Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

SPLC Says Army Bases Are Confederate Monuments That Need To Come Down

While Transfering millions to off shore accounts

SPLC can go suck a big fat donkey dick tbh

Here is another reason for them not to be taken seriously: They say groups like Jihad Watch are hate groups:

Robert Spencer on the Tucker Carlson Show: The SPLC and the Left's war on free speech

ATseaSbRbU8

There is a silver lining. The moment a person cites the SPLC for something you know they should not be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Surtur
Here is another reason for them not to be taken seriously: They say groups like Jihad Watch are hate groups:

Robert Spencer on the Tucker Carlson Show: The SPLC and the Left's war on free speech

ATseaSbRbU8

There is a silver lining. The moment a person cites the SPLC for something you know they should not be taken seriously.

The moment someone attempts to discredit a civil rights organization for rightly identifying extremist groups, he has destroyed his own credibility:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Southern Poverty Law Center is the premiere organization monitoring extremist groups in the United States, and its work is considered reliable by law enforcement agencies and the FBI.

In fact, SPLC began as a small, Southern law firm. It was founded during the Civil Rights Movement by a lawyer who is Baptist, and another who is Jewish. They began monitoring the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, because no other agency was doing so.

Since that time, SPLC has expanded its mission to monitoring all extremist groups in the United States, and is now partnered with the FBI.

More recently, conservatives groups who disagree with their hate group designation have tried to discredit the SPLC, and they, and anyone who sides with right wing extremists over a renowned civil rights organization, can rightly go **** themselves.

Army bases are hate symbols now?

#thisiswhyyoufail

Originally posted by Sable
Army bases are hate symbols now?

#thisiswhyyoufail

Biased sources like The Daily Caller is why you fail.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biased sources like The Daily Caller is why you fail.

They were on the SPLC list

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Screen-Shot-2017-08-31-at-10.22.12-AM-e1504189593837.png

the SPLC called the okay hand gesture a white supremacy symbol, and called a moderate Muslim in the UK an anti-Islam extremist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
the SPLC called the okay hand gesture a white supremacy symbol, and called a moderate Muslim in the UK an anti-Islam extremist.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-mx4XRV0AEnCC8.jpg

the OK symbol is used as a white supremacist gesture, and that does not imply that anyone who does it is signaling white supremacy.
so i don't know why you take offense to the simple fact.

Its actually an illuminati/occult symbol. It means 666. Its one of the oldest satanic symbols in the book. You can see almost every major celebrety in Hollywood holding it over one of their eyes.

Originally posted by Sable
Its actually an illuminati/occult symbol. It means 666. Its one of the oldest satanic symbols in the book.

i'm not doubting that it means that as well, just as i don't doubt that i am neither a nazi nor a satanist when i do the "ok" symbol to someone.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The moment someone attempts to discredit a civil rights organization for rightly identifying extremist groups, he has destroyed his own credibility:

Holy shit, you just cited yourself as a counter-argument as if your counter-argument addresses the point being made.

Were you drunk when you made this post?


Do you really believe your own bullshit? I think you do, actually...fear

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit, you just cited yourself as a counter-argument as if your counter-argument addresses the point being made.

Were you drunk when you made this post?


Do you really believe your own bullshit? I think you do, actually...fear

Originally posted by Sable
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-mx4XRV0AEnCC8.jpg

Remember....Barack aka "Barry Soetero" Obama does have some ...."Cream in his Coffee" ...lets just say this is that part showing...

I generally trust the SPLC, but they do have a very annoying left-wing bias.

You trust them sending money off shore while claiming to advocate for the poor?

P

Originally posted by Sable
You trust them sending money off shore while claiming to advocate for the poor?
I trust their assessments of hate groups... for the most part.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit, you just cited yourself as a counter-argument as if your counter-argument addresses the point being made.

Were you drunk when you made this post?


Do you really believe your own bullshit? I think you do, actually...fear

Lol yeah I noticed that as well. I notice he is also defending a group that lists "Jihad Watch" as a hate group.

They called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an anti-muslim extremist lol. It is *hilarious* to see anyone try to say this group should be taken seriously.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I trust their assessments of hate groups... for the most part.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, look her up. They labeled her an extremist. Jihad Watch, look it up, labeled as a hate group.

Come back and tell me if you still trust this group. I realize you said you trust them "for the most part". Thing is, if they will spew nonsense about Jihad Watch and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being an anti-muslim extremist? Yeah, they are not to be taken seriously at all.

The way the left uses this place and cites them...they can't afford to be wrong, even once. Because of them paypal took action against Jihad Watch, the backlash made them change their minds, but it shows you the power this shitty group has. They need to go the way of the Dodo.

They will not go the way of the Dodo though, because lefties won't let it happen. It's the next best thing to shouting "racism!" to end a convo, you just shout about what the SPLC says about them.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I trust their assessments of hate groups... for the most part.

How is Jihad watch a hate group?

Also there is something else weird about the SPLC: I can't find Antifa listed anywhere.

Originally posted by Surtur
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, look her up. They labeled her an extremist. Jihad Watch, look it up, labeled as a hate group.

Come back and tell me if you still trust this group. I realize you said you trust them "for the most part". Thing is, if they will spew nonsense about Jihad Watch and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being an anti-muslim extremist? Yeah, they are not to be taken seriously at all.

