76 Comments - Cable Line Beer Gardener - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:14 am: I think there should be an asterisk next to the quote about the IFI serving families. How is a group remarkable when they promote speech that contains the words diseased filled deviants when they refer to LGBT citizens? - Jocko - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:21 am: Is “bloat” like “waste, fraud, and abuse”? Easy to say/justify, but hard to find. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:23 am: –”I thought we came here to talk about….”– The tell-tale distress cry of the Lightweight Whiner. If you want to step up to the Big Chair, you’re going to have to answer all sorts of questions you don’t want to, especially about your previous statements and actions. That’s what happens when you put yourself in the arena of a statewide race. More than just a handful of approving fellow zealots start paying attention to you. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:28 am: Reading Ives’ responses, including higher education and IFI, for me, it reinforces the premise that Ives only helps Rauner to see where the extreme Right has left him, and how far Left Rauner can and will go, starting next April. Ives’ candidacy is a colossal mistake that may help Rauner in the end… if Rauner overcomes all he must… overcome. - Anonymous - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:39 am: Once again: in every household there is waste; in every city, every state government, there IS some waste, fraud, and abuse. The question should be “how much is there?” Knee jerk right wingers will claim to find it and prosecute it would balance the books (um, no it wouldn’t). Idealists claim it’s almost non-existent, so quit talking about it. Hollywood is now leading the way to show abuse isn’t always in sight. Serve those that need help and ensure consequences to those who are guilty of criminal and or lesser malfeasance. It doesn’t have to be one OR the other. Protect the needy as well as the taxpayers, promote the virtues of integrity. - Anonymous - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:42 am: The kind of person who would call the SPLC a hate group merits a comment that invokes Godwin’s Law. - Rahm's Middle Finger - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:45 am: If she actually has 13,000 signatures, she’s going to be on the ballot. *sits back, grabs popcorn* - Southside Markie - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:45 am: The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group? It has a 40+ year history of fighting the Klan and White Supremacist groups.It created KlanWatch in the 1980’s. The Klan responded by burning SPLC’s offices in 1983. It sued to integrate the Alabama State Police. It started a school program called “Mix It Up at Lunch Day” to encourage students to meet with others that they wouldn’t normally mix with. In the 2010’s, it fought the New Orleans and Jackson MI schools over the practice of handcuffing grade school students to walls for minor infractions. The media should be nailing Ives on this one. - Ducky LaMoore - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:47 am: @OW Okay. I agree with you now. Ives is going to make Rauner look good. Geez that is a kooky thing to say about the Southern Poverty Law Center. - 47th Ward - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:50 am: The Governor’s campaign should be secretly funneling money to Ives to keep her in the race. Christmas comes early for Bruce and Diana Rauner. - Annon3 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:52 am: I don’t doubt she sincerely believes what she said about SPLC, goodness what a thing to say nontheless. - old time golfer - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:53 am: -OW- You are spot on and I for one think she makes Allan Keys look moderate…. She only helps Rauner - Southside Markie - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:55 am: Sorry, for a typo. It should have been Jackson, Mississippi, not Michigan, in my earlier post. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:55 am: - Ducky LaMoore - Ives will self-destruct, but Rauner will “carry” her light a prize fighter carries an opponent thru multiple rounds, or like a “cupcake” must play 4 quarters of football, allowing the honing of Rauner’s phony persona… vs Ives. - former southerner - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:57 am: I am not convinced she really helps Rauner much in the general. The GOP civil war between the traditionals and the goofs has become far more strident to the extent that some percentage will likely sit out the general rather than vote for a “mud blood conservative” like Rauner. And it won’t be hard for the Dem opponent to craft an add with the basic ad asking, “Do you want really crazy, mostly crazy, or normal because in the GOP you can only find the first two”. - Grandson of Man - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:59 am: I read this morning that Ives said she’d vote for Rauner, but her spouse and many of her friends won’t. How good can this loss of support from the base be good for Rauner, if this is more widespread? Cook county suburbs and collar counties will be so important, even more than before, if Rauner loses the type of support from the GOP base to which Ives is alluding. Democrats can’t pull a Hillary and take these voters for granted, like she did in Wisconsin, Michigan and other Rust Belt states. - Retired SURS Employee - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:01 am: SPLC a “hate group”? Wow, just wow! Guess I’ll just have to increase my annual contribution…. - Northside City Dweller - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:03 am: “From Lake County to Effingham County” Never mind the quarter of the state south of Effingham County… - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:09 am: ===Cook county suburbs and collar counties will be so important, even more than before, if Rauner loses the type of support from the GOP base to which Ives is alluding. Democrats can’t pull a Hillary and take these voters for granted, like she did in Wisconsin, Michigan and other Rust Belt states.