I hate the SPLC with a passion.

[brycejones]

He may very well walk out of the conference in disgust of their anti-semitism.

Oh, now we are dealing with what ifs...OK.

So far you have failed to even point out a single factual statement that is untrue. So where are the lies?

 

[Anarchist420]

So far you have failed to even point out a single factual statement that is untrue. So where are the lies?

I don't know but thanks for your kindness
I predict that the people at the conference are going to cause him to leave if he even winds up going... I find it odd that he's meeting with a bunch of fascists.

 

[thraashman]

I don't know but thanks for your kindness
I predict that the people at the conference are going to cause him to leave if he even winds up going... I find it odd that he's meeting with a bunch of fascists.

And many of us feel it's relatively in line with his history.

 

[Atreus21]

Oh, now we are dealing with what ifs...OK.

So far you have failed to even point out a single factual statement that is untrue. So where are the lies?

Post #12.

I'd like someone to corroborate the SPLC's accusation of anti-semitism against the Fatima Network. As far as 5 minutes of searching their website can indicate, they're involvement with Judaism stems from a dispute over Pope Benedict's mentioning their conversion to Catholicism. Googling "Fatima Network antisemitism" yields about 20 reposts of the OP's source article and not much else.

If you can't prove this, then the headline is, as the OP says, a lie. One would think by the headline that they were convening simply to disparage the Jews.

 

[shira]

Oh, now we are dealing with what ifs...OK.

So far you have failed to even point out a single factual statement that is untrue. So where are the lies?

Post #12.

I'd like someone to corroborate the SPLC's accusation of anti-semitism against the Fatima Network. As far as 5 minutes of searching their website can indicate, they're involvement with Judaism stems from a dispute over Pope Benedict's mentioning their conversion to Catholicism. Googling "Fatima Network antisemitism" yields about 20 reposts of the OP's source article and not much else.

If you can't prove this, then the headline is, as the OP says, a lie. One would think by the headline that they were convening simply to disparage the Jews.

The SPLC's issue with the Fatima Network is a little broader than that:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...l-issues/2006/winter/the-dirty-dozen?page=0,2

The International Fatima Rosary Crusade, known popularly as the Fatima Center, takes its name from Fatima, Portugal, the place where the Virgin Mary is said to have appeared to three peasant children in 1916 with a series of revelations. The center was founded in 1977 by Father Nicholas Gruner, a Canadian who became obsessed with Fatima after an Italian priest told him that he had a special calling to promote devotion to the Virgin Mary. The following year, Gruner launched The Fatima Crusader, a quarterly that Gruner claims now has some 1 million readers. The publication has carried anti-Semitic articles such as the 1992 piece, "The Program of Christ Against the Plans of Satan," which denounced what it saw as Jewish "naturalism" and blamed Jews for putting "the Christian state in danger." The Crusader also has staunchly defended the work of Father Denis Fahey, a hard-core anti-Semite whom it called "brilliant." In an interview with Catholic scholar Michael Cuneo, Gruner accused a fellow radical traditionalist, E. Michael Jones, of being "secretly a Jew" who was "planted in the American Church to confuse Catholics and sow hatred against people like myself." The Fatima Center heavily promotes a conspiracy theory about the Vatican allegedly working to hide the so-called "Third Secret of Fatima" from the faithful. (Among other things, the theory accuses Pope John XXIII of making a blasphemous pact with Moscow that prevented the Vatican from denouncing communism and has resulted in Satanism flourishing "inside … the Vatican itself.") In 1995, Gruner was ordered to report to his bishop in Italy, but did not; as a result, the Vatican suspended Gruner from his priestly duties in 2001 (a lesser sanction than excommunication). Gruner owns a share of Catholic Family News, helped publish the schismatic book We Resist You to the Face, and is a regular speaker on the radical traditionalist circuit. In 2005, for instance, Gruner told an audience at the annual St. Joseph's Forum conference that Masons -- by which he meant the Jews -- "sacrificed their babies to the pagan gods." Gruner also rubs shoulders with hard-line Holocaust deniers, selling his wares at a 2006 conference of the anti-Semitic Barnes Review.

 

[Anarchist420]

The SPLC's issue with the Fatima Network is a little broader than that:

It seems odd that it's the SPLC taking issue with it. Where is the ADL? Why haven't they commented on this?

There is something not right with this.

 

[Incorruptible]

The SPLC are a bunch of idiots. They brand groups extremist and hateful if they disagree with them. They are responsible for that extremist who wanted to kill the people working at the FRC. They still haven't taken down their hate maps. These people are far left extremist and anti-Christian and can't be taken seriously.

 

[woolfe9998]

The SPLC are a bunch of idiots. They brand groups extremist and hateful if they disagree with them. They are responsible for that extremist who wanted to kill the people working at the FRC. They still haven't taken down their hate maps. These people are far left extremist and anti-Christian and can't be taken seriously.

