Posted on 11/30/2007 12:17:46 PM PST by Blue Turtle
BTTT
I posted on TGO thread asking if he was going to give Mike at least verbal support, didn’t get a reply. I’m not a Savage fan but I feel that the talkies should support him, if they do nothing is it like they say, they came after the ???? and I did nothing because I was not ????.
Seems to me this crap needs to be nipped in the bud.
Just as I expected, if you can’t argue the facts then start making baseless accusations. As it turns out in this country we have this thing called the rule of law - you don’t get special legal rights or penalties because of your political views. But hey if a radio talk show host wants to file a largely frivolous claim as stunt to boost his ratings then by all means enjoy your political theater. But these things do have real-world results.
Baseless accusations? Your your argument is a logical fallacy. Your expressed concern is the classic slippery slope argument, and that is not sufficient because it is not logical, even if you pretend that it is.
Don’t pretend to be holding up some sort of superior intellectual, fact-based ground, because you aren’t.
Stop with the smug attitude already. Law is fluid, and you haven’t addressed the second part of my argument either, and that is the damages from the the misrepresentation of Savages comments resulting from pressuring advertisers to quit the show.
It moves beyond politcal speech. You may not agree, but that is why we have courts to resolve disputes.
The more I think about it, the more your pointless argument bothers me. Those who argue as you do will be the downfall of this country, not the ones holding it up.
The primary point of this lawsuit is to expose the financial backers of CAIR. If you bothered to understand what Savage is doing, your wouldn’t embarrass yourself with the defense of CAIR as you do.
CAIR was founded by terrorists who want to end our way of life. We are at war with them. You argue that they are mere political opponenents, deserving the very legal protections and court access that we all, as Americans, enjoy. I beg to differ.
They are enemies of this country who use our very courts to fight their war against us and those who go after our enemies. They fight to protect our enemies. They fight to bring down those who fight against our enemies.
When you follow the money trail, you may very well see that CAIR is funded by terrorist states today. It may never get that far, but it may get far enough to do damage.
If our politicians don’t have the guts to go after them more aggressively, then more power to Savage for using the courts to do so.
You argue for “facts” and “the rule of law.” Well, the courts were established to interpret the facts and the law, so what in prey tell are you actually protesting? You want to stop a lawsuit based on your own interpretation, which means you are arrogantly appointing yourself the judge and jury. Perhaps you are merely protesting a crowded docket that prevents you from filing more hot McDonald’s coffee or slip and fall accident lawsuits. Pretty important stuff there.
You really need to get real and recognize that we are in a fight for our survival as a nation. CAIR is one of the enemies, posturing as a Civil Rights organization. You are helping them, and might as well sign up to be the successor for their spokesperson that goes on the nightly news broadcasts to advance the same arguments you do. CAIR hides behind your type of thinking. They are the enemy within, using the very institutions that you want to prevent those who wish to fight them from using.
I doubt that you have argued as aggressively against CAIR’s own abuse of our legal system as you have against those using it to fight them.
Why might that be? I would suggest it is because you are primarily interested in hearing yourself spout utterly Sophomoric crap in order to boost your own ego and pat yourself on the back for your own perceived brilliance, not because you actually care about the actual things you take issue with.
You sound like today’s State Department. If people like you existed and had their way during WWII, we wouldn’t have convicted Nazi spies. We probably wouldn’t have dropped the bomb on Japan.
In as much as I don't neccesarily with everything Michael Savage has said and done he does appear to be spot on about this group CAIR. I have read the lawsuit in it's entirety and just about everything it says about it CAIR is spot on.
This is an organization that wants to see America become a Sharia Law nation. They make no bones about how they feel about people wo do not share their blind loyalty to Islam and the Koran.
As I've stated many times before we here in Oklahoma have had this experience with this issue. A number of state officials in turning down the the Koran have stated the obvious. That Islam is not a peaceful religion, but ratheer a religion that seeks to dominate a whole nation.
As expected of course these offcials were dressed down and thrown under the bus in an ad that ran in the Oklahoman which clearly misrepresentated our state's core values. one of those who paid for this idiotic ad was our sorry, lazy, miserable good for nothing excuse for an attorney general. He has become a complete embarrasment to our otherwise great state.
This criminal organization, CAIR needs to be put out business. It has shown itself to be a very poor sport when it comes to people blowing the whistle on them and questioning their activities. Just ask former Washington D.C. radio talk host Michael Graham.
Hopefully Michael Savage and the Savage Nation will win this lawsuit and put CAIR out of business.
Regards..........
This is probably my last contribution to this thread because you're probably not worth the effort here but as I said before the point of the civil law system isn't to force discovery of groups you don't like. Given that our legal system is a precedent-based common-law system, legal precedents obviously matter and when comes back to bite us in the rear don't say you weren't warned or cry about the unfairness of the legal system.
As far the "war for survival" stuff is concerned - if you feel it right to misuse the legal system - then why not have the Constitution and the rule of law suspended altogether?
You keep referring to the “rule of law.” As I’ve said, the courts are there to interpret the rule of law.
Why are you so opposed to letting them do just that?
You are repeating yourself, but not really addressing my points, namely, the salient rebuttals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.