The way the left uses this place and cites them...they can't afford to be wrong, even once. Because of them paypal took action against Jihad Watch, the backlash made them change their minds, but it shows you the power this shitty group has. They need to go the way of the Dodo.

They will not go the way of the Dodo though, because lefties won't let it happen. It's the next best thing to shouting "racism!" to end a convo, you just shout about what the SPLC says about them.
Yeah, for the most part indeed. True, the SPLC took a blow to its credibility by labeling Jihad Watch and especially Ayaan Hirsi Ali as hatemongers, but that doesn't mean that the whole organization is now irrelevant.

The problem with adding Antifa groups in there is how decentralized and lacking in actual leadership they are. The SPLC catalogues groups that have at least some sort of cohesion and stated ideology.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The problem with adding Antifa groups in there is how decentralized and lacking in actual leadership they are. The SPLC catalogues groups that have at least some sort of cohesion and stated ideology.

They want to tear down the US, they are communists.

They could add, at the very least, Boston Antifa. Who admitted to being communists. Flat out lol.

They won't do so, of course.

Originally posted by Surtur
They want to tear down the US, they are communists.

They could add, at the very least, Boston Antifa. Who admitted to being communists. Flat out lol.

They won't do so, of course.
Which ones, though? Maybe a group like Redneck Revolt, but these Antifa groups are so multifarious and decentralized that trying to catalogue them would be a quixotic task. On top of that, most of them don't even espouse violence.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Which ones, though? Maybe a group like Redneck Revolt, but these Antifa groups are so multifarious and decentralized that trying to catalogue them would be a quixotic task. On top of that, most of them don't even espouse violence.

Boston Antifa lol. It's what they call themselves, it is their twitter handle and what they are called on their facebook page. Can't see what would be too difficult about putting them on the list, other than just leftist bias.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I trust their assessments of hate groups... for the most part.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Michael-Scott-Failing-to-Hold-In-Laughter.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
Boston Antifa lol. It's what they call themselves, it is their twitter handle and what they are called on their facebook page. Can't see what would be too difficult about putting them on the list, other than just leftist bias.
Yes, they could. I guess it's partly due to SPLC's left-wing bias and them not wanting to open up a massive can of worms when it comes to all the various Antifa groups.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yes, they could. I guess it's partly due to SPLC's left-wing bias and them not wanting to open up a massive can of worms when it comes to all the various Antifa groups.

So they are willing to point out Groups that Do Wrong...unless it will cause to many problems???

Yeah. That sounds like a Typcial Leftist Thought Process.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit, you just cited yourself as a counter-argument as if your counter-argument addresses the point being made.

Were you drunk when you made this post?


Do you really believe your own bullshit? I think you do, actually...fear

Hey, idiot. This subject was raised in another thread, and I addressed it there. The participants did not respond to my retort, and then this thread was created. So instead of allowing them to conveniently ignore my post, I quoted it again for them here. There is no sense in composing a new post, when the previous one composed in response to the same subject is still perfectly good, and went ignored.

Well I mean the thing is, of course they get them for the most part, it's not hard to categorize obvious hate groups that openly self-identify around said ideology as hate groups.

"Well at least they can correctly label openly white supremacist groups, the KKK, the WBC, stormfront, etc. as hate groups" doesn't really strike me as a valid defense for them egregiously accusing people of being extremists or hatemongerers without anything to back up that assertion.

Obviously if you cast your net so wide as to categorize a jihadi watch group and a muslim critical of mainstream Islam as anti-islam extremists, you're going to catch the actual hate groups in that net as well.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well I mean the thing is, of course they get them for the most part, it's not hard to categorize obvious hate groups that openly self-identify around said ideology as hate groups.

"Well at least they can correctly label openly white supremacist groups, the KKK, the WBC, stormfront, etc. as hate groups" doesn't really strike me as a valid defense for them egregiously accusing people of being extremists or hatemongerers without anything to back up that assertion.

Obviously if you cast your net so wide as to categorize a jihadi watch group and a muslim critical of mainstream Islam as anti-islam extremists, you're going to catch the actual hate groups in that net as well.

Exactly, which is why I think if someone is going to cite the SPLC for something the first step is: slap yourself. Then, if you still want to cite it, look at what the SPLC says warrants the group being seen as a hate group. If it's BS? Do not cite them.

Remember: these people had Ben Carson on there at one time lol. They still, as of now, have a liberal atheist feminist on there, which is like a leftist wet dream, but she dares to talk about Islam so she is cast out of Eden so to speak.

You also want to see something funny? This is from wiki, I admit it, but I have heard this talked about in other places too(Steven Crowder), I am still not saying it is true, but:

"In 1986, the entire legal staff of the SPLC, excluding Dees, resigned as the organization shifted from traditional civil rights work toward fighting right-wing extremism."

True it was a long time ago, but it really isn't a good sign if true, and they have gotten worse.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Hey, idiot. This subject was raised in another thread, and I addressed it there.

So that magically changes the fact that you cited yourself to support your argument? It does not matter that you did it in the old thread or the new: you still tried to cite yourself in this thread...which is simply asinine. At least your "opponents" cite something...even if it is rubbish right-winger bullshit at times.



Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no sense in composing a new post, when the previous one composed in response to the same subject is still perfectly good, and went ignored.

Or you could...like...post anything at all that was credible to support your point then or even when you requotted yourself. They were smart: they didn't respond to a non-credible comment. There is a certain right-winger who posts frequent bullshit: why don't you respond to every one of his posts? Exactly. Usually, bullshit gets ignored.

