- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:52 pm to BugAC
quote:
If only your past posts did not exist
Post them to support your straw man. Please don't rely on interpretation, also
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So they paid him to snitch, then used the information he gave them to expose both him and his organization. I don't think the SPLC donors will consider this to be fraud.
I’m speechless. Honestly, this is beyond stupidity.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:53 pm to AlterEd
You seem to have missed this. I'll repost
quote:
Do we all agree this statement is unsupported by the indictment and/or dishonest?
quote:
the SPLC—the group that planned, organized, & paid for the Charlottesville white supremacist rally.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:53 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Yesterday he was on record predicting they will only be found guilty of one misdemeanor charge.
I never said this
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I've tried to limit speculation to avoid digressions
more fun with SFP:
quote:
I read the indictment and the salacious allegations don't seem very strong and can easily be countered if SPLC documented what information they gave/sent via these informants. If they can establish legitimate information gathering and sharing, it's going to be extremely hard to prove fraud.
Providing cover for SPLC
quote:
People are trying to spin that into the SPLC "funding" the group, when it was just 2 snitches who permitted the SPLC to access tons of legitimate documents from the larger group. The fact they paid 2 snitches doesn't invalidate the larger group or its actions/beliefs, or, technically, the beliefs of the snitches.
quote:
Was it to acquire legitimate documentation of a legitimate hate group? Yes.
Did the SPLC use this information to write about and expos that group? Yes
What, exactly, is your argument? They paid 2 snitches within a larger, legitimately terrible organization, to get legitimate information in order to write about that group negatively. How are you trying to spin that, exactly?
Hmmm.....
quote:
They paid people to commit crimes?
To steal from racist organization, yes.
quote:
You're upset they paid people to steal documents from some of the worst people on earth, in order to expose those worst people on earth?
Shitload of speculation on your part, chief. Not a good look.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No, but he gave them inside information for their reporting. That's what snitches do.
They paid the leader of a Nazi hate group and tried to hide that information. Paying hate leaders to tell their stories is not a legitimate use of non-profit funds. The fact that you think this is appropriate is deeply disturbing.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:55 pm to Pettifogger
quote:It comes across as a scenario where the scumbags the SPLC was paying might have given up the schtick had the SPLC not paid them to continue.
The entire "informant" narrative is dumb to begin with - what meaningful work product is SPLC producing that would either require or benefit from granular, inside information? They're not an intelligence agency or law enforcement group. They produce vague "reports" that are ripped to shreds by any sort of due diligence or oversight and rarely have any operational/creedal details.
If this were simply a pay-for-snitch, there'd be little need to launder SPLC donations. Seems like the effort may have been to mask the real money source from the recipient.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No, but he gave them inside information for their reporting. That's what snitches do.
Or maybe it was all BS. They paid him to be the villain, so they could fundraise off of the narrative he help create. So all Fraud.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
SlowFlowPro
Ever hear of false flag operations, started by paid members of the other side?
This just to pull names in to watch, and many ended up on watch list are also paid members to do the same.
The numbers in one operation just a few years ago were in the 1000s.
Ever hear of false flag operations, started by paid members of the other side?
This just to pull names in to watch, and many ended up on watch list are also paid members to do the same.
The numbers in one operation just a few years ago were in the 1000s.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:58 pm to BlueDogTiger
quote:
Or maybe it was all BS. They paid him to be the villain,
He had been a villain for a LONG time prior to being paid by the SPLC, and he doesn't seem to have done anything significant publicly once he began snitching.
The narrative fails.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:58 pm to tigger1
quote:
Ever hear of false flag operations, started by paid members of the other side?
Yes. Nothing of the sort is alleged in the indictment.
quote:
The numbers in one operation just a few years ago were in the 1000s.
I hope this isn't a J6 reference
This post was edited on 4/23/26 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
Why don't you like the SPLC?
Posted on 4/23/26 at 12:59 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Why don't you like the SPLC?
Answered 2, maybe 3 times already
Posted on 4/23/26 at 1:04 pm to tigger1
This isn't complicated. Rush Limbaugh said this all the time. The Race grievance industry must justify its existence or else the money dries up. There have been countless examples of false flags, planted agitators at rallies, or flat out media lies to feed the race hustle. The world is objectively less racist than it was 50 years ago yet poll after poll shows that young people see it as MORE racist. That's the con.
Further, we've seen the left scrape the bottom of the shite barrel over and over again wrt unscrupulous, if not illegal behavior in order to achieve political objectives.
Anyone who would dismiss these charges as unlikely is either hopelessly biased or too stupid to breathe.
Further, we've seen the left scrape the bottom of the shite barrel over and over again wrt unscrupulous, if not illegal behavior in order to achieve political objectives.
Anyone who would dismiss these charges as unlikely is either hopelessly biased or too stupid to breathe.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 1:06 pm to Vacherie Saint
“The excuse offered by the left is that the SPLC was merely paying informants as part of their investigations into “hate groups.” This is bullshite of course but it also goes to show how groups like SPLC have operated as quasi government agencies despite having no legal authority to do so. We have been living under the tyranny not just of unelected judges and bureaucrats but also unelected activist organizations.” -Matt Walsh
Posted on 4/23/26 at 1:08 pm to sledgehammer
quote:
have operated as quasi government agencies
wut
Another dishonest talking point added to the list
This post was edited on 4/23/26 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 4/23/26 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Answered 2, maybe 3 times already
No you haven't, which is the perfect example of why the board knows your full of shite.
"I don't even like the SPLC."
Why even answer that post with a lie? Just ignore it.
No, you can't do that. You're trying to uphold your moderate mask that no one fricking believes
Pathetic.
Posted on 4/23/26 at 1:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I never said this
Oh like hell if you didn't. I'm not going to go through the 30 pages of bullshite you posted yesterday to prove it, but you damn sure did and you know you did. I'm sure others that participated in that discussion remember it as well. You are as dishonest as the day is long.
This post was edited on 4/23/26 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 4/23/26 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But, let me pose this in response. If this wasn't about information-gathering, what was the point of stealing the 25 boxes of paperwork? What other purpose would that serve? And that incident is specifically alleged in the indictment.
SPLC needs both to sustain the activities of hate groups and to give them credibility sufficient to drive donations and SPLC's continued existence.
My best guess is that SPLC is using figures to drive conversations that can then be referenced (even in the abstract) by SPLC in public, with the idea being that if law enforcement or media or whomever pried, the SPLC theme can be verified, even if only loosely.
They're informants in the sense that the agents involved in the Whitmer "plot" were informants.
Popular
Back to top



1






