this mosque thing is blowin up for Barry

[EarnedStripes44]

This is a non issue

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[Nebe]

this is great

Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

this is great

Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Yep, once again he nails it...

-spence

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by 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...

[striperman36]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Some here would consider them idiotic bigots.

Originally Posted by JD

"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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

Originally Posted by buckman

Some here would consider them idiotic bigots.

Hmmm....
Some family members of 9/11 victims to support mosque construction - CNN.com

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

Good Luck with that......

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Good Luck with that......

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Hmmm....
Some family members of 9/11 victims to support mosque construction - CNN.com

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.