Range War

[callmeslick]

more supporting evidence for my case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html


yup, these folks are FAR more of a threat to us than the terrorists.

[woodchip]

more supporting evidence for my case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html


yup, these folks are FAR more of a threat to us than the terrorists.

Or they are more of a salvation. All in ones perspective.

[CUDA]

more supporting evidence for my case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html


yup, these folks are FAR more of a threat to us than the terrorists.

you do understand rhetoric dont you?

No I guess not

[Will Robinson]

What he 'understands' is the rhetoric he adheres to on bended knee and then spews is to be considered prophetic and all else is blasphemy.

slick I don't need to prove your predictions aren't substantive....they are PREDICTIONS.
Come back when it is reality and show me 3000 dead on one day from a Tea Party tactic designed to alter government policy. There would be a stellar example you were possibly correct....just a tie mind you but at least at that point it would be real.

Right now you are giving hyperbolic predictions of doom and claiming they are acurate and imminent and that is just a big pile of crap.

The Tea Party you cite today as the greatest threat to our country is the same Tea Party that you declared to be obsolete and on the fast road to extinction just a month ago!
You quoted us polls and election results from numerous elections state by state arguing they were doomed and taking the Republican Party to its end with them!

Now all of a sudden, because you needed something to buttress your knee-jerk argument, you pull them out of your rear end and raise them up as the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

You are all over the place and full of it. An overflowing cesspool of disinformation.

[callmeslick]

more supporting evidence for my case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html


yup, these folks are FAR more of a threat to us than the terrorists.

you do understand rhetoric dont you?

No I guess not

rhetoric? Is that some sort of Pacific Northwest interpretation of the word? She's an idiot, given to insensitive, ignorant comments that make the whole nation look bad to others. Rhetoric?

[woodchip]

more supporting evidence for my case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html


yup, these folks are FAR more of a threat to us than the terrorists.

you do understand rhetoric dont you?

No I guess not

rhetoric? Is that some sort of Pacific Northwest interpretation of the word? She's an idiot, given to insensitive, ignorant comments that make the whole nation look bad to others. Rhetoric?

Hahaha...Palin is a Rhodes scholar compared to John Kerry:

"If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday."

So Israel is now turning into a apartheid state. Way to go John...but then what do you expect from the guy who compared our troops in Vietnam to the murdering, raping hordes of Genghis Khan

[callmeslick]

I've said the same thing Kerry said for years(admittedly, no one wishes me to be a diplomat). Israel, as a single state situation IS an apartheid state. A huge percentage of the humans living there cannot move freely, work freely, nor functionally own land(without risk of takeover by Jews). Kerry is merely truthful. Palin is an inflammatory idiot.

[woodchip]

I suggest slick you look up what apartheid means before making any stupid replies:

"According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

And you might try to remember what your love interest Obama had to say:

"In a 2008 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, then-Sen. Barack Obama shot down the notion that the word “apartheid” was acceptable in a discussion about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians:

“There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal,” Obama said. “It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”

It now appears Palin is a Rhodes Scholar compared to you also.

[callmeslick]

I suggest slick you look up what apartheid means before making any stupid replies:

I'm of an age where I know EXACTLY what apartheid entails.

"According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

this, in a nutshell is what Israel is doing to Palestinian residents. Not so much racial, as both groups are 'Semitic'.

And you might try to remember what your love interest Obama had to say:

"In a 2008 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, then-Sen. Barack Obama shot down the notion that the word “apartheid” was acceptable in a discussion about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians:

“There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal,” Obama said. “It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”

and, on this, while I appreciate Obama's need to be diplomatic in the extreme, and note that he is talking about the power of words, I disagree. A one-state Israel is an Apartheid state.

It now appears Palin is a Rhodes Scholar compared to you also.

sure, dude, whatever. She's an ***hole, short and simple. That you champion her speaks volume of your intellect or lack thereof.

[woodchip]

I suggest slick you look up what apartheid means before making any stupid replies:

I'm of an age where I know EXACTLY what apartheid entails.

