What this the cusp of Obama's failure?

[Siji]

Never ceases to amaze me how some fucktards are only concerned about prejudice and constitutional babble when it's convenient to them. Sort of reminds me of the whole Bush era. Guess some things are hard to let go.

[Fairweather Pure]

Jon Stewart with a topical and funny segment about the community center and the right wing conspiricy machine. I believe many of the points brought up in this thread are addressed!

http://tv.gawker.com/5617425/jon-stewar ... e=true&s=i

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

So the best you can come up with is unsourced links from questionable right-wing blogs?
There's a reason why reputable media outlets don't report those 'facts'.

how about we allow that mosque to be built and in return they allow a Baptist church in Mecca?

- Lower Manhattan has ZERO religious significance in Christianity
- Saudi Aribia is not bound by the US Constitution


Keep trying.. at least that one is a little bit more appropriate than your stupid nazi comparison.

Saudi Arabia is one of the purported sources of the cash to fund this. Once again, no one of any importance whatsoever is using the Constitution to deny anything to be built. There are local laws and zoning ordinances that may or may not be in play. I do not know the laws of that particular area, but I do know that your liberal leaders have even mentioned the same concerns.

[Metanis]

My point was simply that Obama inserted himself squarely in the middle of this firestorm. For no reason whatsoever. What a moron. People are starting to notice he's not nearly as smart as we've been told.

The subject of the thread was Obama's fall to earth, not some gaudy outhouse in lower Manhattan.

[Gzette]

but religious tolerance is central to the entire topic. the entire debate and reason people are so butt hurt over this issue is a reflection of the creeping religious intolerance that now pervades America like no other time in, at least, the last several decades.

Obama does tend to stick his nose where it doesn't belong (IE beer summit), but those issues must reflect something he feels very adamant about. Civil liberties are at the core of this. Ultimately, I think his rhetoric displays tolerance. And I admire that. We are not a nation that should be swayed by dark feelings of suspicion towards particular ethnic groups or religious communities. It is okay to disagree, it is not okay to discriminate. It is illegal for our government to descriminate. So for our President to say, hey I got no problem with Muslims being there, I think that's something that should be applauded. Not condemned.

If there is a zoning issue, so be it. But if the Mosque (omg community center) has all its permits in order, then there should be nothing blocking it from being built. In fact, I think that its presence would and should be a testament to the tolerance of this nation. Progressive contains the word progress for a reason, and tolerance is one of the most highly held standards of Christian practice.

So is this the death knell of the Obama presidency? I dont think that is the question you should be asking yourself. I would be asking, is this the death knell of tolerance in America? I think you need to take a step back from the partisanship, socialist rhetoric and ask yourself truly, really what is this issue about. Nevermind health care, never mind congressional politics, never mind Harry Reid (who is just kowtowing to the diddoheads so he doesnt get beat by a Tea Tard). Think about the founding principles of this nation. The religious freedom our forefathers pursued, the expressed desire to seperate religion from politics and government.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

One would think that the guy who wants to put this in that spot would get a big clue that it is causing grief and anguish for a lot of people...specifically the tens of thousand people in that specific area that lost people they cared about. He doesn't give a shit about them or bridging anything. It is in extremely poor taste to put that in that location (by accounts I read on one site, the landing gear of one of those planes went through the building that was previously located there) and he knows it, the people there know it, and everyone on this board knows it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer- ... New%20York

there is your poll conducted by CNN and listed on one of your liberal sites since you think everything comes from fox news.

New York voters oppose by a nearly 2-to-1 margin plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, according to a new Siena Research Institute poll released Wednesday.

The same voters, however, overwhelmingly say the center's developers have a constitutional right to build it.

When asked if they "support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House," New Yorkers said they oppose the facility, which is expected to cost $100 million, by a 63-27 percent margin. At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it

[Tyek]

Out of curiousity, is there a lack of buildings in New York?

