.  It's really hard to commit acts of violence when your using Facebook to organize Klan rallies.
 
2013-03-06 11:29:42 AM  

coeyagi: Hey The Muthaship, why do you hate gays and therefore X-Men, Lord of the Rings and Apt Pupil?


Gandalf hit on my then 16 year old Brother-in-Law. My wife has a pic of her and her 2 bros with Sir Ian standing behind my BIL, hands lovingly resting on his shoulders.
Did back off when told of his age though

/CSB
 
2013-03-06 11:29:43 AM  

skullkrusher: was kinda scanning and saw "Dozens of these groups were found in the tri-state."

NY, NJ and CT????! WTF??

Then went back and saw where the article was from.
Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.

ah, ok. Carry on.


DE, MD, PA.

PA, MD, NJ.

NJ, PA, NY

the Mid-Atlantic Pythagorean triples are piling up, bro.
 
2013-03-06 11:31:29 AM  

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.


In 2003, former Marine and Louisiana state representative Anthony Richard "Tony" Perkins became president of the FRC after a failed 2002 run for one of Louisiana's U.S. Senate seats. Under his leadership, the group continues to peddle its false claims about homosexuality and has made combating the "homosexual agenda" a seemingly obsessive interest.

In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins against Mary Landrieu, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a "retrograde species of humanity." Perkins claimed not to know the group's ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation, because in 1999 - two years before Perkins' speech to the CCC - Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had been embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to the group. GOP chairman Jim Nicholson then urged Republicans to avoid the CCC because of its "racist views."
 
2013-03-06 11:31:42 AM  

skullkrusher: was kinda scanning and saw "Dozens of these groups were found in the tri-state."

NY, NJ and CT????! WTF??

Then went back and saw where the article was from.
Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.

ah, ok. Carry on.


Well, it was either Tri-state or "Where the Dumbfarks Grow"
 
2013-03-06 11:32:06 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-06 11:32:15 AM  

skullkrusher: was kinda scanning and saw "Dozens of these groups were found in the tri-state."

NY, NJ and CT????! WTF??

Then went back and saw where the article was from.
Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.

ah, ok. Carry on.


There are 38 hate groups in NY, everything from the Klan to the Nation of Islam and my favorite "Help Rescue our Children"
 
2013-03-06 11:32:25 AM  

coeyagi: skullkrusher: was kinda scanning and saw "Dozens of these groups were found in the tri-state."

NY, NJ and CT????! WTF??

Then went back and saw where the article was from.
Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.

ah, ok. Carry on.

DE, MD, PA.

PA, MD, NJ. PA, DE, NJ

NJ, PA, NY

the Mid-Atlantic Pythagorean triples are piling up, bro.



FTFM
 
2013-03-06 11:32:50 AM  

coeyagi: Hey The Muthaship, why do you hate gays and therefore X-Men, Lord of the Rings and Apt Pupil?


I love everybody, but Wolverine sucked.
 
2013-03-06 11:33:44 AM  

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.


The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.
 
2013-03-06 11:34:19 AM  

skullkrusher: was kinda scanning and saw "Dozens of these groups were found in the tri-state."

NY, NJ and CT????! WTF??

Then went back and saw where the article was from.
Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.

ah, ok. Carry on.




Geez, why am I not surprised? For some reason TN has become a hotbed of these kind of groups, to the point where you can hardly walk across a field without stumbling over one of them. I'm just glad we moved out of that state before it took off on its backwards slide.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:21 AM  

what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.


They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me.  The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:58 AM  

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.


Hate group, or "enabler of hate" group.  Whatever the f*ck you want to call them, they know that they incite hate. And so do you.

Remember Fox News:  "We're just asking questions here. Did Obama know about Benghazi and if so, did that cause the death of 4 Americans?"

Fox News Viewers:  "Nig**r!  We hate him, he stinks!  Murica!"
 
2013-03-06 11:38:30 AM  

The Muthaship: what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.

They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me.  The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.


No, they hate the shiat out of the sinner, too, and work hard to deny them/us civil rights. There is not one group on the SPLC's list that didn't earn it.
 
2013-03-06 11:39:28 AM  

coeyagi: The sad thing is, he MIGHT have an argument against the SPLC, but using the FRC as an example.... he has chosen..... pooooorly.


You might be right. The thing is, summarily dismissing the SPLC is like summarily dismissing the ACLU - for the most part, they're right, you just hate the messenger.

The SPLC may in fact mislabel some groups as hate groups when they are not. But my experience with the SPLC says this rarely, if ever, happens.
 
2013-03-06 11:40:28 AM  
Is this a repeat from 1995?
 
2013-03-06 11:42:24 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Is this a repeat from 1995?


Was it true in 1995?
 
2013-03-06 11:44:09 AM  

The Muthaship: what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.

They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me.  The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.


Ok, so...a hate group. They hate a certain group of people based on a characteristic. And if you read the thread, you'll see several people have provided citations about how evil this group really is.

In fact, I'd say their far WORSE than the Klan. The Klan is a joke. The Klan is marginalized. Tony Perkins gets to hang out with Senators and presidential candidates.
 
2013-03-06 11:44:34 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Is this a repeat from 1995?


