Study: Southern Poverty Law Center’s Criteria For “Hate Groups” Has An Overwhelming Liberal Bias…

Just as the ‘race baiters’ cannot perpetuate their ‘business’ without using race and the race card…
…SLPC cannot perpetuate their business without using the word “hate” which has a hard impact.

“Hate” is a very strong word…and unless a group ‘specifically’ uses it in their own ‘terminology’ is this SLPC label a ‘fair’ analysis? OR, is it seriously fair for the SLPC to just willy nilly slap this label on at their own discretion especially at opposing views to theirs or what “they think” is the view of ‘everyone’ out there in America?

The left leaning SLPC (and the left) continue to ‘group people’ and put them into little boxes….

It seems the SLPC are the ones who, depending on ‘their own’ views and values, will ‘determine’ what is considered a ‘hate group’ or not, regardless of whether ‘true hate’ is really involved. Could it be possible a group holds a view point of their ‘own’ that doesn’t coincide with the (SLPC) philosophy and therefore ‘hate’ comes into play? Then you are added to the “List” .

Aren’t Americans are being “forced” (and a majority resisting by the way) into a Liberal/Progressive ideology (views) that are far removed from their own views and values? And aren’t those Americans who hold firm to those values and views (Family Research Council for instance) in the terminology of the SPLC…. “‘Hated”?

Hypocrisy anyone?

These kinds of organizations are a dime a dozen.

One of my favorites is the garbage published by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

If an organization claims to be “non-partisan and independent,” you can be sure that it’s fringe left.

@George Wells:

Isn’t that what EVERYBODY is guilty of? Isn’t that “profiling” or “stereotyping”?

Actually, no. Conservatives tend to think of people as individuals, not members of a select group. It is the Democratic Party that wants put people in categories/boxes as if they were separate and independent from the rest of the citizens of this nation.

Isn’t that what conservatives do when they insist that there is ONE “Gay Agenda” that ALL gays adhere to?

Seems it was you that wanted to proffer that conservatives are all one, monolithic thinking group. I’m sure the Log Cabin Republicans would disagree with that premise. We hear a lot about “moderate” Republicans, yet if you look at the data, the Democratic Party has purged itself of its moderates (blue dogs). Never do you hear a news story on a “moderate” Democrat.

Or when the sociopathic activities of a minority of gays are used to condemn the entire class?

When the sociopathic actions of any members of a “group” that the DNC has designed, in its goal to categorize people, anyone who fits that group’s description should speak out about the sociopathic actions. Gays do not do that, any more than Muslims have loudly denounced the actions of their fellow religionists. It is only when a Republican acts against the interest of conservatives that Democrats demand the rest of us denounce those actions. Gays, and Muslims, seem to be exempt from that rule.

@retire05:

Same sex marriage is not one of those 18 enumerated rights, nor is affirmative action, which is actually anti-Constitutional.

With all due respect, it seems to me that the controversy over same sex marriage is primarily a religious issue, since marriage is primarily a religious institution. The 1st Amendment provides for protection of freedom of religion. Since this is the case, I don’t really understand why gay people need to ask government’s permission to get married in the first place.

@retire05 – Yes. Just like Obama tried to twist the thinking of Americans regarding our Constitution. Obama once stated, that is in order to push his socialist agenda, the Constitution tells you what the Government ‘can’t do to you’ but not what the Government can do ‘FOR’ you… a real insight to this man’s perverse ideology…

The man is an evil on this great country.

@Faith7 #9:

“What is this ONE “Gay Agenda” you speak of George?”

It is the “One Gay Agenda” that I keep saying doesn’t exist. I keep getting blowback on that insistence from people who think all gays DO believe exactly the same thing. The insistence that ONE GAY AGENDA exists is irrational.

Sorry if this confuses you.

@Kraken #11:

Who? Retire05 and redteam bring it up frequently.

@George Wells:

Who? Retire05 and redteam bring it up frequently.

I guess I’m not understanding. I’ve never heard or read of a gay agenda, that I know of. I mean, I guess gays probably have agendas, but everyone has agendas.

@retire05#16 – Exactly. I looked back on some archives specific to gay articles and you nor Redteam ever commented on them. Which is exactly why I repeatedly asked for ‘specifics’ from Mr George Wells. I did however conclude there isn’t just ONE gay agenda, but multiple ones… and it does seem there is a majority and a minority within this boxed ‘group’…

You are as usual on the money (no pun intended) when it comes to marriage vs singles – the ‘rules’ for filing taxes are crazy, but do make a huge difference.

It is the same process that someone uses who doesn’t have a spouse and wants to designate a person to make medical decisions for them if they are not able to and leave their property to another.

Exactly. Just about anyone can legally assign a person (get a power of attorney) to handle their affairs in the event they become incapacitated and/or want to leave property in a will (executor) to another.

Another reason why it puzzles me when I read/hear about the gay push for gay ‘marriage’…I suspect as others may also, there is more to this gay agenda then meets the eye.

