I dont have an issue with what he said but it seems like left and right is pissed. The guy cant get a simple message across. He has had to apologize and restate his position more times than any president I can remember. He looks like a goof :uhuh:

Is it what he said? or just the "Gotcha" media on both sides.

I agree 100% with him on this one.

My two points on this:
1. It is not at 'Ground Zero' it is actually several blocks away. Newt et al., make it sound like it is being rebuilt as tower #2!

2. As one of the 9/11 victims husbands put it (paraphrasing), ...the day we start compromising our ideals as a nation, one of them being religious freedom, then the terrorists who carried out those horrific acts have won.

Whether I agree or not with this being a perfect site, I love that we live in a country where people are free to do what is their right to do.

As he keeps P-ing off more and more Americans his credibility gets weaker, his favorable % drops more and now the Gop has a better chance of winning both the house and senate. All we need now is for Biden to add his two cents.

And now Reid is trying to do damage control, but the fire door is jambed in the open position and he is not using the right retardant.

Aand now the Gop has a better chance of winning both the house and senate.

Except that 'Polls' which Spence doesn't believe in, suggest that the GOP's approval is lower then the Dem's in Congress now.

going to be an interesting 2010

I heard someone, a caller to a talk radio program, give a valid suggestion.
They said "Why not have a Multi-faith center at that site?"
It would allow ALL religions equal access with no one being dominant or favored.

Although the proposed site is 2 blocks away from "ground Zero" it is more a question of sesitivity of the topic. Would it be any more favorable to build a Neo-Nazi museum anywhere near the Holocaust Memorial? No, it would be considered a bad choice because of the emotions attached to the history of the events.
The same could be said regarding the mosque location.

Once again it's more a case, I believe, of poor judgement.
It sounds more and more like the all out selling of America to appease "the terrorist" of the world. You know, an amped up version of the "Can't we all get along/Kumbaya/I love you, you love me." rationalization. Instead of standing for something, we appear to be falling for everything!

And that's just not right!

Is it what he said? or just the "Gotcha" media on both sides.

I agree 100% with him on this one.

My two points on this:
1. It is not at 'Ground Zero' it is actually several blocks away. Newt et al., make it sound like it is being rebuilt as tower #2!

2. As one of the 9/11 victims husbands put it (paraphrasing), ...the day we start compromising our ideals as a nation, one of them being religious freedom, then the terrorists who carried out those horrific acts have won.

Whether I agree or not with this being a perfect site, I love that we live in a country where people are free to do what is their right to do.

Bry - I agree with you......but - what Obama said seems like he is trying to pacify everyone and in the end, saying nothing. The polls show most are against the mosque, something like 70%. O says something, then restates it the next day. Almost to satisfy the population. This is consistent. Remember health care? the guy did roadshow after roadshow and still never got his message across. They need to polish their message.

Even WSJ is on him now with their op-ed

It is not the federal government's job to state a position on this either way. Would there be this much outrage and talk about preventing construction if it was a Catholic Church being put up? If not, then the same opinions should apply to a mosque.

The relationship between a bunch of Islamic extremists flying planes into the towers and a mosque wanting to be built down the street shouldn't be considered.

It is not the federal government's job to state a position on this either way. Would there be this much outrage and talk about preventing construction if it was a Catholic Church being put up? If not, then the same opinions should apply to a mosque.

The relationship between a bunch of Islamic extremists flying planes into the towers and a mosque wanting to be built down the street shouldn't be considered.

What would the chatter be if it was going to be a Synagogue?

we live in a country where people are free to do what is their right to do.

yeah! so on the bottom floor we can have a medical marijuana Cafe
so everyone can chill out before going in to pray.:uhuh:

It is not the federal government's job to state a position on this either way. Would there be this much outrage and talk about preventing construction if it was a Catholic Church being put up? If not, then the same opinions should apply to a mosque.

The relationship between a bunch of Islamic extremists flying planes into the towers and a mosque wanting to be built down the street shouldn't be considered.

In principal, you're right. But.....its a matter of sentiment. The people that were responsible for 9/11 made religion a factor. It wasnt the victims. You cant blame people for their feelings against that religion. O should have said what he said day 1 and then shut up. Its not the Feds job to do that. BUT -
its not their job to get involved in Cambridge police business
or racial comments at an NAACP meeting

They have erected a mosque at the site of every great victory.
In a country where you can't say "God" in school or put a baby Jesus on a town common the BS over not allowing a mosque within sight of the graves of thousands killed by Muslims is laughable. You can not defend it. Build it elsewhere.

How about a Planned Parenthood office too.

This is a very stupid, again, thing. I think it's Bush's fault for not telling him to shut the F* up

They have erected a mosque at the site of every great victory.
Good to see the talking points arrived ok.

In a country where you can't say "God" in school or put a baby Jesus on a town common the BS over not allowing a mosque within sight of the graves of thousands killed by Muslims is laughable. You can not defend it. Build it elsewhere.
Yes, but from I hear bigots ironically tend to have a good sense of humor.

-spence

I heard someone, a caller to a talk radio program, give a valid suggestion.
They said "Why not have a Multi-faith center at that site?"
It would allow ALL religions equal access with no one being dominant or favored.
Good idea, I'm going to suggest this to the Catholic church down the street from my house. Last time I checked my Episcopal upbringing wasn't good enough to take communion at their alter...

Although the proposed site is 2 blocks away from "ground Zero" it is more a question of sesitivity of the topic. Would it be any more favorable to build a Neo-Nazi museum anywhere near the Holocaust Memorial? No, it would be considered a bad choice because of the emotions attached to the history of the events.
The same could be said regarding the mosque location.
This would be a valid argument had the proposal been for a "terrorist recruitment and training center" rather than an Islamic center to provide facilities for recreation and prayer for Muslims.

Serious question. Do you just think all Muslims are terrorists in waiting or are you just not that bright? I don't think that's the case...perhaps just too much FOX and Rush.

This applies to Buck as well.

-spence

Good idea, I'm going to suggest this to the Catholic church down the street from my house. Last time I checked my Episcopal upbringing wasn't good enough to take communion at their alter...


This would be a valid argument had the proposal been for a "terrorist recruitment and training center" rather than an Islamic center to provide facilities for recreation and prayer for Muslims.

Serious question. Do you just think all Muslims are terrorists in waiting or are you just not that bright? I don't think that's the case...perhaps just too much FOX and Rush.

This applies to Buck as well.

-spence

I don't think all Muslims are terrorist Spence...But all terrorist are Muslims. You throw the racist, bigot card around just like they taught you. FYI, one of my hunting/fishing buddies is Muslim and the principal of the local Muslim school . My boy goes to the gun club with him often. He thinks it's the wrong place to build it too.
Bottom line. Talking points or not...facts are facts.
Why build it there?????
I guess your the bright bulb on the political forum. We are all better for your wisdom.

But all terrorist are Muslims.

What about the IRA?

What about the IRA?

Are they trying to kill Americans now too???

Are they trying to kill Americans now too???

a one bomb country

I don't think all Muslims are terrorist Spence...But all terrorist are Muslims.
This is only correct when one ignores history.

You throw the racist, bigot card around just like they taught you.
It's a simple question. Either you believe Constitutional rights apply to everyone equally or you think those Muslims might be up to something...

The only argument I could see is if the Imam leading the effort was a known terrorist sympathizer, but it looks like the opposite seems to be the case.

Bottom line. Talking points or not...facts are facts.
You haven't really stated any facts, aside that you know a Muslim guy who's against it and your kid shoots. Perhaps he's against it because he doesn't want the right wing pundits stirring up anti Islamic sentiment.

Why build it there?????
I guess your the bright bulb on the political forum. We are all better for your wisdom.
How many Muslims live and work in the City today? Did you ever think maybe they felt it was a good location for the people who would be going there? It was supposed to be a community center...think easy access...

-spence

When will you guys learn that debating or even paying attention to this kind of crap is a waste of time?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you really believe it is the right wing pundits that are stirring up anti Islamic sentiment, or maybe we could put the blame where it belongs....on the Muslims that commit these cowardly crimes. God forbid you blame the Islamic radicals for their actions.
Just a question... does anyone know if there is a plan for a shrine or tribute to those killed being planned in this "community center" I would guess no.

Are they trying to kill Americans now too???


Timothy McVeigh....

do they have the right - yes.
Is it insensitive to do this in that location - I think so, and so do a lot of Americans.
What adds on to this is most Americans, including me, do not see the "non - terrorist" muslims being vocal or providing any leadership in the fight against terrorism. So its a one way street - we want the religious freedom to build where we want but we are not with "america" in your fight.
If this was a muslim center for understanding or peace or human rights, etc - I think you'd see a different reaction.

Any Japanese temples at pearl harbor?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's been a while since I've seen people attempt to legitimately justify their own bigotry and ignorance.

Hey buck, how about we put all the Muslims in internment camps like they did with the Japanese during WWII?:doh:




*Edit* Damn you nebe for beating me to a WWII reference.

Timothy McVeigh....

Dad - I'll get right to the point since there have been way too many battles on this with RIR, Spence and others on this over the years. Here it is -

If you get on a plane with your kids and there are 5 US army soliders (McVeigh was in the military), 5 Irish speaking guys, 5 Nuns or 5 men in islamic garb - tell me that you would have the same safety concerns regardless of the group? If you say yes, you are dumb.
I cant put it anymore straightforward than that.
I dont worry about sharks when I swim in a lake. My brain has evolved to be able to determine risk based on what I witness and the environment, Its why man is the top of the food chain. Ignoring the overwhelming evidence is counter to evolution.
If you entered the terrorist attack data over the last 50 years into a computer and computed the liklihood of "who" would be most likely to commit a terrorist act the data would be OVERWHELMING that it would be muslim. Facts are facts.

Any Japanese temples at pearl harbor?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they own pearl harbor and everything surrounding it. see what a great country we live in? Its suprising what hard work and partnership can do to heal wounds. Japan is our strongest ally.

Do you really believe it is the right wing pundits that are stirring up anti Islamic sentiment, or maybe we could put the blame where it belongs....on the Muslims that commit these cowardly crimes. God forbid you blame the Islamic radicals for their actions.
Just a question... does anyone know if there is a plan for a shrine or tribute to those killed being planned in this "community center" I would guess no.
You're blending up a lot of issues into a sticky mess.

There's a very vocal part of the Right wing in this country that's absolutely anti-Islam. Of this I don't think there can be much debate. You also have a punditry who will use "tolerance" issues to attack Liberals in the political area for short-term gain.

There's also plenty of condemnation for acts of "terrorism" all around. I'd note that you say the "Muslims" that commit these crimes and not the "terrorists" that commit this crimes?

As for a shrine, once again you're lumping terrorists with mainstream Muslims. It's almost as if you believe they should feel guilty for 9/11.

