Speaking to reporters today, President Obama drew a sharp line under his comments last night, insisting that his defense of the right to build a mosque does not mean he supports the project.I had to Google "Mike Bloomberg." Oh, Mayor Bloomberg. Do we call him Mike?
"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding," he said.
Obama's new stance is logically consistent with his words last night, if a bit less "clarion," as Mike Bloomberg called the first remarks.
Anyway... Ben, Mike... everybody... could you possibly take the trouble to pay attention to words?
And read the Althouse blog. It was all always obvious, as I told you here and here.
Obama's new remarks, literally speaking, re-open the question of which side he's on.Re-open the question only because you foolishly visualized a closed question.
"Literally speaking" ... what the hell does that mean? If you knew how to be literal, you wouldn't have read more into the old remarks than was there. You read subjectively. You let idiotically soaring hopes cloud your eyes.
Obama has made his brilliant career out of saying the most crashingly banal things to people who hear what they want to hear. Could everyone please wake up? Please!
Most of the mosque's foes recognize the legal right to build, and have asked the builders to reconsider.Allow me to help you solve your little puzzle? You are a chump. You need to wake up, smarten up, and realize that words have meaning.
But the clarification is, in political terms, puzzling. The signal Obama sent with his rhetoric last night wasn't that he had chosen to make a trivial, legal point about the First Amendment. He chose to make headlines in support of the mosque project, and he won't be able to walk them back now with this sprinkling of doubt. All he'll do is frustrate some of the people who so eagerly welcomed his words yesterday as a return to form.
Posts
246 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246I am glad that the Alan Colmes types like you, Ashton. Together you could forge a winning if shallow political coalition. If anyone knew what ideas it actually rested upon.
Now this poor guy is reduced to deleting any comments he spews that contain any grammar or spelling error whatsoever.
It's got to suck to be Dribbler.
Ashton (Machos') praise of his associations with the left are about as shallow as a Benetton commercial.
No, I just figured it would be comment #200 and stated as much to save the suspense.
But you had to get your double-dribbling in beforehand.
It doesn't suck to be me. I actually quite like it. You would too if you didn't think in sound-bites.
You keep talking about people here that you like.
Missing from this deep thought of yours is exactly what it is you find in them that is worth liking.
But that's Ashton's middle school version of respect. No substance or mature qualities are needed.
Anyways, have a good one. I hope you enjoyed turning a potentially interesting discussion into an ad hominem Twitter feed.
If I was a better person I'm sure I'd see the value in that. I hope I will someday learn to respect Machos despite the fact that his ideas are simplistic enough to fit in a fortune cookie.
Well yeah, he must be pretty smart to Usurp the most powerful office in the "free" world. As a Law professor though you have to be pretty dumb to be so willfully ignorant to vote for an ineligible Non Natural Born Citizen (his father was NEVER a citizen) with very questionable associations. Those chickens have come home to roost. What were you thinking? and who are you to call anyone a "chump".
I have always wondered why Sirhan Sirhan never gets a parole. And no one cares. The message we intentionally send to Presidential Assassins is above and beyond the strict adherence to our laws. In the reaction to the 9/11 sneak attack we claim that there is an issue above and beyond our laws involved. The Muslim President happens to be on the Muslim's side. After a nuke goes off in Central Park, I wonder whether Muslims will dance on those graves? I suspect that Obama will apologize to King Faisal for blaming noble Muslims.
Ann Althouse said: "The signal Obama sent with his rhetoric last night wasn't that he had chosen to make a trivial, legal point about the First Amendment."
Well that "trivial legal point" seems to be lost on a great number of your reader/commenters who are speaking out for some sort of abridged first amendment and calling a 'right' a 'value'.
Second it is "trivial legal point" completely missed by Newt, Sarah and about 99% of the Tea Party so go figure that when you catch Obama speaking toa "trivial legal point" that great legal educators have done a piss poor job of expanding their teachings past their tiny classes.
You sit here with your forum and following and you have a chance to be precise and informative on these "trivial legal point(s)" and you don't do it. Don't beat up on someone who tries.
There are no SIDES to free speech or freedom to practice a religion of our choice. We either offer these as benefits of our democratic country, or we don't. PERIOD.
Regardless of who said what, or who goes to what building to pray,or who posts rediculous blogs like this one, the important thing is the FREEDOM that we have in this country to do so.
FREEDOM is a double-edged sword. Whenever we assert a position of TAKING a freedom from someone for a reason we perceive to be justified, then we must accept that someone else, then, has the right to TAKE something from us, for whatever reason they wish.
That is a position I never want to be in: taking and getting taken.
In that light, who gives a flying pig who agrees with whom? You either wish to protect your own freedom, acknowledging that you must provide freedom to others, OR NOT. Period.
Seven and others here -- as I've pointed out in other threads to Ritzy: His object here isn't to convince, or to argue in good faith in pursuit of truth. His object is to enhance his own self-image by denigrating others.
It's a shame, because between the insults and pretension, he'll occasionally make a point.
But maybe this thread has enough life to it yet that we can return to the topic at hand -- other than the Ritzy tantrum, it's been a good thread.
Seven and John Stodder, you've made some good points, but you haven't addressed this one argument that I made. Maybe you considered it trivial, but humor me. Edibles, HDHouse, anyone else, please feel free to respond:
Clearly, we shouldn't have to respect the rights of those with which we're at war. I've proposed that these people that want to build this mosque are agents of our enemies.
John Stodder asked for proof. Here's your proof: They want to build a mosque near ground zero, and they're unwilling to consider relocating it out of common decency.
I can see no other explanation for this.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we put them in Gitmo -- this is pretty tenuous evidence. All I'm suggesting is that we use this tenuous evidence for an equally wafer-thin penalty -- deny them their permit unless they move it a few blocks away.
John, you suggested that there might be a slippery slope here, and that next, we'll come after the Baptists for building a church. This doesn't make sense to me; we're not at war with extreme elements of the Baptists. I don't see a real, practical danger of this idea being extended inappropriately.
So how about it? Can I consider these mosque-builders' refusal to comply evidence that they're funded by our enemies? Because I honestly don't see any other reasonable explanation.
And not to beat a dead horse, but: It's not a trivial issue of feelings. This will have lasting repercussions. We'd be allowing our enemies to spit in our face, and we'll lose respect and friends in the Muslim world long-term because of it.
Edibles...um, maybe EAA would be better. EAA, it sounds as though you think that either rights are absolute, or they're nonexistent.
I think we just had this discussion a week or so ago here at the Althouse blog, but I often have that feeling of deja vu and I'm unable to confirm it by finding the relevant post.
But: Fire in a crowded theater. Guns in the hands of convicted felons. All rights have exceptions.
And I'm saying that we should make an exception here, because we're at war with the people actually behind this project.
peter hoh: [Sorry, peter. If Ritmo-weeds weren't choking up the thread, I probably could've more easily seen other people to pick on.]
Once again, the site two blocks away is somehow magically "on the WTC site."
So the many, many people who find the siting of the mosque offensive do so for reasons entirely dubious and insupportable. That they have no basis for taking offense you are taking as given. (Yes, dear, I know: "I didn't say that! I'm just pointing out that the site isn't technically "in" Ground Zero! Stop misrepresenting me!") And yet you cannot be brought to reflect for one minute upon the possible motives of the mosque builders, whose innocence and good faith you take as given. In fact, you are annoyed that anyone else presumes to do so.
What was that about words having meaning?
Unlike actions, which apparently mean nothing at all.
Any critics want to tell me how much public money should accompany an offer to move Cordoba House say, 4 blocks away, with similar height restrictions?
Why, none, of course. Organizations should pay for their own PR disasters. But, really, it's not in any way a PR mistake of any magnitude, is it? To be as offensive as they could possibly be was the plan.
