"Donald Trump Can Suck My...."-Typical Anti-Trump loser

[flockofseagulls104]

The SPLC is itself a hate group. It's 'hate list' includes many groups who legitimately belong there, but it also shows its political bent by labeling many mainstream conservative groups as 'hate' groups. It especially targetted Tea Party groups. It also doesn't like evangelical Christian organizations. It once put Dr. Ben Carson on one of its 'hate' lists. Also Maajid Nawaz. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz). So tell me who is objective, SSS.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/ ... s-why.html

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/8 ... eign-firms

I guess dailykos would be 'objective' to you.

[silverscreenselect]

The Daily Kos article appeared in a diary, which is an entry by one of the hundreds of people who contribute articles to Daily Kos. While the diarists are liberal, they aren't all of a single mind, unlike much of what appears on right wing sites.

In any event, the Kos article has the same flaw that the Daily Beacon article has, namely reporting on the SPLC in isolation without comparing it to other charities. And that's what Charity Navigator has done, compare the SPLC to other similar entities and found that it ranks VERY high in accountability and transparency and that its net worth isn't shocking in terms of what major charities are worth.

As for charities investing in offshore accounts, this article explains the reasoning:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

The SPLC's definition of "hate group" is "all hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." They have 130 black separatist groups on their hate list, hardly a sign of a monolithic "left wing" group.

The SPLC doesn't just list hate groups and individuals; they give the reasoning on their site why a person or organization is listed. Going to your Fox News article, I looked up the people mentioned. Among them is Cliff Kincaid, president of Accuracy in Media. Here's what SPLC found:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ff-kincaid

As for the specific allegation Fox News made about Kincaid and global warming ("SPLC has singled [Kincaid] out for challenging global warming"), here's what SPLC says:

But Kincaid is fast and loose with the truth whether the subject is LGBT influence, environmentalists, President Obama, or immigration. For instance, while there is consensus among the vast majority of climatologists worldwide that the earth is warming and human activity is the cause, Kincaid sees a scam perpetrated by the "religious left," among others. In a December 2009 column on NewWithViews.com, he tried to buttress this allegation by quoting from a bizarre book by James Wanliss, a physics professor at tiny Presbyterian College in South Carolina.

Wanliss argues that the environmental movement "is a religion with a vision of sin and repentance, heaven and hell. Its communion is organic food. Its sacraments are sex, abortion, and when all else fails, sterilization. Its saints are Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Both professing Protestants and Roman Catholics bear a burden of guilt for the current political mess we are in with the global warming and other hysterias."

As for Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsa Ali, here's what SPLC has to say about them:

https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/jour ... ists#nawaz

The SPLC isn't perfect. No organization that tries to keep tabs on as many disparate groups and people as they do can be. And there is some merit to the accusation that they do promote themselves a good bit, as many charities do (Beebs posted salaries of head Red Cross officials that dwarf what Morris Dees makes). But the SPLC does conduct extensive research (the anti-Muslim extremist list was the result of research by four separate organizations), something that its critics like Flock rarely do. And a large part of the problem isn't an isolated questionable inclusion (and an attempt to rebut the facts that led to that inclusion) but the very thought that, increasingly, "mainstream" conservative groups are adopting postures and making statements that aren't all that far removed from what the real nutcases are saying.

But rather than taking the SPLC to task on the specifics of any particular designation it has made, those like Flock choose instead to let Hannity, Fox, and Breitbart do their thinking for them and bemoan the increased inclusion of "mainstream" groups as hate groups.

[mrkelley23]

The Daily Kos article appeared in a diary, which is an entry by one of the hundreds of people who contribute articles to Daily Kos. While the diarists are liberal, they aren't all of a single mind, unlike much of what appears on right wing sites.

In any event, the Kos article has the same flaw that the Daily Beacon article has, namely reporting on the SPLC in isolation without comparing it to other charities. And that's what Charity Navigator has done, compare the SPLC to other similar entities and found that it ranks VERY high in accountability and transparency and that its net worth isn't shocking in terms of what major charities are worth.

As for charities investing in offshore accounts, this article explains the reasoning:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

The SPLC's definition of "hate group" is "all hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." They have 130 black separatist groups on their hate list, hardly a sign of a monolithic "left wing" group.

