Southern Poverty Law Center Warns: "Far-Right Homophobes" Are Criticizing the TSA

Can't you feel the homophobia?You probably won't be surprised to learn that Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center jumped on the news that the alleged gunman at last week's Los Angeles Airport shooting possessed "anti-government" literature. But you might be surprised at how Potok describes the critics of the TSA's intrusive pat-downs:

The TSA, short for the Transportation Security Administration, is an agency of the DHS charged with ensuring the security of transportation, most notably air transportation. Although it has not been widely singled out by Patriots, it has been subjected to criticism by far-right homophobes, among others, who have alleged that TSA agents engaging in hand searches are really sexually groping travelers.

So: "far-right homophobes, among others." Among others, yes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • waffles||

    I thought the SPLC was a hate group. Didn't they incite some guy to violence through this type of dangerous propaganda? The SPLC stands for aggression and I will not be subject to this dangerous rhetoric.

  • DJF||

    And remember its not hate to hate a hate group.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, duh. If you disagree with the left then you are intolerant, and tolerant people have a duty to hate those who are intolerant.

  • Dweebston||

    Even those of the lactose variety? Or especially those of the lactose variety?

  • sarcasmic||

    Lactose intolerant people are mean spirited because they don't support the local dairy industry! I mean, so what if dairy gives them gas and explosive diarrhea? That's no excuse not to support local dairy farmers!

  • Dweebston||

    You had me at local. And farmers. What red-blooded American isn't in favor of regional autarky and transfer payments to wealthy landowners?

  • Swiss Servator, Burn a Böögg||

    +1 American Juche

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Not to mention animal cruelty, but .... yes, animal cruelty.

    And animal hatred, and animal cruelty, that's two things they are guilty of.

  • Locke||

    They love the Two Minutes Hate

  • wwhorton||

    I love the premise behind the Southern Poverty Law Center's name: all right-thinking Americans need an organization to protect them against the lawlessness of po' white trash, all of whom live in the south. I'm not sure how that's much different than the old vigilante groups that would make sure those darkies didn't get all drunk and uppity and start lookin' too long at the white wimmens, but I'm sure Mark has no issue at all with any cognitive dissonance that might produce.

  • DJF||

    Mark (Send Me Money) Potok of the Southern Poverty (Were Actually Very Rich) Law Center jumped on the news (That could be used in a fund raising letter)

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Mark Potok: disproving Peak Derp is a way of life for him.

  • Anomalous||

    +1

  • Steve G||

    Sooo, patriot=terrorist. Got it.

  • Almanian!||

    I approve this message.

    /King George III

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I hold far-right homophobes and the SPLC in exactly the same esteem.

  • fish||

    I hold far right homophobes in higher esteem than the SPLC.....not a single FRH has ever asked me for money!

  • Metazoan||

    So these people love the state so much that essentially any opposition to its oppressive, harassing power is homophobia?

  • prolefeed||

    No, to them it's homophobia if you're a straight male who objects to being groped without your consent in public by uniformed federal agents. Because there is no other possible reason one might find that sort of thing objectionable and maybe want said sexual molesters to be really afraid to show up for work.

  • BardMetal||

    Apparently only homophobes hate it when some TSA agent fondles their junk. Does this mean victims of rape are just hetrophobes?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Yes, and any beautiful woman who comes into my magnificent presence but doesn't immediately and passionately offer it to me is sexually disfunctional.

    /personal fantasy

  • Ken Shultz||

    You know why they try to associate TSA critics with homophobes?

    Because it works.

    So, I'd like to thank the social conservatives in the Republican Party for pointlessly giving us yet another non-issue to live down--like we didn't have enough already? Now that gay rights seem to be inevitable, maybe you all should graduate to advocating the kicking of puppies as an important goal of Republican public policy?

    The sooner the social conservatives go back to the Democratic Party, where they belong, the better off our country will be and the sooner we'll be able to implement the kinds of economic policies--and policies that protect our Constitutional rights against things like the TSA--that this country so desperately needs.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Shut up, Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No.

    Not until all those vile social conservatives get out of Barry Goldwater's and Ronald Reagan's party.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken, you're basically making things up.

    Of all the political commentary in the world, the one kind I hate the most is "If you would just do it my way, we would ride the Golden Path to victory on a unicorn", where "your way" happens to correspond with your personal beliefs.

    You know why they try to associate TSA critics with homophobes?

    Because it works.

    No, it very well does not. It's ridiculous on its face, and any thinking person is going to know that.

    Now that gay rights seem to be inevitable, maybe you all should graduate to advocating the kicking of puppies as an important goal of Republican public policy?

    Yeah, I bet if conservatives just rolled over and *insert Ken's Personal Beliefs Here*, they'd be swept into office and we'd have a new Golden Age. It's not the Regulatory State or the Wars or the limitless powers of the Federal Government - it's gay marriage! OMG!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Of all the political commentary in the world, the one kind I hate the most is "If you would just do it my way, we would ride the Golden Path to victory on a unicorn", where "your way" happens to correspond with your personal beliefs."

    The fact that painting us as homophobes because of what the social conservatives have done in public and so thoroughly associated with the Republican party is used effectively against us--is not a personal view of mine. It's a fact. You can see the evidence in Walker's post.

    The fact that Barry Goldwater made a point of denouncing social conservatives and the religious right at every opportunity--including their views against gay rights--isn't a personal view of mine either.

    "By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_goldwater

    It's in the introductory paragraph!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken, whatever you're on, please pass some down.

    You can see the evidence in Walker's post

    The evidence is some ham-fisted pseudointellectual diarrhea from the SPLC, of all places?! That's some "evidence", Ken.

    Look, Ken, if people really swallow this crap, then I don't care to live in this country. Fortunately for me, most people are smart enough to see transparent, naked and clumsy manipulation when it's right in front of their face.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The evidence is some ham-fisted pseudointellectual diarrhea from the SPLC, of all places?!"

    You think they're the only people who score political points by smearing us as homophobes--really?!

  • robc||

    Who is this "us"?

    I cant be smeared by something that doesnt apply to me. QED.

  • ||

    Who is this "us"?

    You deserve to live with the smear because some people in a political party you don't belong to don't like gay people.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Who is this "us"?

    Let's start with people who sometimes criticize the TSA.

    Aren't you one of us?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "... most people are smart enough to see transparent, naked and clumsy manipulation when it's right in front of their face."

    Not really.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    "... most people are smart enough to see transparent, naked and clumsy manipulation when it's right in front of their face."

    Not really.

    Maybe not most, but I think a lot of people are wising up. You can see A LOT of the Ordinary People make jokes about this or that being "racist", for example, because the race card has lost all power.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Look, Ken, if people really swallow this crap, then I don't care to live in this country."

    If you don't want to live in a capitalist country, where abuses by the TSA are no longer tolerated--so long as it means you can't use the government to discriminate against gay people anymore?

    ...then there's no need to leave the country, but please get out of the Republican party. Go vote on people's rights over with the Democrats. Barry Goldwater even wants you out of the party. Reagan invited you, but you overstayed your welcome.

    Now get the fuck out!

  • ||

    God you're a fucking moron

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Never go full retard, Ken.

    If you don't want to live in a capitalist country, where abuses by the TSA are no longer tolerated--so long as it means you can't use the government to discriminate against gay people anymore?

    Did you pass grammar school? This is basic reading comprehension fail.

