Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Obama On The Mosque - The Backpedaling Begins | Main | A Republican Congress In 2010? »

August 15, 2010

Comments

Clarice

We, right here at JOM, as collated by yours truly, were the first to notice Obama was a know nothing idiot.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/just_how_smart_is_obama.html>President of these 57 states

As he departs the national scene in disgrace he is taking his swooning media with him.

Chubby

re google autocomplete-

just for balance typed in "Bush is a ...."

among the list of idiot, reptilian, antichrist, nazi etc etc etc is the word DEMOCRAT ... LOL!!!!

Melinda Romanoff

Clarice-

We all know Rahm can't be in two places at once.

Jack is Back!

But we in Florida take full credit for his moonwalk on the mosque since he said it here. The waters here do tend to make you look like a complete ass - see Charlie Crist for one and Alan Grayson for the other. Charlie is still out there looking for the oil slick and watching Citizens Casualty implode sometime this 'cane season. (Inside Florida story there especially if you don't have 'cane insurance).

bunkerbuster

The NYT's story on Awlaki, the imam who condemned the 9-11 attacks and was moderate until he'd, in his own words, seen Islam under attack by America, has the detail that really says it all:
A product of Yemen's conservative culture, he refused to shake hands with women, yet patronized prostitutes.
The same, apparently, was true of the 911 hijackers. While claiming to have religious objections to women showing their skin, these miscreants attended strip clubs and, I'd wager, paid for sex. Clearly, they saw they didn't really believe the pseudo-religious claptrap they spouted. They were in it for the power, for the cash, for, most pathetically, the chance to attend a strip club.
We see the same with the Taliban, whose leaders famously avail themselves of sex with boys and, no doubt, underage girls as well, as privilege of their position.
Could it possibly be more obvious that these people are gangsters using Islam as camouflage, rather than sincerely faithful acolytes of a religion that causes them to do bad things?

Danube of Thought

17 at Raz roday.

Danube of Thought

“Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade,” wrote former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin...

susan

Obummer is an awesome President for the 57th State of Harvard-Inbred Idiots.

For the United States of America, Obummer is a spectacular disaster of epic proportions.

Ignatz

--whose leaders famously avail themselves of sex with boys and, no doubt, underage girls as well, as privilege of their position--

Not only did Mohammed (you know the founder of the religion?) take his daughter in law away from his adopted son and marry her, supposedly with Allah's blessing, he, at 54, married a SIX YEAR OLD, but was beneficient enough to wait until she was NINE to consumate the relationship.
Moreover disrespecting women by not shaking their hands in public is entirely in keeping with disrespecting them in other ways.
And Islamic scholars have conveniently defined homosexuality in such a way that sex with boys is permissable.
You really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Per usual.

Ranger

Could it possibly be more obvious that these people are gangsters using Islam as camouflage, rather than sincerely faithful acolytes of a religion that causes them to do bad things?

Posted by: bunkerbuster | August 15, 2010 at 09:36 AM

So, if "Cordoba House" project were simply another effort by those very same "gangsters" to enhanse their positoins of authority, thus enabling them to egnage in even more of the same activity, you would oppose it?

Danube of Thought

Byron York is having lots of fun:

Several years ago, there was a word for Obama's rhetorical technique: Clintonian. Like the former president, Obama spoke words he knew would be understood as having a particular meaning in a particular context. He also knew that those same words, when examined closely outside that context, might also be interpreted as having a different meaning. In that sense, the mosque affair is a good lesson for both supporters and opponents of the president. From now on, with Obama, as it was with Clinton, the rule is: Don't listen to the speech. Read the words very carefully.

The whole thing is here.

Captain Hate

And, no, this is not above your pay grade,” wrote former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin...

A carton of Kools will get torched when Ofluffer reads that.

jag

Liberals, the most sensitive, compassionate people on earth (as they regularly lecture us) apparently cannot find any way to be sensitive or compassionate towards the survivors of the victims of 9/11.