The irony in all of this is that it's exactly what Bin Laden had hoped to achieve. Americans taking away the rights of Muslims in the US because of their faith. And then you wonder why there's such anti-US sentiment in the Islamic world...

-spence

The irony in all of this is that it's exactly what Bin Laden had hoped to achieve. Americans taking away the rights of Muslims in the US because of their faith. And then you wonder why there's such anti-US sentiment in the Islamic world...

-spence

ahh - see how you are blinded? No wants to "take away their rights". We have religious freedom, but we alos have freedom of speech. Is it wrong for people to question and react to this?
People believe it is insensitive to do this in that area.
I would think Muslims would understand, no? I mean they (and this is NOT RADICALS) have made death threats for cartoon artisits and writers. they require their woman to cover their faces. they must undertstand emotions, no?

Obama shouldn't have a stance or an opinion on this either way. If he does, it should not be public. Seperation of church and state.

We don't hear his opinion on construction of churchs or temples.

ahh - see how you are blinded?
No.

No wants to "take away their rights".
Sure they do. Some want to take away their "right" to move forward with their "already approved permits" simply because of their religion.

We have religious freedom, but we alos have freedom of speech. Is it wrong for people to question and react to this?
People obviously have the right to their opinion...it becomes an issue when it impacts the freedoms of others.

People believe it is insensitive to do this in that area.
I would think Muslims would understand, no? I mean they (and this is NOT RADICALS) have made death threats for cartoon artisits and writers. they require their woman to cover their faces. they must undertstand emotions, no?
To do what? Live? Pray? Exercise?

Should we declare Manhatten a "Muslim Free Zone" because it might scare somebody into believing there's going to be another attack...ANY SECOND?

During the recession you saw a lot more women from the Middle East shopping in Boston, some covered head to toe with only a slit for the eyes exposed. I'd have to think this made some people more than a little nervous what with 9/11 and all.

Should we ban that as well?

You're on the slippery slope.

-spence

Obama shouldn't have a stance or an opinion on this either way. If he does, it should not be public. Seperation of church and state.

We don't hear his opinion on construction of churchs or temples.
Obama's remark was targeted at the Constitutional aspect, which as POTUS he's sworn to uphold.

-spence

Obama's remark was targeted at the Constitutional aspect, which as POTUS he's sworn to uphold.

-spence

Then he did a great job. If you consider flip-flopping upholding the Constitution.

Bottom line in all of this is that he made a comment on something without the White House having any idea he was going to. Then, when he realized that the publicity to his comments was negative, he decided to try to talk his way out of it. This made the story much bigger than it should be because he looks weak or indecisive for his flip-flop.

Personally, I think it's great. The negative press should have been on the Palins and Gingrich's of the world, yet Obama's taking the brunt of it. I't's like the Cambridge police situation.

No.


Sure they do. Some want to take away their "right" to move forward with their "already approved permits" simply because of their religion.



-spence

no - MOST (not some Spence, polls say MOST) believe it is insensitive to the families of the deceased to erect a muslim center close to ground zzero because the murder of these people was committed in the name of __________ by people the people who are in the ____________ religion.
There is no "simply". It is understandable.

Then he did a great job. If you consider flip-flopping upholding the Constitution.
I didn't see any flip flop, he simply clarified his remark as pertaining to the legal rather than ethical or emotional aspects of the issue.

Politically it may have not been the best thing to do as it's opened up a can of worms, but that's a different issue.

-spence

I didn't see any flip flop, he simply clarified his remark as pertaining to the legal rather than ethical or emotional aspects of the issue.

Politically it may have not been the best thing to do as it's opened up a can of worms, but that's a different issue.

-spence

He flip flopped.




flip-flop


noun (plural flip-flops)

Definition:

1. dress backless sandal: a backless foam-rubber sandal with a V-shaped strap secured between the toes and at the sides of the foot ( informal )


2. North America change of mind: a change of opinion, especially by a politician ( informal )

Obama shouldn't have a stance or an opinion on this either way. If he does, it should not be public. Seperation of church and state.

We don't hear his opinion on construction of churchs or temples.

This was his 2nd bad opinion. His 1st was when he took the Cambridge cop to task. The professor, Mr. Bates is a racist as is the President. Do not forget who this Prisidents mentor was and still is for the past 20 years,"Rev. Wright."

Further more the Taliban is in the White House.

will women be allowed to attend the trophy mosque?...or will they have to enter with the children through a small hatch in a back alley and worship in the basement with the livestock?


Police remove Muslim women from US mosque for breaking segregation rules


Police were called by an imam conducting a rug-butting session attended by around 20 men after Fatima Thompson, a convert to Islam, entered the male-only area with five “progressive” supporters.


The imam interrupted prayers to announce by microphone:

We are going to wait, because some people came to disturb the prayer, until the police come and take care of this issue.

Within minutes, three police officers arrived and told the women to leave or face arrest.

Washington police enforcing sharia law? Who woulda thunk it?

Thompson, who converted to Islam 18 years ago, said:

Wooden barriers have to be taken down and women have to be allowed to join, to pray behind the men in the main praying area. That’s our request.

She added:

We are against gender segregation, against the fact that women are put aside or in a totally different room at the mosque.

The Sunday protest was the second time women have sought to share the main prayer area at the mosque in Washington DC, after a group of women first tried in February.

Thompson said.

The general issue we are pushing is gender segregation and the ramifications it fosters. It’s not healthy, and not reflective of our society here. It’s very reflective of very restrictive, ultra orthodox societies.

Their hair covered with headscarves, the group entered the mosque’s prayer area via the main door usually reserved for men. Women and children ordinarily enter the Washington mosque, located in the city’s embassy district, through a small door hidden behind a screen.

Asra Nomani, a Muslim feminist who has participated in similar protests elsewhere in the United States, said:

If you are black in this country they can’t tell you to sit in a corner but if you are a woman they can.

The source of contention, according to Bare Naked Islam, is a small room created with seven foot high wooden walls. Jannah B’int Hannah describes how she feels in there where she cannot see the imam, or leader of the mosque, speak.

Boxed in, stifling, suffocating and totally a second class citizen.

Last month, Hannah and approximately 20 other women entered the main hall to pray, but D C police were called. They asked them to leave or be arrested.

Syed Burmi, the imam of Islamic Society of Western Maryland, says the physical separation helps maintain women’s privacy and modesty as well as keeps the focus on prayer.

"If I stand next to a lady or a woman stands next to me, maybe the focus will change and no longer be on God the Almighty. So that’s why we put the partition".

It's been a while since I've seen people attempt to legitimately justify their own bigotry and ignorance.

Hey buck, how about we put all the Muslims in internment camps like they did with the Japanese during WWII?:doh:




*Edit* Damn you nebe for beating me to a WWII reference.

Good point JD. I never thought of that. :rotf2:

You're blending up a lot of issues into a sticky mess.

There's a very vocal part of the Right wing in this country that's absolutely anti-Islam. Of this I don't think there can be much debate. You also have a punditry who will use "tolerance" issues to attack Liberals in the political area for short-term gain.

There's also plenty of condemnation for acts of "terrorism" all around. I'd note that you say the "Muslims" that commit these crimes and not the "terrorists" that commit this crimes?

As for a shrine, once again you're lumping terrorists with mainstream Muslims. It's almost as if you believe they should feel guilty for 9/11.

The irony in all of this is that it's exactly what Bin Laden had hoped to achieve. Americans taking away the rights of Muslims in the US because of their faith. And then you wonder why there's such anti-US sentiment in the Islamic world...

-spence

Since I've been labaled a member of the KKK, and your insane, how about we let the firemen and policemen decide where it should go???

Come to think of it...they better build it flame proof because response time may be a little slow. They are short a few of their finest since the towers were destroyed.

FYI, just in case you forgot that was the second time the um.. terrorist, bombed it.

You were wrong about the trial in NY and you will be wrong about this.

Check out the Mosque only 80 feet from the Pentagon. Your heads will explode.

Check out the Mosque only 80 feet from the Pentagon. Your heads will explode.

factcheck....

The truth is that there is no "mosque" in the Pentagon, according to Army spokesman George Wright. There is a chapel inside the Pentagon where Muslim employees can go to pray, as ABC News recently reported. It’s just not exclusive to followers of Islam.

The Pentagon’s non-denominational chapel was built and dedicated in 2002 in honor of Pentagon employees and passengers of American Airlines Flight 77 who died in the terrorist attack on the building on Sept. 11, 2001. The chapel was constructed at the site where the hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon nearly nine years ago.

Wright told us that the chapel, which can seat about 100 people, hosts services throughout the week for Pentagon employees of various faiths including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Episcopalians, Hindus and Muslims. Wright said that the chapel’s schedule for the week of August 16 actually includes daily mass for Catholics; Bible study sessions for Protestants, Jews and members of the Church of Latter Day Saints; as well as a prayer service for Muslims.

The chapel is run by the Office of the Pentagon Chaplain, and prior to its construction, all religious services were reportedly held in either conference rooms, auditoriums or informal prayer rooms inside the Pentagon

Thanks for the correction - the newspaper I saw it in said "Mosque".

My point isn't that there are no such thing as Muslim Terrorists.

A statement was made that ALL terrorists are Muslim.....I simply wanted to point out that that is just not true. That was the extent of my point....nothing more, nothing less.

If the statement was made that the majority of terrorists are Muslim I wouldn't have said a word....because that, in this day and age, IS true.

I also have no issue with your post because, Sadly, I would give the Muslim guys a second look....I wouldn't be proud of the fact....but I would still do it.

Now in your same Scenario, what if it turned out that the 5 guys in Military garb (you really don't know that they are Army Soldiers) ended up blowing up something......but you didn't notice the signs or keep an eye on them because you were to busy keeping your eye on the Muslim guys.

Now if the beer was missing on the flight You'd better believe I would be all over those 5 Irish Guys....Bastards

Dad - I'll get right to the point since there have been way too many battles on this with RIR, Spence and others on this over the years. Here it is -

If you get on a plane with your kids and there are 5 US army soliders (McVeigh was in the military), 5 Irish speaking guys, 5 Nuns or 5 men in islamic garb - tell me that you would have the same safety concerns regardless of the group? If you say yes, you are dumb.
I cant put it anymore straightforward than that.
I dont worry about sharks when I swim in a lake. My brain has evolved to be able to determine risk based on what I witness and the environment, Its why man is the top of the food chain. Ignoring the overwhelming evidence is counter to evolution.
If you entered the terrorist attack data over the last 50 years into a computer and computed the liklihood of "who" would be most likely to commit a terrorist act the data would be OVERWHELMING that it would be muslim. Facts are facts.

Since I've been labaled a member of the KKK, and your insane, how about we let the firemen and policemen decide where it should go???

Come to think of it...they better build it flame proof because response time may be a little slow. They are short a few of their finest since the towers were destroyed.

So I assume you believe that no first responders were Muslim, or that no Muslims were killed in the attack?

You were wrong about the trial in NY and you will be wrong about this.
That was an opinion, here we're talking about the law.

-spence

He flip flopped.




flip-flop


noun (plural flip-flops)

Definition:

1. dress backless sandal: a backless foam-rubber sandal with a V-shaped strap secured between the toes and at the sides of the foot ( informal )


2. North America change of mind: a change of opinion, especially by a politician ( informal )

So you're saying he was wearing flip flops?

-spence

So you're saying he was wearing flip flops?

-spence

only if they were made by Bruno Magli

So I assume you believe that no first responders were Muslim, or that no Muslims were killed in the attack?


-spence

you are aware that there are a lot of Muslims opposed to the building of this mosque and recognize that is is not only a bad idea but more likely an intentional provocation? .......but radical islam and the left in America seem to be in complete agreement:uhuh:

So I assume you believe that no first responders were Muslim, or that no Muslims were killed in the attack?


-spence

Why would you assume that?
We both can agree that Islamic radicals have no problem killing Muslims.

YouTube - Pelosi calls for Ground Zero Mosque "Opposition Funding" Investigation.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu7ip4AM7PI)

Now that Nancy Pelosi has stuck her pig-nose into this subject (Pelosi wants to investigate mosque foes), can we all agree that the subject has now "jumped the shark"?
When we have people that are completely unqualified to think, let alone talk in the media about a subject then we truly are lost as a civilized country.
Who will chime in next?
Maybe Jerry Springer has a comment?
Or Oprah?
Or maybe some celebrity pundit will spew forth pearls of wisdom about a topic they know nothing about?

There, now I'm done.

Let the mosque-fest continue.

no - MOST (not some Spence, polls say MOST) believe it is insensitive to the families of the deceased to erect a muslim center close to ground zzero because the murder of these people was committed in the name of __________ by people the people who are in the ____________ religion.
There is no "simply". It is understandable.
Once again, I think polling on this subject is highly suspect. Not that it doesn't reflect what people are thinking, but what exactly are they thinking?

I'd wager most people have formed opinions based on the controversy rather than the real story. When you have pundits attacking the "9/11 MEGA MOSQUE" and that they "ALWAYS BUILD MOSQUES ON THE SITE OF GREAT VICTORIES" you're going to build a jaded public opinion.

From what I gather the Imam leading the effort is pretty mainstream and the intent is to build a community center, not a Mosque.

So take the polls for what they are, but remember, nine years ago a majority of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11.

-spence

So take the polls for what they are, but remember, nine years ago a majority of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11.

-spence

They did????

From a moral perspective, it's not a good idea to build the mosque.
But I think it's a good political decision to support the building of the mosque. Figure some militia group in Idaho is already stock piling diesel and nitrogen-based fertilizer - the mosque won't last long. This way he can support the mosque and memorialize it too.

They did????

Yes, they did...

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

-spence

Yes, they did...

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

-spence

But wait. Isn't that why we invaded Iraq?
Holy sheet were we lied to?

Baaah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, they did...

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

-spence

I don't see art. I see your son's crap.

Yes, they did...

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

-spence

"Link"....given the reports about Salman Pak at the time, Saddam's history of supporting terrorism and unceasing bad behavior, and probably thanks to the constant villification of Saddam including comparisons to Hitler by the Clinton administration and top democrats and the lib media all through the 90's, Americans thought it quite possible that there was some link...:uhuh:

Yes, they did...

USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

-spence

A man much smarter then I once said...

"I think polling on this subject is highly suspect. Not that it doesn't reflect what people are thinking, but what exactly are they thinking?"

Wild guess, you were in the other 30% column, right?:rotf2:

A man much smarter then I once said...

"I think polling on this subject is highly suspect. Not that it doesn't reflect what people are thinking, but what exactly are they thinking?"

Wild guess, you were in the other 30% column, right?:rotf2:

"smarter" is certainly subjective....:uhuh:

"Link"....given the reports about Salman Pak at the time, Saddam's history of supporting terrorism and unceasing bad behavior, and probably thanks to the constant villification of Saddam including comparisons to Hitler by the Clinton administration and top democrats and the lib media all through the 90's, Americans thought it quite possible that there was some link...:uhuh:
Oh I agree, and we now know that it was a direct result of the Administration "marketing" a case for war based on weak and inconclusive evidence.

So the polls probably did reflect public opinion, which was a "product" of an intentional effort to manipulate.

-spence

Oh I agree, and we now know that it was a direct result of the Administration "marketing" a case for war based on weak and inconclusive evidence.

So the polls probably did reflect public opinion, which was a "product" of an intentional effort to manipulate.

-spence

you ability to lie to yourself is stunning...

you need to replace "we know"...with..."I believe" because the two are entirely different things

you ability to lie to yourself is stunning...

you need to replace "we know"...with..."I believe" because the two are entirely different things
When the amount of credible reporting, insider accounts and documentation is overwhelming and points to a single conclusion...the difference between "we know" and "I believe" can in fact be so small as the two are indistinguishable.

-spence

Why has the firefighter and policemen unions been silent about this issue of the Mosque, one way or the other?

This is a non issue

This is a non issue


yup. It really is. Its a shame there is so much anger in the world...

Religion sucks. Especially when you get into the 'my religion is better than yours ' mindset.

Unless this is a Holy War at its core - the Last Crusade, if you will. And all this time we've been trying desperately to delude ourselves into not believing in a holy-war-in-terrorism's-clothing. My catechism education has been at odds with my belief in freedom and democracy for some time. It would be easier to discount if events were not playing out in such a scripted, apocalyptic fashion.

This would be good fodder for a South Park episode. Lots of ironic humor here.

People spouting "hallowed ground?" Did they forget to put an "S" in front of the word? Nearly 10 years and still no fabulous monument. Are the plans still going forward? Does our secular society really care any more about things sacred or profane? Sometimes it makes good fodder for the next election. In the meantime, while we impotently dither over constructing a monument on this hallowed ground, the Muslims are powerfully focused on building a mosque there.

And it must be in or in the immediate proximity of that spot. And you must understand the reason that it must be there and nowhere else. It is a bridge to peace--a reaching out to show the goodwill of the muslim community (not a large financial contribution to build the stalled monument to the fallen of 9/11, or to ease the pain of those who lost loved ones there, but . . .a mosque). Somewhat similar to a man who in some blind rage beats his wife, then realizing it was not so nice to do, he makes amends by buying himself a new set of golf clubs--a gift to show he understands her pain.

And then we get the reciprocal show of understanding and peace from the POTUS. They have a constitutional right to build that mosque, this is America. Don't we understand that? Well, of course we do--never was an issue. But . . . coming from someone who sees so much in the Constitution that doesn't exist . . . ? For folks like O and his side of politics, the Constitution is a living, breathing thing that changes with time and opinion. Just about anything, if you use enough slippery language and have judges who "interpret" it your way, is constitutional.

Perhaps we need to be reminded that things that live and breath, eventually stop doing so. And, in the limited realm of perception that we humans are prone to, death is a disappearance, not a change.

Why has the firefighter and policemen unions been silent about this issue of the Mosque, one way or the other?

Because they aren't idiotic bigots that believe in the Constitution.

Why are so many on the Right that have stated Obama stomps on the Constitution also so quick to discriminate a group based on their religion?

Why are so many on the left who despise religion and anything with the word "God" in it so amped up to put a mosque at ground zero?

I mean the left spends countless fortunes fighting to get the pledge of allegiance banned from schools, crosses out of public buildings, "god" off the dollar bill and a santa off the roof at the town hall..... but are fighting for their life to have an Imam who wants America to become Sharia compliant to build a supermosque at the foot of the worst terror attack in our History?

This would be good fodder for a South Park episode. Lots of ironic humor here.

People spouting "hallowed ground?" Did they forget to put an "S" in front of the word? Nearly 10 years and still no fabulous monument. Are the plans still going forward? Does our secular society really care any more about things sacred or profane? Sometimes it makes good fodder for the next election. In the meantime, while we impotently dither over constructing a monument on this hallowed ground, the Muslims are powerfully focused on building a mosque there.

And it must be in or in the immediate proximity of that spot. And you must understand the reason that it must be there and nowhere else. It is a bridge to peace--a reaching out to show the goodwill of the muslim community (not a large financial contribution to build the stalled monument to the fallen of 9/11, or to ease the pain of those who lost loved ones there, but . . .a mosque). Somewhat similar to a man who in some blind rage beats his wife, then realizing it was not so nice to do, he makes amends by buying himself a new set of golf clubs--a gift to show he understands her pain.

And then we get the reciprocal show of understanding and peace from the POTUS. They have a constitutional right to build that mosque, this is America. Don't we understand that? Well, of course we do--never was an issue. But . . . coming from someone who sees so much in the Constitution that doesn't exist . . . ? For folks like O and his side of politics, the Constitution is a living, breathing thing that changes with time and opinion. Just about anything, if you use enough slippery language and have judges who "interpret" it your way, is constitutional.

Perhaps we need to be reminded that things that live and breath, eventually stop doing so. And, in the limited realm of perception that we humans are prone to, death is a disappearance, not a change.

I see Detbutch has been on a David Carradine cinematic bender :uhuh:

-spence

Why are so many on the left who despise religion and anything with the word "God" in it so amped up to put a mosque at ground zero?

I mean the left spends countless fortunes fighting to get the pledge of allegiance banned from schools, crosses out of public buildings, "god" off the dollar bill and a santa off the roof at the town hall..... but are fighting for their life to have an Imam who wants America to become Sharia compliant to build a supermosque at the foot of the worst terror attack in our History?
A fine example of what happens when your primary source of news and information are Sarah Palin's TWEETS :hihi:

-spence

Because they aren't idiotic bigots that believe in the Constitution.

Why are so many on the Right that have stated Obama stomps on the Constitution also so quick to discriminate a group based on their religion?

the small-minded run quickly to their favored insults...

Phoenix Muslim Organization says “Ground Zero Mosque” should not be built

by reneeschaferhorton on Aug. 17, 2010,

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the Phoenix-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy wants to clarify a few things for President Barack Obama about the fracas over the 13-story Muslim cultural center planned for construction a few blocks from Ground Zero.

Jassar, who calls himself a “devout Muslim,” released this statement this weekend:

As an American Muslim whose family fled persecution in Syria and as someone who has stood in the face of some resistance to the building of many of our houses of worship in the U.S., I fully understand the value of standing for religious freedom in America. But President Obama’s statement about the Ground Zero mosque at last night’s White House Iftar dinner is the latest example of political correctness gone awry.

