Who is "Right Wing Watch"?

Sunshine Locket said:

I find it odd that a supposed Libertarian would find it disappointing that ultra-leftists would fail in pushing censorship against American Christians.

Very rarely do those who demand freedom and tolerance for their community extend that respect to those who are not part of that community.
That charge is brought against Christians with regularity by those who are ultra-leftists. GLAAD being one of the most vocal hate groups in America today.
And yet, GLAAD demonstrates with regularity that very same attribute.

As do the ultra-leftists. Perhaps there is an left-wing watch group out there. I have yet to check. But if not it would be an ideal defense if a Christian based organization created one. Then they could help watch for and defend against anti-theists, gay hate groups, and others who want to turn America into a nation that embraces all manner of immorality as a politically correct platform. While prosecuting those opposed.

Click to expand...

GLAAD is not a hate group.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of anti-gay groups in this country: 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda

Right Wing Watch really just posts what people say.

What's the problem?

variant said:

Right Wing Watch really just posts what people say.

What's the problem?

Click to expand...

Just that - People saying stuff.

stamperben said:

Just that - People saying stuff.

Click to expand...

It seems like they have a choice in the matter.

I honestly don't understand how there could be a problem with compiling and calling out extremists when they decide to make public comments.

On what planet is it wrong to criticize people for exactly what they say?

variant said:

On what planet is it wrong to criticize people for exactly what they say?

Click to expand...

Planet Tea Party, apparently.

variant said:

It seems like they have a choice in the matter.

I honestly don't understand how there could be a problem with compiling and calling out extremists when they decide to make public comments.

On what planet is it wrong to criticize people for exactly what they say?

Click to expand...

On Conservatively Correct.

variant said:

On what planet is it wrong to criticize people for exactly what they say?

Click to expand...

On a planet stuck in the 1950s where racial minorities and women "know their place" and the majority view (read: anything that benefits white males) is all that matters. Now that this supremacy is being dismantled, the push back is to complain about political correctness or call anyone that calls out bigotry a bigot.

Veritas said:

And Drudge is just a metasite that links to articles at other sites. Analysis shows his links lean slightly to the left. Yet media reports that his site is rightwing and want to censor him.

Click to expand...

When O'Reilly is a "most trusted source", I question who they asked, LOL. You started the RRW OP. What did they post that was not factually accurate? Try to respond without bringing up any other site as an attempt at diversion.

.

SummerMadness said:

GLAAD is not a hate group.

Click to expand...

Visiting their website proves otherwise. And SPL is anti-Christian and one of the most blatant hate groups opposed to Christianity that there is on the net. Well, next to FFRF. Your link is therefore biased.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of anti-gay groups in this country: 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, those who oppose Christians and the Christians that accept scripture that condemns the sin of homoSexuality will argue that those Christians hate gays, and that Christianity and Christians who organize to be politically active in opposing the legislative intent to rescind morality in America are hate groups, but that doesn't make it so. That makes those who call Christian activist groups hate groups due to their faith based structure, bigots.

HomoSexual sin is condemned in scripture. Christians can not argue that God was wrong and gays are right. Well, they can. But that doesn't make them credible when they argue they're doing so because a particular sin has a civil right to not be called a sin by those who are entitled to exercise their religious freedom and freedom to speak back to that and say that God's word says that it is.

HomoSexual sin is condemned in scripture. Christians can not argue that God was wrong and gays are right. Well, they can. But that doesn't make them credible when they argue they're doing so because a particular sin has a civil right to not be called a sin by those who are entitled to exercise their religious freedom and freedom to speak back to that and say that God's word says that it is.

Click to expand...

Actually they can, as if that is the case, it is ordered by the same scriptures that if a man dislikes his wife and it is found she is not a virgin you are supposed to stone her to death in front of her father's house.

Veritas said:

And Drudge is just a metasite that links to articles at other sites. Analysis shows his links lean slightly to the left. Yet media reports that his site is rightwing and want to censor him.


Book: Liberal Media Distorts News Bias - US News

What's more, he says, "this point illustrates a common misconception about the Drudge Report. According to my analysis, the Drudge Report is approximately the most fair, balanced, and centrist news outlet in the United States. Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias. The problem, I believe, is that such commentators mistake relative bias for absolute bias. Yes, the Drudge Report is more conservative than the average U.S. news outlet. But it is a logical mistake to use that to infer that it is based on an absolute scale."

And in further analysis sure to enrage critics of conservative media, Groseclose determines that Drudge, on a conservative to liberal scale of 0-100, with 50 being centrist, actually leans a bit left of center with a score of 60.4. The reason: Drudge mostly links to the sites of the mainstream media, with just a few written by Matt Drudge himself. "Since these links come from a broad mix of media outlets, and since the news in general is left-leaning, it should not be surprising that the slant quotient of the Drudge Report leans left," he writes. [Read Poll: Fox, O'Reilly most trusted news sources.]

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs | WashingtonExaminer.com

I wonder when regulators will start to go after the likes of MSNBC, et al and NYT, et al. If ever a case could be made for a media oulet endorsing or promoting a candidate or party, surely the leftwing media takes the cake.

Click to expand...

Looks like Veritas didn't bother to answer the single question in a two line post I wrote.

What exactly is the problem with paying attention to and posting what extreme right wing folks say?

What is the objection here? It looks like you saw what I wrote and, instead of answering a simple question, got distracted, and went on a rant about the Drudge report, which seems off your own topic.

Veritas said:

And Drudge is just a metasite that links to articles at other sites. Analysis shows his links lean slightly to the left. Yet media reports that his site is rightwing and want to censor him.

Click to expand...

When did that happen?

SummerMadness said:

GLAAD is not a hate group.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of anti-gay groups in this country: 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda

Click to expand...

You're seriously going to attempt to use the SPLC as your source here?

A study showed that the SPLC conveniently "forgets about" left wing hate groups: Study: Southern Poverty Law Center Ignores Liberal Hate | American Renaissance

The FBI distanced itself from the SPLC after the SPLC became nothing more than a leftist political tool: The Black SphereBlack hate is hate as well

Google Laird Wilcox and his investigation of the SPLC's figures. You'll be surprised at his research.

http://www.groupsnoop.org/Southern+Poverty+Law+Center

Oh look another piece showing how the SPLC is nothing more than a liberal front group that is used to smear political opponents.

If this isn't enough, the fact that it is heavily funded by George Soros (the liberal version of the "evil" Koch brothers) should surely show you that the SPLC is a joke.

BelCantoBaptist said:

You're seriously going to attempt to use the SPLC as your source here?

Click to expand...

There's is nothing wrong with SPLC.

They also include black separatists on their website, so the argument stating otherwise is complete bunk.

SummerMadness said:

There's is nothing wrong with SPLC.

They also include black separatists on their website, so the argument stating otherwise is complete bunk.

Click to expand...

The Social Contract - Fighting 'Hate' for Profit and Power: The SPLC's Political Agenda Up Close

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/tool/order00-01.html#Left


Sorry but a quick perusal of the data and research by Laird Wilcox (And others) and simple research in general shows the SPLC to be nothing but a liberal front, fundraising, smear group.

If it was so reputable why did the FBI drop it as a reputable partner?

In fact if the SPLC is so reputable why does it not list Jumaat al-fuqra an extremist Islamic terror sect operating training camps in the US? Why not AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, implicated in a murder, or United Steelworkers’ president Leo Gerard, who exhorted Occupy Wall Street to “more militancy?” All prone to violence, yet not a peep from the SPLC.

The fact is the SPLC is nothing more than the attack dog of the political left, just like out of Rules for Radicals.

This is beside the point that Christians should support neither a political party nor a particular political philosophy

BelCantoBaptist said:

The Social Contract - Fighting 'Hate' for Profit and Power: The SPLC's Political Agenda Up Close

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/tool/order00-01.html#Left


Sorry but a quick perusal of the data and research by Laird Wilcox (And others) and simple research in general shows the SPLC to be nothing but a liberal front, fundraising, smear group.

If it was so reputable why did the FBI drop it as a reputable partner?

In fact if the SPLC is so reputable why does it not list Jumaat al-fuqra an extremist Islamic terror sect operating training camps in the US? Why not AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, implicated in a murder, or United Steelworkers’ president Leo Gerard, who exhorted Occupy Wall Street to “more militancy?” All prone to violence, yet not a peep from the SPLC.

The fact is the SPLC is nothing more than the attack dog of the political left, just like out of Rules for Radicals.

This is beside the point that Christians should support neither a political party nor a particular political philosophy

Click to expand...

Why doesn't the US itself list Jumaat al-fuqra as a terrorist organization? The other's you mentioned are individuals, not groups.

It really does seem odd that they aren't even deemed a terrorist group by the EU or US considering they committed at least 2 bombings.

Sunshine Locket said:

I find it odd that a supposed Libertarian would find it disappointing that ultra-leftists would fail in pushing censorship against American Christians.

Very rarely do those who demand freedom and tolerance for their community extend that respect to those who are not part of that community.
That charge is brought against Christians with regularity by those who are ultra-leftists. GLAAD being one of the most vocal hate groups in America today.
And yet, GLAAD demonstrates with regularity that very same attribute.

As do the ultra-leftists. Perhaps there is an left-wing watch group out there. I have yet to check. But if not it would be an ideal defense if a Christian based organization created one. Then they could help watch for and defend against anti-theists, gay hate groups, and others who want to turn America into a nation that embraces all manner of immorality as a politically correct platform. While prosecuting those opposed.

Click to expand...

Aren't you in the green party? With all this talk about leftists and gay hate groups, I think you forgot which screen name you're using.

Vylo said:

Why doesn't the US itself list Jumaat al-fuqra as a terrorist organization? The other's you mentioned are individuals, not groups.

It really does seem odd that they aren't even deemed a terrorist group by the EU or US considering they committed at least 2 bombings.

Click to expand...

FBI Document: Jamaat ul-Fuqra - MOA - Texas Enclave | Clarion Project

FBI docs that show the FBI is clearly aware of their activities.

more docs: http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FBI-Jamaat-ul-Fuqra-1.pdf


Their members are known terrorists. It was listed as a terrorist organization in the 1999 Patterns of Global Terrorism report by the U.S. State Department.