Friday’s Asshats of the Day
Today’s award is a group award. It goes to all of those self-righteous “patriots” who oppose the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” You know who you are (locally we have Alfalfa and Curly from WGOP and nationally we have Abraham Foxman of the American Jewish Committee and Charles Krauthammer).
I traded emails with my brother today. He had sent out Krauthammer’s column from the Washington Post, pleading that this mosque be built somewhere else because “common decency” demanded it. He compared building of what is actually a community center, one that has been in lower Manhattan for many years, to building something at either Gettysburg or Auschwitz. Talk about hyperbole. Many teabaggers (Alfalfa, Curly, Beck, Palin, et al) have compared building this mosque to celebrating the deaths at the Twin Towers. I call FAIL!
Here are some facts that a friend related today:
- The community center, which is 15 stories and contains a mosque, a swimming pool, classrooms, workout facitilities and more, and is patterned after many Jewish Community Centers in Manhattan, is about 2 blocks from “Ground Zero.” It is not on the “hallowed ground” anymore than the Starbucks that is 2 blocks away is on “hallowed ground.”
- Many people in the Islamic community worked in the Twin Towers and also lost their lives on 9/11 and a few people on the committee that is building this community center are also on the 9/11 Memorial Committee. Note that they already own the property.
- There is nothing tying these Muslims to terrorists or even fundamentalist Islam.
- The mosque will only be part of the community center and merely replaces a mosque that is only another block away (3 blocks from Ground Zero).
- If this were a Jewish Community Center or even a Gay Community Center, no one would be having a problem.
If you allow your fear, intolerance, etc., to guide your beliefs (are you listening teabaggers?) and not our Constitution, or the Torah, or the Bible or whatever belief system/holy book you follow, then you have let the extremists win by denying the freedom of religion that is the cornerstone of our democracy.
The only reason these “patriots” are opposing this is pure, vile, hatred. That, and using it as a fundraising tool. Because of this, those who oppose building this mosque are our Asshats of the day.
These asshats are no patriots — they are frauds.
Religious freedom means not one damn thing if you deny that to even one person or even one religion.
These frauds don’t seem to have a single problem with the GOP shutting down help to 9/11 responders who need that badly.
These frauds continue their modified Southern Strategy now at the expense of both Muslims and the right of New Yorkers to govern themselves.
Lastly, if any of these frauds ever made it to NYC, they’d spend about 2 minutes at Ground Zero before running over to the Century 21, the Statue of Liberty or their doubledecker bus tour. They’d never know that they were anywhere near that center.
One, there’s already a mosque close to Ground Zero. It predates the Twin Towers. Second, the supposed “hallowed ground” the Islamic Center is going into is a former Burlington Coat Factory.
I hate how the enemies of religious freedom have represented it as a mosque at Ground Zero when it’s no such thing. The press just gleefully goes along because they love ginned up controversy from the right.
Good for Obama:
It is just too bad he doesn’t feel that way about the rest of the rights and freedoms in the Constitution.
Consider this from a different perspective:
Given that this group has the undeniable constitutional right to build this facility, is it right for them to build it? Or is it akin to the convent outside the gates of Auschwitz that John Paul II ordered closed because it offended the sensitivity of Jew and others?
In this case, the builders claim to want to promote healing, reconciliation, and understanding, but the site is so offensive to nearly 70% of Americans that building it is likely to have the opposite effect. Should they go ahead and do it anyway, or should they listen to the voices that urge that they build elsewhere?
And is it truly wrong to work in opposition to this project, or is it akin to objecting to a Nazi march in a Jewish community or a KKK office next to the Lorraine Motel (each of which is constitutionally permissible but morally reprehensible)?
And one of the asshat frauds shows up.
Note how he ignores the real constitutional issue at stake here. And just because some number of Americans would oppose this center (on a largely fact-free basis, mind you) because it would make them feel better if these Muslims took their religion elsewhere isn’t exactly a good enough reason to give up your own constitutional rights. You would understand this quite precisely if these same Muslims wanted to openly carry their guns within 2 blocks of Ground Zero.
I really feel bad for you that you think like that.