I just thought your bullshitty post was a bit more bullshitty than normal since it is very easy to prove that they are going through some credibility issues recently. Even your point, which is not something I will entertain beyond this, is silly: your point relies on the FBI's opinion of them from multiple decades ago.

Edit - And why of all the things I've called you out on, lately, this is the one thing that got a response? This is definitely one of the shittiest arguments you've made, of the ones I've responded to, and you want to defend this one for some reason.

Edit 2 - I think the problem is, you've been arguing with some shitheads for so long that you've gotten lazy and do not put effort in. And I'm still expecting you to maintain a higher quality argumentation and posting style.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So they are willing to point out Groups that Do Wrong...unless it will cause to many problems???

Yeah. That sounds like a Typcial Leftist Thought Process.




Not quite. My point was that if they began to categorize Antifa groups, they would probably feel obligated to catalogue ALL of them for the sake of consistency('hey, why is this Antifa group listed here, but not this one?') and, for the reasons I've listed in my previous posts, that would be a Sisyphean task.

Now, you shouldn't take my post as some sort of a wholesale defense of SPLC. They've really shown where their biases lie when they declared Hirsi Ali to be an extremist, and I'm not denying that.

The fact that SPLC doesn't track BAMN is also a blow to its credibility.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So that magically changes the fact that you cited yourself to support your argument? It does not matter that you did it in the old thread or the new: you still tried to cite yourself in this thread...which is simply asinine. At least your "opponents" cite something...even if it is rubbish right-winger bullshit at times.

I did not cite myself as a source in support of an argument. I quoted a previous argument instead of restating it.

I did not cite sources in that argument, but the facts of that argument are not in dispute, and that does not appear to be the issue of contention anyway.




Originally posted by dadudemon
Or you could...like...post anything at all that was credible to support your point then or even when you requotted yourself. They were smart: they didn't respond to a non-credible comment. There is a certain right-winger who posts frequent bullshit: why don't you respond to every one of his posts? Exactly. Usually, bullshit gets ignored.

I just thought your bullshitty post was a bit more bullshitty than normal since it is very easy to prove that they are going through some credibility issues recently. Even your point, which is not something I will entertain beyond this, is silly: your point relies on the FBI's opinion of them from multiple decades ago.

Edit - And why of all the things I've called you out on, lately, this is the one thing that got a response? This is definitely one of the shittiest arguments you've made, of the ones I've responded to, and you want to defend this one for some reason.

Edit 2 - I think the problem is, you've been arguing with some shitheads for so long that you've gotten lazy and do not put effort in. And I'm still expecting you to maintain a higher quality argumentation and posting style.

By all means, what information presented is incorrect?

I noted recent attempts by conservative groups to discredit the SPLC in my previous post. Unfortunately for them, the SPLC makes the reasons for its extremist group designations publicly available. Anyone can see why a group received a particular designation, and the process by which to challenge that designation if they disagree.

Moreover, the FBI currently lists its partnership with the SPLC on its website, i.e. right now, not "decades ago."

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The fact that SPLC doesn't track BAMN is also a blow to its credibility.

Indeed, but shhh...let the leftists continue to cite it. It is a good way to measure credibility. The more a person tries to argue the SPLC are credible the more we know not to pay attention.

People could avoid the credibility issue quite easily by, instead of citing the SPLC, cite the specific evidence they claim shows a hate group is a hate group. That way the evidence speaks for itself as opposed to just citing a shady organization, because it's entirely meaningless to cite that place outside of liberal echo chambers.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Hey, idiot. This subject was raised in another thread, and I addressed it there. The participants did not respond to my retort, and then this thread was created. So instead of allowing them to conveniently ignore my post, I quoted it again for them here. There is no sense in composing a new post, when the previous one composed in response to the same subject is still perfectly good, and went ignored.

No thats not what you did, you used yourself as a source. I simply find it amazing you are incapable of making a single post that isn't either an outright lie, misrepresentation of the truth or facts of any given situation, story or scenario.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So that magically changes the fact that you cited yourself to support your argument? It does not matter that you did it in the old thread or the new: you still tried to cite yourself in this thread...which is simply asinine. At least your "opponents" cite something...even if it is rubbish right-winger bullshit at times.





Or you could...like...post anything at all that was credible to support your point then or even when you requotted yourself. They were smart: they didn't respond to a non-credible comment. There is a certain right-winger who posts frequent bullshit: why don't you respond to every one of his posts? Exactly. Usually, bullshit gets ignored.

I just thought your bullshitty post was a bit more bullshitty than normal since it is very easy to prove that they are going through some credibility issues recently. Even your point, which is not something I will entertain beyond this, is silly: your point relies on the FBI's opinion of them from multiple decades ago.

Edit - And why of all the things I've called you out on, lately, this is the one thing that got a response? This is definitely one of the shittiest arguments you've made, of the ones I've responded to, and you want to defend this one for some reason.

Edit 2 - I think the problem is, you've been arguing with some shitheads for so long that you've gotten lazy and do not put effort in. And I'm still expecting you to maintain a higher quality argumentation and posting style.

#fckingownedadam

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not cite myself as a source in support of an argument.

Yes, yes you did. Try harder




Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, what information presented is incorrect?

