• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is responsible for the most terrorist attacks in the US?

Which group?


  • Total voters
    25
Well, no. Until quite recently they were what was called mainstream opinion. The SPLC tagged FRC to demonize political opponents, nothing more. Irresponsible.:cool:

Again, false. FRC language about gays did not go beyond what was, until very recently, mainstream opinion.:cool:

I am lost as to what you are getting at when you say "until recently" but the SPLC didn't name them a hate group "until recently" either.... In 2010 to be exact. If you think they're irresponsible I really couldn't care less. :cool::cool: :2wave:
 
I think historically its been left wing extremists.
 
The most terrorist attacks? Has to be those gun loving tea party folk always mobbing together terrorizing our communities with their don't tread on me flags and hate filled shouting like they did to our democrat patriots who passed healthcare but had to endure the spitting and hate mongering in the capital. They make jihadists look like alter boys for cryin out loud.
 
By whom exactly?

Since about every black American who has ever been employed by the SPLC have filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the SPLC.

Morris Dees runs a scam of milking money from stupid people.

>" The Southern Poverty Law Center is a left-wing legal and activist organization created in 1971 in Montgomery, Alabama. It was founded by trial lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin, and its first president was civil rights leader Julian Bond, who would later take control of the NAACP. SPLC supports a wide variety of liberal positions; it is pro-immigration (both legal and illegal), advocates multiculturalism and the homosexual agenda, supports racial preferences and defendants' rights, and advocates against what it considers "hate groups". In 2012, Black pastors confronted the Southern Poverty Law Center for smearing as ‘hate groups’ pro-family organizations opposed to homosexual agenda. [1] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with homosexual perversion.[2]

The SPLC's op-ed writings have appeared in the Communist Party USA's newspaper People's World. [3] This "controversial, liberal organization" [4] has been criticized in mainstream press for being extravagant in its spending, and using charges of racism to stifle conservatives. [5]

Finances
The last year that the Better Business Bureau's Philanthropic Advisory Service reported on the SPLC, in 1994, Dees and then Executive Director Edward Ashworth took home over $150,000 each, and the organization then possessed over $62 million in assets [6]. It now controls over $200 million, and Dees pulls $286,000 in salary.[7] In 2000, SPLC fundraised $27 million and made an additional $17 million from investments, but spent only $13 million on its civil rights program. [8] It is no longer listed in the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance[9] because that would require that "at least 50 percent of total income from all sources, should be applied to programs and activities directly related to the purposes for which the organization exists." The SPLC spent 89 percent of its total income on fund-raising and administrative costs. [10]

In addition to donations from liberal members, which are often elicited by sensationalizing hate crimes, the center raises a lot of revenue seizing assets of violent groups, and by extorting groups that do not want to be accused of racism. In 1987, the SPLC won a major case on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, the mother of a Klan lynching victim. This was the invention of a clever new tactic-- suing domestic terrorist groups into bankruptcy-- but Ms. Donald benefitted very little. Of the $7 million verdict, only $50,000 went to her. This was because the Klan chapter had no assets other than a warehouse used as a headquarters, the warehouse itself was valued at about $50,000. [11]

The SPLC's fundraising tactics came under heavy criticism most recently by the Council of Conservative Citizens, [12] as well as by articles in Harper's magazine in 2000[13] and in the local Montgomery Advertiser newspaper in 1994.[14].

SPLC attacks on conservatives
While SPLC organizes against obvious hate groups such as the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood, it also lumps in conservative organizations in an attempt to intimidate them. For instance, SPLC considers Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a "hate group", because it opposes illegal immigration, and uses demonstrations as a method, which the SPLC deems intimidation.[15] Similarly, the center labels the immigration reductionist/reformist website VDARE as a "hate group", because it argues against illegal immigration [16].

The SPLC followed Laird Wilson in publishing a list of "hate groups" but after Wilson rejected the usefulness of that approach, the SPLC continued with it, becoming prominent for using it against groups standing for traditional values.[17][18][19] Laird Wilcox, claims to have provided SPLC with some of the information initially used to compile their list of "hate groups". He "concluded that a lot of [the SPLC's hate groups] were vanishingly small or didn’t exist, or could even be an invention of the SPLC." Some of the "hate groups" were creations of SPLC informants, rather than legitimate groups. And with the advent of the internet, some of them exist "nowhere except in cyberspace." Wilcox concludes, "The whole issue of “lists” is full of smoke and mirrors."[20]

In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post, wrote that the SPLC was "reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions." [21][22] Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council,” said, after the attack, “I believe [the gunman Floyd Corkins] was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.”[23] Capital Research Center states that the SPLC "deliberately mischaracterizes conservatives and tea partiers as “extremists”."[24]

Also smeared as "hate groups" by the SPLC include: the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, and The Social Contract Press (a liberal group publishing environmentalist works such as those of Garrett Hardin, apparently solely because they republished French writer Jean Raspail's 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints which foretells catasrophe befalling Europe from boatloads of illegal immigrants arriving from South Asia).