You act as if all of Islam conspired on 9/11 to attack Conservatives. you can make up all you want about people who have ties to this community center that looks nothin like a mosque… but just make sure you hold everyone to that standard like businessmen and conservatives with ties to the same people.
I am an American too, observer…. i know it pains you to think about that. my parents were even citizens! i am also Jewish with living holocaust survivors in my family. So let me be the first to tell you. you have no fucking right to compare the 2. You dont get to turn Muslims into “america’s nazis” just because you feel like you need to be persecuted. I’ll say it again. The whole of Islam was not responsible for 9/11. i though you people believed in personal responsibility. why not hold the small group responsible? because you HATE people who are different than you. Nazis existed to exterminate Jews, but you know what? i would support their right to march and demonstrate because THIS IS FUCKING AMERICA. you bitch and cry about poor people getting health care… everyone getting a fair shot… and say it is destroying the country, but you are of the same yolk that would sacrifice out CORE FOUNDING FREEDOMS if it means people who think differently would have them.
totally disgusting and despicable.
we build god knows how many war bases in muslim countries, but if they want to build one (1) mosque in our country, every american yahoo shits their pants.
Gee, cassandra, you claim I ignored the real constitutional issue — but I put it in the first substantive sentence of my comment. And you are right — I think there is a right to keep and bear arms — but I would argue that there are times and places that it is appropriate to forgo exercising it despite the existence of that right. Indeed, you have made the same argument, objecting when someone legally carried a gun at a rally protesting Obama and his policies. And in this case, where the alleged purpose is to promote healing and reconciliation, building the mosque on that site fails to accomplish the goal — so doesn’t logic dictate a different location?
And a.price, your ignorant rant (not that you have ever demonstrated an ability to write much else) fails to note the actual point I am making — does having the right to do something mean you should exercise that right? Does the fact that someone has a right to do something mean that it is wrong to oppose their exercise of that right? Fred Phelps and his klan of inbred kids, grandkids and other mentally defective morons have the undeniable right to speak a reprehensible message in offensive locations — is it wrong to suggest that their exercise of that right is morally dubious?
Oh, and a.price — I have no right to compare the two? Really? Don’t I have a right to speak my views that is protected by the same amendment to the Constitution that protects the right of Muslims to worship? Why are you opposing that core American freedom? Or are you arguing — akin to the question I asked above — that the mere existence of the right does not make its exercise morally right (thereby proving that my question is a legitimate one)?
Observer, this “should they exercise that right” business sounds like the ‘soft racism’ of red-lining. It’s not that we won’t SELL you a house in that neighborhood. It’s just that you wouldn’t be COMFORTABLE. You’d just be happier in a neighborhood that looks more like you.
For me, I don’t know whether I’d have had the nerve to be the first black on my block, in some of those neighborhoods. I might have stayed where I was, and let someone else be the brave one. But I hope, if I’d been a white with a new black neighbor, I’d have come over with a cake the day they showed up. Because some things are right.
Actually, Brooke, that is an interesting perspective, and one that I think bears some consideration. Or is it akin to someone manipulating the location of entrances to a bar so as to make it legally far enough from a school while placing its parking lot across the street from the school’s playground — in other words, the legal forms are met, but there is still something objectionable about what the law allows.
your constitutional rights huh? NOW you want to protect the constitution. i love how you play into the set up EVERY TIME.
so you, who i can only guess is a white christian, has full constitutional rights no matter how offensive, but muslims have to mind their ps and qs and can only have their rights when it doesnt make you sad. seems like a teabag to me.
i also am offended that you think most americans are too stupid and dense to differentiate between al queda and normal every day muslims.
Gee, cassandra, you claim I ignored the real constitutional issue — but I put it in the first substantive sentence of my comment.
Um, no — you certainly did not. Your comment had to do with their right to build on the site, which really isn’t at issue. What is at issue is *who* is building — Muslims seeking to exercise not only their property rights, but their freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. It is the latter two that the asshat frauds trying to make political hay over this center are seeking to violate.