99% of the things you post are incorrect or flat out lies.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Moreover, the FBI currently lists its partnership with the SPLC on its website, i.e. right now, not "decades ago."

Wrong the FBI removed them as a partner, keep lying.

Originally posted by Sable
Yes, yes you did. Try harder

Someone is trying hard, but it is not me.




Originally posted by Sable
99% of the things you post are incorrect or flat out lies.

http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2012/11/07/film_projector_smoke.jpg




Originally posted by Sable
Wrong the FBI removed them as a partner, keep lying.

Despite the February 3, 2017 date of the Daily Caller (LOL) article, it is actually reposted from 2014.

It notes a site organization change, moving the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center from a section for internal government resources to a section for external government partnerships.

It was widely-publicized by The Blaze, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and WorldNetDaily as evidence that the FBI was ending its relationship with the SPLC in response to criticism from right-wing groups.

And it was celebrated by a number of extreme anti-LGBT organizations, including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council that have long resented the SPLC for labeling them anti-LGBT hate groups.

However, the claim that the FBI is ending its relationship with the SPLC is false.

Not only does the FBI continue to list the SPLC as a partner on its website, but an FBI spokesperson released an official statement in response to the article, stating that the FBI removed the ADL and the SPLC from that section of the site, because they wanted it to be for government-only resources, and they did not want the any partners not listed on that page to feel left out.

But congratulations on falling for fake news.

Sure if you say so, tell me why they are sending money off shore then. I would like to hear your long and detailed explanation and deflecting this one on how its ok and why you agree with it.


Public Outreach: The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others.

I will congratulate you on being right for once, but let me ask you this, why are there so many civil rights organizations and this is the tip of the ice berg, it really seems they have partnered with every single CRO possible, reading over this list, it looks like a conglomeration of people who feel they are victims of living in America.

And does the FBI partnering with all of these CRO's someone validate them as 100% legit? After all I bet most of this happen under Obama, the king of community organizing.

The FBI's reputation is not only been shot to shit, but it was politicized under the BO admin more then anyone else since Hoover was in command. I take their "partnerships" with a grain of salt.

If the FBI actually take the SPLC seriously that is just yet another reason for the general public not to take the FBI seriously.

I stopped taking the FBI serious after Clinton was exonerated before the investigation even began.

Originally posted by Sable
I stopped taking the FBI serious after Clinton was exonerated before the investigation even began.

If he does nothing else one great thing President Trump has accomplished more than any president in a long time is getting people to show their true colors lol. It is utterly delightful to see the man be able to bring that out in people. As a result of their reaction to him the narrative of Democrats being morally superior to Republicans has forever been shattered lol.

Likewise the massive surge in SJW's and identity politics because of Trump has caused them to become overexposed to the point their idiocy can no longer be ignored.

He also emboldened Antifa, forcing them to show their true colors even more than they had in the past.

He showed some of the people we have in our intelligence agencies are nothing more than children in adult bodies.

Thanks Trump, your presidency may only last 4 years, but the internet(and thus documentation of the utter breakdown of the left that has occurred during this time) will be around a lot longer

See, the SPLC would be a more credible source regarding it's list of extremist hate organisations if it'd actually note down organisations from both sides of the political divide rather than focusing solely on one side - that side being the right.

Even if they did do this, they are still flawed as, as people have already highlighted on this thread, they tend to list people whom have not performed any actions or launched any particular campaigns that can be considered "extremist", "hateful" or "violent".

Originally posted by RHaggis
See, the SPLC would be a more credible source regarding it's list of extremist hate organisations if it'd actually note down organisations from both sides of the political divide rather than focusing solely on one side - that side being the right.

Even if they did do this, they are still flawed as, as people have already highlighted on this thread, they tend to list people whom have not performed any actions or launched any particular campaigns that can be considered "extremist", "hateful" or "violent".

Well, I have not scoured every single thing on the list. I would surely hope that it's not 100% right wing groups. Even the staunchest liberal couldn't cite the SPLC with a straight face if that were true...could they?

The problem more comes with ignoring majorly violent and hateful groups while at the same time finding time to list people like liberal atheist feminists as extremists because they talk about the horrors of Islam and say it is not a religion of peace(this is a fact, it is not).

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not cite myself as a source in support of an argument. I quoted a previous argument instead of restating it.

"I did not cite myself. I only quoted myself with a link back to my original post that had no third party or original research as a citation." You should have been on Hillary Clinton's campaign team with this kind of bullshittery and double speak.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not cite sources in that argument,

I know you didn't...I just...we just...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
...but the facts of that argument are not in dispute, and that does not appear to be the issue of contention anyway.

It is, actually. I mean, you're not THAT obstinate, are you? More on this, later.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, what information presented is incorrect?

I noted recent attempts by conservative groups to discredit the SPLC in my previous post. Unfortunately for them, the SPLC makes the reasons for its extremist group designations publicly available. Anyone can see why a group received a particular designation, and the process by which to challenge that designation if they disagree.

Moreover, the FBI currently lists its partnership with the SPLC on its website, i.e. right now, not "decades ago."

Do you feel your position is dishonest as hell or do you believe your own bullshit?

2014, SPLC removed from the FBI as a resource (and the FOIA indicates it is definitely not about "feeling left out", at all. I don't think you read the article, at all):

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/exclusive-fbi-removed-splc-and-adl-from-civil-rights-resources-pages-because-of-a-number-of-concerns/

And this relationship has been in a passive-aggressive simmer. It's not as simple as stating "they are chums!" Because they are not. The relationship has been rocky and there are clearly documented credibility issues going on right now with them. Severe, factual, credibility issues. Denying that just makes you look like an idiot.

But, go ahead and pretend they are the best of intimate chums. Go ahead and pretend the relationship is intimate and close like it was decades ago.


And, Sable, don't be quick to throw in the towel just because the FBI still has them listed on one place on their site. The FOIA release clearly indicates there is more going on there than just simple "policies" about internal sources. Obviously, they won't be clear about it. Why would they? The quiet and truthful back room discussions won't show up in a FOIA release.

Oh I didn't throw in the towel, I was giving him a smug victory for stating that they have a "partnership" with the SPLC listed as their LAST ONE on their extremely long list. Without them offering any sort of explanation or details of what it actually means.

He understood that which is why he ran off.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, Sable, don't be quick to throw in the towel just because the FBI still has them listed on one place on their site. The FOIA release clearly indicates there is more going on there than just simple "policies" about internal sources. Obviously, they won't be clear about it. Why would they? The quiet and truthful back room discussions won't show up in a FOIA release.

Speaking of stuff like this, observe another reason not to trust the FBI:

FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

Lack of public interest? Really? After the narrative for so long has been conservatives are obsessed with stuff about Hilary?

Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of stuff like this, observe another reason not to trust the FBI:

FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

Lack of public interest? Really? After the narrative for so long has been conservatives are obsessed with stuff about Hilary?

Let's be fair, the Democrats are interested, too. Specifically, the Berniecrats who were furious over Hillary's DNC nomination. Let's not forget that Democrats as we as Republicans dislike Hillary. Hillary lost the election because of the disenfranchised Democratic voters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's be fair, the Democrats are interested, too. Specifically, the Berniecrats who were furious over Hillary's DNC nomination. Let's not forget that Democrats as we as Republicans dislike Hillary. Hillary lost the election because of the disenfranchised Democratic voters.

Someone needs to set up a white house petition for this. If 100,000 signatures are gotten very quickly how can they still say nobody is interested?

(((SPLC)))

Originally posted by Surtur
Someone needs to set up a white house petition for this. If 100,000 signatures are gotten very quickly how can they still say nobody is interested?

At this point, I really don't give a shit about Hillary's e-mails. She's not the president. It doesn't matter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
At this point, I really don't give a shit about Hillary's e-mails. She's not the president. It doesn't matter.

My interest now more comes from...obviously there is interest lol. More than enough, so what are they so desperate to hide to the point of lying about the obvious interest? As far as excuses go it ranks up there with "it was just a weather balloon".

Wait Adam, have you addressed the money transfer story? Cuz it's fully of shady shenanigans lol.

Let me help you out, here some stuff from the article:

"Additionally, the nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of "fighting hate and bigotry" using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy."

Hmm, well that is curious.

"Tax experts expressed confusion when being told of the transfer.

"I've never known a US-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts," said Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of Pacific Human Capital, a California-based nonprofit consulting firm. "My impression based on prior interactions is that they have a small, modestly paid staff, and were regarded by most in the industry as frugal and reliable. I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with."

"It is unethical for any US-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas," said Casil. "I know of no legitimate reason for any US-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts."

Well that certainly isn't alarming.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you feel your position is dishonest as hell or do you believe your own bullshit?

2014, SPLC removed from the FBI as a resource (and the FOIA indicates it is definitely not about "feeling left out", at all. I don't think you read the article, at all):

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/exclusive-fbi-removed-splc-and-adl-from-civil-rights-resources-pages-because-of-a-number-of-concerns/

And this relationship has been in a passive-aggressive simmer. It's not as simple as stating "they are chums!" Because they are not. The relationship has been rocky and there are clearly documented credibility issues going on right now with them. Severe, factual, credibility issues. Denying that just makes you look like an idiot.

But, go ahead and pretend they are the best of intimate chums. Go ahead and pretend the relationship is intimate and close like it was decades ago.


And, Sable, don't be quick to throw in the towel just because the FBI still has them listed on one place on their site. The FOIA release clearly indicates there is more going on there than just simple "policies" about internal sources. Obviously, they won't be clear about it. Why would they? The quiet and truthful back room discussions won't show up in a FOIA release.

The internal FBI communications obtained via the Freedom of Information Act request indicate no such thing, the innuendos of The Daily Caller article notwithstanding.

It is literally one email that paraphrases, "Upon review, please remove these organizations from this section."

It appears someone took the article at face value and did not read the actual documents.

Adam you got owned

Originally posted by Sable
Oh I didn't throw in the towel, I was giving him a smug victory for stating that they have a "partnership" with the SPLC listed as their LAST ONE on their extremely long list. Without them offering any sort of explanation or details of what it actually means.

He understood that which is why he ran off.

The organizations are listed in alphabetical order.

Originally posted by Surtur
Wait Adam, have you addressed the money transfer story? Cuz it's fully of shady shenanigans lol.

Let me help you out, here some stuff from the article:

"Additionally, the nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of "fighting hate and bigotry" using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy."

Hmm, well that is curious.

"Tax experts expressed confusion when being told of the transfer.

"I've never known a US-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts," said Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of Pacific Human Capital, a California-based nonprofit consulting firm. "My impression based on prior interactions is that they have a small, modestly paid staff, and were regarded by most in the industry as frugal and reliable. I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with."