Apparently not

this, in a nutshell is what Israel is doing to Palestinian residents. Not so much racial, as both groups are 'Semitic'.

Just what are the "inhumane act" the Israelis have committed? Do try and be specific dear boy.

and, on this, while I appreciate Obama's need to be diplomatic in the extreme, and note that he is talking about the power of words, I disagree. A one-state Israel is an Apartheid state.

So by the simple fact you disagree with Obama makes you correct? Speak about being egocentric

sure, dude, whatever. She's an ***hole, short and simple. That you champion her speaks volume of your intellect or lack thereof.

No Kerry is the ★■◆● and both the Dems and the Repub both are saying so. Comparing Palin to you is somehow championing her? My my, did you not catch any fish on your fishing trip?

[snoopy]

killing a few thousand people is bad, subverting an entire nation and ruining the economy for the entire populace is worse.

Here's the problem that I have with your argument, Slick:

Terrorism represents directed intention to harm the nation. 9/11 is an example of it working as intended; both killing many and enabling lots of economic harm. Regardless of what you think of the approach or its effectiveness, it's pretty clear that the intention is to hurt the nation.

The tea party's platform is intended to improve long-term outlook of the nation and its people. You project that their path will lead to subversion of the nation, and that's fine... but that's your opinion and your projections. Other people (namely, the tea party types) believe that the path will lead to a better nation... and that's their opinion and projections. Only time will tell who's right.

What bothers me is that you compare a difference in approach to the same fundamental goals (make the nation a better place) to clear intention to hurt/destroy the nation. It's okay to say that you think the approach is wrong and will lead to the destruction of the nation... but don't blur the difference between good intentions improperly applied (and bear in mind that the "improperly applied" argument is very much up for debate) and malicious intentions. (Note: you may not be trying to blur that difference, but it sounds that way.)

[flip]

Harry Reid is slick. Now, instead of everyone discussing if he stands to benefit personally from these land grabs we are discussing 'domestic terrorists.' All the while he has been so-called representing his state by signing off large portions of it to Federal ownership, his bank account is blooming. He is the worst kind of terrorist in my opinion because none of his actions are evident and unless you start peeling back the layers you never even notice you've been robbed until it's too late.

[callmeslick]

killing a few thousand people is bad, subverting an entire nation and ruining the economy for the entire populace is worse.

Here's the problem that I have with your argument, Slick:

Terrorism represents directed intention to harm the nation. 9/11 is an example of it working as intended; both killing many and enabling lots of economic harm. Regardless of what you think of the approach or its effectiveness, it's pretty clear that the intention is to hurt the nation.

The tea party's platform is intended to improve long-term outlook of the nation and its people. You project that their path will lead to subversion of the nation, and that's fine... but that's your opinion and your projections. Other people (namely, the tea party types) believe that the path will lead to a better nation... and that's their opinion and projections. Only time will tell who's right.

What bothers me is that you compare a difference in approach to the same fundamental goals (make the nation a better place) to clear intention to hurt/destroy the nation. It's okay to say that you think the approach is wrong and will lead to the destruction of the nation... but don't blur the difference between good intentions improperly applied (and bear in mind that the "improperly applied" argument is very much up for debate) and malicious intentions. (Note: you may not be trying to blur that difference, but it sounds that way.)

I respect your logic, but there is a flaw......in the mind of a Muslim terrorist, they're working for a 'better' society, too. However, since they are in an extreme minority, they know they cannot carry that change off unless they scare people into it(a theory that I feel never works, by the way). The Tea Party wishes to run a government, but doesn't BELIEVE in government being a positive. Thus, they wish to dismantle, legally, a system that directly contributes to our day to day level of relative affluence in the world. Central to that is our credit rating, which they literally are too stupid to realize. Give me the overt threat of a handful of extremists over a movement which seems hell-bent on electing complete idiots to office for the purpose of disrupting our government.

