[deleted. pull a stunt like that again, and I'll ban you without warning. ED]

. . . and in related news, Unions hating unions.

http://tinyurl.com/26hg9v9

Hate to raise a trifle like inconsistency---it's the least of his sins---but does anyone remember all that religious tolerance in Waco, TX?

Don't bet on it. Obama will pull the race card, as usual, and claim that IF you don't like him, THEN you are a racist.

His speech to 'celebrate' the Ramadan month, included such outrageous claims as:

"These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's
role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human
beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and
racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that
Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made
extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my
best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world - and your families
and friends - as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan."

Tell me - what exactly has Islam done to advance 'justice, progress, tolerance and human dignity'? How does stoning women, beheading men, rejecting democracy, suicide bombers etc - show these attributes?
And exactly what 'extraordinary contributions' have Muslims made to the USA? Tell us, Obama.

Now, he's invited several openly anti-American supporters of terrorism (and Obama denies the reality of Islamic terrorism)..to the WH. He supports the imam, who is anti-American and supports terrorism, of this proposed mosque.

Obama references the Constitution - which he accepts and rejects on a daily basis according to his whim of the day - and religious freedom. This mosque has zilch to do with religious freedom; and nothing to do with openness to dialogue. Only Muslims are allowed in. It's a political assertion of domination.

And that's also what Obama is doing. He is asserting his dominance against the Will of the People. This is important to understand. Obama's narcissism cannot allow him to stand equal to others. He has to dominate and reduce the individual power of others.

It's a purely psychological pathology. So - the people don't want this - and Obama's reaction is to (as he did with health care, with the stimulus, with his cap and trade, with his rejection of Arizona's attempt to stop illegals)...dominate the people and reduce their power.

Well, lets see.

Obama has used Freedom of Religion as the basis for his support. Either the US believes in Freedom of Religion for all religions, or it doesn't believe in freedom of religion. In fairness to Obama, you cannot claim to have freedom of religion in your country and then apply it selectively to exclude certain religions.

On a separate note, I thought Bloomberg, who (if I m not mistaken) was, until recently, a Republican and who presumably still has strong Republican ties, had already approved this mosque, as had the city planning boards. Obama hasn't actually contributed anything substantial to the process - he has simply voiced his opinion. Why the fuss?

As for Slater, he may be right. He may be wrong. Like me.

As with most celebrities, O thinks he is teflon. He thinks he can say and do whatever he wants and the people will still adore him. I am so looking forward to November.

»...you cannot claim to have freedom of religion in your country and then apply it selectively to exclude certain religions...»

said devil'S advocate

well...

If that religion is intolerant of other religions;

yes

If that religion encourages its followers to murder teen girls and women for »honour» reasons;

yes

If that religion encourage its followers to become terrorists.

YES

You can still call yourself tolerant while excluding extremely intolerant people at the same time.

If you don't understand this, then there is a lot you don't understand and I've just wasted my time.

ET @ 10:41, apart from the tiresome frequency with which you trot out your "diagnosis" of Obama, what is especially egregious is your insistence on "medicalizing" his problem: his narcissism is a pathology, you insist. Why offer him that excuse? The evidence is overwhelming that he is malign, not sick.

Unlike Slater, Obama didn't take a couple of beers with him down the chute. I'm guessing he has taken the Democrat majority in the house and senate instead.

Nice.

Syncro

If you consider that Obama is a Muslim who practiced taqiyya in order to ascend to the White House, its pretty much what should be expected.

My history is a little weak and maybe I'm talking oranges and apples, but, weren't latter day saints denied admission into the Union unless they recanted polygamy? How tolerant is that? What facet of Islam should be expected to be disregarded for more inclusiveness in western civilization?

ED figure of speech, but kiss my ass, I'm outta here.

ED figure of speech, but kiss my ass, I'm outta here.

The establishment of a Ground Zero mosque is tantamount to raising a military outpost for the muslims.

As the Muslims gain more and more ground here in the West, they strengthen their resolve to introduce Sharia Law as a parallel legal system which is not our legal system, it is a religious legal system. It is base solely on the teaching of a pedophile/war-monger/messiah wanna-be!

Why would the Big O want to have a new legal system introduced and established in the US if his ultimate goal is its destruction? Only makes sense that his plans are right on track.

Anybody wanna bet just how long it will take some
nutbar to fly a plane into the completed mosque?
OK so, wishful thinking.......

»...Why offer him that excuse? The evidence is overwhelming that he is malign, not sick...»

I agree with you completely Nick,

Obama is not the victim of anything, he consciously choses to do what he does.

and about ET...

well...

ET writes very well, as some say »she writes elegantly», BUT...

either her point is weak (or wrong) compared to the nice packaging it is wrapped in.

Or she simply took someone else's point in the above comments and »recycled it» by dressing it up »more elegantly» in her own nicer words and nicer sentences.

more often than not with ET the wrapping is far more spectacular and »elegant» than the content/substance.

nick - you seem to have a misunderstanding of the term 'pathological'. It doesn't refer only to a physical disease.

When the term is applied to a psychological aberration, it means 'excessive, extremely abnormal' and also, probably beyond treatment - which is how I use the term.

By 'malign', which is a verb, I presume you mean the adjective 'malignant'. This can refer to both physical and mental illness. When it refers to the mental, it's similar to pathological except that it adds more 'effect'. The malignant term refers to the harm caused by this person to others.
Obama is both pathological and malignant.

If you don't like my posts, then, what you do is you scroll up the thread from the bottom and when you see it's from me, simply scroll past without reading. I stand by my diagnosis of Obama as a pathological narcissist.

devil's advocate. This situation has zilch to do with freedom of religion. No-one is trying to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. It's one issue only; the geographic site of their mosque. To try to divert the focus on this basic issue to 'freedom of religion' is a red herring.

"..Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human
beings..." OB

You can see an example of that on the horrifying cover page of the Aug 09/10 issue of Time magazine. (just to throw in an aside, I realize not all Muslims would approve of that method of keeping females in line but a disturbingly large percentage would.

I am amazed this mosque thingy has turned into a religious freedom argument.

It isn't that they can't build mosques in the USA. It is they shouldn't build one their.

There are numerous mosques in NYC and within zoning laws there will likely be many more.

The Ground Zero mosque isn't about freedom of religion, it is about the Triumphalism of Islam, about poking a stick in your enemies eyes, about laying claim to ground, about showing perceived superiority.

It is called the Cordoba Mosque.

It is really the "F**k U" mosque.

»...Anybody wanna bet just how long it will take some
nutbar to fly a plane into the completed mosque?...»

Ben,

Unfortunately the Main Stream Media would use this to convince people the Tea Prty ( and everyone on the right ) is responsible and thus full of violent intolerant racists...

Either the US believes in Freedom of Religion for all religions, or it doesn't believe in freedom of religion.

You'll find a farmer without his hand out before you'll
find principled consistency from the small dead teabagging crowd.

"If you don't understand this, then there is a lot you don't understand and I've just wasted my time."

If all that you say is correct, then the religion should be illegal. But its not. If the US legal system hasn't decreed it illegal, then as far as the law is concerned, it is a legal religion and therefore freedom of religion, as outlined in the Constitution, applies to it. By all means, go to your Congressman and try to get it changed. However, it is best you realise that what you believe may not hold up in the court of law.

"It's a purely psychological pathology. So - the people don't want this - and Obama's reaction is to (as he did with health care, with the stimulus, with his cap and trade, with his rejection of Arizona's attempt to stop illegals)...dominate the people and reduce their power."

Your diagnostic powers remind me of those leftie psychologists who published books about how Bush was mentally-challenged. I think the term we now use for those armchair psychologists is Bush Derangement Syndrome. I wonder if there is an Obama Derangement Syndrome too.

"The establishment of a Ground Zero mosque is tantamount to raising a military outpost for the muslims."

Does this proposed mosque come wiht some kind of supernatural powers? Because for the most part, it appears to be just a building, albeit one that will get heavy scrutiny simply because of its location.

What is this world coming to? Hating a religion on the basis of its hatred for you is a bit wierd. Immitation is generally considered a form of flattery.

Just saying. As always, I believe in everything. And I believe in nothing.

RE devil's advocate @ 10:43, no doubt they have the right to build the mosque but when you consider the behaviour, for instance, of the catholics and protestants in Ulster 400 years after various battles etc. you must question the wisdom, surely?

"It isn't that they can't build mosques in the USA. It is they shouldn't build one their."

Ah, but why not. If muslims are equal/regular citizens in the US - and the last time I checked, they are - they can make a claim to set up a mosque in an area that is being promoted as an inter-faith something or the other.

I can understand your argument if US law and the constitution recognized muslims as second class citizens not entitled to ALL rights that other US citizens have, but as far as the law goes, they do have a right to build the mosque there.

By banning the mosque, you are, either wittingly or unwittingly, implictly suggesting that all muslims are responsible for the events of Sept 11. Whether you personally think they are (or are not) responsible for the events is irrelevant. What we do know is that the laws of the US do not hold all adherents of Islam as being guilty of the events of Sept 11, or else they would all be deported/in jail. They are not. As such, they have the same rights and claims as any other US citizen, and it stands to reason that they should be able to practice these rights and make claims that do not violate US laws.

Just saying. As always, I maybe right. I may be wrong. Either which way, you can curse me all you want, it won't make a difference.

DA

"""What is this world coming to? Hating a religion on the basis of its hatred for you is a bit wierd."""

it's called not accepting it for what it is presented as,

"""Immitation is generally considered a form of flattery.""""

and nobody is immitating it, that's just a silly construct of your mind

""""Just saying. As always, I believe in everything. And I believe in nothing. """"

it's not your beliefs I question, just your reasoning

As the comment above by the devil’s (alleged) advocate (Hey advocate, I think you’re over-charging), and rejoinder by Friend of USA remind us, Islam, or certain elements of it (I’m not persuaded of this qualification), in their war against the modern west are using the west's own institutions against it, in order to destroy it. That assault is succeeding; but success depends upon perversions of those institutions, and on the west’s inability to distinguish their own institutions from the perversions. “Friends” reply to “advocate” makes the point. If you think, like Obama (pretends), that the individual freedoms protected by the rights enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution protect equally a religion that would subjugate or kill non-believers, and allow it to do whatever it wants on its own private property, irrespective of where that property is, then you do not understand the value of religious belief, nor the value of speech, nor the value of private property, nor why we protect them with rights; nor why those rights cannot be absolute. Seems to me it’s long overdue that we re-educate the members of our political class about the very foundations of western civilization.

Those of you who like to deride what you take to be the “softer” academic disciplines in favour of something “hard” and practical like engineering might ask yourselves where in the engineering curriculum we might look for understanding on matters of such grave importance.

"RE devil's advocate @ 10:43, no doubt they have the right to build the mosque but when you consider the behaviour, for instance, of the catholics and protestants in Ulster 400 years after various battles etc. you must question the wisdom, surely?"

One of the admirable things (IMHO) about the US is that the citizens did not have a knee-jerk reaction that saw non-muslims lynch muslims in the aftermath of Sept 11. Contrast this with some of the mob violence we see around the world. In light of this, comparing the muslim-nonmuslim dynamic in NYC to the Protestant/Catholic dynamic in Ulster 400 years ago is a bit far-fetched.

Given the whole interfaith religious area (I really dont know what it is) that this proposed mosque is going to be built in, I doubt it is meant as a provocative move. For one, the builders of this mosque are willing to build it in close proximity of other religious centers, including religions that they fundamentally oppose (Idolatrous Hindus for example). If they were fanatical, I doubt they would have been willing to put this mosque in this area. It is clearly being built under the understanding of inter-faith dialogue which, I think it would be fair to assume, some in the muslim community may actually believe in.

Just saying. As always, I may know everything. And I may know nothing.

ET @ 11:55 Your (high school) pedantry has caused you to entirely miss the point. I suspect it's pathological. (You might one day learn to use a dictionary).

"and nobody is immitating it, that's just a silly construct of your mind"

OBL hates America because America kills Muslims.

GYM hates Islam because Islam kills non-muslims.

Just saying. As always, I may be capable of reasoning. And I may be incapable of reasoning.

"Seems to me it’s long overdue that we re-educate the members of our political class about the very foundations of western civilization."

Time to call your congressman and make your case. Fretting about it on SDA will only get you so far.

ET: "Obama's narcissism cannot allow him to stand equal to others. He has to dominate and reduce the individual power of others."

Hey, he sounds like a lot of Muslim men who dominate their women and reduce their individual power by stuffing them into burqas. Hmmmm.

I can't see the upside. Bloomberg doesn't need a job and neither does bambam but these guys don't do something without an upside. I can't see it, this seems to be one of those too stupid to believe thingies. I doubt it is going to lead to warm fuzzy feelings. Maybe if they build a National Swat Training facility across the street..on high ground.

devil's advocate/BTJ - a few things.

First, you totally misunderstand Islam. It is not just or even, a religion. It is a socio-political infrastructure, protected from analysis, debate and criticism, by defining it as a religion. If you read the texts of Islam, it says little to nothing about the metaphysical, and most of that is purely copied from the judaic - but it says a great deal about societal and political behaviour. The Qur'an and hadiths are almost exclusively about societal and political behaviour - and that is grounded in a 7th century nomadic pastoral militant economy. I suspect that you have no knowledge of Islam.

This societal and political behaviour is tribal rather than civic. Do you know the difference?

Now, DA/BTJ - to then declare that any and all societal and political systems are protected under the Constitution is of course, pure nonsense. The US operates within ONE societal and political system: a civic (not tribal) republic with democratic principles of decision-making, operating within the rule of law and a constitution.

The Islamic societal and political system rejects equality, rejects democracy, rejects a rule of law legislated by man, rejects a constitution legislated by man. Are you even slightly aware of this? It instead, sets up an ideology (and it is an ideology in the sense of utopianism) which cannot be changed or amended because it has been removed from such by defining those beliefs as 'religious'.

For you, DA/BTJ, to then move on to say that all beliefs and behaviour are equivalent is the height of postmodern relativism. Yes, we know you are a leftist, and that suggests a rejection of reason. Some of us, frankly, disagree with such relativism - which bespeaks, as you admit about yourself, someone incapable of reason. We reject a tribal political system with its kin-based authoritative elite, we put power in the hands of a middle class (non-existent in a tribal system) and in the legislated (not divine) rule of law.

As for my diagnostic powers, I'm hardly alone in defining Obama as a pathological narcissist. No, it isn't a 'disease'; no, he isn't a victim. It's a state of mind and behaviour that he probably moved into as a young boy and is far beyond any treatment. Again, how about doing some research? you could check the psychological texts on this syndrome..instead of babbling inanities.

And your reductionism of the mosque to 'just a building' is pure nonsense. It isn't 'just a building'. It's a mosque - which means it is defined as a meeting place for and only for Muslims. Then, it is being run by a radical imam who rejects the reality of terrorism. And above all, since Islam is hardly purely a religion, since most of its axioms are political and societal (again -read the texts!) - this 'building' is a political and societal statement. Of dominance in a terrain that was devastated by the political and societal agenda of Islamic fascism. BTJ - again, your posts are empty.

My, my - devils advocate/BTJ - to believe in everything and in nothing bespeaks an empty mind. One incapable of reason and evaluation. Hmmm.

Your other arguments, BTJ/devil's advocate, about your support for the mosque are equally empty of reason and facts. It has nothing to do with religious freedom or equality of citizenship. It has to do with morality and ethics. Should the equal citizens of the Sikh religion build a temple on the site of the Air India bombing? Should the equal citizens of Japan fund a museum about Japanese military exploits on the site of Pearl Harbor? Try to think, BTJ and don't just spout your babble of empty rhetoric.

Nick's comment that we cannot dispense with evaluation and that includes of religious beliefs, is, in my view, accurate. Islam is a tribal perspective, and dysfunctional in the modern world. But again, this whole issue is not about religion but about respect and acknowledgement of others.

The site is 'sacred' to the memory of 3,000 killed by Islamic fascists. Therefore, a reasonable proposal to deal with this idea would not be to build a mosque but a centre for all religions and a centre for debate about collaboration. Not a temple isolated from these other religions and debate.

nick - I suggest that the hard sciences, with their focus on the need for observable evidence, logical connections and ethics - are a strong place for understanding these issues.

Ignore the troll. He is here only to irritate you, not debate you.

Ignore the troll. He is here only to irritate you, not debate you.

The site of this mosque is not owned/controlled by the Iman. In fact Con-Ed the electricity supplier to New York has a piece of the parcel. My second concern is the source of funding, certainly the Iman does not have $100 million U.S.
What is the source of the financing. Some speculate Saudi Arabia, considering it is against the law with severe punishment to enter Saudi Arabia with a christian bible or horrors a jewish skull cap, I do wonder about equivalency - perhaps a R.C. Cathedral in Mecca?

Juxtaposed. Because they both mention airplanes?
From "Related!"
// The president has long been governing against the will of the American people.
It’s good to see, concretely, whose will his governance favors //
Andy McCarthy

This is the sort of nonsense that gives nonsense a bad name.

batb - I see your point, but I think that Obama's narcissism is far beyond a cultural attribute of male dominance - which can be found in any and all peasant economies (try Mediterranean etc). These men dominate economically and politically. But Obama's nature is not culture; it's a genuine psychological pathology.

What is also interesting about Obama is that he's not dominant in the family; his wife is. Obama seems to have always required a dominant mother-figure in his life. He remains adolescent, unaccountable, not required to put in a day's work, forgiven and adored, skilled at manipulation etc.

Forget Obama! I just think it's not the right time and place to build a mosque. Perhaps in ten years, when this is all behind us, it would be accepted. What next? A statue of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dealy Plaza?

PS: I thought the CIA had more imagination than that!

I doubt it is meant as a provocative move.

Hilarious.

Politically this is a huge mistake by obama. A very large majority of americans oppose it.

As for islamists who profess outrage at it not being built, I say they can lay one brick for every brick the Jews get to lay in building a synagogue outside the gates of Mecca.

"This societal and political behaviour is tribal rather than civic. Do you know the difference?"