People who regularly oppose the use of the term "Christmas" least it offend.....someone, somewhere, now cannot fathom the issue with a mosque (named after a Muslim conquest no less) being placed at the site of what certainly represents the height of "success" for Islamic supremacists.

Is there any word other than perverse to describe the contortions liberals so often contrive to rationalize their pathological need to appease and/or support loathsome ideas and contemptible people?

Danube of Thought

New Yorkers ain't happy.

squaredance

Clearly, they saw they didn't really believe the pseudo-religious claptrap they spouted.

Sure they did: Those women were not Muslim.

In their eyes, these women were not really human being at all: the were western, infidel whores, and as such to be used and "enjoyed". Refusing to shake a woman's hands and treating them as whores, BTW, is not logically inconsistent and not particularly hypocritical. It certainly does not make religious hypocrits out of them.

What is all of Islam forbids this? Go look up the etymology of the word "harem". Too funny.

What is more absurd is the claim that those cynical and worldly opportunists took cash in order to fly planes into buildings. Hilarious.

BB, You actually almost made sense for once--it was startling sensation indeed---but your idiocy, ignorance, sloganeering infested pseudo-education, and you vile little ideology yet again pull you back from the threshold of sanity, common sense and decency.


No, neither the Taliban nor the 911 hijackers are "failed Muslims" nor are they insincere in their faith. They are perfect manifestations and articulations of Islam as it has lived in history.

You just cannot get one thing right.

(Oh BTW, your moral posturing against the Taliban or the hijackers, however comic the the moral confusion, is not very convincing.)

Captain Hate

From a fatwa by the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran:

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

Janet

Yeah Captain, and we're suppose to respect that religion? I don't think so.

anduril

Michael Goodwin has a sensible article: Unshakeable Bam's latest shaky stand:

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President. Now we know how Arizona feels.

First Obama stood with the president of Mexico as he bashed Americans as bigots for exercising their right of democracy on illegal immigration.

Now he stands with the developers of a mega-mosque near Ground Zero that, outside of Mayor Bloomberg, few New Yorkers want.

As always, this self-described "citizen of the world" mounts his high horse to emphasize that we must prove to foreigners how decent we are. "This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must remain unshakeable," he declared.

But it is unshakeable, as proven by the hundreds if not thousands of mosques in America, including many in the New York region. And it's worth noting that Obama made his announcement to Muslims marking Ramadan at the White House -- hardly a sign of religious oppression.

Bloomberg trotted out the same illogic -- that opposition to the mosque on that particular site near Ground Zero is a denial of religious liberty and a form of bigotry.

It's a crackpot theory, full of political grandstanding but not a shred of law or fact. The preposterous claims make no more sense coming from the president, he of the Harvard Law pedigree. Apparently common sense is not on the curriculum.

It's a land-use issue that turns on appropriateness, a routine point lost on developers and defenders. Would they also rise in high dudgeon to support an amusement park on the site, declaring we must not discriminate against Ferris wheels?

Remember, this same dynamic duo also insisted that putting the mastermind of 9/11 on trial near Ground Zero would convince the world what fine folk we are. There, too, opponents initially were blasted as bigots before Bloomberg came to his senses and flip-flopped.

I spy a trend: if you're opposed to something the president and the mayor want, you are a bigot.

So say yes, or shut up. Welcome to the new democracy, where being in the majority automatically means you are wrong.

I also smell a rat. The State Department first posted Bloomberg's screed on its Web site, while denying it was a sign of agreement. It then admitted the cleric behind the mosque travels the globe as a US representative discussing religion. Finally, the White House insisted Obama would not get involved in "a local matter."

All that changed on a Friday night, without public warning, showing bad faith and bad manners. Then again, both are a habit with this president, which is why the nation has soured on him so quickly.

One thing is certain: the mosque will now be a hot issue in the midterm elections and a litmus test for candidates across the country. It would serve Obama right if he loses his House and Senate majorities over his support.