  • ||

    The fact that painting us as homophobes because of what the social conservatives have done in public and so thoroughly associated with the Republican party is used effectively against us--is not a personal view of mine.

    Goalposts go ZOOM!

    Try and recall your own word when you started down this rabbit hole:

    You know why they try to associate TSA critics with homophobes?

    The answer to your question is: "Because they are insane". Not everyone who criticizes the TSA is a social conservative, a conservative of whatever True Scotsman variety suits your definition, a libertarian or anyone even remotely "on the right". Claiming that failing to submit to genital groping to fly in an airplane is homophobic is so absurd it is unrestrained by any semblance of logic or observed reality. Leave it to you for this to be the one Team Blue meme you embrace.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Maybe if Goldwater had SoCons on his side the wouldn't have lost in a 49 state landslide.

  • prolefeed||

    I believe you are thinking of Reagan vs. Mondale -- Goldwater lost in a 44 state landslide.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Goldwater lost big, and so did Ron Paul.

    To the Wiki!

    "Goldwater's right-wing campaign platform ultimately failed to gain the support of the electorate[3] and he lost the 1964 presidential election to incumbent Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson by one of the largest landslides in history, bringing down many Republican candidates as well. The Johnson campaign and other critics painted him as a reactionary, while supporters praised his crusades against the Soviet Union, labor unions, and the welfare state. His defeat allowed Johnson and the Democrats in Congress to pass the Great Society programs, but the defeat of so many older Republicans in 1964 also cleared the way for a younger generation of American conservatives to mobilize. Goldwater was much less active as a national leader of conservatives after 1964; his supporters mostly rallied behind Ronald Reagan, who became governor of California in 1967 and the 40th President of the United States in 1981."

    We may need a similar culling of the Republican Party--and I see Rand Paul as having a lot in common with Goldwater. He could serve that role.

    But that's about the most concise history of modern conservatism I could point to. I see the new old guard (the Boehner Republicans or establishment Republicans) as sort of like being in the same position as the establishment Republicans in 1964.

  • Ken Shultz||

  • ||

    You don't need to re-link it 45 times - at this point I think we've got that the Wikipedia synopsis of Goldwater is more than sufficient for us to find our way to glorious salvation - if only we'll take it.

  • ||

    I see Rand Paul as having a lot in common with Goldwater. He could serve that role.

    Awesome. So 20 years from now after his spectacular electoral defeat, Republicans might retake the presidency with a candidate who apes Paul's rhetoric, never gets a majority in congress, and ends up making some compromises fine-tuning the total state to perpetuate its existence without significant discomfort for another 20 years, then leaves office with his coalition shattered and Jorge Bush the XVI waiting in the wings to reunite the party under a big tent of Free Shit?

    Hallelujah.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The fact that Ronald Reagan never even threw the religious right a bone isn't a personal view of mine...

    And I'll tell you what else. If Ronald Reagan ignored you and Barry Goldwater denounced you, you're not a "conservative". You're a "social" conservative--along with all the other social conservatives from the South that used to be Democrats before the Reagan Coalition.

    Reagan invited them in as guests and somehow they came to think they owned the place!

    But if you're one of those people who think other people's rights should be voted on? Then you belong in the Democratic Party--that's why they call themselves "Democrats".

    ...and that's not really just my personal opinion, either.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken's on one of his trips to La-La Land again.

    Earth to Ken, please return to us.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, well, obviously, if you're taking swipes at me personally, then you must be right.

    And I'm so scared of being criticized personally, that I'm going to pretend I'm wrong--just so you'll stop!

    HA!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken, I know you have this vision of yourself having Algonquin Moments, standing before us plebes like Cicero and delivering such stunning oration that the scales will fall from our eyes, but most of us just see you as a gibbering loon.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't you have anything interesting to say?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ken, the fact that there are no SoCons in CA and yet the dems use them as a boogeyman to vilify republicans should tell you that they would invent some other group to vilify if the SoCons never existed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ken, the fact that there are no SoCons in CA and yet the dems use them as a boogeyman to vilify republicans should tell you that they would invent some other group to vilify if the SoCons never existed."

    Better to have something invented than the real thing.

    The other thing to remember about California is that...Tip O'Neill got it completely backwards, in California, anyway.

    All politics in California is national. They're not just reacting to what's happening in their own state; they're reacting every time some prominent Republican from the South, or somewhere, says something stupid.

    You know that, "Think globally, act locally" bumper sticker? They take that shit seriously.

    Here, this is the #1 definition of "legitimate rape" as it appears on Urban Dictionary:

    "1. Legitimate Rape

    word of the day: August 20, 2012

    Rape between one man and one woman who are not married or even acquainted; the only rape sanctioned by the Republican Party."

    http://www.urbandictionary.com.....Legitimate Rape

    That's what swing voters in California think of Republicans.

    You can say it's unreasonable, and I'd agree with you! ...but that's why the Republicans have zero chance in places like California.

    The only thing we can do is live it down, and shutting the fuck up about things like gay marriage is a great place to start.

    It doesn't matter anyway. It's not like it's ObamaCare or something.

  • ||

    but that's why the Republicans have zero chance in places like California.

    That explains why the state has been a virtually 1 party shit stain since more than a decade before "legitimate rape" was a thing.

  • Hyperion||

    It will get more than just a little amusing when all of the SoCons and NeoCons, which pretty much sums up the big government statists in the GOP, jump ship over to the Dem side once libertarians have successfully taken over the GOP.

    Then we can get down to business, liberty vs tyranny. I wonder what the so called 'liberals' in the Dem party will come up with then to excuse their support of tyranny and oppression for the good of the collective?

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    In other words, when the Republican party consistently gets 20% of the vote?

  • Hyperion||

    You are grossly underestimating the power of team that still exists in this country. The libertarians can effectively take over the GOP and not lose one team voter. The difference will be that they might win a national election by not running a blue state progressive lite.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    I'd be leery of relying on team spirit to hold together the Republican party if it was taken over by libertarians. People might like to hear about small government, but I'd bet a lot of them would abandon the team if it actually started to cut cars off the free shit train.

  • Deep Dish Circumcision||

    I saw that already in 2012, where Republicans couldn't wait to go out and vote for whoever was running against Obama--unless it was Ron Paul. The Ace of Spades commentariat was all about that.

  • Hyperion||

    Republicans couldn't wait to go out and vote for whoever was running against Obama--unless it was Ron Paul

    I call BS on that. There isn't a single team red voter in the country that would vote for Obama because RP was the alternative. They might talk bullshit like that because they wanted Rick Santorum or some other SoCon asshat to get the nomination. But when the time came, they would have voted for RP.

  • Deep Dish Circumcision||

    I call BS on that. There isn't a single team red voter in the country that would vote for Obama because RP was the alternative.

    Actually, they said they would have stayed home. And they sounded pretty serious to me.

  • Hyperion||

    Actually, they said they would have stayed home. And they sounded pretty serious to me.

    So, pretty much the same results as blue state boy Romney, got them?

  • prolefeed||

    I call BS on that. There isn't a single team red voter in the country that would vote for Obama because RP was the alternative.

    Actually, there are. But there are some team blue voters who would vote for RP over any non-liberal NSA- and TSA-loving warmongering Democrat.

    Dunno if that would be enough to get someone like RP elected -- my guess is that it would likely be an electoral asskicking, since liberty isn't all that popular.

  • Hyperion||

    People might like to hear about small government, but I'd bet a lot of them would abandon the team if it actually started to cut cars off the free shit train.

    Then why do we care? If that's the case, we lose anyway. But we may as well lose trying. The alternative is to be team players and be 'in it to win', even if we are being delusional that the team has our best interests in mind.

    IOW, why don't we just go team blue, since only winning elections matters.

  • thom||

    Libertarians taking over the Republican party could cause a total realignment - with SoCon statists moving to the Democratic party (which already takes for granted a significant block of SoCon statist voters) and civil libertarians, who can't stomach the Republican party right now because of the SoCons, moving to the GOP.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    "Civil Libertarians" are, at the end of the day, more interested in Statism than liberty.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Respectfully, Randian, that makes no sense at all.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    No, not really. Ask a civil libertarian who hails from the Left if he's interested in repealing those provisions of the 1964 CRA that forbid private freedom of association. Ask him if he's in favor of eliminating Affirmative Action and protected classes in the law. Ask him if he's in favor of eliminating campaign finance 'reform'.

    Read some of the stuff over at the ACLU and ask yourself if they would really be an ally:
    For example.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    No, not really. Ask a civil libertarian who hails from the Left if he's interested in repealing those provisions of the 1964 CRA that forbid private freedom of association. Ask him if he's in favor of eliminating Affirmative Action and protected classes in the law. Ask him if he's in favor of eliminating campaign finance 'reform'.

    And you know as well as I that the people you are speaking of are NOT civil libertarians.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Except that's the bloc of movement we're talking about here.

  • Hyperion||

    Libertarians taking over the Republican party could cause a total realignment - with SoCon statists moving to the Democratic party (which already takes for granted a significant block of SoCon statist voters) and civil libertarians, who can't stomach the Republican party right now because of the SoCons, moving to the GOP.

    IMO, exactly what we are looking for.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    X2

  • wareagle||

    what makes you think liberals are interested in excusing their support of tyranny?

  • Hyperion||

    what makes you think liberals are interested in excusing their support of tyranny?

    Because many of them are still pretending to be liberals. You cannot be a liberal and support the progressive agenda, because the progressive agenda regards individuals and therefore, their civil rights, with complete contempt.

    But the mask is slipping, and a takeover of the GOP by libertarians will knock it completely off their lying faces.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They'll just morph into christian socialists.

    It'd actually be a family reunion as the proggies were originally christian activists anyway.

  • Jeff||

    You know why they try to associate TSA critics with homophobes?

    Because it works.

    If it does work, then we are well and truly doomed.

    People who are stupid enough to embrace getting ass fucked by the TSA because socons hate teh gheyz are also stupid enough to fall for any other distractions the left throws out there, like Rand Paul's improper use of citations or whatever dumb thing progtards decide to fixate on next.

  • Hyperion||

    Remember that they are parties of the same core group, the progressives, who also just argued that libertarians only have a problem with law enforcement because they hate women and minorities.

    This is all they have, they have no real based in truth and logic argument against libertarians, so they just get hateful and ridiculous. Name calling, deflection(Boosh did it too!), baseless accusations, that is all they have.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "People who are stupid enough to embrace getting ass fucked by the TSA because socons hate teh gheyz are also stupid enough to fall for any other distractions the left throws out there"

    I sympathize with what you are saying, but I'd like to think there are enough people out there who aren't like that. You didn't always know everything you know now, did you?

    I sure didn't, but I came around. So, there must be some hope for some of them. And I saw people turn away from Carter and towards Reagan and his pro-capitalist message before! It's happened before.

    There have to be ways to reach those people you're talking about--if the Democrats can reach them, then we should be able to reach them, too. And even if that's harder for us, there's no reason to give them more ammunition to fight us with all the time.

    For instance, it would be a lot easier to convince those people that we're not really homophobes--if there weren't so many people out there who had advocated government discrimination against gay people in the name of the Republican party.

  • ||

    For instance, it would be a lot easier to convince those people that we're not really homophobes--if there weren't so many people out there who had advocated government discrimination against gay people in the name of the Republican party.

    Here again, let's go back to your own words, in which you (miraculously) managed to accurately summarize the information in the article:

    You know why they try to associate TSA critics with homophobes?

    Your rage boner about Republicans alienating the gay demographic that's just dying to come out of the closet as Reagan republicans has exactly fuck all to do with some nutbar at SPLC equating opposition, which emanates from left, right and center, to the TSA, with homophobia.

    You proved you could read for comprehension once. Now try to follow that to a logical conclusion without altering YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Your rage boner about Republicans alienating the gay demographic that's just dying to come out of the closet as Reagan republicans..."

    If you can't understand what I write, try reading what other people wrote in response.

    I didn't say that gay people will suddenly start voting for Republicans; I said that swing-voters might have been less susceptible to the charge that we're homophobes if so many people hadn't advocated using the government to discriminate against gay people in the name of Republicans.

    It's about swing-voters and how they perceive Republicans and libertarians.

    What do you think these other people have been talking about in this thread? Do you really imagine that being of homophobia accused only hurts us in the eyes of people who are actually gay?

    You're really out of it if that's what you think!

    There are lot and lots of people who don't like homophobes--it's not just gay people who don't want to vote for homophobes. Just like there are lots of people who don't want to vote for racists and find unanswered charges of racism damning.

    Maybe you also think the only people who don't want to vote for racists are minorities?

  • ||

    I didn't say that gay people will suddenly start voting for Republicans; I said that swing-voters might have been less susceptible to the charge that we're homophobes if so many people hadn't advocated using the government to discriminate against gay people in the name of Republicans.

    Which, of course, was retarded on several levels, which I already explained. The SPLC didn't say that Republicans opposed to the TSA (if there even are any) were homophobes. He said that homophobes on the "far-right" are opposed to the TSA because they object to have their genitals touched by TSA agents.

    The only person on this site who gives a runny shit how this reflects on Republicans is you, because most of the others on this site aren't Republicans; or at least are so only opportunistically. You're embracing a retarded smear against all opponents of the TSA because it reflects your opinion of one faction of the political party you belong to, and you expect the rest of us to nod approvingly that, yes, we really do deserve that label because somewhere, some Republican hates fags.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of fiscal conservatism who started the tradition of doubling the debt during each presidential term. Fuck him. Fuck his corpse sideways with a tennis racket. And fuck Mrs "Just Say No" to treating drug users like human beings while we're at it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You keep bringing that up.

    Actually, Reagan never had a majority in the House. Reagan was right about slashing taxes, and he was right about the defense build up and its ultimate effect on the Soviet Union.

    Also, you can talk about deficit spending, and criticize "starve the beast" all you want, but you also have to admit that if our spending increases were as low now as they were during the Reagan administration--oh what a wonderful world that would be!

    Hasn't the acceleration of spending increased?

    Oh, and regardless, whether you want to argue against Reagan from a libertarian perspective on his economics isn't what I was talking about, exactly. My point was that social conservatives have no standing in the Republican Party based on anything Ronald Reagan ever did.

    I wasn't saying that Ronald Reagan was a saint of the LP. I was saying that Ronald Reagan didn't give a damn about the religious right--and if being "conservative" has anything to do with the legacy of Ronald Reagan, then the religious right isn't really conservative.

    Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater didn't think they had any standing in conservatism either. ...and where do you think all those people in the Republican Party who oppose libertarian economic polices get their support from?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater didn't think they had any standing in conservatism either. ...and where do you think all those people in the Republican Party who oppose libertarian economic polices get their support from?

    Common, garden-variety Republicans who are not SoCons in the least. Say, Peter King, for example.

  • ||

    Might be worth pointing out to Ken that Reagan and Goldwater weren't the founders of the Republican party either, and aren't some universal archetype of 'conservative', which is a relative term of varying definition at any given time. Teddy Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon are every bit as much True Scotsman Republicans as Reagan and Goldwater.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Might be worth pointing out to Ken that Reagan and Goldwater weren't the founders of the Republican party either"

    They're the founders of modern conservatism.

    Barry Goldwater, mostly, but Ronald Reagan was the fulfillment of Goldwater's conservative movement.

    Certainly, what it means to be a conservative wasn't defined by George Bush, Sr. or his son, the latter of whose politics were almost exactly like that of Lyndon Johnson. ...and I'm talking about everything from George W. Bush's liberal foreign policy to George W. Bush's expansion of the Great Society.

    The reason Obama is almost exactly like George W. Bush on almost every issue isn't because Obama is a phony Democrat. The reason George W. Bush's polices were almost exactly like Obama's is because George W. Bush was a phony conservative.

  • sarcasmic||

    The reason George W. Bush's polices were almost exactly like Obama's is because George W. Bush was a phony conservative.

    Show me a compassionate conservative and I'll show you a big-government liberal who opposes abortion.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "neoconservatives" meant they used to be liberals. Bush was running a liberal foreign policy--just like Lyndon Johnson, he was fighting a war to expand democracy and liberal values.

    George W. Bush expanded the Great Society by way of the prescription drug benefit.

    He was a Southern Democrat. If Ronald Reagan had never been elected, Dubya could have been a Democrat from the South and his policies wouldn't have had to change one iota.

    His conservative credentials were just marketing. ...and I wish everybody who thought he was conservative becasue he spoke in public with a drawl would go back to voting for Democrats again.

    P.S. For a long time, even during the Reagan Administration, the Moral Majority wouldn't endorse a political party. They had people in both parties. There were plenty of pro-Life Democrats--I believe Al Gore was one of them, but there were others. That's why Tipper was out there leading the charge on censorship. They were Southern Democrats.

    The standard complaint during the Reagan years was that there was more of a difference between the conservative and liberal wings of each party than there was between the parties themselves.

  • ||

    They're the founders of modern conservatism.

    Whatever the definition of "modern" and "conservative" is.

    A radical in 1925 would be a stone-hearted conservative in 1985. Here again, relative terms. And neither Reagan nor Goldwater were the "founders" of anything besides, in a loose sense, minor popular political movements within their organized party. Goldwater of a failed movement, Reagan of a successful movement that didn't last the duration of his own presidency. This is the danger of playing True Scotsman with political teams that have to fit every issue into a neat dichotomy that they can campaign on.

  • Ken Shultz||

    A radical in 1925 would have been communist or an anarchist.

    First paragraph on Wikipedia.

    "An articulate and charismatic figure during the first half of the 1960s, he was known as "Mr. Conservative".

    Goldwater is the politician most often credited for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement in the 1960s."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_goldwater

    Here's another quote for you:

    "The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

    I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

    And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

    ---Barry Goldwater

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

  • ||

    A radical in 1925 would have been communist or an anarchist.

    Most of the communist "radicals" in 1925 became New Deal conservatives and enjoyed popular support of their ideology until the Cold War. So, uh, good point.

    Goldwater is the politician most often credited for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement in the 1960s.

    Thank you for making a citation to prove my point. Notice how that statement is constrained in time and space (and still isn't all that terribly accurate since Goldwater, in point of fact, lost in his quest for national office at an epic level and his ideas weren't embraced by a Republican presidential candidate for another 20 years)?

    Give Goldwater all the credit you want for putting together a political coalition that, after a landslide defeat, took 20 years to gain control of his political party, before losing it again less than a decade later. Just realize the implications of that may not be to everyone else what they are to you. And for the love of God, don't play True Scotsman with utterly relative terms or national political parties that embrace different orthodoxy about every decade.

  • sarcasmic||

    and criticize "starve the beast" all you want

    You can't starve a beast that can charge to no-limit credit card or simply print money.

    Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.
    --Bastiat

    "Starve the Beast" is that third system.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You can't starve it as much as YOU might have liked, but if starving the beast didn't work, then why did Congress spend as little as it did during the Reagan Administration? Wouldn't they have spent more if they'd had more tax money to spend?

    Same thing with California. As bad as their overspending is in Sacramento, how much worse would it have been without Prop 13? If not being able to raise more money through taxes doesn't keep spending down, then why have the Democrats in California been blaming Prop 13, ever since, for stopping them from getting their hands on more money to spend?

    I'm not saying that "starve the beast" balanced the budget and brought about a new era of fiscal conservatism. I'm saying that becasue of "starve the beast", the government spent less than it would have otherwise. And to that end, "starve the beast" worked.

    "There will never be a time when the government is so flush with cash that it decides to cut spending."

    ----Ken Shultz

  • ||

    I'm saying that becasue of "starve the beast", the government spent less than it would have otherwise.

    "I'm saying that because of the stimulus bill, the unemployment rate is lower than it would have been otherwise."

    Alternate histories are not a great way of justifying policy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are you suggesting that there is a time when the government will be so flush with cash that it will decide to cut spending?

    Are you saying the government wouldn't have spent more if they'd had more tax revenue to spend?

    That seems kind of...absurd.

  • ||

    That seems kind of...absurd.

    Truly would be, if that was even tangentially related to anything I actually wrote.

    Judging the success of any policy against the options not pursued is to play "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". Saying "Starve the beast worked because, even though the government spent a shit load of money, they could have spent even more!" is no different than saying "The stimulus was a success because, even though it didn't bring down unemployment to the projected levels, unemployment could have been even worse without it!" Even if you're right (which is debatable), it's just a stupid way to make the point.

  • sarcasmic||

    When you write "starve the beast," I read "cut taxes without cutting spending, and watch the debt balloon."

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

    As Greece and the European crisis over recent years demonstrated, governments only stop spending when they can't get any more money to spend.

    The solution to drunken sailors spending all of our money sure as hell isn't to give them more money.

    The scenario in which a government flush with cash decides to slash spending just doesn't compute.

    The scenario where the government, deprived of cash by a determined constituency that refuses to pay any more in taxes, decides to cut spending because it doesn't have any more money to spend--that one makes sense to me.

    Even Keynes assumed the government would spend every penny it got--that's why government spending was suppose to be the solution to the liquidity trap. I don't see any reason to argue with him on that point.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean the same Greece that, since joining the EU, no longer has a central bank that can print money and buy debt?

    Analogy fail. Please try again.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Greece had to slash its budget when it could no longer afford the interest payments that the market demanded. When Greece could no longer raise more money to finance its overspending, they had to slash their spending.

    That's the way budgets get slashed.

    They will never actually cut spending until they have no other choice. Not Greece, not the U.S. government. Italy and Spain slashed their budgets for the same reason. They couldn't tax their people any more, and they couldn't afford the interest rates that the world markets were demanding.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How many ways are there for governments to get their hands on money?

    Taxes, borrowing, nationalizing...