[callmeslick]

Harry Reid is slick. Now, instead of everyone discussing if he stands to benefit personally from these land grabs we are discussing 'domestic terrorists.' All the while he has been so-called representing his state by signing off large portions of it to Federal ownership, his bank account is blooming. He is the worst kind of terrorist in my opinion because none of his actions are evident and unless you start peeling back the layers you never even notice you've been robbed until it's too late.

please, explain to me(and, us all) who 'grabbed land' here. The land Bundy was grazing on was Federal land 20 years ago.

[callmeslick]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z30J0DaUzD


the court inquiry, this article notes rightly, showed that the land in question had NEVER been in the state's possession.

[Tunnelcat]

...

So you think that an arbitrary border, in the open West by the way, is a magical solid line, and that people on one side are politically different from those on the other? LOL yourself.

No TC.
I'm using your own weird assertion that mindsets infect across borders but pointing out to you if your assertion is correct then you can't attribute something unique to only a few states (your method for proving Texas and Nevada were of the same mindset) BECAUSE... what ever it is that you think crossed the border between them will, of course, cross all the other borders and thus all the continental states will have been passed the 'infection' across their borders!

Thus the flaw in your weird logic to try and single out and associate a Nevada loony with Texas.

You obviously don't understand that the West was relatively homogenous across people's belief systems back when it was mostly a territory. Usually the hardiest of settlers went there to set down stakes in such a harsh land. Only California and the PNW trended differently from the other western states. Must have been a virus or something.

I would bet the ratio, per capita, of anti-government types is pretty close. You want to maintain there are only white guys that despise the government go ahead. I know you are wrong. New Black Panthers..the old Black Panthers..both of them are/were armed to the teeth.Preaching anti government and hate? Farrakhan....Rev. Wright... Black liberation theology, then there is all that Critical Race Theory in our universities and public schools K-12.

No TC, you say it "seems like" because that is a product of your bias. However, if ever there was a group that had a historically good reason to hate the government it would be black americans so I think you will lose that argument by far. You just come up with these 'feelings' and spout them off without ever playing devils advocate with yourself and that is why you are always trying to twist logic to support your rants. Go and ask some of your black friends about black people and conspiracy theories. Ask them if they think black people are more prone to entertaining them. You might be very surprised with the results. And they might be relieved you finally had the decency to treat them as equals and actually talk with them about being 'black' instead of going through the motions of a scared person walking on eggshells and offering platitudes.

OK, this reply should be in your other racist rant thread, but here goes. Take the time, if you care, and go click on each state in this map and compare the numbers of Black hate groups to White hate groups. The White hate groups far outnumber the Black hate groups. In our own state of Oregon, there are 9 listed hate groups, 2 of them are black, 7 are white. In Washington, ALL of them are white. The northern tier seems to be a white hate hotbed.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map

And since 2010, hate groups have exploded in number. They now top 1000. Most of these new ones are recent white patriot groups, many listed as hate groups. Could it be because we have a black president?

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... emism-2010

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... -in-the-us

[callmeslick]

And since 2010, hate groups have exploded in number. They now top 1000. Most of these new ones are recent white patriot groups, many listed as hate groups. Could it be because we have a black president?

nahhhhhh, NO WAY!!!!

[Tunnelcat]

Wait for it.........................

[flip]

First off, I'm not here to defend Bundy although I do think the issue is much larger than him. I also am not talking about that particular piece of land, except as to how it benefits Reid in some of his business dealings. 85% of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government and Harry Reid has been in office since 1987. So for 27 years He has been in a position to reclaim some or most of that land to the State of Nevada and instead uses it to wheel and deal with. Although, after looking into this a little more deeply, they deserve it. Why they keep voting the creep in is beyond me.

[Will Robinson]

...
And since 2010, hate groups have exploded in number. They now top 1000. Most of these new ones are recent white patriot groups, many listed as hate groups. Could it be because we have a black president? ..

