Hate groups...

[Dave007inVegas]

By BRIAN ROSS, ANNA SCHECTER and MEGAN CHUCHMACH
August 14, 2009

Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges.

The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" outside a town hall meeting this week. And in New Hampshire, another man stood across the street from a Presidential town hall with his gun on full display.

Los Angeles police officers apprehended a man Thursday after a standoff with him inside a red Volkswagen Bug car in Westwood, CA – the latest disturbing case even though officials said the man had mental problems.

"I don't think these are simply people who are mentally ill or off their rocker," Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told ABC News of those behind the threats. "In a very real sense they represent a genuine reaction, a genuine backlash against Obama."

Experts say a sharp growth in so-called militia groups that helped spawn a wave of domestic terrorism in the 1990s – and are now using YouTube, rock music and the Internet to recruit members and spread hate and fear - shouldn't be ignored.

Unless of course it’s the New Black Panthers or ACORN. ~~:<<

 

[barman]

heh....Sometimes the fun is reading the poorly phrased writing of a journalist (or news outlet) who didn't use proper placement

To wit:

Los Angeles police officers apprehended a man Thursday after a standoff with him inside a red Volkswagen Bug car


...reads as if all concerned were inside the tiny car

 

[Legend-I-Aint]

Hate Groups is the new term used to describe Republicans.

When Obama tries to suppress the Republicans and their voice, I am sure the Dixie Chicks and the ACLU will have some benefit concert to try and raise awareness and funds to protect us from the speech police.

Right?

 

[barman]

The ACLU does not put on "benefit concerts". They merely represent people and organizations whose constitutional rights have been grieviously infringed upon.

Pretty sure The Dixie Chicks don't have a history of doing benefits promoting the First Amendment, but I might be mistaken. Their only notable tie-in to a political message of which I'm aware was their demonstrative disagreement with GW Bush using the US military to invade and occupy Iraq.

 

[Legend-I-Aint]

The ACLU does not put on "benefit concerts". They merely represent people and organizations whose constitutional rights have been grieviously infringed upon.

Pretty sure The Dixie Chicks don't have a history of doing benefits promoting the First Amendment, but I might be mistaken. Their only notable tie-in to a political message of which I'm aware was their demonstrative disagreement with GW Bush using the US military to invade and occupy Iraq.

You get my drift though, right?

 

[barman]

Not really, because first President Obama will need to "supress the Republicans and their voice" and I'm sure he couldn't do that even if he wanted to do it.

 

[Legend-I-Aint]

Not really, because first President Obama will need to "supress the Republicans and their voice" and I'm sure he couldn't do that even if he wanted to do it.

Your grammar is wrong. It should read, "I'm not sure he could do that even if he wanted to do it."

He'll do it by proxy using ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. So many inaccuracies have come out of the mans mouth. He hasn't been called on any of them in the main stream media.

Why is it when you berkenstock wearing hippies take to the streets and burn shit and throw shit through windows it's okay? Why is it okay for the left to make movies suggesting a republican president should be killed?

We heard this type of behavior from the left was just normal discourse because you all loved the country.

Obama is getting a free pass and he's getting a handicap from the left leaning media on all of his blunders. I think eventually the media will catch on when a lot of dems have to pack their shit and leave in 2010. Slowly but surely they will have to change or go out of business.

In case you haven't noticed. The American public is pissed off and they aren't going to take it much longer.

Why do the democrats always do this shit when they get in the White House? Obama had such a good chance. Things couldn't get much worse for the country. Things have been set up for him to only succeed. He continually fucks up. Why?

 

[roadreeler57]

The ACLU does not put on "benefit concerts". They merely represent people and organizations whose constitutional rights have been grieviously infringed upon.

Pretty sure The Dixie Chicks don't have a history of doing benefits promoting the First Amendment, but I might be mistaken. Their only notable tie-in to a political message of which I'm aware was their demonstrative disagreement with GW Bush using the US military to invade and occupy Iraq.

