'About 60 Organizations' Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Settlement

originally posted by: Metallicus
Hopefully it drives these morons out of business for good. Their policy is to call anyone that doesn’t agree with them a hate group.

Quite agree.

They called me I think a domestic terrorist because I voted for Ron Paul...

Time for them to go.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Metallicus
Hopefully it drives these morons out of business for good. Their policy is to call anyone that doesn’t agree with them a hate group.

Quite agree.

They called me I think a domestic terrorist because I voted for Ron Paul...

Time for them to go.

Why Yes, you must be the alt right

www.splcenter.org...

At the heart of the alt-right is a break with establishment conservatism that favors experimentation with the ideas of the French New Right; libertarian thought as exemplified by former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas); anarcho-capitalism, which advocates individual sovereignty and open markets in place of an organized state; Catholic traditionalism, which seeks a return to Roman Catholicism before the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council; and other ideologies.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Gothmog
Yeah , I read this some time back. Looks as if the SPLC just "googled" "anti- group" and published all the names that came up...

Oh NO! They are as devious and anti Constitutional Republic as David Brock and his followers of Media Matters and Share Blue. Make no mistakes about it, the SPLC is as anti American as Karl Marx!

What ?
Now I am confused....
Please elucidate and elaborate.
I do know Media Matters is funded by George Soros.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Metallicus
Hopefully it drives these morons out of business for good. Their policy is to call anyone that doesn’t agree with them a hate group.

Quite agree.

They called me I think a domestic terrorist because I voted for Ron Paul...

Time for them to go.

Why Yes, you must be the alt right

www.splcenter.org...

At the heart of the alt-right is a break with establishment conservatism that favors experimentation with the ideas of the French New Right; libertarian thought as exemplified by former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas); anarcho-capitalism, which advocates individual sovereignty and open markets in place of an organized state; Catholic traditionalism, which seeks a return to Roman Catholicism before the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council; and other ideologies.

So to you libertarians are alt-right?

Because, you know, I agreed with his economic policies.

Don't like the Federal Reserve one bit.

Just so you can attempt to fit me into a convenient box, I'm a native American bisexual female pro-choice fiscal conservative social liberal whose religion is closely aligned with the Hopi beliefs.

Oh.. and pro-second A, but I can make you a mean sammich with the kill.

Find a box for that, please.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Hopefully it drives these morons out of business for good. Their policy is to call anyone that doesn’t agree with them a hate group.

Ah yes, I can see you've personally read up on their criteria for assessment.

Oh wait - - NO - - you haven't.

a reply to: infolurker

What are those organizations? If they are truly hate groups then they won't win.

a reply to: Lumenari

LOL,

I meant "you must be alt-right" because the SPLC said so.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Hopefully it drives these morons out of business for good. Their policy is to call anyone that doesn’t agree with them a hate group.

That's not true. If you are right then how do you explain them labelling certain left-wing organizations hate groups?

a reply to: RowanBean

Oops.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: Metallicus
Hopefully it drives these morons out of business for good. Their policy is to call anyone that doesn’t agree with them a hate group.

That's not true. If you are right then how do you explain them labelling certain left-wing organizations hate groups?

You're right. It's not true.

I've followed the SPLC for about 20 years. They have evolved.

They have a specific criteria they follow that will put someone on the list.

originally posted by: links234
Maybe don't be a hate group if you don't want to be labelled a hate group?

Yeah, or maybe people should read the freaking actual article before commenting, and then they wouldn't come off looking like idiots.

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: links234
Maybe don't be a hate group if you don't want to be labelled a hate group?

Yeah, or maybe people should read the freaking actual article before commenting, and then they wouldn't come off looking like idiots.

What do you mean? SPLC has been pretty accurate with labelling hate groups. It's just this time they were mistaken about one group and they settled and apologized.

a reply to: Annee
I've followed them since their founding. They went off the rails about 20 years or so ago. They were founded to make sure that civil rights laws were followed. I knew many of the organizers through relatives who had been involved in the civil rights movement. Never in my wildest dreams would I have considered that a group of which I was a member would be put on their list. When I called the head office to ask why "Take Back Kentucky" was being listed as a hate group I was told that it was because we stood for the 2nd amendment. That was the best they could come up with.

I asked if they had ever attended a meeting. I attended meetings regularly and never heard a word of racism or sexism. We wanted DC to follow the constitution and we lobbied the Kentucky legislature to take back those rights assigned by the founders to the states. We had white members, black members, red members and combinations of all those categories. The thing we all had in common was we could feel the encroaching power of the heavy hand of the federal government usurping powers reserved to the states. It took the serious threat of a lawsuit against them to get them to remove the name from their list.