=== … and by weighing and measuring how much support Ives will get in March, Rauner will know how high of a hurdle it will be to overcome. Ives is the “cupcake” to show the actual weaknesses, even at the precinct level. ===I am not convinced she really helps Rauner much in the general. The GOP civil war between the traditionals and the goofs has become far more strident to the extent that some percentage will likely sit out the general rather than vote for a “mud blood conservative” like Rauner=== That’s the weighing and measuring Ives gives. Rauner is arguably the most socially liberal Democratic governor in the United States. How much that eats into the GOP voter base as Rauner is allegedly a Republican is the statistical issue. Ives ends speculation. Ives gives raw ballot intelligence. Ives helps Rauner to pivot off the ridiculousness after April, Ives also measures how many more Indie voters Rauner needs after April too. (Tips cap to - old time golfer -) - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:13 am: It continues to confuse me that Ives doesn’t wrap herself in the Trump banner. Where does she think the votes will come from to make her competitive in the GOP primary? The North Shore cocktail circuit? In 2014, Rauner got 329K votes in the GOP primary. In the 2016 primary, Trump got 562K, Cruz got 438K. That’s one million GOP primary voters who might be down on Rauner because of his supposed heresy on abortion and immigration and receptive to Ives candidacy. Makes you wonder if she’s doing this for realsies or is just a patsy put up to make GOP Boss Rauner look good by comparison to the general electorate. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:13 am: there are new questions arising around a charge that has dogged the group for years: that the SPLC is overplaying its hand, becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog. Critics say the group abuses its position as an arbiter of hatred by labeling legitimate players “hate groups” and “extremists” to keep the attention of its liberal donors and grind a political ax. Which means that just as the SPLC is about to embark on its biggest fight in decades, taking on rising racism and prejudice across the country, its authority to police the boundaries of American political discourse is facing its greatest challenge yet. Ives is far from alone in her criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are a partisan left wing organization who believes there are virtually no hate groups on the far left. SLPC believe Organizations that believe marriage is between a man and a woman are motivated by hate for gays? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/support-for-southern-poverty-law-center-links-scalise-family-research-council-shooters/article/2625982 - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:18 am: - Lucky Pierre - So I’m clear, you are taking the President Trump “both sides” argument, is that what I reading? ===Ives is far from alone in her criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are a partisan left wing organization who believes there are virtually no hate groups on the far left.=== Hmm. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:26 am: No as usual you are missing the boat OW. Read the article from Politico which is not a right wing publication. SLPC is not a neutral organization and extremists have used propaganda from their web site as justification for murderous attacks on Steve Scalise and the Family Research Council. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:32 am: ===No as usual you are missing the boat…=== LOL, no, I asked YOU… ===So I’m clear, you (- Lucky Pierre -) are taking the President Trump “both sides” argument, is that what I reading?=== If you support President Trump’s belief, “both sides”, just say so. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:39 am: No as usual you are missing the boat OW. No mention of President Trump or any both sides argument by me, just a total fabrication and misdirection by you. Are you claiming SLPC is a neutral organization or are they a left wing political one? Southern Poverty Law Center believes traditional religious organizations like the Catholic Church are motivated by hatred of gays instead if sincere religious traditions that have been held for thousands of years. Do you see any difference between Nazi skinheads and the Little Sisters of the Poor? SLPC doesn’t seem to. - Anon221 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:40 am: “At their root, hate groups – those that have “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics” – are anti-democratic. Like hate crimes, they rip apart society along its most fragile fault lines – lines such as race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-is-a-hate-group_us_596b8009e4b022bb9372b284 “Hate crimes are the highest priority of the FBI’s Civil Rights program, not only because of the devastating impact they have