Ignatz

I'm beginning to wonder if Obama's past is so shadowy because the dying Lee Atwater, as a final gift to the Republic, shuffled Barry off to a secret compound somewhere as a young man for reeducation in order to plant a deep cover mole within the Democratic party to so discredit them with overeaching idiocies they would permanently blow themselves up.

Danube of Thought

Clarice, you're up at Lucianne now.

As we Navy guys say, Bravo Zulu.

bunkerbuster

The mosque "debate" yet again shows how identity conservatives understand the rights proclaimed by the founding fathers as privileges that are subject to the political, and in this case, emotional, needs of the public. Liberals see the rights laid out in the constitution as unalienable basic human rights that are endowed by the creator and not privileges given, or taken away, by the government.
The only argument conservatives have made, or can make, against the "victory" mosque is that it is politically incorrect, in the literal sense.

anduril

Here is an interview with the author of a new book that identifies When Islam Abandoned Reason: A Conversation with Robert R. Reilly. The author's remarks are of more than theoretical interest because he explains exactly why Islam is incompatible with democracy--or, really, representative government in general--and why Islam really has a lot in common with the most radical ideological trends in the West.

Ignatz

--The mosque "debate" yet again shows how identity conservatives understand the rights, blah, blah, frickin blah....--

Whenever bubu has one of his clueless posts taken apart he comes back with some generalized inanity in an attempt to insult and demean those who just attempted to educate him, while describing his own ill informed opinions in exalted terms, and then wonders why people call him "preening".
You're the very model of a modern major preener.

Pagar

I wonder if anyone can read this American muslims debate loyalty and think we are in safe hands.

"In essence, if a Muslim serves on the police force, is his service an example of subjugation to man-made laws, "which is tantamount to a sin, or is it permitted as the lesser evil"? Thus, "serving on the police force also constitutes 'aid to perpetrators of crimes and aggression,'" and "[Muslim] policemen [in Western countries] 'might participate in incriminating a Muslim who has been done an injustice.'" Furthermore, "a policeman is obliged to undergo violations of modesty, such as 'licentious mixing between the sexes, seclusion with someone of the opposite sex, and the like.'"

Now go back to the link listing who was at the Muslim victory celebration dinner the other night and look at the list of government employees who were there and where they work. Then tell me how safe you feel.

centralcal

Mark Knoller may be sending a subtle press message?

He twitters a link to a picture that has this caption:

"First Family stands at the bow of boat on St. Andrews Bay, Fl."

His next twitter says this:

"Picture slightly reminiscent of Titanic scene with Kate & Leo. Feel free to write your own caption."

Ah yes, the Titanic. lol.


Rick Ballard

Careful, Ignatz - he's gonna start quoting Plato in the original Belgian any moment now.

Danube of Thought

I wonder how the repressed homosexual Bubu feels about the breadth of the opposition to this mosque. Does he really think it comes only from "identity conservatives" (whatever the hell they are)?

centralcal

Okay, one more Knoller twitter (he seems to be having some fun):

"They've let Pres. Obama take the wheel (just like the ship of state.)"

centralcal

Does he really think . . .


Nope. Not capable of it.

Clarice

Ignatz, you're on to something. I've been thinking the same thing myself but didn't think of Atwater. You know me, I always consider the bald man first.

Danube of Thought

43/48 at Gallup.

Alfred E, Neuman

"We, right here at JOM, as collated by yours truly, were the first to notice Obama was a know nothing idiot."

Right here you, and others, with GRRREAAAATT
hyperbole, rationalized your astute interpretation of intelligence into a defense of Presidunce Bush's pea-sized intellect and his lack of fundamental curiosity.

Thar's your credibility gap,

Ranger

The only argument conservatives have made, or can make, against the "victory" mosque is that it is politically incorrect, in the literal sense.


Posted by: bunkerbuster | August 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Let's see, over and over again people have made the point that we don't dispute the right of building the "Cordoba House" there, we dispute the propriety of it.

