[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Come to think of it, I know why they're doing it, but why are you?

I wanted to see if my questioning the bullshit would lump me in with the terrorists.

Seems it does.

Still got nothing, right? Just a big boo hoo? Wanna hanky?

Got nothing for what? You do get a bit random at times.

[N_Fiddledog]

Still having problems understanding the obvious are you?

That's OK. Give me your little hand. I'll lead you once more down the road of information you should have already read.

Diane Ablonczy was perfectly within her rights and reasonable, in her questioning or the 'CAIR Canada' rep as to whether anything had changed regarding that organization's known connections to terrorist connected people or organizations, before accepting the guy's testimony as a representative of moderates.

I showed where claims of those connections came from, and showed you video of what Ablonczy actually said, not just what CBC said she said. You gave me nothing in the way of counter-argument other than a lot of lip concerning what you don't like about me. And BTW, aren't you the whiner who was whimpering to me about ad hominem attacks?

As I recall you were sniffling because I pointed out how one of your great warmist wizards once posted a graph upside down, and thought nobody would notice. Upside down you see, the graph confirmed his point.

Sound familiar? Can you make the connection between that one and this one? No? Terrorist supporters testifying for moderates...upside down graph... Still don't get it? * Sigh * OK, give me your little hand again...

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Still having problems understanding the obvious are you?

That's OK. Give me your little hand again. I'll lead you once more down the road information you should have already read.

Diane Ablonczy was perfectly within her rights and reasonable, in her questioning or the 'CAIR Canada' rep as to whether anything had changed regarding that organization's known connections to terrorist connected people or organizations, before accepting the guy's testimony as a representative of moderates.

No, she is a public servant and if she had said those comments outside of a Parliamentary committee she would be sued for slander, just like the hero Ezra Levant.

And I find it curious that you refer to them as 'CAIR Canada' when they are The National Council of Canadian Muslims, for the last 2 years. Why is it that The National Council of Canadian Muslims must 'prove' they aren't affiliated with any 'terrorists', and no other group at the hearings has to? And, how exactly does one 'prove' something doesn't exist?

It can't be proven, so Ablonczy has done exactly what the article claims. This used to be referred as the 'when did you stop beating your wife' tactic, the same as Senator McCarthy used on his witch hunt.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I gave you proof of those connections, and showed what Ablonczy had actually said with video.

No, you gave me innuendo that a US judge found a US group had connections to Hamas, and gave no connection between the NCCM and Hamas.

And a little secret - I watched one of your videos once, and felt my IQ dropping, so I won't ever watch another one again. Same goes for most of the stories you post.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You gave me nothing other than a lot of lip concerning what you don't like about me. And BTW, aren't you the whiner who was whimpering to me about ad hominem attacks?

Not liking your opinion is not an ad hominem. Saying I don't like your opinion is not an ad hominem, it's pretty much the cornerstone of logical debate. Dismissing your opinion because I don't like it is an ad hominem, and something I don't do.

And since I've made no claims as to the links between CAIR, NCCM or Hamas, I have no reason to back that up with any sort of 'proof', even if the game of logical debate required it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Blah, blah, blah. I'll tell you what.

I'll show you the historical connections between CAIR Canada/NCCM and other terrorist connected people or organizations, but first I need to know something. What specific allegation is Ablonczky making that you claim is false?



Quote it so we're not dealing with revisionist interpretations.

Bet you won't. Bet you can't, because you know there are good reasons for her to make such claims. You just can't admit it.

[Public_Domain]

N_Fiddledog's standard method of discussion:

[Thanos]

It was a lot funnier when they were saying the same thing about Glenn Beck.

[Public_Domain]

Yeah, I'm glad he sued, I would have never heard of it otherwise,

[Thanos]

Fuckin' Gottfried though, man. We oughta put him in charge of Parliament or something.

[Public_Domain]

I'd falsify ID cards just so I could vote for him more than once

Was reading on the Beck thing... Beck lost, but immediately the guys doing the parody gave him control of the domain anyway. They just wanted to win on principle. Classy move.

EDIT: Make Gottfried King and I'll gladly do the pledge,

[Thanos]

Odd you mentioned making Gottfried into a king because his version of The Aristocrats is the only joke I ever heard that almost made me throw up.

Update it to modern times and The Aristocrats should be re-named The Bankers or The One-Percent. Regardless of names I'm pretty sure that De Sade's The 120 Days Of Sodom wasn't just a dirty story, it was actually a highly accurate documentary.

[Public_Domain]

That's a joke I can never get tired of; Bob Saget's telling of that joke keep me in stitches every single time. First time I heard it was from Gottfried on some YouTube video...

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What specific allegation is Ablonczky making that you claim is false?

Quote it so we're not dealing with revisionist interpretations.

It's right in the article, and I'm not the one that's claiming it. It's everything in the CBC article video, right up until she starts asking questions.

That's what they object to, and that's what she'd be sued for if she was not enjoying Parliamentary Privilege.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Bet you won't. Bet you can't, because you know there are good reasons for her to make such claims. You just can't admit it.

I have seen no good reason for her to make such claims, nor have I seen you produce any of these links you claim exist. You just go back to the same source, again and again thinking it's going to say something different this time.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What specific allegation is Ablonczky making that you claim is false?

Quote it so we're not dealing with revisionist interpretations.

$1:

It's right in the article,

No it's not.

$1:

and I'm not the one that's claiming it.

Yes,you are,

$1:

It's everything in the CBC article video, right up until she starts asking questions.

