Posted on 08/09/2018 10:40:14 AM PDT by bitt
I was being fair-minded as opposed to your mindless, liberal-like cheerleading.
I see how well THAT was received.
I won’t make that mistake twice.
Report: FBI Has ‘Ongoing’ Relationship With Left-Wing SPLC, Which Once Put Ben Carson On An ‘Extremist Watch List’ http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/28/splc-fbi-partnership/
“FBI - Partnerships Established With NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center” https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/partnerships-established-with-naacp-the-national-urban-league-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center
About time someone called out the SPLC.
Hillary.....who called Trump supporters "deplorable".... should also be on the list.
And include social media groups treating conservatives like second-class citizens.
Sass not, ye dog, the disciples of Q.
FR Posted 1/13/15 by seekandfind
Then-pres Obama Declared War On Americans, defaming conservative individuals and groups, labeling them “potential terrorists.” Obama used US govt authority to vilify conservatives, naming them in official US govt documents. This gives you a good idea of the hate-filled Halfrican we put in the WH. Obama targeted:
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North
American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
bkmk
Concur.
Hey, more than one announcement from Sessions in a single week. Maybe he'll beat that narcolepsy yet!
Good for Jeff Sessions... the SPLC IS a hate group... FBI thugs need to STOP working with them too... or resign.
Maybe he’s not asleep....maybe not everyone knows everything he’s doing. Maybe some people aren’t paying attention to the things he is doing that are made public.
Etc.
Fine, cease-fire for now. I’m having a couple of IPAs so it’s all good.
When I try to visit the site you linked to—truthbasedlogic.com—a message appears that says “url rejected.” On both google and DuckDuckGo.
We have Net Nanny installed....maybe it’s blocking the site.
Absurdity at Google.....url rejected.
Will turn off NetNanny and try again.
In an age of fatuous--stupid but pompous--claims to moral rectitude by slogan spewing poseurs; it is no mean feat to stand-out among the legions of self-congratulating exponents of radical egalitarian dogma. The competition in the executive suites of Corporate America, has been to demonstrate the most "politically correct" acceptance of a new, never verified, "scientific" theory--now held with a degree of absolute certitude, as total as that once accorded to an equally well accepted, geocentric--or earth centered--universe.
As "wise men" once understood that the sun revolved around the earth, a new business "elite" have come to understand inherent "bigotry" & "discrimination" in such once widely accepted personal classifications, as those by sex, ethnicity, race, age & common sense. With a staccato uniformity, we hear an endless iteration of the chant that such concepts have no place in the personnel management of an aspiring corporation.
Aspirants are not content, only to show enthusiasm in rejecting "bigotry" in classifying humans. It has become, increasingly, a competition to act proactively; to condition personnel to recognize & reject efforts to consider data from which one, not well conditioned, could possibly conclude that such involuntary factors as sex, ethnicity, race, age or common sense, might actually have a connection to achievement levels, based on different specific aptitudes.
The mood of corporate gate keepers appears to place the highest priority, in all personnel decisions, on never showing any inclination to consider these now forbidden classifications in any human employment decision, except as such might serve the pursuit of "diversity"; which, with "equality" and "non-discrimination," have come to define their highest aspirations. In these pursuits, the classification based on "common sense" has become the most egregious of all--the one to be most desperately avoided!
In other articles, we have suggested that the humanist fervor--the determination to treat humanity as a single entity, as a unity--regardless of cost, is a conceptual effort to return to Nimrod at Babel. That it would take a Dean Swift to adequately capture the complex realities of contemporary America (Gulliver Discovers America). Suffice it to say, we have long dissented from claims that the new Corporate mandates represent wisdom, kindness, tolerance or anything of positive benefit to either sex, or to anyone of any ethnicity, race or age; and, most certainly, not beneficial to anyone with common sense. They insult & deny the higher aspirations of each of us.
So much for prologue. And yet we are already half done. What Google--a company grown huge and famous as a vehicle for mining data available on the internet, on virtually every subject in the quest for information, has just achieved, is to stand out from the corporate pack by firing a gifted employee for daring to suggest studying whether women, as a sex, have or have not the same aptitudes as men for working in the field of higher "tech": That is, daring to suggest mining data on a subject peculiarly relevant to Google's own sphere(!) in the quest for information.
Google did not invent hypocrisy; nor absolute intolerance to freedom of thought--the freedom to extend, rather than confine the human quest for knowledge. History is replete with its Galileos being forced to recant discovered truth; with crucifixions & burnings at the stake--manifold and frequent demonstrations of how fanatics enforce their will. Yet here is a company that has built its wealth, reputation & Persona on the human quest for information, firing a highly skilled employee for daring to suggest a logical project in that quest for information, within its very sphere!
That Google would suggest that the employee, James Damore, had crossed some sort of ill defined line, only maximizes the absurdity. It has been argued that the proposed fact seeking project threatened either the present positions of Google's female employees or their future potential for advancement. Yet how & why?
The would be iconoclast never suggested that no female had good "tech" aptitudes. If the proposed study confirmed that, as compared to men, a smaller proportion had such talent, that would hardly disparage the talent of any women so employed; any more than would a "study," showing a total domination in the field of bearing babies--an even more important human attribute than an ability to work at Google--disparage men; or any more than would recognizing men's aptitudes to play in the NFL, disparage women.
Google's demonstrated intolerance towards inquiring minds; towards actual "diversity" of thought; towards the reality that we are not all inter-changeable; that practically no two of us are actually equal; is astounding. It ignores the fact that much of human progress has been based on a division of labor; based upon a vast pool of potential jobs for which some of us are clearly better suited than others. In this it makes a mockery of its absurd moral pretensons. Revealed as hypocrites, in form & to a degree seldom so obvious in the human comedy, the only thing really clear amid all the inane babbling or gobbling of high sounding platitudes, is that common sense no longer has a place at Google!
To the extent that Google has created a faux issue, where there really was no rational one, it may in time reap a harvest in female employees' pursuing imaginary grievances, leading to all sorts of mischief. They have, clearly, betrayed the cause of truth, of upward aspiration--not to equal but excel--whether the cause be spiritual, material, romantic or artistic. But then, the mythical ostrich, his head buried deeply in the sands of self-inflicted ignorance, never solved its, or any other creature's, problem.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.