@Faith7 #17:

Retire05 claimed “All other “rights” that George demands he was denied because he and his partner were not legally married before is also b/s as everything he claims could have been remedied with a simple will and power of attorney. It is the same process that someone uses who doesn’t have a spouse and wants to designate a person to make medical decisions for them if they are not able to and leave their property to another.” and you seem to have agreed with her.

(Copied):
The Marshall-Newman Amendment also referred to as the Virginia Marriage Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage”.

The part of this amendment addressing the “design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage” have been interpreted to mean that such legal documents as you describe may NOT be recognized as valid BECAUSE they confer rights that would convey automatically to lawfully married heterosexuals. I am personally familiar with the consequences of this amendment, as my husband accompanied me to the emergency room Virginia Beach General Hospital with medical powers-of-attorney in hand and was not allowed to advise my doctors of my wishes or visit me there because of this amendment. In Virginia, those powers of attorney aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. You have no idea…

The amendment is overturned, but the decision is stayed pending appeal, so it’s provisions are still in effect and being enforced.

@George Wells:

You made that claim before, and I countered it with the FACT that I am now health-insurance-covered through my husband’s employer – the Federal Government – something that ONLY a copy of our marriage certificate could gain. No lawyer’s document could be substituted. Ah, no answer. Figures. And YOU pointed out that we also gained a $255 death benefit, remember? I’m sure that you Do remember, you just hope nobody else does.

So you are admitting that your relationship with Paul has been reduced to a strictly financial one, benefitting you in the area of health insurance? No, you did not gain the Social Security Death Benefit of $255.00 but if that was the price, you sold out cheap. So much for “love”.

As for taxes, the example you give may be true, but it does not apply to my husband and I. He makes a large salary, and I am retired and generally pay no taxes. Filing jointly should reduce the rate we pay on his salary.

Unless you drew less than $10,000.00 in retirement payments, or less than $11,764.71 in Social Security payments, you paid taxes. But assuming you were under those limits, now your retirement income will be added to your partner’s “large income” and you will see your retirement benefits taxed at the same rate, or higher due to a higher tax bracket, as he was before. You see, George, you file “married, filing jointly” and that means combining your incomes.

If it doesn’t, then wouldn’t getting MORE tax money from gays be something YOU’D like?

I am not a fan of income taxation, and am definitely not a fan of the Marxist system of “progressive” income tax rates. I am a flat rate, no deductions, no personal exemptions, supporter. Frankly, I don’t care if you have ten kids. Why should you get a deduction for them when I don’t? One flat rate for everyone. So your snide little remark didn’t hit the mark.

Why are you lying now about that “GAY AGENDA” stuff? You’ve been pushing that all along, and I’ve grown weary arguing that there ISN’T one.

Yeah, I’ve said, repeatedly, there is a gay agenda. I have never said that ALL gays sign on to it. Why are you trying to spin what I have said?

And I never said that there was ONE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA, either.

True, you laid that claim at the feet of Republicans, not conservatives. Forgetting what you said, Georgie?

You said we all followed your friend Antonia Gramsci, remember, and I told you I’d not even heard of him.

How is one friends with a man that died almost 100 years ago? I thought only John Edwards could channel the dead.

Your memory fails you in the evenings, RETIRE05.

Seems like that is your problem, Georgie. You can’t even repeat what I said without twisting it. Take a Valium, get some Vaseline and some throat swabs and take care of your problems.

@retire05 #22:

You are correct: I WAS stupid. We both were. Neither of us thought of hiring a bunch of lawyers to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Not for money and not for the rights withheld. Just plain ignorant. No tapes, no photographs, nothing. Dumb as dirt. When the morphine wore off, the staff had run three CAT scans on me while Paul was held at bay. I was there for an acute attack of kidney stones, and the diagnosis was already complete. Morphine was administered to kick up the oxycodone, and the CAT scans were run to give a boost to the hospital’s bottom line. I paid approx. $1000 per scan out-of-pocket because I wasn’t yet on Paul’s insurance, and I couldn’t afford med. insurance because pre-existing conditions pushed the premiums to over 17,000/year, well above my total Social Security. (I told you I pay no tax. Give me an address and I’ll mail you a copy of my 1040. Why would I lie? What incredible crap you guys believe.)

@retire05 #24:

Six years of service did not qualify me, said the VA. We’re not taking anybody in your category at this time, said the VA. Friend of mine w/same service record got it, don’t know how. No, I didn’t hire a lawyer.

My current Soc. Sec. check is for $1017, but that will go down next year when I hit 65 and Medicare premium gets taken out.

“Smart?” Reference where I ever said that I was smart.

Makes you feel good to make fun of those less fortunate/rich/smart than yourself? How very Republican of you. Bet your friends are proud for you.

