ADDED: I almost feel sorry for Obama and the Democrats for their misfortune that this is the issue that has come to the fore at this time.
At least one Republican, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seized on the confusion. “Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade,” Palin wrote on Facebook....Almost. The Democrats would love to do the same thing to the Republicans. They wouldn't hesitate to exploit something that captures the public's attention and provides leverage for the political arguments they like to make. Remember the Mark Foley incident in 2006.
Democratic aides say that, at the very least, the president has again knocked his party's candidates off local messages and forced them to talk about a national issue that doesn't appear likely to play well with important swing voters.
These officials planned to spend this weekend talking about Social Security’s 75th anniversary....
"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.
The chief of staff to one politically vulnerable House Democrat said it "probably alienates a lot of independent voters" and "it's not a good issue to be talking about right now."
He said he suspects "there are a lot of (Democrats) who are spooked in tough districts today" and "a lot of Republicans licking their chops right now."
Posts
220 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 220 of 220Please elaborate. Why do you think the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from constructing houses of worship for select religions?
Make your case.
Also, AC245, how away do you think strip clubs should be from the hallowed site?
Do you think that all of Islam attacked us on 9/11 or just al Qaeda?
Alpha, I'm just gonna go ahead and call you a liar. You don't believe in religious freedom except as it allows you to bash your political opponents. It was your side that forced the Catholic Church in Boston out of the adoption business because they wouldn't agree to place kids with gay couples. Gays could still adopt, just not through Catholic Charities, but that wasn't enough for the alphaliberals of Mass, the Church had to be forced to bend to their will. Just like Moslems are free to practice their religion in NYC and to build mosques, just not this mosque in this location. Again alpha, what's the deal with this location? Why is this location so important to the Islamic religion that a mosque had to be built there? What happened of religious significance there that Moslems feel they need to celebrate by building a mosque there? Stop throwing up strawmen, nobody is saying that Moslems don't have a right to practice their religion or to build religious facilities, only that they can't build there.
"In the wake of 9/11 I remember some prominent liberals bemoaning that the 9/11 attackers targeted liberal NYC as opposed to one of those racist, red states"
Bullshit. Prove it.
Hey, AlphaLiberal, here is "prominent liberal" Michael Moore bemoaning that blue staters got hit. He wrote this dreck on his website immediately after the attack:
“They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California—these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush.”
The ALL CAPS are Moore's. Moore is clearly and forcefully arguing that the attacks were ironic. The inescapable inference we can draw is that attacks on people who did vote for Bush would be understandable. There is no charitable interpretation of Moore's text here, although I'm sure you'll try your level best to come up with one. Rob Smith remembered correctly. You did not.
Sorry, AlphaLiberal, but I see no point in me wasting more time arguing with the buffoon who thinks that physically building a mosque or church is the quintessential "establishment of religion" as considered by the First Amendment.
Again, though, I want to thank you for your jester-like antics today, as you attempted to explain and argue concepts that were clearly far beyond your ken.
You inspired a lot of laughter.
Hey Alphaliberal, this was posted on Michael Moore's Website on 9/12/01:
Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. ... If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California — these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush.
He removed it shortly thereafter when he got slammed for it.
Anne, you did say "I almost feel sorry" for them, right? It's hard for me to feel pity for these fools who went along with the entire circus parade, but now are upset that they're stuck shoveling up elephant dung.
They threw all caution to the wind in an orgy of deficit spending and new government meddling. They deserve far worse than a dolt for a president.
Bob Smith: Apparently to Alpha it means the Moslems have the absolute right to build a mosque anywhere they damn well please. . .
This is one time Alpha's right. Muslims, along with members of every other faith, do have that right. It may not be a good idea, given how much some people hate Islam these days. But just because a lot of people don't want them to exercise their right hardly means it doesn't exist.
Some people argue against the mosque site on the hallowed ground standard. Two blocks from ground zero, they say, is just too close. If that's your position, what I want to know is how far out from ground zero do you have to get before the ground isn't hallowed anymore? What's the minimum radius from ground zero beyond which a mosque is no longer offensive?
Bob Smith: Apparently to Alpha it means the Moslems have the absolute right to build a mosque anywhere they damn well please. . .
This is one time Alpha's right. Muslims, along with members of every other faith, do have that right. It may not be a good idea, given how much some people hate Islam these days. But just because a lot of people don't want them to exercise their right hardly means it doesn't exist.
Some people argue against the mosque site on the hallowed ground standard. Two blocks from ground zero, they say, is just too close. If that's your position, what I want to know is how far out from ground zero do you have to get before the ground isn't hallowed anymore? What's the minimum radius from ground zero beyond which a mosque is no longer offensive?
