ADL releases Report Similar to SPLC

The only reason this is not 'as ridiculous as it gets' is quite simply that I am sure they have a lot more in reserve...it's the ADL we are talking about here after all.

I wouldn't worry about it too much either, there is a clear agenda to criminalize dissent and declare 'terrorists' anyone who skips their daily dose of Ritalin or refuses to kiss their 'chosenite' asses because of their alleged suffering. Until their plans come to fruition you can say whatever you please, and when they do it won't matter what you say anyway.

It should be painfully obvious by now that everything you have ever discussed or posted on the Internet has gone straight to record to be used against you one day. It is my personal opinion that this very forum, and all others of course, are here for the very purpose of listing, tracking and psychologically profiling anyone whose brains still function. Really though, who cares?

I personally think that violence is an extreme solution - but a solution nevertheless. That's right, you all heard correctly. Allow me to quote the impostor-in-chief to support the point I am trying to make:

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Barack Soetoro Obama, Nobel Prize Speech - the concept of a just war....

Of course murdering, pillaging, raping and destroying the entire middle-east are considered 'self-defense' when they say so. Even now that we know and can prove conclusively they were lying - the 'self-defense' continues, to the tune of millions of dead 'terrorists', mostly women and children.

So here is the bottom line: when the leaders of a country no longer have any legitimacy whatsoever, and they continue to murder, lie and plan mayhem untold....then violence is not a solution, it is the only solution.

Personally, I would drag the bastards out of their houses in the middle of the night and hang them unceremoniously on butcher's hooks. That includes the entire ADL and anyone loosely associated with them.

You can quote me on that.

And it's because we refuse to see that, or rather, it is because we value decency, morality and life, whilst they do not, that we will be the ones dragged from our homes in a not too distant future and beaten, tortured and killed.

I might as well say it as it is: executing (bullet to the back of the neck) the top 3% of the world's elite would solve 97% of the world's problems and save the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions.

Quote me on that one too.





[edit on 22-4-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by D377MC]

...the adl defames / slanders people and misrepresents issues all the time, so this is nothing new... they've done some good along the way but not near enough to compensate for all the lies they've created / perpetuated...

...theres no need to get paranoid about their little report... the alphabet soup gals and guys are not waiting breathlessly for the adl to tell them who they should put on a watch list (eyeroll)...

...defamation lawsuits are very expensive, even if you get the aclu to take your case... so, easy solutions are: ignore them - or - post a comment on their website questioning their defamation of ats posters but be polite and intelligent because you dont wanna come off looking like bigger jerks than they are...

Originally posted by boondock-saint
First off let me apologize to the Owners, Admins, Mods and...

Say no more.

Your honest, heart-felt opinions are our most valuable and cherished contributions.

Defending free expression requires more than words -- it requires actions and principal. Your expression is defended here.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by boondock-saint
First off let me apologize to the Owners, Admins, Mods and...

Say no more.

Your honest, heart-felt opinions are our most valuable and cherished contributions.

Defending free expression requires more than words -- it requires actions and principal. Your expression is defended here.

well I guess u heard it
straight from the horses mouth

I need to find a lawyer
any recommendations
maybe one that will work
cheaply, lol

Doesn't above top secret own the posts technically speaking. Are they legally allowed to compile and publish them without permission?

I find it questionable that surveillance is the right term for what they are doing.

It appears the substance of their material is freely accessible via open forums.

=====


The technique of casting their intended perception over the content is stereotypical of all propaganda.

The message is clear. The intent is open to interpretation, but seems that the ultimate message is:

"You should worry about people who are discussing current living conditions and attribute many woes to the currently established social and political order as well as those who crafted it."

===========

People say lot's of things, some of them are vulgar, ignorant, poorly expressed, and often wrong. Lacking the freedom to be wrong may eventually translate in to a society of fearful mutes.

The crux of the alarm rests upon the premise that expressions evoking violent anger might in actuality harbinger actual angry violence; that wishing someone or something ill is as bad as actually making that ill a reality.

The law is clear regarding this line of reasoning, and of course, the establishment continues to massage that law... again purpose and intent are open to speculation.

Documents like this will be cited as authoritative, assuming it is accepted as such. Most of their audience are consumers of information so this will not be 'verified' by the kind of citizen that gives them so much power, they will simply consume the product.

Let's hope collective IQ's can overcome the clarion call to silence anything remotely approaching dissent.

reply to post by jhogue46140


well the way I'm thinking
this is a 2 fold prong

1) Violations of T&C from ATS
2) Slander and defamation of character by me
and Doc and Sledge, if they so desire to get involved.
(and ATS actually)
They basically called us extremists/terrorists by exercising our
right to free speech.

My question is this a violation of copyright also?

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by jhogue46140

 

1) Violations of T&C from ATS

...the adl is under no obligation to honor the t&c of ats because that applies only to members of ats...

Originally posted by jhogue46140
My question is this a violation of copyright also?

...i'm fairly sure that everything you post online falls under public domain UNLESS you actually have a copyright on those specific words - but - a copyright is worthless if you dont have the money to file a lawsuit when your copyright is ignored...

someone has advised me to
offer this statement:

I have no further comment at this time
on this matter

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by boondock-saint
First off let me apologize to the Owners, Admins, Mods and...

Say no more.

Your honest, heart-felt opinions are our most valuable and cherished contributions.

Defending free expression requires more than words -- it requires actions and principal. Your expression is defended here.

well I guess u heard it
straight from the horses mouth

I need to find a lawyer
any recommendations
maybe one that will work
cheaply, lol

Buzz has it that other sites are also strongly considering legal action. Might I suggest a concerted effort, as in a class-action? As they say, many hands make light the work, and I firmly believe this cannot be allowed to go unanswered.

Presenting a united front in diversity may not be such a bad idea, and it would certainly provide pause for thought before engaging in future slanders and misrepresentations.

In any event, you'll need to start gathering some of your other posts, as well as the all-important context which has been abandoned by the opposition, to demonstrate the fallacy and slanderous nature of the report.

If you'd like, I can approach my ARFcom buddy in the matter, to see if they'd have any interest in a class-action. If not, I'll understand, and lend my support in any capacity I can.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but the very fact you are even considering legal action makes me wonder if you realize just 'who' the ADL are?

You want to find a capable lawyer to take on their lawyers? Do you have any idea the pressure they can bring to bear? Do you think the judge who will preside over your case will give you a fair hearing?

Google 'Sylvia Stlolz' and you will see just how useless that line of reasoning is.

Ignore it, and continue to speak out, that is all we have left and the only thing they will never take from you.

I find absolutely-fuc*ing-hilarious that the President recently authorized the murder of an American citizen and we are being told that wishing - that is contemplating - the arrogant bastards could taste their own medicine makes us FEMA camp material.

If they cannot lead by example then they are not fit to lead at all. Seeing as they will never relinquish power then I am forced to the following conclusion as a matter of logical necessity: they should be removed.

Maybe these nice folks might be interested.

www.eff.org...

Just putting this here for posterity:

ADL Labels 9/11 Truthers and Anti-Tax Protesters as “Extremists”

It was posted last year and didn't get much play. It details their original mission and their "expanded" mission which includes "providing training on extremist ideologies"

Pretty wide open stuff.

I'm really glad the OP and ATS are all over this. It's an outrage. And, ultimately, I think it hurts the ADL's well-intended cause. But as we all know, the path to hell is paved with good intentions...

reply to post by nenothtu

yes please make contact
and have them send me
a u2u
thanks

Originally posted by D377MC

....

I find absolutely-[SNIP]-hilarious that the President recently authorized the murder of an American citizen and we are being told that wishing - that is contemplating - the arrogant bastards could taste their own medicine makes us FEMA camp material.

If they cannot lead by example then they are not fit to lead at all. Seeing as they will never relinquish power then I am forced to the following conclusion as a matter of logical necessity: they should be removed.

I offer some words I recently reread:


"... let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation - the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution." T. Paine - 1775


Sound familiar?... he might as well be on the list too.

PS - please don't circumvent the profanity filter... you're smart enough to make your point without that kind of language being 'necessary'.

- MM

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Maybe these nice folks might be interested.

www.eff.org...

thanks SD
Im checking them out now

and thanks to all who have
been supportive

Originally posted by D377MC

I don't want to sound arrogant, but the very fact you are even considering legal action makes me wonder if you realize just 'who' the ADL are?

You want to find a capable lawyer to take on their lawyers? Do you have any idea the pressure they can bring to bear? Do you think the judge who will preside over your case will give you a fair hearing?

Google 'Sylvia Stlolz' and you will see just how useless that line of reasoning is.

They have gotten sued for pulling just such a thing before:

Denver defamation suit

According to an April 13, 2001 article in The Forward, a federal judge "lambasted the organization for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic event" and upheld most of William and Dorothy Quigley's $10 million lawsuit for defamation. In 1994, [snip] The Quigleys and the Aronsons had been engaged in an escalating series of petty disputes prior to this incident. The ADL also labelled the Quigleys as anti-Semites in a press conference which led to felony federal charges being filed against them.

Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado wrote "it is not unreasonable to infer that public charges of anti-Semitism leveled by the ADL will be taken seriously and assumed by many to be true without question. In that respect, the ADL is in a unique position of being able to cause substantial harm to individuals when it lends its backing to allegations of anti-Semitism." The judge concluded that the ADL supported the Aronsons' accusations without investigating the case, or weighing of the consequences.

I think that the only problem someone from an online forum is going to run into is that they are not being mentioned by their real name, only by their online handle. Listing your online handle may not count as being personal defamation unless you can show that it in someway caused you personal harm or damage.

[edit on 4/22/2010 by defcon5]

Something good can always be made from something bad. I like how everyone on this thread has come together in defense of their and others free speech. Finally, something we can all agree upon.

I'm proud to be a small part of this very educational site. Many great minds come here to seek truth and teach others what they know. Good luck and best wishes to any and all who will take legal action. & for everyone