The left has used that same basic arugment relentlessly over the past several decades to make their arguments on issues. Now that they have established it as a legitimate reason to oppose action, they suddently find it terrible when it is mobilised against a project they embrace.

The left has said relentlessly that the Confederate battel flag must be expunged from public view because it is a hurtful symbol to many in society. Mind you, there were no laws being broken in it's display, but it was a deliberate provocation, an act of one group declaring their dominance over others.

And yet, when the exact same point is made about "Cordoba House", the left brushes it asside as if it is not only an irrelivent argument, but actually a disingenuous one. They tell us with confidence that this isn't about sensitivity at all, it is about 'stripping a despised minority of their constitutional rights!!!'

boris

Thar's yer cleo

Captain Hate

The willfull Constitutional misreading by scholar Odummy, and the inability of the idiots in the MFM to challenge him on it, marks another low milestone in lack of understanding. Nobody is suggesting the state arrest the rock worshippers for practicing their nutjobbery glorifying sodomy and bestiality as dictated by a sixth century al-Ron Hubbard.

sylvia

"It's a land-use issue that turns on appropriateness, a routine point lost on developers and defenders. Would they also rise in high dudgeon to support an amusement park on the site, declaring we must not discriminate against Ferris wheels?"

I agree with the above clip. It's not only about having a mosque there, but any large scale, out of place building there would be tasteless. An amusement park, a porn house, a super large Baptist or Mormom church maybe, or any kind of super church.

I think Bloomberg should decare the whole area, anything within eyesite, a historical site, with no changing of building facades so it can be kept how it was, plus conditions of appropriateness to the history applied to anyone who wants to have something there.

The fact that Bloomberg doesn't, makes me wonder how much he or the city is getting paid off. It's a little like the Libyan hijacker situation in Britain. Someone is getting paid for sure.

Clarice

Read Claudia Rossett.
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/seriously-where-is-imam-feisal-and-whats-with-his-web-site/>Where in the world is the Imam?


Why is no one pressing DoS to find out why they are funding this bunco artist?

Captain Hate

I think Bloomberg should decare the whole area, anything within eyesite, a historical site

Bzzzzzzz wrong. The trade center was seen as a symbol of our "decadence" and was attacked at least twice before 9/11. A failure to rebuild it could rightly be interpreted as submitting to the nutjobs and as a defeat for our way of life. That dhimmis like Bloomberg are just fine with that shouldn't make anybody in the West happy.

Clarice

I don't think that's cle0---One of the jourOlisters maybe..

Threadkiller

CH,

I posted, on the last thread, something I would like you to consider. I have always appreciated your comments too. Please let me know what you think.

Red Man

"The left has said relentlessly that the Confederate battel flag must be expunged from public view because it is a hurtful symbol to many in society. Mind you, there were no laws being broken in it's display, but it was a deliberate provocation, an act of one group declaring their dominance over others."

Apples and oranges.

The Confederate Flag is not a religious symbol. Secondly it is only displayed to a)curry favor with 21st century anti-abolitionists b) express personal alliance with principles of Old South.

'Mosque', despite your bias, is not synonymous with 'madrassa'. They are not flying a Jihadist flag.Not all Muslims are terrorists.

By your logic, 'sensitivity' would preclude
the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s from demonstrating in Mississippi because it would inflame the racists in the community.

Pagar

Daniel Greenfield has written a great Article posted at the Canada Free Press.

"Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom"

Well documented and straight to the point.

narciso

The Politico piece, quotes Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR approvingly, which shows that the critics are doing the right thing, Charmin'
Charlie is out of step again, on this topic

centralcal

iOwntheworld has posted a Peter from UK piece from their archives:

The Man From Screw

PUK was so talented. Damn, I miss him.