    That's all I can think of; everything else fits under one of those categories somehow. You slash their income, and they'll spend less.

  • ||

    You slash their income, and they'll spend less.

    Who are you going to believe, Ken Shultz or your lying eyes?

    Here's the important part:

    Taxes, borrowing, nationalizing...

    Reducing tax revenue does nothing to reduce the capacity to borrow and inflate, so the effect of squeezing tax revenue is merely to transfer spending from revenue to debt. Doesn't mean cutting taxes is wrong, just that it doesn't have any impact whatsoever on spending or the capacity to spend.

  • sarcasmic||

    These countries that were forced to slash their budgets no longer have their own central banks and currency. They are tied to the EU. They don't have a central bank that will buy bonds and print currency. The US does.

    So your analogy fails. Starve the beast fails, because the beast has an unlimited line of credit and the unlimited ability to print currency.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They do sell bonds.

    That's part of the problem.

    They can sell bonds in that currency, and they set their own level of spending in that currency...

    The problem is that countries that don't overspend as much have to pay the currency price for countries that do overspend.

    But Italian bonds, Greek bonds, and German bonds go for different interest rates. German bonds get a much better rate because they're considered less risky of defaulting.

    When the interest rates from Greek bonds, for instance, got so high the Greeks couldn't afford to finance their debt, the Germans (mostly) came in and helped them, but they insisted that the Greeks stop the bleeding first. So, they had to slash their spending...

    They only, only, only, stop spending more when they can't--absolutely cannot--spend any more. They couldn't tax their people any more than they already were, and so, once there was no other conceivable possibility, they cut spending.

    So, they had to slash spending because they had no other choice--and they all blamed Merkel for making them slash their budgets!

    Germany would have never accepted this role in the EU (or EC), but it was more or less the price of reunification. France, et. al. wouldn't have signed off on reunification if they hadn't accepted their place in the EC. They were hoping Germany would help keep them sane.

  • ||

    At some point the US may arrive at a place where interest rates reach a rational level given our fiscal situation (although being the global reserve currency and having the Fed buying all the government's bonds can put that out in the distance quite a way) and debt service becomes too expensive to continue borrowing, but short of that scenario, in which case the annual deficit will seem fairly trifling by comparison to the rest of the shit hitting the fan while the entire global finance system is restructured, there is no spending constraint in the US.

  • sarcasmic||

    Was it the central bank that purchased those bonds? Do those countries have their own central banks that keep interest rates artificially low?

    The US federal government is not limited by the threat of rising interest rates because the Fed keeps them artificially low.

    Again, your analogy fails.

    You can't starve a beast with unlimited credit, the unlimited ability to print currency, and (I'll add, thank you very much) a central bank that can effectively control the interest that the beast pays on its debt.

  • ||

    The US federal government is not limited by the threat of rising interest rates because the Fed keeps them artificially low.

    That only works for so long before nobody with a brain will touch your toxic debt and you have to monetize it at such a rapid rate that you induce hyperinflation, but as I said, we can put that out quite a way in the distance. Until that happens, there's no constraint on borrowing, and hence no constraint on spending. And when that happens, it's going to be a very uncomfortable miracle cure.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The US federal government is not limited by the threat of rising interest rates because the Fed keeps them artificially low."

    We're talking about two different rates here.

    The Fed keeps the rates banks charge each other low.

    The interest rates on U.S. debt are priced by the market (with Fed rates being an influence on that).

    But if, say, China had a significant downturn, and they couldn't afford to buy as much debt from us as they usually do, the rate on U.S. bonds would rise dramatically.

    After that happened, if the U.S. government couldn't sell debt at an interest rate it could afford, and it couldn't tax people so high that it would destroy the economy and get them a lower revenue stream anyway, then they wouldn't be able to finance their overspending anymore--just like Italy and Greece.

    The question of your bond rate is a function of your ability to pay, mostly. How much debt are you carrying relative to your GDP? It's almost like a p/e ratio. The market gives some countries a relatively high ratio--because they believe that country is stable and has a lot of growth. Less stable governments with less growth get lower ratios.

    The markets thought Greece and Italy had one stability and growth profile, and when that turned out not be true, they gave that country a different ratio. They headed for the exits--just like it was a growth stock that turned out not to have much growth.

    Like when the internet bubble burst.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're picking on semantics. If you read the very next sentence you'll see that I clarify by saying "a central bank that can effectively control the interest that the beast pays on its debt."

    What does any of that have to do with starving the beast?

    Do Greece or Italy have a pet central bank that will buy unlimited debt?
    Do they have a pet central bank that can print an unlimited amount of currency?

    Analogy fail.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I honestly don't get whatever point you're trying to make.

    Germany is effectively acting as a lender of last resort. Their ability to do so is ultimately limited only by what the German economy can produce and the political resolve of German voters.

    It is true that Greece is subject to the same forces that we are; it's just that our economy is bigger. In some ways, they're more insulated than we are--because they're so small it's possible to bail them out.

    If we spend ourselves into the same situation as Greece, we'll be subject to the same economic forces as they were--but the rest of the world won't be big enough to bail us out. ...and that's the rest of the world plus the Fed.

    And it remains true that the way to see spending levels reduced is to reduce the government's income. Greece only cut their spending when their income dried up. And we'll only cut our spending when our income dries up.

    There are a few ways that can happen. It can happen involuntarily, for instance, because the markets demand more interest than we can afford. That's what happened to Greece.

    It can happen voluntarily. Theoretically, our politicians could find themselves with so much cash on hand that they decide to not spend it! But I'd sooner believe in one of Obama's unicorns.

    The more plausible way is that taxpayers--maybe led by the president--refuse to pay any more in taxes.

  • sarcasmic||

    I honestly don't get whatever point you're trying to make.

    I get that.

    Starving the beast, as in cutting revenue without cutting spending, doesn't work when the beast has unlimited capability to borrow and print currency thanks to its own central bank.

    Greece doesn't have a central bank. It's on the Euro. So it can't sell unlimited debt to its central bank. It doesn't have one. It can't have its central bank print money to pay the bills. It doesn't have one.

    So your analogy fails. It might apply to the states since they don't have central banks, but it doesn't apply to the federal government.

    All starving the beast, as in cutting revenue while not cutting spending, will do is eventually result in hyperinflation. It won't force our politicians to spend less money. They'll just borrow it from the central bank or just have the central bank print it, until the whole monetary system falls apart.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Starving the beast, as in cutting revenue without cutting spending, doesn't work when the beast has unlimited capability to borrow and print currency thanks to its own central bank."

    Remember, we're talking about a situation in which the government is already in trouble because it can't borrow from investors because the interest rates demanded are too high.

    If the Fed starts creating more money buy purchasing tons of treasuries under those circumstances, wouldn't that just exacerbate the government's problema?

  • ||

    Barry Goldwater's and Ronald Reagan's party.

    Barry Goldwater- reduce the size and scope of government.

    Ronald Reagan- increased the size and scope of government.

    I'd be happy to join the party of Goldwater. I would hacksaw off my testicles before I joined the party of Reagan.

  • Winston||

    Barry Goldwater- reduce the size and scope of government

    You are assuming of course that if Goldwater had won he wouldn't have ended up like Reagan.

  • SugarFree||

    If it wasn't gay marriage, it would be abortion; if it wasn't abortion, it would be gun rights; if it wasn't gun rights, they'd think of something else.