I don't really care about the mosque and where it is built. If he wants to build it there, then go for it. He has to know that he, his followers and his building are going to be a target for racists and idiots.

I do think he missed out on a amazing opportunity though. He could have negotiated an amazing deal for himself with the city. He could have "been persuaded" to move the building at a much lower price. He could have come out and said something along the line of "While we in no way are affiliated with the events of 9/11, we understand the concerns and in the spirit of cooperation we are moving the facility. The Muslim religion is one of tolerance and peace and we hope that people will see and understand that."He would have come out looking good both publically and financially and the muslim people may have been able to get an even larger facility.

I am not saying he should have done this, just that instead of antagonizing a portion of the population, possibly a large portion, he could have appeared to be a little more open to options.

For the far left people on here. Do you really not think all the shit you are claiming about Obama and the media coverage doesn't happen to the right side. When you get extreme viewpoints you are going to see extreme biased coverage. Bush could not possibly have done a lot of the things he was blamed for. He was not that smart (according to most of you) yet he apparently was able to command the most evil, corrupt, yet somehow inept Presidency ever.

Obama has made a lot of mistakes, but he has done some things right as well. Frankly I am going with the vote against every incumbent regardless of party strategy again this year. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, I know, but I want to make my own personal point.

[Noysyrump]

Has anyone seen the demographic in that area... More damn falaphal carts on the corners than hot dog stands. They want to build there, because there is a large muslim community centered there. Plain and simple. Unless there is an actual zoning law prohibiting any religious buildings, of any kind, on the location, then the matter is solved. They build.

It's the two party system itself that is flawed, it makes everyone gravitate to one side or the other. And it's obvious either side, right or left, will use or ignore the constitution to attempt to get thier way. That's just human nature. But again, please people, remeber that we DO NOT LIVE WITH A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. Democracy would be chaos. This is a Constitutional Republic. So stop using "60% of the people dont want..." as that has ZERO bearing on what is legal or illegal. With a democracy, and shit tons of cash, I could get the population to elect me as Emperor.

[Xyun]

who gives a shit about a fucking mosque? you live in the USA, fucking deal with it. fucking pussies.

[Metanis]

...but religious tolerance is central to the entire topic...
...religious intolerance...
...Civil liberties are at the core of this...
...his rhetoric displays tolerance....
...tolerance is one of the most highly held standards of Christian practice....
...the death knell of tolerance in America?...
...the expressed desire to seperate religion from politics and government.

You say it's about tolerance. Many (a significant majority actually) people respectfully disagree.

Now there is no compromise position. You can't "split the difference". Hence Obama's meddling is a no-win situation for him. You can try to attribute it to lofty moral ambitions for Obama. Many others will attribute it to his exalted opinion of himself. Thus reflecting badly on the man. I personally attribute it to Obama's stupidity. He's too dumb to realize he jumped into a snake-pit.

[Metanis]

and tolerance is one of the most highly held standards of Christian practice.

I'd like for you to point me to the Bible verses that dictate "tolerance" in these circumstances. Then I'd like you to point me to the corresponding teachings in the Koran. Then please expound on the tolerance practiced by Islamists in the world today.

(I realize you won't do any of these. So let me inform you that the Bible is full of exhortations for Christians to stand up for what's right. We are supposed to resist evil and to do so passionately. The tolerance we are supposed to exhibit is in our daily lives with other people, not with forces of corruption and death.

Love the sinner but hate the sin!)

[Xatrei]

Which is precisely why yours, theirs and the rest of the world's religious superstitious bullshit is so retarded.

[Aabidano]

Love the sinner but hate the sin!

That's a mistaken assumption that wishy washy ministers want to foist off on people to make them feel better. He hates the sinner and the sin.

The sinner can be redeemed however and the sin blotted out.

Anyway...

...his followers and his building are going to be a target for racists and idiots.

Pretty much.

It's legal and protected, get over it. You can't have one ruleset for white Christians and one for everyone else. The only countries where it wouldn't be legal and protected are all dictatorships and kingdoms without basic civil liberties.

You can't have it both ways.

[Gzette]

Peter 3:8-11

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that you be not judged

Psalm 25:10

All the paths of the Lord are steadfast love and faithfulness, for those who keep his covenant and his testimonies.

Acts 10:28

And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

Jesus die for ALL of mankind's sins, forgiving non-believers as well

Sura 2.256

Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error

109. Atheists - Al-Kafiroon
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
109:1 Say: O unbelievers!
109:2 I do not serve that which you serve,
109:3 Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
109:4 Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
109:5 Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
109:6 You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

2:62
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

5:69
Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good -- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

2:190
Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance” (6:108)

[Gzette]

and by the way you did actually miss the point entirely. Whether or not tolerance is the corner stone of either religion is not the point. the point is tolerance is the cornerstone of this nation. both religions also have plenty of rhetoric stating that non-believers should be shunned, pitied or even killed.

[Bagar-]

Has anyone seen the demographic in that area... More damn falaphal carts on the corners than hot dog stands. They want to build there, because there is a large muslim community centered there. Plain and simple. Unless there is an actual zoning law prohibiting any religious buildings, of any kind, on the location, then the matter is solved. They build.

Literally the most intelligible and sensible thing that Nosy has ever posted. And I agree.

[Zaelath]

One would think that the guy who wants to put this in that spot would get a big clue that it is causing grief and anguish for a lot of people...specifically the tens of thousand people in that specific area that lost people they cared about. He doesn't give a shit about them or bridging anything. It is in extremely poor taste to put that in that location (by accounts I read on one site, the landing gear of one of those planes went through the building that was previously located there) and he knows it, the people there know it, and everyone on this board knows it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer- ... New%20York

there is your poll conducted by CNN and listed on one of your liberal sites since you think everything comes from fox news.

New York voters oppose by a nearly 2-to-1 margin plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, according to a new Siena Research Institute poll released Wednesday.

The same voters, however, overwhelmingly say the center's developers have a constitutional right to build it.

When asked if they "support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House," New Yorkers said they oppose the facility, which is expected to cost $100 million, by a 63-27 percent margin. At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it

That's about the same percentage, or a little less, that thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11 isn't it? I wonder if there's a correlation.

[Xyun]

bottom line is this is the USofA. You bleeding heart pussies that don't like it should GTFO. my guess you could give two shits one way or the other, but decided to jump on the crybaby wagon for political innuendo. it's still a non-issue.

[Zaelath]

bottom line is this is the USofA. You bleeding heart pussies that don't like it should GTFO. my guess you could give two shits one way or the other, but decided to jump on the crybaby wagon for political innuendo. it's still a non-issue.

Which one is the crybaby wagon? Seems all the wailing and moaning isn't coming from the usual bleeding hearts..

[Xyun]

people crying about a mosque, in this case, conservatives.

[Metanis]

...rhetoric stating that non-believers should be killed.

I'd like you to find that in the New Testament for me. Moral equivalence is a very dangerous thing.

Now, I'm quite impressed you took the effort to look up some verses attempting to support your tolerance hypothesis. I won't bore you with counter verses as we both know that the battle of the verses will not be conclusive.

Yes, Jesus urges us to not get all sanctimonious and haughty. Forgive 7 times 70 times, etc., etc. However, He also urges us to fight evil and oppression. He knows we are going to get it wrong sometimes but we still have to get in the fight.

The controversy over a mosque at Ground Zero has little to do with the physical idea of a building. The controversy is how the idea that will be perceived in the Muslim world as a Victory dance over the Great Satan. As such it furthers the evil and oppression being pushed by the radical Islamists. I can oppose it with a clear conscience because I know my opposition has nothing to do with "freedom of religion" or "religious tolerance" in the USA. Those are not the true issue and many other Americans recognize that fact.

The truly intolerant are those radical Islamists who continue to push their religion on the whole world. Except for a few Jehovah's Witnesses most Christians won't say "boo" and try to proselytize you. Of course that's our failure too sadly.

[Xatrei]

Unbearable cunts like you are quick to quote OT chapter and verse when it suits your argument, but the moment someone quotes a bit that you find unpleasant or that casts your faith in a bad light, you quickly dismiss it with a casual plea of "but that's the old testament." Fuck off, seriously.

[Spang]

If the muslim extremists had their way, they would kill every single non-muslim on the planet.

The only group of people who hate Muslims more than conservatives, are al-Qaida militants. If given the opportunity, bin Laden would have the two-blocks-away-from-Ground-Zero community center bombed.

[Metanis]

Unbearable cunts like you are quick to quote OT chapter and verse when it suits your argument, but the moment someone quotes a bit that you find unpleasant or that casts your faith in a bad light, you quickly dismiss it with a casual plea of "but that's the old testament." Fuck off, seriously.

The Book isn't the issue. Gzette casually implied that Jews and Christians go around sawing off heads and crap like the Muslims BECAUSE their scriptures dictate such. I take issue with that but since I'm not a Jew and the Jews are governed by the Old Testament I'll not argue their faith. But since you bring it up, then show me the equivalence EVEN in the OT. God and the Jews spilled a lot of blood but largely because other tribes wouldn't stay home.

Christians don't go around killing people that don't conform to their faith. Muslims do. There is no equivalence. Surely not now and not in several hundred years or so. And the Spanish Inquisition wasn't about converting the unwashed it was keeping the faithful in the fold. Witch trials were about the same and not anything like the beheadings you've seen on TV in near real time. There is no equivalence. To use it as an excuse is to argue from false premises and immoral motivations.

[Noysyrump]

Unbearable cunts like you are quick to quote OT chapter and verse when it suits your argument, but the moment someone quotes a bit that you find unpleasant or that casts your faith in a bad light, you quickly dismiss it with a casual plea of "but that's the old testament." Fuck off, seriously.

The Book isn't the issue. Gzette casually implied that Jews and Christians go around sawing off heads and crap like the Muslims BECAUSE their scriptures dictate such. I take issue with that but since I'm not a Jew and the Jews are governed by the Old Testament I'll not argue their faith. But since you bring it up, then show me the equivalence EVEN in the OT. God and the Jews spilled a lot of blood but largely because other tribes wouldn't stay home.

Christians don't go around killing people that don't conform to their faith. Muslims do. There is no equivalence. Surely not now and not in several hundred years or so. And the Spanish Inquisition wasn't about converting the unwashed it was keeping the faithful in the fold. Witch trials were about the same and not anything like the beheadings you've seen on TV in near real time. There is no equivalence. To use it as an excuse is to argue from false premises and immoral motivations.

Metanis... you should read a book before you get all high and mighty.

The first crusade. Christians KILLED EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM IN JERUSELUM. Men women children.

The Tuetonic Order formed for the specific reason of converting or killing the pagans in Lithuania. Often killing was the easiest and most profitable, so most widely used.

The Reconquista of Spain did not involve the handing out of teddy bears. They killed or drove out the muslim population if they refused to convert.

Now granted, these all happened nearly a thousand years ago. Since the reformation, christianity as calmed down quite a bit. Mainly because the Pope doesnt hold the power he once did. However European colonialism in both africa and the americas are wrought with genocide and "conversion". Then there's the English conquest of the Levant during World War I. And lord knows what may have happened had Galipoli been succesful. The Balkens are a hotbed of Muslim persecution to this day.

And you would be foolish to believe individual incidents of shootings of Muslims by American troops wouldnt be motivated by religion, at least occasionally.

The Muslim beheadings of christians are also the work of individuals. If you walked into a corner mosque, chances are your not going to get beheaded because it's demanded by the Torah.

[vn_Tanc]

The reasons you don't find any references to religious tolerance in the holy books is because it's not there.

Religious tolerance is a secular idea. You can tell because it's pragmatic and somewhat sensible. Unlike all that prehistoric horseshit in those old, simplistic, hate-filled pamphlets you religious goons base your limited thinking on.

THAT's why your founding fathers didn't want religion tainting the governance of your country, and why the slide towards a christian theocracy is so alarming to everyone outside of the US Christian Taliban trying to bring it about.

Metanis the poster child for what happens when you mix educational deficiency with religious zealotry and political ignorance. God fucking help you all.

[Aabidano]

I wonder how Metanis' heterosexual white evangelical christian theocracy would differ from Saudi Arabia, besides that a different religion would be be supported.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

I like Charlie Brooker.

Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.

The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.

I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.

When I heard about it – in passing, in a soundbite – I figured it was a US example of the sort of inanely confrontational fantasy scheme Anjem Choudary might issue a press release about if he fancied winding up the tabloids for the 900th time this year. I was wrong. The "Ground Zero mosque" is a genuine proposal, but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque.

Wait, it gets duller. It's not being built by extremists either. Cordoba House, as it's known, is a proposed Islamic cultural centre, which, in addition to a prayer room, will include a basketball court, restaurant, and swimming pool. Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations. It'll probably also have comfy chairs and people who smile at you when you walk in, the monsters.

To get to the Cordoba Centre from Ground Zero, you'd have to walk in the opposite direction for two blocks, before turning a corner and walking a bit more. The journey should take roughly two minutes, or possibly slightly longer if you're heading an angry mob who can't hear your directions over the sound of their own enraged bellowing.

Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.

New York being a densely populated city, there are lots of other buildings and businesses within two blocks of Ground Zero, including a McDonald's and a Burger King, neither of which has yet been accused of serving milkshakes and fries on hallowed ground. Regardless, for the opponents of Cordoba House, two blocks is too close, period. Frustratingly, they haven't produced a map pinpointing precisely how close is OK.

That's literally all I'd ask them in an interview. I'd stand there pointing at a map of the city. Would it be offensive here? What about here? Or how about way over there? And when they finally picked a suitable spot, I'd ask them to draw it on the map, sketching out roughly how big it should be, and how many windows it's allowed to have. Then I'd hand them a colour swatch and ask them to decide on a colour for the lobby carpet. And the conversation would continue in this vein until everyone in the room was in tears. Myself included.

That hasn't happened. Instead, 70% of Americans are opposed to the "Ground Zero mosque", doubtless in many cases because they've been led to believe it literally is a mosque at Ground Zero. And if not . . . well, it must be something significant. Otherwise why would all these pundits be so angry about it? And why would anyone in the media listen to them with a straight face?

According to a recent poll, one in five Americans believes Barack Obama is a Muslim, even though he isn't. A quarter of those who believe he's a Muslim also claimed he talks about his faith too much. Americans aren't dumb. Clearly these particular Americans have either gone insane or been seriously misled. Where are they getting their information?

Sixty per cent said they learned it from the media. Which means it's time for the media to give up.

Seriously, broadcasters, journalists: just give up now. Because either you're making things worse, or no one's paying attention anyway. May as well knock back a few Jagermeisters, unplug the autocue, and just sit there dumbly repeating whichever reality-warping meme the far right wants to go viral this week. What's that? Obama is Gargamel and he's killing all the Smurfs? Sod it. Whatever. Roll titles.

There really isn't a /rolleyes emoticon big enough for this "outrage". Slightly paraphrasing an internet acquaintance of mine, the alternative to laughing at the idiocy of this is to "start seeing the persons on FOX as real people - and seriously, they're as real as muppets... It makes me feel warm and cuddly to know that somewhere there's a Jim Henson equivalent who's fisting Glenn Beck untill he is squirting in full technicolor all over FOXs daytime offering."

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The only thing the guy has to do is move it down the road a bit and all of the bitching stops. We all know that this board is heavily ultra liberal. We know you fucks would all be in that 27%.