Captain Hate

tk, I just saw it and didn't realize your sarcasm when I saw it. I have some small qualms with what Mark does but by and large he attracts my attention by getting to the point quickly and articulately. I'm not well enough acquainted with the back and forth dustup you're mentioning here but can appreciate that it exists without badmouthing either you or him.

bgates

Red Man, it's completely immaterial that the Confederate flag isn't a religious symbol. You're also mistaken when you list the reasons to display the flag - what about respect for one's ancestors, regional or ethnic pride?
You say "they're not flying a Jihadist flag", as though that would be a sufficient reason for you to object to the mosque. Is that right?
Say the victory mosque is built, and the next day they raise a flag proclaiming their love of jihad - what then? Probably you'd be back to explain that jihad is the internal struggle to achieve spiritual peace.

Ranger

The Confederate Flag is not a religious symbol. Secondly it is only displayed to a)curry favor with 21st century anti-abolitionists b) express personal alliance with principles of Old South.

1) Freedom of speech doesn't carve out any particular special place for religious speech over other speech.

2) Are you absolutely sure those are the only two reasons someone might want to display a Confederate battle flag?

3) Even if you are correct about the motiviations of those wishing to display the flag, are those sufficient ground to deny the deisplayers their first ammendment rights?

The whole point is that this sudden concern for the absoluteness of the first ammendment by the left is disingenuous. The left has no problem denying people their first ammendment rights if they really disaprove of what those people think (or what the left thinks those people think).

The difference here is that those opposing the Cordoba House are not denying that the builders have the 'right' to build there, they are disputing the 'propriety' of them building there.

narciso

Forget it bgates, 'he's rolling' to where I have no idea. Now it was of course, then Gov. Hollings who unfurled the flag, back in 1955,
as a sign of resistance, I'm sure the obituaries will cover that little ditty, crickets

Captain Hate

Secondly it is only displayed to a)curry favor with 21st century anti-abolitionists b) express personal alliance with principles of Old South.

Great mind-reading, Nostradumbass. Have fun spending the stimulus money that financed that flight of brilliance.

Chubby

a comment in response to the CFP article says that mosque means "place of battle"

Al Asad

From Politico;

The harsh Republican response to President Barack Obama's defense of a mosque near ground zero marks a dramatic shift in the party's posture toward Islam — from a once active courtship of Muslim voters to a very public tolerance after Sept. 11 to an openly aired sense of mistrust.

Republican leaders have largely abandoned former President George W. Bush's post-Sept. 11 rhetorical embrace of American Muslims and his insistence — always controversial inside the party — that Islam is a religion of peace. This weekend, former Bush aides were among the very few Republicans siding with Obama, as many of the party's leaders have moved toward more vocal denunciations of Islam's role in violence abroad and suspicion of its place at home.

The shift plays to a hostility toward Islam among many Republican voters, and it fits with traditional Republican attacks on Democratic weakness on security policy.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41076.html#ixzz0wgwDturY

boris

"the builders have the 'right' to build there"

Communities, local governments, and well represented individuals, often have a lot of say in what property owners have a "right" to build on their property.

What is fair to say is that none of those are a factor in the debate (yet).

Creeping islam

Now that the muslims know that many of their fellow citizens do not want a mosque at this location, why are they persisting in their plan? Is this what they mean by "dialogue?"

Ranger

Communities, local governments, and well represented individuals, often have a lot of say in what property owners have a "right" to build on their property.

Posted by: boris | August 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Yes. And the left, which now is up in arms that such proceedural practices may be used to block the Cordoba House, never seemed to shy away from using similar means to block any number of building projects in the past. How many malls, appartment buildings, and even churches have been blocked over the years by "community organizers" fighting to get local zoning boards to deny approval of the projects on a wide array of grounds? I am sure developers around the country are taking heed that all they need to do to eliminate any legitimate legal opposition to their project is just include a muslim prayer room in it somewhere.

Red Man

"By your logic, 'sensitivity' would preclude
the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s from demonstrating in Mississippi because it would inflame the racists in the community."