    The left's primary quibble with the right is that they aren't leftists. The only way to get them to stop complaining is to become them, which is the entire point of disagreement.

    There are some certain hobby horses the right could hop down off of, but it would only change the point of disagreement, not the ongoing act of disagreeing.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Exactly this.

  • Hyperion||

    If you refuse to worship their god, government, then you are an infidel, and they would just as soon have you murdered by their god, as a radical Islamist would have an infidel beheaded for crimes against Allah.

  • SugarFree||

    72 sexually mature women who accept their bodies uncritically await them in Portland.

  • Almanian!||

    *barf*

    /barfman's gig

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, but they are all grossly obese, never wash their hair, or shave. Oh, and they all have shitty and hateful personalities.

    I think that is called Hell in some religions.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, but they are all grossly obese, never wash their hair, or shave. Oh, and they all have shitty and hateful personalities.

    I believe I covered this part already: accept their bodies uncritically

  • Hyperion||

    I know, but I had to elaborate.

    I was bored!

  • Almanian!||

    ^exactly this

  • mr simple||

    Maybe you should check your privilege and rethink your attraction to body types.

  • Entropy Void||

    Done.

    Now I am sure I will stay out of Portland.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If it wasn't gay marriage, it would be abortion; if it wasn't abortion, it would be gun rights; if it wasn't gun rights, they'd think of something else."

    Yeah, abortion didn't used to be an exclusively Republican issue, and I think it would be better if it wasn't.

    I think it's interesting that you brought up gun rights. I see gun right and gay rights as being pretty much the same thing.

    I don't think people should be able to vote on other people's gun rights. My rights are my rights regardless of what 51% of the voters say.

    And I don't see why we should be able to vote on other people's gay rights, either--for pretty much the same reason.

  • ||

    I don't think people should be able to vote on other people's gun rights... And I don't see why we should be able to vote on other people's gay rights, either

    If you're speaking of negative rights, that's fine enough. If by "gay rights" you mean "access to government marriage licenses" (which is the more or less exclusive usage of the term in modern parlance), that's a positive right that has not legitimacy to begin with.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So, leaving aside that the government has no business in the marriage business at all, if positive rights are granted to hetero couples, should they not be granted to homo couples as well?

  • ||

    Natch. I mean, that's totally the libertarian position on illegitimate positive rights, isn't it? Medicare isn't a legitimate function of government, but as long as it exists, it should be available to everybody - not just old people. SNAP isn't a legitimate function of government, but as long as it exists, wit should be available to everybody - not just poor people. Fondling the genitals of airline passengers isn't a legitimate function of government, but as long as it exists, they should fondle the genitals of everyone.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    But, you seem to be missing the point.

    The battle cry in the last election wasn't that the Republicans wanted to beat up teh gheyz. It was that they wanted to keep teh wymmynz barefoot and pregnant. Because they don't want to make employers buy them birth control and abortions. So, the Republicans should have gotten behind free birth control and abortions to show how tolerant they are? Or the entire Matthew Sheppard controversy. It was about how the Republicans hated teh gheyz because they didn't want to pass hate crime laws. They should line up behind such laws to show they aren't homophobes?
    Here's a hint. Unless you go with their agenda, the proggies don't really give two shits whether you're doing so because you're in favor of limited government and individual rights or because you're very religious. You're a hater, and the veracity of that claim is beside the point.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Meh, by and large, it's the socons (because Jesus) and the neocons (because preemptive war) that make the Republican party "un-libertarian".

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'd like to thank the social conservatives in the Republican Party for pointlessly giving us yet another non-issue to live down--like we didn't have enough already?

    Whats this "we" shit? You got a mouse in your pocket.

    I'm a libertarian.

  • ||

    I'm a libertarian.

    And as such, you are obligated to vote for the Republicans because they really won't cum in your mouth this time.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Cum in my mouth ain't what I'm worried about.

  • ||

    It was a broken promises metaphor you humorless bastard

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, we (libertarians) get smeared with this, too--and I think it's going to be an even bigger problem if Rand Paul finds himself in contention, don't you?

    I'm a libertarian, too, it's just...

    Look at Walker's post up there. They're effectively smearing everyone who criticizes the TSA as homophobes by association. That's the whole point of the post, isn't it?

    If WE have something negative to say about the TSA, then they're talking about US, too. ...even if WE'RE a libertarian.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ken, you and Bo should start an anti-SoCon hate group.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Yes, please, and go somewhere other than here.

  • Jose Chung||

    You know why they try to associate TSA critics with homophobes?

    Because the charge of racism has lost almost all of it's bite and we happy-folk are the new preferred victim-class?

  • prolefeed||

    So, I'd like to thank the social conservatives in the Republican Party for pointlessly giving us yet another non-issue to live down

    Is there a mouse in your pocket that would cause you to say "us" when referring only to yourself?

  • prolefeed||

    I see now that F d A said the same thing earlier and more succinctly.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Us", in this case, includes everyone who has something critical to say about the TSA.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except none of the criticism of the TSA, even from social conservatives, has been about teh gayz. None. So, only a complete retard would make it about homophobia. So, what? We should blame the social conservatives for things that aren't even their fault?

  • Tonio||

    Ken, it would appear that the emporer is indeed wearing clothes of the finest sort; you are simply incapable of seeing them, or choose not to see them, or something.

  • Voros McCracken||

    "You know why they try to associate TSA critics with homophobes?"

    Since it's the SPLC I'm assuming there's a financial angle.

  • GILMORE||

    Is the appropriate way to criticize the TSA to say,

    "I object to this injection of federal authority into what could clearly be better handled (no pun intended) by private security firms. It encourages abuses of authority while providing no real improvement to travel security"

    Also, I like to suck dicks and could totally go for some pumping house music right now while rubbing oily man bodies."

  • Brian||

    In other news, supporters of Obamacare, like the Communist Party of the USA, among others, are looking forward to its consumer protections and near-universal coverage for every American.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If they're going to associate TSA critics with homophobes, then we might as well try to associate ObamaCare with the communists?

    I don' know how well that'll work.

    There's plenty to slam ObamaCare for already--start calling it a communist plot, and I think that's probably going to turn more swing voters off...

    And the goal is to appeal to swing voters, right? Isn't the goal to entice people who voted for Obama and the Democrats last time to vote for Rand Paul and the Republicans this time?

    I'm not a marketing expert, but it seems to me that talking about communism, in the eyes of a lot of swing voters, makes us look like a bunch of McCarthyist homophobes.

  • Brian||

    You want to appeal to swing voters, I've got you covered with three words: direct, cash, payments.

    Free money! Who doesn't like free money? Say it's for healthcare or some other do-gooder cause or something, whatever. Just come up with an excuse to send people checks. And go light on the whole "where it comes from" business.

    Marketing genius.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I agree.

    And you could also turn it in a culture war direction by hating on government bureaucrats.

    Kill the parasitic bureaucrats by giving people cash directly.

    Paradoxically, that's probably the only way to get a mandate to dismantle the federal government.

  • Hyperion||

    It's actually a progressive plot. Now, let's talk about the difference between the progressives and the communists.

  • sarcasmic||

    Now, let's talk about the difference between the progressives and the communists.

    The communists put the wrong people in charge. Progressives will get it right. After all, "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How much of communisms 20th century record is due to the fact that it was primarily implemented in countries with a long history of dictatorial tyranny?