Could it be your source for the conclusions you are drawing on is as dishonest at assigning the 'hate group' label as you and slick are at assigning the motive of 'racism'? Lol!

a little confirmation bias for you biased types to work with?

By the way, I looked at your numbers and it appears even that doesn't refute my comments.

I said:

I would bet the ratio, per capita, of anti-government types is pretty close. You want to maintain there are only white guys that despise the government go ahead. I know you are wrong."

looking at just the identified black and white groups the ratio is consistent with the population and then when you dig into it there are lots of groups conveniently labeled as "General" but if you follow the links of the General groups you find a lot of web sites with black muslims. Should they not be counted as "black"?

But really that was a rhetorical question because clearly even your source, as presented, and as questionable as it is, shows that whites and blacks are both represented in ratios that follow the population of blacks and whites per capita.

So a bunch of nothing is what you have presented. and on a few of those black hate groups web sites you can find some of that silly conspiracy stuff I was talking about too.

[callmeslick]

First off, I'm not here to defend Bundy although I do think the issue is much larger than him. I also am not talking about that particular piece of land, except as to how it benefits Reid in some of his business dealings. 85% of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government and Harry Reid has been in office since 1987. So for 27 years He has been in a position to reclaim some or most of that land to the State of Nevada and instead uses it to wheel and deal with. Although, after looking into this a little more deeply, they deserve it. Why they keep voting the creep in is beyond me.

I repeat, that has been the setup since Nevada was created. You cannot RECLAIM something you never had legal claim to.

[snoopy]

I respect your logic, but there is a flaw......in the mind of a Muslim terrorist, they're working for a 'better' society, too. However, since they are in an extreme minority, they know they cannot carry that change off unless they scare people into it(a theory that I feel never works, by the way). The Tea Party wishes to run a government, but doesn't BELIEVE in government being a positive. Thus, they wish to dismantle, legally, a system that directly contributes to our day to day level of relative affluence in the world. Central to that is our credit rating, which they literally are too stupid to realize. Give me the overt threat of a handful of extremists over a movement which seems hell-bent on electing complete idiots to office for the purpose of disrupting our government.

You're missing the point. You're equating political action (which I highly encourage, whether you agree with me or not) to terrorism. You and I both know that bringing up the credit rating is just a distraction... At the root of it, I see a call to criminalize disagreement with your way of seeing things. Please open your mind to the possibility that your way of doing things might not be the best way out there...

We need to treasure political action and people taking the power of dissent that's built into our government. I believe that in the long run giving everyone a political voice while ruling by majority will make us a stronger nation. Your strong condemnation of voices that disagree with you should scare even yourself... because one of these days the pendulum will swing the other way and people like you will be the ones with the dissenting voice that the majority will be clamoring to silence. Your signature encapsulates it pretty well: you're on top right now and it feels good... but you would do well to consider where you will be when the voters turn on you and you find that you're not on top anymore.... because I guarantee you that it's coming eventually... maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but eventually.

[callmeslick]

You're missing the point. You're equating political action (which I highly encourage, whether you agree with me or not) to terrorism. You and I both know that bringing up the credit rating is just a distraction... At the root of it, I see a call to criminalize disagreement with your way of seeing things. Please open your mind to the possibility that your way of doing things might not be the best way out there...

I'm not equating the two, but stating that the risk of the Tea Party DWARFS the risk from terrorism. And, I firmly believe it. I have no interest, nor would I ever suggest, criminalizing the Tea Party or any political group. Thus far, the electorate has shown enough savvy to relegate the Tea Party to a shrinking segment of the electorate. But, the risk inherent in their position is still very real.

[Will Robinson]

You're missing the point. You're equating political action (which I highly encourage, whether you agree with me or not) to terrorism. You and I both know that bringing up the credit rating is just a distraction... At the root of it, I see a call to criminalize disagreement with your way of seeing things. Please open your mind to the possibility that your way of doing things might not be the best way out there...