Ranger;

You steered clear of this analogy. Why?

narciso

Yes, and cleo has show to tell us how trolling
has to do things, repeating the Journolist memes which Politico does as easy as breathing, which do not relate to the matter at hand

Now inviting Mattson and Mogahed, to this dinner was doubly illadvised, as among those present were the governments of Afghanistan and Azeirbaijan, who are threatened by thetype of Salafi preaching that Imam Rauf represents

sbw

Lessee. As I understand it, since religious freedom trumps all, a religion integrated with political philosophies that would undermine our Constitution must be given the freedom to pursue its goal.

However, a political party could not be associated with a religion because our Constitution assures complete separation of church and state and that would trump all.

So, for quasi political/religious leaders to advocate--and certainly for foreign governments to finance--the so-called Cordoba cultural center and mosque can be rejected as a political, not a religious project, that attempts to undermine our Constitution.

Al Asad

'which do not relate to the matter at hand'

Well, I am curious about the strategy here.

1) Alienate African American vote

2)Hispanic...ditto

3)Muslim voters....yup

Rely exclusively on the angry white voter
to return Republicans to power.

EXCELLENT LONG AND SHORT GAME

Clarice

Where were all the property rights folks when the fercocked Kelo decision was handed down? You remember-- the one that said pols could take your land and give it to their friends if they thought it might increase tax revenues....

OTOH, those who opposed Kelo seem in accord that there are property rights here, but that this is sacred land and the zoning commissioners have rights to determine what kind of structures are built on the site for matters affecting the broader public.

glasater

Al Asad-

Do you ever read anything from the Washington Examiner or say American Thinker or do you think Politico is the center of the universe...

Clarice

Ranger, Imagine a Wal-Mart mosque in the center of Manhattan.

Clarice

So, Al Asad, you've come here to advise the right how to win because you really want us to..?? That's what you'd have us believe?

Ranger

"By your logic, 'sensitivity' would preclude
the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s from demonstrating in Mississippi because it would inflame the racists in the community."

Ranger;

You steered clear of this analogy. Why?

Posted by: Red Man | August 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I ignored it because it seemed to simply support my argument that the left has been disingenous in its rehtoric for decades.

The desegrigation movement also points out how "flexible" the left is on the role of religion in politics. The modern left wants to decry any effort to use religious arguments or sentiments in politics today. Yet, looking back at the fight against segrigation, it is clear that churches played a key roll in both forming the basic moral/political arguments aginst segrigation and in the actual organizing of resistance to segrigation.

According to the left, religous morality must be completely seperated form politics when the issues at hand are favorable to conservatives. But, when the issues are more of a leftish bent, the more preachers the better.

The left doesn't see the first ammendment as a basic principle, it sees it as a weapon, to be used by the left when convenient, and denied to the right when it might be dangerous.

Chubby

((You steered clear of this analogy. Why?))

probably because your analogy framing the building of the mosque as a human rights issue is a straw man and smart people don't respond to bogus arguments other than to dis them

bunky

why can't the bible be read in Saudi Arabia?

Rick Ballard

bunky,

Because the average IQ is below 70. Oh - and the rock worshipers don't allow it.

bgates

Hey, Al's still here. I thought he'd been outsourced.

Chubby

((1) Alienate African American vote

2)Hispanic...ditto

3)Muslim voters....yup
))

ugh, a virtual admission that demogoguing special interests to get votes is a good thing

Old Lurker

I rise to remind Iggy that his pain is self inflicted:

"You really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Per usual."

One only needs to keep track of a few names to just, never, ever, read. Life is much nicer when that rule is applied.

------

I realize I am reverting to my lurker past but the vacation schedule is so demanding I generally sneak laptop time when no one is looking but know that I do catch up in the early hours!

And yes, my buddy reports that Lurch's RI titled yacht is still tied up within walking distance of his wife's first husband's beautiful Nantucket house.

