Leftist SPLC Publishes Patriot Hit List

[lester1/2jr]

so why have traffic lights? why not liberty solve it? you are not being sensical here

 

[amy31416]

so why have traffic lights? why not liberty solve it? you are not being sensical here

Are you talking to me, someone else or yourself? Have you had coffee yet today?

 

[lester1/2jr]

I'm asking a simle question: why have traffic lights? why not let people arrive at the decision of when to stop and go by working it out among themselves without having their paychecks stolen from to pay for state light fascism?

just a question. got an answer?

 

[bruce leeroy]

I'm asking a simle question: why have traffic lights? why not let people arrive at the decision of when to stop and go by working it out among themselves without having their paychecks stolen from to pay for state light fascism?

just a question. got an answer?

you sound just like those brady bunch morons when they ask "why not let civilians have nuclear weapons?"

 

[pcosmar]

I'm asking a simle question: why have traffic lights? why not let people arrive at the decision of when to stop and go by working it out among themselves without having their paychecks stolen from to pay for state light fascism?

just a question. got an answer?

And this has what to do with the SPLC? Or their connections to and influence with Law Enforcement?

That is the focus of this thread.
What is your purpose in attempted derailing of it?

 

[amy31416]

I'm asking a simle question: why have traffic lights? why not let people arrive at the decision of when to stop and go by working it out among themselves without having their paychecks stolen from to pay for state light fascism?

just a question. got an answer?

Exactly what rights are you willing to give up for this alleged security?

Traffic lights have nothing to do with that, by the way and that's a pretty lame attempt to weasel out of answering a legitimate question that has apparently backed you into a corner.

 

[lester1/2jr]

I'm not backed into the corner ma'am. you are.

still waiting.

if you can understand the need for traffic lights it shouldn't be to much to accept that there is a need for security outside of what will hopefully one day be accomplished by a more prudent foreign policy.

why have third base mandatory in baseball? why not run home if you think you can make it/ why have refs at all?

 

[pcosmar]

Another writers take on it here,
http://townhall.com/columnists/Byro..._party_hate_narrative?page=full&comments=true

How did this story line grow? Many of the claims that extremism is on the rise in America originate in research done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based group that for nearly 40 years has tracked what it says is the growing threat of intolerance in the United States. These days, the SPLC is issuing new warnings of new threats. But today's warnings sound an awful lot like those of the past.

In 1989, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of skinheads, saying, "Not since the height of Klan activity during the civil-rights era has there been a white supremacist group so obsessed with violence."

In 1992, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of other white supremacist groups, which it claimed had grown by 27 percent from the year before.

In 1995, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of right-wing militias.

In 1998, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of Internet-based hate groups that, according to one press account, had "created the biggest surge in hate in America in years."

In 1999, the SPLC warned that the growing threat of Web-based hate groups was growing even more, with a 60 percent increase from the year before.

In 2002, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of post-Sept. 11 hate groups, which it said had grown 12 percent between 2000 and 2001.

In 2004, the SPLC warned (again) of the growing threat of skinhead groups, whose numbers it said had doubled in the previous year.

In 2008, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of hate groups overall, whose number it said increased 48 percent since 2000.

And in 2010, just a few weeks ago, the SPLC warned of the growing threat of "patriot" groups, which it said increased by 244 percent in 2009.

In the world of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the threat is always growing. Ronald Reagan's policies led to a growing threat. The first Gulf War led to a growing threat. The election of Bill Clinton led to a growing threat. The Internet led to a growing threat. Sept. 11 led to a growing threat. The war in Iraq led to a growing threat. Is it any wonder that Obama's presidency has, in the SPLC's estimation, led to a growing threat?

Hate groups do exist across the political spectrum, and have for a long time. But they have nothing to do with the expressions of frustration over deficits, taxes and Obamacare that we have heard at so many Tea Party gatherings. That frustration, felt by Republicans, independents and even some Democrats, is an entirely mainstream reaction to the sharply activist course the president and congressional leadership have taken. While the level of frustration is indeed a threat, it is a political threat. Ask Democrats running in this November's elections.

It's important to distinguish between a political threat and a physical one. As Clinton might say, the hate accusers should watch their words.

 

[amy31416]

I'm not backed into the corner ma'am. you are.

still waiting

LOL

Traffic lights are a convenience that help reduce traffic accidents, the benefits are proven and effective and supported locally. A traffic light has never subverted anyone's rights, nor used force, nor smeared anyone's character. A traffic light has never shot a citizen, gunned down an innocent person or strip-searched anyone at an airport. A traffic light is a tool to help direct the flow of traffic and are supported, or not supported by the local community who can have a say as to where and how they're used.

Now, do tell what this has to do with the SPLC and you giving up your rights so big-daddy government can keep you safe from Osama bin Laden (who your beloved gov't let escape at Tora Bora.)

Why won't you answer my question about what rights you'll give up for security?

 

[lester1/2jr]

the point is their needs to be rules to a society. you can't allow people to be killed in buildings as a protest against the government. I want the government to protect me against another 9/11 or OK city. I think it would have been advantageous to have prevented those through some means.

If we had a better economy , less people would turn to crime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have police.

I am willing to give up the decision of when to go and when to stop at an intersection to the government. So I'm a leftist to some people. fine.

 

[amy31416]

I'm not backed into the corner ma'am. you are.

still waiting.

if you can understand the need for traffic lights it shouldn't be to much to accept that there is a need for security outside of what will hopefully one day be accomplished by a more prudent foreign policy.

why have third base mandatory in baseball? why not run home if you think you can make it/ why have refs at all?