I'm not equating the two, but stating that the risk of the Tea Party DWARFS the risk from terrorism. And, I firmly believe it. I have no interest, nor would I ever suggest, criminalizing the Tea Party or any political group. Thus far, the electorate has shown enough savvy to relegate the Tea Party to a shrinking segment of the electorate. But, the risk inherent in their position is still very real.

That is so weak. The terrorists threat is real and are not shrinking. Fundamentalist islamofacists are spreading in countries that can fund and distribute more death.

And your best case for holding the TeaParty up as more deadly is that, although they are shrinking in power you know they want to kill lots of us and if they find some fairy dust to get elected with, and if they really are as bent as your rhetoric declares then they will be more dangerous.

I think, using that metric, one that relies on your prophetic doom, you might as well be making the case for a Christian theocracy because, just as likely, if we don't stop sinning and accept Jesus we will all burn in hell.

[callmeslick]

That is so weak. The terrorists threat is real and are not shrinking. Fundamentalist islamofacists are spreading in countries that can fund and distribute more death.

care to demonstrate how the network is in any way stronger than it was in, say, 2000?

[CUDA]

I would say the fact that they are operating more in the open now then they were then, would be a good indicator they at least "they" believe they are stronger.

[flip]

Maybe so Slick, even though I have read that had the Senator from Nevada encouraged it, he would probably have gotten great consensus to turn a great portion over to the State of Nevada. Instead he uses it for his own personal investments and runs roughshod over his own constituents to do so. His greed and avarice is terrorism in my eyes because instead of helping he pushes them against the wall. That's all some of those ranchers know and has been passed down to them for generations. It's worth preserving. The same thing is happening to them that happened to construction workers. The people with the money and ability to monopolize industries do so and make hamburger flippers out of the rest of us. It is tyranny.

[callmeslick]

I would say the fact that they are operating more in the open now then they were then, would be a good indicator they at least "they" believe they are stronger.

how much more open than, say, flying a few planes into public buildings do you suggest they now are?

[CUDA]

Maybe you should do some research yourself, then get back to me

I dont have the time, nor the will to explain it to you then play your semantics and distortion games

[vision]

I would say the fact that they are operating more in the open now then they were then, would be a good indicator they at least "they" believe they are stronger.

No seriously, you can't make an absurd comment like that and not back it up. Where is this "out in the open" business? I'm pretty sure any high-level terrorism planning is immediately dispatched with drones. Are you confusing rhetoric by terrorist groups with "operating in the open?" Also, the term "terrorist group" is now so large to have lost it's meaning. People call any political party they don't like a terrorist group these days. It just happened two weeks ago in the Ukraine when their transitional government called separatists "terrorists." Ridiculous.

[Will Robinson]

...Also, the term "terrorist group" is now so large to have lost it's meaning. People call any political party they don't like a terrorist group these days. .... Ridiculous.

Like the way lefties like slick do with the Tea Party. Ridiculous indeed.

By the way, I thought CUDA was talking about their openly entering political/government roles as they try to take control of whole countries from the inside.... out in the open in that sense...not that they have opened up bomb making kiosks outside of the Cairo Starbucks.

[vision]

By the way, I thought CUDA was talking about their openly entering political/government roles as they try to take control of whole countries from the inside.... out in the open in that sense...

Yeah, that's fine, but I argue you are no longer a terrorist when you leave the fringe and enter mainstream politics. Granted there is no workable legal definition of terrorism because of the gradient from independent actors, to terrorist organizations, to revolutionary movement, to political representation, etc. -- especially within the borders of a single country. My opinion is that once you have members of your ideology running for office and using major media networks to spread your message you can no longer be labeled as terrorist. You are a political party. Perhaps a violent one, but some cultures are more accepting of everyday violence than the West (which is terrible).

[snoopy]

...Also, the term "terrorist group" is now so large to have lost it's meaning. People call any political party they don't like a terrorist group these days. .... Ridiculous.

Like the way lefties like slick do with the Tea Party. Ridiculous indeed.