Jassar goes on to say Obama has “fundamentally misunderstood the stakes in this discussion and the sentiments of the American people. Instead, you have focused on the very issue that the Islamist propagandists wish you to– the narrative that Americans somehow need lectures about Islam, Muslims, and religious freedom.”

More from Jassar’s open letter to Obama:

This isn’t about playing nice with the bully on the playground. This is about honoring the deaths of the thousands who lost their lives on 9/11 at the hands of Muslim radicals who would do the same act again without a moment’s hesitation and who believe the world will not be whole until everyone follows Islam the way they say Islam should be followed. It is, Jassar said, about what is right.

Mr. President this is not about religious freedom. It is about the importance of the World Trade Center site to the psyche of the American People. It is about a blatant attack on our sovereignty by people whose ideology ultimately demands the elimination of our way of life. While Imam Faisal Rauf may not share their violent tendencies he does seem to share a belief that Islamic structures are a political statement and even Ground Zero should be looked upon through the lens of political Islam and not a solely American one. … ‘Park 51’, ‘The Cordoba House’ or whatever they are calling it today should not be built, not because it is not their right to do it – but because it is not right to do it.” Mr. President, your involvement in this issue is divisive not uniting. Your follow-up stating that ‘you will not speak to the wisdom of the construction of that mosque and center’ indicates a passive-aggressive meddling on your part that only marginalizes those Muslim and non-Muslim voices against it while pretending to understand both sides of the debate.
Are the majority of Muslims terrorist lunatics? No; the majority are just regular people who want to live their lives and practice their religion the way they’d like. But according to an imam who used to live in Tucson, at least 1 million of the world’s 1 billion Muslims believe the garbage spouted by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban – that the U.S. and everyone in it is Satan and must be conquered by Islam. And you know what? That crazy one percent has the will and ability to slaughter anyone who disagrees with them and laugh about it afterwards.

As a Muslim desperate to reform his faith, your remarks take us backwards from the day that my faith will come into modernity. I do not stand to eliminate Imam Rauf’s religious freedom; I stand to make sure that my children’s religious freedom will be determined by the liberty guaranteed in the American Constitution and not by clerics or leaders who are apologists for shar’iah law and will tell me what religious freedom is.

this, from Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, a general manager of a TV station based in Dubai:

… I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam. This is what has started to happen now; they claim that there is a mosque being built over the corpses of 3,000 killed US citizens, who were buried alive by people chanting God is great, which is the same call that will be heard from the mosque.

A fine example of what happens when your primary source of news and information are Sarah Palin's TWEETS :hihi:

-spence

Did you mean T_TS UU or Tweets?? I'm confused :rotf2::rotf2:

This is a non issue

I would think you would want to ask the 3000 families and friends of those murdered on 9-11 if they think it's a non issue.

Because they aren't idiotic bigots that believe in the Constitution.

Why are so many on the Right that have stated Obama stomps on the Constitution also so quick to discriminate a group based on their religion?

Another Right wing group so quick to discriminate against a group based on their religion JD




Breitbart.tv Beck Forbidden to Pray at Kennedy Center Event (http://www.breitbart.tv/beck-forbidden-to-pray-at-kennedy-center-event/)

I would think you would want to ask the 3000 families and friends of those murdered on 9-11 if they think it's a non issue.

Some here would consider them idiotic bigots.

this is great

Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition)

this is great

Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition)

Yep, once again he nails it...

-spence

Some here would consider them idiotic bigots.
"Because they aren't idiotic bigots that believe in the Constitution.
Why are so many on the Right that have stated Obama stomps on the Constitution also so quick to discriminate a group based on their religion?" .

wow, I thought that it was only right wing bigot, racist, intolerant haters that opposed the trophy mosque...maybe if some here spent less time with their primary source of news and information...Comedy Central...they wouldn't make such errors in assertions...


Mosque debate divides Democrats, especially in NY

Mosque debate divides Democrats, especially in NY - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_divided_democrats)

wow, I thought that it was only right wing bigot, racist, intolerant haters that opposed the trophy mosque...maybe if some here spent less time with their primary source of news and information...Comedy Central...they wouldn't make such errors in assertions...


Mosque debate divides Democrats, especially in NY

Mosque debate divides Democrats, especially in NY - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_divided_democrats)

This is I think the second time today I think you've posted stories without really reading them.

-spence

Yep, once again he nails it...

-spence


I bet he runs for president one day.. hopefully his script writers will be on his cabinet...:love:

Hey., Barry, STFU without a tele-prompter, didn't you learn anything watching the Bushes? Leave that to Romney and Kerry.

This is I think the second time today I think you've posted stories without really reading them.

-spence

actually I did... and it's funny that many of them oppose the buliding of the mosque for exactly the reasons stated by most others who are being labeled bigots, racists, intolerant and something about the Constitution (in other words, sane, reasonable people who the insane left can't wait to villify) and whom Nazi Pelosi would like to use the power of the government to investigate...
as usual, you and your president are on the wrong side of the issue

Politico

August 17, 2010
Categories:Congress.NY members in swing districts coming out against mosque

After almost total silence from New York elected officials over the weekend after President Obama's mosque speech (in which some members were out of town, or pocket), the reactions from members in swing districts are starting to come in — and they're almost all at odds with the president.

As I noted earlier, Rep. Michael Arcuri, a Democratic incumbent in NY-24, came out against the project.

This was the full statement from NY-13 Democratic Rep. Mike McMahon, who's facing a challenge this fall including from one law-and-order candidate, and who represents a district from which hundreds of Sept. 11 victims hail:

"The proposed plan to build a mosque by ground zero is a local land use matter that the mayor, borough president, local officials and community leaders need to address. The federal government has no role in zoning, nor should it.

“Personally, as someone who is elected to defend and uphold our Constitution, I take seriously the right to freedom of religion that it protects. This is not the first time that the construction of a house of worship at a sensitive site has been questioned and opposed, and as happened in those times, we need a compromise that respects all parties.

“We have seen very clearly in the past weeks that building a mosque two blocks from ground zero will not promote necessary interfaith dialogue, but will continue to fracture the faiths and citizens of our city and this country. As such, I am opposed to the construction of the Cordoba Center at the currently-proposed location and urge all parties to work with local community leaders to find a more appropriate site.

“Muslim Americans deserve the right to practice their faith — as we all do. I believe a new location is the right compromise so that Muslim Americans can worship without eliciting feelings that push us away from our country's basic tenet of religious acceptance while the families of 9/11 victims obtain the peace of mind they deserve.”


And via Newsday, Rep. Steve Israel, the Democrat in NY-2, said, "While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further."

More Democrats against the GZ mosque

August 17, 2010 12:49 PM By Matthew Shaffer
New York Democrats are quickly declaring opposition to the GZ mosque. Rep. Michael Arcuri (D., N.Y.) said in a statement:

“The pain felt by many Americans from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is still very real, and I can understand how the thought of building a mosque near Ground Zero could reopen those wounds. For the sake of the victims and their families, I think another location should be chosen.”
Arcuri saw the obvious — encouraging the choice of another location does not entail a violation of First Amendment rights or freedom of religion. This was the theme for a deluge of Democratic representatives from the Empire State.

Rep. Mike McMahon issued an eloquent statement. A highlight:

“This is not the first time that the construction of a house of worship at a sensitive site has been questioned and opposed… Muslim Americans deserve the right to practice their faith – as we all do. I believe a new location is the right compromise so that Muslim Americans can worship … while the families of 9/11 victims obtain the peace of mind they deserve.”
And Rep. Steve Israel:

“While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further.”

And Rep. Tim Bishop:

“Ground Zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right.”

They were contradicted by one fellow New York Democrat. According to Rep. Anthony Weiner, for a “member of Congress [to be] weighing in on this stuff” would be a “violation of the clear separation of church and state.” As the New York Post replied, “Huh?” If Weiner still believes that, when will he condemn his fellow Dems for clear violations of our founding principles?

That brings the tally of Democrats opposing the Ground Zero mosque to at least five congressmen (the New Yorkers plus Altmire), one Senate majority leader, and 54 percent of their own voters

Rep. Tim Bishop, whose NY-1 district has three GOP challengers duking it out, said, "As a New Yorker, I believe ground zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right."

Another Right wing group so quick to discriminate against a group based on their religion JD




Breitbart.tv Beck Forbidden to Pray at Kennedy Center Event (http://www.breitbart.tv/beck-forbidden-to-pray-at-kennedy-center-event/)

Did they ask his religion before saying that he couldn't start his speech with an opening prayer? Unless the conversation was something like, "Oh, you're Mormon? Sorry, we don't allow your people to pray here," then I'm trying to understand your point.

Did they ask his religion before saying that he couldn't start his speech with an opening prayer? Unless the conversation was something like, "Oh, you're Mormon? Sorry, we don't allow your people to pray here," then I'm trying to understand your point.

his point is that in this case the Kennedy Center, which is essentially a government building(built and maintained with federal funds), tried to stop prayer....noone has suggested that the muslims don't have a Constitutional right right to build a mosque, to worship freely and to pray....the 1st Ammendment guarantees that "GOVERNMENT" may not establish a religeon nor prohibit the free exercise of and the 14th to some extent through equal protection, but these are limits on government...Government is not stopping the construction of the mosque nor are they stopping the free exercise of religeon in the Mosque case...in fact the local govt. is apparently in favor...it's the American People both locally and Nationwide that oppose the location for obvious reasons and they are perfectly within their rights to voice that opinion...if they'd chosen any other site there would not have been peep...the site was chosen to be provocative, ....in the Beck case it is indeed government that is/was "prohibiting the free exercise of"....

so we have the spectacle of Nazi Pelosi, who would like to USE the POWER of government to investigate those opposed to the mosque...we have SOME MEMBERS of the least tolerant religeon on the planet screaming demands for tolerance with straw man Constitutional protections and we have the overwhelming majority of Americans who simply want the builders to reconsider the location of the mosque now under attack from the radical left in this country led by a radical president and the power of government that they currently wield....very nice :uhuh:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf after September 11, 2001:

"The United States and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end."

actually I did... and it's funny that many of them oppose the buliding of the mosque for exactly the reasons stated by most others who are being labeled bigots, racists, intolerant and something about the Constitution (in other words, sane, reasonable people who the insane left can't wait to villify) and whom Nazi Pelosi would like to use the power of the government to investigate...
as usual, you and your president are on the wrong side of the issue
Wow, you had to really manipulate those ideas to get that to make sense.

The opposition from the Left and Islamic voices is based primarily in the notion that this entire debate is divisive and they want it to go away. Some Dems are afraid of reelection and don't want to take a strong position.

The opposition from the Right is founded on blending moderate and radical Muslims together exploiting existing tension and stereotypes.

Both are wrong.

There was an interesting interview this morning with the wife of the Imam and question and the Executive Director of the JCC (Jewish Community Center) in NYC who helped plan the Cordoba House. Hell, the freaking thing is being modeled after the JCC!

