Rage on the Right
- Thread starter apple0154
- Start date
Yeah, sure, I'm a neocon.
The one and only anti-war, pro gay rights, pro drug legalization, anti Patriot Act neocon. On those and many other issues, I make Obama look like Dick Cheney squared.So your argument is that they are a hate group because they don't like Obama? I was trying to be generous and give you another shot. But if that is what you want to go with then you have made my argument for me.
As for the birther stuff, their take is somewhat different, though clearly misguided. They do not argue that he was not born in the states. They argue that he is not a "natural born" citizen because his father is not a native. That's stupid and a tortured misreading of the Constitution but I fail to see how it makes them a hate group.
If you are going to just argue that a hate group is anyone that disagrees with you, then your charge is worthless. I would rather we did not water down that phrase by applying it to a bunch of harmless quacks. It's just like when some of the quacks compare Obama to Hitler or when MoveOn and other lefties did the same to Bush. While I don't like either Bush or Obama comparing them to Hitler, undermines the enormity of his evil. Likewise, calling a bunch blue haired quacks a hate group makes skinheads and the KKK seem like they are less vile.
Hyperbole is okay from time-to-time, but too much of it will just get you tuned out. It's crying wolf.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, sure, I'm a neocon.Look up the definition of "new conservative" or "neo-conservative", smiley. You talk the talk, you get the label.
So your argument is that they are a hate group because they don't like Obama? Did I say that? Nope....I'm very clear as to what I am saying and what the links are talking about. You should have gotten an adult to explain it to you. Try again. I was trying to be generous and give you another shot. But if that is what you want to go with then you have made my argument for me. Spare me the bluff an bluster...you're full of it, plain an simple. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you can honestly debate the issue at hand.
As for the birther stuff, their take is somewhat different, though clearly misguided. They do not argue that he was not born in the states. They argue that he is not a "natural born" citizen because his father is not a native. That's stupid and a tortured misreading of the Constitution but I fail to see how it makes them a hate group. It's a key talking point that is used by every hate group, neocon parrot, teabagger and such since Obama's candidacy....it's what they HAVE IN COMMON, no matter how YOU try to soft soap it. THAT is what the SPLC is pointing out...the COMMON GROUND that these groups share, and the degree to which they act on those beliefs.
If you are going to just argue that a hate group is anyone that disagrees with you, then your charge is worthless. And since I haven't done that, you're just blowing smoke....again. I would rather we did not water down that phrase by applying it to a bunch of harmless quacks. I would rather you spare me this bullshit attempt of yours to try and rewrite what I posted and linked, and what the SPLC was actually talking about. The chronology of the posts makes you a liar when you do this, you know. It's just like when some of the quacks compare Obama to Hitler or when MoveOn and other lefties did the same to Bush. While I don't like either Bush or Obama comparing them to Hitler, undermines the enormity of his evil. Likewise, calling a bunch blue haired quacks a hate group makes skinheads and the KKK seem like they are less vile.
Bottom line: the devil is in the details....pointing out the DOCUMENTED COMMON LANGUAGE, ACTIONS, AND BELIEFS of various militias and "grass roots" groups is hardly the same as making snide remarks and generalized comparisons by opposite political punditry. The FBI agent I cited was talking out of his hat, and to date, neither YOU or anyone else on this thread has logically or factually disproven what the SPLC put forth.
Hyperbole is okay from time-to-time, but too much of it will just get you tuned out. It's crying wolf.
That's nice.....get back to me when you can logically and factually disprove what I said, what I linked, and what the SPLC noted.
No, I am saying a couple nut jobs running off at the mouth does not make for a hate group. I am no more going to judge every Tea Party goer solely based on a couple quacks than I am going to judge Obama solely based on his preacher, Bill Ayers or Van Jones. In fact, I will refrain from any final judgment on those guys (excepting Ayers, fuck him) because all I really know is they made a few nutty comments.
To some degree, calling someone a member of a hate group could be called a veiled threat. It's similar to calling someone a terrorist or referring to a nation as being part of the "Axis of Evil." I DO want someone to keep an eye on (just don't entrap them) the real hate groups that repeatedly advocate initiations of force.
Saying something like, "the government can pry this gun from my cold dead hands" is just like the kid that talks about how he would do this and that IF faced with such and such a situation. When all you have is a bunch of IF statements, it's more than likely just the talk of a blowhard. And even if they truly mean to back it up, it is at best, advocacy of retaliatory force. Nothing wrong with noting the comments/commentator, but it is not a credible threat or even really a threat. Calling them a hate group only distracts from the real thing.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
claiming that conservatives are becoming more violent toward liberals is a lame argument....it's so lame I think we ought to chain you to a truck bumper and drag you down a gravel road just for raising it......
