This is a slander tactic & the same BS you all come up with, to avoid the central issue. Dees is a well-educated, thoughtful man, who puts beliefs into action. Agree with his beliefs or not, he's taken amazing risks w/ his own life to stop hate groups (even black ones). Lincoln being at the top of YOUR hate list, speaks more to what you really want to say. If you're a racist, why not embrace that up front? Instead taking the very Republican tactic of slander, rather than sticking to the issue.
I Exposed I didnt Slander, you called him a thoughtful man thoughtful men treat theyre wives with care and respect, do you disagree?
When financially capitalizing are you really driven by belief?
Lincoln is actually #3, this corporate lawyers illegal war led to 640,000 dead & wounded, destroyed innocent peoples lives and homes, he suspended the same constitution Dees fights for and tried arresting the Supreme Court Chief Justice, Lincoln said it wasnt about slavery
She made bold allegations in a high profile case, involving witnesses who could easily dispute her claims,
"Republicans...Capitalism..."
You seem to have troubles with or understanding Republican history & philosophy
Republican's were "founded" as the party opposing slavery, while those wearing white hoods were the all Democrats; you know the meaning of "40 acres and a mule"?
I'm more than implying that it's possible she wasn't honest. I don't know for certain.But I do know that the same singular slander is often used against Dees. Something that I see as a knee jerk smear that you all use a little too predictably. It has nothing to do with (true or not)his work against hate groups. If he wasn't such a threat, you wouldn't have to stoop to such measures.
I'm not referencing history, you are. The current Republican party is unquestionably controlled by big business.
I've never heard that secession was the intention of our Founding Fathers(beyond the first few years). Slavery was an immoral practice, that needed to end. Yes, you can argue against Lincoln's actions as against the constitution, but the fact that it prevented us from becoming a "South Africa" (in the long run) & that it stopped an unethical practice-seems an appropriate choice. Our soldiers are currently dying for a lot less.
Again, I don't understand why "racist" would be an insult to you.
The constitution was NOT a popular item when it was first devised, state representatives and the people were quite untrusting, for this reason amendments plus word and language changes were made, "finally" it was palatable to the states, it's foolish even absurd to believe these cautious men would have signed away they're states into an irrevocable or nonreversible pact,
To me its no mystery; I know the mindset of these men!
I am not a psychic, so don't know their mindset. If I were to guess, and they could see the whole picture, I have faith in their wisdom, to believe that the wealth that the southerners gained by the backs of slaves, was a valid sacrifice.
"I don't understand why "racist" would be an insult to you"
It's more inaccurate than an insult, and in my case it's actually funny!
You used "South Africa" as a term for evil, yet if you lined-up the bodies and ran all the statistics "equality aside" it was by far the best place Black Africans could live!
"Best" is a value judgement, implying that tribal life was less-than colonial. Modern/western are not better, necessarily, just different. If it was such a great system, it wouldn't be over.
You write as if you believe that blacks are less than whites.
I understand and accept your findings on face value.
However, when you stoop to slander to attack another, I cease to hear your argument. Mandela was the victim of decades of imprisonment, trying to gain independence from colonists-clean water doesn't make up for oppression. Don't know who his wife killed (if she did). Lying is common political practice in this country, I've even done it. Pointing my finger at another as if I'm superior doesn't proove anything.
#3)"Don't know who his wife killed (if she did)" oh!
1st) I make no allegations I believe are untrue, I have sources to support everything
2nd) Mandela had quite the arsenal, he was imprisoned for the "Church Street Bombing"
3rd) Wini Mandela had 4 young men kidnapped & tortured, then murdered one whose name was "Stompy" at her own home! Other killings are suspected, she was a GANG LEADER
Hello John, Your sources are different than mine. I read newspapers; Christian Science Monitor, watch BBC, and listen to NPR. Certainly not without fault, but reputable sources. I'm not sure who you depend upon for your information (hopefully not Rush Limbaugh), but we both come to very different conclusions. Any idea why that is?
Its not only the news you get, your experiences in life determine how youll see the facts, Im not one to seek short term solutions, what's legally expedient today may become oppressive later,
An individual (or group) who commits a crime should be legally and financially liable,
The actions of 5 or even 20% of a group shouldn't cause ANY economic loss to those not involved or who have no pre-knowledge of a crime, unless you hate them so who cares
What about SPLC? If they were taken to court, then who do you think should be responsible? Only Dees? The prosecuitng attorney? The secretary? I assume that if you work for SPLC, you share their beliefs.
Is his personal life as seamy as the internet postings suggest?
cookieman38111 1 year ago
Google or Dogpile "Morris Dees" look for
the ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS the court
record of Morris's divorce, READ IT! and take a GOOD LOOK at what type of man (some)Jewish hate groups are funding, HOW EMBARRASSING!!!
uzijohn 4 years ago
This is a slander tactic & the same BS you all come up with, to avoid the central issue. Dees is a well-educated, thoughtful man, who puts beliefs into action. Agree with his beliefs or not, he's taken amazing risks w/ his own life to stop hate groups (even black ones). Lincoln being at the top of YOUR hate list, speaks more to what you really want to say. If you're a racist, why not embrace that up front? Instead taking the very Republican tactic of slander, rather than sticking to the issue.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate,
I Exposed I didnt Slander, you called him a thoughtful man thoughtful men treat theyre wives with care and respect, do you disagree?
When financially capitalizing are you really driven by belief?