I have never professed to having a strong understanding of Islam - or indeed any understanding of it. I am not going to repeat what I have written before. I will simply state that as equal citizens of the US, muslims have a legitimate claim to build a mosque in an 'interfaith' area. Islam can stand for whatever it wants to. If it violates US law, it should be banned. If it does not, I fail to see the point of engaging in a lengthy discussion about what you think it is.

"The Islamic societal and political system rejects equality, rejects democracy, rejects a rule of law legislated by man, rejects a constitution legislated by man."

If it does, ban it. If it is incompatible with US law, arrest the adherents or deport them. Simple as.

"Now, DA/BTJ - to then declare that any and all societal and political systems are protected under the Constitution is of course, pure nonsense. . . cannot be changed or amended because it has been removed from such by defining those beliefs as 'religious'."

Not even going to bother reading it. Not interested in engaging in a sophomoric argument about a religious I have no interest in. Let me repeat again - If Islam is incompatible with US law, I expect that the US legal mechanisms will take their course. If it is not, this discussion is a waste of time. Your beliefs about Islam are, ultimately, your own. As things stand, there is a legal system in place. If you feel that it is dealing with the problem inadequately, write a ltter to your congressman. Couching hot air in sophisticated language proves nothing.

"As for my diagnostic powers, I'm hardly alone in defining Obama as a pathological narcissist. "

Indeed. And there were hundreds of people who suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Not a handful.

"For you, DA/BTJ, to then move on to say that all beliefs and behaviour are equivalent is the height of postmodern relativism."

Do not bother putting words in my mouth. I never said all religions and beliefs and behavior are equal. I said all citizens of the United States have equal rights. If their beliefs and behaviour are incompatible with the laws of the US, those rights are partially suspended. Saying all US citizens are equal is not the same as saying all religions are equal. As far as I know, the US constitution recognizes all US citizens as equal, regardless of religion, race etc. Therefore, I suspect your gripe is not with me, but with the US constitution, which presumably is engaging in relativism by stating that all US citizens are born equal.

"Then, it is being run by a radical imam who rejects the reality of terrorism."

If what he says or does is illegal, he will be persecuted under US law.

"to believe in everything and in nothing bespeaks an empty mind. One incapable of reason and evaluation. Hmmm. "

Amen.

"Should the equal citizens of the Sikh religion build a temple on the site of the Air India bombing? Should the equal citizens of Japan fund a museum about Japanese military exploits on the site of Pearl Harbor?"

First and foremost, you must excuse my ignorance and explain to me how the citizens of Japan are equal to US citizens. I said all US citizens are equal. I did not say all US citizens are equal to all other citizens of all other countries in the world. Again, please do not put words in my mouth. If you want to build strawmen and knock them down, practice it on someone else.

Secondly, I fail to see how a mosque is equivalent to a memorial about japanese military exploits in WWII. Will they be building memorials to the terrorists in there? Will they be advocating further attacks on the US? Because, if they do, I suspect US anti-terror laws will take care of them rather quickly. You will, I hope, excuse me for questioning your line of thought. I am, of course, incapable of reasoning or, indeed, thinking, hence my inability to see the logic in your argument.

We know that there were several sikh victims in the Air India bombing. And we know for a fact that Japanese Americans fought for the US military during WWII. Indeed, it is a little known fact that the 442nd Infantry Regiment, which consisted mostly of Japanese Americans, is the most highly decorated unit in the history of the US military, with 21 Medal of Honors (all Japanese Americans) and 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, along with another 18,000 medals and 7 presidential citations. In light of this, I would see nothing wrong with a Sikh temple at an Air India memorial or a monument to Japanese American soldiers at Pearl Harbor. After all, the current Sikh prime minister is one of the most popular Indian PMs of all time, despite the bombing.

Given that Muslims (apart from the perpetrators) did, in fact, die on 9/11, I fail to see what the point of your comparison. Now if, as you claim, the imam is a radical, then throw him into jail the moment he steps out of line. Otherwise, as things stand, and I am really getting tired of repeating this - according to the US constitution, all US citizens are equal regardless of race, religion etc.

Also, either BTJ is an abbreviated insult, or you have mistaken me for someone else. I am not BTJ nor do I know who that is. Whehter you want to believe that or not, is your problem.

I'm curious to see how this will play in New York esp NY city. Traditionally a Democrat stronghold, this just might be enough to get more than a few New Yorkers to at least start questioning who their friends on capitol hill actually are.

Islam has a voracious appetite for tolerance when it is the suppliant; when it is, so to speak, a sojourner among the infidels. It is aggressively, even imaginatively, vigorous in availing of the democratic rights of societies to which some of its followers have migrated. It has acquired an admirable expertise in taking advantage of the institutions and practices of host societies, from politics and the media, to protests and the courts, which aid the full pursuit of those rights.
This commendable agility finds no mirror in most Muslim societies. Tolerance received or enjoyed by Muslims in the West does not seem to awaken a concordant impulse to afford a reciprocal tolerance from Muslims to other religions in countries where Islam is dominant.
What is the numerical gap, I wonder, between the number of mosques in Western, nominally Christian cities, and the number of Christian churches or cathedrals in predominantly Muslim ones? In New York alone, there already are at least a hundred mosques. How many Catholic cathedrals, shinto shrines or Buddish temples in Saudia Arabia?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/14/rex-murphy-testing-americas-tolerance/

When I heard Barry O's comments on CFRA there is one thing that came to mind:
The leopard has shown it's spots.

P.E.T. used to show his every so often...

DA, you are either willfully and intellectually dishonest or a fool.

The more you write, the more I witness the latter.

As you have stated, you are ignorant of Islam and Christianity and have no desire to learn about them. To you detriment and eventual enslavement.

The objectives of the tenants of the US Constitution are based on the fundamentals of a Judeo/Christian teachings being the foundation of the Union. The document was meant to level the playing field for all inhabitants of the land. It was to ensure that the citizens were to remain a free people, governed by the statutes of the Creator of the Universe, God or Yahweh-Christian or Jew, and to ensure that the state was to never be able to infuence or change the tenants of these beliefs.

The building of a mosque is not a magical thing. But, there are spiritual forces which are associated with the religion of Islam, just like there are in every religion. To deny these spiritual forces is to deny the the force behind the production of electricity which we use every day. You have stated that you don't want to educate yourself about the religions, yet you take yourself out of any logical argument without that knowledge.

The war with Islam is real. All your pseudo-intellectual clap-trap sounds like lawyer-speak. Able to talk around a point without actually taking the issue head on.

Islam's intent is to dominate the world, control it and kill all if its enemies. To allow that mosque to be built is to have a military outpost being built in my village.

You and your hair-splitting friends fiddle while Rome burns. I hate your music. Find another country to destroy.

Media Matters must be on a spending spree lately. Maybe it's Porkulus money that's come their way.

What else accounts for all the trolls? I've noticed more paid whore-trolls on other sites too.

If you want to build strawmen and knock them down, practice it on someone else.

You're a real comedian, seeing as you just built several of your own in your comment.

Then again, what can one expect from someone who doesn't see a mosque on the site of Islam's greatest act of terror against the US a provocation?

devil's advocate/BTJ - (and I do suspect that you are that individual) - your comments are not arguments.

All you say is: IF they are violating the laws, then, throw them into jail. A nation under the rule of civil and criminal law doesn't operate in such a simplistic manner. These civil and criminal laws don't oversee religious beliefs.

You ignore that:
- the political and societal actions of Islam are a vital part of their religion. These include jihadism, domination of other peoples etc. Defined as religious beliefs - means that they are outside of the civil and criminal law.

You admit that you know absolutely nothing of Islam, nothing of the difference between political systems, nothing even of legal or logical issues and have no beliefs in anything. Then why are you commenting here since you have, effectively, no arguement about anything.

Your key error is that you ignore the institution and belief system of Islam - and focus only on the individual. That is a key error, for the individual is not identical to the institution of Islam.

It may not be illegal to reject the notion of Islamic terrorism but it rejects actual reality. Why should someone who rejects the reality of Muslim terrorism be permitted to build a mosque in an area devastated by that same terrorism?

Again - Reducing the argument to 'any citizen can do what he wants' is illogical, for you are ignoring that the individual is not operating as an isolate entity but as a member of a collective, the Islamic ideology. You ignore this.

To equate BDS with pathological narcissism is stupid. The latter is a medically defined psychological syndrome.
To again, reduce the attack to 'some Muslims were also killed' ignores that the sole agents of the attack were Islamic fascists.

Again, focusing only on 'all citizens are equal' is totally and completely irrelevant to this debate. The issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of an agenda to build a centre devoted to the Islamic religion, an ideology focused on the annihilation of other religions and cultures, in a site that was devastated by that ideology.

Your red herring that it's all about 'equal citizenship rights' is bs; the issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of such an action.

Planning to opening the mosque on the tenth anniversary of Islam's greatest act of terror against the US? I guess that's not a provocation either.

Wonder if they will allow construction workers on-site carrying bacon and tomato sandwiches...

Anyone who champions multicultural tolerance of Islam should travel to a Muslim country and witness first hand how much their personal religious beliefs are tolerated.

The goals of Islam are no different than the goals of the Third Reich, the difference is that Muslims are smart enough to cloak it in the disguise of religion to take advantage of their enemy's inherent weakness of religious tolerance.

Make no mistake, the goal of Islam is to conquer the world, one mosque at a time.

John Galt is right in his comments here, in my opinion. He was right in Atlas Shrugged and he is right about this.
Islam's ONLY aim is to conquer. Period. Anyway they can they will. We need to understand this and stop pussyfooting around. Start standing up for OUR culture, tradition, religions and language. They play on our tolerance and intend to defeat us with it.

"Hating a religion on the basis of its hatred for you is a bit wierd." - an uninformed or willfully stupid poster.

It's not hate, it's self-protection.

I don't hate the guy coming at me any more than I'd 'hate' the suicide bomber attempting to anonymously kill me. I don't know them. They don't know me.

But I'll be damned if I'll help facilitate their evil intent.

Anyone who has been the least aware, understands by now that Islam is an ideology wrapped in a religious facade. Argue as you wish, but who are you going to believe - those who are authorized and encouraged by their ideology to practice 'taqiya' - or deception - or your own lying eyes?

Ooops. That should have been "guy coming at me with a knife"

Well at least we know Obama is a cultural Muslim who isn't offended that his brethern want to build a Monument to Islamic Supremacism and Terrorism near ground zero. I'm sure that'll really help heal the nation Obama, that man is pure evil.

Obama is backtracking? But it's not true that his remarks were simply about 'religious tolerance'.

And speaking of this - why doesn't he tell Muslims nations to tolerate those of other religions?

But Obama specifically said:

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances".

That's pretty specific. He said that he supports their 'right' to build on that spot.

Is Ramadan now an official holiday in America?
Even the village idiot now knows where his heart is.
hint: Its no where near America, in a desert.
This guy is the Anti-President.

Two more years of this Manchurian candidate & the USA is finished.
He has more secrets than the Sphinx. His birth, school records, movements, backers, finances.

It seems Americans are taking this just like we did with Trudeau, as the North Koreans do Dear Leader. Where a sad people.
JMO

When I see Muslims encouraging other faiths to build places of worship in Muslim countries, then and only then will I start to have any tolerance toward Muslims. Until then I will continue to believe that their only goal is world domination and total subjugation of other beliefs.

What else accounts for all the trolls? I've noticed more paid whore-trolls on other sites too.
Posted by: Doug

Boy are you on the money today. Ezra's Blog has become a favorite of the Islamists.
I wonder if Obama plus the Muslim brotherhood are hiring Trolls for this purpose. Your tax money for Jizra. To cause enmity, & division in conservative haunts? While being practical by practicing Taqiyya on the Kaffur. Its a good idea as well to keep up on your enemy's thinking, to gage strategies of disruption. Make some lists for the future assured Islamic takeover to deal with.
Never forget, with no mercy. allahs way.
Islam may be barbaric but not all the adherents of the Pedophile false prophet are stupid.

By Gods Grace they have gotten sloppy with us seeing their zipper down , staring at the snake that would devour us.
Sorry for the double post Kate. Should have read the comments first. My apologies.
JMO

This will not go well for Obama. He endorsed the Mosque then he denied he did that. Until the President waded in this might have just glided along. Now a lot of criticism is coming from diverse people. A Quote from the NYT:
Mohamed Haroun, an intern at a mechanical engineering firm, said, “What he should have said was: ‘This is a community decision. Constitutionally, they have the right to do it, but it’s a community decision and we should see what the local community wants to do.’

From Poltico:
"The main reaction is 'Why? Why now?’" said one House Democratic leadership aide. "It's just another day off message. There have been a lot of days off message."

What comes to mind is that PMSH gets criticized for trying too hard to keep his caucus on message. Compare that to the US, the Democrats are trying in vain to keep the TOTUS on message but he wants to blurt out his own message. Because that’s all Obama has ever done is say robotically whatever he wanted and lull his flock into believing the blank slate he was offering them. That’s because everything, everything is all about Him. This is like a horror flick.

The Carmelites used to have a house (convent) or chapel at Auschwitz I believe it was, and the Jewish lobby screamed bloody murder, even though thousands of Poles, Ukrainians, priests, etc., had died there. The Sisters refused to move their convent until requested to by Pope John Paul II. He did not request it because he thought it was wrong to have one there, but to show respect for the sensitivities of Jews who had suffered there also (moreso, even). In fact, it may have been because Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, a Carmelite nun had died there and who was born Edith Stein, a famous Jewish feminist philosopher Hmmmm!

What I find so outrageous is Obama's open lies.

He specifically said, in public, before an Islamic audience that 'religious freedom' meant
that they have 'the right to build a place of
worship and community centre on private property in the lower Manhatten".

He said this. Now, he is saying that all he said was that Islamists have 'religious freedom'. He's lying. He specifically said that Because of this religious freedom, they thus have the right to build that 'place of worship' in lower Manhatten.

Now - Obama is trying to tell us he didn't say this. His continual lies - outrageous.

I think it is meaningless. They don't have the money to build it. I can't think of any union that would work on the site. There will be 'accidents'
Nobody believes the reaching out BS. There is no upside. I don't think it will be built.

Here is the scheme of things.

Obama is going to pi$$ of the democratic support since now the democrats screwed up so much there is no help for them other than republicans screw up big time. Being, as ET puts it, a narcissist that cares about none other then himself, it appears that Obama abandoned congressional democrats. Obama seem to do all the things that will actually pi$$ them off.
Following the theory of ET up to now, Obama does not care for anyone, he will dump the democrats and help republicans, indirectly, to take over the congress. There will be two years in his mandate, in two years the republican congress can fix parts of the screwed up agenda of the democrats. This will make Obama look good hence he will be reelected.

End of story.

Friend of USA @ 1058 - your last sentence is quite unnecessary. Thx

Devils Advocate: No one is saying that they reject a mosque being built in New York - do you get that or shall I repeat this fact for you? It's not about the right to build mosques - there are many in New York and people are ok with that- it's about location, location, location - the landing gear from one of the 911 planes is in the building that the friendly; peaceful; wouldn't hurt a flee; Islamists want to tear down to build their sensitivity bridge building mosque. All that is being asked of the ever sensitive, peaceful, tolerant of others, Islamists is that they be as tolerant and sensitive as they claim to be and build the mosque somewhere else in New York - now is that too much to ask? I was taught that actions speak louder than words - what about you DA?

BTW - 70% of Americans oppose building the mosque at that location as does a female representative for a Canadian Muslim group who came out and said that the reason for the mosque is confrontational, in bad faith, and doesn’t help the cause of tolerance. She goes on to slam the ‘bleeding heart white liberals’ like Bloomberg for their PC attitude about this controversial mosque - I suspect she would blast you for your naivety and ignorance as well.

http://www.therightscoop.com/muslim-raheel-raza-speaks-out-against-ground-zero-mosque-on-oreilly

Devil advocate

Of course US citizens are equal, regardless of religion, race, etc. Therefore, you say, you support you support the right of believers who planned and carried out attack on 9/11 to build a mosque nearly on top of the 9/11 ground. But if so then it follows that you support the right of Japanese citizens who are also citizens of USA to build and fund a museum about Japanese military exploits on the site of Pearl Harbour. AND you support right of Sikhs who are also citizens of Canada to build a temple on the site of the Air India bombing.
Nobody is putting any words in your mouth. You said it yourself.

You asked - will they be advocating any attacks on US on that mosque build near 9/11? If they would read Qu'ran during the Friday prayers then they might. After all, even if I do not know everything and nothing - like [maybe] you do, - I know that sura 9.29 is saying Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

You are, of course, right - there were Japanese who fought in US army but that does not contradict the fact that US was at war with Japanese. And as you said there were Sikhs who lost their life on the Indian plane which again does not contradict the fact that it was Sikhs who put the bomb there. And there were Muslims who lost their life on 9/11 but it is not inconsistent with the fact that it was the Muslims who were terrorist on 9/11. The Muslims who claimed that they did it because their religion asked them to do so, because, according to them, US is enemy of Islam, a crusader's state in the war with whole umma. As also some Muslims who are members of umma first, citizens of their countries, poor second, believe.

Just saying. As always, I may know everything. And I may know nothing
You yourself profess to have an empty mind, maybe. One incapable of reason and evaluation. As your posts shows.

ET 7:08 PM - re Obama lying re what he said re the mosque.

I wonder if he would call it lying (certainly it's deceitful at the very best). He knows what he's saying - and part of it is likely a reflection of his narcissism - he wants to say "the right things" to "the right audience" - to facilitate the illusion that he's just all that and more.

I'm sure he himself doesn't see the inherent contradictions in what he says - he's unable to self-analyze that way.

What did everyone think was happening when Obamba bowed in submission to the Wahabi Saudi King?

He turned the US hinny to the sky to be ridden by the Alpha male.

Whether anyone care's or not Barry Soetoro has shunned the American people and thier traditional allies, and as embraced thier enemies. In otherwords, he has sold out America as an enemy of America, and will continue to destroy it complete unless stopped.

Why worry about a ground zero mosque, when you are about to lose an entire three century old nation of enlightenment.