By the way, I thought CUDA was talking about their openly entering political/government roles as they try to take control of whole countries from the inside.... out in the open in that sense...not that they have opened up bomb making kiosks outside of the Cairo Starbucks.

Aye. That's what I'm calling Slick out on...

[callmeslick]

as noted, once you stopped bombing market places and run for office, you are something altogether different. However, I disagree about CUDAs intent. After all, the matter in question was 'dangerous to the US society' or words to that effect. Thus, I don't find that, say, Yemen, or even Egypt having radical Islamists in the political sphere poses any real threat to the US society. They are interested in their own world, not attacking Western symbols or institutions, which should be seen as further progress in weakening the whole idea of terrorism as an effective tool.

[Will Robinson]

as noted, once you stopped bombing market places and run for office, you are something altogether different. However, I disagree about CUDAs intent. After all, the matter in question was 'dangerous to the US society' or words to that effect. Thus, I don't find that, say, Yemen, or even Egypt having radical Islamists in the political sphere poses any real threat to the US society. They are interested in their own world, not attacking Western symbols or institutions, which should be seen as further progress in weakening the whole idea of terrorism as an effective tool.

There is so much wrong with that.
First, if you are beheading people and using suicide vests in civilian market places out of your 'Terror Department' but also hold a position in the recognized government the terror you are involved in doesn't suddenly become " something altogether different" as you imply.

Second, to say they aren't interested in attacking the West is patently false. Provably false using, not predictions of doom, but recent as well as past historical events as examples! If people with the same fundamentalists proactive intentions that flew planes into the twin towers get control of a country, being that they have never shown or claimed any desire to stop before they have established dominance, a caliphate, in the name of their bloodthirsty prophet, your bluster will fail to stop them. Have you ever objectively looked into just how much death and suffering Iraan has exported into the world since the Islamo-fascists took over? When they become, not the lone powerful whacko state, but one of many, things will get really nasty around the globe!

Third, just recently you cited our involvement in wars over there as a threat to America.
Do you believe that we will fight fewer wars over there if, say, Israel starts being hit with sophisticated munitions instead of dumb rockets? When those Islamofascists get control of a modern military they will upgrade their weapons not abandon their fanaticism. They won't hesitate to follow the example of western and eastern european leaders who fabricate 'legitimate' reasons to attack other states using their new flag as a badge of legitimacy and authority.

It isn't the 'tactic of terrorism' that makes us cite today's terrorists as a threat! It isn't the lack of uniforms and sanctioning political bodies that make them a threat. It is the death toll that their islamo-fascism compels them to rack up.

You want to go and re-label their homicides as "something altogether different" so you can win a debate on the internet you go ahead but you aren't fooling anyone with your Rom Emanuel accounting tricks. The threat we cited is still going to be there only much better armed and apparently emboldened by recent foreign policy events that seems to be focused, like you are, on the wrong aspects of the threat.

Obama was naive in his thinking, he said just before being elected that 'because he has an islamic sister and went to school over there that the threat from terrorists will drop as soon as he was inaugurated' (his words).
And he is a scumbag lying politician who needed to get re-elected so he turned a blind eye to events that would draw him into angering his base and undermining his campaign sales pitch. So we know his motive for what he has done.

What is your excuse for taking such a flawed view of the threat?

[vision]

Helpful reminder: The deaths of all civilians on US soil due to terrorist attacks are the result of actions by citizens of Saudi Arabia, our ally. Iran is the enemy of Saudi Arabia and vehemently against AL-Queda.

[Tunnelcat]

looking at just the identified black and white groups the ratio is consistent with the population and then when you dig into it there are lots of groups conveniently labeled as "General" but if you follow the links of the General groups you find a lot of web sites with black muslims. Should they not be counted as "black"?

But really that was a rhetorical question because clearly even your source, as presented, and as questionable as it is, shows that whites and blacks are both represented in ratios that follow the population of blacks and whites per capita.