I see you edited:

1. We already have a ton of "security."

2. You don't have to play baseball if you don't like 3rd base or the refs. You don't have a Constitutionally protected right to play baseball whatever way you want.

We do, however, have Constitutionally protected rights that are violated in the name of this alleged "security." Just like freedom of speech means that some people will say some things you don't want to hear, having rights that make this a free society means that there always has been and always will be, risks.

And YOU don't have the right to infringe on MY rights because you stay awake trembling at night just waiting for a terrorist to attack. Personally, I'll take the very minimal risks and live freely.

Are you a man or not? If so, buck up and quit acting like a child who needs a nanny to check under the bed for bogeymen.

 

[lester1/2jr]

And YOU don't have the right to infringe on MY rights because you stay awake trembling at night just waiting for a terrorist to attack. Personally, I'll take the very minimal risks and live freely.

yeah because you probably live in snoresville flyover country where nothing happens. I live in on the east coast where alot of these nuts operate. drive through the big dig in boston sometime you'll see it's not going to take much to bring that thing down. then the economy goes down with it. it's worth taking the time to prevent as it is bad rather than good when terrorism occurs

 

[amy31416]

the point is their needs to be rules to a society. you can't allow people to be killed in buildings as a protest against the government. I want the government to protect me against another 9/11 or OK city. I think it would have been advantageous to have prevented those through some means.

If we had a better economy , less people would turn to crime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have police.

I am willing to give up the decision of when to go and when to stop at an intersection to the government. So I'm a leftist to some people. fine.

Once again, since you don't seem to get it:

Your beloved government had forewarning of 9/11. THEY DID NOTHING TO STOP IT AND REACTED BY KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

Your beloved government had forewarning of the underwear bomber. THEY DID NOTHING TO STOP IT--A CIVILIAN STOPPED IT. These scanners will NOT stop someone from trying it again.

Your beloved government had forewarning that the Ft. Hood shooter was unstable and in contact with a radical mullah. Need I go on?

Your beloved government set up a scenario to allegedly lure the Hutaree into illegal acts--and you say "GIMMIE MORE!" Yay! Now I'm finally safe!

You have an exceedingly shallow understanding of your rights on both a practical and philosophical level. I don't think you're necessarily a leftist, I just think you need to put on your big-boy pants, man up and stop being such a whimpering sop who needs his daddy.

 

[amy31416]

yeah because you probably live in snoresville flyover country where nothing happens. I live in on the east coast where alot of these nuts operate. drive through the big dig in boston sometime you'll see it's not going to take much to bring that thing down. then the economy goes down with it. it's worth taking the time to prevent as it is bad rather than good when terrorism occurs

I lived on the East Coast for years in a very dangerous city, during 9/11, during the anthrax attacks and during the DC sniper shootings. Yet I still value my rights. Go figure.

 

[lester1/2jr]

Your beloved government had forewarning of 9/11. THEY DID NOTHING TO STOP IT

right. which is exactly what you would have had them do! after all we DESERVE to be killed in terrorist attacks because of our politicians insistence on an interventionist foreign policy. that's basically what you guys are saying


look, I don't doubt the government is incompetent, but that doesn't mean we just don't have protection against our lives ending in a terrorist attacks. If you have foreknowledge of a tim mcveigh style attack there should be a government agency that you can go to with that information in order to prevent it.

also, sorry if I offended anyone with the "snoresville flyover country" remark. I was trying to be colorful. I respect the rural peoples, etc

 

[pcosmar]

. If you have foreknowledge of a [<blank>} style attack there should be a government agency that you can go to with that information in order to prevent it.

As long as the information is not fabricated or distorted.

What government agency do you report a government agency to? What good would it do?

 

[LibertyMage]

So what are you doing to rubuke it?

 

[amy31416]

right. which is exactly what you would have had them do! after all we DESERVE to be killed in terrorist attacks because of our politicians insistence on an interventionist foreign policy. that's basically what you guys are saying

Absolute bullshit. They already had more than enough powers entrusted to them to stop those people from boarding planes and they chose to ignore it. They had even MORE authority when the underwear bomber boarded a plane bound for the US and they chose to ignore it.

Now, how much more authority can you give an incompetent or evil government before you'll finally be "safe?"

look, I don't doubt the government is incompetent, but that doesn't mean we just don't have protection against our lives ending in a terrorist attacks. If you have foreknowledge of a tim mcveigh style attack there should be a government agency that you can go to with that information in order to prevent it.

We have such an agency. Perhaps you've heard of the FBI? Or are you looking for a new "pre-crime" government agency? Perhaps a literal force of "thought police?"

also, sorry if I offended anyone with the "snoresville flyover country" remark. I was trying to be colorful. I respect the rural peoples, etc

That's about the least offensive thing you've said in this exchange.

 

[lester1/2jr]

look I'm sorry i want to stop terrorist attacks okay? I 'm very sorry.

Obviously there is no possible way to prevent acts like OK city. it can't be done. we have no choice but to accept our governments foreign policy results. we should immediately stop spending any money on that and put it towards different welfare/warfare items. I've seen the light

 

[amy31416]

look I'm sorry i want to stop terrorist attacks okay? I 'm very sorry.

Obviously there is no possible way to prevent acts like OK city. it can't be done. we have no choice but to accept our governments foreign policy results. we should immediately stop spending any money on that and put it towards different welfare/warfare items. I've seen the light

And the implication is that I want terrorist attacks, despite the fact that those same terrorist attacks inevitably lead to an erosion of our rights. That's logical.

But, I learned one thing about arguments, and that is to let it go with the other person being able to have some semblance of dignity--and if you need to believe that I'm pro-terrorist attacks in order to "win" then so be it.