They did good work when the original founders were in charge. Then came the money people who just wanted to stack up money, get paid big bucks and apparently hide money in offshore accounts and push their political agenda. As happens---money overrode principles and now, they have become what they claim to be fighting against. I guess the current batch of administrators never read Nietzsche.

a reply to: diggindirt

Thanks.

They also had a questionable start.

I have my own issue regarding the 2nd -- as in "no one really knows 100%, what it means". And it was wrong to let the current NRA define it ---- but, let's not derail the thread.

There should be a clear statement (legal) and publicly available of why any organization is on the list.

Here is your explanation: www.splcenter.org...

a reply to: diggindirt

www.washingtontimes.com...

Organizations can land on the SPLC’s “hate map” for a variety of reasons not limited to racism. Categories include being “anti-immigrant” or “anti-Muslim,” as well as being “racist skinhead,” “neo-Nazi” or “neo-Confederate.”

Most of the conservative groups fall into the SPLC’s “anti-LGBT” category for their opposition to, for example, same-sex marriage or transgender bathroom laws.

Well, you know if you go to their Hatewatch Page, they clearly state that they are not monitoring and exposing hate activities.... They are monitoring and exposing the activities of the American right. Yes, it clearly states that.

Do you guys think that may be a typo? Also go to their map and check the dropdown.... you will not find a category for leftest eco-terrorist hate groups, Islamic hate groups, or Leftest hate groups (because none exist of course). I guess the Black Nationalist are special since they they were on there and given their own category.

www.splcenter.org...

Hatewatch is a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right.

a reply to: Annee

Our experience was long before Obama was in office. I'm talking the mid-90s when Clinton was in the White House and we were definitely not an "anti-government" organization even though the media and some legislators did attempt to portray us that way. We were non-partisan, made up of people from both parties and a whole mess of independents who had left the way of the political party.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Annee

Our experience was long before Obama was in office. I'm talking the mid-90s when Clinton was in the White House and we were definitely not an "anti-government" organization even though the media and some legislators did attempt to portray us that way. We were non-partisan, made up of people from both parties and a whole mess of independents who had left the way of the political party.

Oh. Yes, I've been following them that long.

I personally think they've gotten better, more professional.

But. I won't discount your personal experience.

a reply to: infolurker
They would not be on the list simply for opposing LGBT.

They would need to promote falsehoods.

Best news I have heard all day! With all due respect for those who have followed the history of the SPLC, every time I hear the name it seems to be in conjunction with them trying to force their agendas on someone else. They are the biggest hate group in Alabama.

And the fact that they are allowed to be based in Alabama just makes it that much worse. I hope they are taken for every dime they ever thought about having and forced to close their doors forever. A nice cherry on top would be for the organizers to be run out of the state at the end of a flaming pitchfork, but alas, that won't happen.



a reply to: links234

Maybe don't be a hate group if you don't want to be labelled a hate group?

Translation for the liberal-impaired:

"Maybe think and do as we say if you don't want us to slander you with false labels?"

TheRedneck

a reply to: infolurker
And yet none of those issues were the focus of the group of which I was a member. We were a state group, lobbying the legislature on state issues. We were non-partisan, made up of people of all colors, creeds and political persuasions. We just wanted honest government and wanted government to play by the rules.

We had just witnessed about two dozen of our legislators sent to prison for corruption and heard the FBI spokesman say that they were fully cognizant of the fact that they had NOT cleared out all the corruption. We welcomed anyone who shared our hope for government of, by and for the people.

Now, I will tell you that we had racists attend our meetings. We had militia advocates attend our meetings. We held our meetings in public and asked the public to attend. We also had the FBI attend our meetings covertly. But we also had retired and active law enforcement that attended the meetings. State legislators often accepted our invitation to speak at our meetings. The undercover FBI guy was one of many who attempted to "join" the group and advocate for violence and vandalism. But we had a whole bunch of veterans who could spot the crazies in a NY minute. They marked the FBI guy at the first meeting he attended and told us to watch out. He claimed to be whacked out over Ruby Ridge and Waco---needing revenge. Of course, he didn't get up in the public meeting and say anything, he just tried to wiggle in with the leadership and try to get them to agree with the need to "bring the cops down a notch or two, especially the FBI." I'll never forget the look on his face when the guy he was trying to butter up said to him, "If you've got a problem with the FBI, take it up with your boss. We're a state organization, we're not poking into the FBI and we don't appreciate them trying to infiltrate an organization that is lobbying for honest government." It was priceless.

We were portrayed in some media as being "gun nuts" because we were lobbying for a bill to allow concealed carry in the Commonwealth. Getting that bill passed after we had been assured it would contain requirements for training before the license was issued was our first legislative win.