No, a.price — I was pointing out the hypocrisy of YOUR defense of the rights of those building the mosque and your statement that no one had any right to say that which offends YOU. If you are going to say that the First Amendment trumps the sensitivity issue when you don’t agree with the sensitive folks, then you can’t come back and insist that someone has no right to speak when your sensitivities are trod upon. Especially when I’ve never argued there is no right to build the mosque, and have in fact stated quite the opposite.
In other words, you walked right into the trap I was setting for you.
I think we found the gaping hole Anderson Cooper was looking for – it’s between RWR/Observer’s ears. Setting a trap – what, were you going to kill the wabbit?
Actually, cassandra, that was precisely what my first point was — that they had the right to build and, implicitly, use this facility for in order to freely assemble and worship. Sorry I didn’t spell that one out for you more clearly, but I figured anyone with a lick of sense would recognize that a defense of the the right to use the building for its intended purpose goes along with a defense of the the right to build it.
And my point remains — acknowledging the right to build and use the facility under both the constitution and relevant statutes and ordinances, OUGHT the facility be built and used at that location, given the EPIC FAIL of the project as an effort to promote healing reconciliation, and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims?
MJ — just extending a.price’s metaphor of the set up. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.
But let’s make the most apt comparison of having the right to do something vs. it being right to do something.
It is beyond dispute that the Carmelite nuns had the right to open and occupy a convent next to Auschwitz. Was it the right thing for them to do? Or was John Paul II correct in his decision that the right thing to do was to relocate to a spot that was less offensive to others?
By the way, those behind the project understand the distinction, as indicated by their response to Gary Gutfield’s proposed Muslim-themed gay bar next door, when they wrote him saying that he certainly had the legal right to do so, but it would be counter-productive to the dialogue he claimed to want to open. Isn’t the same true of the project itself?
Carmelite nuns ? Sounds yummy.
There’s already a sort of dicey dive right next door to this proposed center, so what we have here is the failure of people to understand how NYC operates. Which is part of Bloomberg’s points.
And the Carmelite Nun situation is not useful to this discussion. We are talking about the Constitutional rights of US Citizens here — not the rights or entitlements of Germans in their own country. But let’s get back to your poorly made original point that the owners of this property had the right to build. Which was your *only*point. Because if you are really discussing the Consitution here, (and if you were paying more attention to the unadulterated bigotry at hand) the ONLY Constitutional issues at play here are still those pertaining to religion and to assembly. If you had understood that, then you would have said that, yes? Not just pointed to their property rights which was simply never in dispute.
But then, you’ll just get more of your diversion on to avoid the point that you were never here in the first place to defend the bits of the Constitution that mattered for these owners.
So if we are doing diversion instead of dealing with the issues at hand, I wonder how many people we could get to weigh in on whether it would be the right thing for you to forgo the exercise of your free speech entitlements and STFU. I mean, you are spectacularly wrong here and you aren’t engaging anyone here in what might be characterized as intelligent, engaging or especially witty exchange of ideas. It would be the *right thing* *for the good of the blog* — wouldn’t you agree?
Game, set and match to Cassandra.
And just to make one correction – Auschwitz is in Poland.
ADVANCE NOTICE — HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT BELOW. THIS IN NO WAY REPRESENTS MY OPINION OF ANY SITE OWNER OR COMMENTER!
It is a given I have a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to call you a stupid cunt. IS IT MORALLY RIGHT for me to call you a stupid cunt, just because I have a right to do so? If I did so, would you (and others) have the right to speak out against my doing so, and even urge me to forgo exercising my right to do so, perhaps calling you a brainless bimbo instead? Or would you be anti-free speech bigots for doing so?
Oh, and cassandra, if one has a right to build a mosque, one also has a right to assemble there for the purpose of worshiping. If it did not, then it could not be properly said that one had the right to build a mosque, could it?
“It is just too bad he doesn’t feel that way about the rest of the rights and freedoms in the Constitution.”
Such as?
if one has a right to build a mosque, one also has a right to assemble there for the purpose of worshiping
Sorry, Fraudulent Asshat — you were quite caught out not even arguing for the pertinent bits of the Constitution here. You can keep dancing around this all you want, but you can’t quite cover up the bigotry on full display. You can keep dancing around this all you want, but you can’t cover up the fact that you weren’t even making an argument for the constitutionality of anything that is in dispute here. You can keep dancing around the fact that you’ve been quite caught out on your own ignorant argument. And now you can take your sorry ass back to Delaware Politics where that crew will never know how fraudulent you really are.
Bullshit, cassandra. I argue the three are implicitly and inseparably linked. If you have the right to build a mosque, you have the right for people to gather there and worship there. If you don’t, you do not have the right to build a mosque — you merely have the right to build something that has the appearance of a mosque, but does not have the essential characteristics of a mosque.
Oh, and back to that Auschwitz convent issue — I use that to argue not on a constitutional basis (it is not in the US, so of course the US Constitution is inapplicable — again, I felt that went with out saying), but on the issue of whether exercising a right might be ill-advised, offensive and counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned exercising it is.
Let me offer an analogy — if I say you have a right to build an abortion clinic at a certain location, implicit in that statement is the right to have patients come there and the right to perform an abortion at the facility. Hopefully you would argue (quite correctly) that the without those latter two, you really have not been permitted to build an abortion clinic, merely a building that looks like one.
Bullshit Fraudulent Asshat — you argue that now because you can’t make the argument that you made any defense — whatsoever — of either freedom of religion or assembly. All you care about is arguing that these people should voluntarily subject themselves to some new Jim Crow because there are a bunch of you that need to demonize some group of brown or black people. It doesn’t matter which ones, as long as you can hang on to your own fears and bigotry while trying to pin the fault on those brown and black people.
Really — go back to Delaware Politics where you belong. People over there really get where you are coming from and will never hold you accountable for making stupid arguments.
Answer me this — is it a mosque if people are not permitted to gather there to worship? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Oh, and quit playing the race card like it has any meaning in this discussion, cassandra — you are simply using it as a dodge to avoid acknowledging that you were wrong to attack me in the first place.
Answer me this — why should I follow you down this rabbit hole?
If you can point me to where — precisely, not implicitly — you dealt with the issues at stake which are religious freedom and freedom of assembly in your original post, then maybe you have an argument. When you have to retreat to *implicitly* for the only issues under assault here you’ve largely lost. So live with it.
Oh and quit telling me what I can say on my own damn blog. If you don’t want the race card to be dealt then stop trying to demonize brown and black people — in this case the scary Muslims who somehow shouldn’t build a community center well out of the sightlines of Ground Zero. The only people here you are asking anything from *are* said Muslims — it wouldn’t even occur to you to ask the predominately white people having the vapors over this to grow the fuck up.
You are still a fraudulent asshat — and you are still dancing here. Badly dancing, but hey. It is pretty clear here that you are NOT interested in any Constitutional issues here or even issues of community. Just in telling one more minority group what they can and cannot do. Which counts as Jim Crow.
O – is it a church if no one prays there? Is it a supermarket if no one shops there?
MJ — let me rephrase your questions more accurately to reflect what I’m asking:
1) Is it a church if it believers are forbidden to assemble there and worship?
2) Is it a supermarket if customers are not allowed on the premises and food is not allowed on the premises?
Cassandra, I can’t point to the explicit words you wanted because it did not occur to me to write them. Why didn’t it occur to me to write them? Because in order for it to be a mosque, it must be regularly usable by an assembled group of the Muslim faithful for purposes of prayer. I’ve attempted to point that out, but for some reason my explicitly stating that it was always my intent and understanding that the the right to build a mosque includes the right to then use the building as a mosque is not good enough for you. Let me clarify for you what I have said multiple times here — YES, CASSANDRA, OF COURSE I AFFIRM THEIR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND WORSHIP AT THE SITE OF THEIR MOSQUE; AND IT NEVER CROSSED MY MIND THAT AFFIRMING THE RIGHT TO BUILD A HOUSE OF WORSHIP COULD EVER BE UNDERSTOOD AS NOT ALSO AFFIRMING THE RIGHT TO USE IT AS SUCH.