All that's in the article is a repeat of what's in the video. The video is simply the Cair Canada/NCCM rep refusing to answer the question while making a general claim that the allegations are not true. He mentions 'CAIR Canada'/NCCM's suit against the government. Some think that one's nothing more than the sort of lawfare suit such organizations are becoming famous for.

$1:

That's what they object to, and that's what she'd be sued for if she was not enjoying Parliamentary Privilege.

Yes, in the video an NDP rep puffs out his little chest and makes that claim. So what? Is that what you're using for evidence to repeat it?

$1:

I have seen no good reason for her to make such claims, nor have I seen you produce any of these links you claim exist. You just go back to the same source, again and again thinking it's going to say something different this time.

I don't know why you're having trouble finding it. You even quoted it on the previous page. Here's the link again.

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/harper-s ... -as-hamas/

If you're saying that does not support Ablonczy's allegations show me what specifically is missing and I'll show you more.

But again you can't, because they're supportable facts. That's why the government is not worried about CAIR Canada/NCCM's pitiful Lawfare suit.

In order to justify a lawsuit you would have to prove Ablonczy's allegations are not true. Neither you, the CAIR Canada/NCCM rep, nor the guy from the NDP can do that, and the evidence for that is you don't. You aren't even brave enough to try. You won't try, because you know if you do, I'll prove you're wrong.

[Thanos]

This thread would be a hell of a lot more fun if we concentrated more on Gilbert Gottfried. Or Bob Saget. Or The Aristocrats joke. Or 120 Days Of Sodom.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What specific allegation is Ablonczky making that you claim is false?

Quote it so we're not dealing with revisionist interpretations.

$1:

It's right in the article,

No it's not.

Will this be a 5 minute argument, or the whole half hour?

Let's start with the title:

$1:

Bill C-51 hearings: Diane Ablonczy's questions to Muslim group 'McCarthyesque'

Now, let's move on to the article:

$1:

Diane Ablonczy used her allotted time to "put on the record" what she described as "a continuing series of allegations" that the NCCM has ties to groups that have expressed support for "Islamic terrorist groups," including Hamas.

So where are these 'ties'?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

and I'm not the one that's claiming it.

Yes,you are,

So, the full half hour then.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

It's everything in the CBC article video, right up until she starts asking questions.

All that's in the article is a repeat of what's in the video. The video is simply the Cair Canada/NCCM rep refusing to answer the question while making a general claim that the allegations are not true. He mentions 'CAIR Canada'/NCCM's suit against the government. Some think that one's nothing more than the sort of lawfare suit such organizations are becoming famous for.

When you accuse someone of illegal activities without proof, you open your self to lawsuits. Just ask Ezra Levant.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

That's what they object to, and that's what she'd be sued for if she was not enjoying Parliamentary Privilege.

Yes, in the video an NDP rep puffs out his little chest and makes that claim. So what? Is that what you're using for evidence to repeat it?

Not sure what you are saying here. I'm saying if she were not in a parliamentary committee, enjoying immunity from prosecution for anything she said, she would be sued for libel for saying the NCCM were aligned with a terrorist organization without proof.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

I have seen no good reason for her to make such claims, nor have I seen you produce any of these links you claim exist. You just go back to the same source, again and again thinking it's going to say something different this time.

I don't know why you're having trouble finding it. You even quoted it on the previous page. Here's the link again.

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/harper-s ... -as-hamas/

If you're saying that does not support Ablonczy's allegations show me what specifically is missing and I'll show you more.

You keep trotting that out, like something in it has changed. Proof. That's what's missing. Where are these 'ties' Ablonczy claims? That article says anyone who has expressed support for Hamas Terror wing have left the NCCM. So, where are these 'ties'?

People support cause, people have political affiliations. I'm sure if you dig deep enough, there is someone who supports 'Stormfront' in the CPC caucus.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.2992300
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015 ... -from.html

So, by this and other comments that have frequently been dropped by members of the CPC, we must therefore conclude that the CPC and Prime Minister Harper are racists.

CAIR was based in Washington, DC; therefore everyone in Washington DC supports Hamas.

Are these examples of your logic?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But again you can't, because they're supportable facts. That's why the government is not worried about CAIR Canada/NCCM's pitiful Lawfare suit.

In order to justify a lawsuit you would have to prove Ablonczy's allegations are not true.

No, that's not the way it works. Firstly, you cannot prove a negative. This seems to be a concept over your current IQ level. You cannot prove something does not exist, or did not happen. "Prove there is no Santa." You cannot, you can only prove no one has ever seen the mythical 'Santa'. That in an of itself does not prove non-existance.

Further, we live in a society where innocence is assumed, and guilt must be proven. Ablonczy must prove her allegations are true, otherwise she's committing libel. I don't have to 'prove' butkis. I am simply restating things in the article, you are the one claiming ties to an illegal organization. The burden of proof is on you!

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Neither you, the CAIR Canada/NCCM rep, nor the guy from the NDP can do that, and the evidence for that is you don't. You aren't even brave enough to try. You won't try, because you know if you do, I'll prove you're wrong.

That's quitter talk! Since when have I ever been unable to prove something I set out to prove? Not that I'm out to prove anything, besides you are committing the same Libel that the CPC has been.

I'd really like you to prove that the NCCM have ties to Hamas. I have no love for Hamas, and I think that anyone supporting them needs to leave my Canada immediately. That said, you aren't going to be able to prove that they support Hamas with hearsay evidence. "A judge said 10 years ago that . . ." "There are indications of ties between . . ." "9/11 was an inside job! . . ."

What you are going to need, are things like cancelled cheques made out to Abbas from the NCCM, or the 'Welcome to Hamas' membership cards in the wallets of every member of the NCCM's wallet. And we all know that isn't going to happen, you much prefer the hearsay.