RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election

RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/17/2014 9:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress No lawsuits or formal ethics complaints, eh? Google, motherfuckers. The suit over the homosexuality case may...may have merit. The rest is nothing that the right doesn't do.

MrRodgers -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/17/2014 9:27:52 PM)
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. ...so they could be the republican right now ?

MrRodgers -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/17/2014 9:33:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladynlord 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. I disagree. Case in point was the "Obama Presidential Library" paraded in Arkansas I believe. Because it was an outhouse, it was immediately called "racist" and work of "racially motivated" minds. Then I saw a commentary on this "racist" parade float that included a political cartoon from the Bush era with old "W" coming out of an outhouse that had a sign on it that said "Bush Presidential Library". So that same political commentary (in different mediums) was racially motivated and blatantly racist ONLY because it of WHO it was directed at. There is something WRONG with that at the very core. FOOTNOTE: I am and have been a registered Dem and like you, I strongly disagree with some of the party policies. A political cartoon vs an actual parade float ? Political cartoons are an old American press tradition, parade floats denigrating the pres...is not

CreativeDominant -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/17/2014 9:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress No lawsuits or formal ethics complaints, eh? Google, motherfuckers. The suit over the homosexuality case may...may have merit. The rest is nothing that the right doesn't do. Really? That's a tired, almost childish argument. No rational response other than one conceded point...and then fight the concession by attacking the right. I thought those of you on the left didn't like childish arguments such as: well yeah, I hit Johnny...but he hit me FIRST. Why'd he hit me? Well, I called him a racist ass. But...he hit me FIRST. You and I both know in today's school system, they are both equally at fault...even though they aren't.

Sanity -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 5:56:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy 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. The reality is quite different from your fantasy Contrary to your vapid race baiting the Republicans are trying to negotiate a compromise agreement

mnottertail -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 6:13:16 AM)
Well, then maybe Mitch McConnell can throw in his 3Billion dollar pork barrel and we can call it good. OH, they cry, the horrors, we need to fix this, but not too much, they cry!!!

Zonie63 -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 6:51:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Thanks for addressing the actual question. Apparently partisanship goes up during economic down times as well. I'm having a hard time reading about the vitriol and anti-immigration sentiment related to these refugee children. The NYT had an article on the violence in Honduras right now -- one particular child by age 11 had already witnessed six murders first hand. All that money dumped into the the sink holes or IRAQ and Afghanistan and we end up totally neglecting our own region and local sphere of influence. Yes, I think that's an important point, since we focus so much on places across the planet while all but ignoring our own region. The stupidity of America's policymakers over the past several decades may come back to haunt us, especially with China and Russia wooing the South American countries lately. We've been taking this region for granted for far too long while obsessing over failed policies in the Middle East. Not only that, our government has been neglecting and taking for granted large portions of the US population as well, pursuing aggressive interventionist policies overseas at the expense of domestic policies. quote: We will have more information relating to the Hate-Group - Obama nexus when he's finished his term in office. Even if he does not generate overt, racist hatred -- there's a lot of undercurrent racism in the irrational opposition he faces on all fronts. It also upsets many white Americans that we have a black President. When I simply pointed this out to the Heretic -- he simply exploded into a rage. It was a very telling reaction. Considering our history of expansionism and racism in this country, it really shouldn't surprise or shock anyone that there's still a lot of lingering residue from previous eras. Of course there will be some Americans who are upset that we have a black President. I can't say how many or to what degree. I think it's an exercise in futility to try to accuse anyone of racism if they're against Obama, since it doesn't really lead to any definitive conclusion.

Musicmystery -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 7:12:18 AM)
It's pretty silly to say we "ignore our own region." What's all that entitlement/programs spending Republicans are whining about?

cloudboy -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 7:35:47 AM)
The US has a long history of cluster-fucking Latin America and contributing to it's underdevelopment. Reading the NYT article on Honduras was nothing short of mind-boggling. Reading about the situation in IRAQ yesterday -- where IRAQiIs who helped the USA can't visas to come to the USA and now might be killed by ISIS.... We now have to ask ourselves, "Where in the world have we actually promoted stability?" Luckily in the USA we are able to keep hate groups on the margins, but I would like to know how active the Secret Service has been in quelling assassination attempts against the President. Death threats. Threats Against Obama Spiked Early I am curious if Sanity is a Stormfront member....... Race is a central issue to these anti-Obama nuts.

Musicmystery -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 8:07:25 AM)
And cloud goes over to the troll side.

Zonie63 -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 9:33:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's pretty silly to say we "ignore our own region." What's all that entitlement/programs spending Republicans are whining about? Well, I didn't say we totally ignored our own region, but they seem to be a lower priority than other regions in America's foreign policies.

Musicmystery -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 9:38:12 AM)
That's also clearly not true. We spend FAR more domestically than overseas. In fact, MOST of it domestically.

Zonie63 -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 10:04:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's also clearly not true. We spend FAR more domestically than overseas. In fact, MOST of it domestically. Not sure if actual spending is the issue. Spending may be a good indicator of attention and care, but it may not tell the whole story.

cloudboy -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 10:11:38 AM)
MM is being obtuse. The opportunity costs have been a staggering ball and chain to us financially while the attached foreign policies have reaped chaos. We've been about as helpful in Latin America as we've been in the Middle East, but the issues there rarely get the attention of Americans. All one has to do is drive upon our roads these days to see that we've been neglecting domestic spending and investment. In a sensible world there would be bipartisan support for: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/us/obama-urges-funding-for-infrastructure-projects.html

DomKen -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 1:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Why? I don't recall the same being demanded of those on the left who disagreed with every single thing Bush did...Reagan did...whatever Republican president. And that can be demonstrated on these boards...let alone the general populace of the left. Any Republican President's policy gets brought up and those on the left on these boards will tear it up. Not racism because we're white and so is he? Can't use that argument when the point of the matter is that there are those who disagree with every one of his policies because they disagree with them...not with the fact that he is BLACK. But because he IS BLACK, it is just too simple to call disagreement/dislike of the man and all he stands for "racism" and yet, act the very same way against a Republican president and say it is not due to racism because we're all white. That's chickenshit reasoning. Then you are either grossly misinformed or simply lying. The ACA is based on various Republicans plans. Cap and trade is a Republican plan. That's part of where the certainty that there is bigotry involved. Obama suggested Republican solutions to pressing problems and still got nowhere. You'll now prevaricate or deny that they are Republican ideas but it is trivial to prove that they are.

Kirata -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 3:47:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Obama suggested Republican solutions to pressing problems and still got nowhere. Not so fast. There are similarities, but there are also differences (Politifact). The solution actually proposed by the Republican Study Committee has gone nowhere. K.

DomKen -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/18/2014 4:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Obama suggested Republican solutions to pressing problems and still got nowhere. Not so fast. There are similarities, but there are also differences (Politifact). I did not make that specific claim so not relevant so good try. The ACA is and always has been a direct iteration of Romneycare. quote: The solution actually proposed by the Republican Study Committee has gone nowhere. That plan would actually increase the number of uninsured. How is that a good idea?

SadistDave -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/19/2014 2:03:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave The SPLC is desperately trying to remain relevant. They make their money fund raising off of alleged bigotry. Legitimate charities spend around 75% of their proceeds on their programs. SPLC's M.O. is to fundraise for a program and raise millions for the cause, then pocket around 75% of the money. making up shit I see. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4482#.U8fJ-CxOWB8 From their financial statements I could only account for about 55% of what they make being spent on their charity work. SPLC's own financial information is right out there for anyone to check. Their own documentation provides a pretty basic breakdown of where their money was spent in 2012 for related activities. That's the latest information I could find on their activities on their site. About 55% of the money they spent went to litigation and education, but of that 55% almost half went to pay their own lawyers salaries and expenses, and that doesn't really count towards what they're spending since the lawyers work for SPLC. Once you count what they're paying their own people as administrative expenses where it should be counted, you end up with $15M out of $40M being spent on their stated mission of tracking hate groups and litigation for hate crimes. What's especially interesting about their finances is how they manage to make money from out of nowhere. According to their Form 990 for the year 2011 SPLC started the year with $238M in assets. They made $40M. They spent $38M, leaving them a balance of $2M. They claimed $22M in losses, for a net loss of $20M for the year. Somehow, at the end of the year their assets increased $19M to a total of $257M. In order for that to happen, the net worth of SPLC had to increase by another $40M. Simply put, in 2011 after expenses, the net worth of SPLC increased by just over 50% of what they claimed their income for the year was AFTER also claiming to have spent 95% of their years income AND losing another 51% to boot. I don't care who you are, that's a pretty slick trick! More importantly, it shows that their income and net worth increase combined for around $80M. If their accounting includes employee salaries as charity expenses like it did in 2012, then they probably only actually spent an estimated $15M on their mission. -SD-

DomKen -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/19/2014 5:32:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave The SPLC is desperately trying to remain relevant. They make their money fund raising off of alleged bigotry. Legitimate charities spend around 75% of their proceeds on their programs. SPLC's M.O. is to fundraise for a program and raise millions for the cause, then pocket around 75% of the money. making up shit I see. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4482#.U8fJ-CxOWB8 From their financial statements I could only account for about 55% of what they make being spent on their charity work. SPLC's own financial information is right out there for anyone to check. Their own documentation provides a pretty basic breakdown of where their money was spent in 2012 for related activities. That's the latest information I could find on their activities on their site. About 55% of the money they spent went to litigation and education, but of that 55% almost half went to pay their own lawyers salaries and expenses, and that doesn't really count towards what they're spending since the lawyers work for SPLC. Once you count what they're paying their own people as administrative expenses where it should be counted, you end up with $15M out of $40M being spent on their stated mission of tracking hate groups and litigation for hate crimes. What's especially interesting about their finances is how they manage to make money from out of nowhere. According to their Form 990 for the year 2011 SPLC started the year with $238M in assets. They made $40M. They spent $38M, leaving them a balance of $2M. They claimed $22M in losses, for a net loss of $20M for the year. Somehow, at the end of the year their assets increased $19M to a total of $257M. In order for that to happen, the net worth of SPLC had to increase by another $40M. Simply put, in 2011 after expenses, the net worth of SPLC increased by just over 50% of what they claimed their income for the year was AFTER also claiming to have spent 95% of their years income AND losing another 51% to boot. I don't care who you are, that's a pretty slick trick! More importantly, it shows that their income and net worth increase combined for around $80M. If their accounting includes employee salaries as charity expenses like it did in 2012, then they probably only actually spent an estimated $15M on their mission. You understand they have an invested endowment? It earns substantial income (just over $34 million according to the audit). That is what endowments are supposed to do. Did you think they simply raised a dolor and spent it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: HATE Groups -- Post Obama Election (7/19/2014 7:29:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The ACA is and always has been a direct iteration of Romneycare. Except, you know, the whole "State" level thing and all. [8\|]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875