Oh, and cassandra, your constant attempts to paint opposition to the mosque as some how racist or an exercise in creating a modern Jim Crow is absurd and intellectually dishonest.
But I bet you are fun at parties.
Q: Can I take your coat?
A: RAAAAACIST!
Q: What can I get you to drink?
A: RAAAAACIST!
Q: Hey, baby, what’s your sign?
A: RAAAAACIST!
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: RAAAAACIST!
Don’t rephrase anything! Answer my questions!
observer, why dont you want the mosque there?
from what i have heard from Right Wing talk shows, blogs, other a-holes… and i am NOT saying you said this, since you get so testy about being lumped together with the other Bags…
but what i have heard is that “muslims build mosques where they have conquered” or “they attacked us (somehow implying that 9/11 was a mass plot by every muslim person n earth) they should be more sensitive”
Since Beck’s Bags like comparing 9/11 to the holocaust so much, i’ll draw a REAL comparison. The nazis killed my people… not the GERMANS. yes, many nazis were german, but it was a section of the german people. America also fought Germans, many people of german decent or origin lived in southeastern PA. I dont seem to recall the great controversy over german community centers in Downingtown.
On 9/11, we were attacked by a POLITICAL FACTION of a much larger group of people. Al Queda also has a problem with any muslim who lives in peace with us….. i know this will make your head explode, but by building that COMMUNITY CENTER they make themselves Al Queda’s enemy. All they do by opposing it is reinforce what Al Queda tells people to recruit them. That kind of reaction…. that all of islam is out to get us is racist. it isnt the KKK kind, but it is fear. which arises from prejudice. as long as we are playing “gotcha” , I kinda think the right wing reaction is exactly what Osama and the Ass Holes (great name for a band) wants.
so observer, why do you oppose it? What have the INDIVIDUALS who wish to build this thing done that they must consider your feelings?
I have no idea what all the shouting is, here. That’s what I get for reading less frequently, I suppose.
First, O, I think your point is a little over-subtle for the issues at hand. It might (for any number of reasons) be a poor choice to build a community center there. Likewise might be stupid to put in a MacDonalds. However, the ship has sailed on debating the wisdom or umwisdom of it without reference to race. Most of the opposition is specifically targeted at the occupants, because of their religious identification, which is connected to their perceived race, and therefore race is a big part of the discussion. People who have issues with the plans for parking, or the width of the handicapped ramp are now, intentionally or not, contributing to a debate about whether this building should be evaluated based on the occupants’ race.
Second, a. price, and all due deference to your family history, when the US went to war in WWII they fought Germany, not a subset of Germans. They bombed Dresden, not military targets outside. During both world wars there was significant prejudice against German people living in this country, and acts of vandalism and harassment of Germans and German owned businesses (although much of the WWII racism was more conveniently located against the Japanese American population).
However, it is NOT, in my opinion, the business of my government to cave to mobs. That’s why we talk about “rule of law”. So no secondary standard of ‘Is it a nice thing” should be called to supplement law, due to the prejudice held by some. That’s not how we play.
Oh, and cassandra, your constant attempts to paint opposition to the mosque as some how racist or an exercise in creating a modern Jim Crow is absurd and intellectually dishonest.
And this is how we know that you are intellectually dishonest and, really, full of shit. This would be one more point that you can’t adequately address. As long as the only people in this equation who have to change their behavior or change their plans are the people with the religion you object to, then you are guilty or specific bigotry targeted at these people. Their only obligation to you is to act within the rule of law. Accommodating your bigotry (the entire point of Jim Crow) is not one of their obligations.
MJ — to answer your questions, which i do not believe to be on point, “not for long”. Of course, you questions lack the issue of there being a prohibition on the use of the church or supermarket as a church or supermarket, and as such really fail to get to the point I’ve been debating with cassandra.