"It is unethical for any US-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas," said Casil. "I know of no legitimate reason for any US-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts."

Well that certainly isn't alarming.

Source?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The organizations are listed in alphabetical order.

Besides lip service provide proof of this amazing partership the FBI relies on.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Source?

Article was posted in the OP's original post.

Originally posted by Surtur
Wait Adam, have you addressed the money transfer story? Cuz it's fully of shady shenanigans lol.

Let me help you out, here some stuff from the article:

"Additionally, the nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of "fighting hate and bigotry" using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy."

Hmm, well that is curious.

The SPLC currently holds a gold rating from charity watchdog groups for its financial transparency and accountability. Approximately 68% of its revenue goes directly to programs. Its annual report provides a complete breakdown of how its funds are allocated. What is the curious part?




Originally posted by Surtur
"Tax experts expressed confusion when being told of the transfer.

"I've never known a US-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts," said Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of Pacific Human Capital, a California-based nonprofit consulting firm. "My impression based on prior interactions is that they have a small, modestly paid staff, and were regarded by most in the industry as frugal and reliable. I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with."

"It is unethical for any US-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas," said Casil. "I know of no legitimate reason for any US-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts."

Well that certainly isn't alarming.

Sterling-Casil insinuates that there is something improper about the finances of the SPLC, because she can think of no reason for them to be "owners" in a foreign investment company. But anyone who invests in a mutual fund, that in-turn holds an investment in a foreign fund, would be an "owner" in a PFIC, so that is not at all unusual. Again, what is the alarming part?




By the way, you should choose better sources:

Indeed? So please explain why they transferred the funds?

Also, just answer me this: you agree with everything on the SPLC site? As in, you agree every single person, every single group they list as being hate groups...deserve to be listed as such? Just curious.

"The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality."

And Surtur hates these guys.

Because they blatantly slander people.

Anyone can type up a well worded positive description of themselves and their intentions, that doesn't invalidate any and all criticism towards them.

They slander Nazi lions and Nazi tigers and Nazi bears, oh my

Originally posted by Robtard
They slander Nazi lions and Nazi tigers and Nazi bears, oh my

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a nazi lol. The group Jihad Watch are not nazis.

Was Ben Carson a nazi? They had him on there at one point as well lol.

Who's more dangerous, the about 10,000 white supremacists in the country or the terrorist organization known as Antifa?

Originally posted by Surtur
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a nazi lol. The group Jihad Watch are not nazis.

Was Ben Carson a nazi? They had him on there at one point as well lol.



I don't know what "Jihad Watch" is, but honestly, it sounds like another "religionofpeace.com' hack website made to wind up the hayseeds like yourself

Originally posted by Sable
Who's more dangerous, the about 10,000 white supremacists in the country or the terrorist organization known as Antifa?


Who's murdered people? Exactly

Originally posted by Robtard


I don't know what "Jihad Watch" is, but honestly, it sounds like another "religionofpeace.com' hack website made to wind up the hayseeds like yourself



You need a citation that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a nazi?

I have never seen anything on either of those websites. But there is about 10,000 WS in the country of 333 million people.

Do you know what fraction of the population that is?

Originally posted by Surtur
You need a citation that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not a nazi?

^What a retard

Originally posted by Sable
I have never seen anything on either of those websites. But there is about 10,000 WS in the country of 333 million people.

Do you know what fraction of the population that is?

It only took 1 white supremacist to run over a bunch of people and luckily only murdering one

Originally posted by Robtard
^What a retard

So what did you want citations for?

Holy ****, if the standard is that as long as people refer to themselves in a way that seems virtuous they must be viewed positively by others (take antifa or the SPLC for example), then I therefore declare myself to be the founder and leader of the newly founded anti-evil movement, someone committed to ending immorality, hatred, violence, and world hunger.

Now please excuse me while I commit political violence and/or lie about people because my self-described goals make me immune to criticism.

Originally posted by Robtard
They slander Nazi lions and Nazi tigers and Nazi bears, oh my

As opposed to the upstanding Washington Free Beacon that searched high and low for an organization to libel the SPLC by innuendo.

The article cites the CEO of Pacific Human Capital, which it implies is a non-profit organization, when it is in fact a for-profit fund development company that services Evangelical Christian non-profits. It is also questionable whether it is actually doing business, as its website has not been updated in three years, and its business front appears to be vacant.

Because we should totally trust the opinion of someone whose company services the same anti-LGBT groups that object to their anti-LGBT group designation by the SPLC about the finances of the SPLC.

Oh Trumpers...

Originally posted by Robtard
It only took 1 white supremacist to run over a bunch of people and luckily only murdering one

It only took one Muslim Supremacist to kill 50 people at the pulse night club:/

Originally posted by Sable
It only took one Muslim Supremacist to kill 50 people at the pulse night club:/

Agreed, why we keep a watch on terrorist

Muslim Supremacist? Weird, but okay.

He was on a watch list, but removed because he was a muslim and Obama thought it wasn't right.

He thought he was superior to those people so he killed them based on his religious ideology.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Holy ****, if the standard is that as long as people refer to themselves in a way that seems virtuous they must be viewed positively by others (take antifa or the SPLC for example), then I therefore declare myself to be the founder and leader of the newly founded anti-evil movement, someone committed to ending immorality, hatred, violence, and world hunger.