No, there wasn't an influx of Muslims into the mid-South in 1995, plus 9/11 hadn't happened yet so rednecks hadn't added Muslims to the list of peoples who make them piss their pants like a bunch of cowards.  If anything this rise in groups is the natural mechanics of demographic change in the area.
 
2013-03-06 11:44:38 AM  

The Muthaship: what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.

They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me.  The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.


"Throw them in prison for the rest of their lives" is not just against the sin. Sorry.
 
2013-03-06 11:46:34 AM  

WTF Indeed: Dancin_In_Anson: Is this a repeat from 1995?

No, there wasn't an influx of Muslims into the mid-South in 1995, plus 9/11 hadn't happened yet so rednecks hadn't added Muslims to the list of peoples who make them piss their pants like a bunch of cowards.  If anything this rise in groups is the natural mechanics of demographic change in the area.


To be fair, the rednecks were always afraid of Muslims. Just not as much.
 
2013-03-06 11:48:16 AM  
The problem with the SPLC isn't so much their list of "hate groups." They have a long list, and most of the organizations listed are pretty much "oh, yeah, hate group."

The problem is that they list a lot of "groups" that are pretty much "some guy with a web site or a mailing address and maybe his cousin." A bunch of them don't even have actual web sites. Not exactly a big group if you can't even manage that.

Here's the Wikified version of the SPLC list: Link

You'll see a lot of the same old names on there... the KKK, Westboro, Nation of Islam.

You also see a lot of "who in the hell are those guys, and why are the only mentions I can find of them from the SPLC?" This category makes up the bulk of the "increase in extremist right wing groups." SPLC basically counted every mention they could link to a vague "right wing extremist" label, and pretended that an increase in tiny little groups they could list was some sort of indicator of an increase in "right wing extremism."
 
2013-03-06 11:48:49 AM  

coeyagi: what_now: The Muthaship: he FRC made the list for being advocates of traditional marriage.

The Family Research Counsel? That's what your going with? The organization that calls homosexuals pedophiles?

FRC : Advocates of traditional marriage

KKK : Advocates of traditional knot tying


+1
 
2013-03-06 11:50:49 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Dancin_In_Anson: Is this a repeat from 1995?

Was it true in 1995?



Do you mean, were there religious fundamentalist "the gubmint gon' git mah guns" Chicken Littles who armed themselves to the teeth and endangered the lives of others for the sake of pushing their bullshiat narrative?

www.ticklethewire.com  upload.wikimedia.org
Yeah, I guess you could say we had a few of those...
 
2013-03-06 11:52:52 AM  

The Muthaship: They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me.


Nope, they hate the sinner too. Happy to see them executed.
 
2013-03-06 11:53:23 AM  

what_now: To be fair, the rednecks were always afraid of Muslims. Just not as much.


Southerns are afraid of anyone that ain't their kin. Which is the entire world.
 
2013-03-06 11:53:26 AM  

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


can't we keep the hot women?
 
2013-03-06 11:53:34 AM  

cirby: The problem with the SPLC isn't so much their list of "hate groups." They have a long list, and most of the organizations listed are pretty much "oh, yeah, hate group."

The problem is that they list a lot of "groups" that are pretty much "some guy with a web site or a mailing address and maybe his cousin." A bunch of them don't even have actual web sites. Not exactly a big group if you can't even manage that.

Here's the Wikified version of the SPLC list: Link

You'll see a lot of the same old names on there... the KKK, Westboro, Nation of Islam.

You also see a lot of "who in the hell are those guys, and why are the only mentions I can find of them from the SPLC?" This category makes up the bulk of the "increase in extremist right wing groups." SPLC basically counted every mention they could link to a vague "right wing extremist" label, and pretended that an increase in tiny little groups they could list was some sort of indicator of an increase in "right wing extremism."



How many members should a group have before you feel it's worth considering it a hate group?  Is "number of members" a good criterion for that?
 
2013-03-06 11:54:02 AM  

WTF Indeed: what_now: To be fair, the rednecks were always afraid of Muslims. Just not as much.

Southerns are afraid of anyone that ain't their kin. Which is the entire world.


now, now. This is a lovely thread. No need to get stupid all over it.
 
2013-03-06 11:54:31 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Was it true in 1995?


You tell me.


EyeballKid: Yeah, I guess you could say we had a few of those...


Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.
 
2013-03-06 11:58:06 AM  

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

can't we keep the hot women?


Hot Southern Woman pour vous:

i1162.photobucket.com

You're welcome.
 
2013-03-06 12:00:14 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Whiskey Pete: Was it true in 1995?

You tell me.


EyeballKid: Yeah, I guess you could say we had a few of those...

Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.


Don't you have some wild hogs to shoot, Derpin' In Anson?
 
2013-03-06 12:01:34 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Awww ... just like the last time a Democrat was president.


Worse actually.
 
2013-03-06 12:02:41 PM  

Whiskey Pete: Don't you have some wild hogs to shoot, Derpin' In Anson?


That's the best response you've got? Weaksauce.
 
2013-03-06 12:03:04 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.


there was an image of a hot woman on that book cover. Plus there are a pretty good number of hot women down there.
 
2013-03-06 12:03:39 PM  
Its really not frank racism. It's a Democrat in the White House. We saw the exact same thing happen blossom under Clinton, though the violent fringe right really started in the early ninities in response to GHWB and "new world order" paranoia,, and it culminated in OKC, Erc Rudoplh and eventually Columbine. (/11 was really what put a stop to it for about a decade, and Obama's election concided with the resurgence of domestic hate groups, but in a macro sense, its not that he's black, although that doesn't hurt, its that he represents a threatening federal power and we don't really have an external enemy to unite us right now.  the USA has a long, long history of violent radicalism across the political spectrum and it only ever goes away when we have a moment of cultural unity, like a war or an economic boom that raises everyone's fortunes, and that hasn't happened since the late 70's.
 
2013-03-06 12:05:40 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.


The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco so his messiah complex could meet a self-fulfilling prophecy; the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.
 
2013-03-06 12:06:33 PM  

willfullyobscure: Its really not frank racism. It's a Democrat in the White House. We saw the exact same thing happen blossom under Clinton, though the violent fringe right really started in the early ninities in response to GHWB and "new world order" paranoia,, and it culminated in OKC, Erc Rudoplh and eventually Columbine. (/11 was really what put a stop to it for about a decade, and Obama's election concided with the resurgence of domestic hate groups, but in a macro sense, its not that he's black, although that doesn't hurt, its that he represents a threatening federal power and we don't really have an external enemy to unite us right now.  the USA has a long, long history of violent radicalism across the political spectrum and it only ever goes away when we have a moment of cultural unity, like a war or an economic boom that raises everyone's fortunes, and that hasn't happened since the late 70's.


I was told 9/11 changed everything.

I know I was told to go shopping.
 
2013-03-06 12:07:04 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Whiskey Pete: Don't you have some wild hogs to shoot, Derpin' In Anson?

That's the best response you've got? Weaksauce.


* yawn *
 
2013-03-06 12:09:08 PM  

EyeballKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.

The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco so his messiah complex could meet a self-fulfilling prophecy; the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.


And we have a halfwit on here defending both of them. Lovely.
 
2013-03-06 12:09:36 PM  

The Muthaship: what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.

They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me.  The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.


Using phony studies and outright lies to claim that homosexuals sexually abuse children at astronomical rates is not "just against the sin."  It is slander, and particularly vile, hateful slander at that.

The SPLC specifically mentions they do NOT list groups that merely base their beliefs on biblical scripture.
 
2013-03-06 12:10:04 PM  

what_now: Hey The Muthaship , do you think  discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is acceptable?


The Family Research Counsel lobbies to exclude gays from anti-bullying laws because, you know, God says we should beat up the scrawny kids we think are gay. Yep, the FRC is in no way a hate group.
 
2013-03-06 12:10:22 PM  

EyeballKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.

The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco so his messiah complex could meet a self-fulfilling prophecy; the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.


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.
 
2013-03-06 12:11:46 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.


Have you ever read Them: Adventures with Extremists? It's a good book and sums this stuff up nicely.


But I won't deny that OC was inspired by Waco
 
2013-03-06 12:14:39 PM  

Whiskey Pete: EyeballKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.

The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco so his messiah complex could meet a self-fulfilling prophecy; the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.

And we have a halfwit on here defending both of them. Lovely.


Well, obviously, the Gubmint deliberately torched the Waco compound because they're Saturday morning cartoon villains, afraid of the True Conservative Patriots inside. That makes so much more sense than 'A lunatic cult leader deliberately martyred himself and his followers', because that sort of thing never happens.
 
2013-03-06 12:18:46 PM  
Tri-state area?.... Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated

Klansmen coming to Memphis to rally March 30th will not be allowed to wear their infamous hoods, which many in the city believe will stop a large showing of the KKK, but the SPLC says Klansmen will still come, regardless.
"Many states have anti-masking laws. Most Klansmen are used to this," said Potok.


Anti masking laws?  Never new this was a thing.  How the heck is that even legal?
 
2013-03-06 12:21:37 PM  

willfullyobscure: We saw the exact same thing happen blossom under Clinton, though the violent fringe right really started in the early ninities in response to GHWB and "new world order" paranoia,, and it culminated in OKC, Erc Rudoplh and eventually Columbine. (/11 was really what put a stop to it for about a decade, and Obama's election concided with the resurgence of domestic hate groups, but in a macro sense, its not that he's black, although that doesn't hurt, its that he represents a threatening federal power and we don't really have an external enemy to unite us right now. the USA has a long, long history of violent radicalism across the political spectrum and it only ever goes away when we have a moment of cultural unity, like a war or an economic boom that raises everyone's fortunes, and that hasn't happened since the late 70's.


Stretches back to John Birch and anti-catholic rhetoric surrounding the JFK presidency too.

And, oh, look, another Koch reference. Koch involved in the founding of the John Birch Society.
 
2013-03-06 12:23:17 PM  
You know how you beat hate groups? Make them public, and mock them every chance you can. Take the oomph out of their sails

/that's how the Hammerskins became more than just the name for the gay steel industry
//hot stuff coming through
 
2013-03-06 12:25:07 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.