Lincoln is actually #3, this corporate lawyers illegal war led to 640,000 dead & wounded, destroyed innocent peoples lives and homes, he suspended the same constitution Dees fights for and tried arresting the Supreme Court Chief Justice, Lincoln said it wasnt about slavery
uzijohn 3 years ago
I know that divorce court is not where "truth" comes out.
Also, why do Republicans, driven by capitalists, discredit capitalism?
You again, deflect from the core of Dees' work.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate,
"divorce court is not where "truth" comes out"
Youre implying Dees Ex-Wife committed perjury?
She made bold allegations in a high profile case, involving witnesses who could easily dispute her claims,
"Republicans...Capitalism..."
You seem to have troubles with or understanding Republican history & philosophy
Republican's were "founded" as the party opposing slavery, while those wearing white hoods were the all Democrats; you know the meaning of "40 acres and a mule"?
uzijohn 3 years ago
I'm more than implying that it's possible she wasn't honest. I don't know for certain.But I do know that the same singular slander is often used against Dees. Something that I see as a knee jerk smear that you all use a little too predictably. It has nothing to do with (true or not)his work against hate groups. If he wasn't such a threat, you wouldn't have to stoop to such measures.
I'm not referencing history, you are. The current Republican party is unquestionably controlled by big business.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate,
One more thing, above all a slave is restricted from leaving!
What was it the south tried to do?
uzijohn 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this comment (about a slave leaving).
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate,
"don't understand what you mean by this comment(about a slave leaving)"
You called me a racist and used my distain for Lincoln as some type of proof, my problem with Lincoln has to do with "rule of law"
"States rights" and the intentions of our countries founders, the South wanted to
break-away (secede) from the union as was they're right!
But just as slaves have no rights, Southerners were told they didn't either, this wasn't the intention of our founders.
uzijohn 3 years ago
I've never heard that secession was the intention of our Founding Fathers(beyond the first few years). Slavery was an immoral practice, that needed to end. Yes, you can argue against Lincoln's actions as against the constitution, but the fact that it prevented us from becoming a "South Africa" (in the long run) & that it stopped an unethical practice-seems an appropriate choice. Our soldiers are currently dying for a lot less.
Again, I don't understand why "racist" would be an insult to you.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate,
"secession was the intention..."
The constitution was NOT a popular item when it was first devised, state representatives and the people were quite untrusting, for this reason amendments plus word and language changes were made, "finally" it was palatable to the states, it's foolish even absurd to believe these cautious men would have signed away they're states into an irrevocable or nonreversible pact,
To me its no mystery; I know the mindset of these men!
uzijohn 3 years ago
I am not a psychic, so don't know their mindset. If I were to guess, and they could see the whole picture, I have faith in their wisdom, to believe that the wealth that the southerners gained by the backs of slaves, was a valid sacrifice.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate
"I don't understand why "racist" would be an insult to you"
It's more inaccurate than an insult, and in my case it's actually funny!
You used "South Africa" as a term for evil, yet if you lined-up the bodies and ran all the statistics "equality aside" it was by far the best place Black Africans could live!
uzijohn 3 years ago
"Best" is a value judgement, implying that tribal life was less-than colonial. Modern/western are not better, necessarily, just different. If it was such a great system, it wouldn't be over.
You write as if you believe that blacks are less than whites.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate,
"Best" is a value judgment"
I meant "Best" by common statistical measurements,
The availability of fresh/clean water, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, education, caloric intake, yearly family income.....
The CIA's web page (open to the public) gives a 4 page statistical sheet on any country;
I reviewed all of Africa years ago
Was South Africas government upgraded? Mandela was a communist terrorist and his wife was a thief, liar and a murder
uzijohn 3 years ago
I understand and accept your findings on face value.
However, when you stoop to slander to attack another, I cease to hear your argument. Mandela was the victim of decades of imprisonment, trying to gain independence from colonists-clean water doesn't make up for oppression. Don't know who his wife killed (if she did). Lying is common political practice in this country, I've even done it. Pointing my finger at another as if I'm superior doesn't proove anything.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate
#1)"you stoop to slander to attack another"
#2)"Mandela was the victim of decades"
#3)"Don't know who his wife killed (if she did)" oh!
1st) I make no allegations I believe are untrue, I have sources to support everything
2nd) Mandela had quite the arsenal, he was imprisoned for the "Church Street Bombing"
3rd) Wini Mandela had 4 young men kidnapped & tortured, then murdered one whose name was "Stompy" at her own home! Other killings are suspected, she was a GANG LEADER
uzijohn 3 years ago
Hello John, Your sources are different than mine. I read newspapers; Christian Science Monitor, watch BBC, and listen to NPR. Certainly not without fault, but reputable sources. I'm not sure who you depend upon for your information (hopefully not Rush Limbaugh), but we both come to very different conclusions. Any idea why that is?
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
NoRoom4Hate,
"Why we think differently"
Its not only the news you get, your experiences in life determine how youll see the facts, Im not one to seek short term solutions, what's legally expedient today may become oppressive later,
An individual (or group) who commits a crime should be legally and financially liable,
The actions of 5 or even 20% of a group shouldn't cause ANY economic loss to those not involved or who have no pre-knowledge of a crime, unless you hate them so who cares
uzijohn 3 years ago
What about SPLC? If they were taken to court, then who do you think should be responsible? Only Dees? The prosecuitng attorney? The secretary? I assume that if you work for SPLC, you share their beliefs.
NoRoom4Hate 3 years ago
you share their beliefs, which is freedom of speech. it does not mean you share approval of the action.
jeremiahj13 2 years ago
this guy is ridiculous.
willyrobinson 4 years ago