Pls read:
support the right of co-religionists of people who planned i/o rights or believers

Whenever I encounter a statement such as "freedom of religion", I find it hard to believe that people accept that as an absolute--that calling a set of beliefs a "religion" absolves it from any other considerations. So, if under the banner of a religion, you harm women and children, or you create a haven for and fund terrorists, or incinerate 3000 innocents in a couple of New York buildngs, or you devise a project that is deliberately provocative, striking at the heart of a nation that has shown you tolerance, acceptance and allowed you freedoms that you could not dream of in your countries of origin--all this is okay as long as you call it a religion? Surely not.

Obama let his mask slip as he dined with his fellow Muslims, make no mistake he supports the Islamic Supremacists and it's natural because he's a cultural Muslim raised in Muslim lands thus it's only natural that he'd embrace Islam and not western values. His handler's shall panic, but at least we know the truth but MSM will work furiously to cover up Obama's honesty.

ET said,

[...] pathological narcissist.
No, it isn't a 'disease'; no, he isn't a victim. Again, how about doing some research? you could check the psychological texts on this syndrome..instead of babbling inanities[...]

ET, don't be fooled by my "average-Joe" way of expressing myself,

---My father (retired) has a Doctorate in Psychology and was extremely successful.

---My mother - a Published Author- (and NOT retired) has a doctorate in Ethnology.

---My older brother - an Engineer - is a Published author.

---My Godmother is a published author ( Schools in Quebec used her work for decades ).

I grew up in a house where there were more books ( in both languages; English and French ) than at our local library!

Don't be fooled by my "ordinary man" words and grammar,

I probably know more and understand more about Human behavior ( and a few other topics ) than you do.

And don't forget,

French is my first language.

My English is self thaught.

No don't be fooled by my »un-intellectual» way of expressing myself,

---My mother's IQ is 147

---and my IQ is so much higher than my mother's that I can not mention it without having people roll on the floor laughing. ( which only confirms they are not intelligent enough to understand what intelligence is )

Don't be fooled by my lack of eloquence.

I just never liked the way intellectuals express themselves,
most of the time they use way too many words to say very little.

I read Simone Debeauvoir, Descartes, Kafka, et cetera and was unimpressed by their "intellectualism" and eloquence.

They used 20 pages to say what can be said in 20 words.

For example, take this short -eleven word- sentence,( from a commenter I do not know who goes by the name citizen"X" )

[...]What next? A statue of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dealy Plaza?[...]

this short - eleven word- comment contains more "punch" than your 3 pages comments...and it makes people pause and realize the absurdity of building a mosque on ground zero.

All that in eleven simple words...

ET, do not be fooled by "simple" comments.

Innanities I do not write, and I do not babble.

I'm concise.

Efficient.

To the point.

Mark Twain was concise,

"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid."

Einstein was concise;

"If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself."

And I'll add that if you have lost the ability to say things in a simple way and can't stop yourself from writing romance novels for every point you want to make, maybe you have a problem?

Could be Narcissism...mmmhhh?

Also, finding another site was offered to the developer of the mega mosque by Govenor Pattison -offer was refused - now what is up with that? Why the insistance of that particuar site? Their actions betray their words.

Rev. @6:11 - "Anti-President"; another good coinage.

devil's advocate - building a Mosque at this site is completely legal; it is also grossly insensitive at best and at worst it's an act of deliberate triumphalism, a victory monument at the site of the 9/11 massacre.

What about that don't you get?

"devil's advocate/BTJ - a few things."

I haven't even posted on this thread! Unless of course you're neurosis has caught up with you, or, more likely, you find yourself facing reasonable, rational thinking and can only stoop to lumping all responses into one character, for which you've created and assigned some inherently 'wrong' identity.

ET, you spend far too much energy trying to sound intelligent and far too little actually acquiring knowledge.

Friend of the USA - yes, ET would do well to emulate your grace and modesty.

possible, Doomberg is getting a kickback.

BTJ: you can do better than that. Don't forget, Media Matters pays you by the word, not the intended potency of the vitriol, so get to work, you lazy troll!

ROTFLMAO!

The Obama Countdown Clock

Friend of USA - really you know it's wrong of you to be squandering your time online when there are crimes waiting to be solved, medicines still uninvented, Linear A sitting unread, String Theory neither proven nor disproved, the entire continent of Antarctica argiculturally unproductive, I'm still waiting for my damn hoverboard..... dammit, man, think of posterity!

(Oh, and Kafka's ghost just called me. He doesn't think much of you either.)

Nicely said re: eloquence & intelligence, FOU.

That seems to the biggest factor relating how many are fooled into thinking Obama is close to being "gifted", even though the evidence is that he's far from that. Even though most of his eloquence only surfaces during scripted performances.

...& why many of the same people mistakenly believe President Bush is a simpleton.

The same people would likely make great prey for Madoff.

This Canadian Muslim woman impressed the heck out of Bill O'Reilly (and me) the other night, talking about the Ground Zero mosque thing: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/canadian-muslim-on-the-ground-zero-mosque-why-would-you-do-such-a-thing/

these are cool. they are normalized graphs on approval rating vrs time in office. appears the Obamessiah is falling faster than a Halifax whores drawers when the fleet comes in.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Black Mamba,

I was simply educating ET on who I am and correcting her where she is obviously wrong.

And,

yes I was actually being modest.

Here is what bragging is;

When I was 10 years old I got the highest IQ score of a school of 800 students of which about 20% were older than me.
How do I know?
The school called mh mother to tell her!

When I was tested for IQ again in my thirthies the psychologist said my IQ was and I quote " Off the charts in every category except mathematics!"

( see I'm also honest on top of that !!!)

If who I am annoys you so much, maybe it is you who has a problem...

such as...

envy maybe?

Thanks KVB

( Black Mamba, I am also polite and greatfull...do you hate me more now? )

And for the record,

Obama's narcissism is NOT ET's theory!!!

It was discussed regularly ---two years ago--- on GatewayPundit and a few other right wing sites because Obama -despite being a complete unknown- had already written TWO books about HIMSELF!!!

The narcissism theory is not ET's.

Stop drooling over yourselves.

ET writes very well - even very VERY well - but it is mostly other people's ideas she is embellishing.

friend of usa - your long rambling, babbling, self-glorifying post about your family, says nothing about that same family's capacity for objective analysis. We all know many doctorates i who write and teach nonsense. It is irrelevant the graduate degrees of your family, how many books are in your library as differentiated from the local village library, and a high IQ does not mean a high capacity for logic or reasoning.

Don't worry; I'm not in the least fooled by your lack of eloquence. Your comments remain without valid argumentation - eloquent or not.

Don't be daft, FOUSA. Does a microbe envy an elephant? Could the flame dancing at the end of a match-stick hate the sun?

No sir, I feel awe, tempered with amusement. Mostly awe, though.

(BTW Zombie Shakespeare just phoned and he needs help with some of the cr@ppier sonnets; you up for it?)

Okay, sorry, this is just slightly off topic. I'll shut up.

People I know with documented high IQs hardly ever mention it and certanly never brag about it. They all know that humility is one of the greatest characteristics of advanced intelligence.

"ET writes very well - even very VERY well"

I can't think of anything more superfluous or insulting than a compliment from this loon and I don't consider this individual capable of judging anyone's ideas. If I ever see this person post a fraction of the insight that ET has posted here over the years, then I'll think about it.
But, I have heard that her/his granny was ever so clever! Psst! It wasn't really her grandmother, it was actually a crazy old lady who just boarded there because they needed the money for more "off the charts" psychological testing...

Actually who cares whether Obamba is a narcissist or not?

Stupid is as stupid does.

Bono from U2 is a self proclaimed meglomaniac, yet millions love his music, many of the same fans hate his politics.

Obamba aka Barry Soetoro was hired to do a job. That job was to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and an example of American excellence. A superman if you will. A wealthy country of 300+ million should have no problem producing such a man/ woman.

Barry Soetoro has FAILED on all counts, though his actions and deeds, regardless of any personality quirks. He got the job first and formost because he was black and secondly because he promises change to a disillusioned America (all political spectrums).

He won due to fraud and deceit, twisting the meaning of what the desired change America wanted was really going to be.

Had he proven true leadership and represented the superman America deserved, he would have been praised as a narcissist.

What can I add that's already been expounded?
Obama is so full of himself he thought that giving approval for the Ground Zero mosque abomination would lull the masses to the glow he thinks he has around him.
Whoops.
What a fool he is. At least he has shown his true colours, thereby further proving what a total flop he's been as president.
Just my quick thoughts.

Poor friend of USA. Calm down - I never said that the narcissism theory was mine alone. I said that I was hardly the only person pointing out that he was a pathological narcissist.

Again, umpteen post graduate degrees don't mean wisdom. Nor does a high IQ. Strange that with a high IQ, you aren't equally high in mathematics. Mathematics, as you know, is a logical, rational mode of reasoning. You are deficient in that? Ah well.

Friend of USA

Just some suggestions to ponder. Not envy or judgment. Just some normal Godly common sense.

Brains without Wisdom, is broken cup.

Pro 11:2 When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom.

Pro 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

Pro 21:24 "Proud," "Haughty," "Scoffer," are his names, Who acts with insolent pride.

Pro 29:23 A man's pride will bring him low, But a humble spirit will obtain honor.

*note: IQ is the measured speed of thought processes. Not intelligence.

Any brainiac can have a high IQ and be as dumb as a door nail. Our parliament is full of them.

You need to rewatch "Forest Gump" and get the moral of the story. The intellegent person is the one who comes up with the "correct" answer regardless of the time it takes them to derive it.

Hence so many intellectuals fail at the basics of life.

Poor friend of USA. Calm down - I never said that the narcissism theory was mine alone. I said that I was hardly the only person pointing out that he was a pathological narcissist.

Again, umpteen post graduate degrees don't mean wisdom. Nor does a high IQ. Strange that with a high IQ, you aren't equally high in mathematics. Mathematics, as you know, is a logical, rational mode of reasoning. You are deficient in that? Ah well.

"how many books are in your library as differentiated from the local village library"

Funny you say that, this is just a side note. I recently read the book 'Freakonomics' in which the author found that the number of books in one's home is a positive indicator of a child's education...but only because it is an indicator of the wealth and education of that child's parents.

"high IQ does not mean a high capacity for logic or reasoning."

Clearly not, since said poster (FOUSA) used the imaginary word 'greatfull'

Nonetheless, ET is guilty of eloquently describing vapid thoughts.

IMHO ;)

"He won due to fraud and deceit, twisting the meaning of what the desired change America wanted was really going to be."

And that differs from how every other president campaigned how?

The REAL election fraud was in 2000...and then again in 2004.

BTJ - You're the fraud, everything about you is fraudulent, and your here because you've been ignored where ever it is you came from; even your own can't abide your pomposity, and the drivel you jabber on about.

American culture is, one way or another, business culture, and our business is service. Once we were a great industrial nation. Now we are a service economy. Which means we are forced to interact with each other, every day, in person and by phone and email. And it's making us all a little mad.

I'm not sure we've fully noted the social implications of the shift from industry to service. We used to make machines! And steel! But now we're always in touch, in negotiation. We interact so much, we wear each other down. We wear away the superego and get straight to the id, and what we see isn't pretty.

Here's why. At the same time we were shifting, in the past 30 years, to the more personal economy of service, we were witnessing and took part in a revolution in manners. We tore them down as too fancy, or sexist, or ageist, or revealing of class biases. Just when we needed more than ever the formality and agreed-upon rules of manners to act as guard rails, we threw them aside. And now no one knows how to act anymore.

The result is that everyone is getting on everyone's nerves. We're all snapping the bins shut on each other's heads. Everyone wants to tell the boss to take this job and shove it. Everyone wants to take a good, hard, last look at the customer and take the chute.

more at http://www.peggynoonan.com/

Speaking of pathological narcissists....

The REAL election fraud was in 2000...and then again in 2004.

BTJ, Media Matters is going to cut you loose from the payroll if you don't do better than that. That was actually their 2004 talking point.

You must be a veteran troll. Get with the times.

As I have said "this is an Act of Stupid" by a fool. This was “Staged” to win Muslim votes… a teaching lesson

If I was a Muslim I would be pissed because it sends a totally false message that Religion has a 1st amendment RIGHT that suspends "home Rule". The development/community Boards control building permits & licensing such that a conflict with the existing community are avoided. Only a Corrupt Mayor would suspend the normal process where objections MUST be addressed before issuing a permit.

Why would a Muslim not feel aggrieved if the lies he is told by the Marxists don't fit the real USA world. What other issues/lies are used to create anger in the Muslim Community

Example:
It would be ridicules to think that the City of Emerald, Cal (developed by Gays) would have to issue multiple building permits to Churches that are active in gay bashing

Ok great point, I love Obama and will embrace Socialism & Islam now.

Do you know of any mosques in Canada that will take and sell my kids as "domestic servants" then shipped to the Middle East?

Proceeds can go to Laraza in the US to help kick out all the people of European heritage and give back to the "indigenous" Mexican's of "not" Spanish, French, German, and Portugese, liniage.

Six flags over Texas is a sham and Mexico really is an ancient society who rightfully owns the continent. Thanks.

I believe in freedom of religion too and think a tribute to King Leonidas and all the Persians he killed should go next to the mosque.

"Tonight, we dine in HELL".

Manitoba Moose >

Great point - But - I doubt many Jihadi Muslims have a clue of any real history beyond the bombing of the Liberty.

If you want to piss them off aside from building Benji's Koshir Deli and Freedom Center next door, you post advertisements directed at Muslim women. As in the benefits of getting an education and dating western men. He he that gets em every time.........

What needs to be set up next door to the Cordoba Victory Mosque is a combination Orthodox Synagogue/Baptist Missionary HQ/strip joint/pig farm/gay bar/U.S. Military Recruitment Centre/ stray dog sanctuary/radical lesbo-feminist hippy conciousness-raising crash-pad/nudist colony/Hindu Temple. With a big statue of Queen Isabella of Castile french kissing W out in front.

If it can happen anywhere, it can happen in Manhattan.

Going directly to the core of the matter the US Constitution does not devolve power to an elite but rather to THE PEOPLE. Right or wrong the WILL OF THE PEOPLE is that the GZ Mosque is not appropriate.....
Policies and actions counter to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE must end now. This mosque must not be erected. Anything else will end bably.

It ain't right...it ain't wrong...it just is.

What needs to be setup next door is a pig farm and winery. I've heard that sometimes pigs can "accidentally" stray into places of worship and explode into a big mess :O all over the walls!

"BTJ - You're the fraud, everything about you is fraudulent, and your here because you've been ignored where ever it is you came from; even your own can't abide your pomposity, and the drivel you jabber on about."

A GWB fan I presume...and a psychologist as well? Speaking of drivel..refreshing to receive such a valuable response from a GWB supporter :-S

"BTJ, Media Matters is going to cut you loose from the payroll if you don't do better than that. That was actually their 2004 talking point.

You must be a veteran troll. Get with the times."

Huh? Were you going to explain how the 2000 and 2004 elections weren't fraudulent? Or were you only interested in providing empty comments?

"If I was a Muslim I would be pissed because it sends a totally false message that Religion has a 1st amendment RIGHT that suspends "home Rule"."

What are you talking about? The first amendment IS the right to religious freedom!

"Manitoba Moose >

Great point"

That was a great point? You have low standards.

Black Mamba>

Unfortunatly that's already been tried an has proven not to work - it's called the UN, and they are right next door.........

Were you going to explain how the 2000 and 2004 elections weren't fraudulent? Or were you only interested in providing empty comments

Typical troll! ROTFLMAO!

You brought up the subject, you provide the proof. otherwise, it's your comments that are empty.

Remember, your measly paycheck from Media Matters depends on it!

Your comments remain without valid argumentation - eloquent or not.

- ET

Please elaborate, give examples, quote me and prove it.

Argumentation is a line of reasoning.

You are seriously telling me I show no line of reasoning?

Are you really that defeated that you resort to fabricating accusations?

Common ET prove it that I show no line of reasonning.

I'll be waiting.

( although I expect a lot of lying, cheating and out of context excerpts...)

...

I never said that the narcissism theory was mine alone

-ET

You certainly can write well but your comprehension level is at about the sixth grade level!!!

I never said you claimed it was yours, I said people are under the impression it is yours because you write so well about it.

Since you could NOT tell the difference, it seems you do not reason very well...and you can not see the obvious line of reasoning in my comments...
(all signs of an ordinary IQ.)

...

ET,

Considering I still paid you a very nice and very sincere compliment on your ability to write very well, mocking my average score on maths ( the only category where I am not off the charts) is childish pettyness on your side.

I paid you a sincere compliment and in return you are condesending and mocking me.

Thank you for showing everyone I'm the one with grace and you are not.

...

And to those who repeat the urban legend that says people with IQ never mention their high IQ.

Do you also beleive that people who won a gold medal at the olympic never EVER mention it? and this is the ultimate proof they really won a medal at the olympics?

Geeze you people are worse than I expected!!!

All my life people have tried to ridicule me for having a high IQ.

All my life people have ask why is it I can not find a cure for cancer or fly like superman...
this only shows they are not intelligent enough to understand wath high intelligence is about.

Einstein was neither the greatest violinist in the world, the greatest olympic athlete on the planet nor could he cure cancer.

But according to you people, this means his IQ was not as high as people say it is.

Keep it up.

It only confirms everything I have said in this thread.

I said I'd be ridiculed and mocked by less intelligent people.

I said people don't understand what high intelligence is about.

My predictions were all right.

So far I'm still ahead by a mile over any of you who are trying to belittle me.

I'm still polite, I still show grace and yes I show modesty.

So ET where are the quotes of me showing no line of reasoning?

I'm waiting...

Let's face it, there is a reason that the Islamization of the west is least prominent in the US over the other sheepish liberal western countries. And it's not because Islam dosen't want to come in mass, it is because of fear.

They are cowards at heart and rightfully fear the backlash of armed American citizens who may wake up too quickly to the stealth Jihad around them. Hence the quite Muslim communities nestled in protective sanctuaries of Liberal American cities.