Er, the one on the left explicitly said he timed his attack to coincide with the incident involving the one in the right? That's what kinda gave it away for me.
 
2013-03-06 12:25:28 PM  

EyeballKid: The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco


Do whut?

EyeballKid: the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.


Actually his motivation in part was Waco. Does this justify his actions? Not in any way shape or form, however, had AFT picked Jebus Wannabe on his daily jog instead of busting into a compound full of his armed followers, chances are, 85 men women and children would not have been killed and at least one of his government demons would not have existed. Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC.

Whiskey Pete: * yawn *


Exactly.

Whiskey Pete: And we have a halfwit on here  defending both of them.

Where? This guy?

somedude210: But I won't deny that OC was inspired by Waco

 
2013-03-06 12:30:54 PM  
Glad to see that this thread hasn't been derailed by someone pretending to not understand obvious things.
 
2013-03-06 12:30:56 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: somedude210: But I won't deny that OC was inspired by Waco


....what the hell did I do to you?

McVagh said that what the government did at Waco inspired him to commit OC

Christ, it's not like I said that Korresh was right and the gubmint was wrong with Waco
 
2013-03-06 12:32:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: however, had AFT picked Jebus Wannabe on his daily jog instead of busting into a compound full of his armed followers, chances are, 85 men women and children would not have been killed and at least one of his government demons would not have existed. Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC


and if the US hadn't had based in Saudia Arabia, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

There is value in figuring out why people do terrible things, but at the end of the day, you need to blame the terrible people.
 
2013-03-06 12:32:54 PM  
Yeah I saw the Nation of Islam on there. They have a worship/social center in Memphis. But mostly they bake a lot of bean pies, advocate diet reform and complain about Whitey. Farrakhan's tirades against 'Jews' are straight out of the New Testament, like a lot of psuedo-Christian groups. I guess I'm not as concerned with them at this time.

/Lord loves a workin' man, see a doctor and get rid of it
 
2013-03-06 12:34:21 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: EyeballKid: The guy on the right, a failed musician who "turned to God," blamed the government for his shortcomings, so he let a bunch of innocent women and children be killed in Waco

Do whut?

EyeballKid: the fellow to the left, a failed soldier who couldn't find work, blamed the government for his shortcomings, and he decided to show that mean ol' gubmint what's what by killing a bunch of women and children in Oklahoma City.

Actually his motivation in part was Waco. Does this justify his actions? Not in any way shape or form, however, had AFT picked Jebus Wannabe on his daily jog instead of busting into a compound full of his armed followers, chances are, 85 men women and children would not have been killed and at least one of his government demons would not have existed. Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC.

Whiskey Pete: * yawn *

Exactly.

Whiskey Pete: And we have a halfwit on here  defending both of them.

Where? This guy?

somedude210: But I won't deny that OC was inspired by Waco


So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco, and would have just carried on with his life and been a happy dude? Come on. Anyone willing to commit murder on that scale is farked up to begin with. He would have found another "justification" for his acts. You're better than this.
 
2013-03-06 12:34:49 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC.


And had those evil dogs not corrupted sweet, impressionable David Berkowitz...
 
2013-03-06 12:35:31 PM  

adamgreeney: You're better than this.


No he's not.
 
2013-03-06 12:36:01 PM  

EyeballKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC.

And had those evil dogs not corrupted sweet, impressionable David Berkowitz...


And if those tasty thighs hadn't tempted Jeffrey Dahmer . . .
 
2013-03-06 12:37:03 PM  
Of course... These people are scared shiatless of anything that doesn't fit their narrow-minded view of what America should be. They surround themselves with like-minded idiots and lots and lots of firearms for the coming race war (which has been coming for last 50 years or so, I guess).

Same thing happened during Clinton's tenure.

People who join these groups (including the FRC) are paranoid, reactionary, scared, bigoted, provincial fundamentalists.

They're free to be so, of course, but if they step over the line, I fully support coming down on these cretins like a ton of bricks. Try them, convict them, throw their ignorant asses in jail for as long as allowed by law, seize their property and land and give it to their victims. I have no problem with any of that.
 
2013-03-06 12:37:44 PM  

blastoh: Slaves2Darkness: Awww ... just like the last time a Democrat was president.

Yeah, these people still have the democrat=liberal=socialist=communist=facists=dictator=hitler mentality.  So anytime there is a democrat in office they panic.
The fact that the president is a Black Demcrat with a funny name only adds to their fears.


Yeah, I remember NPR interviewed one of the guys that runs Stormfront or one of the other RW hate groups who was excited that we had a black president.

He was excited because it was going to drive membership to groups like his.
 
2013-03-06 12:37:46 PM  

adamgreeney: So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco, and would have just carried on with his life and been a happy dude? Come on. Anyone willing to commit murder on that scale is farked up to begin with. He would have found another "justification" for his acts. You're better than this.


whoa whoa whoa, I merely pointed out that waco was McVeigh's motivation (his words). He'd probably find something else, but that was his "last straw"
 
2013-03-06 12:40:24 PM  

Misch: willfullyobscure: We saw the exact same thing happen blossom under Clinton, though the violent fringe right really started in the early ninities in response to GHWB and "new world order" paranoia,, and it culminated in OKC, Erc Rudoplh and eventually Columbine. (/11 was really what put a stop to it for about a decade, and Obama's election concided with the resurgence of domestic hate groups, but in a macro sense, its not that he's black, although that doesn't hurt, its that he represents a threatening federal power and we don't really have an external enemy to unite us right now. the USA has a long, long history of violent radicalism across the political spectrum and it only ever goes away when we have a moment of cultural unity, like a war or an economic boom that raises everyone's fortunes, and that hasn't happened since the late 70's.

Stretches back to John Birch and anti-catholic rhetoric surrounding the JFK presidency too.

And, oh, look, another Koch reference. Koch involved in the founding of the John Birch Society.


Goes back a mite further than that, friend:

media.smithsonianmag.com
 
2013-03-06 12:40:39 PM  

somedude210: adamgreeney: So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco, and would have just carried on with his life and been a happy dude? Come on. Anyone willing to commit murder on that scale is farked up to begin with. He would have found another "justification" for his acts. You're better than this.

whoa whoa whoa, I merely pointed out that waco was McVeigh's motivation (his words). He'd probably find something else, but that was his "last straw"


I realize. It was Derpin_in_Anson who said we wouldn't have had OKC without Waco. I'm with you, the guy would have found some justification for what he did
 
2013-03-06 12:40:56 PM  
FloydA:
How many members should a group have before you feel it's worth considering it a hate group? Is "number of members" a good criterion for that?

I'm thinking "more than two" is a good starting point. I wouldn't consider a group worth mentioning until it had at least a dozen members, to be honest.

When you get down to it, though, a lot of those "groups" are really just splinters from previous organizations. The Klan is a good example: most of those multiple Klan groups listed are much smaller groups that split off from the old-school Klan over the years - and each time they splintered, they lost total membership. Usually, when you split a hundred-person group, you end up with two groups totaling much fewer people - often less than half of the original.

When the group most people think of as "The KKK" was at its peak in the 1920s, it had as many as six million members. It was basically one big group, with lots of chapters. Nowadays, there are dozens of completely separate "Klan" groups in the US - with about 5,000 members, combined. But each time one of those chapters splits, the SPLC notes it as an "increase in hate groups," instead of mentioning that total membership is still dropping.

Heck, one of the "hate groups" SPLC lists is a blog by a woman who criticizes Islam. Listed as a "hate group," and it's one person.  Not a particularly hateful blog, either - mostly, it's just stuff that CAIR dislikes.
 
2013-03-06 12:42:04 PM  

The Muthaship: But, this is my opinion.


Translated: I want to remain willfully ignorant about the level of racism and hatred in this country...
 
2013-03-06 12:43:19 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Without Waco, chances are you wouldn't have OKC.


i.imgur.com

1) Waco was not his only motivation..he also cited other incidents, and he attempted to forge links with Elohim City in OK. 2) It might not be the best policy to take mass murderers immediately at their word without some sort of suspicion.

/tmyk
//excellent book
 
2013-03-06 12:43:25 PM  

adamgreeney: So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco


I'm thinking it would have removed one of his primary motivators (Ruby Ridge was another)

EyeballKid: And had those evil dogs not corrupted sweet, impressionable David Berkowitz.


Not even in the same ballpark, son.

somedude210: McVagh said that what the government did at Waco inspired him to commit OC


I know. Quoting you was directed to the guy that called me (and ostensibly you) a "halfwit" and accusing us of somehow defending McVeigh for pointing out that he did indeed state that Waco was one of his motivations.
 
2013-03-06 12:45:41 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-06 12:46:15 PM  

cirby: Heck, one of the "hate groups" SPLC lists is a blog by a woman who criticizes Islam. Listed as a "hate group," and it's one person. Not a particularly hateful blog, either


Fark is well aware of Pamela Geller and her activism in the "Conservative" movement. In the age of the Internet, evil charismatic people can amass quite a following. You can ask Grover Norquist about that.
 
2013-03-06 12:46:42 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I'm thinking it would have removed one of his primary motivators (Ruby Ridge was another)


So what you're saying is that he had multiple reasons to do it and he probably would have done it anyway?

Shocking.
 
2013-03-06 12:46:51 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: adamgreeney: So you're saying that McVeigh wouldn't have committed OKC without Waco

I'm thinking it would have removed one of his primary motivators (Ruby Ridge was another)

EyeballKid: And had those evil dogs not corrupted sweet, impressionable David Berkowitz.

Not even in the same ballpark, son.

somedude210: McVagh said that what the government did at Waco inspired him to commit OC

I know. Quoting you was directed to the guy that called me (and ostensibly you) a "halfwit" and accusing us of somehow defending McVeigh for pointing out that he did indeed state that Waco was one of his motivations.


And you don't think he would have found another motivation? Really? He would have just moved on and never planted a bomb?

Listen, I know as a crazy person it's hard to dissect how your people think, but he was intent on mass murder. He would have found another "reason." Waco really had nothing to do with it. There would have been another event or "slight" that he would have picked up and carried out the bombing anyway.
 
2013-03-06 12:47:34 PM  

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


Why is it the bootstrappiest of the bootstrappy are always the first to scapegoat the government for their own problems? What happened to rugged individualism?
 
2013-03-06 12:48:48 PM  
Somacandra:
Yeah I saw the Nation of Islam on there. They have a worship/social center in Memphis. But mostly they bake a lot of bean pies, advocate diet reform and complain about Whitey. Farrakhan's tirades against 'Jews' are straight out of the New Testament, like a lot of psuedo-Christian groups. I guess I'm not as concerned with them at this time.

Wow - you don't know much of anything about Nation of Islam or Farrakhan, do you?

Here's the SPLC's take on Nation of Islam: Link

...and to save some time, here's the New Black Panther Party, which is becoming more heavily affiliated/intertwined with the Nation of Islam: Link
 
2013-03-06 12:48:55 PM  

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

Why is it the bootstrappiest of the bootstrappy are always the first to scapegoat the government for their own problems? What happened to rugged individualism?


It died at Ruby Ridge.
 
2013-03-06 12:49:15 PM  

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

Why is it the bootstrappiest of the bootstrappy are always the first to scapegoat the government for their own problems? What happened to rugged individualism?


Well, building that bomb out of home materials was pretty bootstrappy.... maybe that's why he's a hero to these people.
 
2013-03-06 12:49:35 PM  
We had an upswing in unemployed liberal arts majors loitering in public parks for a while too.

Did that have something to do with Obama?
 
2013-03-06 12:50:30 PM  

Polly Ester: We had an upswing in unemployed liberal arts majors loitering in public parks for a while too.

Did that have something to do with Obama?


Nope.
 
2013-03-06 12:51:50 PM  

Polly Ester: We had an upswing in unemployed liberal arts majors loitering in public parks for a while too.

Did that have something to do with Obama?


I actually don't know any unemployed liberal arts majors. All the unemployed I know have either no degree or a STEM degree....
 
2013-03-06 12:52:31 PM  
I apologize to halfwits the world over.
 
2013-03-06 12:54:12 PM  

Whiskey Pete: I apologize to halfwits the world over.


what about us quarterwits? Racist.
 
2013-03-06 12:55:22 PM  
Somacandra:
Fark is well aware of Pamela Geller and her activism in the "Conservative" movement. In the age of the Internet, evil charismatic people can amass quite a following. You can ask Grover Norquist about that.

...and yet, she's still one person, and listed by the SPLC as a "group."

One person is not a "group," no matter how much you want there to be a Great Right Wing Extremist Conspiracy.

She's mean-spirited, and generally crazy and conspiracy-mongering, but still... not a group.
 
2013-03-06 12:56:43 PM  

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

Why is it the bootstrappiest of the bootstrappy are always the first to scapegoat the government for their own problems? What happened to rugged individualism?

Well, building that bomb out of home materials was pretty bootstrappy.... maybe that's why he's a hero to these people.


i.cdn.turner.com
"I BUILT THAT!!"
 
2013-03-06 12:57:30 PM  

skullkrusher: Whiskey Pete: I apologize to halfwits the world over.

what about us quarterwits? Racist.


As an eighthwit I carbuncle that potato.
 
2013-03-06 01:06:26 PM  

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

Why is it the bootstrappiest of the bootstrappy are always the first to scapegoat the government for their own problems? What happened to rugged individualism?


Look, the guy whose highest paying job was as a basic Sergeant (E-5), and whose housing and food allowances were non-taxable, and who didn't have ANY of his pay taxed while serving in the Gulf War, due to the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion, was just being crushed to death by high taxes.
 
2013-03-06 01:06:51 PM  

Whiskey Pete: skullkrusher: Whiskey Pete: I apologize to halfwits the world over.

what about us quarterwits? Racist.

As an eighthwit I carbuncle that potato.


as an Octowi... oh nevermind
 
2013-03-06 01:19:06 PM  

The Muthaship: what_now: The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't advocate violence either.

They are more of a hate the sinner and the sin group, it seems to me.  The FRC, deluded as they are, seems like they are just against the sin.


The FRC lobbied congress to NOT pass a resolution decrying the Ugandan "kill the gays" bill (now the "imprison gays for life") bill.  Tony Perkins has also praised the Ugandan President for his stands on morality, though he denies that it's about this particular set of morality in particular.

They may not actively be advocating killing gay people, but they are treading into "won't someone rid me of these meddlesome queers" territory.
 
2013-03-06 01:24:47 PM  

cirby: Heck, one of the "hate groups" SPLC lists is a blog by a woman who criticizes Islam. Listed as a "hate group," and it's one person. Not a particularly hateful blog, either - mostly, it's just stuff that CAIR dislikes.


You don;t consider the content that Pam Geller rights "particularly hateful".  Have you read it?
 
2013-03-06 01:26:38 PM  

cirby: Somacandra:
Yeah I saw the Nation of Islam on there. They have a worship/social center in Memphis. But mostly they bake a lot of bean pies, advocate diet reform and complain about Whitey. Farrakhan's tirades against 'Jews' are straight out of the New Testament, like a lot of psuedo-Christian groups. I guess I'm not as concerned with them at this time.