And better yet, we are expecting Jane and Caro to sail over at the end of August! Hopefully the Isabel will be gone, and its dreadful owner (who served in Viet Nam and spent Christmas in Cambodia) too, so Caro can tie up.

Jane

OT: The Craiglist killer just offed himself in a Boston jail.

Al Asad

GLASATER
You assume my sources of information shape the logic of my opinions. I objectify, as much as is humanly possible because it is so easy to totter into the maelstrom of subjectivity. I read a lot of opposing opinions, but don't see anything that rocks my beliefs in the conservative media.

Take the example of my presence here. I do not seek the comfort of fellows that will echo my predilections.

I believe the human mind exists primarily to make excuses for what it has already decided to do. That includes me. But I fight it, and occasionally find it serves me well to fight it.

Red Man

Ranger;

So, it's tit for tat?

Two wrongs make it right?

Is that what your comment is broken down to?

glasater

Al Asad--

Well fight a little harder.

glasater

I read a lot of opposing opinions, but don't see anything that rocks my beliefs in the conservative media.

Me neither.

glasater

In liberal media that is...

bunky

How lame Kerry must feel living off a dead dude's money. All those toys bought with condiment royalties.

Rick Ballard

Since this post has shifted far from BOzo's Linda Blair imitation, I'll offer up an annihilation by experts of the statistical validity of the AGW fraud. The evisceration is charmingly subtle yet clear as fine crystal.

Al Asad

"a virtual admission that demogoguing special interests to get votes is a good thing"

Is that what I said? News to me.

Danube of Thought

"The Confederate Flag is not a religious symbol."

Can a religious symbol ever be used in a malicious, hurtful or insulting way? Is the question whether it is malicious, hurtful or insulting simply taken off the table if it is a religious symbol?

Al Asad

Glasater;

That's your response? Good job.

bgates

So, it's tit for tat?

No, he's just pointing out how ludicrous it is for the speech code enforcing, sensitivity training, orthodox left, who shriek "theocrat!" at the sight of a Republican carrying a Bible but swoon over the spiritual insight of The Right Reverend Al Sharpton, to claim to be champions of the First Amendment - especially, he could have added, given that the leftist in the best position to defend the First Amendment has allocated government money to help the fundraising effort for this mosque.

boris

The Assclowinstan spelling of cleo is Al Asad BTW.

Chubby

Your analogy would have worked better if you'd have matched protestor with protestor and apathy with apathy: the protestors in the mosque controversy are the people who don't want it; the apathetic, status quo, establishment people in the mosque controversy are those such as the mayor who want the plan to proceed, business as usual, no exceptions.

Ranger

Ranger;

So, it's tit for tat?

Two wrongs make it right?

Is that what your comment is broken down to?

Posted by: Red Man | August 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM

No. No where did I say that. What I said is that this is an argument (the issue of propriety) that has significant power. A power that has been enhanced relentlessly over the decades by the left. The left relentlessly frames their arguments as "right vs. wrong."

My point is that the left's rejection of this argument in this case is disingenuous. The left refused to even engage on the ground of the pripriety of the Cordoba House, so they simply pretend it is suddenly an illigitimate argument to make.

Try debating the issue honestly, weighing the basic legal right to do something (build the Cordoba House) vs. the moral imperative to treat your fellow citizens with basic decency (by take into account the emotional pain such a project will inflict on the survivors and the relatives of those who died).

Clarice

Yes, ranger, the Mormons were wrong wrong wrong to inject religion into the political fight on same sex marriage and the Catholics to do so on abortion but on placement of Wal Mart stores, protecting mother earth from development, stopping nuclear power plants, doing ay with our national borders and registering Dem voters and hauling them to the polls, there's no separation of church and state problem.

Al Asad

Boris;

You're like the race horse who came in 2nd whose jockey protests 'he only lost by a nose'

A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous and it certainly doesn't make you right.

Al Asad is Arabic for The Leo, not cleo, idjit.