Now please excuse me while I commit political violence and/or lie about people because my self-described goals make me immune to criticism.

Remember, the SPLC had Ben Carson on one of their lists temporarily lol.

Adam

Originally posted by Sable
Besides lip service provide proof of this amazing partership the FBI relies on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh Trumpers...

Right?

The real story here:

Anti-LGBT organizations object to being rightly designated anti-LGBT groups by the SPLC.

Since these organizations cannot successfully challenge their designations because FACTS, right wing new sources attempt to discredit the SPLC to render its extremist group designations meaningless.

To do this, they cite "experts" whose livelihoods are tied to the same anti-LGBT organizations who are objecting to their SPLC designations.

It is such a joke, it would almost be funny, if there was not an endless shortage of witless individuals willing to believe it unquestioningly.

Ok so you can't prove this amazing partnership besides them being last on their partnership list

I mean the only defense of the SPLC I've seen in this thread is a citation to authority, and a citation to their own self-description, neither of which are convincing arguments IMO.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean the only defense of the SPLC I've seen in this thread is a citation to authority, and a citation to their own self-description, neither of which are convincing arguments IMO.

They literally are trying to say there was no other recourse to show this group was shady besides the shit about money transfers lol.

Too funny. The place had Ben Carson temporarily on.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Right?

The real story here:

Anti-LGBT organizations object to being rightly designated anti-LGBT groups by the SPLC.

Since these organizations cannot successfully challenge their designations because FACTS, right wing new sources attempt to discredit the SPLC to render its extremist group designations meaningless.

To do this, they cite "experts" whose livelihoods are tied to the same anti-LGBT organizations who are objecting to their SPLC designations.

It is such a joke, it would almost be funny, if there was not an endless shortage of witless individuals willing to believe it unquestioningly.

Damn. There's no hate like Conservative hate

Lmao!

Surtur's now anti marriage equality just like that...

https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-12-2015/u-V7nI.gif

Originally posted by Sable
But Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both said marriage was between a man and a woman.

They did at first, but they never tried comparing homosexuality with child-rapist and animal cornholers

Originally posted by Robtard
Surtur's now anti marriage equality just like that...

Lol I never said that, but Rob since you seem to agree Ben SHOULD be on there, doesn't this make the SPLC still not trustworthy, since they removed him?

Originally posted by Robtard
They did at first, but they never tried comparing homosexuality with child-rapist and animal cornholers

But when they did say it, it never landed them on the SPLC. If you want to think BC is a racist sexist xenophobic corn hole, thats up to you, but if thats what he believes who are we to say otherwise? Isn't that his right to believe what he wants?

Originally posted by Sable
But when they did say it, it never landed them on the SPLC. If you want to think BC is a racist sexist xenophobic corn hole, thats up to you, but if thats what he believes who are we to say otherwise? Isn't that his right to believe what he wants?

I can boil down what Ben said: marriage is between a man and a woman and no group no matter what gets to change the definition.

If he is such an extremist why did they remove him? I am so curious as to the excuse they will have for this lol.

Originally posted by Sable
But when they did say it, it never landed them on the SPLC. If you want to think BC is a racist sexist xenophobic corn hole, thats up to you, but if thats what he believes who are we to say otherwise? Isn't that his right to believe what he wants?

It was because he subtly compared homosexuality with child-rape and bestiality, that's a very extreme view. If he just said "gay marriage bad" like the rest, no one would have cared too much, just more of the same.

Sure, Carson's free to say all the crazy shit he believes, just like any other bigot is. Doesn't mean he gets a free pass and people don't call him on it.

So why did they remove him?

Originally posted by Robtard
It was because he subtly compared homosexuality with child-rape and bestiality, that's a very extreme view. If he just said "gay marriage bad" like the rest, no one would have cared too much, just more of the same.

Sure, Carson's free to say all the crazy shit he believes, just like any other bigot is. Doesn't mean he gets a free pass and people don't call him on it.

I hardly would call him a bigot. People literally get in trouble now for thinking anal sex is gross, its being called discrimination to think that way.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol I never said that, but Rob since you seem to agree Ben SHOULD be on there, doesn't this make the SPLC still not trustworthy, since they removed him?

No, you just defend shit actions of others in a round about way and then blow your rape whistle when you get called out

Originally posted by Robtard
No, you just defend shit actions of others in a round about way and then blow your rape whistle when you get called out

Why'd they remove him, Rob?

Originally posted by Surtur
Why'd they remove him, Rob?

No idea, I'd assume probably because he just said the one thing and enough people like you cried about it "but he's a doctor!!! Waahhh!!" . He's a turd, but he's hardly Hitler

Originally posted by Robtard
No idea, I'd assume probably because he just said the one thing and enough people like you cried about it "but he's a doctor!!! Waahhh!!" . He's a turd, but he's hardly Hitler

Lol so let us say the silliness you just uttered was true, why should we trust the place if they bow to the whining of others and remove people who legitimately deserve to be on there?

Just answered your question. Doing flips won't get you the one you wanted, sport.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just answered your question. Doing flips won't get you the one you wanted, sport.

You didn't say why we should trust them, why should we?

Better question: Why shouldn't we?

Originally posted by Robtard
Better question: Why shouldn't we?

Because if we go by what you just said they are willing to remove people who deserve to be on there merely because people made a big enough stink about it. Meaning they have zero integrity.

