"moms for liberty" makes the "hate group" list

Of course.

". . . Arkansas Times is noted for its opinion columnists and feature articles that take a decidedly progressive stance in comparison to the larger, daily Democrat-Gazette. . . ."
Arkansas Times - Wikipedia

 

Sooooooooo, what, they tampered with the recording?

 

Congrats. You've become another person allowing for the normalization of violence and threats of violence.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/maybe-i-missed-it-but-i-dont-think-so.611823/

 

It doesn't rise to the level of a "threat" and we have free speech in this country. They have strained to make something out of nothing. I'm confident similar "threats" against conservative office holders could be recorded in any number of meetings on the other side.

 

I tend to think comments such as those below pose a FAR greater danger, but you dont see the right running around whining like little b*tches about it. Unlike yours, these are ACTUAL threats rather than implied. These are also going out to a mass audience as opposed to something said at a local school board meeting where your source leaked the audio.

Democrats Send Death Threats Towards Clarence Thomas Following Roe V. Wade Abortion Ruling — “I am going to Kill Clarence Thomas” — Idaho Tribune


Perhaps it is time for you to stop the sanctimonious disingenuous hand wringing?

 

Your opinion as to what constitutes a threat is noted. My advice, don't make similar comments in a public forum about the prez. You may find the SS is not so caviler about such matters as yourself.

 

The POTUS has always been an exception. On occasion I worked with the Secret Service.

 

Because the Right is composed of manly men, or because Trumpery has ushered in an attitude making threats acceptable to the Right?

 

Because protecting the POTUS's life is a high priority. Not because the threat to someone else's life is less credible.

 

Nonetheless, the "threat" you linked is not to be taken seriously.

 

Because the right is not a bunch of sniveling whiny b*tches.

In the world of the internet, one can find threats anywhere and everywhere. Some thing like a lady saying "I’m telling you, if I had any mental issues, they would all be plowed down by a freaking gun right now.” does not even register a blip. Good god, their are so many other offensive and threatening things said and written in this nation of 335 million people. I showed you a bunch of leftists calling for someone to step up and kill Clarence Thomas, and you point to this nonsense. I guess you are wringing your hands because you think there is some nutjob sitting out there just waiting to hear someone say if "they" were mental they would plow down someone, so that they can go on a murderous rampage, while obviously ignoring the countless quotes to be found saying someone needs to Kill Clarence Thomas or anyone else for that matter.

My god that is stupid. There is no way you are HONESTLY concerned about this. What you are doing is an act. A bad act, but an act nonetheless.

 

Your opinion as to what constitutes a threat is noted.

 

If BLM and ANTIFA aren’t labeled as hate groups then whatever list this is, is worthless.

 

Putting aside the fact that the leader of the Right's party is, dismissing the proliferation of violent threats doesn't promote the macho man image you want to project.

2. WHY THE STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE TODAY IS SO DANGEROUS TO DEMOCRACY
The growing acceptance of political violence and the volume of incidents is deeply worrying. However, as problematic is the structure of today’s political violence.

On the right, violence previously the purview of radical, fringe groups is now mainstream: From the 1970s until the mid-2010s, violence remained an activity of extremist groups on the fringes of society. In the late 1970s, for instance, only 6% of Americans justified violence for political goals.17

Throughout past decades, political violence in the U.S. operated in the classic, clandestine terrorist cell model. Intensely ideological organizations such as the Weathermen or Operation Rescue pulled recruits away from family and friends to deepen their connection to the violent group. In the late 1960s and 1970s, most political violence was committed by organizations on the far left acting in the name of perceived social justice, environmental, and animal rights causes, generally against property. From the 1980s through the 2010s, violence shifted towards the right with the rise of white supremacist, anti-abortion, and militia organizations, though environmental and animal rights attacks continued. Violent events diminished greatly from the 1970s peak, but lethality grew as targets shifted from property to people: minorities, abortion providers, and federal agents.

Today, the majority of individuals committing spontaneous or organized political violence do not formally belong to any radical group. Instead, violent beliefs and activities have moved into the mainstream. Ideas once confined to hardcore white supremacists – such as the Great Replacement theory – appear on Fox News and even in the halls of Congress.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/...rough the,and animal rights attacks continued.

What it projects is the Right becoming sniveling apologists for what was once unacceptable behavior.

 

Who is that threatening? "They" are being threatened.
How is that threatening anyone? By suggesting gun violence is in the realm of options to deal with someone with which you have a disagreement.

 

Are the new black panthers on that list as well? If not then I would argue that politics are coming more into the decision than any actual threat.

 

Should we just call Moms for Liberty "sicko jackasses?"

 

No surprise MAGA types would see anyone who isn't their brand of conservative as "hard left."

 

MAGA tyoes? What are you talking about, because I'm conservative I have to be a MAGA type?

 

...There is no way you are HONESTLY concerned about this. What you are doing is an act. A bad act, but an act nonetheless.

 

...There is no way you are HONESTLY concerned about this. What you are doing is an act. A bad act, but an act nonetheless.

 

I know virtually nothing about this person.

Why the word "sicko"?

 

SPLC is the extremist group. Nobody takes what they spew seriously.

"I believe the media establishment's attempt to label these people as extremists is only for the satisfaction of creating another boogeyman to gain clicks from, and playing cover for a government apparatus that cares more about the people at the top of the tax bracket than the working-class mothers of America.

In my eyes, Moms for Liberty represents an organization that empowers women to do something extraordinary by challenging the government's authority as they push back against their attempt to co-parent with them.

So, are Moms for Liberty and the founders fascists? Of course not. Fascists demand more government authority over the lives of others and they're asking for the opposite. They are demanding transparency so they can adequately protect their children from perversion and mistreatment.
Are they racist hate mongers as some parts of the media portray them? Again, no.
Instead of being hateful, they were hopeful about the trajectory of our country and frequently exuded gratitude to live in this great nation, hence the symbolism of having the event in the birthplace of America days before Independence Day.
By the end of the event, you could feel the energy of positivity and love aimed at every single person in the ballroom, which was dichotomous as outside of the event the protestors raged on.
However, despite my saying all of this, people will still see what they want to see because too many value feeling right over being right.
They need a villain to galvanize against and in this case, their enemy is a group of mostly working-class mothers: Sounds strange, right?"

I Was at the Moms for Liberty Summit. I Know Who They Really Are (newsweek.com)

 

They're not spurring hate speech. They're not homophobic nor are they bigots.
They're concerned parents and most certainly do have the right to their opinions.

Get over it.

 

It's always a good idea to take a deep dive into who's funding them.......all the answers become clearer.