What's insensitive to the 9/11 families is the Right wing punditry rubbing salt in the wounds from that terrible day to score cheap political points, further dividing the nation and fueling anti-Islamic sentiment. They're making America weaker at home and inspiring our enemies abroad.

As I've said before, this debate isn't even about the actual community center but just the controversy surrounding it. It's one gigantic circle jerk where everybody looses.

Wake up.

-spence

Wow, you had to really manipulate those ideas to get that to make sense.

The opposition from the Left and Islamic voices is based primarily in the notion that this entire debate is divisive and they want it to go away. Some Dems are afraid of reelection and don't want to take a strong position.

The opposition from the Right is founded on blending moderate and radical Muslims together exploiting existing tension and stereotypes.

Both are wrong.

There was an interesting interview this morning with the wife of the Imam and question and the Executive Director of the JCC (Jewish Community Center) in NYC who helped plan the Cordoba House. Hell, the freaking thing is being modeled after the JCC!

What's insensitive to the 9/11 families is the Right wing punditry rubbing salt in the wounds from that terrible day to score cheap political points, further dividing the nation and fueling anti-Islamic sentiment. They're making America weaker at home and inspiring our enemies abroad.

As I've said before, this debate isn't even about the actual community center but just the controversy surrounding it. It's one gigantic circle jerk where everybody looses.

Wake up.

-spence

that is very weak....

that is very weak....
Great response. I was fully expecting a 12 MB cut and paste retort on the failings of Jimmy Carter.

-spence

Great response. I was fully expecting a 12 MB cut and paste retort on the failings of Jimmy Carter.

-spence

the Jimmy Carter years have been erased....

I would think you would want to ask the 3000 families and friends of those murdered on 9-11 if they think it's a non issue.

Some here would consider them idiotic bigots.

Hmmm....
Some family members of 9/11 victims to support mosque construction - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/25/new.york.islamic.center.rally/index.html?hpt=T2)
The coalition's goals include support of "religious freedom and diversity" and the rejection of "crude stereotypes meant to frighten and divide us."

People in here need to start being reminded of the Constitution, the right to religious freedom and that the government cannot discriminate based on religion. People also need to stop vilifying an entire population based on the actions of a micro-percentage of that group.

People also need to stop vilifying an entire population based on the actions of a micro-percentage of that group.

Good Luck with that......

Good Luck with that......

Yup. Been that way for eons and not bound to change.

quick and simple questions for Johnny D and Spence -
1. Do you want anti- abortion protestors at Planned Parenthood heckling girls as they enter?
2. Do you want anti-military protestors at the funerals of service men/women KIA?

The fact is they have the constitutional right to do those things. However most people dont think its the right thing to do. Exact same thing as this mosque, simple concept that you do not seem to be able to grasp.

quick and simple questions for Johnny D and Spence -
1. Do you want anti- abortion protestors at Planned Parenthood heckling girls as they enter?
2. Do you want anti-military protestors at the funerals of service men/women KIA?

The fact is they have the constitutional right to do those things. However most people dont think its the right thing to do. Exact same thing as this mosque, simple concept that you do not seem to be able to grasp.
I think you're missing with this one.

In both cases, the protests can be considered out of the mainstream. Perhaps less so for anti-abortion advocates , but certainly the groups protesting the military are way, way out there.

The abortion issue may be closer as there is a large % of Americans that do believe in the right to life issue, but the majority wouldn't join a picket line. But when you think about it, drawing a parallel between when life begins and religious fanaticism is a really big stretch!

So same issue I say they are not.

-spence

quick and simple questions for Johnny D and Spence -
1. Do you want anti- abortion protestors at Planned Parenthood heckling girls as they enter?
2. Do you want anti-military protestors at the funerals of service men/women KIA?

The fact is they have the constitutional right to do those things. However most people dont think its the right thing to do. Exact same thing as this mosque, simple concept that you do not seem to be able to grasp.

1. Nope
2. Nope

The difference in your example is that 1 and 2 are Constitutional. Telling a particular religion that it cannot build a Muslim community center somewhere because it is offensive is not Constitutional.

It's not even close to the exact same thing because you're switching up who the antagonist is when comparing 1, 2 and the Mosque.

In 1 and 2, the protesters are the antagonists. They are being offensive with the goal of getting in the face of their opposition and either being offensive or bringing change. The Muslims trying to build their compound have not displayed an intent to offend or be antagonistic in any way. The people who don't think building this Center is the right thing, are the antagonists.

The fact is should this have been a Christian Community Center, it would have been approved quickly and there would be no news coverage. The fact is that the only reason this is a major controversy is because of the religious group involved.

My wants, needs, desires and what I am offended by have no bearing on the law. *I* am not the Constitution - *I* am not the law - *I* do not declare what is right and what is wrong; and that goes for every single person involved with this discussion. Politicians already buckle at the slightest sign a demographic might be *offended*. All this PC bulls#t is a result of people being offended. Growing up, if something offended me, I was told to suck it up... that's life. It'll be a frozen day in hell when I spend my day-to-day life walking on eggshells out of fear of offending someone and I wouldn't expect anyone else to walk on eggshells out of fear for offending me.


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

People are allowed to be pissed about the Center and they should be allowed to voice their opinion. On the other hand, that shouldn't be a reason to prevent development of the Center.

the fact that neither of you get it is no suprise. Makes perfect, simple sense.
You both chose to question the motives of the protestors, thats not the issue. The issue is the RIGHT to do it. All 3 are constitutional RIGHTS. you both dove into the "act" (protest/mosque) vs. people's response/opinion. Thats what Im driving at. The response. I dont care about the correlation of the "act".
If you are against these protestors, which I assume you are, are you against people's civil rights? Freedom of expression? I dont think so. So - dont label those opposed to the mosque as bigots. Dont say there against freedom of religion.
You may have no issue with the mosque being built, but some do. Just as Spence says right to lifers may not have a problem with PP protests, but some do. The mosque may not be "out there" but neither you nor I lost any family on 9/11, we werent evacuated from our offices in the midst of chaos and we dont have family overseas being blown up by religious fanatics. But some do, and I value their opinions and understand them.

Not to change the focus here.:rotf2:


Do you think this mosque will get the same attention by Homeland Security then say... St. Mary's here in Mansfield?

Why would it?

the fact that neither of you get it is no suprise. Makes perfect, simple sense.
You both chose to question the motives of the protestors, thats not the issue. The issue is the RIGHT to do it. All 3 are constitutional RIGHTS. you both dove into the "act" (protest/mosque) vs. people's response/opinion. Thats what Im driving at. The response. I dont care about the correlation of the "act".
I don't think we've ever said that people don't have the right to voice their opinion for or against the Islamic community center.

What we have questioned is why people are against it. My argument is that it's driven by 1) misunderstanding of what the intended use of the site it and where it's really located 2) animosity and mistrust of Muslims in general 3) stereotypes 4) 9/11 shell shock and 5) all whipped up by political activists out to toss bombs at everyone's expense.

I've yet to hear a good rational argument against the facility, other than doing so hurts people's feelings...so much of which is driven by misinformation and political gain.

-spence

I don't think we've ever said that people don't have the right to voice their opinion for or against the Islamic community center.

What we have questioned is why people are against it. My argument is that it's driven by 1) misunderstanding of what the intended use of the site it and where it's really located 2) animosity and mistrust of Muslims in general 3) stereotypes 4) 9/11 shell shock and 5) all whipped up by political activists out to toss bombs at everyone's expense.

I've yet to hear a good rational argument against the facility, other than doing so hurts people's feelings...so much of which is driven by misinformation and political gain.

-spence

I just swallowed my vomit. I actually agree with you.

I just swallowed my vomit. I actually agree with you.
Good, we should go fishing in celebration :cheers:

But the white elephant in the room here, is that Americans don't understand Islam.

-spence

But the white elephant in the room here, is that Americans don't understand Islam.

-spence

Not sure we understand alot of religions. What's your point? Islam isn't the problem,right?

I just swallowed my vomit. I actually agree with you.

http://darkdiamond.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/hell-freeze-thumb.jpg

Not sure we understand alot of religions. What's your point? Islam isn't the problem,right?
I think "we" understand Christianity pretty well. Judaism somewhat depending on what part of the country you live in. Hinduism not that well, but then again...they don't have a lot of natural resources :hihi:

-spence

I don't understand a lot of religions. But right now, a lot of bloodshed and senseless killing is being done in the name of islam.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmmm....
Some family members of 9/11 victims to support mosque construction - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/25/new.york.islamic.center.rally/index.html?hpt=T2)

People also need to stop vilifying an entire population based on the actions of a micro-percentage of that group.


__________________________________________________ ___________________________________


Misleading article title listed as ""some family members of 9/11victims to support
mosque contruction" and left out "AND Denounce NYC Islamic Ctr.

Article's main theme was coalition of 40 relegious and civic organizations to
show support ,not some 9/11 victims to support Mosque.

The article spoke of some 9/11 victims were reliving some of the post traumatic
syndrome because of the controversy. I agree with your statement of not vilifying
an entire population on the actions of a few, however it is upto the many to
speak up against the few and in the this case where a relegious group is
involved there should be no problem in taking the feelings of the victims into
account as relegion should be about how you treat your fellow man.

Kinda like the milk of human kindness is needed.

I don't understand a lot of religions. But right now, a lot of bloodshed and senseless killing is being done in the name of islam.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you think that every German should be held responsible by the Jewish for the Holocaust?

How about we hold every Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor?

Then there's all those wars motivated by Christianity like the Crusades and the 30 Years War.

I guess everyone should look at everyone else with a critical eye. I'm sure you're people, whatever your background, is responsible for the deaths of many. I know mine are.

How about we hold every Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor?
I was thinking of this today. Remember we did for a while, interning over 100,000 people of Japanese descent (including a lot of American citizens) because of mistrust.

You could make a similar argument to 9/11, that because of the actions of some, that the American people became mistrustful of the many.

That being said, I think we'd all agree that the actions of 1942 by FDR were unjustified and counter to our values.

-spence

I wonder if this was just a coincidence...
Taxi driver stabbed after passenger asks if he's Muslim - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/25/new.york.muslim.stabbed/index.html?hpt=T2)

I wonder if this was just a coincidence...
Taxi driver stabbed after passenger asks if he's Muslim - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/25/new.york.muslim.stabbed/index.html?hpt=T2)

I was waiting for you to jump on this. FYI, the kid that slashed him was for the "community center" and also a left wing activist and the Muslim was against it.

I get a kick at how quick this was called a hate crime by the media and how the attack on our solders by a Muslim wasn't.

I was thinking of this today. Remember we did for a while, interning over 100,000 people of Japanese descent (including a lot of American citizens) because of mistrust.