on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance can plant the seed of terrorism here in our country.” https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes Ives has a very skewed idea of what Hate is. And, as for the IFI, it has a long history of not only fake news, but fake “science”… https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2009/04/17/illinois-family-institute-again-cites-discredited-research-briefly - illini - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:59 am: I am confused - if the SPLC is a Hate Group do I stop my monthly contribution or should I double it? - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:03 am: ======Ives is far from alone in her criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are a partisan left wing organization who believes there are virtually no hate groups on the far left.=== That’s funny, because I am currently looking at the SLPC website in another window and they have several left wing groups listed. Maybe whomever wrote that article just didn’t see those? Ill give benefit of the doubt here and assume it isn’t just that they were willfully ignoring these listed groups to support a political argument. ===SLPC is not a neutral organization and extremists have used propaganda from their web site as justification for murderous attacks on Steve Scalise and the Family Research Council== A lot of folks think politicians like Scalise and groups like the FRC do engage in hate speech towards homosexuals regardless of what the SLPC claims, so I doubt the SLPC should be automatically discounted because a lunatic shot Scalise. I mean, if you really want to stand with those that argue LGBT people should be treated differently than every other American, you’re of course free to do so. Normalizing the idea that personal religious beliefs are a good reason to be able to treat certain Americans differently than everyone else sure opens up some very ugly boxes, though. - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:06 am: @ Lucky Pierre: You are implying that the SPLC has called the Catholic Church as hate group. Can you provide a legitimate example of that? - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:06 am: Illini, if you’re still writing checks to SPLC, you probably need to do a little reading. - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:20 am: @ CDOG. The SPLC is simply calling out groups that engage in hateful speech and promote an agenda that would discriminate against people for simply existing. Please provide examples of where the SPLC has incorrectly identified a group as a hate group? I am interested in seeing what evidence you can provide. - illini - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:24 am: Thank you Scamp640 - should I hold my breath for LP or cdog to reply? - Demoralized - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:33 am: ==The Illinois Family Institute is a remarkable institute== lol. This is a group who has perfected the art of hate speech. - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:36 am: @ illini: Apparently the world record for holding one’s breath is 22 minutes. This was accomplished by a german free diver. I would recommend that you NOT hold your breath. - Back to the Mountains - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:41 am: Call the group that keeps the ledger on hate groups a hate group. That’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for ‘em. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:42 am: ===No mention of President Trump or any both sides argument by me, just a total fabrication and misdirection by you.=== I asked you, - Lucky Pierre -. I asked you. So you agree, it’s “both sides”. It’s a simple question. To the rest of your simplistic ignorance… ===Do you see any difference between Nazi skinheads and the Little Sisters of the Poor? SLPC doesn’t seem to.=== Others above, they’ve ripped you pretty well on this generalization. I thought you’d up your game, given the holiday to work on new thoughts. Again, you agree with President Trump, the “both sides” argument? You claim there’s an ignoring of the Left… - Anon221 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:46 am: In case LP needs some help finding “proof” for his Pinocchio comment about the Catholic Church… https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/radical-traditional-catholicism BTW- The Little Sisters of the Poor is not listed. That should save LP some time. - JS Mill - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:50 am: And Ives not only was accepted by West Point she graduated? And that is her commend of the English language and reality? Yikes!! =No as usual you are missing the boat OW.= Ummm, no. Just no. You may be missing something though……. - Generic Drone - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:55 am: Oh good lord. - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:00 pm: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are probably the most telling of the upside-down ethic of SPLC. Both are Muslim and speak out against radical Islam. Don’t you find that weird? Even the current shake-ups in the Middle East are broadcasting that speaking against radical islam is necessary. AlJezeera took a beating for promoting hate and death, yesterday. But I guess the SPLC supports those radicals, evidence by labeling opponents of radicals as haters and dangerous. But it is entertaining that using the logic above in this thread, anybody that supports the SPLC supports radical islam. - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:04 pm: to