I did not repeat it. I merely provided evidence for my assertion made earlier about the Tea Party’s level of support. I have not yet investigated your claim about the Tea Party, since you have just falsely inferred that Dobson’s group is no longer considered a hate group by the SPLC.
He’s quite diplomatic and would decline to make that claim. I don’t have to be diplomatic and am free to call a spade a spade.
This assertion has nothing to do with the discussion. You said the SPLC said something about the Tea Party as a whole, and thus said something about 45 million people. This is a totally false statement, because the SPLC only criticized a small group called “Tea Party Nation”. What you said was false.
Bullshit – show me a cite that Focus on the Family is still considered a “hate group” by the SPLC. They criticized the group in 2012 (without actually categorizing them as a “hate group”), and then stopped criticizing them when Dobson retired, because the group moderated their message (and stopped saying hateful things).
Why can’t you offer cites with your claims?
Would he be so diplomatic about a real hate group?
Only if you don’t consider the fact that the Tea Party nation is one of the most, if not the most, significant Tea Party group out there. Sarah Palin was the keynoter at their convention. Tea Party Patriots is probably bigger now, but it’s labelling the Tea Party Nation as “just one Tea Party group” is akin to calling Moveon “just one progressive group”.
Ah, I see, they are playing political games to confuse us the way you do. They listed them among hate groups as being part of the anti-gay movement without officially classifying them.
They do, however, label the Family Research Council, Tony Perkin’s group, a hate group, which got them condemnation from the Republican leadership. And of course there was a shooting at the FRC directly related to that.
Dude, MoveOn hasn’t been particularly influential on the left for over a decade. Try to keep up.
And, incidentally, consistent with me being a lefty extremist, yes, I consider ALL Teabagger groups to be hate groups, with a particular focus on hating Obama. Can’t wait for that bunch to die off and rot in hell.
Any group that works against gay rights is a hate group. Any group that attempts to limit women’s right (and reproductive rights) is a hate group. Embrace your nature, adaher. You’re all Sith. Every single one.
Why can’t you simply say “okay, I was wrong”? You said the SPLC said something about the Tea Party as a whole. This was very incorrect – they said it about just one organization that said hateful things.
Do you deny that those statements were hateful? Can you simply offer a single group designated a “hate group” by the SPLC that has not made hateful statements?
As to the size and prominence of the Tea Party Nation, I don’t believe you. You’ve offered no cites. I don’t believe any assertions you make without cites.
First – cite that they label the FRC as a “hate group” (I know they’ve criticized them, but you’ll have to prove that they are designated as a “hate group” if you’re going to make that assertion). If so, show me the statements that the SPLC deems hateful and tell me why you don’t think they are hateful. In short, put some actual effort into your posts.
As to the 2005 criticism of “Focus on the Family”, that’s 10 years ago – I cited much more recent criticism (2012), and another even more recent cite in which the SPLC noted that the group had moderated after Dobson stepped down.
Lastly, you assert that I play “political games to confuse…” – cite. Cite that I play games to confuse. Cite to back up your assertions about other posters. Put some damn effort into your criticisms and assertions. I’ve cited your track record of making assertions about me that are incorrect and unsupported, and your track record of making factual claims that are easily refutable. Why are you continuing this sort of nonsense? Doesn’t this criticism, which would be so damn easy to avoid (just cite and read your cites and make sure your assertions are accurate!), bother you?
Then you’ve labelled nearly half the country as haters. You can do that, of course, but I’m not sure how seriously you’ll be taken. Fortunately, you aren’t a group that relies on political capital to have influence.
However, iiandyii has enlightened me. SPLC are consummate politicians, accusing mainstream groups of being haters and trying to lump in more mainstream figures by association, while avoiding truly disastrous designations at this point in time. Rest assured, when it becomes politically possible, SPLC will label more and more mainstream groups as hate groups.
The biggest Tea Party group by far is Fox News.
And just claiming that any one identifiable group represents the Tea Party as a whole completely refutes the notion that it’s a grassroots movement.
I was wrong. Tea Party Nation is a big part of the movement though, so when I saw that designation I reasonably inferred Tea Party=hate group. The Nation is not some fringe Tea Party organization.