So a bunch of nothing is what you have presented. and on a few of those black hate groups web sites you can find some of that silly conspiracy stuff I was talking about too.

Well, you obviously skimmed over the maps. Clicking on each map lists every hate group in each state. Many of the northern states ONLY have white hate groups. And I see any group with an agenda specifically formed to target another group of people because of their traits, race, gender or religion as a hate group. I see far more white groups than black groups in all those lists too, even out of all the "general ones". And many of these white groups are recently formed, coinciding with Obama's election. Happenstance?

[Will Robinson]

Helpful reminder: The deaths of all civilians on US soil due to terrorist attacks are the result of actions by citizens of Saudi Arabia, our ally. Iran is the enemy of Saudi Arabia and vehemently against AL-Queda.

Not really helpful nor particularly acurate. Most of the terrorists on the planes were from Saudi Arabia. They were not friends of the Government of Saudi Arabia. bin Ladin, for example is called a Saudi Arabian yet he was exiled precisely for being a belligerent to the friendly relations between the U S and the Royals. So it would be inaccurate to imply our allies in Saudi Arabia killed US civilians on 911.
You weren't trying to imply that....were you?

I mentioned Iran as an example of a fundamentalist state that has exported terror and death. They are responsible for Hamas and Hezbollah....you know that whole unrest in the Middle East cauldron where the Palestinians are forced to be the Iranian's proxy warriors/marytrs. Lots of death and suffering there.
The point being, when they operate "in the open" like Iran does they are much more effective and hard to counter.

I don't think the net result of either brand of terrorism/fundamentalism is going to be any less threatening than the other. We have seen how they join sides against Christians and Jews priority targets first, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

Remember all this is in the context of who is more dangerous to American lives. Ted Cruz and his Tea Party peers in congress or any brand of terrorist who actually kills Americans.

[Will Robinson]

looking at just the identified black and white groups the ratio is consistent with the population and then when you dig into it there are lots of groups conveniently labeled as "General" but if you follow the links of the General groups you find a lot of web sites with black muslims. Should they not be counted as "black"?

But really that was a rhetorical question because clearly even your source, as presented, and as questionable as it is, shows that whites and blacks are both represented in ratios that follow the population of blacks and whites per capita.

So a bunch of nothing is what you have presented. and on a few of those black hate groups web sites you can find some of that silly conspiracy stuff I was talking about too.

Well, you obviously skimmed over the maps. Clicking on each map lists every hate group in each state. Many of the northern states ONLY have white hate groups. And I see any group with an agenda specifically formed to target another group of people because of their traits, race, gender or religion as a hate group. I see far more white groups than black groups in all those lists too, even out of all the "general ones". And many of these white groups are recently formed, coinciding with Obama's election. Happenstance?

TC, I think you are the one who didn't read very well. My initial point (which I quoted for you) was that white people aren't the only ones forming hate groups. I said you would have a hard time, near impossible, to show that it was just a white guy thing. I was correct because your source show lots of black groups.

Does your source actually show the ratio at which the black groups have expanded compared to white groups during time before Obama's election? That seems like an important piece of the puzzle. I couldn't find any kind of detail like that.
Also what is the methodology of establishing the base line? Did they just start looking for this after Obama came to power? How many groups were they tracking before he was elected?

You see your source is very questionable. Is Rev. Wrights church listed? I see other churches listed that don't seem to be any more racist than his. How racist do you have to be to get on the list?

Can a black person be said to commit a hate crime against a white person? Obama and Holder and many others say it can't be. Does your source follow that line of thinking! If so it is no wonder they see disparity (assuming they actually have that data) between whites and blacks pre and post Obama....

But what is your point really? That there are racist who are more aggravated now that Obama is President? I'm not surprised at that nor have I denied that could be.

[Spidey]

Remember all this is in the context of who is more dangerous to American lives. Ted Cruz and his Tea Party peers in congress or any brand of terrorist who actually kills Americans.

The answer to that will become painfully clear, if any of these groups ever get their hands on a nuke.