Bob Smith: Apparently to Alpha it means the Moslems have the absolute right to build a mosque anywhere they damn well please. . .
This is one time Alpha's right. Muslims, along with members of every other faith, do have that right. It may not be a good idea, given how much some people hate Islam these days. But just because a lot of people don't want them to exercise their right hardly means it doesn't exist.
Some people argue against the mosque site on the hallowed ground standard. Two blocks from ground zero, they say, is just too close. If that's your position, what I want to know is how far out from ground zero do you have to get before the ground isn't hallowed anymore? What's the minimum radius from ground zero beyond which a mosque is no longer offensive?
Hey Alphaliberal, this was posted on Michael Moore's Website on 9/12/01:
Is this the same article where some Libtard includes Colorado on his death-list because of what happened to Mathew Sheppard?
I remember reading it, and I remember Noonan mentioning it in one of her WSJ op-eds. But I cant find it on the net and am not really inclined to do so for a libtard like Alpha.
Relax Gene, everyone heard you the first time.
But wouldn't you like to hear from the Imam about now? When he explains that whole America is an accomplice to 911 statement, all will be well.
C'mon everyone.."Faith Court". It's the only solution.
Rob Smith:
"I'm just gonna go ahead and call you a liar. You don't believe in religious freedom except as it allows you to bash your political opponents. It was your side that forced the Catholic Church in Boston out of the adoption business because they wouldn't agree to place kids with gay couples."
Do you know how ridiculous this is? I don't know anything about this Boston case. But I am a liar because of it? I ignore your charge.
I have addressed what's wrong with picking out this location more than once:
A) Islam did not attack us on 9/11 and it it morally wrong and strategically counterproductive to assign collective guilt to all Muslims for the actions of a small violent faction on 9-11-2001.
(Unless you think all Christians are to blame for the mass murder committed by Timothy McVeigh? by your logic we should ban churches near the OK City bombing site.)
2) It's not even at Ground Zero. It's in an old Burlington Coat Factory store 2 blocks away.
3) Trying to stop the practice of a religion is against our Constitution and our values as a nation. It is un-American.
4) If people are offended by seeing a mosque, they are bigots and their offense is not our concern. Imagine saying "don't put that synagogue up, I'm offended by the presence of Jews." It would be an outrageous statement, as is this.
Droogie Hower makes some shit up:
"The ALL CAPS are Moore's. Moore is clearly and forcefully arguing that the attacks were ironic. The inescapable inference we can draw is that attacks on people who did vote for Bush would be understandable."
Uh, no. Not at all. Nowhere in the quote you cite does Moore say anything like "bomb red states."
That's a complete fabrication on your part.
It was obviously written in the heat of the moment as a kind of WTF but it absolutely does not say "bomb red states."
I saw the Imam was on Fox News. so, whoopee. Now what?
Hey, Gene. Thanks for agreeing that the USA has freedom of religion. Perhaps you also agree it is tragic that we need to debate our basic but hallowed Constitutional freedoms.
p.s. I've had trouble with the editor, too.
AC245, you can't make your argument but you sure can distort mine. I stand by my statement, except the only change I would make is to better qualify it to something like:
"2) Erecting a house of worship is ABOUT as much an "establishment of religion" as can be found. "
I guess if Congress passed a law prohibiting Islam or requiring some other religion it would be more so.
But they cannot do that any more than any other public body can legislate on the basis of a religion where they build, how they worship, etc.
Now, some people (Ann Althouse) thinks it is fine if we do the same as a nation sans government action but with loud speech. Well, that's a value statement and one I reject. As Americans, we need to follow the spirit and not just the letter of these core American values.
(And, AC, strip away your bile and you really have nothing to contribute).
"I saw the Imam was on Fox News. so, whoopee. Now what?"
He lives! I can't find anything on this. What did he have to say?
AlphaLiberta: . Perhaps you also agree it is tragic that we need to debate our basic but hallowed Constitutional freedoms.
I do agree. So many people talk about the constitution in a reverential tone--until it conflicts with one of their wants or fears. Then they toss it in the can.
If this is a constitutional matter, then SCOTUS can determine whether people voicing their opposition to building at that site are violating it. Go for it.
Heeyyy!
Someone else wants a Faith Court:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/17/kt-mcfarland-ground-zero-mosque-god-september-obama-imam-feisal/
"If Imam Feisal really wants to promote harmony among religions, why not make it an interfaith center – where Christians and Jews as well as Muslims hold religious services? This would guarantee that the peaceful goals of the Cordoba Initiative prevail long after the current controversy subsides."
Post a Comment