Sure nuff
The only person here talking like a redneck is you. You're the unsophisticated one, not me, so stop projecting.
Oh, right. That must be why your arguments make so much sense: your one retired FBI agent is the entire "gov'mint", presumably since we're not privy to your other assuredly stellar examples of benevolent bureaucratic oversight.
Don't worry about them, Geoff: one ex-FBI guy says they're jake. For all we know, the one retired FBI guy was canned for accepting bribes from the KKK: who knows? But when you isolate one tinny ex-voice in the entire legal system as an argument, I have to wonder about your motivations, Bubba.
Quid pro quo. (You could call it
tu quoque if you like, except that you miss on the
quoque.)
In fact, the government knows quite a lot about CAIR. Trust me that no one at CAIR lies awake because of your ill-formed diatribes against them.
To start with: which kind of superiority are you trying to preach, here? Trust me that I don't lie awake worrying about your ill-formed diatribes against everyone who disagrees with them either. Ralph Nader doesn't lie awake worrying about the ill-formed diatribes of Ann Coulter. What exactly is your point, except a kind of literary "nyah nyah nyah"? Supremacist drivel, basically.
"You don't matter, Geoff." Well, neither do you, Pandi. And then?
They have members of Congress who oppose them...none of whom can make a charge of wrongdoing stick, which is why CAIR still exists, and has not been shut down.
And they have members of Congress who strongly back them.
However, your framing of this new argument appears to be not that CAIR is innocuous, but rather that they
aren't innocuous, and that no one has caught them out yet while they snooze away without worrying about my ill-formed diatribes. Your earlier argument - the one based on the one ex-FBI guy - was that they were of no concern. So has the one ex-FBI guy recanted or something?
If you have evidence against CAIR, then take it to the authorities...but you don't..
Are you serious, here? This is that bizarre personal game you like to run again:
"If you're demanding riots, Geoff..." "If you think you can run up and down Manhattan Island with a pitchfork and torch, Geoff..." "If you think for one second you can arbitrarily imprison all members of CAIR, Geoff..." I bolded the "you"'s in the hope that this point would sink in this time, since the last time we discussed this "personal liability for all wrongdoing of people I don't like"
you (bolded "you": you personally, not your "side", whatever that's meant to be) backed right off.
So, seriously, what is it with you and this personal approach? And who is it you think
I am, that I would have the power to do all these things? - riots, wholesale imprisonment, hearings on CAIR. Am I a real Lizardoid? Maybe I am and don't know. We're sneaky, you know. It's possible.
I mean, I could kind of see this as some kind of bizarre
ah hominem...if I actually had done those things, or even argued that they
should be done. But the leap from meme to maim seems to be a very short one for you. So where are you going with this?
If you had it, then so would others, and CAIR, which is, again, extremely well scrutinized, would have been destroyed and many of its members in jail. They're not.
Are you very sure about that last bit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#Criticisms
http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/03/17/1467
Or just Google "Ismail Royer".
Purty-pleaase.
You ask me which government agencies I was writing about, but it doesn't work that way. I would have to prove a negative to show that CAIR is not under criminal investigation.
The argument as proposed is wrong in two ways.
One: your new tack is that the "gov'mint" knows "all about 'em". OK, then:
you should demonstrate which ones
are investigating them, and thereby know "all about 'em", and know they're perfectly genteel.
If not,
your argument is supposition, not mine, since I didn't make the point that the "gov'mint" both knows "all about 'em" and doesn't think they're a concern of any kind. I never made the claim that no one of any authority knew anything about them, since I can't validate that statement and since it probably isn't so: to clarify for you, I do indeed think that some branches or offices of the "gov'mint" do know many things about them.
Your argument was - and is - that the "gov'mint" knows "all about 'em" and that they are innocuous, which is an entirely different argument and not sufficiently supported by the opinion of a single ex-FBI agent. As to why the "gov'mint" "ain't a-rounded 'em up so far" (or if they ever will), this is an unknown quantity. One could speculate about this for quite some time. However, the evidence based on their associations suggests they are
not innocuous, and this is kind of my point. This is the difference between our arguments; you can now insinuate about my actual standpoint instead of the one you thought I had. OK?
On the other hand, if you allegations are correct, then no doubt you can show which *are* investigating them.
Interesting: let's fisk this a bit. Does an arrest of a CAIR member for terrorism (and there have been several in their senior staff, in point of fact; see above) translate into the monitoring of the organization as a whole, or its goals? Did the arrests come about as a consequence of such monitoring, or as independent investigations? Am I somehow privy to the legal investigations of the higher powers?
Although ironically you have attempted to establish for me a point that you have sort of denied yourself.
"The gov knaws about 'em and they're fine; but no one's investigating them; you have to prove that someone knows about them; they are; they aren't." This might be a slightly unfair description of the argument so far, but frankly it does also fit and I don't feel particularly generous given the kind of things you like to label people with.
Much like your own posts, the complaints against them are all just bitching, with no sustained action ever being taken. That is why CAIR has been around so long, despite having been a pet target of many conservatives since the mid-1990s. Face facts, if your allegations were correct CAIR would have been shut down years ago.
Why? Has the KKK been shut down? Let's take the long view on this and say facetiously for a moment that CAIR are out-and-out terrorists: did the United States shut down every terrorist organization the moment it got started? Or was there a lag time? What is the "Holy Land Foundation"? And so forth.
Worse for your case, speaking at a CAIR event, does not mean "in league with CAIR." Speaking at an event is not the same as an endorsement, and CAIR is a large forum as Muslim organizations go, and usually draws respectably sized crowds as I understand it.
Interesting: where did I say "in league with CAIR", above? Where did even allude to it? Let's have this, please. Thanks.
You also never answered my question: Are there any Islamic organizations of which you approve? It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if you are being unbiased if there is no Muslin Group in all of America that you consider itself respectable.
...Well, it
would be perfectly reasonable, if I hadn't already answered that question above:
Sure: the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. The Center for Islamic Pluralism. But be sure to peddle your wide insinuations: I'd hate for you to have any less than your full say. By the by: are there any religious fundamentalist organizations you don't like?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2630925&postcount=655
It is now, concurrently, quite reasonable to ask you whether there are any religious fundamentalist organizations you
don't like. I answered your question some time ago, so now reciprocity is called for.
First, please use my full screen name. You have not earned the right to call me by pet names, sweetie. Denigrating me by using a pet name and criticizing my argument's supposed grammatical flaws do not strengthen your position, they just highlight how thin the substance of your comebacks are.
Couldn't care less. You have not earned the right to accuse me of bigotry or much of anything else, except prolixity, yet it has not stayed your keyboard. (And I thought I was criticizing your logical process, rather than your grammar?)
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
Par example (that's French for "hay lookie"):
That you talk about bias is laughable...since you are the one seeking to abridge the freedom of Muslims to build a mosque on land they control, all in compliance with the laws.
Rather, I am questioning the morality of this particular group of Muslims in selecting such a site, the interpretation which such a selection will receive internationally in conjunction with historical precedent, and the financial backing of this group. On the latter, I am happy to say that my supposition was proven right; the others may follow in time.
My point is "live and let live", so I am happy to late history decide which side of the debate was biased.
Then please desist from attempting to create your own brand label ("libel label"?) for it and apply it to those with reasoned opposition to your sacred issues.
