The Southern Poverty Law Center is not where I would go for an objective view on this subject. Once again the article just assumes as fact that Timothy mcVeigh was a right-winger (he was a libertarian) who was connected to the militia movement in this country, when so far everything points to him having acted without connection to any of those groups. But the article clearly states that he rose out of that movement. Once again, the left wants people to know how dangerour those people on the right are - never mind that every time they've tried to pin a violent act in the last two years on a conservative, it turns out not to be the case. We were told two years ago that the right wing was a powder keg about to go off. Still waiting on that to happen.
Is camping out in front of city halls in tent cities, defecating on public property, willful disregard for laws and other Occupy shennanigans equivalent to dressing in camoflouge and perpetually doubting the govt? I think the report failed to review the full spectrum of hatemongers in America.
Yeah, I wonder if men dressed in quasi-military outfits, with night sticks, hanging out in the front of a polling place on election day might qualify.
That's always funny. The left actually COMMITS violence and attrocities in the street, but no one seems concerned about that. At some point in each of these articles, you can always find something like "most of the members of these groups have not commited crimes, BUT...."
I think the 2010 vote was evidence of the Conservatives making their votes count. Unlike the Occupy movement, who has the support of the President, raping women, OD on drugs, not showering, disease, beating people up and in general just being a nuisance to society.
I'm sorry I guess I missed the part of the report where it said Conservatives/Republicans suck and Democrats or Liberals rock, such that everyone feels the need to attack and criticize the messenger rather than think about the topic. And as dumb as particular aspects of the Occupy movement are/were, in no way were they relevant to a militia with completely different beliefs. So far all the posts here are 1) let me attack the messenger 2) let's compare it to a different movement that I think sucks or 3) these militias aren't too bad if you compare them to something else. This is the problem the far right has, they seem to lack the ability to reign in the children on their side whether it be Rush, Glenn Beck or someone similar. It doesn't mean Liberals don't have children too- they do, it's just that they don't seem to have fantasies about killing people in army fatigues or programs on national radio or tv. It'd do a lot of good if people agreed these hate groups are wrong, scary and should be dealt with at all costs rather than think of a different group to compare it to. If your reaction is to go google left wing hate groups so you can say 'ah hah'- save your breath- I'm sure they exist. The report here is not a partisan hate group such that you need to knee jerk into old style left-right fighting, it's simply documenting activities in the last 5 years in the US which are very relevant.
mcbrett, I wasn't attacking the messenger, but the message. The message included "and anger over economic inequality" from the paragraph you linked, however, it made no mention of the OWS movement/hate group in association with what the report deemed "hate groups". Please review my post again and point out where I attacked the messenger, or quit trying to build a strawman argument to support your stance. I didn't mention liberas suck/conservatives rule, but you did. I also didn't discount the violent militia groups, but you tried to put those words into my mouth. I also did not disagree that these hate groups are wrong, just that the report seemed to pick and choose what constituted a "hate group", and I think that ALL "hate groups" should be dealt with SWIFTLY, ACCORDINGLY AND EQUALLY. Just because the OWS movement doesn't have the same voter base or belief structure, doesn't discount the fact that they are no less violent, anti-government or hateful. Darn right I compared the OWS to other "hate groups", because the mission and goal of ALL of them encompasses the same uniting theory of organizing against something that oneself and others with similar stances disagree with. By the simplest definition of this report, the OWS crowd need be assigned "hate group" nametag, and rightly so. If you can't see that, then I don't know how else you could see this issue.
dalhorn- my post wasn't in response to just your post but many. Other people attacked the messenger. 1) OWS was comprised of hundreds of thousands of people in many dozens of cities. It's embarrassing that the Oakland protests and a handful of others deteriorated- but it doesn't take away from their message about separation of the classes. It also is a stretch to compare OWS to a militia in Michigan, or a racist group for example. You think OWS is a hate group- what, they hate the tax system? Are you defending a tax system in the same light as say a race of people? 2) I think if someone gets all their news from Fox or Drudge and then you see a report like this- you may have a similar reaction of WTF? What is the obsession with OWS such that people need to stretch what they did so much to justify the militias and hate groups? How about not make a dumb analogy? Because sorry- if people are comparing OWS to guys who sit around in camo and daydream about ways they can fire an M-16 into people they hate, that's kinda sad. Or it means you should try a new news source. I thought OWS was disorganized and couldn't convey their message very well- that was my biggest complaint. And they need to figure out how to get public urinals near their sites. But, the words hate group never ever came close to mind- perhaps because like the Tea Party- I listened to the message of their more intelligent people, ignored some of their idiots making tv clips- and thought about what they were saying. This report is nothing partisan, but as you can see above- the reaction certainly is.