If this mosque on ground zero goes ahead, it will definitely be too much too fast for more Americans than white guilt apologists care to have nightmares about.

The US 2010 is a powder keg of racial and religious division thanks in no small measure to the Great Racial divider Barry Soetoro. The mosque is a fuse and Soetoro is the dull spark.

"You brought up the subject, you provide the proof."

Actually I responded to a claim that the 2008 election was fraudulent.

How about the inaccurate purging of Florida voters by a private company in 2000 (by GWB's cousin) and the placement of old, faulty voting machines in lower class, democratic voting counties in 2004 as well as inaccurate voter purging.

Now, any proof for election fraud in 2008? Other than the same fraud that happens EVERY election...the winning incumbent not living up to election promises.

FOTUSA >

Right or wrong, a friendly suggestion that you drop it now.

This line of comments has "cracked" beyond debating and is sounding childish on all sides. It's using up page space and fracturing the thread "Islamic Mosque on ground zero".

No ill intent implied, just a reminder that sometimes you need to bite your lip and move on.

BTJ >

Google

"Acorn fraudulent voting stations".

Wow, the real BTJ showed up. Who knew. Hello BTJ. Apparently we have a fair bit in common. But I digress, there is a lot of repetition in the 'arguments' being thrown at me.

"The war with Islam is real. All your pseudo-intellectual clap-trap sounds like lawyer-speak. Able to talk around a point without actually taking the issue head on. "

Okay. And exactly what are you doing here? Believe it or not, you're engaging in pseudo-intellectual clap-trap discussions. I should ad that I am not engaging in lawyer speak. I am simply stating the facts. If one were to judge by the anger and antagonism directed my way, I must really have hit a nerve. The facts don't suit you, do they?

"IF they are violating the laws, then, throw them into jail. A nation under the rule of civil and criminal law doesn't operate in such a simplistic manner. These civil and criminal laws don't oversee religious beliefs."

Criminal and civil laws do oversee your behavior and action. You can believe what you want to, but as long as you don't act on it, its hardly going to have an impact on anyone. The moment they act on it, they will feel the full force of the law. So what exactly is your point? Mere obfuscation?

"Then why are you commenting here since you have, effectively, no arguement about anything."

Very simple. I am not here to argue about what Islam is or isn't. God knows there are enough resident scholars of Islam on this site. I am simply here to state the rather obvious fact that US muslim citizens do, under the constitution, have the right to build the mosque. Its not an argument and its not complicated. Its merely a fact of life in the US.

"Why should someone who rejects the reality of Muslim terrorism be permitted to build a mosque in an area devastated by that same terrorism?"

I really don't know how to respond to that. Maybe you should write to your congressman and ask him to propose a law that will make denial of muslim terrorism a crime akin to holocaust denial in Europe. Until then, he is free to believe what he wants as long as he does not carry out illegal actions. As things stand, you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of his belief on this topic. What next? Ban the democrats from politics because they are - and I am quoting a majority of SDA contributors here - "America haters". What people believe is their problem. When they act on it or do anything illegal, then toss them into jail. I think the US has already had this debate ( think Nazi rallies and freedom of expression and belief in Chicago). This is the reality in the US right now. I don't see the point in debating Islam. Beliefs are irrelevant as long as they dont evolve into illegal action. When they do, the law will take its course.

"Reducing the argument to 'any citizen can do what he wants' is illogical, for you are ignoring that the individual is not operating as an isolate entity but as a member of a collective, the Islamic ideology. You ignore this."

He can believe what he wants. The moment he acts on it or carries out an illegal action, he will be dealt with. Whether I am ignoring this arguments or not, you simply have to accept that under US law, people are entitled to believe what they want as long as these beliefs do not manifest themselves in illegal acts. If they are out to do whatever it is you thtink they are out to do, then they will step across the line, at which point, they will be dealt with. This "guilty until proven innocent" approach that you take is not consistent with US liberties and laws, which, I assume, are the two things that you are trying to protect from the terrorist hordes.

"To equate BDS with pathological narcissism is stupid. The latter is a medically defined psychological syndrome."

Again, you re putting words in my mouth. I didn't equate them. I simply equated the mental condition of those who believe in BDS and those who compulsively write long paragraphs detailing how much of a pathological narcissist Obama is.

"To again, reduce the attack to 'some Muslims were also killed' ignores that the sole agents of the attack were Islamic fascists."

And in the Air India bombing, the sole agents of the attacks were Sikh extremists. Does that, in some way, reduce the value of the Sikh lives lost in the attack? I don't know what you're getting at here. Am I simply supposed to assume that because an Islamic extremist carried out a terrorist attack, the muslims who died were not victim? Because that suggests that they may have brought it upon themselves. No one is ignoring anything. We know that the the perpetrators were from one religion. And we know that people from several religion were killed. know at least one of these muslims was a NYPD officer who went in to save lives. Presumably, by taking note of the fact that he was a victim, I am ignoring the fact that muslim extremists were behind the attack? You write well, ET, but your logic is not up to scratch.

"The issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of an agenda to build a centre devoted to the Islamic religion, an ideology focused on the annihilation of other religions and cultures, in a site that was devastated by that ideology."

Oh, I see. So Islam is out to annihilate all other religions. If that is the case, why have US lawmakers not banned it altogether. If we are to believe you and some others here, it is an open-and-shut case, is it not? By all means, go and argue your case to US lawmakers. I do not doubt for a second that if ISlam is as dangerous as you claim, it will be dealt with accordingly. Unless, of course, you are smarter than all those elected leadersout there. And by virtue of democracy, smarter than all of the people who elected them. In which case, you might as well accept that the dumb people have won and that the world is doomed. No point arguing it on SDA.

"Your red herring that it's all about 'equal citizenship rights' is bs; the issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of such an action."

Call it what you want. I tend to call it the US legal system. The moral and intellecutal legitimacy argument is sort of undermined by your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that 9/11 had muslim victims who were uninterested in annihilating other religions or taking over the world. You try to pass off your beliefs as fact, but that doesn't make them fact.

Well, I guess that the only good thing to come out of 9/11 was that it led to the nail in the coffin for Obama's presidency. Look for his approval ratings to plummet.

"Acorn fraudulent voting stations"

Obama won by a LANDSLIDE! ACORN was guilty of multiple registrations, something common with all forms of voter registration.

"Apparently we have a fair bit in common"

It appears we do.

"I am simply here to state the rather obvious fact that US muslim citizens do, under the constitution, have the right to build the mosque"

Keep it coming..keep the simple but oh so powerful facts coming! They can't fight it.

Knight 99,

I'll listen to your advice and stop because I'm a gentleman,

but I must mention the following facts.

The first annoying if not childish comment was ET saying I post inanities ( Silly/lacking sense ) and I babble ( Meaningless silly talk )

It was childish and insulting.

Then the 2 very childish replies were from Black Mamba.

Then ET turned to childish pettyness ( and ludicrous accusations ).

Not one of my comments were childish, especially compared to Black Mamba's.

If there was a little childishness in my replies it is them who dragged me down to their level.

And I still maintain that one can still call himself tolerant if he refuses to tolerate people who are intolerant of him and his religion.

Now that is a clear and valid line of reasonning.

"The goals of Islam are no different than the goals of the Third Reich"

Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies!

"But if so then it follows that you support the right of Japanese citizens who are also citizens of USA to build and fund a museum about Japanese military exploits on the site of Pearl Harbour. AND you support right of Sikhs who are also citizens of Canada to build a temple on the site of the Air India bombing."

Yes, I do. Given that the Air India bombings had several Sikh victims, I don't see the issue. And given that the Japanese Americans, whose families were interned, served in, and I repeat, THE MOST DECORATED UNIT IN THE US MILITARY IN WWII, I see no reason to not build a memorial to Japanese American military exploits in WWII. 21 Medal of Honors and 9500+ Purple Hearts in a unit that only had 3000 men at any time is worht commemorating. In pure statistics, that means that over a 3.5 year period, 90% of the unit suffered injuries or death each year. Why is that wrong? Because the Imperial Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? What does that have to do with Japanese Americans? And why should it take away from the Japanese American contribution to the US. Pearl Harbor resulted in the internment of the Japanese. Yet these brave soldiers went out there and fought for the US, even though their families were being treated like spies and criminals. I see no reason to not commemorate their bravory and willingness to fight for the US. And I don't think any Pearl Harbor or US war vet will be offended by such a memorial. Just as, I am sure, no HIndu would mind a Sikh temple near an Air India memorial, given that Sikhs were among the passengers killed. I don't see what is so offensive about this all. I can only assume that by virtue of the Imperial Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we should refrain from recognizing the heroism of Japanese Americans? I don't htink its fair to blame or punish Japanese Americans for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The wierdest part of your argument is that you didn't think it through. By extension, you are effectively arguing that we should remove the names of all German and Italian Americans from WWII memorials in Europe because the US was at war with Germany and Italy. Baffling.

"incapable of reason and evaluation."

Impressive. You quoted ET without giving him credit for it. Plagiarism, even.

While I am at it, I should remind all of you that you needn't bother with the personal insults. I really don't care. I may be stupid. I may be smart. Such is life.

"What did everyone think was happening when Obamba bowed in submission to the Wahabi Saudi King?"

Not much. I thought it was a bit of achange from GWB holding the Saudi King's hand and giving him a kiss on the cheek. Personally, I prefer the bowing over the hand-holding and kissing due to hygiene reasons.

Devils Advocate>

It's funny, most "lefties" I meet will always use the term "I'll play devils advocate" air thier true feelings in plain view, but allow themselves an escape mechanism when the argument dosen't go thier way. A point of observation anyway.

You have made your point loud and clear that "Muslims have a legal right to build a mosque on ground zero".

I'm not sure anyone here has ever disputed that "legal right"?

The key points here have been around the tastelessness, and the obvious in your face insult to America as a flame war. Why ground zero for intance, the US is a big country after all? The point is about bieng insulting period and everyone knows it. To say otherwise is really either the act of an agent provocateur, or a simpleton who is extremely naive about the world around them. I believe your comments about Japanese memorials at pearl harbor and other apologist comments for the white European Christian establishment clearly show the mindset you dwell in.

Knowing that, there is no point of debate or comment with you by any of the SDAers that believe that building a mosque on ground zero is inflammatory and insulting. You would rather see more inflamed emotions, and the inevitable violence it will bring. Relax it's coming, let's just hope the world you wish for is as accommodating as the one you've shunned. Cheer, I'm out.

"high IQ does not mean a high capacity for logic or reasoning."
Clearly not, since said poster (FOUSA) used the imaginary word 'greatfull'

-said BTJ

The importance you give to my typo only shows how little you understand about logic, reasonning and IQ.

Just as I predicted.

2 points for me,
0 for BTJ

...

Knight 99,

Why was I asked to stop but ET and Black Mamba were not?

I think I know...

"You would rather see more inflamed emotions, and the inevitable violence it will bring."

Because the opposite scenario, eg. Waco Tx, was such a success right?

If all you chalk 9/11 up to is 'Islam' then you're looking through a might narrow lens.

My choice of monicker has no real meaning. I don't particularly care if you think I am a leftie or a rightie or an in-betweenie. They're all rather tiresome labels.

"Why ground zero for intance"

For some reason, I have been under the impression that this mosque is being built in some kind of interfaith zone at ground zero with other religious centers around. If this is not the case, then I can't understand why nobody has mentioned it in their lengthy "intellectual" diatribes aimed at me.

"I believe your comments about Japanese memorials at pearl harbor and other apologist comments for the white European Christian establishment clearly show the mindset you dwell in."

What comments for white European Christian establishment? I have no idea what you are talking/writing about.

My mindset is not that difficult to decipher. I draw the line between perpetrators and victims. I am, as you rightly point out, guilty of not holding Japanese Americans who served in the US military in WWII as being responsible for Pearl Harbor. Its not complicated. In the same way, I don't hold the American muslims who died on 9/11 responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Do you think they are?

"Knowing that, there is no point of debate or comment with you by any of the SDAers that believe that building a mosque on ground zero is inflammatory and insulting."

Let me put it this way. Most of you will go falling over yourselves to protect the freedom of speech and expression of people who put forth provocative material - the cartoons or South Park or whatever. Fair enough. You are, after all, legally entitled to do so. By an extension of the very same logic, American muslims have a right to freedom of expression which, in this case, is manifesting itself as a 'provocative' mosque. I am merely pointing out the obvious here. If you, as an American citizen, have the right to express yourself as you wish, even if others find it provocative, then so do other American citizens. Now, before you accuse me of any type of relativism, I think you should accept the basic fact underlying it all: the provocative material was produced in the name of the right to do so and so and the freedom to do so and so. This mosque is being built on the basis of hose same freedoms and rights.

Now don't get me wrong. If you have an issue with it, buy the land next to it and build a museum to highlight all the evils of Islam right next to it. Nobody is stopping you. And if you are really so concerned about the funding, then maybe you'll think twice about consuming so much oil - a lot of that money does go to the funders of these mosques. You can't have your SUV and not enrich the crooks.

Just saying.

You are deficient in that?

Agaim ET showing her very poor comprehesion skills.

I'm NOT deficient in mathematics, I'm above average in Maths but NOT off the charts as I am in all other categories.

I was being honest that is all.

You keep pulling stuff out of you a** because you have nothing else on me.

Goodnight.

A very entertaining topic. Great energetic banter. Clearly people are emotionally concerned. It's a good thing.

I'm with O'Reilly on this one. There won't be one union crew within three states that will touch the construction of such a mosque. If construction every starts on the site there might be enough new material once the dust settles for a "Sopranos" movie. The decision to build a "Ground Zero" mosque is what the British term "Bad Form"...which to them is unforgivable idiocy. For the Wiz of 'O to openly support such a project is tantamount to announcing that he's not really American after all. Maybe there's something to the citizenship thing after all.

By the way, ET, your comments are RIGHT ON! As usual. It's always a joy to read your insightful comments. Keep on truck'n, master commenter.

In my opinion Obama's publicly demonstrated narcissism is rising in comparison to levels inhabited by the most loathsome dictators in history. Didn't Obama say it was up to him to "save" America during the election run-up? Just think what he could do without the US Constitution?

It's all good news for the Repubs. The more Obama says now the more harm is done to the Dems. A vote is still a vote. As for the Wiz of O', there will always be a talk show host job for him waiting on Oprah's new cable network.

He's now only a couple of months away from officially becoming a lame-duck presidency.

Excuss the odd typo, I'm traveling and using and iPod to post, big pain in the butt.

Anyway Devils Advocate - you lable yourself a "lefty" by your typical "lefty" arguments, via protectionism for Islam as some saintly victim caught up with a few bad apples who simply wish to innocently build a massive monument of thier faith at the spot where many if not most American's see the beginning of WW3. Right or wrong it's the reality of the situation.

I brought up the term White European Apologist, because that's where all your argument have led. Japanese internment, Air India bombing memorials? Why not talk about a tribute to Amercia at ground zero in Heroshima, to coin an example of rediculous? Well that would be offensive wouldn't it. Let's not bring up the tragedies and horrors that the Japanese Imperial armies inflicted upon China, South East Asia and the allied service personell throughout the war. Atrocities to be frank, yet you stated that due to internments within the US a Japanese memorial would be quite ok at Pearl Harbor.

Do you not realize that that makes you an apologist? Do you not realize that you are making arguments for almost anyone who is not White Christian establishment? You have argued with flawed reasoning for the sympathy of every barbaric culture but your own, giving it's feelings none.

Who in thier right mind could take you or your "arguments" seriously.

I fail to see how disagreeing with you makes is the equivalent of protecting Islam. I don't give a damn about Islam, one way or the other.

If this mosque is being built in an inter-faith zone, I don't see the issue. So far, no one here has indicated that this is not the case. If it is in an interfaith zone, I feel that there is room to believe that the builders are not trying to be provocative.

Besides, the provocative angle only offers a vague and weak defence. The constitution guarantees certain rights and freedoms to all US citizens regardless of caste and creeds. These freedoms are routinely cited when some Americans exhibit material that is provocative to certain groups/religions. I must once again point out that you are not necessarily disagreeing with me, but rather with the consitution of the US, mostly because it gives every US citizen - muslim or non-muslim - the right to be provocative under the tenets of freedom of speech and expression.

"Let's not bring up the tragedies and horrors that the Japanese Imperial armies inflicted upon China, South East Asia and the allied service personell throughout the war. Atrocities to be frank, yet you stated that due to internments within the US a Japanese memorial would be quite ok at Pearl Harbor."

I would advise you to read what I write more carefully. And please avoid putting words in my mouth. Here, let me spell it out for you.

I said it would be okay to build a memorial to Japanese American military personnel at Pearl Harbor memorial. Japanese American. Not Japanese. Japanese American. What did the Japanese Americans do for America? The 442nd Infantry regiment, staffed almost entirely by Japanese Americans, served in Italy, South France and Germany. It earned 21 Medal of Honors (all Japanese Americans), over 50 Distinguished Service Crosses and 18,000+ medals in total. It is, and I am tired of repeating myself the MOST DECORATED UNIT in the US MILITARY. I DID NOT say we should have the memorial on the basis of the interment. I mentioned the internment to highlight the selflessness and bravery of the Japanese American men who fought for the US military, despite the fact that their families were being interned and treated as second-class citizens. It takes some conviction and a lot of devotion to fight for a country that is treating your family as a second-class citizen. These men did. They contributed to the US war effort. NOT the Japanese War effort. Why is it so wrong to build a memorial to Japanese Americans at Pearl Harbor? Are we to hold the Japanese Americans responsible for the attack in Pearl Harbor? Were they consulted by the Imperial Japanese Government? You can accuse me of being a White European Apologist all you want, but your point blank refusal to acknowledge the contribution of Japanese Americans to the US war effort in WWII speaks volumes in itself.