You could make a similar argument to 9/11, that because of the actions of some, that the American people became mistrustful of the many.

That being said, I think we'd all agree that the actions of 1942 by FDR were unjustified and counter to our values.

-spence

But look how good it worked out :rotf2: Now we live in peace together.

I was waiting for you to jump on this. FYI, the kid that slashed him was for the "community center" and also a left wing activist and the Muslim was against it.
Where did you read this?

Turns out the kid was stinking drunk...sad story.

-spence

Yep, once again he nails it...

-spence

Did Jon Stewart "nail it"? Or was he just, as you accuse Rush and his ilk of doing, being an entertainer prostituting himself for his sponsors (and making a bundle for himself in the process)?

It was a funny piece. But argument by humor can be deceptive. Starts out by tsk tsking Fox News (a competitor?) for its commentator saying, at the time, that no one had a problem with the mosque. Later, of course, Fox Network and News (as well as other networks who Stewart doesn't mention) had commentators discussing the "problem." As if that were some change of . . . of . . . I don't know of what. The first instance was reportage of conditions at the time. Things changed and Fox reported and discussed that. Tsk, tsk.

Stewart says he can accept the symbolic argument against the mosque being there, then trots out some false analogies that are supposed to poo-poo the objections--the most telling being the Charlton Heston NRA thing. Because the Columbine whakos used guns, the NRA was being insensitive according to the liberals of the time? And this is analogous to the mosque situation? The columbine killers also ate food and slept in a bed. So a bed and breakfast convention should not be held at Columbine? A true analogy would have been if the killers were NRA members who killed in the name of the NRA and slaughtered the disbelievers of gun rights and NRA bylaws.

It's a funny piece, as is the other U Tube video about Glen Beck Nazi Tourettes. Of course, that didn't actually discuss whether Beck was right or wrong about Beck's comparisons, just ridiculed them, not in a dispassioned, reasonable, methodical and demonstrative way (logical argument) but with great humor. Ridicule as a tactic, and feigned shock at hypocricy with facial expressions and body twitches are reminiscent of tactics discussed in another thread.

Did Jon Stewart "nail it"? Or was he just, as you accuse Rush and his ilk of doing, being an entertainer prostituting himself for his sponsors (and making a bundle for himself in the process)?
I think Stewart was being pretty straightforward with this commentary.

It was a funny piece. But argument by humor can be deceptive. Starts out by tsk tsking Fox News (a competitor?) for its commentator saying, at the time, that no one had a problem with the mosque. Later, of course, Fox Network and News (as well as other networks who Stewart doesn't mention) had commentators discussing the "problem." As if that were some change of . . . of . . . I don't know of what. The first instance was reportage of conditions at the time. Things changed and Fox reported and discussed that. Tsk, tsk.
The conditions about the issue didn't change, just the controversy surrounding it and how some were just out to stir the pot as we've discussed here at length.

FOX may get special attention, but are they more guilty of promoting misleading or unfair accusations? While the video certainly isn't a detailed report on the issue, I can say I sure don't hear the kind of rhetoric (or it's inverse) on the other cable news networks.

Terrorist training center...there could be a Hamburg cell right downtown...And this is by FOX regulars...

Stewart says he can accept the symbolic argument against the mosque being there, then trots out some false analogies that are supposed to poo-poo the objections--the most telling being the Charlton Heston NRA thing. Because the Columbine whakos used guns, the NRA was being insensitive according to the liberals of the time? And this is analogous to the mosque situation? The columbine killers also ate food and slept in a bed. So a bed and breakfast convention should not be held at Columbine? A true analogy would have been if the killers were NRA members who killed in the name of the NRA and slaughtered the disbelievers of gun rights and NRA bylaws.
The Heston remarks really had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many.

It's a funny piece, as is the other U Tube video about Glen Beck Nazi Tourettes. Of course, that didn't actually discuss whether Beck was right or wrong about Beck's comparisons, just ridiculed them, not in a dispassioned, reasonable, methodical and demonstrative way (logical argument) but with great humor.
Sure it did, as he pointedly hammered on the shallowness of Beck's own attacks and how he's degraded the Nazi card to a cheap commodity.

Ridicule as a tactic, and feigned shock at hypocricy with facial expressions and body twitches are reminiscent of tactics discussed in another thread.

And god forbid it's employed by a comic. To think...the nerve.

-spence

Where did you read this?

Turns out the kid was stinking drunk...sad story.

-spence

Very sad. All you pro Mosque people are the same.

Do you think that every German should be held responsible by the Jewish for the Holocaust?

How about we hold every Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor?

Then there's all those wars motivated by Christianity like the Crusades and the 30 Years War.

I guess everyone should look at everyone else with a critical eye. I'm sure you're people, whatever your background, is responsible for the deaths of many. I know mine are.

I guess the terms "right now" in my post doesnt mean anything to you. Again, lets have common sense. In the last 10 years and seen to be growing each week, the headlines from the mid-east to africa are full of attrocities commited by one religion. Not all of them, but enough. suicide bombings, beheadings, pillaging villages, etc. So - its not an issue of my "understanding". Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Satanists and the Presbertyrians need to step it up a few notches if they want to make the headlines. Then I'll be concerned with them.
For me, Im a mutt, but I'll play along. I'm 1/4 Lebanese and 1/4 Polish. So lets see, where would I feel less threatened visting Lebanon or visiting Poland.......hmmm? I guess Im a bigot 'cause theres no way in HELL I'm goign to Lebanon. Sorry y desert brothers, I dont understand you.

For me, Im a mutt, but I'll play along. I'm 1/4 Lebanese and 1/4 Polish. So lets see, where would I feel less threatened visting Lebanon or visiting Poland.......hmmm? I guess Im a bigot 'cause theres no way in HELL I'm goign to Lebanon. Sorry y desert brothers, I dont understand you.

Interesting...From Wikipedia...

Intentional homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006, the last year they had data for all three countries.

Lebanon 0.57
Poland 1.28
USA 5.4

I'm sure it's higher today, but remember that Lebanon has historically been a pretty cosmopolitan place and quite a tourist destination.

-spence

Interesting...From Wikipedia...

Intentional homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006, the last year they had data for all three countries.

Lebanon 0.57
Poland 1.28
USA 5.4

I'm sure it's higher today, but remember that Lebanon has historically been a pretty cosmopolitan place and quite a tourist destination.

-spence

put up the stats on religiously motivated violence against Americans and then we'll talk.

I can go to Wiki too - I guess this is just wacky right wing nonsense or we are too dumb to understand....

As Paul Hollander has written: "The most obvious and clear link between anti-Americanism and modernization is encountered in Islamic countries and other traditional societies where modernization clashes head on with entrenched traditional beliefs, institutions, and patterns of behavior, and where it challenges the very meaning of life, social relations, and religious verities. What becomes of the world when women can go to work and show large surfaces of skin to men they are not related to? In a recent case, the indignant male members of a Kurdish family in Sweden were 'provoked' by the transgressing female of their family who had the temerity to have a job and a boyfriend and dress in Western ways. She was finally killed by her father."[4]

Hollander went on to explain:

"In Arab countries and among Muslim populations, anti-Americanism is not only the monopoly of intellectuals but also a widespread disposition of the masses. In these areas, traditional religion, radical politics, and economic backwardness combine to make anti-Americanism an exceptionally widespread, virulent, and reflexive response to a wide range of collective and personal frustrations and grievances-and a welcome alternative to any collective or individual self-examination or stock-taking. More generally, it is the rise of alternatives, ushered in by modernization, that threatens traditional societies and generates anti-American reaction. The stability of traditional society (like that of modern totalitarian systems) rests on the lack of alternatives, on the lack of choice. Choice is deeply subversive-culturally, politically, psychologically. The recent outburst of murderous anti- Americanism has added a new dimension to the phenomenon, or at any rate, throws into relief the intense hatred it may encapsulate. The violence of September 11 shows that when anti-Americanism is nurtured by the kind of indignation and resentment that in [turn] is stimulated and sanctioned by religious convictions, it can become spectacularly destructive."[4]

put up the stats on religiously motivated violence against Americans and then we'll talk.

I'm not sure I'd really care why someone wanted to kill me, at least not during the moment.

I'd also wager that danger is highly localized. Around the borders or camps I'm sure a Western person would not want to be, even as an aid worker.

-spence

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

I agree 100% Joe. However I sleep well at night knowing O and Joe are on the case.:uhuh:

It's not an endorsement. I just think it's important recognize that our freedoms are something we aspire to, representations of 'the better angels of our nature.' They have often been at odds with blood and vengeance.

It's not an endorsement. I just think it's important recognize that our freedoms are something we aspire to, representations of 'the better angels of our nature.' They have often been at odds with blood and vengeance.

It's a very good point.

I think the big picture issue here is that in this instance, there's a pretty direct closed loop correlation between our behavior and other factors that are influencing that exact same behavior!

Example.

The internment of Japanese in 1942 was wrong, but also a product of the times. That being said, did it hurt our ability to win WW2 in the Pacific? Not sure but wouldn't think so.

The negative reactions to the Islamic center in New York are fed by reasons we've stated above, most of which I'd argue are also "wrong". But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism....

This of course feeds the American mistrust of Islam...and closes the loop.

-spence

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.
We've already seen what happens when we're out for blood...the people won't care and the motivations of those in power at the time will have free reign.

God help us if there's a really big attack like a small nuke and we don't know how to respond. People will want retribution and won't really care who gets whipped.

Something to think about.

The number of Americans killed in terror attacks in the last few decades is probably around 3500 people, most on 9/11. A lot for sure and there's an economic impact that's big as well.

In response to this, we've already lost almost 5,700 fighting men and women since 9/11, perhaps another few thousand contractors and have created collateral damage in the tens to perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians depending on who's count you take. Oh and how much spending? Well over a trillion dollars.

In the process, I think we've squashed any hope al Qaeda might have had of establishing a caliphate, but have we addressed any of the root cause issues?

Not so sure...

-spence

We've already seen what happens when we're out for blood...the people won't care and the motivations of those in power at the time will have free reign.

God help us if there's a really big attack like a small nuke and we don't know how to respond. People will want retribution and won't really care who gets whipped.

Something to think about.

The number of Americans killed in terror attacks in the last few decades is probably around 3500 people, most on 9/11. A lot for sure and there's an economic impact that's big as well.

In response to this, we've already lost almost 5,700 fighting men and women since 9/11, perhaps another few thousand contractors and have created collateral damage in the tens to perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians depending on who's count you take. Oh and how much spending? Well over a trillion dollars.

In the process, I think we've squashed any hope al Qaeda might have had of establishing a caliphate, but have we addressed any of the root cause issues?

Not so sure...

-spence

We dont " incite terrorism" Spence.

We are now trying the Kiss A$$ approach to Islamic radicals and yet they still want to kill you,your wife and your children. Not to mention that now even our allies don't like us anymore.

Your math is way off. 3500??? Americans maybe, world wide...X10 easy.

Your formula also fails to take into account how many would have died had we not had a war on terror. Lest you forget, we didn't start this thing, although being the terrorist sympathizer you are, I'm sure you believe we did.

We dont " incite terrorism" Spence.
Who said we did? You can read can't you?

We are now trying the Kiss A$$ approach to Islamic radicals and yet they still want to kill you,your wife and your children. Not to mention that now even our allies don't like us anymore.
By your logic, trying to talk to people is kissing their ass, that's part of the problem. I'd note that under Obama we've don't a hell of a lot of killing of radicals, even perhaps pushing the targeting killings beyond Bush.

Your math is way off. 3500??? Americans maybe, world wide...X10 easy.
I said Americans, once again you fail to read.

Your formula also fails to take into account how many would have died had we not had a war on terror. Lest you forget, we didn't start this thing, although being the terrorist sympathizer you are, I'm sure you believe we did.
It's a safe bet that there would be less total dead had we done nothing, not that I'm advocating for that. I do value ours more than there's...

But your comment that "we didn't start this thing" is just stupid. We don't live in a vacuum. Where we are today is a complex mix of actions over the years that didn't just happen by random.

You can accept this, and work towards a solution, or keep your head in the sand and prepare for another attack. Thinking critically doesn't mean you have to admit guilt or culpability.

Your choice.

-spence

Who said we did? You can read can't you?


By your logic, trying to talk to people is kissing their ass, that's part of the problem. I'd note that under Obama we've don't a hell of a lot of killing of radicals, even perhaps pushing the targeting killings beyond Bush.


I said Americans, once again you fail to read.


It's a safe bet that there would be less total dead had we done nothing, not that I'm advocating for that. I do value ours more than there's...

But your comment that "we didn't start this thing" is just stupid. We don't live in a vacuum. Where we are today is a complex mix of actions over the years that didn't just happen by random.

You can accept this, and work towards a solution, or keep your head in the sand and prepare for another attack. Thinking critically doesn't mean you have to admit guilt or culpability.

Your choice.

-spence

"But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism"

Seems clear enough....

You did say Americans, as I noted.

I would love to hear why you feel sitting back after being attacked and doing nothing would have saved lives.

Admitting guilt is what Obama does. It's the foundation of his Kiss A$$ policy.

"But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism"

Seems clear enough....
To someone who can't read.

You did say Americans, as I noted.
Not really.

I would love to hear why you feel sitting back after being attacked and doing nothing would have saved lives.
Net dead, with the assumption that ours are worth more than theirs. I guess if you can't handle basic sentence structure we probably shouldn't get into algebra.

Admitting guilt is what Obama does. It's the foundation of his Kiss A$$ policy.

This doesn't surprise me considering you don't seem to be able to grasp the basics of cause and effect. :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

-spence

As we all know I'm the biggest racist on the net, but even I didn't start looking for Islamic driven yellow box trucks untill after they attacked the towers.

The Anti-Islam that you speak of is mostly a product of your imagination and low opinion of your fellow man. Like I said before we have an Islamic school here and I have never heard of this hatered that you profess is creating terrorism.

And please don't go all algebra on me....even in summer school taking it twice, I still don't get it:)

As we all know I'm the biggest racist on the net, but even I didn't start looking for Islamic driven yellow box trucks untill after they attacked the towers.
And to think, had you been looking for an Christian driven yellow box truck the Oklahoma city bombing might have been averted :rolleyes:

The Anti-Islam that you speak of is mostly a product of your imagination and low opinion of your fellow man.
I thought you didn't drink?

Like I said before we have an Islamic school here and I have never heard of this hatered that you profess is creating terrorism.
Perhaps because they have electricity all the time and their parents drive insured cars.

And please don't go all algebra on me....even in summer school taking it twice, I still don't get it:)
I thought you were prep schooled?

-spence

Talk to me about drinking at half time:buds:

I remember the people of Kuwait celebrating in the streets and hugging US troops when they were free again .....

You forget the parties on the streets of Iran, celebrating the murder of thousands on 9/11.

I think Stewart was being pretty straightforward with this commentary.

Limbaugh, Beck, et al are also very straightforward. Being straightforward doesn't mean you're right--certainly doesn't mean you'll get 100% agreement.

The conditions about the issue didn't change, just the controversy surrounding it and how some were just out to stir the pot as we've discussed here at length.

FOX may get special attention, but are they more guilty of promoting
misleading or unfair accusations? While the video certainly isn't a
detailed report on the issue, I can say I sure don't hear the kind of
rhetoric (or it's inverse) on the other cable news networks.

I didn't say "conditions ABOUT the issue" changed. The commentator on the Fox clip reported that initially there WAS NO ISSUE. There is now an issue on which Fox and other networks report and comment. That you don't like how Fox is handling it is neither surprising nor relevant. Stewart's implication that Fox somehow flip-flopped or changed their story is not true.

Terrorist training center...there could be a Hamburg cell right downtown...And this is by FOX regulars...

Other cable networks have regulars who say things that many think are stupid.

The Heston remarks really had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many.

Two things were being interwoven in his analysis. The symbolism argument and the constitutional right. He brought up the Heston analogy, after other false analogies, as a similar occurence to the Columbine massacre where the Left demanded that the NRA not hold their convention near the sight OUT OF RESPECT to the victims and their relatives. Stewart says that this was painting too narrow a picture connecting irresponsibly the actions of two psychotics to an entire group of reasonable people expressing their constitutional rights.

It is was not only too narrow a picture, it was a totally false picture. The NRA had no connection to the psychotics or their massacre. There wasn't even a symbolic tie.

Stewart says he accepts the symbolic argument as valid. THAT IS THE ONLY ARGUMENT AGAINST PLACING THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO. There is no argument about denying first ammendment rights by those opposed to the mosque. That is a manufactured counter argument. Stewarts analogies were somehow supposed to show how those protesting against the mosque on symbolic grounds lost his support. They don't do that. The Heston thing is a strong argument for the constitutional right to build the mosque there, but has nothing to do with the symbolic argument against it. And the analogy itself, is incompatible--false.

Sure it did, as he pointedly hammered on the shallowness of Beck's own attacks and how he's degraded the Nazi card to a cheap commodity.

He pointedly showed teeny clips out of context, not analyzing the total argument that Beck made in every case. Very easy to do with any argument to make it look silly. If the Nazi card has been degraded to a cheap commodity, it was done a long time ago by the left and right. Whether Beck's comments were shallow or untrue would have to be examined in the total context of what he said.

And god forbid it's employed by a comic. To think...the nerve.
-spence

Precisely--he's a COMIC. His video is funny. It is not to the point and has false references.

Krauthammer nails it as usual...no comedy necessary

The Last Refuge of the Liberal - Article - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244882/last-refuge-liberal-charles-krauthammer)

Brilliant piece. Makes Ron Paul look like he wrote his in crayons.

Love Krauthammer

Love Krauthammer

Brilliant guy, same league as Buckley.

Brilliant piece. Makes Ron Paul look like he wrote his in crayons.

Love Krauthammer

Well, he is a writer after all and not a politician.

It's a good piece and he brings up some good points, but it's also blatantly hypocritical.

Within the anti-immigration movement there are real racists, people get harassed and attacked simply because they were born gay, I don't doubt for a second that Obama being black is a big issue for some and anti-Islam sentiment is there today threatening the rights of American citizens.

It's a fair argument to say these cards shouldn't be thrown about as cheap commodities (ala Beck and the Nazis), but for Kraut to write this all off as Liberal's lashing out is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

Well, he is a writer after all and not a politician.

It's a good piece and he brings up some good points, but it's also blatantly hypocritical.

Within the anti-immigration movement there are real racists, people get harassed and attacked simply because they were born gay, I don't doubt for a second that Obama being black is a big issue for some and anti-Islam sentiment is there today threatening the rights of American citizens.

It's a fair argument to say these cards shouldn't be thrown about as cheap commodities (ala Beck and the Nazis), but for Kraut to write this all off as Liberal's lashing out is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

"anti-immigration movement"??? So Spence like. :rotf2: Makes the rest of your points even more moot.

Precisely--he's a COMIC. His video is funny. It is not to the point and has false references.
Just because you're a comic shouldn't forbid making a statement, and the use of humor doesn't mean your point is any less valid. In the end it's simply a matter of the point ringing true.

This is quite different than what you usually get on Rush or Beck IMHO. They are very quick prey on stereotypes, fear, manipulation (in the name of argument) and gross insensitivity often at the expense of others (Club Gitmo anyone?). Are Rush and Beck so successful because of their message or because they titillate? I'd argue it's really more of the latter.

Rush of course laughs it up as part of his product, but his listeners seem to take him oddly seriously. As a note, I listened to Rush every day for years. Certainly there's bias everywhere, but there's also quality...

Stewart didn't "attack" FOX for flip flopping (although I do think Laura Ingram did), the bigger issue he was highlighting was that this story has been around for a while and wasn't a big deal...until what changed?

That FOX took it on the chin simply says something about the kind of reckless comments that frequent the programming.

Additionally, I'm not sure you can charge he's taken anything out of context...unless you know the context. Does Stewart have a history of fabrication? I didn't think so.

As for Heston (now understanding your point) and the idea the NRA analogy is invalid...I don't agree. There is a direct link between NRA members and the Columbine killers...they both own(ed) guns...that's exactly the point.

-spence

Just because you're a comic shouldn't forbid making a statement, and the use of humor doesn't mean your point is any less valid. In the end it's simply a matter of the point ringing true.


Who's forbidding? I didn't say using humor is less valid. Validity requires more than "ringing" true.

This is quite different than what you usually get on Rush or Beck IMHO. They are very quick prey on stereotypes, fear, manipulation (in the name of argument) and gross insensitivity often at the expense of others (Club Gitmo anyone?). Are Rush and Beck so successful because of their message or because they titillate? I'd argue it's really more of the latter.


Then argue. So far all you have done is say or accuse. You give opinions.

Rush of course laughs it up as part of his product, but his listeners seem to take him oddly seriously. As a note, I listened to Rush every day for years. Certainly there's bias everywhere, but there's also quality...

So your opinion is that Stewart's show has quality (whatever that is) and Rush's show doesn't. whoopee.

Stewart didn't "attack" FOX for flip flopping (although I do think Laura Ingram did), the bigger issue he was highlighting was that this story has been around for a while and wasn't a big deal...until what changed?

You put "attack" in quotes. Who are you quoting? What changed is that it became a big deal. You're certainly implying that it became so because of Fox. So if Fox would not report the groundswell of opinion, or if some commentators on Fox after reflection would not have an opionion on the matter, then there would be no controversy. Ignorance is bliss.