The ACLU doesnt promote the Constitution it seeks to DESTROY it & I think you are smart enough to know that youre just trying to get some of these other dumb idiots to go along with the Communist agenda of the ACLU unless you are totally brainwashed too & that would be sad. For people with some brains & common sense out there check www.fightpc.net theres plenty of news & info there about the aclu....

 

[barman]

Your grammar is wrong. It should read, "I'm not sure he could do that even if he wanted to do it."

No. My sentence was phrased precisely as intended. The President of the USA - whether it be Obama, GW Bush or any in the future - cannot supress anyone's voice unless they choose to stop speaking and/or writing.

Therefore take heart. Neither you nor I need to fear the POTUS supressing our voices.

 

[barman]

Thanks to the ACLU, this past week jails in Virginia (and now anywhere else in the USA) can no longer bar inmates from receiving uncensored religious messages in their mail.

http://aclu.org/prison/restrict/40673prs20090810.html

Religious freedom for individuals is one of the most important tenets of the US Constitution and this is just another example of the ACLU defending those important religious freedoms.


Oh, glad you asked

 

[ProPokerPlayer]

Experts

Find more than 1 who have said this in the last month. I Dare you. In fact the vast majority of REAL EXPERTS say hate crimes are at the lowest level in many years......

This IS A LIE THAT Obama is putting out as a smokescreen...........

 

[Daheavy1]

ACLU and freedom? Not sure I'd defend them on this one.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NeuBB_mOFIA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NeuBB_mOFIA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

[barman]

I'm not qualified to evaluate the merit (or lack thereof) of all cases involving the ACLU

I do know that it's a very instance when a case they've pled and won is reversed at a higher court.

Therefore I have some pretty strong confidence that their involvement is most often aligned with the constitutionally sound side - though that might cause angst for folks emotionally tied to the issue being challenged.

 

[barman]

Thanks for the nudge...I poked into the Mojave Desert Cross case history and see that for the moment, the two federal district rulings which order the cross to be removed remain in effect

The SCOTUS will hear the final appeal from the plaintiffs this coming October and the Holder Justice Dept will argue in favor of the existing rulings.

 

[Daheavy1]

More ACLU fun for you Bar.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ayer-case-stirs-protests/?feat=home_headlines

 

[barman]

More ACLU fun for you Bar.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ayer-case-stirs-protests/?feat=home_headlines

Looks like we (here in Florida) have several stubborn fools who will are willing to do jail time prior to losing their jobs in the public education system.

Hopefully they'll just be canned and not have to be housed and fed on my state taxpayer dime.

 

[barman]

Great quote from the WashTimes coverage:

"I have been defending religious freedom issues for 22 years, and I've never had to defend somebody who has been charged criminally for praying," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based legal group that is defending the two school officials.

Bar: That's because most of the USA has come to learn that how the Constitution works and it's unusual in the past couple decades for any educated American to stubbornly ignore accepted case law. Lucky for you and your organization that you found a couple of dorks from Florida's Redneck Riviera region to help give you some exposure - albeit in an ultimately losing cause.

 

[Legend-I-Aint]

No. My sentence was phrased precisely as intended. The President of the USA - whether it be Obama, GW Bush or any in the future - cannot supress anyone's voice unless they choose to stop speaking and/or writing.

Therefore take heart. Neither you nor I need to fear the POTUS supressing our voices.

Dude. Smoke less weed. Your sentence was grammatically wrong and you can't even see it.

Your sentence was not phrased precisely as intended but now we are debating over crap. I guess this is actually what we are always debating - crap!

 

[barman]

heh...Cannabis makes me relaxed and sometimes sleepy. It doesn't erase my college education (English major) nor my past ten years as a professional writer.

My wording was sound and intended to express my level of certainty:

I'm sure he couldn't do that even if he wanted to do it.

Now, had I been less certain of my assertion, I would have been wise to phrase it as you did in your own earlier entry:

I'm not sure he could do that even if he wanted to do it.



HTH better your understanding of what I wrote in the earlier post.