The SPLC doesn't just list hate groups and individuals; they give the reasoning on their site why a person or organization is listed. Going to your Fox News article, I looked up the people mentioned. Among them is Cliff Kincaid, president of Accuracy in Media. Here's what SPLC found:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ff-kincaid

As for the specific allegation Fox News made about Kincaid and global warming ("SPLC has singled [Kincaid] out for challenging global warming"), here's what SPLC says:

But Kincaid is fast and loose with the truth whether the subject is LGBT influence, environmentalists, President Obama, or immigration. For instance, while there is consensus among the vast majority of climatologists worldwide that the earth is warming and human activity is the cause, Kincaid sees a scam perpetrated by the "religious left," among others. In a December 2009 column on NewWithViews.com, he tried to buttress this allegation by quoting from a bizarre book by James Wanliss, a physics professor at tiny Presbyterian College in South Carolina.

Wanliss argues that the environmental movement "is a religion with a vision of sin and repentance, heaven and hell. Its communion is organic food. Its sacraments are sex, abortion, and when all else fails, sterilization. Its saints are Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Both professing Protestants and Roman Catholics bear a burden of guilt for the current political mess we are in with the global warming and other hysterias."

As for Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsa Ali, here's what SPLC has to say about them:

https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/jour ... ists#nawaz

The SPLC isn't perfect. No organization that tries to keep tabs on as many disparate groups and people as they do can be. And there is some merit to the accusation that they do promote themselves a good bit, as many charities do (Beebs posted salaries of head Red Cross officials that dwarf what Morris Dees makes). But the SPLC does conduct extensive research (the anti-Muslim extremist list was the result of research by four separate organizations), something that its critics rarely do. And a large part of the problem isn't an isolated questionable inclusion (and an attempt to rebut the facts that led to that inclusion) but the very thought that, increasingly, "mainstream" conservative groups are adopting postures and making statements that aren't all that far removed from what the real nutcases are saying.

I apologize for editing your post, SSS. But I wanted to see what it looked like without all the personal attacks. To me, this is a much stronger and more persuasive rebuttal, and I only had to remove 3 lines. Something to think about.

[flockofseagulls104]

increasingly, the mainstream of the democrat party is adopting postures and making statements that aren't all that far removed from what the real nutcases are saying.

I think the above is a much more accurate statement.

[flockofseagulls104]

The Daily Kos article appeared in a diary, which is an entry by one of the hundreds of people who contribute articles to Daily Kos. While the diarists are liberal, they aren't all of a single mind, unlike much of what appears on right wing sites.

In any event, the Kos article has the same flaw that the Daily Beacon article has, namely reporting on the SPLC in isolation without comparing it to other charities. And that's what Charity Navigator has done, compare the SPLC to other similar entities and found that it ranks VERY high in accountability and transparency and that its net worth isn't shocking in terms of what major charities are worth.

As for charities investing in offshore accounts, this article explains the reasoning:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

The SPLC's definition of "hate group" is "all hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." They have 130 black separatist groups on their hate list, hardly a sign of a monolithic "left wing" group.

The SPLC doesn't just list hate groups and individuals; they give the reasoning on their site why a person or organization is listed. Going to your Fox News article, I looked up the people mentioned. Among them is Cliff Kincaid, president of Accuracy in Media. Here's what SPLC found:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ff-kincaid

As for the specific allegation Fox News made about Kincaid and global warming ("SPLC has singled [Kincaid] out for challenging global warming"), here's what SPLC says:

But Kincaid is fast and loose with the truth whether the subject is LGBT influence, environmentalists, President Obama, or immigration. For instance, while there is consensus among the vast majority of climatologists worldwide that the earth is warming and human activity is the cause, Kincaid sees a scam perpetrated by the "religious left," among others. In a December 2009 column on NewWithViews.com, he tried to buttress this allegation by quoting from a bizarre book by James Wanliss, a physics professor at tiny Presbyterian College in South Carolina.