That FOX took it on the chin simply says something about the kind of reckless comments that frequent the programming.

Is this argument or insinuation?

Additionally, I'm not sure you can charge he's taken anything out of context...unless you know the context. Does Stewart have a history of fabrication? I didn't think so.

Don't know what you're referring to here.

As for Heston (now understanding your point) and the idea the NRA analogy is invalid...I don't agree. There is a direct link between NRA members and the Columbine killers...they both own(ed) guns...that's exactly the point.
-spence

No. The valid analogy was to the NRA's constitutional right and the Muslims constitutional right. As for the the analogy between the NRA members and the Columbine killers both owning guns, it stops there. There is no connection between their owning guns and their use of those guns. The direct links between NRA members and the Columbine psychos and the rest of us is legion. We all eat, sleep, hopefully love, walk, drive, think, have opinions, likes, dislikes, and on and on . . . None of these, including owning guns (most gun owners are not NRA members) are a direct link to the psychotic act of the Columbine killers. The analogy would have been valid if the killers had specificaly stated that they killed in the name of the NRA against those who were against the NRA and its mission.

There is no connection between their owning guns and their use of those guns.
That is exactly the point.

As for arguments vs opinions, I can go drub up references that have helped form my opinions to construct a more rounded argument, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. In the middle of that post my wife blessed me with a 14 day old son, or well, at least she handed him to me :hihi:

Perhaps quality is the wrong word, as Rush's show is very high quality in a perverted sort of way.

I never implied it became a big deal because of FOX, simply that the rhetoric used on the network isn't seen on other cable networks, at least that I see.

Context refers to the snippets in the video that you said were taken out of context.

-spence

That is exactly the point.

First you say "the Heston remarks had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many." Then you say "there is a direct link between NRA members and the Columbine killers . . . they both own(ed) guns . . ." Well if the direct link is that they both owned guns and that it is about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many, isn't that a little too universal? The only link is owning guns? Who are the many and the few? Gun owners of the world? Law enforcement, criminals, military, hunters, citizens defending themselves from columbine types? Shouldn't there be something more substantial linking NRA members with the Columbine killers, such as the Columbine killers actually being NRA members (so it would be about the "actions of a few" NRA members "dict[ating] your policy toward the many" NRA members)--that is, if your using the Heston analogy to dissuade you from what Stewart considered being a valid point--sensitivity to the meaning of the mosque's location? Didn't that meaning involve members of the religion building the mosque killing the 9/11 victims in the name of that religion?

As for arguments vs opinions, I can go drub up references that have helped form my opinions to construct a more rounded argument, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. In the middle of that post my wife blessed me with a 14 day old son, or well, at least she handed him to me :hihi:

I'm sure you could, and it wouldn't be worth it.

Children are a blessing and worth more than all the words in the universe. Bless you and your wife for bringing that blessing into our world. I sincerely mean that.


Perhaps quality is the wrong word, as Rush's show is very high quality in a perverted sort of way.

You've called him a whore. You've said he pedals porn. Now it's perversion. Hmmm. You sure that you don't avoid him for fear of some deep seated, perverse sexual thing? :hihi:

I never implied it became a big deal because of FOX, simply that the rhetoric used on the network isn't seen on other cable networks, at least that I see.

That's why FOX is different from the other networks. They all use the same rhetoric. FOX's rhetoric is different.

Context refers to the snippets in the video that you said were taken out of context.
-spence

I was referring to the Nazi tourette video, not the Stewart, when I referred to out of context snippets. Just a misunderstanding.

Get back to the little ones. This stuff is unimportant.

I think you missed my comment about not understand the entirety of your Heston comment at first...

That being said, I think you're trying to read too much into this one, perhaps just to undermine it. After all, if it required a dissertation to make a point I'm not sure the Daily Show demographic would get it.

From what I read above, if the Columbine killers were NRA members it would be a valid parallel, but if the only association is that they are all gun owners it's not.

What's the NRA's purpose? I thought it was to fight for the right to bear arms and fight against legal limitations on firearm possession. Looser gun control laws makes it easier for people like the Columbine killers to obtain them.

It would be unfair of course to presume the intentions of NRA members are illicit.

Ultimately we have an NRA meeting in Denver, seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "gun talk" and "gun people" and a terrible killing by people who used guns. And in New York we have an Islamic Center seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "Islamic talk and Islamic people" and a terrible killing by people who believed in Islam.

The irony is that while the NRA advocates legal and responsible gun ownership the Park51 Imam advocates moderate and responsible Islam.

So do guns kill people or do people kill people? That is exactly the question and why I think it was a perfectly appropriate analogy.

-spence

I think you missed my comment about not understand the entirety of your Heston comment at first...

That being said, I think you're trying to read too much into this one, perhaps just to undermine it. After all, if it required a dissertation to make a point I'm not sure the Daily Show demographic would get it.

I am not trying to read anything into the Stewart video. I think it is funny. But, beyond the humor, I just don't see a valid argument against what he accepts as valid--the symbolic argument--sensitivity to the locations meaning. The mini-second clips of those making various comments about Islam are, without context, meaningless--though they can be combined into a silly pastiche. But they don't discount the symbolic argument, and if they did, why does Stewart accept that argument. Are there actual clips that do favor the argument--which he conveniently omits. The somewhat prolonged clip of Bolling with the card and highlighter is chopped up enough to make him look silly. The screen text denotes that the segment was about funding for the mosque and the tax returns of the funders. Did we see any of that in Stewart's version? What we see is Bollling's burned money and his bullet point card with some discussion of the points. How much discussion? I can't be sure how much was edited. I thought it peculiar that the clip was noticeably edited after some words about the Muslim Brotherhood and then it totally skipped the Hamas bullet point and jumped to Iran. It might have been inconvenient for Stewart's discussion to have it pointed out that Imam Rauf refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization. I am not reading too much here merely to invalidly undermine Stewart's video. Perhaps those who think he nailed it aren't reading enough out of it so as not to undermine it.

From what I read above, if the Columbine killers were NRA members it would be a valid parallel, but if the only association is that they are all gun owners it's not.

What's the NRA's purpose? I thought it was to fight for the right to bear arms and fight against legal limitations on firearm possession. Looser gun control laws makes it easier for people like the Columbine killers to obtain them.

It would be unfair of course to presume the intentions of NRA members are illicit.

Ultimately we have an NRA meeting in Denver, seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "gun talk" and "gun people" and a terrible killing by people who used guns. And in New York we have an Islamic Center seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "Islamic talk and Islamic people" and a terrible killing by people who believed in Islam.

The irony is that while the NRA advocates legal and responsible gun ownership the Park51 Imam advocates moderate and responsible Islam.

So do guns kill people or do people kill people? That is exactly the question and why I think it was a perfectly appropriate analogy.

-spence

If the only link between the NRA and the Columbine killers is the owning of guns (which is not true, by the way--there are a myriad of other superficial similarities) then would there have been an objection to meeting in Denver at that time by The International Association of Chiefs of Police, or the International Police Association, or the National Black Police Association, or NAPO--National Association of Police Organizations, or (closer to home) the Arizona Professional Police Officers Association, or the American Legion, or Amvets, etc.

The symbolic argument that Stewart says is valid was not about religious people and religious talk (in parallel to your "gun talk" and "gun people"). Though Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are religions having that specific trait in common with Islam, the symbolic argument against building a house of worship for one of the non-muslim religions at ground zero would not be valid even though they all have a direct link to Islam in that they believe in a deity (Christianity and Judaism even the same God). The symbolic argument is only valid because it was actual Muslims who killed the 9/11 victims in the name of that specific religion.

The Columbine killers were not generic gun owners killing in the name of gun ownership, or gun rights, or killing because of guns. Who they were and what they did was neither about guns nor about the NRA. The NRA analogy is not specific enough to compare with the symbolic argument against the mosque.

Even though this thread is dead, and as a little change of pace from the post election chat, I couldn't resist posting this related quote. It is by Tarek Fatah, one of the "moderate" Muslims to whom Spence wants us to raise our ears. In speaking about the Ground Zero Mosque, he said "We Muslims know the . . . Mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, . . . as "fitna," meaning "mischief making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran . . . as Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little considerations for their fellows citizens, and wish to rub salt in there wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."

Even though this thread is dead, and as a little change of pace from the post election chat, I couldn't resist posting this related quote. It is by Tarek Fatah, one of the "moderate" Muslims to whom Spence wants us to raise our ears. In speaking about the Ground Zero Mosque, he said "We Muslims know the . . . Mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, . . . as "fitna," meaning "mischief making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran . . . as Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little considerations for their fellows citizens, and wish to rub salt in there wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."
Sorry, I admit I'm delinquent in responding to all posts.

Few quick comments.

The quote appears to be from a piece from this summer before the funding was disclosed in more detail, or the use of the space was detailed. Perhaps this would have unclouded some mystery?

My personal read on the owner of the property is that he's a real estate guy out to make some money rather than an ideologue.

The wife of the Imam collaborated with the Jewish Community Center in New York in modeling the function of the space.

So, it doesn't seem like the thing stinks. I've yet to see any evidence that really indicates it does...just speculation.

-spence

Sorry, I admit I'm delinquent in responding to all posts.

Few quick comments.

The quote appears to be from a piece from this summer before the funding was disclosed in more detail, or the use of the space was detailed. Perhaps this would have unclouded some mystery?

My personal read on the owner of the property is that he's a real estate guy out to make some money rather than an ideologue.

The wife of the Imam collaborated with the Jewish Community Center in New York in modeling the function of the space.

So, it doesn't seem like the thing stinks. I've yet to see any evidence that really indicates it does...just speculation.

-spence

The Tarek Fatah quote is from an August 7 article. Has some further clarification on the mosque funding happened since then? Not sure how that would affect Fatah's opinion. Anyway, it's not just "right wingers" with "political agendas" that objected to the mosque's location. BTW, you inspired me to search for moderate Islam. It's been very interesting so far. Hasn't significantly changed my opinion, but there seems to be a ray of hope. I don't view events and policies that have occured to be mistakes (e.g.--9/11 extremism, Iraq and Afghanistan invasions), rather I see them as potential outcomes necessary to the evolution of Eastern and Western interface. Muslim Fundamentalists understandably resist secularization. They rightly see moderation and secularization, practically, as a shift toward irrelevance and extinction. They view the moderates such as Fatah, Dr. Muqtedar Khan, and others who are attractive to the West as being in error and dangerous to Islam. Though most Muslims are "peaceful," the majority are under the influence of fundamentalist scholars who preach against innovation and secularization. At this point in time, the "Ummah" loves the terrorists more than the secular, democratic, West. Interestingly, Dr Khan, who loves Islam AND loves western freedom and pluralism, says that "Muslims are good or can be good when they are minorities. As soon as Muslims get a state of their own everything goes wrong."