clarify.. Both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are declared anti-muslim extremist by SPLC. - illini - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:11 pm: Second attempt to comment - I guess it is a sign of the times we are living in that our “leaders” can make unverified statements and misleading derogatory or false remarks that are willingly accepted as truth by some people. Thank goodness there are those on this site that will call out those purveyors of pompous pandering and the discriminators of dubious facts. - Juvenal - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:15 pm: “…murderous attacks on Steve Scalia and the Family Research Council.” I must have missed a lot last week, including the news that Steve Scalise was chained the the back of a pick up truck and dragged to his death (or was it a lynching?) while the FRC was firebombed. - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:32 pm: @ CDOG. To clarify, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a FORMER Muslim. She describes her identity in a recent NYTimes article, published on August 24, 2017. Please try again. - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:36 pm: @ CDOG. Before you lob names like Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the argument, please show your work. Did she specifically criticize “radical Islam”? Or did she indict an entire religion for the sins of a few? - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:38 pm: Scamp, so that clarification makes it ok to label her as a purveyor of “hate?” I disagree. I think she has the freedom of speech to condemn hate speech. (see what I did there? - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:45 pm: ===SLPC believe Organizations that believe marriage is between a man and a woman are motivated by hate for gays? They don’t label the Catholic Church as a hate group. This attempt to spin SPLC as attacking people for disagreeing about rights for the LGBT community is nonsense. Every one of those organizations they identify as an anti-LGBT hate group doesn’t just oppose rights, but denigrates the humanity of LGBT folks. Disagree all you want, but if you want to treat a class of people as subhuman, you are a hate group. - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:47 pm: ===outhern Poverty Law Center believes traditional religious organizations like the Catholic Church are motivated by hatred of gays instead if sincere religious traditions that have been held for thousands of years. Cite please… - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:50 pm: ===Scamp, so that clarification makes it ok to label her as a purveyor of “hate?” They have specific instances and arguments she has made. Do you have something to say about those specifically or is your aggrievement just generalized with no examples? - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:55 pm: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is against forced marriage, honor killing, child marriage/sex abuse/sex assault, FGM. That earned her a label of extremist hater from SPLC. Ives is right. There is something very wrong with SPLC. (”Show my work?” Is the echo chamber destroying your thinking and research skills? I sincerely hope this is not the case. The healthiest public debates make room for opposing views. Let’s keep CapFax a healthy place where reason, rule, and research can be discussed without childish insults and base tactics like “shoot the messanger.”) - ste_with_a_v_en - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:55 pm: “Jeanne Ives defends hate group” All day. Every Day. - Demoralized - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:01 pm: == makes it ok to label her as a purveyor of “hate?== This comment about gay people from her does: “They’re trying to weasel their way into acceptability” - illini - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:02 pm: This is indeed a “healthy place where reason, rule, and research can be discussed”. But that does not mean that everyone must automatically and unquestionably accept the “facts” that some commenters chose to put forward. Showing your work and citing your sources are important to validate the veracity of statements. - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:08 pm: ====Ayaan Hirsi Ali is against forced marriage, honor killing, child marriage/sex abuse/sex assault, FGM. ====That earned her a label of extremist hater from SPLC. This is simply false. Read what they have to say about what else she says about Islam in general. https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists#ali - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:14 pm: I agree, illini, but when a basic web search will confirm someone’s position it is a waste of everyone’s time to play “show your work” nonsense. (btw, I am not offended that you use the handle “illini,” and don’t even capitalize the “i.” I trust that your intentions are good and I acknowledge your right to express yourself without me feeling the need to indulge in a narrow definition of what is “pc du jour.” /snark - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:20 pm: ===I agree, illini, but when a basic web search will confirm someone’s position it is a waste of everyone’s time to play “show your work” nonsense. Ummm…you completely made up claims and then insist you do not have to show where you supposedly found such claims? - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:20 pm: @ CDOG: You made a broad generalization about the SPLC, an organization that has worked hard to help oppressed