Diet and exercise, still working on those.
Me too!
curls 12 ounces
Nice try, but that’s your straw man I’m talking about. The straw man which you’re attacking out of one side of your mouth and endorsing out the other. (You know, so long as it’s Muslims being scrutinized. That would be OK with you.)
Really, how would you have caught the Fort Hood shooter? OK so you have narrowed it down to 1.5 million Muslim men between 15 and 50, what would you have filtered for then that would have allowed you to catch Nadal that you couldn’t have filtered for to begin with?
Liberals use the term politically correct to mock themselves, conservatives throw around the phrase politically correct when they want to excuse themselves for being racists or sexist.
Comprehensive, not really. Efficient, I doubt it. Racist, definitely. So one out of three isn’t bad. You have achieved one of your objectives.
Tell me exactly what you would do if you managed to identify all the Muslims (perhaps we can pass a law making them wear an armband with a yellow crescent on it), which frankly is no small task? What do you do with that list of names and addresses?
Is the difference between the term racist an bigot that significant to you? Most racists don’t seem to care.
No they’re not. The filter you are suggesting is not only unconstitutional (Its one thing to look for a black guy if you have a report that a black guy mugged someone, its an entirely different thing to start looking at black guys to identify black guys that might mug someone some day), its superfluous and does little more than satisfy your racist impulses.
Going to Pakistan is not the only filter and if you like odds so much, what do you think the odds are of finding a terrorist within the population of people that have recently gone to Pakistan versus the 6 million muslims in America? How many Americans do you think fly to Pakistan? How do you know that Buddhist isn’t really a muslim are we going to have everyone fill out questionnaires?
If you want to retract your previous statements about the Quran causing people to become terrorists, then that’s fine. Now will you entertain the notion that perhaps its something other than religion that is driving this?
BTW, how the hell am I moving the goalposts? What have I asked you to prove and then changed in mid stream? My contention is that you are a racist, I am not limited to one example to prove that glaringly obvious fact am I?
It wasn’t an appeal to the masses, it was support for the notion that you are not scorned by the kneejerk liberals, you are scorned by pretty much anyone on that thread that didn’t end up getting banned.
Just trying to show you how stupid you sound. Looks like you aren’t capable of even understanding that.
You’re right, that makes it really fucking witty. :rolleyes:
Calling you out on your racism for one. I think its been conclusively proven to everyone (other than you but I don’t expect you will ever admit how much of a racist you are) that you are a racist and you forced me to do it by harping on my inability to link to a post where you said you want to investigate all muslims (because there really is no way to get from A (filter for muslims) to B (and find out which of them are terrorists) without investigating them, that is if you can identify all of them to begin with.
I just gave you an entire thread. Heck if you do a search for Magellan and muslim, I’d bet you say something racist in each of them. I the thread I linked, you simply advocated for investigating all muslims on account of their muslimness.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I said “Magellan, it is beyond clear that your position is that we should investigate ALL muslims to see if they warrant even FURTHER investigation. Your position has been that “muslimness should be the first filter””
So I show you evidence that this is indeed your position and you seem to want me to find a post where you explicitly say the words “I want to investigate all Muslims” I didn’t think I had to quote you saying those exact words to prove your position (which I have clearly done, well, actually you did it, but I provided a link, so I’ll take some credit).
I even restated it by saying “You have basically said, take all the msulims and look to see if there are other indicia of radicalization and have explicitly rejected the notions of simply filtering for the indicia of radicalization to begin with.”
And to you the words “look to see if there is other indicia of radicalization” means something other than investigate.
I stand by my position that YOUR position is clearly that we should investigate all Muslims. Even more, my position is that you are a likely a racist (your posts are my cite). Come on man, have the balls to stand up for your convictions, you’ll feel better getting it off your chest..
Then you have a distorted view of what has been going on here because you do in fact want to investigate all Muslims (there’s simply no other way to make sure that we aren’t missing a potential terrorist:rolleyes:)
As if there was any doubt.
He also hasn’t addressed why he focuses exclusively on Jews and ignores Cubans, Belgians, Iranians, Chinese nationals…. Or how it is that all the Jewish members of the PNAC just happen to probably be traitors, but all the gentiles are just in it for the money and they’re not betraying their nation for a foreign power. *that is, if they’re not afforded the courteous benefit of the doubt, not being Jewish and all, and assumed to actually hold political opinions for what they support rather than, at best, being Manchurian Candidates who can’t even tell their home from a nation half the planet away).
But when he admits that his own views are that we should “keep a wary eye on a subset of politicized American Jews”, but that I’m a “hypocrite” because he lies and claims I want to “scrutinize Muslims”, again his own words are lying and making him say things that he doesn’t want them to say. Naturally his dishonest attempt at backpedaling is “er, I mean, that was your strawman I was addressing!”
Except I never said that his racism is only for “politicized” Jews, but any Jew in the US government who has a different political philosophy than Spoke. Even his backpedaling is fucking weaksauce.
As for his lie that somehow there’s an equivalence between a criminal profile and “Jews in the government who don’t agree with Spooky’s august opinions”, let alone his blatant lie that it would be okay with me if we “scrutinized Muslims”?
Already addressed that too.
For a cowardly little racist given to lying through his teeth and endlessly whining about how his words are lying about what he really thinks, it’s obvious that his hypocrisy knows no bounds, as nowhere at all have I “endorsed” “keeping a wary eye on Muslims”. Spoke is a liar and is trying to pretend that pointing out Damuri’s distortion of what Magellan actually said means that I’m calling for Muslims to be investigated.
It’s no fun if Spoke can’t even make up new lies.
But of course he still hasn’t addressed just why he accused DSeid of “Jewish Supremacism”, which is totally a phrase he made up all on his own.
Oh yeah, and he never did explain just what those “very close personal ties” were that he’s so concerned about.
Could you please link me to where Finn said racist things about Muslims or proposed discriminating against Muslim Americans.
He didn’t, but if you read very carefully between the lines while humming Hare Krishna with a Ouija board planchette in your right hand and a copy of the Quran in your left, you can clearly see that he implied it.
Just like watching the monkeys at the zoo leaping about, howling, and hurling feces.
You miss the point. Finn loudly condemns as racism any particular scrutiny of a subset of politicized Jewish Americans, but sees no problem applying particular scrutiny to a politicized subset of Muslim Americans.
The first is racism, the second is just good sense in Finn’s view.
Whether or not Finn is racist, he is a hypocrite.
And it’s hilarious that Finn is hauling out his imaginary Muslim friend to defend him.
Spoke’s lie that he’s not doing this is:
A) helped by him repeating the fact that he’s doing this
B) hurt by him repeating the fact that he’s doing this
But, actually, what I object to is Spoke’s racist conspiracy theory in which we have to have loyalty probes for Jews in government lest they betray the nation. If Magellan had said that we can’t trust Muslims in government and had to forever be wary that they might betray us, I’d have objected to that too. It’s telling that Spoke is trying to invent fictitious hypocrisy in objecting to his racism while pointing out that a criminal profile of Islamic terrorists that includes their religion isn’t actually a call to investigate all Muslims.
Naturally, Spoke is lying, yet again.
A good way to tell if Spoke is lying is to see if he’s posting.
It really is telling how utterly, flailingly desperate he is to dream up “hypocrisy” here. On one side I simply pointed out that Damuri was distorting what Magellan actually said right before the post he cited. I explicitly stated that I’m not endorsing any sort of criminal profile.
And still Spookey Spokey is flailing wildly and simply has to draw some sort of equivalence between has racist demand that Jews in the US government be subjected to loyalty probes and a factual statement that a criminal profile isn’t a call to investigate all Muslims.
Options:
- Spoke really is a paranoid freak and sees dastardly Jewish conspiracies even on the Straight Dope, and thinks that this is a False Flag operation.
- Spoke is lying, yet again, and employing Johnsonesque smears, yet again, and hasn’t reported Ibn as a sock because he knows Ibn isn’t a sock and he’s just trolling him.
Choices choices.
Frankly, even if **Finn **is wrong (and frankly, you aren’t looking too squeaky-clean with regard to your beliefs, even if you are in turn right about Finn), this accusation against Ibn Warraq is making you look like a flailing ninny.
You are correct that if “flying to Pakistan” is your first filter, you will do better than using my first filter. But as I’ve said probably 50 times now in this thread alone, my first filter is only that—a FIRST filter. If we apply that and only that it’s useless. So, if we both apply the “flying to Pakistan” filter, my list will be more helpful than yours. I’m FOR doing all that you want, but want to use a filter for Muslimness, as well. Thins is helpful. Look at your example. If we both filter for “flying to Pakistan”, you end up with non-Muslims in your pool—people that it makes sense to not have in your pool: people from Iceland, Quakers, Mormons, Buddhists, etc. My result leaves those people out, so it is more helpful in finding people who might be radical Islamic extremists. So, my strategy is more efficient. Now, I assume you’re going to say again that you would apply additional filters. And that would be smart. But I advocate doing that as well. The only difference is that I want to include a filter for Muslimness, which would exclude Hindus, Jews, etc. from the pool. So, whatever filters you apply, my strategy will be result in a tighter pool, because I’d be applying them, as well.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
BTW, how the hell am I moving the goalposts? What have I asked you to prove and then changed in mid stream? My contention is that you are a racist, I am not limited to one example to prove that glaringly obvious fact am I?
[/QUOTE]
Okay. So, you really don’t know. In the hope that your ignorance is the root of your stupidity and dishonesty, here is a little lesson on what Moving the Goalposts is and how you did it: To recap:
-
YOU made a claim. You claimed that it is my position that “all Muslims should be investigated”. That was your claim, your contention. I’ve cite it numerous times.
-
Knowing that to NOT be my position, I called bullshit on it and asked you to either retract it or substantiate it. Which means that it was now incumbent upon YOU to provide cites substantiating THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM. It needn’t be a verbatim quote, but it must go directly to what you are trying to prove—that magellan01 advocates the position that “all Muslims should be investigated”.
-
You did not provide such substantiation. At first you didn’t provide any cites at all, and lowered yourself to “your post are my cites”. That doesn’t cut it. You need to provide the actual quotes. When you tried to do this, you failed. There is not one thing in the few cites you provided that says that I advocate the position you attempt to ascribe to me. In fact, what you cited lays out what I’ve been saying all along. I advocate using as Muslimness as a preliminary filter, one of many to be applied. As many as possible.
-
You were unable to substantiate your claim that I "want all Muslims investigated. So, INSTEAD you set yourself on the task of trying to substantiate that I am a racist. Which is a different claim.
-
THAT is moving the goalposts. You were unable to substantiate your original claim, so set yourself on the task of attempting to prove a different allegation you made.
Do you understand now? And it matters not one iota you are correct about me being a racist or not. Even if I am the biggest racist in the history of racism, that does not prove the claim you made.
Her’s an analogy. Let’s say that it is the case that your favorite ice cream flavor is Strawberry. Let’s say that’s a fact. Now let’s say that I write that your favorite flavor of of ice cream is chocolate. You find that odd and call bullshit, telling me to retract the belief I have attributed to you. Either that or, if I’m so sure that I know what you believe better than you, to provide some kind of proof supporting your claim. So, what I have to do at this point is show something that you’ve said that indicates that you do in fact prefer chocolate ice cream.
Now, I have a hard time finding such proof, so instead I start putting forth arguments that go to prove that you are a racist, or you are a Scientologist, or are tall, or fat, or have long hair. Those things all might be true, but even if they are and I “prove” them to be, they do not substantiate the claim that it was my task to substantiate. I have done what? Yes, Moved the Goalposts.
So your view of me as a racist, right or wrong, is immaterial. You can believe whatever you want. If you’d like to believe that I cried all night thinking about that, go right ahead. But that still leaves the matter of a claim that you made that you have been unable to substantiate. Now, as you seem to believe, from another thread:
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
If you can’t defend your position then perhaps your position has no merit
[/QUOTE]
…then your next step should be obvious. If it helps, in the context above you “defend” and “substantiate” are interchangeable.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
It wasn’t an appeal to the masses, it was support for the notion that you are not scorned by the kneejerk liberals, you are scorned by pretty much anyone on that thread that didn’t end up getting banned.
[/QUOTE]
You did it again right there. Look it up: “Fallacy: Appeal to The Masses”.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Calling you out on your racism for one. I think its been conclusively proven to everyone (other than you but I don’t expect you will ever admit how much of a racist you are) that you are a racist and you forced me to do it by harping on my inability to link to a post where you said you want to investigate all muslims (because there really is no way to get from A (filter for muslims) to B (and find out which of them are terrorists) without investigating them, that is if you can identify all of them to begin with.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you think the one thing you are not horrible at is calling me a racist, good for you. At least there’s something. But “racist” was not your original claim. It is not the claim that I challenged you on. You thinking me a racist is fine with me. Really. I know I’m not and that’s all I need. I think you’re one of the stupidest, most dishonest posters I’ve ever encountered on these boards. So what? Do you think I’m going to try to “prove” it? That it is something that is provable? No. It’s not. So I just leave others to read your ignorant nonsense and form their own conclusions.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I just gave you an entire thread. Heck if you do a search for Magellan and muslim, I’d bet you say something racist in each of them. I the thread I linked, you simply advocated for investigating all muslims on account of their muslimness.
[/QUOTE]
Unbelievable. Not only is my being, or not being, a racist not the issue, you actually repeat the claim that you STILL have not been able to substantiate with even one cite. I’ve heard that people this stupid and dishonest existed, but never really believed it. But the evidence you’re providing is overwhelming.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I said “Magellan, it is beyond clear that your position is that we should investigate ALL muslims to see if they warrant even FURTHER investigation. Your position has been that “muslimness should be the first filter”” that we should investigate all Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
Look, Lint Brain. Those two things are NOT the same thing. I have embraced the latter, but the former has 1) never been put forth by me, and 2) is not what I believe to be wise or helpful. But chocolate is you favorite ice cream flavor. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
So I show you evidence that this is indeed your position and you seem to want me to find a post where you explicitly say the words “I want to investigate all Muslims” I didn’t think I had to quote you saying those exact words to prove your position (which I have clearly done, well, actually you did it, but I provided a link, so I’ll take some credit).
[/QUOTE]
Are you on drugs? You have shown no such evidence. Not only have I never sought to back away from the idea of using Muslimness as a filter, but I embrace it and have stated so consistently. This is another attempt by you of Moving the Goalposts. Here, let me help you.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I stand by my position that YOUR position is clearly that we should investigate all Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, you know what, maybe you’re right. Since you think you know what my position is better than I do, and since you wouldn’t/couldn’t just fabricate this is your little lint brain, just point me to where I put forth that position. It’s that simple. You made that claim more than a few times now, and you seem to be quite sure of yourself, so please, by all means, share with me a cite where I have said that. Not those exact words, necessarily, but a series of words that go directly and specifically to the claim you are so sure I made. If you’re right, and that is my position, should be pretty easy to find, I would think.
To be clear, you’ll be looking not for substantiation that I am a racist, nor for substantiation that I beleive that using Muslimness is a good first filter to use, but that I advocate that “we should investigate all Muslims”.
Now run along and see what you can find. And just to avoid confusion for both of us, why not put that substantiation in its own post? That way, you, I, and anyone else who might be interested can see it.
Except he knows he isn’t, and he’s desperate to change the subject and try to pretend that I’ve ever “endorsed” “keeping a wary eye on Muslims”. There’s a reason why he not only can’t find any cite of me doing so, but in response to Ibn’s perfectly reasonable question, he’s ranting about how Ibn is a sock. Obviously Spoke is ready to hurl himself upon even the flimsiest of excuses. Just like he’s evidently wild with joy since I simply showed that Damuri’s claims were factually inaccurate, and a criminal profile that includes an Islamic terrorist’s religion is not a call to investigate all Muslims. His “hypocrisy” accusation is laughable, but it again demonstrates what he’s really about.
Here, he’s actually willing to equate members of radical Islamic groups who support terrorism with Jews in the American government who don’t share his views. The idea that there’s any hypocrisy going on is comical. If Magellan had said “we need to investigate Muslims in the American government because they may betray us for Islamic reasons or be so blinded by Islam that they can’t even tell what’s in the US’s best interests anymore rather than Saudi Arabia’s”, then sure I’d have called that racist. Because it would be.
But Spoke is the one saying that we need to investigate Jews in the American government because they may betray us for the Jewish State or be so blinded that they can’t even tell what’s in the US’s interests anymore rather than Israel’s.
There’s no double standard.
If Spoke was honest and not a racist, he could even build a fairly decent criminal profile of potential perpetrators of espionage. As I pointed out, we’ve had significant espionage for the Israelis, Germans, French, Chinese, etc… We’ve had espionage committed by FBI and CIA agents, government actors and private businesses. I’m sure that American counter intelligence has a detailed set of red flags, and the GAO report I linked to earlier had categories that they investigated to see possible industrial espionage. You could build a criminal profile that, I’d imagine, looks something like “has access to classified information, has had unexplained sums deposited into their bank account, has had covert contact with known or suspected agents of foreign powers…” I’d imagine that our counter intelligence task forces have any number of metrics that they use when trying to identify and neutralize espionage attempts.
Tellingly, none of those, unlike Spoke, had the only metrics set as “Jewish, in government, doesn’t agree with Spoke’s politics.”
Just one of those coincidences.
And:
Ignoring the fact that this didn’t actually happen, by the way:
Were you lying when you claimed you don’t read my posts, or are you lying when you claimed to have read them and somehow gotten that message from them?
You have to understand that Spoke himself applied for the job of Finn’s Imaginary Friend, but was thwarted by the Jewish Good Old Boy Network, just like when Spoke was passed over for the position of studio chief at Warner Bros.
It makes for some bitterness. 
Now why do I keep picturing FinnAgain and Jackmannii like this?
Given your responses in this thread, I’ve honestly got to go with “you’re so goddamn arrogant and/or stupid, you assume the only reason people agree that you suck is that they’re in cahoots.”
No, that’s not it…