As for Zaeleth, I don't think there is a correlation in that merely because 63% of them actually knew they had the Constitutional right to build it while saying they did not want it built there.

Bottom line is that I think he actually will move the location. If he doesn't, then he better have good insurance because some real right wing nuts are going to end up taking it out.

[Aabidano]

Bottom line is that I think he actually will move the location. If he doesn't, then he better have good insurance because some real right wing nuts are going to end up taking it out.

Don't think it would be insurable myself, unless NYC has an insurer of last resort program like FL does. They'll just maintain a fund to cover it or folks will pay for damages directly and write it off.

*Edit - When did religious freedom become ultra liberal?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

This has nothing to do with the freedom to do anything religiously. I wish that people would stop using freedom of religion in this particular argument because it has less than zero to do with anything. No one at all is arguing anything saying that Muslims are not allowed to practice in NYC. No one is arguing that Constitutionally they could build this in that spot.

The reason I label this as liberal/ultra liberal retardation is that the 25% or so of the people who think it is a grand idea are all super liberal Obama backers. Most of the people with any common sense at all understand that this is still a sensitive issue in NYC and would prefer them to not exercise their rights to build right there.....but then part of being a liberal is having no common sense or just choosing to completely ignore it.

[Aabidano]

It's almost like some evil Islamist mastermind is attempting to force us to become as partisan and hate filled as they are. And succeeding.

[Spang]

The anti-mosqueteers are acting like the people behind Park51 are the same people behind 9/11.

In a nutshell:

Muslims = Park51

Terrorists = 9/11

[Canelek]

I think the proximity of the proposed building to be in questionable to poor taste. I do not back those that are adamantly opposed to it, however.

[Sylvus]

The anti-mosqueteers are acting like the people behind Park51 are the same people behind 9/11.

In a nutshell:

Muslims = Park51

Terrorists = 9/11

Exactly. And that's why it's kind of embarrassing that people are so up in arms against it. Beyond the issues of it being Constitutionally within their rights (which we've all agreed long ago that it is), none of us are suggesting that it would be in good taste for terrorists to build a monument ANYWHERE, particularly within a short walk of Ground Zero. We're suggesting that for Muslims in general (who also count among their numbers people killed and affected by the 9/11 attacks) who are no more to blame than Christians, Jews, Trekkies or Furries for the attacks, it's not at all in poor taste for them to build a community center wherever they feel like it. Particularly if it's near a high concentration of the types of people the community center is geared towards, which it sounds like it is.

Unfortunately I don't think this thread is going to sway the opinions of people that think that all Muslims are to blame for 9/11.

Yes it's in poor taste to allow people to piss on the graves of their enemies. The people behind Park51 aren't our enemies. Our enemies don't need basketball courts two blocks away from their last target to plan their next attack. That's what they have Pakistan for.

At least this argument that we're all having right now isn't affecting any extremists' notions that we are infidels who oppose Islam's very existence...

[Metanis]

It appears there is a direct correlation between Obama's vacations and his poll numbers. When he stays out of sight and keeps his yap shut his poll numbers go UP! Someone should point out to him that he might achieve 100% popularity if he just never comes back to work...

[Spang]

Obama's approval rating today at Rasmussen is 47%. This time last year, 48%. IT'S PLUMMETING!

[Aslanna]

I'll agree with Metanis on one thing: I have no idea why Obama had to get involved and make a statement. Let NY worry about it and move on. Last I heard 20% of people surveyed thought Obama was a Muslim. They are also retarded but that's not the point. I'm not sure why he'd want to give them more ammunition.

[Bagar-]

This has nothing to do with the freedom to do anything religiously. I wish that people would stop using freedom of religion in this particular argument because it has less than zero to do with anything. No one at all is arguing anything saying that Muslims are not allowed to practice in NYC. No one is arguing that Constitutionally they could build this in that spot.

The reason I label this as liberal/ultra liberal retardation is that the 25% or so of the people who think it is a grand idea are all super liberal Obama backers. Most of the people with any common sense at all understand that this is still a sensitive issue in NYC and would prefer them to not exercise their rights to build right there.....but then part of being a liberal is having no common sense or just choosing to completely ignore it.

I've managed to translate your post to make it more coherent. You can thank me later chief.

This has nothing to do with the freedom to do anything religiously. I wish that people would stop using freedom of religion in this particular argument

Please stop using logic rather than pure ignorance and emotion. This would help my argument immensely, as mine is entirely based upon the latter

No one at all is arguing anything saying that Muslims are not allowed to practice in NYC. No one is arguing that Constitutionally they could build this in that spot.

I'm going to make one reasonable statement so that the rest of my post appears to make sense

The reason I label this as liberal/ultra liberal retardation is that the 25% or so of the people who think it is a grand idea are all super liberal Obama backers.

I'm going to now make up some statistics. I hope no one realizes how full of shit and presumptuous I am as I claim to scientifically know the political favoring of 25% of the people that support an islamic community center being built in the near vicinity of ground zero

Most of the people with any common sense at all understand that this is still a sensitive issue in NYC

Obviously you'll understand why ignorance and emotion should always outweigh logic and reason because of a terrorist attack that happened nearly a fucking decade ago. I'm going to disguise being close-minded and xenophobic as having 'common sense,' again, because America should never, ever move on from tragic events. This is also why I hate the Japanese.

would prefer them to not exercise their rights to build right there

would prefer them not exercise basic civil liberties because of their race and religion

but then part of being a liberal is having no common sense or just choosing to completely ignore it.

and I'd like to reassert that I associate being conservative with being close-minded, ignorant, xenophobic, racist, and fucking stupid because despite the fact that I neither live in New York City nor have any stake in what happens I have taken a stance on this particular issue based solely upon my irrational fears of islamic people due to the media telling me that I should be concerned. In the same line I am going to criticize people of the opposing argument for taking a stance on this issue, because I love double standards nearly as much as I love taking massive amounts of cock in the ass.

[Sylvus]

So much for the arguments questioning where the money is coming from. I'm pretty sure that Kilmoll won't watch the clip, but starting around the 1:45 mark The Daily Show owned Fox News and their questioning where Park 51 is getting its funding.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... mpany-trap

[Show]

Fox News is questioning the Kingdom Holding Company that Imam Rauf is supposedly tied to. They mention how it belongs to an evil man. They never mention the evil man's name, just allude to what a shadowy figure he is. Surprise! It's the second largest shareholder of Fox Corp., Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. More disingenuous fear-mongering from Fox News. (That's not a surprise though)

[Spang]

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

So much for the arguments questioning where the money is coming from. I'm pretty sure that Kilmoll won't watch the clip, but starting around the 1:45 mark The Daily Show owned Fox News and their questioning where Park 51 is getting its funding.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... mpany-trap

[Show]

Fox News is questioning the Kingdom Holding Company that Imam Rauf is supposedly tied to. They mention how it belongs to an evil man. They never mention the evil man's name, just allude to what a shadowy figure he is. Surprise! It's the second largest shareholder of Fox Corp., Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. More disingenuous fear-mongering from Fox News. (That's not a surprise though)

Newsflash...I am not Fox News. I will read the website on occasion, but I cannot watch their shit on TV. So out side of that, grats to Jon Stewart for making fun of them? All they did is confirm what I actually posted days ago )also grats to you for showing that you never bother to read anything unless it is posted by one of your liberal pals.

Saudi Arabia is one of the purported sources of the cash to fund this.