@retire05 #26:
My company made me use an HMO, and it was crap. I couldn’t afford better on the salary that you correctly figured out was pretty low. I was told that I was worth more, but that I didn’t NEED more because I didn’t have a wife and kids to support. That from our manager, who was a Baptist minister on the weekends. Now, I’m on USGov. Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the cost to be on that is 1/3 of my Soc. Sec., which is affordable. I’m a leach, huh? Great. Worked hard all my life, paid taxes, to get nothing while everyone else gets all THEIR benefits, right? You must be SO proud…

@retire05 #28:

“And you were prevented from finding employment that paid more why?”

I had moved my Mom and Dad in with me here in Virginia because my Dad had had two massive strokes, and Mom couldn’t cope. Virginia Chemicals was the only local employer of any consequence in my field. I DIDN’T “whine” about the low pay. You asked why I wasn’t paid more, and I told you.

“Actually, I am. I have never collected an unemployment check or a welfare check. I had a great family that survived the Great Depression and taught me the value of a dollar. It was said that my grandmother would squeeze a nickel until the buffalo sh!t. I saved my money and invested it wisely in very, very conservative stocks. I have never lived beyond my means, and knew that there would come a time where I was too old/too sick to work as life marches on. Saving 10% of your take home pay reaps great benefits after decades.

So yeah, I’m proud of what I have achieved, George. I have fulfilled by duty to my country by not becoming a burden on my fellow citizens. And as to you living on less than $700/month, that calls for the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Yeah, I did exactly the same thing. I didn’t ever collect welfare or unemployment, either. But I didn’t save 10%, I saved 20%, and started doing so way back when I was 19. So now I’m worth a couple million, and you are right that I am not “living on less than $700/month.” If you look again, you’ll see that I never said that I was. I said that I couldn’t AFFORD health insurance. It was my CHOICE not to pay the extortion fee of $17,000 for a year’s worth of health insurance. I could not “afford” it out of conscience, not out of pocket. My decision saved me a total of over $220,000. I didn’t need a CPA to figure that out. Oh, and I made my Mom 1.5 Million on the side. Dad died six years after the move, but he lived long enough to know that Betty was well cared for.

@retire05 #30:

I am really curious over why you find my personal finances so interesting, but I’m sure that it is somehow important to you, otherwise you wouldn’t spend so much time asking about it.

“Who picked up the tab for those expenses?”

Oh, I did, and was happy enough about the non-CAT scan charges. I never had morphine before, and it was an interesting, almost out-of-body experience, like floating. Nothing I would want recreationally, though… What I was objecting to through all that was that had Paul been allowed in with me and his medical power-of-attorney honored, I would not have been stuck with $3000 bill for unnecessary CAT scans. (He AND I BOTH knew that the hospital was engaging in a pot-building trick.) I’m not grousing about paying FULL (un-negotiated) prices for services that are warrented.

“As to the $220,000.00 in cost, that doesn’t jive either. There is a three year span from taking Social Security early retirement benefits, at age 62, to being eligible for Medicare, at age 65. You could have used a portion of your personal wealth of $2,000,000.00 to pay the $51,000 in premiums ($17,000 x 3 years).”

No, darling, it’s YOUR numbers that aren’t correct. Not your fault, though as you made incorrect assumptions because didn’t know the full story. (And why would you?) I was dropped from Blue Cross/Blue shield in 1999, at age 49, exactly 11 months after BC/BS discovered that I had developed diabetes. That was the date that it also offered me a “high-risk-pre-existing-conditions policy for $17,000/year. (At the time I was self-employed and bought my own health insurance). I didn’t get coverage again until the Pre-existing Conditions Insurance Plan (PCIP) option was made available through the Affordable Care Act, at about mid 2012. (it took some months to get the paperwork resolved.) In the interim, I spent an average of about $1000 per year out-of-pocket for health care (fortunately I never developing any serious problems), so I figure that I saved about $16,000 per year for almost 14 years running. The total saved came to about $220,000. You tell me what arithmetic mistakes I am making, as I’ve checked, and I can’t find any.

“Instead, you feel entitled to be covered on your partner’s insurance plan which, as a federal employee who has a “large salary” is covered by the TAXPAYERS.”

Don’t know where you’re getting your info from, but it isn’t correct. Coverage for me as a spouse added $400 per month to Paul’s premium – that WE pay – exactly as would be the case with ANY married government employee’s spouse, pre-existing conditions or not, at least within the range of salary that Paul gets. The tax payer is paying no more for Paul’s benefits than it is for any other married employee’s benefits. Wanting the same benefit as is given other people is not selfish, it is fair.

Your animus is showing.

@retire05 #32:

“OK, so you rolled the dice and played the odds. You were lucky.”

As much as “luck” plays a role, I suppose you could say that. With apologies to Werner Heisenberg, I don’t actually BELIEVE in “luck.” I DO believe in gambling, as much as a good gambler considers the odds and acts accordingly. My winning $220,000 health insurance gambit and my successes in financial markets (I bought 120 ounces of gold at $35/ounce with my Navy poker winnings back in 1970) tell me that my intuition in these matters is fairly accurate. I am using the same intuition – well, actually just watching progress from the sidelines – to predict the success of the marriage equality movement. At this point, would you really want to bet money against it?