The problem with your logic is the same as the problem with ella's logic. If we think it is insulting to put a memorial to Japanese AMERICAN troops at Pearl Harbor because of the actions of the Imperial Japanese forces, the logical extension is that we omit the names of German and Italian Americans who fought in Europe because of the atrocities that were committed by the German and Italian armies. I completely disagree with this approach, because I am as grateful for the contributions of the German and Italian Americans as I am for any soldier who fought in the Allied war effort, be he Japanese American, South African or Indian. Does that make me a White European Apologist?

"Do you not realize that you are making arguments for almost anyone who is not White Christian establishment?"

Still fail to see what you are getting at. The White Christian Establishment places an onus on the inherent equality of all human beings (NOT beliefs) and provides to human beings certain rights, freedoms and priviliges. Correct?

Now, each country has its constitution that guarantees these rights, freedoms and priviliges to the country's citizens. Think US constitution.

What we have in this case, is a group of US muslim citizens exercising the rights provided to them by Western Christian establisment and guaranteed to them by the US constitution. They are, essentially, exercising the same rights and freedoms that any other US citizen can exercise. I am not arguing that we should give muslims more rights (or less rights, for that matter). I am arguing that US muslims have certain rights and these have to be respected regardless of their religious beliefs - at least until a law comes into place to change this. The upholding of rights is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the Western Christian Establishment and the US constitution. ALL US citizens have certain rights, and the US muslims building this mosque are not overstepping their rights.

Whether it is provocative or not is a separate issue. Freedom of expression and speech have been used to justify a lot of provocative material directed at any number of groups and religions. Why, then, are you so shocked that a muslim group is using those rights to justify what you, and several others here, claim is a provocative act. Do these rights only apply to non-Muslims? If you want that to be the case, write to your congressman.

Till then, I suggest you read things carefully and think things through - perhaps even try to respond, instead of reacting.

"Who in thier right mind could take you or your "arguments" seriously."

People who read carefully, I hope.

Obama stated Muslims have a right to build their mosque anywhere it's legally allowed - and re-iterated the statement the next day. He's merely affirming "freedom of religion" as guaranteed by the Constituion.

The fact that you guys have a problem with that says volumes more about you than it does about him.

Yea, yea around we go.

We will just need to wait and see how this "legally ok" mosque will pacify the the American public.

I'm still not even close to understanding how or why you've chosen to make a debate about the legal ramifications of a grand mosque on ground zero verses the sensibilities of it.

I suppose some people will argue anything, especially when thier fallback position is the constitution which no one has counter argued.

Regardless my stance or argument remains unchanged. That the building of this mosque is going to lead to violence and more bitter feelings by American's towards Muslims.

The argument of constitutional right is moot and no one has ever disagreed with it, so then it becomes a fabricated argument. One that allows you to take a moral high road as if the constitution was the argument "write your congressman".

yea ok.

Still...

After all is said and written..

It is hard to imagine President/General Dwight D. Eisenhower telling the American people in 1954-

"I have no problem with the Japanese building a 30 million dollar Buddhist Temple approximately 400 yards away from the Arizona battleship memorial."
-
-
-

Its not the religion.

Its the building.

Sherman,

I'm sure Obamba's sensibilities and finger on the nations pulse will play out marvelously this coming November.

Those crickets you hear in the oval office these days are really democrats on little cell phones begging for his public support.

"I'm still not even close to understanding how or why you've chosen to make a debate about the legal ramifications of a grand mosque on ground zero verses the sensibilities of it."

Pretty much on the same grounds as the ones used to justify the Christ in urine exhibit in the US. Freedom of expression and speech, which implicitly allows individuals to engage in provocative exercises. Simple as.

"That the building of this mosque is going to lead to violence and more bitter feelings by American's towards Muslims."

Maybe. Maybe not. That same argument could be justified to ban the publishing of those Danish cartoons - "lead to violence and more bitter feelings by Muslims towards (whoever)". At the end of the day, both the cartoons and this mosque are being built on the basis of the same rights and freedoms. Since the US consitution gives the same rights to all US citizens regardless of religion, this should hardly come as surprise. In other words, if you suppor the publishing of cartoons/literature/symbols/speeches that are provocative to some groups, then you really can't complain much if some of those groups use the same rights and laws to do something that you deem provocative - even insulting.

I believe in freedom of speech and expression regardless of the provocation value. Best let everything out in the open, instead of leaving it to fester in hidden areas.

DA - I think it amusing that you state that the issue of the mosque, being one of provocation, is inconsequential given that you post here simply to provoke. As an agent provocateur, of the passive aggressive type, and a self identified psychologist, one would think you would be cognitive of the fact that you are projecting your hatred of white Christians onto to those that oppose a mega mosque. As a psychologist, I am sure you were educated about the dangers of transference and how to guard oneself so as not to transfer ones own experience/sentiments/beliefs onto a persons or groups. It is obvious by your comments that you have failed and are actively transferring. In so doing, you have sub-consciously and consciously aligned yourself with Islams ideology which has a strong and organized anti-white christian establishment belief system -so much so that paradise is offered to any member of this ideology that beheads a Christian or Jew. Time to clean your lens.

Americans have just as much of a right to oppose the mosque at ground zero as Islamists have in wanting to build at that location. As a matter of fact the majority - 70% of Americans oppose the mosque at the proposed location and have every right to oppose and speak out against it.
I find it highy hypocritical that the same persons who are aligning themselves with Islam and the "right" to build a mosque at the 911 memorial site are also the same ones who oppose perfectly legal developments for environmental reasons, and loudly speak out against houses being built where trees once stood; even going so far as to place spikes in trees and lay down in front of dozers. What is the difference? There is none, although it is perfectly legal to build houses on land that was purchased, environmentalists have absolutely no qualms about speaking out against these legal developments and organizing themselves to stop said developments, with the msm's approval I might add, and when they are successful they break out the champaign. I would not be surprised if you share this duplicity in thinking.

Now I remember why I stopped coming here.
The trolls and the police state editors.

Oh yeah and DEATH TO ISLAM!

I've never advocated banning the Danish cartoons, nor "artistic" expressions such as "The Christ in Urine". As a matter of fact I have agreed that the Mosque on ground zero has every legal basis to be built there.

What I find amusing is that some people don't see a bigger ramification than a few loudspeakers blaring away 5 times a day across the street from the World Trade Center.

As far as violence, well I guess we will just need to wait and see. Now that Americas own "Nobel Prize" winning fraudster is expanding his war into Yeman, while consolidating his navy around the Straites of Hormuze, things should relax on the Islamic front.

In the end who can argue that a massive Islamic mosque built on the ruins of World Trade Center is every bit as passive as building it in say New Jersey?

Well again, only time is going prove out this theory of "spiritual bonding" of Christian & newly landed Muslim Americans through this mosque, along with the Liberals idealistic marriage of the American Constitution & Islamic ideology.

Sounds sweet anyway dosen't it? I'll stick to my own theories as too how it will eventually go over, you stay on your's (that's right they have a constitutional right to build a mosque.....)

November will indeed be interesting.

For the record, I was against the Draw Muhammad Day because I sensed that something was not quite right and suspected that it could be a set-up and used against Americans to prove their "bigotry" "racism" and "Islamophobia" effectively destroying all the work of those that have been making headway against the HRC's attempt to silence and force every Canadian to become PC here in Canada, and I felt the event would do nothing to preserve free speech in the the states which has been fiercely under attack by the Islamist community (how hypocrital is that?). I thought it way too coincidental that the comedy central South Park debacle coupled with prime time drama's that aired serendipitously that had a Muslim cartoon and/or terrorist and bomb themes/plots, despite them being taped months in advance, along with the conveniently "failed" bomb attempt/scare in times square - these all screamed provocation and incitement to me. Thankfully, the American public did not bite or the Islamists would have been able to erect this mega Mosque without so much as a peep from the public due to proof of their own "violence" and/or "Islamophobia". The timing of all of these events and the announcement of the mega mosque can not be ignored, in my view. The PR for the mosque actually tried to use the cartoons as proof that Americans are racist and Islamophobic - it did not fly because the "Draw Muhammad Day" turned out to be a non-consequential event.

DA is decidedly Christianophobic and Whiteophobic.

Devil's: I must say, what a relief to read a rational, reasoning mind around here.

Agree with you and sherman.

People have a right to DISAGREE with the Mosque and voice that disagreement, but they don't have a right to OPPOSE it. To oppose it is to both disagree and attempt to prevent/obstruct it. That being said, one must also present a logical argument for their disagreement if the rational person is to take them seriously.

"the building of this mosque is going to lead to violence and more bitter feelings by American's towards Muslims."

Whether or not it 'provokes anger and violence' is a matter that concerns the philosophical and psychological well being of American citizens, not the people building the mosque.

In regards to the decision itself, to build the Mosque in that spot, I can't think of an instance where pushing social issues we don't like to confront into corners has come to any good, it certainly doesn't foster progress. Is progress not desirable?

I'm interested to know how people feel about Christian missionaries working around the world?

"In the end who can argue that a massive Islamic mosque built on the ruins of World Trade Center is every bit as passive as building it in say New Jersey?"

No one is arguing that, I certainly didn't read that anymore.

"Well again, only time is going prove out this theory of "spiritual bonding" of Christian & newly landed Muslim Americans through this mosque, along with the Liberals idealistic marriage of the American Constitution & Islamic ideology."

It's not like it's the only Mosque in the city, in fact there's one a few blocks away.

"I'm still not even close to understanding how or why you've chosen to make a debate about the legal ramifications of a grand mosque on ground zero verses the sensibilities of it."

Do you not believe that the American Constitution represents one of the, if not the, greatest advancements in individual freedom?

"I have agreed that the Mosque on ground zero has every legal basis to be built there. What I find amusing is that some people don't see a bigger ramification than a few loudspeakers blaring away 5 times a day across the street from the World Trade Center."

"Americans have just as much of a right to oppose the mosque at ground zero as Islamists have in wanting to build at that location."

THAT'S JIM TAGGART RIGHT THERE...this 'support' of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, meanwhile playing into the role of her antagonists, is degrading to be quite frank. You want the benefits of freedom only if it applies to you, if it applies to something that disagrees with you, it must be opposed.

DA/BTJ - I suspect you are one and the same, but i digress. Poppycock - as if you would not oppose your house being bulldozed to make way for a freeway. Yes, one does have a right to oppose anything they want. What you fear is the power of public opinion. Answer this - do you think it is okay for environmentalists and organizations like Greenpeace to oppose legal developments including the oil sands? Why bother having an official opposition party in government if opposition is not a right? That is the lamest argument I have ever heard par none. The environmentalists have opposed and stopped and/or forced revisions to plans in many developments due to public pressure, so it will be with the mega mosque location - another site is being offered as a compromise, if it is not accepted than the whole - we want to build a sensitivity bridge will be exposed for what it is - a lie and an attempt to build a victory mosque next door to the gravesite of those who were murdered by this same group. The site location is radical/extreme and mirrors the intent of the group. If your children were murdered - would you want a monument to their murderer built next to their gravesite in the name of tolerance and understanding? Would you be okay with the monument being named after another one of the murderers many victims? That is exactly what is being proposed and people rightly oppose such a thing - in fact, ones conscience demands it.

"In the end who can argue that a massive Islamic mosque built on the ruins of World Trade Center is every bit as passive as building it in say New Jersey?"

"No one is arguing that, I certainly didn't read that anymore."

Exactly. That was sarcasm if you read it again, and you proved it's point, by agreement. The point again is that you don't get the bigger picture.

No worries it will most definitely sort itself out, every bit as much as Obamba is proving his worthyness as predicted on SDA before Jan 2009.

BTJ >

"I'm interested to know how people feel about Christian missionaries working around the world?"

For the record, I could care less, it's thier necks. I say close the borders so that each country can sort out its own individual mess. Until of course each can deal with each other in civility and bring something to the table aside from a hand out. Stop all taxation aid and if the tree huggers and god squad wish to go play with the natives, they can do it on thier own dime and with thier own time. We can look after ourselves, and with a little less "help" from the do-gooders and the cons they enrich, so will everyone else. Eventually that is.

You asked.

DA/BTJ (you are the same person; you write the same way). You declare that you believe in nothing, which is an illogical statement because if you genuinely felt that way you would not be making the single view comments you make here. How about some logical reasoning?

Your red herring diversions (German, Japanese American soldiers, Muslim 9-11 victims) and 'tu quoque' and 'false analogy' comments (Christian missions) are argumentative fallacies. They are diversions from the real issue.

Equally illogical is your failure to recognize the difference between 'is' and 'ought' and 'dicto simpliciter'. Because some form of behaviour is legally valid does not mean that the behaviour ought to be carried out.

Because there IS freedom of religious expression, does not mean that its expression OUGHT to be located at any time or place. Your error lies in focusing exclusively only on the 'is' (the legal right) and concluding erroneously that 'ought' is seamlessly bonded. Not true. The morality of 'ought' is not bonded to the mere existential nature of 'is'.

The mosque can legally be built there but that is not the issue. The issue is whether it ought to be built there and the answer to this can't be to revert to the 'is' - which would be a modus ponens fallacy (reversing the two statements). You can't say that because it 'is' legal (descriptive), then it 'ought' to be done (prescriptive).

The arguments focused on 'ought' are moral, contextual and historical. First, does this mosque address any of these issues?
Does it acknowledge the reality of the attack, which was carried out by Islamic fascists? How? Does it seek to reduce Islamic fascism? How?
Does it acknowledge the necessity for changing Islamism and modernizing it? How?
Does it promote interfaith knowledge? How?

The answer, to my knowledge, is that it carries out none of these actions. It is confined to Muslims, its imam is a radical who refuses to acknowledge the reality of Islamic fascism and it has no programs of reducing extremism. Therefore, ought it to be set up on this location? Why? No - don't try the 'is' tactic; you have to acknowledge the 'ought'.

Like you, dizzy, I've been trying to figure out the juxtaposition of Slater and Obama. Reading (most of) these comments I've come up with a few similarities (besides planes):

Both are narcissistic to the nth degree.

Both show adolescent tendencies (related to above observation), considering themselves to be the centre of the universe: look at me! look at me!.

Both are out of touch with reality (Slater wants his job back! Obama seems to think he's actually doing the job of the POTUS.)

Both seem to be gay: Slater has a lisp, a hip swivel, and a boyfriend and Obama has a (veiled) past and Michelle, who obviously wears the pants in the family.

Boys just want to have fu-un.

The US 2010 is a powder keg of racial and religious division thanks in no small measure to the Great Racial divider Barry Soetoro. The mosque is a fuse and Soetoro is the dull spark.

Bang on Knight, Obama and the MSM have done so much racial and religious damage to the fabric of US's society. It's clear pandering to Political Islam needs to stop, if Muslims want to be equal that's great but stop treating them with a level of supremacy because we are afraid they'll get violent. Nothing but complete surrender will appease the Wahhabist, and frankly I have no desire to surrender to a medieval fake religion designed by an Islamic nutjob.

This is what some folks think OUGHT to happen:

Mohamed Haroun, an intern at a mechanical engineering firm, said, “What he (Obama) should have said was: ‘This is a community decision. Constitutionally, they have the right to do it, but it’s a community decision and we should see what the local community wants to do.’ ”

Gov. Paterson offered to help the mosque developers find another location. But they rejected the offer, reinforcing suspicion that provocation to the memory of 9/11 is part of the developers' plan.

Palin also questioned why Obama did not encourage the Cordoba Initiative to accept an offer from New York Gov. David Paterson, who said he would donate state land to the group if they would agree to move further away from Ground Zero.
“Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you (Obama) have described, in agreement with me, as ‘hallowed ground’?” Palin wrote

John Galt; I really appreciated the Peggy Noonan article - I think she wisely pointed out a phenomena that has gone unnoticed by most.

Are we feeding trolls again? Why?

The WTC site is a -burial ground- among other things, which in our culture makes it different than the usual kind of ground. 2000 people died there, hundreds of whom left no remains. Killed by Muslims in an attack on both

Bottom line, Barry made comments that can quite rightly be interpreted as support for a triumphal mosque paid for by America's enemy, literally on the ashes of American dead.

Now he backs away claiming religious freedom, which is a transparent and cowardly attempt to escape without repudiating his previous statement. So at one fell swoop Barry has managed disloyalty to his country, cowardice, and really astounding political stupidity.

The trolls are forced to be in support of all that by their insane ideology. Sucks to be a troll.

nomdeblog - exactly.

Obama is now trying to back out of his specific comments to the Muslim dinner audience, where he merged 'is' and 'ought'.

He said - beginning with his dusty 'let me be clear'..that "I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country” and then he added that 'this includes the right to build a place of worship and community centre on private property in the lower Manhatten".

He's now trying to explain that, we, the ignorant, didn't understand him. Yes we did; we heard exactly what he said.

What 'is' and what 'ought' to be are not the same, and the latter requires a different type of evaluative judgment, because it must acknowledge morality, ethics, context, history.

Remember, the Nuremberg trials were all about the failure to separate 'is' and 'ought'. Because it was legal to divest Jews of property and enslave and exterminate them, does not mean that it 'ought' to have been done.
Because apartheid in SA was legal (is) does not mean that it ought to have been done.

The two actions require different evaluative processes.

devil's advocate @3:58 - of course, the "Piss Christ" controversy was about government funding of obscene and offensive "art". Did "Everybody draw Mohammed Day" get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts? I can't remember.

(No-One - is he a psychologist? Yeesh. Shrinks; bunch of weirdos; and the -ologists can't even write you a 'scrip, so I really don't see the point of those guys.)

" As an agent provocateur, of the passive aggressive type, and a self identified psychologist"

Provoke? I am putting out a line of argument that, while not consistent with the views of most people here, is ultimately rational and logical. If you get 'provoked' by that, well I don't know what to say. But then again, people get provoked by the strangest things. Also, I am not a self-identified psychologist. I don't write lengthy diatribes about Obamas narcissism. You may have mistaken me for someone else.

"you are projecting your hatred of white Christians onto to those that oppose a mega mosque."

Wow. Just wow. You're a magician. I haven't got any hatred for White Christians or white people or christians. I don't hate anyone frankly. And I am almost one hundred percent certain that the opponents of the mosque include colored people and non-Christians in their ranks. So I really don't know where you are going with this. I can only assume that going against the trend at SDA automatically triggers a knee-jerk reaction in some people over here, who proceed to label everyone disagreeing as "White European apologist" and hater of Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble. I'm not a hater of christians or white people or non-christians or colored people. But, by all means, you are free to convince yourself otherwise.

"Americans have just as much of a right to oppose the mosque at ground zero as Islamists have in wanting to build at that location."

Oh, I see. Now I see where you are coming from. You're just another one of those SDA types who don't actually bother reading whats written. Instead you assume, guess and fabricate. If you do bother reading what I've written, then you will note that I have said very clearly that those who oppose the mosque can buy the land next to it and build a museum that highlights Islam's evils. Nothing stopping you at all. If 70% of Americans oppose it, scraping up the money shouldn't be a problem at all.

"DA is decidedly Christianophobic and Whiteophobic."

I read and re-read your 6-line opinion piece/argument but there is nothing in there that would allow you to come to the above conclusion, so there's really no way I can refute it, beyond saying "No, I m not." Sounds terribly juvenile. If you re going to accuse me of something, at least try to make an effort to provide some basis for it. Or is that asking too much?

"To oppose it is to both disagree and attempt to prevent/obstruct it."

Well BTJ, I am reluctant to disagree with you, since our resident Obama-diagnosing psychologist (and he/she is really good - managed to diagnose Obama without meeting him) will decide that we have split personality or multiple personality disorder or whatever you want to call it.

That said, they do have a right to oppose it - within the limits of the law. What do I mean? I mean that they have a right to lobby building companies and unions not to do it. They also have a right to ask their congressman to stop it from being built. Whether this opposition will be successful all depends on the legality of the situation at hand. The Congressmen can do nothing to stop it if they deem it legal. Besides, I find it odd that everyone here is only upset with Obama, not with Bloomberg and the city councils, who approved it. IIRC, Bloomberg has very strong links with the Republicans? Is that why he is beyond criticism here?

"If your children were murdered - would you want a monument to their murderer built next to their gravesite in the name of tolerance and understanding? "

Again. Is this mosque being built as a memorial to the attackers of 9/11? There is a significant difference between a religious center and a memorial. If they celebrate the attacks of 9/11, then they will be dealt with. However, in the absence of the mosque, and any proof that it will contain memorials celebrating the attacks of 9/11, I suggest we stay true to Western Christian Establishment and avoid minority report style "guilty until proven innocent". Most of what you write is conjecture, since I am sure Bloomberg and the city councils did their due diligence and concluded that this mosque would not be the first step in some kind of global invasion.

"another site is being offered as a compromise"

But thats exactly the point. If they are equal citizens of the US, why should they have to compromise? I may be the only one on this board, but I do feel the need to draw a distinction between American muslims and the perpetrators of 9/11. I fail to see why American muslims should have to compromise because of the actions taken by a bunch of people who had nothing to do with them, beyond practicing the same religion. This brand of collective guilt is not consistent with US/Western/Christian philosophical or moral doctrines. I've noticed that a lot of people here have brought up the Sikh argument over and over again in the Air India case. I don't see the point. HIndus are hardly offended by the fact that the current Prime Minister of India is Sikh. They hardly hold him and the other Sikhs in India responsible for the Air India bombing. However if we use your logic, then by virtue of being a Sikh, he is unfit for office because of the crimes committed by his coreligionists elsewhere. It makes no sense.

"DA/BTJ (you are the same person; you write the same way)."

Flawless logic. Yes, I noticed that we do write in a similar manner. That doesn't make us the same. The only difference between our writing style and that used by others here is our apparent ability to use punctuations properly. Beyond that, there's not much similarity. Maybe we were educated in the same school or college. Regardless, a command of English and fluency with punctuation does not mean we are, well, one person. Don't believe me? Ask a mod to do an IP check. I can assure you I don't go running from one location to another to prove anything to you or anyone else here.

"You declare that you believe in nothing, which is an illogical statement because if you genuinely felt that way you would not be making the single view comments you make here."

Well, I understand your automatic need to analyze everything I say - you seem to be some kind of amateur psychologist. I should warn you that those lines are thrown in there to deter people who, as is common on this board, will only respond to what I say by labelling me. When I say I believe in everything and I believe in nothing, I am simply stating that you can accuse me of believing whatever you want to, and apply whatever label you want to (leftie, btj, white european apologist, decidedly christianophobic and whitephobic to name a few) but I don't care. Maybe I am all those things. Maybe I am not. Who knows. Who cares. Get it?

"Your red herring diversions (German, Japanese American soldiers, Muslim 9-11 victims) and 'tu quoque' and 'false analogy' comments (Christian missions) are argumentative fallacies. They are diversions from the real issue."

Well, knock the Christian mission bit out, because that was BTJ, not me. But go, explain howw the German, Japanese etc were red herring diversions. Or how they are argumentative fallacies. Or how they divert from the real issue. Because all you have done is throw out some fancy terms without actually explaining how those fancy terms apply. On the basis of this, and this alone, I am almost 100% certain that apart from your amateur psychology hobby, you are an academic. It is amply evident in the language you use. And a senior one at that, because you seem to be under the impression that you can say what you want and it will be fact, without providing any substance to back it up. Go ahead, explain how they are argumentative fallacies. I am not one of your students, so a "because ET said so" isn't good enough for me.

"Because some form of behaviour is legally valid does not mean that the behaviour ought to be carried out."

I never said the muslims "ought" to build a mosque there. I said that, if they want ot, they can. In fact, isn't that what freedom of expression and belief and speech is all about. Think about South Park and its insults, not just at Islam, but at Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc. They ought not to do it. But they can. And they do. So what exactly is your point?

"Because there IS freedom of religious expression, does not mean that its expression OUGHT to be located at any time or place."

Beginning to look like a strawman. Again, I am not saying anything about "ought". I am saying that under these freedoms, they 'can' do what they want, but this is, of course subject to US laws, including those pertaining to conduct in private and public spaces. As far as I know, this mosque is not violating any US laws.

"The morality of 'ought' is not bonded to the mere existential nature of 'is'."

Hack away at the straw man. For what its worth, did you ever think of whether Danish cartoons 'ought' to publish provocative cartoons or whether pseudo artists ought to be allowed to create urine jar exhbits or whether South Park ought to be allowed to insult Buddhists? Because all of those things have happened. And they have been justified on the basis of freedom of speech/expression. The 'ought' is irrelevant. The real issue is 'can'. The problem however, is that if one US citizen/ citizen's group 'can' do it, then so can all other US citizens/citizen groups.

Right, lets get past that and see what you are saying

"Does it acknowledge the reality of the attack, which was carried out by Islamic fascists? How? Does it seek to reduce Islamic fascism? How?
Does it acknowledge the necessity for changing Islamism and modernizing it? How?"

I haven't gone through the mosque proposal - you know, the one that was approved by Bloomberg and NYC city councils. I assume it is out there somewhere, and I suspect you will find your answers in there. Please forgive my refusal to do your research for you. After all, you have not asked anyone here to provide proof that this will be a memorial to the attackers of 9/11 or a staging post for a global invasion by Islam, even though many people have suggested as much.

If you have questions about the role the mosque will play, I would suggest you direct questions to the Mayors office.

The mega mosque debate/discussion reminds me of Kohlbergs Theory and Stages of Moral Development. According to Kohlberg, DA/BTJ score/rank low developmentally on this scale; whereas, those that oppose the mega mosque location score/rank high.

http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm

To add insult to injury - if it were not enough to build the victory monument on "hallowed ground", the grand opening is scheduled for September 11th, 2011 which undeniably ties the building of the mega victory mosque to the events of 911. Muslim Internet sites and tweets are abuzz with the prospect of the psychological victory this will have over the American people - indeed the free world. There has also been a call for Dua (supplication prayer) for the death of those organizing the protest against the mega mosque - goes to prove that opposition to Islam is met with death threats.

Islam's intentions are as transparent as child caught with chocolate brownie on their face coupled with the undeniable fact of a missing brownie.

DA/BTJ - nope. You still don't understand the difference between 'is' and 'ought'.

Your comments about the mosque focus only on the legal right to do this. So what? That's an 'is' argument. What we are talking about and what you refuse to acknowledge is 'ought'.

You show your lack of understanding of the 'ought' process by continually referring to US laws of conduct. Again, the law refers to the 'is' or descriptive process. The 'ought' refers to the 'prescriptive' process and it requires a different evaluative criteria.

You obviously don't understand the difference and don't have a clue what these different evaluative criteria might be. In fact, your indifference to them...is obvious. That shows that you are committing the logical fallacy of simplistically merging 'is' and 'ought'.

No - I'm not going to waste my time going through your argumentative fallacies. Look up red herring by yourself and false analogy etc. You keep doing it - you divert the focus from the real issues to irrelevant and false comparisons. This is not an issue of 'free speech' so your comparisons are false. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech but with the prescriptive function of 'ought'.

Again, if you believe in nothing and everything, then you refuse accountability. The refusal of accountability and standing up for your statements is the act of a coward.

One thing that "Is" and not "Ought" is the mid-term election coming this fall. A vote still IS a vote. Even New Yorkers know that.

One thing that is an outright "Ought" is how ought the Dem Congressmen and Senators up for re-election respond to their President's choice to support the Muslim Ground Zero Victory Monument.

"Let me be clear", get out the hot buttered popcorn...this has a General Custer remake written all over it.

"What we are talking about and what you refuse to acknowledge is 'ought'."

Its not that I am ignoring it. I am just stating very clearly that it is irrelevant. You re engaging in an entirely academic argument. Good for you. I am not interested.

"You obviously don't understand the difference and don't have a clue what these different evaluative criteria might be. In fact, your indifference to them...is obvious. That shows that you are committing the logical fallacy of simplistically merging 'is' and 'ought'."

Yes. Very obvious. Mostly because, beyond engaging in academic debates, it is irrelevant. You can give any number of reasons on why they ought not to do it. The guys building it have obviously given Bloomberg and the planning councils several reasons on why they ought to do it. I fail to see why I should start providing reasons for why they ought to do it. That is a debate for you to have with the builders, the mayor and the planning council. What I am stating, apparently not clearly enough, is that as things stand, they have the priviliges rights and freedoms bestowed upon them by the US consititution. Ought and ought not are matters of opinion and I don't have one on this.

"No - I'm not going to waste my time going through your argumentative fallacies. Look up red herring by yourself and false analogy etc. You keep doing it - you divert the focus from the real issues to irrelevant and false comparisons."

Of course. Make a claim without any substance and then tell anybody who asks to prove that the claim has no substance. Are you going to ask me to prove that there are no teacups in space, next? I know what the terms mean. I fail to see how they apply. You are either unwilling or unable to prove they apply, so really, is there any point taking it seriously? You might as well tell me I have am possessed by an elf and then tell me to disprove it. That doesn't mean that I am possessed by an elf. Juvenile argument. Weak.

"This is not an issue of 'free speech' so your comparisons are false. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech but with the prescriptive function of 'ought'."

You're right. Its an issue of freedom of expression. I just tend to lump them together. As for the rest - yeah keep beating that dead 'ought' horse. Are you really going to start a debate on what amounts to little more than rhetoric and semantics?

"Again, if you believe in nothing and everything, then you refuse accountability. The refusal of accountability and standing up for your statements is the act of a coward."

Yes, I am a coward. And I am a braveheart. You can call me what you want. I don't care. Besides, it only has a bearing on my accountability if you want to engage in ad hominem attacks. If you do, then my apologies, but I really don't care for ad hominems.

DA/BTJ - No, you are quite wrong. The 'ought' argument is the basis of a civilization. Machines function by the mechanical tactics of 'is'. Humans require ethical evaluations.

That's the reason for the Nuremberg trials. They weren't an 'academic irrelevant exercise' but were an insistence that 'ought' is a basic attribute of the human condition.

Ever heard of the Nicomachean Ethics? A whole work devoted to this basic attribute of the human condition - 'every action and pursuit'..to aim at some good'.

No, a planning committee does NOT deal with 'ought'; it deals only with 'is', with the by-laws of building construction.

Freedom of speech and expression are the same. So, don't try this red herring evasion. The issue is NOT free speech/expression. It is about what 'ought' to be done. That is why your continued focus on 'is', i.e., the legal validation of building a mosque is totally irrelevant! The by-laws, the freedom to build, etc are totally irrelevant. The issue is about whether it 'ought' to be done.

You refuse to enter into this argument and instead, waste our time with your irrelevant and trivial focus on 'is'. Again - that's NOT the issue! So stop babbling on about it.

Describing you as choosing to be unaccountable and that behaviour as a cowardly action is NOT an ad hominem argument. Don't you know what the 'ad hominem' argument means? It's an evasion of an argument, not a description and criticism of someone!

Equally, if you knew what false analogy and red herring meant - you'd know that your use of them destroys your argument.

I don't even think Custer was as much of a narcissist as the Wiz of 'O. Any suggestions on a title for the upcoming Obama "Last Stand" movie? "Mega Mosque in the Big Apple", "Little People vs. the Progressive Transformers", "How the West Was Almost Lost", "The Rising Crescent on Park Avenue", "The Big Apple Dumping Gang", and "Sweet November, New Yorker" are a few that come to mind.

Popcorn's popp'n.

How about "Little Barry O's Big Adventure" played by Pak Soetoro.

Martin - don't count your chickens, so to speak. Think about it.

Obama probably moved into the narcissist stage around the time he was 9 or 10. He's had 40 years in that psychological trap. Essentially, it means that he's unable to interact with the real world. He lives within his virtual world, his world of words, where what he says - is all that matters.

What he says has one agenda: to manipulate you to be in his control. It has NO relation to reality. None. So, he can tell one audience one thing, and two hours later, tell another audience the other. In his mind, he's OK. But his agenda is not to reference his words to the external reality. But to manipulate you.

So, Obama will let Congress take the fall this November. He's not accountable; he'll slither out. Then, he'll play both the 'race' theme, and the 'victim' theme, blaming Congress for hampering his Good Intentions.

As for the mosque - it's obvious that it's a confrontative symbol of domination; it has no agenda of collaboration, dialogue, openness. Whether it will go through - is another story. I personally suspect that Bloomberg has been bribed with massive input into city coffers.

"No, a planning committee does NOT deal with 'ought'; it deals only with 'is', with the by-laws of building construction."

Okay. This only goes to prove that Nicomachean ethics, interesting though they may be, are irrelevant in the context of this situation. You can stand on your car and yell that they ought not to do it, but they will still do it, because they can. And they can, because they are legally entitled to do so. If you feel so strongly about it, lobby your congress man. Till then, South Park is free to insult people and muslims are free to build mosques on property they have presumably purchased. Provocative? Not provocative? Doesn't matter. You don't, as of now, have a right to not be provoked.

"Humans require ethical evaluations."

Fair enough. How do you propose we go about it? Start another one of those HR Kangaroo commissions/courts that claim to deal with ethical evaluations? Because the law is the law.

"That's the reason for the Nuremberg trials. They weren't an 'academic irrelevant exercise' but were an insistence that 'ought' is a basic attribute of the human condition."

At the Nuremburg trials, they were trying people who had committed crimes. How is the building of a mosque, in any way, comparable to a trial? The only way you could make it comparable is if they set up memorials to the hijackers of 9/11. Then you might have some claim. Here, beyond the alleged provocativeness of this building's location, you really have nothing tangible on what will go in there. Nuremberg was about trying known Nazi leaders and operatives, not people who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause but who never actually did anything for the Nazis. Slight difference, but significant one.

"The issue is about whether it 'ought' to be done."

RIght. I get what you are saying. I can only assume that on the issue of the Danish cartoons, you would ignore the freedom of expression/speech/belief inherent in them, and state that it ought not to be done becuase it is 'provocative'/'insulting' to muslims. Sorry, but you can't pick and choose who gets what rights. Ought or ought not are therefore irrelevant, since it essentially amounts to you arbitrarily imposing what you consider ethical and moral on others.

Either you stand for principles, or you stand for arbitrary moral and ethical approaches that you appear to want to impose on others. You cannot argue in favor of free expression on one day, and against it on the other purely on the basis of your own personal opinion on the two issues at hand, especially when there are clear, indiscriminate legal guidelines on the matter. Isn't that why we have laws and constitutions in the first place?

"Describing you as choosing to be unaccountable and that behaviour as a cowardly action is NOT an ad hominem argument."

Again, you are wilfully misconstruing what I say to make yourself sound smart. Its becoming quite repetitive with you. Good tactic. I ll try it sometime. Let me repeat myself. You can call me God. You can call me the Devil. You can call me smart. You can call me dumb. I don't care. What I am, or am not, is irrelevant to this discussion. Trying to drag it in has more than a hint of ad hominem. If I'm wrong, pat yourself on the back. I'm not interested in debating defintions beyond stating very clearly that who or what label you want to tag me with is of no consequence to what I write. Calling me a coward doesn't make me start arguing like one.

"Equally, if you knew what false analogy and red herring meant - you'd know that your use of them destroys your argument."

I love it when players become referees and then unilaterally declare themselves the winners. Bravo.

Guys, please stop interacting with the nutty troll. He keeps pretending that people are arguing that building the Mosque is illegal, which absolutely nobody is, and then he goes on about how mysterious he is and how many names we can call him. This is very much not worth the bandwidth.

"As for the mosque - it's obvious that it's a confrontative symbol of domination; it has no agenda of collaboration, dialogue, openness."

How much do you actually know about the founders? Have you even done any research? I do not claim to know anything about them. Perhaps that is why I am willing to stick to the Western/Christian/European tradition of not adopting the "guilty until proven innocent" approach. Can you prove that they want to be confrontational and provocative, beyond circumstantial evidence (location, refusal to compromise)? On the latter, I would add, that as US citizens, why should they have to compromise? They (American muslims) did not carry out the attacks and compromising carries an implicit acceptance of guilt on their part.

"Whether it will go through - is another story. I personally suspect that Bloomberg has been bribed with massive input into city coffers."