A couple of comparisons would be apt here — under Stalin, a great many churches were confiscated by the government, closed, and used for things like warehouses. Were they still churches? I’d argue that they were not, beyond the architectural stylings, because the essential things that made them churches (people being able to assemble and worship) were absent. Similarly, a local congregation built a new building several years ago and sold the building to a social service agency which renovated the interior and made it a homeless shelter — even though it has many of the external architectural features of what folks think of when they say “church”, it is not a church in any real sense of the word. Lastly, Hagia Sophia was the largest Christian church in the world for a thousand years before it was converted to a mosque by the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople, and later made a museum (where no worship of any kind is permitted by law) following the establishment of modern Turkey — is it a church despite having been diverted to not one but two different uses over the last 5 1/2 centuries, or is it a museum?
Let me ask a question — some years ago, a local cemetery owned by a group of local Christian churches wanted to add a crematorium on its grounds. A block away is a local synagogue, and its members raised the issue of the sensitivity of building a crematorium practically in its backyard. They sought to block the facility — were the Jews attempting to impose Jim Crow on Christians?
Observer/RWR – again, you twist and turn and bend but are totally off topic, which is typical teabagger M.O. This thread is about unadulterated fear-mongering and hatred. It is about indicting an entire people because of the deeds of a few (19 to be exact out of over 1 billion). Nothing more, nothing less. You totally refuse to stay on topic because it doesn’t suit your teabagging ways and you cannot defend your position. Pretty simple – you’ve been pwned by numerous writers on this thread, yet you still fidget in your seat trying to save face, when that face is covered by a white, pointed hood.
And since when did a crematorium become a house of worship outside of Nazi Germany?
So, since you cannot defend an indefensible position, take Cassandra’s advice and just STFU! Go back to Delaware Politics where your cronies will give you the real teabagging you’ve been begging for.
By the way, how does the saying that this particular ought not be built due to the insensitivity of locating the mosque on the site of a building damaged on 9/11 and left unusable by that damage any different that saying one ought not draw pictures of Muhammad or burn copies of a Quran, even though the latter two are both activities protected by the First Amendment and fully protected by law? Are Muslim objections to those two behavior examples of an attempt to impose Islamic Jim Crow?
I’m dedicating an old Osmonds’ song to Observer/RWR – Go Away Little Girl.
No kidding — this fraudulent asshat now thinks that the proper diversion is bringing up events from 5 or 6 centuries ago. Or to a situation not even in this country. Which is how you know he is a wingnut asshat — these are apparently the talking points of the day (the Hagia Sophia? jeez)
But what he can’t do is finish the arguments he has started — the ones based on his own (and his compadres’ bigotries). And that is why it is that the Muslims who want to build this center have to give up on their American values so that he can maintain his wholly un-American ones.
I’m curious — if Gov. Paterson an unAmerican, teabagging asshat? After all, we hold the exact same position on the issue?
But I’m not surprised that you don’t want to deal with the “should they build” question –after all, Barack Obama lacks the guts to answer it, too.
By the way, I’m done arguing this one, because you clearly are not reading what I’m writing, and are instead just tossing out talking points. Your Hagia Sophia comment was the giveaway. I brought it up to highlight my definition of what makes a church a church or a mosque a mosque — not just architecture, but actual function. You decided once you saw the name that I was making the specious point that if Muslims can violate the rights of Christians, then Christians can violate the rights of Muslims, which was not my point at all. And I’m sorry my analogies (which, by their very nature, are not exact) offend you — but I’m trying to bring out and highlight principles, and you apparently cannot or will not see them or deal with them.
Paterson is an idiot.
And your point, Observer, focuses on what you think ought to be done. It is solely your opinion – an opinion, if enacted, that would have the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves. Basically, you want to deny Constitutional rights to a certain group because of… sensitivity?
(BTW, your entire “function” argument is nothing more than a diversion you employed to try and shift away from your losing position.)
And, I would think, as a devout Christian you’d realize the slippery slope you’re on.
I don’t even bother with “observer” – they argue apples and oranges – the whole hypothetical argument on the 1st ammendment is that – hypothetical
“congress shall make no law….etc the right to worship and the right to freely assemble is clearly laid out
we are not discussing nuns in Poland, or a tree falling in the forest and no one is there – does it make a sound?/ etc.. its all bullpucky – or whether the asshats on DP wants a mosque or not – or whether the Saudis allow churches and synagogues. That is all just the weeds and idiots ranting to whip up anger and fear and advertising dollars.