How does Obama feel about the right (or lack thereof in many if not most places) to build a bar or liquor store within a certain distance of a place of worship?
Don't know if everyone has seen this already, but if there was any question over where, relative to the WTC, the mosque is intended, here's the answer.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16201&posts=1#M42254
John Stodder: How would you draw the line legally in a way that stopped this project and wouldn't be used by, say, advocates of gay rights to stop a Baptist church?
Who are the people advocating that it be legally forbidden to build this mosque? Nobody here, as far as I can see.
8/15/10 8:09 AM
Update: Ooops, my mistake. Looks like Pastafarian is arguing just that, on the flimsy grounds of "where there is a lack of common decency, there is fire."
OK, who besides Pastafarian is makin' it all about the legality?
Anglelyne -- other than by legal means, how would you prevent them from building there?
I know it's a tenuous "proof", but the concept of proof in legal circles has always seemed strained to me, coming from a mathematics background. What they call proof, I call a convincing argument.
I don't know why else these people would insist on this site, beyond "a reasonable doubt"; unless they're cooperating with or funded by our enemies.
And again, I'm not suggesting that they be arrested; but that their zoning permit be denied. I think those have been denied for reasons more trivial than "suspicion that the applicant might be in league with Satan incarnate".
Yes Obama is on the side of the constitution and has the wisdom to let the stakeholders sort out if the project should be done. Just today there is an indication that the developers are open to building in another city owned location.
Yes, Obama is on the side of the constitution--when it suits him to be. When it comes to the right to bear arms, a house seat for DC or shaking-down BP for 20B, not so much.
Too bad Obama doesn't have the same understanding about keeping the damn borders secure.
Seems like a lot of people just don't fully understand what the definition of is, is.
Ritmo: It doesn't suck to be me. I actually quite like it. You would too if you didn't think in sound-bites.
Oh Ritmo, you poor thing, you've become ridiculous. Its like picking on a cripple.
Come back when you can make a salient point without bloviating nonsense interspersed with ad homs.
A distinction without a difference ...
We need more lawyers ...
Words will never hurt you. We'll see for how much longer ...
An amazing thing happened on 8/14 at around 7:30 pm, Ritmo and Trooper engaged in a relatively civil and thoughtful debate on the "Ground Zero mosque". I applaud both of them.
Now granted its sometimes hard to keep it civil with all of the attack words flying back and forth but they did it.....
until around 8:15. Fred gallantly tried to carry the baton for Trooper but Ritmo just couldn't sustain it.
Ritmo have you ever considered the concept of
I said my peace? (or is it piece?)
Words matter but quantity does not make up for quality
That's bull, c3. I've respected Fred for commenting civilly and responded civilly to him in kind. As I always have with Trooper. There are more than a few others I treat that way on other threads as well. It was "Machos" that came in and mucked it up (at 8:36 PM to be precise - read the comment). He did this intentionally and knows that no one will call him out on it. Thanks for proving him right.
Come on! The guy calls himself "Machos" and wears a Mexican wrestler's mask and you honestly think he's here to argue in good faith?
Well, as long as you do, you can continue to blame things on me despite ample evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of his posts here are negative and directed at me. Plus, at least one of the substantive points he ended up making on the topic he ripped off from me.
BTW, "Meadowlark" is his nickname for me. I don't know or care what it's supposed to mean, but he probably assumes my referring to it here will go misunderstood; I wouldn't be surprised if it's his way of gaining plausible deniability.
None of my comments to Fred were uncivil. Read them. And then read what Machos said from 8:36 onward. That he can get away with not only shifting the discussion to me, but trying to blame me for it (as I had pointed out) is pretty remarkable.
Also, ask yourself if Methadras' comments to me are in any way civil.
Basically Obambi voted present ...
And before I end, I'll say my peace/piece: My many civil dialogues with Trooper - there's not just one of them but quite a few going back over the years, we even link each other - are no coincidence and no accident. If you want to call them amazing, that's fine. I enjoy them and find them enlightening. But they're no accident.