You've been repeatedly asked what is inaccurate in the source article, and you have repeatedly ignored the question. You have no basis to criticize SPLC or anyone else without facts. Then again, you never have any facts, do you? No one cares what you think about SPLC. You're a right winger and right wingers hate the SPLC. No one is surprised and no one cares.

Now, once again, please explain what is factually wrong with the OP's article or admit that you have nothing to contribute to the thread. The article is, after all, the topic of the thread.

 

[woolfe9998]

Post #12.

Oh, let's see, how about the head of the organization being a Holocaust denier?

http://freebeacon.com/fatima-center-head-denies-anti-semitism-questions-holocaust/

But he denies being anti-semitic, so I guess it's all OK.

 

[Incorruptible]

You've been repeatedly asked what is inaccurate in the source article, and you have repeatedly ignored the question. You have no basis to criticize SPLC or anyone else without facts. Then again, you never have any facts, do you? No one cares what you think about SPLC. You're a right winger and right wingers hate the SPLC. No one is surprised and no one cares.

Now, once again, please explain what is factually wrong with the OP's article or admit that you have nothing to contribute to the thread. The article is, after all, the topic of the thread.

The article claims he is racist which is blatantly false. Ron Paul isn't a racist and the article is from a FAR LEFT SITE WHICH DESPISES PEOPLE LIKE RON PAUL. salon has ZERO credibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3qI77NdBYA

The idea he is racist is sheer stupidity. He has continuously argued against the drug war which punishes blacks for more than whites. Two of his heroes are Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi.

The OP himself has stated Ron Paul isn't a racist.

I am not a right winger and the SPLC labels groups as hateful because they oppose them. The fact that people take these idiots seriously is disturbing.

 

[woolfe9998]

The article claims he is racist which is blatantly false. Ron Paul isn't a racist and the article is from a FAR LEFT SITE WHICH DESPISES PEOPLE LIKE RON PAUL. salon has ZERO credibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3qI77NdBYA

The idea he is racist is sheer stupidity. He has continuously argued against the drug war which punishes blacks for more than whites. Two of his heroes are Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi.

The OP himself has stated Ron Paul isn't a racist.

I am not a right winger and the SPLC labels groups as hateful because they oppose them. The fact that people take these idiots seriously is disturbing.

The article does not say he's a racist. It says he is keynote speaker at a conference hosted and attended by certain specific anti-semites. Those are the factual claims made in the article.

 

[Incorruptible]

The article does not say he's a racist. It says he is keynote speaker at a conference hosted and attended by certain specific anti-semites. Those are the factual claims made in the article.

I read that article and they do claim he is racist which is unacceptable and what my problem was with them.

 

[brycejones]

I read that article and they do claim he is racist which is unacceptable and what my problem was with them.

Please quote where the SPLC said Ron Paul was a racist.

 

[First]

I read that article and they do claim he is racist which is unacceptable and what my problem was with them.

lol, you are the saddest kind of troll. What a waste of time to make 7400 such posts in just 16 months.

 

[D1gger]

Retired Canadian General Romeo Dallaire "embarrassed" to be associated with Fatima.org conference in September and withdraws from the speaker list.

Senator Romeo Dallaire has pulled out of a speaking engagement organized by a fringe Catholic group accused of anti-Semitism, but his name is still being promoted alongside those of anti-abortionists, conspiracy theorists and former U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/0...oup_n_3820073.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

But Ron Paul seems to still be on the speaker list.

Other speakers scheduled for the conference include the president of the U.S.-based John Birch Society, a right-wing American group that campaigns against the U.S. Federal Reserve, says the UN is trying to control "all human activity" and claims Nelson Mandela is "carrying forward a communist program of terrorism and genocide."

I certainly would not want to be on the same speaker list as this guy.

 

[Incorruptible]

Please quote where the SPLC said Ron Paul was a racist.

Paul got into considerable hot water in 2008 when The New Republic published “Angry White Man,” an article about the contents of newsletters he published. What the newsletters revealed, the magazine reported, “are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews and gays.”

I'm getting tired of taking you down.

 

[Zaap]

Society For the Prevention of Liberal Cruelty? Where can I donate?

Oh wait... Southern Poverty Law Center.

Seriously, for a minute there my acronyms failed me.

 

[shira]

If anyone wants to read the New Republic's 2008 article, "Angry White Man," which focused on newsletters that Ron Paul published for many years, here it is:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

A few excerpts:

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
.
.
.
Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

The article goes on and on.

If Ron Paul isn't a racist, then no one is a racist.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I'm getting tired of taking you down.

We've long been tired of your usual brain dead rants and pretending to "own" people.
In other words, go back to Stormfront you racist troll.

 

[brycejones]

I'm getting tired of taking you down.

Sorry but take down not found. I'm just asking that you actually cite evidence to support your positions.