THEREFORE:
1. we all have religious freedom
2. we all have the right to freely assmble to worship and otherwise
3. we all have the right to freely express our ideas etc – (to a point ref: blandenburg v Ohio and Virginia v Baker)
game, set, match because the 1st ammendment is our right and that is the only argument – period
and if Observer went to DP and called someone a C*** his post would be deleted, especially if they used it against ST CHRISTINE – which shows actually that DL is far more tolerant and allows far more freedom of expression again showing that Liberal, progressives are far more in tune with the Founding Fathers idealogogy that the conservative demigogues that blow off all the time
funny, to me, they just sound like the seond coming of the likes of the Jimmy Swaggarts of this world – preaching the Word but living to another set of rules – Hypocracy at its best
Observer – when you leave this site – Don’t let the door hit ya – where the good Lord split ya.
I’m trying to bring out and highlight principles
No, actually, you are not. The principles at play here are American ones. And you do not uphold the principles of freedom of religion or assembly by disgracefully asking people you are prejudiced against to abandon their exercise of these same principles.
But we’re delighted that you’ve finally waved your white flag. You should have done that some time back when it was clear that you certainly not arguing any principles worth arguing over.
Cassandra and Pandora – good job!
No one needs an “Observer” to bring out and highlight principals we are all obviously educated on and aware of
Posters like Observer have only one set of principals – their own – that they feel others should adhere to – as long as its suits their agenda……
I can’t understand why people are so worked up about 20% real unemployment when we are threatened by a mosque, no less than 2 blocks from an empty hole in the ground.
It’s like boarding the lifeboats, instead of deciding what prayer to say on the promenade deck.
Yay!!! Observer/RWR is gone. He finally realized that he lost the argument with his first posting 25 hours ago. I knew that teabaggers and wingnuts had think skulls, but this one takes the cake. What a wanker.
It’s a slap in the face to the friends and family of the murdered victims. It shows poor taste and a lack of judgement,and I still don’t think it will ever happen.
Observer- you make good points. Way to hang in there with these guys.
One asshat gone and here is another to take his place.
And unironically calling into question someone else’s lack of judgment. Way to go, Mr. Fox News!
Mr Fox News ? I don’t get it. I don’t watch Fox News.
I just hate how this non-issue dominates the press while our economy is still on the brink of crumbling. It either points to Americans lack of education and hunger for tabloids, or the presses inability to decently cover actual topics and issuses. personally I think it’s about 60/40 in that respect.
fbh, you have admitted to getting your news from Drudge…. that makes you a right wing talking point barfer…. embrace who you are.
I said “even the Drudge Report”. So now I’m not allowed to visit certain news sites lest I become brainwashed ?
You *already are* brainwashed, no matter how hard you protest. It isn’t a coincidence that you’ve got the Fox News script down pat.
It must be a coincidence, because I don’t watch Fox News.
doesn’t matter. all right-wing propaganda is tested and propelled through the Fox Media Outlet at one point or another.
so the bloggers and the wingnut welfare scribes who tell you what to think got it from FMO, or their masters did. it’s like 3 degrees of bullshit.
Observer: Sorry I missed all the fun. But really, wasn’t your original question a rhetorical one? Didn’t asking it provide its own answer? OF COURSE it’s sometimes better not to exercise a right. As you would put it, that goes without saying.
The question is why so many people chose this particular time to get vividly upset about a decision and an issue that touches a very small percentage of them personally. Don’t play the naif; the costume doesn’t fit you very well.
Harry Reid….ouch!
On the other hand, it fits FBH like a glove.
“The question is why so many people chose this particular time to get vividly upset about a decision and an issue that touches a very small percentage of them personally.”
Well it touches me personally on multiple levels, and I think 9/11 touched the whole country in some way or other on a personal level.
I know the recent spin is to say it’s two blocks away from ground zero, but in reality it’s right there isn’t it. Right in the heart of the nations worst ever attack on home soil. Why “this particular time”? Why indeed.