Hateful statements come out of lots of people’s mouths, often of very mainstream organizations, such as the Democratic or Republican parties. Or artists, athletes, and actors. There’s a huge difference between people in the group saying bad things and bad things being part of the group’s charter. The Klan puts hate in their charter. The Tea Party Nation espouses fairly mainstream values, but a couple of their members have said unfortunate things. The Klan has used violence to pursue its agenda. The Tea Party Nation works through the system. The Klan is actually trying to get rid of Muslims. The Tea Party Nation is not, regardless of what one of it’s leaders said. The SPLC is being careless in their designations, and it’s not just the right that has said that:
This one’s easy. You have argued with me many times that the President did not lie when he said you could keep your insurance if you liked it. Share with us your explanation again for why you believe that. See if you can make it less lawyerly this time.
Sarah Palin is a professional hater. Luckily, her influence is waning since her incoherent ranting at the latest haters meeting in Iowa.
The governor of Alaska, who once held the highest approval rating of any governor, is a hater?
Well, I guess you’re writing off Alaska. Buncha haters.
Guys, we’re getting a bit off-track here.
The truth hurts, I guess. I have no idea why you’d think that half the country COULDN’T be haters. Was the vast majority who supported slavery up to the mid 19th-Century not haters? Were the majority of Germans in the 20s/30s/40s who supported the Holocaust not haters?
I don’t have to be nice and polite and diplomatic. I’m not a politician. I’m going to call out haters when I see them. Deal.
Maybe.
We’ll wrap this up, right guys? And really, if you think the GOP is just the party of hate, I’m not sure why you’d be interested in who gets the nomination.
Because, first of all, we’re interested in whether it’s going to continue to be the party of hate, and for how long, and second of all, we want to know who we’re up against when we attempt to beat that party next year.
I admire you for that. Some Dopers seem to think they shouldn’t stray off message. It was really amazing how on board the liberal Doper community was with the Democratic messaging in 2014, until the day after, when were told how idiotic it was. I lost a little faith in humanity because of that. Ignorance not fought, hope diminished.
I agree with your logic. The ENTIRE country could be haters. Heck, there are whole countries made up mostly of haters(Saudi Arabia). The problem I have with labelling the mainstream right as haters is because distinctions must be made. There are groups that pursue their agenda through violence. There are other groups that work through the political system. The latter are not a threat to anyone. The Family Research Council, should they fail to stop gay marriage, will move on to other things. The Klan hasn’t yet given up on segregation and occasionally, mainly due to membership limitations, has used intimidation and violence to enforce their views. HUGE difference. Putting them all under one designation seems ridiculous. When the definition of a phrase such as “hate group” becomes that all-encompassing, it ceases to have any real meaning.
When the point of political difference is “Them Lowlife Freaks should not be permitted to have the same rights as Us Real People”, the label “hate group” is accurate and appropriate.
The desired result of the “work ‘peacefully’ through the political and legal system” is to establish a regime where, should Them Lowlife Freaks get too insistently uppity about exercising the same rights as Us Real People, men with guns will eventually show up to stop them. Hence the sneer quotes around “peacefully” in the previous sentence.
It depends on whether we are talking about a real journalist who looks at the facts (answer: “yes” because that’s where the facts point), or a bloviating hack (answer: “no”, because then he’d lose a few cards from his Rolodex of Guys Who Will Fill Airtime With Minimal Effort On My Part[tm]).
Not a reasonable inference, but whatever.
The SPLC doesn’t just throw all these groups into one pot. They don’t say the Tea Party Nation is equivalent to the KKK. But they, as they should, point out when groups make hateful statements consistently without retracting them. The Tea Party Nation did that, as have various other (but not all) organizations that strongly oppose gay rights.
Criticism of the SPLC’s finances (and this is the first time you’ve mentioned it) is fine. Criticize away. But you’ve provided zero evidence that their motivation is political as opposed to actually pointing out and criticizing hateful statements.
They designate them an “extremist group”, but okay. But you didn’t show the statements criticized as “hateful”, and you’ve made no effort to defend them. Your link offers many hateful statements that have not be retracted – anything to say about them?
Then provide a cite. Seriously – have you learned anything? You’ve been modded twice in the last few days for making unsupported, uncited claims about posters (me in particular)!
Provide a specific cite showing what I’ve said if you want to have this discussion (and we’ve probably already discussed the President’s statements on keeping insurance in another thread). I don’t believe anything you say without a cite.