Since when has your messages not been straight at the right? You all of a sudden are starting to look at things from different angles?
Prod, 2 media personalities and an unlinked Rolling Stone quote to counter thousands of people in militias or hate groups? Why don't you just let idiot people in the media cancel each other out- you know, Rush and Glenn Beck can cancel out those guys above I've never heard of. And that's really generous to let Glenn Beck and Rush, guys who have millions of less than intelligent listeners/viewers to cancel out a handful of fringe bloggers or whomever Savage is. I'll give you Maher- he's on a real TV channel but he also doesn't make a living on a daily basis spreading crap on tv/radio like the other guys. You're cherry picking comments- that admittedly are horrible. The report wasn't called "Dumb comments made by people with TV shows" it was about hate groups of whom some are armed with real weapons. Keep on deflecting guys- there's gotta be some way we can look the other way! Who else can you find to compare these hate groups to on the left??
Mcb, No, I wasn’t implying that you were only honing in on my post. Just more fair to speak for myself than assume others have the same retort as I did. 1)The OWS movements that I saw on TV and in person (Dallas, Denver, Boston) had a rhetoric regarding separation of the classes. They also had a rhetoric of “kill Bush” (yup, saw that one next to the FedBank building in Dallas, along with “honk if you hate Republicans”. Not to mention the constant news articles and police reports detailing random acts of violence and hate toward innocent strangers and bystanders. If that isn’t hate-spewing baloney, then what is? I didn’t put an ounce of time into defending any Tea Party movement, but, I don’t remember reading any stories or police blotters about hostile, violent actions perpetrated on innocent people by the “teabaggers”. And no, I don’t claim that their motives were less any more or less disgusting than any race hatred or gender hatred groups out there. I’ve got better things to do with my time—namely, not watch the LHN that I still can’t get. 2)Again, I’ve got better things to do with my time than watch Fox News or Drudge-namely, goofing off on HF! However, I do believe that if there is an obsession over the OWS movement, then it was and still is overshadowed by the complete AGGY-level of obsession that the TeaParty garnered. As well, the militias and hate groups get a scant amount of media coverage compared to that which the OWS movement got, which partly keeps the public from being made aware of the groups that spew their government and racial hate. In short, TeaParty=SAYS hateful things to others. OWS=DOES hateful things to others. I think that’s the simplest way to put it. Still, I affirm that the replies to your post were not to continue the blame game fun, but to make a point that the report poorly defined what constituted their opinion of what makes a hate group. That is why the OWS movement was brought up—so that we could fairly lay blame to ALL of the groups that need to be squashed and replaced with civility and reason.
c'mon, mcb, you denounce the left and say that you live and breathe a centrist life, but you do nothing but hurl insults and taunts at conservative posters. I know you can be more genuine than that.
I would add that the other issue is the ubiquitous "right-wing" label. McVeigh was a libertarian, and in fact the left has tried desperately to link right-wing ideology to all kinds of recent violence. Each time it's been someone who was either apolitical or in some cases even hated religion or hated republicans. We heard about all the "tea party violence" that never actually happened. We heard two years ago that right wing grorups were the greatest threat to this country's security, and yet nothing has happened in that regard. There is a constant attempt by the left to make people believe that conservatives are dangerous. It is tiresome.
OP offered their opinion on a subject squared directly at the "right-wing" and then tells people to STFU. I'm not going to attack the messenger but your message didn't exactly put up a sterling example of bipartisan source material and neither did your "lessons".
You're really big on one-issue definitions, aren't you? So you're telling me that no one other than this group ever fought the KKK? Oddly enough, just because a group happens to do some things I agree with, that doesn't make me approve of their partisanship in other areas. As you've defined the tea party as a hate group in the past, I can certainly see where you'd be on board with them.
