Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 89 of 89
  1. #76
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Trek wins

    Trek wins

    Trek wins
    Jeez.

    90210 reruns.

  2. #77
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    not at all, I'll do the same.

    I came into this thread because of your post below.

    It seems from what I read in your last response, you now use the court documents from June (though still use soundbites instead of the final opinion), see where your original linked posts were incorrect (you know, the links to terrorists, lol), and now feel it is time to wait to see what is about to happen in the courts.

    I'm satisfied now that you no longer agree with your first post's position:
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Trek wins for the fact that you can now see the cse the ACLU brought before the court in February of this year contained far more points than the one point the AP picked up the same day all those documents were filed.
    To be fair... a damn sight more was said well before Trek ever brought the ACLU documents into the picture. If you are gonna harp on my blog references you need to take the whole conversation into account before claiming victory on trek's behalf.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Trek wins for the fact that your second link showed accusations that were never brought up by State after they said the Homeland security rep was in error in commenting on why Ramadan's visa was revoked. He pointed us to the court documents. You pointed us to bloggers making claims.
    Not exactly... he stated that the "charges" were dropped. Again well in advance of presenting the ACLU documents. Used an OPED by Tariq as proof. Again... while you seem to take pleasure in pointing out weaknesses in my case.. you cannot ignore Trek's errors while claiming victory on his behalf.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Trek wins for the fact that it took you untold pages to come to this conclusion that is directly in opposition of your original position that the ACLU defends terror supporters, that Ramandan had ties, and that, as proven by the court documents, the only reason State revoked his Visa (causing him to lose a job) was that he made retroactive donations to groups not classified at that time as having ties to terror.
    Trek wins a case that has not been to court? Think you are jumping the gun there OTOC. Feel free to speak on Trek's behalf.. but please do not infer conclusions I have not stated myself. Seems a bit premature to be breaking out the champaign. How can you say this is conclusive? Last I checked he was still being denied a visa "for providing material support to a terrorist organization." Has something changed?

    While it is your opinion that the charges equate to "retroactive donations" because the donations were made after the "charities" were put on the terrorist front list.

    There is an equal chance that the SD can make their case if they have evidence he knew they were front organizations even though they were not on a list. Tariq runs in those circles... there is as good a chance the SD has evidence to support their claim. At this point we just do not know. But in that same token you cannot claim "victory".

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    I can't say it was fun, scooter. It took us all this time to get you to realize that court is where we will find out what the government has on Ramada and not your bloggers like Counterterrorism.org
    The case has not been fought yet, nor do we know if there will be a fight at all. The information on Counterterrorism.org might show up if and when the SD has to make a case.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #78
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Jeez.

    90210 reruns.
    Another stellar post.
    Many thanks for your contribution on the topic and even more for not cherry picking a few words of mine while disregarding other positions just so you could pop in a hilarious joke. I'm still laughing from this gem.

  4. #79
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Another stellar post.
    Many thanks for your contribution on the topic and even more for not cherry picking a few words of mine while disregarding other positions just so you could pop in a hilarious joke. I'm still laughing from this gem.
    Just keep us posted on the score, will ya? It wasn't meant as a joke.

  5. #80
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,613

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access



    Since it seems were keeping a round by round count its only appropriate to have a neutral announcer. Can I be Jimmy Lennon?

    Lets get Ready To Rumble


  6. #81
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: ACLU defends itself from scooters bloggers pt 1

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    To be fair... a damn sight more was said well before Trek ever brought the ACLU documents into the picture. If you are gonna harp on my blog references you need to take the whole conversation into account before claiming victory on trek's behalf.
    To be fair, I watched this thread go on for many pages before I weighed in. I considered it a draw until Trek linked to the ACLU site for court documents.

    To be fair, it was you who came in with this thread and had your position in the original post that the ACLU was simply defending a terror supporter's right to access the US and highlighted it with a to further illustrate your position of how the ACLU is a ridiculous commie organization as your sig says. You also presented us with the position that the "charges" made by CounterTerrorism.org since August were what readers should believe.

    To be more fair, the State Department, when pressed by the court said nothing of the kind in September.

    And to be extremely fair, you now have changed your position.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Not exactly... he stated that the "charges" were dropped. Again well in advance of presenting the ACLU documents. Used an OPED by Tariq as proof. Again... while you seem to take pleasure in pointing out weaknesses in my case.. you cannot ignore Trek's errors while claiming victory on his behalf.
    I explained my position on this. I ignored both of your positions as not convincing for a time in this thread. You didn't change your position or statements regarding the blogger's evidence until many pages after Trek posted the ACLU link that shows us exactly what is going on. You lost my backing until you changed your position from the OP.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Trek wins a case that has not been to court? Think you are jumping the gun there OTOC. Feel free to speak on Trek's behalf.. but please do not infer conclusions I have not stated myself. Seems a bit premature to be breaking out the champaign. How can you say this is conclusive? Last I checked he was still being denied a visa "for providing material support to a terrorist organization." Has something changed?
    No, Trek wins a debate on TLR, in my opinion, because he chose to go against your OP views and backed it with convincing links like actual court documents and the resent filing by the ACLU last month.

    You never did respond to the fact that the reason by state has nothing to do with Counterterrorism.org, and deals with a very debatable issue called "retroactive enforcement of law" in their reason given in September.

    You came in with the position that this was a slam dunk against that terrist and now you are content to watch what happens in court as this unfolds.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    While it is your opinion that the charges equate to "retroactive donations" because the donations were made after the "charities" were put on the terrorist front list.
    Not my opinion, scooter. A fact as we know it today and as explained in the ACLU's case that responds to the State Department's September ruling of donations to certain organizations up until 2002 that were placed on the list in 2003 were the reason for his final denial and answer to to revoking of his Visa.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    There is an equal chance that the SD can make their case if they have evidence he knew they were front organizations even though they were not on a list. Tariq runs in those circles... there is as good a chance the SD has evidence to support their claim. At this point we just do not know. But in that same token you cannot claim "victory".
    I am not claiming a "victory" for the court case as you did when you started this thread with a clear position that Ramadan was guilty of having ties to terrorists (a position that State said, was never on the table according to court documents).

    I am looking at the facts and see that the ACLU, in representing an individual and a few organizations, has a very understandable position that needs to be weighed. I've always said I will see how this goes in court and disregard your position that a rightwing blog can have more information than the SD.

    More so, you claim Ramadan "runs in those circles". That is a position that Homeland Security stated to the press was the reason for losing the Visa and the State Department clearly stated was an erroneous position that they were not taking.

    Running in "those circles" is a viable charge that Homeland Security can use to deny a Visa. It wasn't as was discussed in the court's opinion in June.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    The case has not been fought yet, nor do we know if there will be a fight at all. The information on Counterterrorism.org might show up if and when the SD has to make a case.
    Then do you recant your original position that the ACLU is defending known supporters of terrorists or not?

    Don't give me mights and ifs, scooter. Counterterrorism.org has been on their position since August. The State Department made their position known in September and it couldn't be farther from what CounterTerrorism.org says. Do they or do they not have evidence? If they do, why are they keeping it to themselves and not sharing it with State. Isn't that against our Homeland Security laws??

    To be fair, now that you are willing to see how this goes negates your original position that Ramadan is tied to terror as your OP stated, I am willing to leave this quagmire unless you have something different to say and wish to change your OP title and contents. Or at least until you decide to answer part 2.

  7. #82
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post


    Since it seems were keeping a round by round count its only appropriate to have a neutral announcer. Can I be Jimmy Lennon?

    Lets get Ready To Rumble

    sure, are you actually going to read through all of this and make a neutral observation other than

  8. #83
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,613

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    ^^ You've got to be kidding...

  9. #84
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    ^^ You've got to be kidding...
    Then I would suggest click me

  10. #85
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,613

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    ^^^ Runaway from what?

    A thread that is about 5 pages of cut & paste to long and boring as hell?

    Or you

    That will be the day

  11. #86
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    ^^^ Runaway from what?

    A thread that is about 5 pages of cut & paste to long and boring as hell?

    Or you

    That will be the day
    I was trying to make a joke after yours. So sorry. I didn't mean for you to run away from little old me.

    I do wonder why if you are so bored by this why you are still reading. I thought you ignored threads. That's what you told CWiz isn't it?

  12. #87
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,613

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    ^^^ Well the first page was a bit interesting after that it got boring. I figured I would take a peak in just to see how things were going and not at all to my surprise there was no change. In times of boredom my humor seems to surface and it surfaces quite often in your case.

    But I am glad you are trying to develop a sense of humor. Keep at it and someday you have one.

    Yes I did tell CWiz that only because I was tired of his whining about certain members of this forum.

    Sorry but Im out of idle chitchat time for now.

  13. #88
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Scooter - How is it an 'error' on my part to post the Opinion article written by Tariq when the points he made in that letter are corroborated by the Judge's decision that I later linked?

    How does your opinion that he isn't credible because you believe he's already guilty impact that validity of the events as he describes them?

    You talk big about the presumption of innocence, yet you took blogger's sites over the words of the person in question and largely ignored the court 'Order and Opinion' until otoc forced you to deal with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    Again well in advance of presenting the ACLU documents. Used an OPED by Tariq as proof
    Let me take this moment to remind you that you were using BLOGS as 'proof' while claiming the opinion article written by Tariq proved nothing. Are you aware that a 'blog' is nothing more than someone's opinion? How is it you can claim that opinions of your bloggers are more truthful and evidentiary than the opinion of Tariq?

    Interesting indeed that you stood by your bloggers for so long acting like their opinions were proof and yet in the end their opinions were wrong - whereas Tariqs written article has currently not been proven to be untruthful.

    Next time you criticize someone about using an opinion article to support their argument, you may want to make sure that you aren't using opinions (blogs) yourself.

  14. #89
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: ACLU defends terror supporters' right to U.S. access

    Anyone else remember this dirtbag our resident apologists were pimping? Name came up in another article.. Looks like he was into dirka-dirka rapey-rapey as well as supporting dirka-dirka.. jihad-jihad.

    Tariq Ramadan admission sparks fresh row over rape claims

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •