Constitution Party & JBS: Hate group according to the SPLC

[Dripping Rain]

Mods please change title thanks

I never knew about the SPLC untill today
theyre another hate group that works with the ADL to brainwash American servicemen

but it seems that those people are even worst than the ADL
thanks to pcosmar for digging through their website

they even have the JBS & the Constitution Party as "Hate groups"

heres their website
http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp

check out the Hate group map or look for "hate" in your state
wow those people are sick


Edit: Just realized YAF is not affiliated with YAL
still the list has many groups that has nothing to do with "hate" so Ill leave this thread

[Sandra]

Dripping Rain! Do some research! The one on their list did have a "Fred Phelps" type of setup. They hijacked the campus group and soured it. The rest of the YAF are OK but have leaned a bit neocon.

[Dripping Rain]

Dripping Rain! Do some research! The one on their list did have a "Fred Phelps" type of setup. They hijacked the campus group and soured it. The rest of the YAF are OK but have leaned a bit neocon.

I edited my post Sandra right after I read your post on the other thread
thanks anyways
still doesnt make what theyre doing right
maybe you need to do some research on the dangers of thought crime and hate crime legislation and witch hunts
The CP & the JBS are also part of the "hate groups"

Im leaving this thread as it is but Ill change the title
thanks for the info

[gls]

Personally, I hate "politically correct" leftist organizations like the SPLC along with their allies in the media and government.

They fear open debate and discussion and thus try to silence those opposed to their agenda with knee-jerk emotions and labels.

[Monolithic]

if you've read the CP's position on gay rights then it isn't so much of a stretch to call them hateful

[Sandra]

if you've read the CP's position on gay rights then it isn't so much of a stretch to call them hateful


I can't find anything archived, but wasn't there some in this particular Michigan group that supported Phelps? The bad apples were fired afer a year and a half of these shenanigans. I'm also trying to find out where they went.

[devil21]

SPLC is just another Jewish lobby whose job is to attack anybody that doesn't kowtow to Israel. It's along the same lines as the ADL.

[Sandra]

SPLC is just another Jewish lobby whose job is to attack anybody that doesn't kowtow to Israel. It's along the same lines as the ADL.


I suspect those members of the YAF may have been in cahoots with the SPLC to paint the group as haters. Only a few participated in the gay bashing events.

[pcosmar]

I know no one that supports of agrees with Phelps.
The only ones who do are a few bigots. He is denounced by all the Christians I have met.

YAF
from wiki

Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) is a conservative youth organization that was founded in 1960. While the 1960s were its most successful years in terms of numbers and influence, YAF continues to be active as a national organization with chapters throughout the United States.
http://www.yaf.com/

[pcosmar]

They also list
National Prayer Network
http://www.truthtellers.org/
Probably for this page.
http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/whatsantisemitism.html

Anti-Semitism is the racist belief that Jews are genetically evil and subversive and should be persecuted. This is what Hitler believed.

Today, the term “anti-Semitism” has been broadly misdefined for use as a political weapon, to silence any criticism of Israel, Judaism, or liberal Jewish activism. Those who make the simplest statements of unflattering truth about Israeli or Jewish actions are smeared as anti-Semites.

[tron paul]

I only join groups that are hated by the SPLC.

It's like a seal of approval to me.

They can to go Hell. Or to Cuba, with the rest of the Communists.

[SovereignMN]

The SPLC has a deep agenda.

[LibertyEagle]

if you've read the CP's position on gay rights then it isn't so much of a stretch to call them hateful

Hhmmm, that doesn't appear to me to be much of a libertarian position that you have there.

[LibertyEagle]

SPLC is just another Jewish lobby whose job is to attack anybody that doesn't kowtow to Israel. It's along the same lines as the ADL.

Yup. Morris Dees is a real gem. :mad:

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Fuck the Southern Poverty Law Center as they're nothing more than a Mafioso-type organization that shakes people down for money. If the asshole founders were to shoot themselves in the face with a bazooka tomorrow, they would simply be two less boils on the ass of society.

[Theocrat]

if you've read the CP's position on gay rights then it isn't so much of a stretch to call them hateful

Gays don't have a right to be gay, just as rapists don't have a right to rape people.