Wow - you don't know much of anything about Nation of Islam or Farrakhan, do you?

Here's the SPLC's take on Nation of Islam: Link

...and to save some time, here's the New Black Panther Party, which is becoming more heavily affiliated/intertwined with the Nation of Islam: Link


I know nothing about the New Black Panther Party, other than that a couple of black guys were hanging out at a polling station someplace. In my book, they're a farking joke. The Nation of Islam, OTH, is bad shiat. From time to time, recordings of speeches or sermons by Farrakhan have come my way. They're good entertainment, as he truly is utterly, completely, batshiat crazy. You wonder how people sitting in the pews at the "mosque" can keep a straight face, but then in one he started praising Elijah Mohammed for having people killed for perceived insufficient zeal. It wasn't just Malcolm X, it was guys who didn't sell enough literature. The non-laughter began to make a shade more sense.
 
2013-03-06 01:28:39 PM  

The Muthaship: You guys really can't take a little dissent in the CJ, can you?


Farkers are mostly fine with dissent. However, if you can't give an well-informed, evidence-based, logically reasoned basis for the dissent, they won't dignify your position with anything beyond mockery and LOL-cat pictures.
 
2013-03-06 01:36:41 PM  
This just proves that Obama is the most divisive President ever.
 
2013-03-06 02:02:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is that he had multiple reasons to do it and he probably would have done it anyway?


Well, when I said  "I just think that Waco pushed him over the edge." The answer to your question is no. Thanks for playing though.

adamgreeney: And you don't think he would have found another motivation?


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.

EyeballKid: Derp.


meat0918: Derpy


adamgreeney: Derpity


EyeballKid: Derp

.

Indeed.
 
2013-03-06 02:05:49 PM  

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...
 
2013-03-06 02:06:04 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.


You mean the same FRC that publishes documents advocating the death penalty for homosexuality and provides "documentation" that homosexuals want to abolish age of consent laws because deep down they're all pedophiles?

Yeah, that's a bit more than "being advocates for traditional marriage."
 
2013-03-06 02:06:45 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Not in any way, shape or form.


Except when asked if Waco justified his actions just a few posts earlier, you said yes.
 
2013-03-06 02:11:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: adamgreeney: And you don't think he would have found another motivation?

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.


If that inspires you to blame the government (instead of the lunatic cult leader who intentionally martyred himself and his followers) and blow up a building, then you're an even MORE farked up individual.
 
2013-03-06 02:11:53 PM  

mediablitz: Dancin_In_Anson: Not in any way, shape or form.

Except when asked if Waco justified his actions just a few posts earlier, you said yes.


Do you think DIA is an idiot?
 
2013-03-06 02:12:47 PM  

Lord Dimwit: You mean the same FRC that publishes documents advocating the death penalty for homosexuality and provides "documentation" that homosexuals want to abolish age of consent laws because deep down they're all pedophiles?

Yeah, that's a bit more than "being advocates for traditional marriage."


Notice that the Douche/trollship disappeared from the thread after people started giving examples.   "But he's not defending them."

SPLC haters; come on, you can do better then this.  SURELY you can find good examples of non-hate groups that were falsely labeled as hate groups.
 
2013-03-06 02:13:44 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...


Its always the sane and reasonable ones who need guns...to kill pigs.
 
2013-03-06 02:18:12 PM  

mediablitz: So Dancin_In_Anson admits he thinks the OKC bombing was justified.


mediablitz: Except when asked if Waco justified his actions just a few posts earlier, you said yes.


Show your work.

LordJiro: If that inspires you to blame the government (instead of the lunatic cult leader who intentionally martyred himself and his followers) and blow up a building, then you're an even MORE farked up individual.


McVeigh. Defined.
 
2013-03-06 02:21:19 PM  
I have needed a good thread like this to remind me of Derpin' in Anson's low, low mental capacity. Can somebody please make him a McVeigh/Koresh '16 T-shirt or poster?
 
2013-03-06 02:28:18 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-06 02:29:00 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is that he had multiple reasons to do it and he probably would have done it anyway?

Well, when I said  "I just think that Waco pushed him over the edge." The answer to your question is no. Thanks for playing though.

adamgreeney: And you don't think he would have found another motivation?

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.

EyeballKid: Derp.

meat0918: Derpy

adamgreeney: Derpity

EyeballKid: Derp.

Indeed.


Well, then lets just say this then.

Extremist right wing groups:  Not racist, but #1 with racists.
 
2013-03-06 02:30:33 PM  

EyeballKid: I have needed a good thread like this to remind me of Derpin' in Anson's low, low mental capacity. Can somebody please make him a McVeigh/Koresh '16 T-shirt or poster?


That's some lame ass shiat right there. Come on, man. If you're going to flame me get you back into it.
 
2013-03-06 02:33:59 PM  
You can call right wing extremists "racist," but don't call them "Shirley."
 
2013-03-06 02:35:30 PM  

abb3w: Farkers are mostly fine with dissent. However, if you can't give an well-informed, evidence-based, logically reasoned basis for the dissent, they won't dignify your position with anything beyond mockery and LOL-cat pictures.


I assume this is a joke.
 
2013-03-06 02:36:50 PM  
gayb
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.

Gosh, it must be so hard being you.
 
2013-03-06 02:41:08 PM  

Saiga410: Tri-state area?.... Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated

Klansmen coming to Memphis to rally March 30th will not be allowed to wear their infamous hoods, which many in the city believe will stop a large showing of the KKK, but the SPLC says Klansmen will still come, regardless.
"Many states have anti-masking laws. Most Klansmen are used to this," said Potok.

Anti masking laws?  Never new this was a thing.  How the heck is that even legal?


www.joblo.com
 
2013-03-06 02:45:10 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 the violin that's playing for you.
 
2013-03-06 02:49:02 PM  

Nabb1: You can call right wing extremists "racist," but don't call them "Shirley."


"Ava" is OK, though... : )
 
2013-03-06 02:49:47 PM  

somedude210: Dancin_In_Anson: Funny you mention those two. Tell me what happened to the guy on the right and how that may have inspired the one on the left.

Have you ever read Them: Adventures with Extremists? It's a good book and sums this stuff up nicely.


But I won't deny that OC was inspired by Waco


I'm pretty sure it was inspired by The Turner Diaries, with a sprinkling of Ruby Ridge and a dash of Waco. I know it was the Waco anniversary, but I bet McVeigh would try to kill Koresh if we ThunderDomed them.
 
2013-03-06 02:50:35 PM  

cirby: She's mean-spirited, and generally crazy and conspiracy-mongering, but still... not a group.


And has lots of adherents that hang on her every word.  Like Anders Breivik.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=pamela+geller+anders+breivik&ie=utf-8 &o e=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
 
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.
 
2013-03-07 07:38:22 AM  

Saiga410: Stating McVeigh's justification = personally think it is justified? Wow the derp is strong in this one.


"To understand something does not mean approval of it"

Something quite lost on self righteous here on Fark.
 
2013-03-07 07:49:21 AM  

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.


Would you like a hand with moving those goalposts?
 
2013-03-07 07:54:17 AM  

IlGreven: 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.


You don't see the potential for the state and corporations to work against individual liberty?

Hippies and sovereign citizens want to be left alone to smoke weed and play GI Joe, respectively.

The state does not like non-conforming citizens, and would like to monitor, harass, and jail them.  Corporations can make a lot of money selling weapons and surveillance gear to the state, as well as incarcerating the prisoners.

Oddly, despite the tone of what I just wrote, I am not some unruly-coiffed tinfoil hat-wearing hippie/prepper living on the margins of society; I'm a suburban, middle class sheeple.

Surely there are other "normal" people who don't like the encroaching Nanny/surveillance state?
 
2013-03-07 08:37:01 AM  
Is this one of those tea party equals hate, ows equals love stories
 
2013-03-07 10:09:00 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Saiga410: Stating McVeigh's justification = personally think it is justified? Wow the derp is strong in this one.

"To understand something does not mean approval of it"

Something quite lost on self righteous here on Fark.


"A Derp saved is a Derp earned"
 
2013-03-07 01:00:14 PM  

The Muthaship: Whiskey Pete: The Muthaship: Ah, the SPLC.

Moving along.....

Oh, PLEASE elaborate!

SPLC requirements for being labeled a hate group:

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


Not even close. You sound like butthurt Chrisitian. calling gays pedophiles, regularly, calling them peverted, in need or therapy, sinners, calling them the downfall of society, etc. gets you labeled a hate group. YOU GET YOUR OWN OPINIONS; FACTS ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE.
 
2013-03-07 01:23:54 PM  

abb3w: The Muthaship: You guys really can't take a little dissent in the CJ, can you?

Farkers are mostly fine with dissent. However, if you can't give an well-informed, evidence-based, logically reasoned basis for the dissent, they won't dignify your position with anything beyond mockery and LOL-cat pictures.


How does DIA keep getting bites then?
 
2013-03-07 01:31:36 PM  
teh mutha f**ka ship
 
2013-03-07 01:42:50 PM  

Zafler: abb3w: The Muthaship: You guys really can't take a little dissent in the CJ, can you?

Farkers are mostly fine with dissent. However, if you can't give an well-informed, evidence-based, logically reasoned basis for the dissent, they won't dignify your position with anything beyond mockery and LOL-cat pictures.

How does DIA keep getting bites then?


You're welcome.
 
2013-03-07 02:04:05 PM  

Whiskey Pete: You're welcome.


No, some people still respond seriously to him.
 
2013-03-07 02:12:35 PM  

Zafler: No, some people still respond seriously to him.


Most of them have above room temperature IQs. The rest can only respond with....wait for it....
 
2013-03-07 09:11:00 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Surely there are other "normal" people who don't like the encroaching Nanny/surveillance state?


I think there's a great deal of disagreement among the general public about how much "encroaching" is going on and how much of a "nanny/surveillance state" there is.
 
2013-03-08 11:22:10 AM  

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.


Depends on who you ask, I guess.  Still just loons railing against the system.  UnaBomber's targets were generally corporate tools but his gripe was with the government/society allowing it to happen.  His intentions were seriously patriotic as well and he was out for what he believed was in everyone's best interest.
/not defending
 
Displayed 213 of 213 comments

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