EDIT: Let me put it another way Rob. If conservative pressure can get someone who belongs on there removed, why can't liberal pressure get someone who doesn't belong on there...put on?

Originally posted by Sable
Ok so you can't prove this amazing partnership besides them being last on their partnership list

"You cannot prove they are partners besides them both saying they are partners."

Wow, you sure got me.

Originally posted by Sable
But Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both said marriage was between a man and a woman and that never landed them on that list of the SPLC

The SPLC does not name individuals or groups to its anti-LGBT list for simply having biblical objections to homosexuality or for opposing same-sex marriage.

They earn that designation by propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people, such as comparing them to people who have sex with children or animals.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The SPLC does not name individuals or groups to its anti-LGBT list for simply having biblical objections to homosexuality or for opposing same-sex marriage.

They earn that designation by propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people, such as comparing them to people who have sex with children or animals.

Why'd they remove Ben Carson?

Originally posted by Surtur
So why did they remove him?

Because he gave an interview three days later saying he did not intend to draw that comparison. He effectively "took it back," so they followed suit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because he gave an interview three days later saying he did not intend to draw that comparison. He effectively "took it back," so they followed suit.

Oh truly? So all one has to do to get removed is say "I didn't mean it"? Interesting.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, Ayaan Hirsi Ali...an extremist in your opinion?

Wait now Antifa philidelphia are holding anti police workshops and stuff, this news is from late August.

Are they on the SPLC list? *checks* Nope.

On a completely off topic note, anyone ever heard of the Family Research Council?

The name sounds familiar. Not sure what they do. Why?

Dunno, something about a shooting a few years ago....I wonder why it happened.

Random nutjob I'm sure.

Originally posted by Surtur
On a completely off topic note, anyone ever heard of the Family Research Council?
Yeah, I think I've heard of them. They suck.

Lol@ this if true:

DOD Drops SPLC From Extremism Training Materials

As I said, they have a credibility crisis

It will be funny to see leftists continue to use it as a source.

Adam Poop sure won't stop

Originally posted by Emperordmb
SPLC can go suck a big fat donkey dick tbh

Yeah, they put Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz on a list of anti-Muslim extremists. That is sickening.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, they put Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz on a list of anti-Muslim extremists. That is sickening.

She is against female genital mutilation. What a witch.

Burn her!

Find it funny how so many western feminists will complain about their supposed oppression first world countries where they aren't really oppressed... at all, but then they'll ignore where women are actually being oppressed in the middle east.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Find it funny how so many western feminists will complain about their supposed oppression first world countries where they aren't really oppressed... at all, but then they'll ignore where women are actually being oppressed in the middle east.

But it's worse than just ignoring her oppression and persecution. It's actually putting her a more risk, because not only are Muslim extremists still hunting her down and trying to kill her because she's an apostate, but now SPLC has Leftists against her, too, because she's speaking out against the evils of Islam as a set of dangerous ideas and values. It's corrupt. What the fu#k is going on in this world when not even the simplest sanity can prevail?

This is all on top of the fact that she had to flee her home after suffering FGM and escape a forced marriage. She then learned a bunch of languages and became a respected diplomat.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
But it's worse than just ignoring her oppression and persecution. It's actually putting her a more risk, because not only are Muslim extremists still hunting her down and trying to kill her because she's an apostate, but now SPLC has Leftists against her, too, because she's speaking out against the evils of Islam as a set of dangerous ideas and values. It's corrupt. What the fu#k is going on in this world when not even the simplest sanity can prevail?

This is all on top of the fact that she had to flee her home after suffering FGM and escape a forced marriage. She then learned a bunch of languages and became a respected diplomat.
The SPLC has had a left-wing bias for several decades now, but it seems that the recent rise of the Alt-Right and Trump being elected president made them have some sort of an ideological Pavlovian reaction that pushed them even further to the left.

The 11th Circuit on Wednesday struck down a Florida evangelical Christian ministry's claim that it was discriminated against and defamed after the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled it a hate group, causing Amazon to deny its application to fundraise through the online retailing giant's charitable website.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court upheld an Alabama federal judge's September 2019 decision to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Fort Lauderdale-based Coral Ridge Ministries Media (also known as D. James Kennedy Ministries) against Amazon, the AmazonSmile Foundation and the SPLC.

Coral Ridge earned its hate group status under viciously anti-LGBT Pastor D. James Kennedy. Liberty Counsel lost its own suit on the issue in 2018.

And gaslighting fascists were pretending the SPLC has a credibility crisis. Two separate courts do not agree. L-O-L

Everyone who has a brain knows that the SPLC is racist, itself.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The 11th Circuit on Wednesday struck down a Florida evangelical Christian ministry's claim that it was discriminated against and defamed after the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled it a hate group, causing Amazon to deny its application to fundraise through the online retailing giant's charitable website.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court upheld an Alabama federal judge's September 2019 decision to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Fort Lauderdale-based Coral Ridge Ministries Media (also known as D. James Kennedy Ministries) against Amazon, the AmazonSmile Foundation and the SPLC.

Coral Ridge earned its hate group status under viciously anti-LGBT Pastor D. James Kennedy. Liberty Counsel lost its own suit on the issue in 2018.

And gaslighting fascists were pretending the SPLC has a credibility crisis. Two separate courts do not agree. L-O-L This is good news! Sanity prevails.