[FrankRep]

For the record, as a (JBS) John Birch Society member, I don't hate anyone based on race or religion.

Cleared up?

John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/

[pcosmar]

For the record, as a (JBS) John Birch Society member, I don't hate anyone based on race or religion.

Cleared up?

John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/

Sorry.
according to the SPLC you are a terrorist.
deal with it. :cool:

[Mini-Me]

Gays don't have a right to be gay, just as rapists don't have a right to rape people.

Actually, gays DO have a right to be gay, as it falls under the right to personal liberty...not that homosexuality is even a choice anyway. In any case, comparing being gay (which violates nobody's rights) to raping someone (a horrific violation of someone's rights) is wayyyy over-the-top, even from the perspective of devout Christians. :rolleyes: Normally I just let your absurdly intolerant comments slide without a response, because they're just too numerous and frequent for me to bother registering disagreement. Besides, I know you took a nose-dive into the deep end of the kool-aid pool wayyyy too long ago for anything I say to make a difference...but come on, are you kidding me? :eek:



Anyway, on the topic of the thread: I'm with tron paul on this one. The Defamation League and its cohorts (like the SPLC) can continue their mission of defaming political enemies under the banner of "Anti-Defamation," but the more bold and shameless they become, the more their true colors will show. Sooner or later, I think more people will begin to notice.

[Theocrat]

Actually, gays DO have a right to be gay, as it falls under the right to personal liberty...not that homosexuality is even a choice anyway. In any case, comparing being gay (which violates nobody's rights) to raping someone (a horrific violation of someone's rights) is wayyyy over-the-top, even from the perspective of devout Christians. :rolleyes: Normally I just let your absurdly intolerant comments slide without a response, because they're just too numerous and frequent for me to bother registering disagreement. Besides, I know you took a nose-dive into the deep end of the kool-aid pool wayyyy too long ago for anything I say to make a difference...but come on, are you kidding me? :eek:



Anyway, on the topic of the thread: I'm with tron paul on this one. The Defamation League and its cohorts (like the SPLC) can continue their mission of defaming political enemies under the banner of "Anti-Defamation," but the more bold and shameless they become, the more their true colors will show. Sooner or later, I think more people will begin to notice.

Where does the right of a person to be gay come from? The only reason why I posted what I said before is because Monolithic made it an issue to bring up against the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Family) as "hateful," and I had to correct him on his unfounded judgment.

By the way, I note that your comments against my views are just as "absurdly intolerant" as you claim mine are, if we're going to engage in name-calling in this discussion.

[Mini-Me]

Where does the right of a person to be gay come from? The only reason why I posted what I said before is because Monolithic made it an issue to bring up against the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Family) as "hateful," and I had to correct him on his unfounded judgment.

By the way, I note that your comments against my views are just as "absurdly intolerant" as you claim mine are, if we're going to engage in name-calling in this discussion.

The right of a person to be gay (which isn't even a choice anyway) is inherent in the Lockean right to liberty...but that was kind of beside the point anyway. What I really took offense to was your disgusting comparison of being gay (not even having gay sex, but just BEING gay) to raping someone.

On the subject of whose views are absurdly intolerant, allow me to clarify the issue with a comparison:
Theocrat, if I said something ridiculous like, "Black people don't have a right to be black, just like rapists don't have a right to rape people," would you not be correct in calling me absurdly intolerant?* Do you really think it would be fair or valid for me to call you absurdly intolerant back? :rolleyes:

*By the way, a subtle correction: You would not be "name-calling" if you did so, and I was not exactly name-calling either. Now, if I called you a bigot, that would be name-calling.

[Theocrat]

The right of a person to be gay (which isn't even a choice anyway) is inherent in the Lockean right to liberty...but that was kind of beside the point anyway. What I really took offense to was your disgusting comparison of being gay (not even having gay sex, but just BEING gay) to raping someone.

On the subject of whose views are absurdly intolerant, allow me to clarify the issue with a comparison:
Theocrat, if I said something ridiculous like, "Black people don't have a right to be black, just like rapists don't have a right to rape people," would you not be correct in calling me absurdly intolerant?* Do you really think it would be fair or valid for me to call you absurdly intolerant back? :rolleyes:

*By the way, a subtle correction: You would not be "name-calling" if you did so, and I was not exactly name-calling either. Now, if I called you a bigot, that would be name-calling.