I think the key is that we both try to identify good faith, good intentions, and a good argument. It's leavened with the realization that no one here is perfect or should take themselves too seriously. Humor's fine and good. And all these things have their place. He's certainly never put me down gratuitously and I've never had any reason to do anything like that to him, either.
Any disagreements between us we agree to disagree on. I am convinced that his motivations always come from a respectable place and have always treated him that way.
But then again, he never considered my interest in accuracy and detail to be some kind of disease to berate, the way so many others seem to.
"...I end..."
As if.
Belmont sums it all up:
"Building a mosque or any religious building is at one level an exercise in religious freedom.
Building it 2 blocks from the WTC, naming it Cordoba House and setting the groundbreaking for September 11 is an exercise in symbology at another level.
It’s a pretty old game and most of us know it."
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/08/14/if-i-had-a-hammer/#more-10098
Also, Roger J. is a really good guy. He doesn't show up all that much around here, but he's pretty wise and interested in honest, informed debate between differing perspectives.
Traditionalguy as well. He respects my over-the-top rhetoric and knows what about is intended seriously, and what is meant humorously - as I do his. His incredibly humane intentions are very transparent and his disinterest in bashing history or context is something that I can relate to.
Did you want more, Paco? Hehe...
This little Kumbaya Moment brought to us by Ritmo would have some meaning if he didn't start every post with "those dumbass evil conservatives.."
If you're going to troll, then troll. Dont be a coward by shifting back into civility everytime you get your ass handed to you.
I'm more than willing to engage the Left in good faith when they demonstrate it. You have not.
What cowardice? It's true that I've never had a fight with any of the conservatives I've mentioned.
And some of them even bitch about the generic left in a way that I don't find an offense to cogent thought, as well.
It comes down to, as some might say, taste. Everything has its place - including satire and scathing diatribes.
I promise to be as introspective and self-critical as my interlocutors. ;-)
I see HD missed the "trivial" point that most of us (including Gov Palin) are not saying the Cordoba Initiative can't legally build.
Ritmo;
Bullshit.
And Meth-Head-erest is a rabid mouth-breather and a Western version of Mohammed Atta. (8:35)
Only a fucking idiot and a perverter of Godwin's Law wouldn't recognize that the right and real-life example of Nazis…What a moron. (8:50)
Machos is a moron. 8:53)
I gotta hand it to escaped Bellevue resident, "Methadras". (11:42)
Negative reinforcement Is still reinforcement
Bravo Ritmo. I sincerely do appreciate your style. The entertainment value that our comments provide can be mis-underestimated. You are frequently playing George Burns to my Jack Benny.
The only bullshit here is your inability to tell time. Three of those come after Machos' 8:36 post and most of them are directed at the raving lunatic Methadras, who has accused me of everything from abetting terrorism to, well, I guess, being a natural born crime against humanity.
As Trooper said: There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
If you don't want me to respond to vituperative abuse and just ignore it, well, that's a different story. But that wasn't the line any of us pursued.
Anglelyne,
Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier. Full day at church, and then real-life friends and family stuff.
And yet you cannot be brought to reflect for one minute upon the possible motives of the mosque builders, whose innocence and good faith you take as given. In fact, you are annoyed that anyone else presumes to do so.
No, I don't presume any such innocence and good faith. Nor do I insist that others should presume the same.
And yes, I have considered that those who have proposed this project may have ill intent.
On an earlier thread, I engaged the possibility that this may have been done to provoke offense.
That still doesn't change what we can legally do about it.
If the actions are intended to provoke, how best to proceed?
Peter hoh - what about civil disobedience?
That could be an option. What kind of civil disobedience do you propose?
Ritmo: As Trooper said: There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Actually, I think it was someone else who said that. You can be forgiven for your ignorance, as I'm pretty sure the phrase never showed up on West Wing.
Post a Comment