Another example is the Council of Conservative Citizens, a conservative activist organization that advocates on behalf of states' rights and against immigration, communism, racial quotas and gun control. SPLC labels all members as racist because a minority of members had decades-past connections to segregationist organizations. In fact, the CCC attracts such mainstream speakers such as former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Gov. Kirk Fordice (R-MS) and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), and engages in charitable and cultural events.

The SPLC has also recently added new categories to its categories of "hate groups", including Traditionalist Catholics (that is, those who advocate for a return to the Latin Mass), and an "anti-gay" category of groups who do not support the homosexual agenda and/or advocate for homosexuals to come out of that lifestyle.

During the 1990s, the SPLC maintained a separate list of "patriot groups", which although they did not include them as part of their "hate groups" list, carried the same intent: to smear those groups by association, and create the public impression those groups were some sort of threat to society. Their "patriot groups" list included groups opposed to the income tax, groups campaigning for jury and court reform, and the venerable conservative organization the John Birch Society, among others.

In 2010, the SPLC created a list entitled "Meet the Patriots", which included such people such as Chuck Baldwin, Orly Taitz, and Alex Jones as supporters of this "patriot movement".[25] A supplement entitled "The Enablers" was also released, which included Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, and Judge Napolitano.[26]

In 2012, the SPLC found four individuals to file a law suit against a group providing therapy to homosexual men in order to help them become ex-homosexuals.[27] The SPLC alleges the group violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud law in advertising that conversion therapy will help people become ex-homosexuals. Instead of being a pro-consumer lawsuit, as the SLPC implies, the suit is a collateral attack on conversion therapy, and the free exercise of religion.

These incidents further prove the SPLC is a left-wing political organization rather than one focused on racism and civil rights. "<

Infiltration into the classroom -> Southern Poverty Law Center - Conservapedia
 
Nonsense.:cool:

Tell me how, as an American libertarian, you don't want a government based on historical ideals. Unless you're an exception, your philosophy is based upon an idealised version of the Founders vision for the country, minus the slavery and misogyny, but inclusive of minimal federal government and strong state rights. That's why it's a regressive philosophy, that's not a bad thing, it simply means that your philosophy is based in the past.
 
Tell me how, as an American libertarian, you don't want a government based on historical ideals. Unless you're an exception, your philosophy is based upon an idealised version of the Founders vision for the country, minus the slavery and misogyny, but inclusive of minimal federal government and strong state rights. That's why it's a regressive philosophy, that's not a bad thing, it simply means that your philosophy is based in the past.

It means that his philosophies coincide with that of the founders of the country and with the Constitution, which specifically limits the power of the federal government because they did NOT want the federal government to have a lot of control. The federal government's role is specified in the Constitution, and they have been WAY overstepping their boundaries for many, many years now. It's sickening really, all about power, control and money.
 
It means that his philosophies coincide with that of the founders of the country and with the Constitution, which specifically limits the power of the federal government because they did NOT want the federal government to have a lot of control. The federal government's role is specified in the Constitution, and they have been WAY overstepping their boundaries for many, many years now. It's sickening really, all about power, control and money.

Which proves my point. He wants to regress, to conserve etc.
 
Which proves my point. He wants to regress, to conserve etc.

No, he wants to limit the federal government to the powers it was afforded in the Constitution. That is not regressive. That is doing things the way they were meant to be instead of letting the feds have unlimited power and control, which is kind of what they actually do have now as a result of loopholes that they've found and other such things. I don't like the word regressive. It sounds bad.
 
yeah it is. its like saying what kills more people

1) heart disease

2) cancer

3) strokes

4) diabetes related complications

and claiming strokes aren't a dominating problem

Islam is the single greatest motivator of terrorism impacting Americans now and has been since 1977

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

One man's pressure cooker is another man's drone bomber.

To American's, it's not terror when some dilapidated house full of middle easterners gets blown away.

I would imagine that many middle easterners didn't lose much sleep over 9/11 or Boston.

Terror is terror though. No matter how we justify or decry it.

I submit that more people on planet Earth are terrified of US troops than rouge Islamic extremists.

I clicked on Islamic terrorists because I fear them more than I do our own.
 
The most terrorist attacks? Has to be those gun loving tea party folk always mobbing together terrorizing our communities with their don't tread on me flags and hate filled shouting like they did to our democrat patriots who passed healthcare but had to endure the spitting and hate mongering in the capital. They make jihadists look like alter boys for cryin out loud.

I know it. Those tea party folks are SCARY! You'd better hide. There could be a tea party coming to a town near you! OMG! :shock: Frightening! :lamo
 
No, he wants to limit the federal government to the powers it was afforded in the Constitution. That is not regressive. That is doing things the way they were meant to be instead of letting the feds have unlimited power and control, which is kind of what they actually do have now as a result of loopholes that they've found and other such things.

To regress is to go backwards. He wants the powers of the federal government to go back to its historically intended limits.
I don't like the word regressive. It sounds bad.
The basis for almost any conservative theory is a historical point. Be it political or cultural. The American founders were liberals in their time, because they had new ideas, now liberalism has progressed, so their ideas are conservative. Regressive is the most appropriate word, as progressive is the most appropriate when describing liberal beliefs.
 
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

One man's pressure cooker is another man's drone bomber.

To American's, it's not terror when some dilapidated house full of middle easterners gets blown away.

I would imagine that many middle easterners didn't lose much sleep over 9/11 or Boston.

Terror is terror though. No matter how we justify or decry it.

I submit that more people on planet Earth are terrified of US troops than rouge Islamic extremists.

I clicked on Islamic terrorists because I fear them more than I do our own.

Not following the Geneva Convention would be an indicator of terrorism in the situation that we are in now. Our troops wear uniforms and are readily identifiable. That is just ONE major difference.
 
To regress is to go backwards. He wants the powers of the federal government to go back to its historically intended limits.

The basis for almost any conservative theory is a historical point. Be it political or cultural. The American founders were liberals in their time, because they had new ideas, now liberalism has progressed, so their ideas are conservative. Regressive is the most appropriate word, as progressive is the most appropriate when describing liberal beliefs.

Please, I can think of MANY other more appropriate words to describe liberal beliefs. :lamo
 
Please, I can think of MANY other more appropriate words to describe liberal beliefs. :lamo

No, I wouldn't call liberals progressive at all. As a matter of fact, they might be the MOST regressive of all ideologies, considering they would like to see the United States run by a huge monarchy. Probably even make Obama the king.
 
Please, I can think of MANY other more appropriate words to describe liberal beliefs. :lamo

No, I wouldn't call liberals progressive at all. As a matter of fact, they might be the MOST regressive of all ideologies, considering they would like to see the United States run by a huge monarchy. Probably even make Obama the king.

I try to be nice and explain my opinion reasonably, then you be a hack.

Conservatives are child molesters.
 
I try to be nice and explain my opinion reasonably, then you be a hack.

Conservatives are child molesters.

I'm sure that some are. :shrug:

What's the matter? Does the truth hurt? Liberals want to take away or limit and restrict rights, limit and control our sugar intake, control what we eat, how much we exercise, what kind of car we drive, what kind of fuel we use, etc., etc., etc. Sounds like a monarchy to me.

Oh, I almost forgot, they also want to continually raise taxes on us "peasants" in order to support the monarchy and it's out of control spending habits.
 
Last edited:
Anyhow, to get back on topic, I chose Islamic extremists because they are responsible for FAR more killings and casualties than any of the groups currently.
 
I'm sure that some are. :shrug:

What's the matter? Does the truth hurt? Liberals want to take away or limit and restrict rights, limit and control our sugar intake, control what we eat, how much we exercise, what kind of car we drive, what kind of fuel we use, etc., etc., etc. Sounds like a monarchy to me.

/facepalm

Not only do you not understand the word regressive, you can't understand what a monarchy is. Or the irony inherent in your claims.

Oh, I almost forgot, they also want to continually raise taxes on us "peasants" in order to support the monarchy and it's out of control spending habits.

:shrug: I'm sure some do.
 
The emotionally disturbed and/or REALLY stupid people.
 
/facepalm

Not only do you not understand the word regressive, you can't understand what a monarchy is. Or the irony inherent in your claims.

I understand both terms perfectly, thanks.

:shrug: I'm sure some do.

That much is obvious.
 
Back
Top Bottom