[Sylvus]

So much for the arguments questioning where the money is coming from. I'm pretty sure that Kilmoll won't watch the clip, but starting around the 1:45 mark The Daily Show owned Fox News and their questioning where Park 51 is getting its funding.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... mpany-trap

[Show]

Fox News is questioning the Kingdom Holding Company that Imam Rauf is supposedly tied to. They mention how it belongs to an evil man. They never mention the evil man's name, just allude to what a shadowy figure he is. Surprise! It's the second largest shareholder of Fox Corp., Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. More disingenuous fear-mongering from Fox News. (That's not a surprise though)

Newsflash...I am not Fox News. I will read the website on occasion, but I cannot watch their shit on TV. So out side of that, grats to Jon Stewart for making fun of them? All they did is confirm what I actually posted days ago )also grats to you for showing that you never bother to read anything unless it is posted by one of your liberal pals.

Saudi Arabia is one of the purported sources of the cash to fund this.

I was responding more to:

They refuse to say WHO is funding this. It has been pretty well established that the funding for this has to be coming from outside sources and yet no one can say who. If it turned out that Al Queda was directly funding this, would you still be all for them building it?


let me edit this to say that I do not believe Al Queda is funding this before fuckface miir and xatrei pipe up with their bullshit

Obviously some of it was probably coming from Saudi Arabia, as there is a shitton of money in Saudi Arabia. There are also a lot of people in Saudi Arabia who have been in business dealings with all kinds of different people in the US. From the Bin Laden family's business ties with the Bush family, to THIS VERY GUY's dealings with the company that is the most outspoken mouthpiece against Park 51, at what point will the hypocrisy in deciding where money can come from end?

You're doing basically the same thing as Fox News, by the way, or else you're getting your news from a very similar source. "What if, and this is just an if, the money is coming from AL QAEDA?!?" And then people hear that shit and and they're like "Did you hear the money is coming from Al QAEDA?!?!?!? RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

If they are constitutionally allowed to do it, and the financial details are becoming less murky and seem less scary than both Fox News and a source completely unrelated to Fox News (Kilmoll) were originally reporting, is it time to shut up and let them build their community center?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

And again you completely proved that you do not read or you have extremely selective reading.

let me edit this to say that I do not believe Al Queda is funding this before fuckface miir and xatrei pipe up with their bullshit

Which part of that did you fail to understand?

I guess I should not bother to mention that damn near every single one of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi.

[miir]

I guess I should not bother to mention that damn near every single one of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi.

Then that must mean Fox 'News' (and possibly all other right-wing news sites) are funded by SAUDI TERRORISTS.

[Sylvus]

And again you completely proved that you do not read or you have extremely selective reading.

let me edit this to say that I do not believe Al Queda is funding this before fuckface miir and xatrei pipe up with their bullshit

Which part of that did you fail to understand?

I read exactly what you said, quoted it and then parodied it. Please take a look at the portion of my previous post that uses different sized fonts. I will spell it out more clearly since you obviously read my post very carefully and then didn't comprehend the message. When I compared you to Fox News, I was speaking of both of your tendencies (in this case, yours may not be a "tendency" per se, as I don't have data on how often you do it) to make an exaggerated, incendiary claim (in this case "Funded by Al Qaeda!") and then to use a much less noticeable footnote (or to overlook it entirely, such as Jon Stewart pointed out Fox News doing in the clip I posted earlier today) to say that you know that's not what they were doing.

The media disingenuously suggesting that this project is funded by terrorists is what has your poll numbers at the number they are at. People think they can trust the media (silly people), so when they hear that this guy is shady, they think it's true. As of right now, I have not seen an actual piece of data saying that Imam Rauf is shady, other than his dealings with financiers who deal with the same people who claim that he is shady. One can't have both.

[Metanis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXPmccFj7to

Don't watch if you still love Obama. But it's refreshingly irreverent.

[miir]

OBAMA IS A MUSLIM!!!!!!
OBAMA LOVES HIMSELF!!!!!!
HERES A PHOTOSHOPPED PICTURE OF OBAMA WEARING A TURBAN!!!!




That's comedy gold!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Had some funny enough bits, but the woman doing it was really annoying.

[Fairweather Pure]

Why can't Republicans do comedy?