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry, but the quotes the SPLC uses are NOT just some old duffers spouting off....they said what they did in the official capacity of their groups representation. Likewise, they DO NOT condemn the heinous mouthings that can be shared by various hate groups with real criminal records. In short, the COMMONALITY of the language being used by the groups cited by the SPLC is valid.....trying to wash one hands of those you consider less sophisticated is going to cut it. Couple this with the FBI agent I point out, and you have a serious point of contention. If all these "benign" groups you point to refuse to change their rhetoric, then they are guilty of the same fear mongering and hate that their off shoots and parallel groups are.
Whatever. All you are doing now is showing how far over the cliff you are willing to go in your extremely broad generalizations.
All that you noted was criticism of Obama. What links?
Pot...
Are you kidding? Every birther is now a member of a hate group.
I do not and never have defended their stupid claims. Their argument makes me a bit uncomfortable and slightly suspicious of their motives, but I am not willing to judge them all based on that. You seem to like VERY broad brushes.
Everybody in politics has some association with a nut. We got plenty of elected nuts in both parties. Unfortunately, the nuts are everywhere. But the vast majority are harmless.
Up until this post that is all you did. Your entire argument was they criticized Obama and they are birthers.
The chronology is... I asked "where is the hate" you responded that they criticized Obama for things which they did not criticize Bush. That is wrong. They did criticize the Bush administration. The only thing that changed with Obama is their SPLC hate group label.
I am not arguing any "facts" they presented. I am arguing that guilt by association is how dumbasses form conclusions and using that too label them a "hate group" is counter productive.
Done and done. Their criticisms of the Bush admin are right there on their front page.
Since I am guessing you criticized Bush, does your agreement with them in that make you a hate group?
Last edited:
What quotes? I went back and the only thing I see in quotes was "don't push us too far." I assumed that was a paraphrase and it is clearly insane to argue that that is a credible threat meriting a hate group label.
Step over this line and see what I do. Errr, okay... Step over THIS line and see what I do. That's that. And frankly, I would hope that all of us would truly have some limit beyond which we would make good on such a "threat."
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Well Bozo, I have read both sites and if you think democracynow is not biased, then you are simply blinded by your partisan hackery.
Pretending the tea party groups are all about race and hate is absurd. Nor are they about anarchy. They want to lump them in with hate groups because they feel it will diminish their voice. They are wrong.
apple0154
MEOW
You are a kinky one, aren't you!!
Oh, well. We all have different tastes in erotica.
apple0154
MEOW
Roadapples don't have a core and they're allready brown.
Do I detect core envy?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
stringy is definitely a neocon. Neocons are not necessarily hung up on the social conservative issues. They're all about destroying the american middle class by outsourcing all the jobs and other idiotic globalist shit.
KingCondanomation
New member
String like most people on here IS middle class, why would he want to destroy himself? Can you stop it with this shit?
You know even the lefties have stopped talking about outsourcing, hoping people will forget that they declared it such a big problem back in 2004 when Kerry thought he found a way to foment some fear and ride it, when we all found out it was nothing.
But your opinion will argue that, so roll the facts:
1. Government statisticians reckon that outsourced jobs are responsible for well under 1% of those signed up as unemployed.
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2501977
2. We have economically, provably resulted in a net gain of jobs here when measuring countries outsourcing here to our outsourcing to other countries:
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2572245
Outsourcing is not a concern...at all. The Democrats always need a bogeyman when out of power.
In 1984 it was the big bad Japanese taking over all our companies.
In 1988 it was robots and machines displacing American workers.
In 1992 it was Mexico stealing all our jobs.
In 1996 Clinton's numbers were good, so no bogeyman.
In 2000 After 8 years of Democrat rule, a bogeyman would probably make Gore look bad, so none here either.
In 2004, a Republican (Bush) in office so bogeyman is China and India stealing all our jobs.
But now Obama is in so they don't need to throw any hobgoblins at you, yet you're still munching on their old one.
Who will fall for this again? Regular Americans are smart enough not to keep falling for the same fearmongering crap.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
He thinks mouthing elitist brainwash bromides like globalist stupidity will ingratiate him with the ruling elite.
You'll find regular american have bought into globalist idiocy hook line and sinker, because the internationalists fascists control media and education.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
If globalism is so great, why are we in the worst job situation since the great depression, you fucking idiot?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
We need a healthy dose of protectionism, common sense, and long term thinking.