Wanliss argues that the environmental movement "is a religion with a vision of sin and repentance, heaven and hell. Its communion is organic food. Its sacraments are sex, abortion, and when all else fails, sterilization. Its saints are Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Both professing Protestants and Roman Catholics bear a burden of guilt for the current political mess we are in with the global warming and other hysterias."

As for Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsa Ali, here's what SPLC has to say about them:

https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/jour ... ists#nawaz

The SPLC isn't perfect. No organization that tries to keep tabs on as many disparate groups and people as they do can be. And there is some merit to the accusation that they do promote themselves a good bit, as many charities do (Beebs posted salaries of head Red Cross officials that dwarf what Morris Dees makes). But the SPLC does conduct extensive research (the anti-Muslim extremist list was the result of research by four separate organizations), something that its critics rarely do. And a large part of the problem isn't an isolated questionable inclusion (and an attempt to rebut the facts that led to that inclusion) but the very thought that, increasingly, "mainstream" conservative groups are adopting postures and making statements that aren't all that far removed from what the real nutcases are saying.

I apologize for editing your post, SSS. But I wanted to see what it looked like without all the personal attacks. To me, this is a much stronger and more persuasive rebuttal, and I only had to remove 3 lines. Something to think about.

He's got some kind of obsession with Hannity.

[BackInTex]

He's got some kind of obsession with Hannity.

He thinks Hannity has powerballs.

[silverscreenselect]

increasingly, the mainstream of the democrat party is adopting postures and making statements that aren't all that far removed from what the real nutcases are saying.

I think the above is a much more accurate statement.

And unlike, the SPLC, which devotes thousands of words (I'd say hundreds of pages, but that's a bit tough to measure accurately on a website) documenting its research, all you come up with is an unsubstantiated claim.

[flockofseagulls104]

increasingly, the mainstream of the democrat party is adopting postures and making statements that aren't all that far removed from what the real nutcases are saying.

I think the above is a much more accurate statement.

And unlike, the SPLC, which devotes thousands of words (I'd say hundreds of pages, but that's a bit tough to measure accurately on a website) documenting its research, all you come up with is an unsubstantiated claim.

Oh, yes. They devote LOTS of words. Quantity of words is important. How many words did they devote to branding Ben Carson as a person worthy of putting on their hate watch list? How many pages did they write about local Tea Party groups whose only crime was that they held conservative views?

I read your link to the 'anti muslim extremist' list. What a bunch of hogwash. But there are a lot of words, and many letters in those words. Doesn't mean any of the words are true. Many of the 'examples' of their hate were extremely reasonable observations by thoughtful people. But maybe not politically correct, as they define it. When you are a far-left extremist, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a far right loonie. And the best way to debate them is to brand them as 'haters', unworthy of consideration. That way you don't have to engage in a debate of ideas. That's the SPLC and the far left in a nutshell.

[silverscreenselect]

increasingly, the mainstream of the democrat party is adopting postures and making statements that aren't all that far removed from what the real nutcases are saying.

I think the above is a much more accurate statement.

And unlike, the SPLC, which devotes thousands of words (I'd say hundreds of pages, but that's a bit tough to measure accurately on a website) documenting its research, all you come up with is an unsubstantiated claim.

Oh, yes. They devote LOTS of words. Quantity of words is important. How many words did they devote to branding Ben Carson as a person worthy of putting on their hate watch list? How many pages did they write about local Tea Party groups whose only crime was that they held conservative views?

If you would care to list some of these "local Tea Party groups whose only crime was that they held conservative views," we can see why the SPLC listed them and decide. As for Ben Carson, here's a link to their statement when they removed him from their list:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default ... eb2015.pdf

And, unlike your accusation, Carson was never on the SPLC's hate watch list. Instead, he was on the Extremist List. As the SPLC says:

The Extremist Files database contains profiles of various prominent extremists and extremist organizations. It also examines the histories and core beliefs – or ideologies – of the most common types of extremist movements. In addition, it illustrates connections between individuals, groups and extremist ideologies.

*Not all extremist groups are SPLC-designated "hate groups." All SPLC-designated hate groups can be viewed on the Hate Map or in list form.

You denigrate words, but you don't read them. Perhaps you should, both those written and uttered by the groups you try to defend and by the SPLC and similar organizations before you make a blanket condemnation.