people, and to call out their oppressors. If you are going to make a broad generalization about a group, you should be able to provide some solid evidence. You still have not done this. However, instead of providing solid evidence, you turned the argument towards me, implying that by me asking for evidence, I was turning this comments section into an “echo chamber.” Please lets turn the discussion back towards the matter at hand — the merits of the SPLC. I think you know better than to suggest that the SPLC is criticising Ayaan Hirsi Ali because she is against honor killing, child marriage, and FGM. The SPLC has a long history of promoting womens’ rights. Rather, the SPLC has criticized Ayaan Hirsi Ali because she has condemned an entire religion. You can view an interview she did on the Daily Show where she says that Islam needs a reformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71dBK0iCRro - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:23 pm: Arch, we aren’t going to agree about this. Are you ok with that? Do I need to be labeled, and my first amendment rights silenced? Do I have to agree with your world view? Does Jeanne Ives have to agree with your world view? Your willingness to force all to conform to your analysis seems to becoming a typical American-left position. o/o - illini - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:26 pm: We are all busy and posting a simple internet link would save all of us a great deal of time when we are juggling other tasks. And FYI - the first time I posted a comment years ago I forgot to capitalize the “I” and decided to keep it that way. Maybe not the pc way to reflect my Alma Mater, but that is how it is, and maybe also out of deference to those many more prominent ILLINI. No offense taken - Demoralized - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:28 pm: ==and my first amendment rights silenced== Oh please. That’s just ridiculous. ==typical American-left position.== You lose all credibility when you go there. It’s lazy argument. - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:28 pm: —Your willingness to force all to conform to your analysis seems to becoming a typical American-left position. I’m forcing you by pointing out what SPLC actually wrote? I’m sorry snowflake. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:29 pm: ===to clarify.. Both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz are declared anti-muslim extremist by SPLC.=== If it’s that easy to type, should be that easy to cite - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:36 pm: – and my First Amendment rights silenced.– Who did that to you? For example, you’re yammering on and on about how you don’t have to provide any substantiation to back up your claims. Thats your right, and revealing, too. But you’re really not a Burning Martyr, as exciting as it may be to pretend. - cdog - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:40 pm: I have a response in moderation that should make it through. - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 1:54 pm: @ CDOG: I don’t in any way want to limit your first amendment rights. It’s just that you made a broad generalization about the SPLC. On a discussion board, opinion is most certainly welcome. But solid evidence helps your argument — and might even change an opinion. I am willing to agree that Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents an interesting case. She is a Somali women who grew up in an Islamic culture. She certainly witnessed terrible things, some of which were most likely done in the name of religious belief and values. I will even admit that she makes some good points when she says there should be separation between church and state. But then she broadly condemns the spiritual beliefs of over a billion people. She is on the record as stating that the West must defeat Islam. This does not seem very tolerant towards Muslims. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 2:02 pm: ==and my First Amendment rights silenced.== I’m happy to see that cdog is allowed to exercise his first amendment rights on this discussion board by claiming his first amendment rights are being silenced on this discussion board. Logical argument is logical. Also, I’m not sure why my last post was moderated but I was right about a certain poster not returning to defend the indefensible views of people like Scalise, Ives and the Family Research Council. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 2:52 pm: http://catholicism.org/tag/southern-poverty-law-center Quite a bit of reading material here about the SLPC and their views on traditional Catholics and Christians. Indefensible views of traditional Christians who included until fairly recently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton as well as every single Democratic candidate for President in 2008? Normally 70 year olds are pretty set in their opinions of issues like this. They are all on tape with the same views on marriage as Steve Scalise, Jeanne Ives and the Family Research Council. Now that they have changed their minds I guess they are virtuous instead of opportunistic. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 2:54 pm: So, again, even with that comment… You seek to be agreeing with President Trump… “both sides” Hmm. - Scamp640 - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 3:43 pm: @ Lucky Pierre: Again, the SPLC has been very clear in its mission and actions. Since 1971, they have been very consistent in that they try to defend people who are oppressed and castigated for simply being themselves and doing no harm to others. And they work to call oppressors to account for their actions. Traditional Christians used to rely on scripture to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, and racism. Any religion that justifies attacks on others simply due to “traditional values” should be called out. Radical (i.e. traditional Islam) should be called out for its prejudicial ways, just as Traditional (i.e. radical Christianity) should be called out for vilifying somebody for simply being themselves and doing no harm to others. As you call them, “Traditional Christians” criticize others for simply being themselves. In my humble opinion, they should not be able to hide behind religious “values” as a way to oppress others. Don’t you agree? What kind of religion goes out of its way to oppress others? Gays have done nothing to hurt “traditional” Christians. Why do “traditional” Christians work so hard to marginalize gays or others they disagree with? What kind of “Christianity” is that? Is that loving Christianity? Or hateful Christianity? I would argue that if one group is actively working to oppress others, who have done nothing to that group, that is hateful. Hence, one could reasonably expect the SPLC to categorize such a group of oppressors as a hate group. Just as an aside, it is worth noting that the SPLC also identifies Black (African American) separatists as an American hate group. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 4:19 pm: LP, you might want to read up on Feeneyism before you assert that they speak for “traditional Catholics and Christians.” Better yet, you might just want to leave faith out of your whole Island of Misfit Bots schtick. Stick to the Cult of Bruce. - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 5:24 pm: ===Quite a bit of reading material here about the SLPC and their views on traditional Catholics and Christians. So you are using a group that was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church at one point and has no official position in the church due to its radicalism to prove that SPLC is targeting the mainstream? - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 5:26 pm: BTW, The primary take of SPLC on the group is that they are antisemitic more than the view on LGBT persons. So that’s kind of problematic. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 7:02 pm: SLPC is very clear if you belong to an organization that still believes marriage is between a man and woman ( a concept 37 states agreed with and every Democrat who ran for the office in 2008 publicly stated) you are to be considered to be in a hate group. How exactly do religions who have been able to practice their faith for the past two thousand years suddenly turn into “oppressors” when they have changed absolutely nothing and do not persecute anyone? Pope Francs is widely beloved despite the fact he not about to suddenly start performing gay marriages - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 8:06 pm: I’m not sure why Rich keeps moderating my posts, but I’ll try it one more time. ==SLPC is very clear if you belong to an organization that still believes marriage is between a man and woman ( a concept 37 states agreed with and every Democrat who ran for the office in 2008 publicly stated) you are to be considered to be in a hate group.== Lucky, you keep claiming that this SLPC inclusion is about the church’s view (and conservatives views) on marriage - and that Is Not True. Period. The SLPC inclusion is about conservatives arguing that LGBT citizens shouldn’t have the same rights as every other American. The Family Research Council and Ives and Scalise and the rest argue that business people shouldnt have to serve LGBT customers, that churches should be able to exclude or excommunicate LGBT people, and that LGBT people indoctrinate children towards their lifestyle or worse, that LGBT folks are all child molesters. This is a hateful lie, and if you or anyone else wants to argue that this isn’t hate speech, I’ll be here to call y’all on it for as long as Rich allows me to. - ArchPundit - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 8:32 pm: —-SLPC is very clear if you belong to an organization that still believes marriage is between a man and woman ( a concept 37 states agreed with and every Democrat who ran for the office in 2008 publicly stated) you are to be considered to be in a hate group. This isn’t true. The Catholic Church is not considered a hate group by the SPLC. The links above point this out. The groups that are considered hate groups because of their stance on LGBT citizens is due to their position on LGBT issues that advocate for taking away rights of LGBT citizens. Many of them such as FRC advocate hateful agendas against LGBT citizens such as https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council The Catholic organization cited above wasn’t even primarily cited as a hate group for it’s position on LGBT rights, but on it’s extreme antisemitism. If you want to defend a fringe Catholic group that is antisemitic, that is your right. It makes you a person of very questionable character though. However, don’t claim they are defined as a hate group because of something else. The group is not affiliated with the Catholic Church either so trying to pretend it is connected is fundamentally dishonest. - Sparminer - Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:26 pm: LOL you people are goofy….Ives Is the secret Atom bomb for the real republican party….get ready for the bumpy ride to victory. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.