    There is no doubt that central planning will always fail, but would communism be as discredited as it is without the ginormous pile of dead bodies that it produced?

  • prolefeed||

    There is no doubt that central planning will always fail, but would communism be as discredited as it is without the ginormous pile of dead bodies that it produced?

    When you can show me a Communist country that doesn't eventually produce an enormous pile of dead bodies, then maybe I'll consider your thesis. In the meantime, based on the evidence at hand, I'll consider the dead bodies to be an inevitable bug of that political philosophy.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, judging by the raving success of their greatest achievement so far, Obamacare, I am for one convinced that nothing could possibly go wrong.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Progressives are basically communists who haven't come to terms with what their beliefs lead to.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, but the brand name...

    Ever since the McCarthy thing, I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but I think that's the way it is.

    You call somebody or something the word "communist", specifically, and I fear you're immediately suspect in a lot of swing voters' minds.

    The good news is that there are lot of ways to point out the ObamaCare failures, and the inevitable ObamaCare failures to come, without specifically using the word "communist".

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Honestly, I don't see the point of calling them communists, either. For me, "statist fuckwad piece of shit" just rolls off the tongue so much more easily.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

  • ||

    If they're going to associate TSA critics with homophobes, then we might as well try to associate ObamaCare with the communists?

    You just got finished arguing in favor of that comparison because BOOOOSH and TEH GAIS! The communist/Obamacare comparison is at least a lot less convoluted - they both favor similar policies for similar reasons.

  • RickC||

    Came across this list of extremist behaviors in that DOD training manual for EO instructors that (rightly) has been causing outrage recently.

    a. Character assassination
    b. Name calling and labeling
    c. Irresponsive sweeping generalizations
    d. Inadequate proof behind assertions
    e. Tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil
    f. Dualism worldview
    g. Tendency to argue by intimidation
    h. Use of slogans, buzzwords and thought stopping cliches
    i. Assumption of moral superiority over others
    . . . most obvious are claims of racial or ethnic superiority - a master race. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alledged victimhood, a special relationship with God, or membership in a special or elite class and a kind of aloof high-minded snobbishness taht accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause.
    j. Doomsday thinking

    Not sure what the intent of the two authors of this list, George and Wilcox, was but in my experience it reads like a DSM-V breakdown of the leftist mindset and tactics.

  • Rich||

    thought stopping cliches

    Nice band name.

  • Hyperion||

    but in my experience it reads like a DSM-V breakdown of the leftist mindset and tactics.

    Does sound like something straight out of the progressive play book.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Huh. A through J reminds me of basic training.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    So the DOD now views everyone as extremists?

  • RickC||

    Pretty much. The author did add a caveat about all of us sometimes falling into these behaviors, but extremists get there and stay there. What I found ironic was that the manual was clearly directed at building up a case for far-right extremism but in several cases, like this one, the behaviors fit exactly what I come across daily from the left on blogs and other websites, as well as MSM sources like, as Mr. Brooks points out, MSNBC. The DOD also caught flack for using the SPLC as a primary source for extremist groups.

    This is the same manual that applied the extremist label to the founding fathers by the way.

    You should check out the White Privilege and White Man Club sections, pg. 184.

    http://personal.crocodoc.com/0HFxZJX

  • Tonio||

    Uh, nor just leftists.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    a. Character assassination
    b. Name calling and labeling
    c. Irresponsive sweeping generalizations
    d. Inadequate proof behind assertions
    e. Tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil
    f. Dualism worldview
    g. Tendency to argue by intimidation
    h. Use of slogans, buzzwords and thought stopping cliches
    i. Assumption of moral superiority over others

    So, the script template for every MSNBC show.

  • Pompey||

    WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS DUMB BULLSHIT

  • Doctor Whom||

    This is the way so many statists actually analyze issues. They latch onto any connection, real or imagined, and argue for guilt by association.

  • Pied Piper||

    Poverty is a big problem. Its a shame that organizations like this are run by inept individuals who focus more on opponents or extremists than convincing the mainstream to change policy.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The SPLC is to politics and law what the Center for Science in the Public Interest is to nutrition.

  • BuSab Agent||

    +1 trans fat

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I hope someone reminds the SPLC to wear the life preserver over the leather jacket when attempting to waterski.

  • sarcasmic||

    Everything the left does is motivated by some sort of emotion, so they assume that everything everyone does is likewise motivated by emotion. Since any disagreement must be motivated by emotion, they ascribe some unpleasant emotion to the disagreement, then switch the burden of proof. Now the only way to prove you're not motivated by some unpleasant emotion is to agree with the left. They just love their fallacies.

  • ||

    I guess the only reason a woman might not want to have her crotch fondled is because she hates men.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    She's clearly brophobic.

  • ||

    Men have that generalization coming for rejecting her sexually!

    /Ken "Sgt" Schultz

  • Ken Shultz||

    ?

  • ||

    Just like libertarians have the charge of homophobia coming to them for having the temerity to oppose the TSA, because some Republicans hate teh gais

    (I know it's hard logic to follow, but it ain't my argument)

  • Ken Shultz||

    Republicans have actually advocated using the government to discriminate against gay people, right?

    You don't think I'm just making that up, do you?

  • ||

    Libertarians aren't Republicans, and neither is everybody who criticizes the TSA. You realize that, don't you?

  • ||

    Anyway, why is SPLC carrying water for the TSA?

    Does this strike anyone else as odd? Since when has being pro-TSA become a left-wing issue?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    You might have heard about this thing that happened in late 2008. It was all over the news. Something about an erection, I think.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    The TSA is part of the government. It would be High Heresy for any left-winger to actually suggest that thousands of government employees are unneccessary. Actually, it might be High Heresy to even suggest that it is possible for any part of the government to be unnecessary. It's "Vital security" which prevents the US from falling into Hobbesian anarchy and/or it's a stimulus program that provides jerbz.

  • Doctor Whom||

    This is why so many people on the left, while demonizing GWB, adore most of his domestic policies. Whenever government expands, the expanded version becomes the new baseline below which dare not slip, lest we become the next Somalia.

  • Tonio||

    ^This. And because SPLC labels many of the groups upon who they hate as "anti-government" they are positively salivating at the prospect of having another bogey-man.

  • Jose Chung||

    Since someone with a (D) after their name took over the Department of Homeland Security.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    why is SPLC carrying water for the TSA?

    My money is on "Naked, unabashed statist authoritarianism."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So the DOD now views everyone as extremists?

    We're all terrorists, now.

  • Almanian!||

    You had me [running the other direction as fast as I can] at "SPLC".

  • Andrew S.||

    There was a time in my life where I had respect for the SPLC.

    It somehow coincided with that short time in my life where I was (due to influence from my parents) a water-carrying democrat through and through. Funny that.

    (thankfully I've grown up in the two decades since)

  • Tonio||

    Well, the Klan and the Neo Nazis are truly unpleasant, anti-freedom people. SPLC is right about those groups. But the SPLC long ago lost any credibility with me when they became a mouthpiece for Team Proggie.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I get the extra treatment when I go through TSA screenings for requesting a woman. They also don't like my 4th Amendment boxers.

  • Jose Chung||

    They were even less impressed by my 2nd Amendment banana hammock.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    In metallic ink: The Second Amendment means always being able to say, "Yes, this is a gun in my pants, and no, I am not happy to see you."

    OK, so that would be too much text... How about, "No, this is not where I hid my gun."

  • R C Dean||

    "This is my weapon, this is my gun. One is for fighting, one is for fun . . . ."

  • ||

    Sadly they 4thAmendmentWear is all sold out of their products.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    There was a time in my life where I had respect for the SPLC.

    That was probably before you figured out the difference between "stated intent' and actual effect.

  • Andrew S.||

    It was around the time of Clinton's first election. I was 15. Didn't know any better, especially since I was brought up by two baby boomer Democrats (who remain fully committed to Team Blue to this day).

  • Killazontherun||

    Even when I was a liberal democrat I thought they were the biggest creeps on the planet. Back in the 80s, the New Republic use to roast those weasels.

  • R C Dean||

    Is SPLC implying that homosexuals love being groped by men in uniform? I mean, I'm sure a few do, because people, but the SPLC is insulting everyone who doesn't like being groped by mall cops here. I'm not sure that's a message that is going to win them points with a broad audience.

    But, it will probably shake some money lose from their deluded support base, so mission accomplished, I guess.

  • SugarFree||

    Worse. They are implying that if you object to being groped by a man, you are a homophobe*. It's like calling a woman who objects to getting raped a misandrist.

    (Eliding, of course, the fact that the objections to the TSA are about the groping and the rapiscanning, no matter what sex is doing it to you. SPLC is a joke about retards that came true.)

  • GILMORE||

    Comment from the SPLC piece =

    Axomamma
    • a day ago △ ▽

    \Yes, we can see that you are a Libertarian by your ignorant, absolutist, unrealistic statements.

  • Hyperion||

    Libertarians have ideas that won't work in the real world! Unlike our big central planning ideas that have proved a big success on the world stage, over and over again!

    /peak derp

  • GILMORE||

    "..our big central planning ideas that have been repeatedly thwarted by the kulaks and wreckers and corporashuns but will one day be vindicated..."

  • Almanian!||

    WHOA! They're on to us!

    /derp

  • mr simple||

    Or that groping people is an inherent homosexual trait.

  • Almanian!||

    Show us on the Obama Chia Pet™ where your uncle touched you....

  • ||

    No image, Al?

  • GILMORE||

    best comment by far in that pile of pony poo

    in reply to this =

    ""RonaldWilsonReagan666 Kiwiwriter
    • 20 hours ago △ ▽

    Mother Jones did an expose on this and basically the reicht-wing has enlisted thousands of the hateful adherents to flood certain web sites that don't or can't moderate the comments.""

    "
    he_who_scoffs_at_danger RonaldWilsonReagan666
    • 19 hours ago △ ▽

    It was Media Matters, not Mother Jones who exposed the hidden truth that everyone who appears to disagree with president Obama are FOX News staffers paid to manage literally hundreds of fake commenting profiles a piece.

    I am one of these, but I should warn you: the truth is far darker than you could possibly imagine. Beyond the veil of deceit lies a reality in which no human being actually disagrees with you on anything. FOX is just a portal the inter-dimensional villain, NARGROTH THE HALF-CYBORG DREAM-DWELLER enters our hewmon realm through.

    Pay fifty bucks to my PayPal account and I'll spill all the beans and then you can have an exclusive

    I am not sure what his broader point is, but damn, I like his style.

  • Hyperion||

    Mother Jones did an expose on this and basically the reicht-wing has enlisted thousands of the hateful adherents to flood certain web sites that don't or can't moderate the comments.

    Translated: there is no one who actually disagrees with us, they are all fakes who are being funded by the Koch brothers to post their fake comments. And, if there is actually someone who really disagrees with us, silence them now!

  • Almanian!||

    That's....awsum

  • Spoonman.||

    Beyond the veil of deceit lies a reality in which no human being actually disagrees with you on anything.

    HIGH SCORE

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I am not sure what his broader point is

    I think it has to do with the "Pay fifty bucks" part.

    I like it. Unfortunately, I can't afford the newsletter.

  • ||

    I am also interested in his newsletter. Maybe we can pool together our resources and get a joint subscription.

  • mr simple||

    It's after 11, there's only 250 comments on AM links and only one blog post since: is today some sort of holiday no one told me about?

  • Hyperion||

    Maybe it's the DST paradox. Whatever that is. I haven't received even one email at work today, very unusual. Something is definitely going on...

  • Spoonman.||

    I decided that I just wasn't adjusting to DST this year. Work doesn't care exactly what hours I work, and my first child is due before the end of the month, so it's not like I'm going to be on a sleep schedule anyways.

  • GILMORE||

    " is today some sort of holiday no one told me about?"

    Yes,

    "Pre-emptive nuclear strike-day"

    Comes after the NY marathon every year.

  • waffles||

    Sadly hate is so easily spread and encouraged - unfortunately in today's world the Glen Becks and Fox News etc.the constant TV pundits make it easier to spread ignorance - in the 60's I had high hopes that the world was changing - that we were finally going to see that we're all connected in some way though truth , idealism and caring about one another - Unfortunately there are more FEARFUL people - and the violence is just totally out of control.

    I had hoped that we would be able to talk about the "real" issues - like justice, education, jobs, caring for the environment , taking care of everyone.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Did Alice Bowie suddenly learn to type?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Would you like to buy the world a Coke?

  • GILMORE||

    ""justice, education, jobs, caring for the environment , taking care of everyone.""

    SLOW CLAP

    The ending with 'taking care of everyone' is well played.

    I've actually seen this used dozens of times. Its like a form of moral punctuation indicating the speaker is *one of US* (progressive do-gooder) and has *feelings* about helping everyone...

    It is the ultimate excuse for anything. Including ripping health insurance away from millions. Don't they see they're in the way of the *better world*?

  • OldMexican||

    Although it has not been widely singled out by Patriots, it has been subjected to criticism by far-right homophobes, among others, who have alleged that TSA agents engaging in hand searches are really sexually groping travelers.


    "I like to be groped by total strangers! Why can't you, you homophobes?"

    There's a good reason why his last name sounds like a Klingon curse word.

  • Voros McCracken||

    Just in case anyone here hasn't seen this yet.

  • Sevo||

    That's a bit old, so I checked around:
    http://www.splcenter.org/sites.....12_web.pdf
    I can't tell how much they spent on their 'good works', but I found this interesting:
    "The SPLC builds for the future by setting aside a certain amount of its income for an endowment, a practice
    begun in 1974 to plan for the day when nonprofits like the SPLC can no longer afford to solicit support
    through the mail because of rising postage and printing costs."

    TOTAL
    ENDOWMENT
    FUND
    ASSETS
    $245,280,476"

    I'd say the USPS is gonna make out like a bandit.

  • Killazontherun||

    Mark Potok can tell a hate monger by the shape of his sphincter ring. So, if you could bend over and let him check your asshole it would be a small price to pay for the betterment of society.

  • Crask||

    Only the reality here is that anarchists are almost exclusively a fringe leftwing element, people who typically disagree with the founding ideals of this nation because of their corruption and hate all the rich greedy people that control both parties, people like Bill Ayers who bomb corporate buildings and mentor young like-minded radical Illinois Senators to decide to run for president, using their race as a backdrop for support and creating lines of enmity and division that will pit the "bad guys" like those who agree with George Washington and Patrick Henry against the "good guys," like those who agree with Stalin and Castro.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement