Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Yes you surely are. And occasionally with people who dodge the truth on a continuing basis.

 

Your link goes to something called circa

 

The post couldn't be more clear, and is written on a ninth grade level (if that), even you should be able to puzzle it out.

Oh, and do you -ever- contribute anything of substantive worth to this forum? any actual analysis, policy arguments, explanations of legal fact? No, you don't. So why on earth would I continue to elaborate on something clear as day already for a troll like you?

 

Says you.

What I provided in the link was an instance where false classification of 15 political opposition groups as "hate groups," done solely to destroy the groups' reputations, led to an actual terrorist attack on one of the groups, then subsequent complaints to the FBI, who -exonerated- those 15 groups, and had them removed from the fake "hate group" list that it uses in its law enforcement.

Looks pretty comparable to me. Reasonable, adult readers can decide for themselves.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/0...d-from-a-govt-agency-that-might-surprise-you/

Now that that's settled, let's do some digging into one of the most obnoxious, infantile habits of the left (one of the BIG reasons they are LOSING so much). I call it "the concerned social scientist." It is the personality disorder tendency that allows one to state without blushing (para) "that depends on what the word 'is' means."

Above we see a perfect example of it. LW claims that actions by two partisan groups are dissimilar, that the one on their side hasn't done anything as egregious as the one on the other side. I link an example of the real results of similar -bad- behavior on their side. They then create a narrow, legalistic list beginning with "what we are talking about," above, and attempt to claim that anything that doesn't meet that list exactly, to their satisfaction, is "shifting the goalposts." (HINT, no matter what is said after, no matter how clearly and carefully every false category of their legalistic, narrow list is met, they will NEVER, EVER admit it has been. Instead, they will simply add more items to the list or hair split over semantics, or try to change the subject, or start hollering "racist"... it's what they do).

This highlights both their tendency to be inconsistent (one set of rules for me, a more stringent set for you) and projecting ("I'm the one shifting the goal posts, so I'll claim you are doing it.")

Yeah, I know, so childish, so transparent... but they do it every day, dozens of times a day here, thousands of times a day in public discourse.

 

The market bottomed on March 2, 2009 ,,, before Obama found the closet where Bubba did Monica. That was the end of the panic. The Stimulus had nothing to do with anything but burying us in debt. Didn't fill a pot hole. Nothing. It was never supposed to do anything but reward Obama's benefactors at taxpayer expense.

 

Once again, your opinion on the subject is worthless.

What is not worthless is actual facts as requested. And, of course, you cannot supply those facts because they do not exist.

JW goals as and organization have nothing to do with protecting anyone's rights and everything to do with abusing the judicial system for purely partisan political reasons.

 

Unresponsive. I stand on my prior post as wholly unrefuted.

 

sounds like the Christian witch hunts of the past

 

You said nothing so nothing need refuting and since you said nothing, you're standing on nothing.

 

Can you cite the article of fact where the RNC was caught faking voter registration?

 

employees faked voter registration, not parties (they were cheating their employers), they turned in fake registrations, which by law the parties have to turn in, they can not review them and toss them out if they think they are fake, that is to keep one party from throwing out the others registrations

if I go to a republican event and fill out a registration as Micky Mouse, they better turn it over or it's a crime, they can not pick and choose, they must turn them all in

 

Please cite the article(s) of factual information of the source(s) that confirm your allegations.

 

Strictly your opinion, with nothing to back it up. BTW, this thread is not about SLPC, but if you think they are as biased as JW, by all means, bring it on. How many political lawsuits do they file? Have they filed over 15 political lawsuits, against one campaigner, in a single year?

 

So I read this link. The SPLC publishes a "hate group" list which includes the Ku Klux Klan. It also includes the Black Panthers. The link goes on to say that the FBI no longer references the SPLC "hate group" list, but that they would now comment on why. And you want to use this article as an "equivalent" to the bias of JW?

 

I've already posted the exact details of the link in the thread in the clearest possible language. Curiously, in your "interpretation" above, you didn't include the operative facts.

 

Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured ...
https://capitalresearch.org/article/southern-poverty-law-center...
Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate. ... SPLC labeled the ... Rucker was grassroots organizing director at the Soros-funded activist group ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

FBI collaborates with the Southern Poverty Law Center - HotAir
hotair.com/.../the-fbis-break-up-with-the-splc-may-be-more-public...
Mar 31, 2014 · ... it’s just not keeping the relationship “official ... says the FBI “dumps [SPLC] as hate crimes ... Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a ...

​

 

I looked at the link from Capital Research, because I hadn't heard of them. They had an article about Tom Perez, and I thought, "Oh, maybe this is a balanced media outlet". Then I read the article, where the writer just trashed him. Another typical Right-Wing outlet. I will give the Wealthy ALT Right one thing - they have an in-depth heavily financed media misinformation plan. They have backup organizations for the backup organizations. Perhaps you could offer a more balanced reputable source.

 

Yes, I saw your 1-2-3, in your original post. Please post the quotes from your cited article, to back up comments 2 and 3. We already saw that the "hate group" list is a non-issue. I believe comments 2 and 3 are your personal editorial, and aren't even mentioned in your article.

 

The FBI appears to have scrubbed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from its hate crimes webpage. Hmm..., I wonder why?

 

No, concerned social scientist, the posts and the article are crystal clear as is. Wehrwolfen has posted another source of the same story with even more damning information about the SPLC. That's plenty.

 

Wrong. Europe went the other way and their recovery faltered. Not until they began pumping money into their economy did their rebound begin.

 

Non-responsive personal attack

 

Just admit you're wrong

 

Judicial Watch is relatively open about its lean. A bit like the ACLU. They're conservative, but certainly not alt-right.

 

Kinda shoots that whole "non-partisan" claim to shitz huh?