The eight richest man - a multi billionaire - in the US in now in the pocket of a bunch of rich Arabs. And that too, on a project worth a 100 million. Bit of an active imagination, no? Especially given his status as a former Republican with strong Republican links to this day. We are wandering far away from facts, and straight into loony conspiracy theories. Purely based on your hunches and some events that you believe amount to circumstantial evidence.

"then he goes on about how mysterious he is and how many names we can call him"

Not mysterious. I just tell people to not bother calling me names. Name-calling is generally considered more of a waste of bandwidth than a dissenting opinion. However, you clearly don't think the people engaged in name-calling are doing anything wrong.

sheesh - it's like arguing with a robot. DA/BTJ is a robot. He is totally unable to learn.

Again, the 'is' argument of 'what IS legal' is totally irrelevant here. It's the 'ought' argument of ethical standards that applies; therefore Aristotle's Ethics (as well as others ethical analyses) DO apply in this instance.

Furthermore, to assert that ethical standards are relative is rubbish. I know you are a leftist and as such, to you, ethics is relative. But a rational person knows that such a claim is nonsense; ethics are universal.

No, your argument is circular and therefore invalid. You state - At the Nuremberg trials ' they were trying people who had committed crimes'. That's circular.

First, you have to define the action as a crime! And these 'crimes' were nominally legal (the laws against the Jews) but were ethically unacceptable. With your point of view, the actions against the Jews were OK - because they were legal! Your suggestion would have been to 'write my congressman about these actions'?

Ethics is not a 'right'! It's an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason. It must apply to human affairs because we are not machines. Therefore we can't just do what we want because 'it's legal'.

"It's the 'ought' argument of ethical standards that applies; therefore Aristotle's Ethics (as well as others ethical analyses) DO apply in this instance."

Which only begs the question - do you want to create the Canadian HR style Kangaroo courts to look into this issue? I am merely pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments.

"Furthermore, to assert that ethical standards are relative is rubbish. I know you are a leftist and as such, to you, ethics is relative. But a rational person knows that such a claim is nonsense; ethics are universal."

Hmm, perhaps I did leave that open-ended enough for you to misconstrue it as such, and so it is my fault. Let me be a little clearer- it is not the universality of the ethics that I am challenging, it is the manner in which they are applied. The relative aspect comes into play when people apply ethics when it suits them and not when it doesn't. Now, let me ask you clearly - where do you stand on the Danish cartoons? Its a simple question. Dont try to obfuscate it with academic jargon. Where do you stand on the Danish cartoons? I expect you to apply the same ethics implicit in your answer to the mosque situation. Nothing too complicated. If you don't then you are picking or choosing, in which case, your arbitrary application of universal ethics is compromised by the relative difference in your stance on each issue.

"No, your argument is circular and therefore invalid."

Can't answer it. Call it something and invalidate it. Classic academic obfuscation. Whatever.

"And these 'crimes' were nominally legal (the laws against the Jews) but were ethically unacceptable. With your point of view, the actions against the Jews were OK - because they were legal! Your suggestion would have been to 'write my congressman about these actions'?"

Ah, again you are putting words into my mouth. I asked you how te Nuremburg trials were related ot the building of the mosque, and you promptly go and sugest that I am endorsing Nazi law? I mean come on. How is my willingness to demand the indiscriminate application of a US law (that does not discriminate against any group) in any way equivalent to endorsing a Nazi law that discriminates against one or several minority groups? What are you playing at? Are you suggesting that current US law makes is discriminatory against someone? If so, who?I have been arguing throughout that the basis of this mosque lies in the Western/Christian tradition of right, freedoms and priviliges guaranteed by the US constitution, which I would like to see upheld. How does that make me argue in favor of Nazi law? Does it derive itself form the same basis? You will also note the focus of my argument was on the difference between a Nazi leader/operative and an alleged sympathiser of the Nazis. You could not try a Nazi sympathiser if he hadn't actually done anything, could you? But by all means, pick up the ball and run with it.

"It's an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason. It must apply to human affairs because we are not machines. Therefore we can't just do what we want because 'it's legal'."

Of course you can. What exactly was the point of the Danish cartoons? Entertainment? Amusement? It ultimately boiled down to arguments about freedom of expression and speech. You are free to express yourself however you want, as long as its legal.

As for the shpiel about ethics being an evluative standard operating with the use of reason, different people have varying abilities to reason, which inevitably means that their application of ethics will be arbitrary. That has been my point all along. Does that make me a relativist? Not really. You seem to think otherwise.

Ever since 9-11 you cowards have been in cahoots with Al queda to dismantle the Constitution and the American way of life.

Obama was man enough to stand up for uncompromised religious freedom as laid down in the Constitution - which is the very thing Al Queda would love to see the US crumble on so they can make it as intolerant as they are.

All you frightened wimps can do is mince around and try to make excuses as to why the Constitution shouldn't be upheld.

You're a bunch of traitors, willing to sacrifice the freedom guaranteed in the Constitution...for what exactly? To try and make a partisan politcal point based on the same religious prejudice exemplified by radical Islamism.

ET, why do you keep wasting your eloquence on trolls like DA,T,BTJ? They are not interested in your response in the slightest. They are probably the same person and if they/he were in your class you would flunk them and move on.

The rest of us just skip over their posts, please do the same and save your brilliant posts for those of us that love to read them.

F%#k YOU OBAMA!!! You socialist, marxist piece of garbage!!

Paul in clagary

I think it was Jefferson who had a copy of the koran, the lefties say it was for unity but we all know it was to KNOW THY ENEMY.

Someone, please slaughter a pig or 2 on the coat factory site!

Nice Christianity you're practising there, Paul.

Far too much written here in response to the trolls. As their world and beliefs are starting to crumble they are becoming desperate. Do not engage them and like the Witch in Oz they will shrivel up and wither away, perhaps to crawl back under the rock where they emerged from.

Here is the difference between "IS" and "OUGHT" ,

Little Timmy IS peeing in his pants,

Little Timmy OUGHT to pee in the toilet bowl.

I explained it clearly in about 5 seconds and in 2 short lines.

Why would anybody expand on this topic for hours and hours writing pages and pages?...

Unless they are in love with their own eloquence...
and their need to be admired is so out of control that they do it over and over again until someone tells them how great they are...

mmmhhh...that is very close to the definition of Narcissism...

Which reminds me,

ET IS accusing me of posting comments devoid of valid argumentation.

While ET OUGHT to be providing evidence that I am guilty of posting comments devoid of valid argumentation.

So where is the evidence ET?

(((...CRICKETS CHIRPING...)))

From Wikipedia,

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth.

ET's premise is that I knew nothing of psychology or more precisely Narcissism.

Her conclusion was that I thus write inannities and that I babble.

Her premise is wrong since my father - who has a doctorate in psychology and had a very successful career - discussed psychology with us daily, and the house I gew up in was full of books - many on psychology - and many I did read.

Thus her conclusion is 100% wrong.

She was saying aninnities ( lacking significance, meaning, or point ) about me,

and she was babbling ( To utter a meaningless confusion of words ) about a man who she knew nothing about.

ET posted repeatedely comments that were devoid of valid argumantation about who I am and what I do.

My premise and my conclusion are both accurate and right.
My argument is valid.

She also fadricated a few other false premises about me...
but this comment is already long enough...

"as if you would not oppose your house being bulldozed to make way for a freeway."

That's completely different, that's an issue of my personal individual rights being threatened. No one's house is being bulldozed to make way for the Mosque, they legally bought the property I assume.

"What you fear is the power of public opinion"

If by 'public opinion' you mean the collective, then you're close...it worries me.

"Answer this - do you think it is okay for environmentalists and organizations like Greenpeace to oppose legal developments including the oil sands? "

To disagree and voice that disagreement, yes...to physically oppose it, no..and justifiably, they usually get arrested in the end for doing so. This is assuming that the LEGAL development 'clause' is met.

" Why bother having an official opposition party in government if opposition is not a right?"

Opposition in the context of personal rights and freedoms is not the same as opposition in the context of government. Government is supposed to be the individuals means of opposing things, so long as that opposition does not contradict rights and freedoms.

"The site location is radical/extreme and mirrors the intent of the group."

Really? Any explanation or just an empty statement?

"The point again is that you don't get the bigger picture."

Right, and you do...can you see the future?

" I say close the borders so that each country can sort out its own individual mess."

So then you're for nationalization of resources? I believe you've argued against certain South American countries who've nationalized their oil deposits and kicked out American companies, no?

"DA/BTJ (you are the same person; you write the same way)."

I assure you we are not, I know how scary that is for you, but you'll have to come to grips with it.

"'false analogy' comments (Christian missions) are argumentative fallacies."

The only way it's a false analogy is that Christian missionaries are usually foreign citizens actively converting local citizens, where as the mosque is run by local citizens.

Devil's:

"Whether this opposition will be successful all depends on the legality of the situation at hand."

For sure, I was making the assumption that
a) any unlawful aspect of the issue would take it's just course
b) 'voicing one's disagreement' includes lobbying and communicating with government rep's
c) 'attempting to prevent' referred to intruding upon another's lawful rights (under assumption a)

"the need to draw a distinction between American muslims and the perpetrators of 9/11."

Very much so...disagreement with this distinction is agreement with an apologist stance.

ET:
"No - I'm not going to waste my time going through your argumentative fallacies."

Of course not, you just like to use type fancy words, not use them.

"No, a planning committee does NOT deal with 'ought'; it deals only with 'is', with the by-laws of building construction."

Actually, a planning committee deals with public opinion by hosting information sessions and public discussions...so they're role is very much to consider the question of 'ought'.

"Ethics is not a 'right'! It's an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason....Therefore we can't just do what we want because 'it's legal'."

Another Jim Taggart moment...is anybody else seeing this? I'm rereading 'Atlas Shrugged' right now so I can't help but see the similarity.

Not to mention the repetitive reliance on unsupported judgments based on perceived non-values. Whether or not someone is labeled as something or another has nothing to do with his/her contributions, logic, reasoning, ingenuity, and ability to conceptualize.

"DA/BTJ is a robot. He is totally unable to learn."

Please, enough with your conspiracy theory...we are two different posters. I understand that's hard to come to terms with, and that, by lumping all dissenting views into a collective which you then recognize as a single person, you feel more powerful behind your mass of supporters. But it's all just a self-created delusion.

"Ethics is not a 'right'! It's an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason"

"to you, ethics is relative. But a rational person knows that such a claim is nonsense; ethics are universal."

You contradict yourself...is ethics 'an evaluative standard' and therefore subjective? Or is it 'universal' and therefore objective?

@sherman

Can you please tell me why i said what i said ?

Am i defending my faith ? no couldn't be that now could it ? He is a piece of garbage who is tring to rip apart the church ,the traditional christian family just like stalin did in russia stalin was tring to remove god from people he would have his goons drag pastors out into the street's and publicly execute them he was tring to replace god that witch you cannot ever do ..and with the help of the A.C.L.U. the big 0 is tring to do the same .

So i will take what you say as a compliment although i know you hardly mean that

you maek assumtions about christians like we should just be led to the slaughter rather than stand up and fight the good fight ..well i am an exception i guess ..having lived a godless life for 28 years i now see what is happening around me and i am enraged at what ,the govornment's ,public institutions are doing schools,universtiies,court's ,inhumane right's commisions ,and tribunals, who go out of there way to silence anyone who draws a line or takes a stand for there faith in jesus .

So yeah i am a little upset and i tend to lose it sometimes maybe my language is offencive....GOOD maybe i will catch someones ear and they can actually listen and hear , I am a proud christian i may not be so humble asi have not lead a humblel ife i was GODLESS for 28 years i lived on the street's of winnipeg for 9 month's alone in highschool , my mom left me alone she could not care to this day weather i live or die , my dad was no different , i grew up very well knowing the institutions welfare ,family services ,and the damage they can do. I was on welfare in highschool becasue i wanted to graduate and they made it so hard for me becaseu i was a white male yet the indians would come into these facilities offices drunk and get twice what i got . I need no sympathy or "i'm sorry to hear that " If he takes you to it he will take you through it and he did i just didn't want to listen to his voice .

Well now i have herd his call and i would not ever back down or humble myself before anyone except him so again when i see a socialist selling snake oil to the people ie. more ei benifit's ,wlefare ,food stamps, so on and so forth i get mad becasue i look at myself and i think i had no right to anyone elses money , And i have given my fair share back gladly ,but what he and this country have become is horse sh!t and i am P!ssed what we need to do is get rid of welfare period ..and start holding people ie.MY PARENT'S accountable my mom was a parapolegic 2 years after she left my dad god punished her .....my dad died at 56 massive heart attack all alone ...god punished him as well can i say that for sure no not on your life but it is what i beelive my parent's were to concerned with getting back at each opther that they ripped our family apart my brother was from anotherm an and he was around me since i was born and my mom took him from me when i was 8 years old just to get back at my dad ....this is the perfect family according to obama,stalin and the likes complete chaos ...society is a direct reflection of the single family unit so when you see society falling apart it means the family is being messed with .

Iwill never appologize for thing's i say as they are my feeling's i don't hide my feeling's but you know me andm y situation so well don't you .

We need a complete overhaul in the west and maybe obama is just the tool for it maybe he will create a huge famine and complete economic meltdown and what a great starting point maybe people will wake up to see that a grocery store with shelves full of food IS NOT A RIGHT it is a privalage no body and i mean nobody owes you SH!T once your over 18 not one person owes you any thing so be greatful for what you have and maybe you will see why i am so mad and enraged .....tell me that i need to wear a bicycle helmet or get a ticket ...F$#K YOU !!! we need a complete melt down a total failure of our system to wake people up .

In japan they have declared that liberalism is a mental disorder we should do the same here .

Paul in calgary

GOD BLESS!!!

Whoa, looks like I've stumbled onto an "Intellectual Fight".

I for one prefer being not too smart so it's not a big blow when I'm shown to be wrong(like DA; you got served (by ET) dude!).

FOU

I can see by your comments you are a true “intellectual”. Only an “intellectual” could be so patronizing as to water-down his comments for the “little people” as the former BP CEO described peons like me. Get over yourself dude.

As far as ET goes, regardless of her views I see no reason for ad-hominem attacks thrown her way. She’s likely the most respectful person on this site whether you agree with her or not. She’s entitled to her opinion and she shouldn’t be penalized for expressing her views concisely. JMO

On topic:

I think Lev's comments(7:20 Aug 14) best sum-up what's happening here. This is almost exactly the same tactic used by the WH the week before with MO's holiday to Spain. The key to BO's longevity is a Congress that can keep him in check while simultaneously serving as an alibi for his critics on the Left. BO is in full campaign mode and is “wagging the dog” better that Cesar Millan.

"I for one prefer being not too smart so it's not a big blow when I'm shown to be wrong(like DA; you got served (by ET) dude!)."

I suppose if you blindly agree with everything ET says, then I did get served. Just as no team that you're a fan of can ever lose without some kind of illegal interference.

If you actually look treat the arguments on their merit, you will notice that ET's line of reasoning has become increasingly inconsistent, so much so that he may very well have to condemn the Danish cartoons and those who insist on publishing them. His entire 'ought' versus 'is' line is turning him around in cirlces. Our main disagreement is on the applicability of certain freedoms, rights and priviliges, guaranteed by the constitution, to all citizens of the US. He argues that regardless of the freedoms, the citizens 'ought' to not do certain things even if they are illegal. I argue that they 'can' do whatever they want as long as it is legal. His primary argument is that muslim americans ought not to build the mosque there because it is provocative etc etc. Fair play. However, if you take that line of reasoning, then you must condemn people who publish the Danish cartoons because these cartoons are provocative etc. When I point this out, it is ignored, probably deliberately. To put it very simply then, either you believe in freedom of expression or you don't. You can't support it for one group on one day, and condemn it for another group on the other day, claiming that they ought not to do it. There's no serving being involved. If you are a fan of ET, you will undoubtedly think he is correct through and through. Whether that is an objective analysis of the discussion is a separate issue.

I don't claim to be smart. I simply am what I am. Not smart. Not dumb. Just there. Nor do I really care how smart or dumb anyone here thinks I am. If I was worried about that, I would take a page out of a certain someone's book here and throw in academic terms just to obfuscate the discussion, apparently with great effect, judging from your reading of the whole thing.

devil's advocate = New & his buddies. Sheesh The long posts where the give away.

"I simply am what I am."

Have you read any Eckhart Tolle?

"Our main disagreement is on the applicability of certain freedoms, rights and priviliges, guaranteed by the constitution, to all citizens of the US."

You're wrong on this specific poinT DA. Nobody disagrees with these rights! This is why everyone thinks you are either "thick" or disingenuous; because you continue to harp on a point that has been conceded, and is off topic. The discussion is IF they SHOULD built the mosque THERE! Out of respect for the majority view, who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque's proposed location. Compromise is what is required here, but the Left(and you) will have nothing to do with it. Instead they(and you) will harp tangential arguments quoting the very Constitution they loathe, while at the same time convincing themselves they are being intellectual, therefore making their critics non-intellectual; which is EXACTLY what you've done.

As far as the “Intellectual Fight” comment, it wasn’t directed at you. I was referring to the debate between FOU and ET. I was having a little fun. Perhaps this was a Freudian Slip on your part which speaks to your "disingenuousness" as you clearly DO think of yourself as an intellectual,hence mistaking yourself for being a combatant in the aforementioned "Intellectual Fight".

Perhaps you and FOU could find a room and discuss who's more intellectual, or not. Eh?

Just bugg'n FOU:)

I don’t doubt you are smart, which is why I lean to the “disingenuous” theory as far as your commenting goes. Why? Because I’m positive you will come back and argue that “the Constitution…blah blah blah”. As far as your cartoon comments go, it’s not a valid analogy. You’re grasping at straws! Everyone here, and in the US abroad agree that the mosque could be built ANYWHERE ELSE; whereas, the demand from radical Islam is that those comics be printed NOWHERE! If you don’t believe me, google South Park and Allah and see what you find. That said, I support the right of those who don't want the comics published to voice their opinion; just not the violence some use (past tense) to enforce their views.

Now I don’t believe I said I agree with ET; but if I did, how is that any different that you agreeing with someone else? Once again, you can’t accept that you WERE "served" (at least in my opinion), you can only comprehend that there MUST be something wrong with my POV because you couldn’t possibly be wrong. Everyone’s an idiot but you! Right? Now back to ET. Is ET and her POV so toxic and/or intoxicating that anyone who might agree with her is a “fan” and has no opinion of their own? I can assure you that there are many things that ET disagrees with me about, and I her; but, much of what she has said over the years has enlightened me; which is a hell of allot more than I can say about you. No insult intended, just the facts.

Only an “intellectual” could be so patronizing as to water-down his comments for the “little people”

said Indiana omez,

I said the exact opposite of what you accuse me of!!! THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!

CAN'T YOU READ ???????

I NEVER liked intellectualism that is why I write the way I write.

I specifficaly mentioned I did not enjoy reading intellectual's books such as Simone De Beauvoir or DesCartes.

I Specifically said intellectuals use too many words to say very little.

Can't you read ??????

Just like ET you can not read nor understand simple sentences.

You leave me no choice but to say what I observe;

You and ET are depressingly obtuse...

BTW

I have nothing against intellectuals, but I do think most of you are dumb-asses.

FOU

I was just poking you in the ribs, having a little fun. I think your comments are good, but even the best guys talk a little isht now and then. If we were having a beer and you went into that tirade I'm sure most of us at the table would lovingly tell you to STFU.

bygones

As far as ET goes, regardless of her views I see no reason for ad-hominem attacks thrown her way. She’s likely the most respectful person on this site whether you agree with her or not. She’s entitled to her opinion and she shouldn’t be penalized for expressing her views concisely.

Well Indiana you really can not read and/or are really obtuse because it is ET who started it by saying I write inannities ( lacking sense ) and I babble ( going on and on without a point or a meaning )

That was an ad Hominem attack on me by ET.

SHE STARTED IT.

I SIMPLY PUSHED BACK.

She started it by acting condescending and acting as if she knew who and what I am.

But you have a completely distorted vision of what is typed on this page.

You see all of ET's as clean and pure, and you invent bad things about me ( just as ET did ) things I never said or done.

What the hell is going on here????

I could understand someone misinterpreting ET's complex eloquent 3 pages essays, but my concise and short comments are a MAZE in which you get lost Indiana????

REALLY???

WOAH I guess obtuse is too polite a word to describe both you and ET.

There is no debate between ET and me,

She made up stuff about me, threw an ad hominem, came back to throw a few more ad hominem and then ran away.

I have repeatdly asked her to show where I post non valid arguments but she ran away.

She accused me of posting non valid arguments but she can not support her own premises.

Her argument is not valid.

so she ran away.

Which only supports my point that behind all her eloquence there is not much...

"The discussion is IF they SHOULD built the mosque THERE! Out of respect for the majority view, who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque's proposed location...Compromise is what is required here"

But then what worth is the US constitution then? If everything is actually to be decided by some subjective 'ought'?

Where is this expression of disagreement by 'the majority'?

That being said, you must realize that you are suggesting that the proper thing to do is ignore personal rights and freedoms and instead bow to the whims of the collective. Once again, an example of Ayn Rand's antagonist character springing up in this (self proclaimed) 'pro-Rand' blog.

"Everyone here, and in the US abroad agree that the mosque could be built ANYWHERE ELSE; "

Except of course California, Tennessee, and Wisconsin where there have been protests and opposition to Mosques. But I'm sure ANYWHERE ELSE would be fine right? Isn't that the way Waco Tx started out? Push them out of sight and all is ok...of course that is until the army has to be called in.

"Is ET and her POV so toxic and/or intoxicating that anyone who might agree with her is a “fan” and has no opinion of their own?"

Probably more a case of 'small things amuse small minds'.

He's from the Kerry school of politics:

"For it afore bein' agin' it"

Indiana,

I had not noticed your last comment!...

Sorry I am reacting so strongly but ET has really touched a nerve...

Her alluding to my being ignorant and stupid was too much.

And her running away from the debate is only making me more pissed off.

( Notice that I am not using profane language or anything of the sort.)

Thank you for the compliment and I think you write good comments too.

Nota: I never said I was always right.

And I could use a beer right now!

"The discussion is IF they SHOULD built the mosque THERE! Out of respect for the majority view, who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque's proposed location. "

Discussion? They are all agreeing with each other. There's not too many voices of dissent here. As for the majority opinion bit, the founding fathers were quite fearful of the 'tyranny of the majority' (Federalist Papers) that you seem to be implicitly supporting here. Your argument is essentially that, if the majority don't like it, the minority should not (ought not to) exercise their rights.

" who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque's proposed location"

Nobody is denying that they have the right to express their disgust. In fact, if you read what I have written, you will note that I have told the offended crowd to go and buy property next to the mosque and create a museum dedicated to promoting their version of the story or of Islam or whatever. Put up a museum outlining the evils you attribute to Islam. By all means. No one will stop you from doing that either, least of all me. But then again, I believe in the right to exercise free speech and expression within the parameters of US law.

"Compromise is what is required here, but the Left(and you) will have nothing to do with it."

Why? Are they not equal citizens of the United States. Lets put it this way. They buy some property and want to build something there but they are told that they should not build it there because the majority won't like it. What about their rights? By virtue of being members of a minority faith, are they less equal than other US citizens? If others, including the majority, don't like it, too bad. The majority does not have a right to not be offended. The minority shouldn't have to compromise on their constitutionally guaranteed rights just because they belong to the minority and the majority won't like it. If all US citizens are equal, the members of the minority should be allowed to exercise their rights however they please, rather than having to exercise and tone down their rights in order to make sure that the majority is happy. Fairly straightforward, no? Compromise is essentially accepting that the majority's concerns and feelings should be allowed to impede on your constitutionally guaranteed rights because you are a minority. Its completely against the spirit of the founding fathers, particularly James Madison.

"harp tangential arguments quoting the very Constitution they loathe, while at the same time convincing themselves they are being intellectual, therefore making their critics non-intellectual; which is EXACTLY what you've done."

A bit rich coming from someone who thinks that minorities in the US are less than equals and should accept a subservient position and compromise on their rights if the majority gets offended. I don't know if you have read the Federalist Papers, but I am sure that if you consult them again, you will find that my arguments have been entirely consistent with the arguments espoused therein. I have stated again and again (and again) that there is no reason to demand (or expect) a compromise because the majority should not be allowed to dictate terms to the minority. Whether this is an intellectual or non-intellectual line to take is irrelevant.

"DO think of yourself as an intellectual,hence mistaking yourself for being a combatant in the aforementioned "Intellectual Fight"."

All human beings are born with intellects, therefore all people are intellectuals. Now you're telling me that some people aren't in fact intellectual? Were they somehow born without an intellect? I start from the basic premise that I, like you and everyone else, have an intellect. Whats so wrong with that?

"As far as your cartoon comments go, it’s not a valid analogy."

Of course it is. You are demanding a compromise because one group (in this case the majority) will get offended if the other group exercises its rights. The cartoon debate was pretty much the same thing, was it not?

"the mosque could be built ANYWHERE ELSE; whereas, the demand from radical Islam is that those comics be printed NOWHERE!"

Ah I see. So you think they are different because in one case, one group thinks it has the right to tell another group to not do something, while in the other case, one group seems to be under the impression that it can tell the other group how to do something. Same condescending attitude - ones just more absolute than the other, partially because the US constitution imposes constraints on the ability of the latter to make such demands. Sorry buddy, but a minority citizen is equal to a majority one and has the same rights, freedoms and priviliges. Majority citizens cannot try to dictate the terms or demand compromises. That, incidentally, is the essence of US democracy.

"you can only comprehend that there MUST be something wrong with my POV because you couldn’t possibly be wrong."

Ah, but I never said I was right. I said that I found inconsistencies in ET's approach that left me feeling that I hadn't, and I quote, been "served". Not that I was right. I may well be wrong. I then pointed out your apparent unwillingness to recognize these inconsistencies.

"Is ET and her POV so toxic and/or intoxicating that anyone who might agree with her is a “fan” and has no opinion of their own"

I don't know. You tell me.

It was hilarious watching these two/ one operate (DA BTJ). I could never be sure if it was two very dull posters writing identical looping non arguments, or one really crazy nutbar having conversations with itself. Like NEW used to. I think you may be right Indiana H. Due to the long obsessive repeating non arguments and dual personality shtick, we may have just been revisited from a galaxy from far far away!

"They buy some property and want to build something there but they are told that they should not build it there because the majority won't like it"

Is that not straight out of 'The Fountainhead'?!

"It was hilarious watching these two/ one operate (DA BTJ). I could never be sure if it was two very dull posters writing identical looping non arguments, or one really crazy nutbar having conversations with itself. Like NEW used to. I think you may be right Indiana H. Due to the long obsessive repeating non arguments and dual personality shtick, we may have just been revisited from a galaxy from far far away!"

Might I suggest you concentrate on following and actively participating in the debate, perhaps with the aid of reason and logic, instead of creating ridiculous conspiracy theories that have no bearing on the issue at hand? If devil's and I were the same person...we'd have to be genius in order to pull it off...way too genius to put forth such an effort on a blog. But believing so seems to make you feel better, and it sounds like it's your excuse for not having the ability to contribute to the discussion.

whew - I'm away for an afternoon with the grandkids and come back to irrational inanities.

First - yet again, the argument has zilch to do with the Constitution, with individual freedom and legal rights. It's incredible how obtuse DA/BTJ is about this. The argument is about the ethics of behaving in a certain manner.

No, ethics is not subjective; it's universal. Do you seriously think that the great works of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume (he's the is-ought guy) and others - focus only on the subjective perspective? Or are they about the 'normative standards of humanity in 'striving for the good'.

These ethical standards are not just expressions of opinion, so telling us that those who object to the mosque should simply be free to express their objections - totally and completely misses the point.

The point is - the ethical values of the Islamists who insist on that mosque being there, rather than elsewhere.

And no - this has no comparison to the Danish cartoons which have a completely different 'Final Cause' - a cause of freedom and indeed the rational necessity to critique the ideology of a belief system. That's the 'ought' focus in this issue.

The 'ought' focus with regard to the mosque is the reality of 9/11, its perpetrators, the site, and the agenda of this proposed mosque which is not about deradicalization, transformation of dogma to dialogue. An ethical valuation - which is not, of course, subjective (try reading up on ethics)..would conclude that the mosque should not be built here.

By the way - you can check out some analyses of 'what is ethics' on the web. Harry Gensler has some great books on the topic - and a great web program.

The Golden Rule - a universal clause - declares that 'one treats others only as you consent to be treated ...in the same situation'.

The question then becomes - Should we, ethically, demand the right for a church in Mecca (i.e., a site sacred to a specific population - one and only one religion)?
Should we, ethically, demand the right for a mosque on the hallowed ground of 9/11 - a site sacred to a specific population (all Americans no matter their religious or non-religious filiation)?

Nothing to do with the constitution or freedom of expression. Freedom of expression doesn't enter into the Golden Rule concern. - The GT is all about how we treat each other with a respect for our nature as human beings.

BTJ
I told you! What aren't you piecing together here? The guy has said over and again that 'God' guides his decisions, that 'God' has a mission for him, that 'God' told him to do things. THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS FANATICISM!
Posted by: BTJ at August 12, 2010 5:52 PM
How about someone who believes God speaks to them and guides them on missions, someone who makes decisions that require reasoning based on what 'God' told them in a dream? How about when said decisions concern the life or death of thousands of other people? Is that reasonable enough?
Posted by: BTJ at August 12, 2010 9:14 PM
I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to challenge BuShChimplerMcCheneyHaliburton to defend its projects or else to change them.
I included this comment illustrate duplicity in thinking – since the mega mosque is legal it can not be challenged or changed, yet BTJ wants to change other legal projects.
Posted by: BTJ at August 12, 2010 6:50 PM
Muslims are a deeply sensitive people and their feelings are easily hurt, but Islamist leaders across the world took to the airwaves and beseeched their followers to refrain from acts of violence and instead walk the path of peace. Although the pontiff’s words were reminiscent of Hitler back before he redeemed himself by killing 6 million Jews in an imaginary Holocaust, they were only words and no excuse for harming innocents. Once an appropriate amount of churches had been burned and enough nuns brutally gunned down, Muslims and infidels could co-exist in peace and harmony.
The Pope, on the other hand, seems determined to start a Holy War. His half-assed apology was too little, too late, and didn’t include anywhere near the amount of groveling Muslims have grown to expect from Europeans. Nor did he mention that he was willing to accept punishment for his cruel attack on the peacelove Muslim peoples. Under Sharia law, anyone who even indirectly implies that Islam is anything less than "peachy keen" can only be forgiven once they’ve been decapitated, disemboweled, and then trampled to death by a herd of unwashed goats. The Pope is probably too much of a bigot to accept such an olive branch, but there is an alternative. He could convert to Islam.
Posted by: BTJ at August 13, 2010 3:22 PM
Christians are supposed to turn their swords into plowshares, but they have instead fused their faith with the NRA and the GOP to create an American Taliban full of gun-toting Bible freaks who quote scripture and open fire on anyone who proudly expresses his burning hatred for the Christian religion. It's only a matter of time before Assam and her fellow jackboots start going around door-to-door, killing any liberal democrat they can find while Shrub watches approvingly from his stolen throne.
Was the man that Assam murdered mentally disturbed? Perhaps. Did he hate Christians? Who Doesn't?
Posted by: BTJ at August 13, 2010 3:25 PM
I'm interested to know how people feel about Christian missionaries working around the world?
Posted by: BTJ at August 15, 2010 5:59 AM
When will the Christianophobia end?

On a more somber note: Christian Mission Workers Brutally Murdered

One by one, the entire team -- Little, Woo, five other Americans, one German and two Afghans -- were wiped out.

Only their driver, who fell to his knees and recited from the Koran, was spared.
"God was good to me," Safiullah told the AP in his first interview since being released.
No, he was spared because he was a Muslim.
When the slaughter was over, one of the Taliban killers spoke Urdu into his radio.
"Mission accomplished," he coldly declared.
When news of the brutal Aug. 5 killing surfaced, the Afghanistan government initially blamed rogue bandits. But now authorities believe the deaths were anything but random, the newspaper reported.
Testimony from Safiullah has convinced Afghan officials that Little and his group were tracked and executed for the perceived sin of preaching Christianity, the paper said.

"They had made a plan," said the survivor, who suggested that the attackers may have also been after their satellite phones. "It was a very organized group."

Little and the others were part of the Christian charity International Assistance Mission, which has denied the group was doing anything but rendering medical aid to the needy.

They day the group was ambushed, the medical workers were returning from a 120-mile trek on foot and horseback to treat villagers in the remote Nuristan region.

Muslim Cleric Calls for Jihad, Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt

Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- On August 13 Sheikh Tobah, Imam of the village of Shimi 170 KM south of Giza, called during Muslim Friday prayers for Jihad against Christians living there. As a result the Christian Copts living in the village were assaulted over two consecutive days. Eleven Copts were hospitalized and many Coptic youths were arrested.

The assaults begain a couple of hours after the Sheikhs incitement. An argument between Copt Maher Amin, who was washing his taxi, and Mohamed Ali Almstaui, a Muslim extremist from the village, escalated into violence as Mohamad assaulted Maher. The altercation was stopped by bystanders. However, after the evening break of Ramadan fast, Ahmad, the brother of the perpetrator Mohamad, who is reported to belong to an extremist organization, together with twenty other men, went to Maher's family home, breaking down the door and assaulting him and his family with batons, including his old mother and his paralyzed sister, injuring them and breaking their furniture.

Security forces came and took away the Christian victims and kept them at the station in spite of their wounds, to pressuree them into accepting "reconciliation" with their attackers. None of the Muslims were arrested.

When will the Christianophobia end?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Don't need to count chickens, ET. The point of the post is that the Wiz of 'O has picked the issue on which to fully implode his presidency.

Putting a politically correct whitewash on the Islamic victory symbol won't fool anyone. People of all walks are aghast on the idea, especially Repubs and Independents.

O's support for this ill conceived 9-11 grave spittoon will guarantee his party is eviscerated come November's Hurricane midterms. That won't be a light Spanish rain shower falling at Michelle's Ritz Carleton. It will be a crashing wall of cold fury that could very well wash away all of the at risk Dems down the river.

The dissing of 3000 dead Americans by supporting the victory mosque is the beginning of Barry's lame duck Presidency. He won't be able to put together enough support to pass gas, let alone an actual bill from now on.

"The GT is all about how we treat each other with a respect for our nature as human beings."

Ah, and I see you propose that we treat human beings with a differing amount of respect, depending on what group we put them in...how ethical of you.

You my friend, are Ellsworth Tooey in the flesh.

BTJ - being the Christianophobic and Jewpohobic (denial of the holocaust)that you are - you have zero, none, nada credibility. Further, I consider your comments akin to those of a raving lunatic.

"BTJ - being the Christianophobic and Jewpohobic (denial of the holocaust)that you are - you have zero, none, nada credibility. Further, I consider your comments akin to those of a raving lunatic."

Maybe you should read a little closer and not be so gullible...most of the quotes you haphazardly pasted were not written by me, but by some weirdo posing as me. It's not difficult to see the glaring difference in writing.

DA

Disingenuous!!!!

I said in my first comment that we concede the legal point you make.

This issue boils down to one thing: Class! And the lack of it being shown by those that wish to build the mosque in the aforementioned location. So you and everyone who agrees with you can take your legal, and sophisticated high ground and rub your victory (if it's built) in the faces of everyone that see this mosque as an affront to the memories of the deceased. They (and you) may win this battle and discussion, but they (and you) did it without class; so you didn't really win at all.

Being that you're on the Left of things politically (I assume) I doubt you'll understand this comment.

Furthermore,

There is a good chance I'll be coaching girls basketball this season, and because of this issue I think I've gotten this years philosophy together. Likely my first words to the girls will be along these lines: I can't say if we'll do a lot of winning or losing this year, but what I can say is, win or lose, we'll be doing both with class.