Who cares what John Locke's discussion on rights and liberty is as a basis for human rights (especially since he never mentioned that homosexuals had the right to be gay, anyway)? Did rights not exist until John Locke decided to write about them? Of course not. It is God Who decides how humans should behave in sexual affairs, and it is God Who defines the family. He created us, and He is the One Who blesses us with life, liberty, property, etc., not John Locke, nor anyone else, for that matter.

The comparison between homosexuality and rape holds on account that they are both gross and immoral sexual behaviors (based on the absolute standard of God's word, whether you assent to it or not). Comparing a sexual behavior to a person's skin color is like comparing apples and oranges. Sexual behaviors are not a matter of genetics, whereas skin color is.

Recognizing that this may be a point of contention between us, let me just move on by saying that I would not even call that comparison "absurdly intolerant." I would just conclude that your analogy does not hold logically. Yet, it seems every time I speak out against homosexuality on these forums, people label me as "intolerant," which to me assumes that I am under some obligation to tolerate such an unnatural behavior. Of course, for someone to speak against my views on homosexuality is just as intolerant as they claim mine are, but I usually don't point that out.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I would just conclude that your analogy does not hold logically. Yet, it seems every time I speak out against homosexuality on these forums, people label me as "intolerant," which to me assumes that I am under some obligation to tolerate such an unnatural behavior. Of course, for someone to speak against my views on homosexuality is just as intolerant as they claim mine are, but I usually don't point that out.

Its because you have advocated having the State put them to death that caused people to label you as intolerant. You don't like gays, fine and dandy. No one is saying you have to be nice to them, be friends with them or swap spit with them.

[Mini-Me]

Who cares what John Locke's discussion on rights and liberty is as a basis for human rights (especially since he never mentioned that homosexuals had the right to be gay, anyway)? Did rights not exist until John Locke decided to write about them? Of course not. It is God Who decides how humans should behave in sexual affairs, and it is God Who defines the family. He created us, and He is the One Who blesses us with life, liberty, property, etc., not John Locke, nor anyone else, for that matter.
Who cares about John Locke's discussion of rights? Apparently you don't, but I do. I'm pretty certain some others on this board care as well. Rights have always existed. John Locke was merely the person who popularized the notions of life, liberty, and property...and that's why I refer to them as Lockean rights. Also, just because Locke's explanation (or later explanations) of those rights did not include the right to be passively homosexual, that doesn't mean it's not inherent in the right of "liberty." Locke's explanation also did not include the right to be black, and neither did the Bible's - but I'm pretty sure you'd agree that you have a right to be black. ;) Besides, if you were able to ask God directly, I'm pretty certain he'd be capable of giving a more philosophical explanation for rights and morality other than just "because I said so."



The comparison between homosexuality and rape holds on account that they are both gross and immoral sexual behaviors (based on the absolute standard of God's word, whether you assent to it or not). Comparing a sexual behavior to a person's skin color is like comparing apples and oranges. Sexual behaviors are not a matter of genetics, whereas skin color is.
Sexual behaviors are not a matter of genetics, but passive sexual orientation may very well be...and remember, you are condemning not only gay sex but gayness all by itself.



Recognizing that this may be a point of contention between us, let me just move on by saying that I would not even call that comparison "absurdly intolerant."
Okay, so that would definitely be a point of contention. After all, if the statement, "Black people don't have a right to be black, just like rapists don't have a right to rape people," is not absurdly intolerant, can you think of any statement the label actually applies to?



I would just conclude that your analogy does not hold logically.
The analogy may not be 1:1, but it is certainly far more logical than any comparison between gay sex and rape, let alone passive homosexuality and rape.



Yet, it seems every time I speak out against homosexuality on these forums, people label me as "intolerant," which to me assumes that I am under some obligation to tolerate such an unnatural behavior. Of course, for someone to speak against my views on homosexuality is just as intolerant as they claim mine are, but I usually don't point that out.
When intolerance of a certain group of people is inherent to your viewpoint (not just their actions, but the people themselves), expressing disgust for such a perspective is a very different form of intolerance, if it's intolerance at all.