quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says

ATLANTA — Fed by antagonism toward President Obama, resentment toward changing racial demographics and the economic rift between rich and poor, the number of so-called hate groups and antigovernment organizations in the nation has continued to grow, according to a report released Wednesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Data of Hate

Stormfront was founded in 1995 by Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Its most popular “social groups” are “Union of National Socialists” and “Fans and Supporters of Adolf Hitler.”

POLITICAL developments certainly play a role. The day that saw the biggest single increase in membership in Stormfront’s history, by far, was Nov. 5, 2008, the day after Barack Obama was elected president.

--------

How much of the above mentioned "hatred" is on the rise because the US President is black? Would these figures be completely different if Hillary Clinton were elected in 2008?

Did you know that about 10 years ago the Southern Poverty Law Center lost a lawsuit for discriminating against black employees?
They are not a dependable source. They seem to have found out there is money in accusing people (including the BSA) of being racists.

Wow how awful if only it were true.

The SPLC is beyond reproach and is being slurred by bigots because they can't defend their hatefulness. Why do you believe them over people who have spent decades do nothing but opposing the worst of humanity?

It is true.
Since you will dismiss any source I give you look it up for your self.
Because I live near Montgomery, the lawsuit was covered locally, I doubt that your liberal sources mentioned it.
And they declared the Boy Scouts to be a hate group because they didn't have gay troop masters.
I don't listen to the kind of people you imply I do. But you have to or it hurts your world view.
I have met both the founder and his brother, the brother is a much better person.

I looked. No lawsuit.
If such had happened it would be on the wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
Nothing there.
Google "SPLC discrimination lawsuit" and all you get are the many suits the SPLC has filed over the years. none filed against the SPLC.
It's a baseless smear.

Check the Montgomery Advertiser.
I heard Morris Dees, in persons say "you know how these people are" when asked how an intruder got past his security.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

No lawsuits or formal ethics complaints, eh?

Google, motherfuckers.

Did I write that? Are you incapable of reading? The specific claim BamaD made doesn't seem to be real.

So you admit that they are scam artists and hypocrites but want to nitpick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

No lawsuits or formal ethics complaints, eh?

Google, motherfuckers.

Did I write that? Are you incapable of reading? The specific claim BamaD made doesn't seem to be real.

So you admit that they are scam artists and hypocrites but want to nitpick.

As always only read what I write not the crazy shit you wish I wrote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

No lawsuits or formal ethics complaints, eh?

Google, motherfuckers.

Did I write that? Are you incapable of reading? The specific claim BamaD made doesn't seem to be real.

So you admit that they are scam artists and hypocrites but want to nitpick.

As always only read what I write not the crazy shit you wish I wrote.

But they are scam artists and hypocrites.

quote:


I doubt it would be that much different, although the rise in hatred may also be related to the economic doldrums which started around the same time. Fear leads to hatred, and when so many people fear for the futures and the direction the country is going, it's not surprising that more people will gravitate towards hate groups. It probably would have been the same no matter who was President.

I was thinking about this the other day as I noticed the commercials for the Republican gubernatorial primary started up. Two candidate commercials focused solely on the border and nothing else. They're running for governor, yet they didn't even address the dismal state of affairs in our State government; it all focused on the border and fighting Obama and the Federal government. This is going to be one hell of a campaign season.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Any rational person watching the unprecedented barrage of internet 'humor' attacking Obama has to see it's overtly racial, subliminally at best, political.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yes, it does upset many white Americans that we have a black president. IF the sole reason they are upset is that he is BLACK, that is prejudice. But...
When a white person does not like the president's policies, it is wrong and incorrect to accuse that person of racism simply because the President is BLACK and the person against his policies is white. I don't give a good damn whether the person in charge is man or woman, BLACK or brown or white, single or married, gay or straight...if they have policies such as Obamacs, I would oppose them. And I, for one, am tired of being told that I am a racist, nutsacking (talk about hateful terms), lunatic right-winger because I say he is wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yes, it does upset many white Americans that we have a black president. IF the sole reason they are upset is that he is BLACK, that is prejudice. But...
When a white person does not like the president's policies, it is wrong and incorrect to accuse that person of racism simply because the President is BLACK and the person against his policies is white. I don't give a good damn whether the person in charge is man or woman, BLACK or brown or white, single or married, gay or straight...if they have policies such as Obamacs, I would oppose them. And I, for one, am tired of being told that I am a racist, nutsacking (talk about hateful terms), lunatic right-winger because I say he is wrong.

Part of Obama resentment is actually for the reason you state, but an absolute bigot would say the exact same thing as you. Bigots don't admit they have a problem and like to think they have "objective" reasons for their own position. The only screening test for bigots is how objective one's reasons for being anti-Obama are in fact and data. That's where I see the dividing line.

What is the best alternative course to what the Obama administration proposes? Without answering this like an adult, flags for irrationality go up for me.

To wit:

"We want border enforcement!"

"OK, I need 3.7 Billion to beef it up."

"No, we're not giving you that."

Of course this is the Republican party, a group that has elevated itself and its own interests above the nation itself. Maybe the rank and file tolerate this insanity b/c it's aim is to discredit and harm a black President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yes, it does upset many white Americans that we have a black president. IF the sole reason they are upset is that he is BLACK, that is prejudice. But...
When a white person does not like the president's policies, it is wrong and incorrect to accuse that person of racism simply because the President is BLACK and the person against his policies is white. I don't give a good damn whether the person in charge is man or woman, BLACK or brown or white, single or married, gay or straight...if they have policies such as Obamacs, I would oppose them. And I, for one, am tired of being told that I am a racist, nutsacking (talk about hateful terms), lunatic right-winger because I say he is wrong.

Part of Obama resentment is actually for the reason you state, but an absolute bigot would say the exact same thing as you. Bigots don't admit they have a problem and like to think they have "objective" reasons for their own position. The only screening test for bigots is how objective one's reasons for being anti-Obama are in fact and data. That's where I see the dividing line.

What is the best alternative course to what the Obama administration proposes? Without answering this like an adult, flags for irrationality go up for me.

To wit:

"We want border enforcement!"

"OK, I need 3.7 Billion to beef it up."

"No, we're not giving you that."

Of course this is the Republican party, a group that has elevated itself and its own interests above the nation itself. Maybe the rank and file tolerate this insanity b/c it's aim is to discredit and harm a black President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yes, it does upset many white Americans that we have a black president. IF the sole reason they are upset is that he is BLACK, that is prejudice. But...
When a white person does not like the president's policies, it is wrong and incorrect to accuse that person of racism simply because the President is BLACK and the person against his policies is white. I don't give a good damn whether the person in charge is man or woman, BLACK or brown or white, single or married, gay or straight...if they have policies such as Obamacs, I would oppose them. And I, for one, am tired of being told that I am a racist, nutsacking (talk about hateful terms), lunatic right-winger because I say he is wrong.

Part of Obama resentment is actually for the reason you state, but an absolute bigot would say the exact same thing as you. Bigots don't admit they have a problem and like to think they have "objective" reasons for their own position. The only screening test for bigots is how objective one's reasons for being anti-Obama are in fact and data. That's where I see the dividing line.

What is the best alternative course to what the Obama administration proposes? Without answering this like an adult, flags for irrationality go up for me.

To wit:

"We want border enforcement!"

"OK, I need 3.7 Billion to beef it up."

"No, we're not giving you that."

Of course this is the Republican party, a group that has elevated itself and its own interests above the nation itself. Maybe the rank and file tolerate this insanity b/c it's aim is to discredit and harm a black President.

you do understand that by your reasoning, that means that all is us in disagreement with Obama's policies can be lakes racists by the left and have absolutely no defense because...according to you...denial of the label doesn't count because that's what any "racist" would do. By that logic...what course is left other than to agree with Obama so as not to be labeled a "racist"? You do understand that is coercion under the guise of "exposing racism", right?
And yet...the left claims they do not use such tactics...they only tell the truth. But, as I noted earlier, claiming racism where none exists is not only inaccurate, it is a cheap and underhanded form of coercion of those who disagree and a lie to those who are easily and willingly convinced, because of their own political leanings, of the rightness of your position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yes, it does upset many white Americans that we have a black president. IF the sole reason they are upset is that he is BLACK, that is prejudice. But...
When a white person does not like the president's policies, it is wrong and incorrect to accuse that person of racism simply because the President is BLACK and the person against his policies is white. I don't give a good damn whether the person in charge is man or woman, BLACK or brown or white, single or married, gay or straight...if they have policies such as Obamacs, I would oppose them. And I, for one, am tired of being told that I am a racist, nutsacking (talk about hateful terms), lunatic right-winger because I say he is wrong.

Part of Obama resentment is actually for the reason you state, but an absolute bigot would say the exact same thing as you. Bigots don't admit they have a problem and like to think they have "objective" reasons for their own position. The only screening test for bigots is how objective one's reasons for being anti-Obama are in fact and data. That's where I see the dividing line.

What is the best alternative course to what the Obama administration proposes? Without answering this like an adult, flags for irrationality go up for me.

To wit:

"We want border enforcement!"

"OK, I need 3.7 Billion to beef it up."

"No, we're not giving you that."

Of course this is the Republican party, a group that has elevated itself and its own interests above the nation itself. Maybe the rank and file tolerate this insanity b/c it's aim is to discredit and harm a black President.

you do understand that by your reasoning, that means that all is us in disagreement with Obama's policies can be lakes racists by the left and have absolutely no defense because...according to you...denial of the label doesn't count because that's what any "racist" would do. By that logic...what course is left other than to agree with Obama so as not to be labeled a "racist"? You do understand that is coercion under the guise of "exposing racism", right?
And yet...the left claims they do not use such tactics...they only tell the truth. But, as I noted earlier, claiming racism where none exists is not only inaccurate, it is a cheap and underhanded form of coercion of those who disagree and a lie to those who are easily and willingly convinced, because of their own political leanings, of the rightness of your position.

Except that isn't what he said at all. He said make a rational argument for why you disagree with the President and no one will think you're a bigot. It's the people who disagree with the President on everything no matter what that make people wonder.