Ignatz

Great moons of Jupiter!
Cleo, bubu and sylvia on one thread.
If anduril and the luciferian show up it'll be a full house; three jackanapes and a pair of queens.

qrstuv

Bunkerbuster,

Did this "moderate" cleric suddenly stop shaking woman's hands after he saw "Islam under attack"?

Or did he refuse to shake their hands before that?

If the latter, in what way is he a "moderate"?

***
Al Asad, we know you here as Cleo.

Rick Ballard

One might wonder where the state funding of Imam Fraud's world tour fits into BOzo's misunderstanding of the establishment clause. Personally, I like his Predator muslim outreach approach somewhat more - I can find that one in the Constitution.

Al Asad

"My point is that the left's rejection of this argument in this case is disingenuous"

So if someone with greater credibility on the issue were to argue in favor of building the mosque, you would have no problem?

Red Man

asad

butt out

bgates

if someone with greater credibility on the issue were to argue in favor of building the mosque

You want to outsource the job to somebody with more credibility?

Red Man

Ranger;

It still sounds like payback. There seems to be no other aspect of your comment

Clarice

Really, Rick, AT is asking Clinton for an explanation of why we are funding this bunco artist/Imam..
Do you suppose they are because he'll be laundering ME political contributions for the Dems?

I wouldn't put a damned thing past these thieving heathens.

Ranger

So if someone with greater credibility on the issue were to argue in favor of building the mosque, you would have no problem?

Posted by: Al Asad | August 15, 2010 at 01:17 PM

I think I layed out what was required for an honest debate in the next paragraph of that post:

Try debating the issue honestly, weighing the basic legal right to do something (build the Cordoba House) vs. the moral imperative to treat your fellow citizens with basic decency (by take into account the emotional pain such a project will inflict on the survivors and the relatives of those who died).


Posted by: Ranger | August 15, 2010 at 01:07 PM

Moral dilemas are dilemas not because they are a choice between "right and wrong" (in that case there is no moral dilema). They are are dilemas because they are a choise between two goods.

The left has tried to obscure that by claiming this is a fight over "right and wrong." It is the "right" (the first ammendment) vs. the wrong (bigoted, anti-muslim views). That is exactly how Obama tried to frame it, and that is why the left was so happy about what he said. Obama is now having to admit that it might not be a "right vs. wrong" situation. But rather then engage the true other issue involved in this moral dilema, he simply refuses to address the emotional impact on the community.

Chubby

((So if someone with greater credibility on the issue were to argue in favor of building the mosque, you would have no problem?))

another straw man; credibility and intellectual honesty are not synonymous

Red Man

Ranger;

Asads question is a good one, and you are being evasive, IMO.

nice talking to you

Ranger

Ranger;

It still sounds like payback. There seems to be no other aspect of your comment

Posted by: Red Man | August 15, 2010 at 01:25 PM

It's not payback. It's simply pointing out the hollowness of the left's rejection of the propriety argument on its face. The left has relentlessly demanded that the propriety of any particular issue they are concerned with must be addressed, as equal to, or even suprior to the legal issues involved. Now, when the issue of propriety is clearly not in their favor, they attempt to completly delegitimize it.

Are you willing to actually engage the debate on the bases of legal right vs. moral responsibility?

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I wonder when BOzo will make the Skokie Nazis parallel? I dunno if they'll get his foot jackhammered out of his mouth soon enough but I have some hope...

Ranger

Ranger;

Asads question is a good one, and you are being evasive, IMO.

nice talking to you

Posted by: Red Man | August 15, 2010 at 01:31 PM

How am I being evasive when I clearly laid out how I saw the perameters of an honest debate?

I reject the idea that this is a debate between "right and wrong" or "good and bad." Anybody who presents it in that frame, simply misses the real point of the debate.

So, to clarify my answer in case it was unclear:

No, I would not accept the argument from anyone that this is simply a "right vs. wrong" or "good vs. bad" situation. I don't really care how great the credibility of the person making that argument is, I reject it in this case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame