Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

And he said as much earlier. Maybe he's trying to get the right wing to go completely nuts.What he said though was any religion has a right to build a house of worship. Bin Laden said we would have a war on Islam, we should prove him wrong by letting all religions build houses of worship.As for bolded part Fox is going nuts on this(big surprise) so he is answering them.

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

Your characterization of Obama's belief that the 1st Amendment controls here is that it's a war of words with a news organization?

Read the post I was responding to, skippy.

 

[timschochet]

Considering he uses the state of the union to attack Sarah Palin, why not? This president has cheapened the office so much.

Umm no. He's hardly the first president to do this. I could give you examples of nearly every president, especially all the presidents since World War II, "cheapening the office" by attacking journalists and political figures much more directly than Obama has.The most hilarious example I can think of is Harry Truman. His daughter Margaret wanted to be a classical singer, and gave her debut performance at a Washington theater. A critic for the Washington Post wrote that it was terrible, and the only reason she was even onstage was because she was Truman's daughter. Truman responding by rushing to the press room and telling a bunch of reporters that the critic was a jerk and a loser, and if he were here Truman would punch him in the face. Immediately a bunch of Republicans, led by the young but rising congressman Richard Nixon, complained that Truman was "cheapening the office of the presidency" and demanded he apologize. I don't believe he ever did.

 

[timschochet]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

 

[Christo]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

 

[MongoL3]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

Thats because he only knows how to campaign, not govern..he's a little man with little substance imo...

 

[timschochet]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

Do you recall the NSA spying story in 2006, reported by the New York Times? First Cheney called it treason, and then Bush, agreeing with his VP, chimed in:Taking his cue from Cheney, Bush on Monday said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

As for Clinton, you gotta be kidding me. I'm too lazy to pull out examples at this moment, but as I recall it seemed like a week didn't go by without he or his administration ripping some reporter.

 

[Christo]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

Do you recall the NSA spying story in 2006, reported by the New York Times? First Cheney called it treason, and then Bush, agreeing with his VP, chimed in:Taking his cue from Cheney, Bush on Monday said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

WTF are you talking about? I never said the president could never mention the press. We're talking about an issue that has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. The post I responded to said Obama was answering Fox News. I essentially said presidents shouldn't get into a war of words with the press. Bush ripping the NYT for publishing leaked government documents is not in the same ballpark as this.

 

[jon_mx]

Taking his cue from Cheney, Bush on Monday said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

As for Clinton, you gotta be kidding me. I'm too lazy to pull out examples at this moment, but as I recall it seemed like a week didn't go by without he or his administration ripping some reporter.

What does attacking leaks over something that is potentially a national security concern have to do with attacking individuals for political purposes?As for Clinton, he almost always used his minions to do the dirty work. But during the Monica thing, Clinton did take some on some of the people personally.

 

[MongoL3]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

Do you recall the NSA spying story in 2006, reported by the New York Times? First Cheney called it treason, and then Bush, agreeing with his VP, chimed in:Taking his cue from Cheney, Bush on Monday said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

WTF are you talking about? I never said the president could never mention the press. We're talking about an issue that has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. The post I responded to said Obama was answering Fox News. I essentially said presidents shouldn't get into a war of words with the press. Bush ripping the NYT for publishing leaked government documents is not in the same ballpark as this.

Thats one argument that always makes me . Everytime there is some criticism of Obama, the liberal response instead of looking at that particular issue is to deflect and go back in time with the oldy but goody "well bush did this"

 

[timschochet]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

Do you recall the NSA spying story in 2006, reported by the New York Times? First Cheney called it treason, and then Bush, agreeing with his VP, chimed in:Taking his cue from Cheney, Bush on Monday said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

WTF are you talking about? I never said the president could never mention the press. We're talking about an issue that has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. The post I responded to said Obama was answering Fox News. I essentially said presidents shouldn't get into a war of words with the press. Bush ripping the NYT for publishing leaked government documents is not in the same ballpark as this.

It is YOUR interpretation that Obama is in a "war of words with the press" while Bush wasn't. I'm simply giving you an example of Bush attacking a news organization. If you believe that that one's OK, but that the Obama one isn't, fine. But that's your subjective opinion, not a matter of fact. I really don't see any difference myself.

 

[Christo]

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual.

Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

Do you recall the NSA spying story in 2006, reported by the New York Times? First Cheney called it treason, and then Bush, agreeing with his VP, chimed in:Taking his cue from Cheney, Bush on Monday said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

WTF are you talking about? I never said the president could never mention the press. We're talking about an issue that has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. The post I responded to said Obama was answering Fox News. I essentially said presidents shouldn't get into a war of words with the press. Bush ripping the NYT for publishing leaked government documents is not in the same ballpark as this.

It is YOUR interpretation that Obama is in a "war of words with the press" while Bush wasn't. I'm simply giving you an example of Bush attacking a news organization. If you believe that that one's OK, but that the Obama one isn't, fine. But that's your subjective opinion, not a matter of fact. I really don't see any difference myself.

You made that very clear. But no matter what you think, there is a big difference between confronting the press for their actions and their opinions.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Say what? Since when should a president lower himself to get into a war of words with a news organization?

It's rather silly. But as I noted in the above post, it's hardly unusual. Other examples involve the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. In both of these, the presidents pretended to be above the fray in most situations, but ordered the vice-president to be the attack dog. Nixon (as VP) and Spiro Agnew made second careers out of viciously attacking news organizations, newspapers, and individual journalists. Of course Nixon as president took it to the ultimate level by ordering the FBI to break into the offices of several news organizations, and having the IRS hound several journalists.

I wouldn't say those example demonstrate that it's hardly unusual. I don't remember Bush or Clinton doing this much. But it seems Obama does it a lot. Someone already mentioned him using the SOTU to go after Palin. He also went after Limbaugh.

Do you recall the NSA spying story in 2006, reported by the New York Times? First Cheney called it treason, and then Bush, agreeing with his VP, chimed in:Taking his cue from Cheney, Bush on Monday said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

As for Clinton, you gotta be kidding me. I'm too lazy to pull out examples at this moment, but as I recall it seemed like a week didn't go by without he or his administration ripping some reporter.

good try Timmay

 

[Josie Maran]

Obama should have kept his mouth shut on this one. This is a local zoning issue.

OK, then can Sarah Palin, Newt Grinrich and all of FOX news #### regarding this?

For one they are pundits. For two, about 70% of Americans agree with them. So yeah, politically Obama was dumb to weigh in. Just further showing his tin-ear to America and re-enforcing his weakness towards fighting terrorism. The Obama White House does not have one conservative bone in its body and it is hurting him in the polls.

Really?

 

[jon_mx]

Obama should have kept his mouth shut on this one. This is a local zoning issue.

OK, then can Sarah Palin, Newt Grinrich and all of FOX news #### regarding this?

For one they are pundits. For two, about 70% of Americans agree with them. So yeah, politically Obama was dumb to weigh in. Just further showing his tin-ear to America and re-enforcing his weakness towards fighting terrorism. The Obama White House does not have one conservative bone in its body and it is hurting him in the polls.

Really?

Yeah, to those who already think he is weak. It is not going to flip anyone to the other side, but for those who already see Obama as a terrorist-appeasing anti-American apologetic wimp, this adds to that, hence the word re-enforcing. Not that I would ever refer to our Commander-in-Chief in such a way....

 

[El Floppo]

I"m glad to see we've reached a consensus.

 

[squistion]

Obama should have kept his mouth shut on this one. This is a local zoning issue.

OK, then can Sarah Palin, Newt Grinrich and all of FOX news #### regarding this?

For one they are pundits. For two, about 70% of Americans agree with them. So yeah, politically Obama was dumb to weigh in. Just further showing his tin-ear to America and re-enforcing his weakness towards fighting terrorism. The Obama White House does not have one conservative bone in its body and it is hurting him in the polls.

Really?

Yeah, to those who already think he is weak. It is not going to flip anyone to the other side, but for those who already see Obama as a terrorist-appeasing anti-American apologetic wimp, this adds to that, hence the word re-enforcing. Not that I would ever refer to our Commander-in-Chief in such a way....

Oh yeah, a real wimp, standing up for the Constitution and freedom of religion even though it may go against public opinion - that doesn't take any courage. He shouldn't have acted like such a wuss and instead just said he wouldn't discuss it because it was a local zoning issue.

 

[jon_mx]

Oh yeah, a real wimp, standing up for the Constitution and freedom of religion even though it may go against public opinion - that doesn't take any courage. He shouldn't have acted like such a wuss and instead just said he wouldn't discuss it because it was a local zoning issue.

Oh yes, Obama the defender of our Constitution... ....It is funny when Obama only shows courage when Muslim faith is involved.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Oh yeah, a real wimp, standing up for the Constitution and freedom of religion even though it may go against public opinion - that doesn't take any courage. He shouldn't have acted like such a wuss and instead just said he wouldn't discuss it because it was a local zoning issue.

Oh yes, Obama the defender of our Constitution... ....It is funny when Obama only shows courage when Muslim faith is involved.

It will never cease to amaze me how the religious wish to do away with government protection of religion when it doesn't directly benefit themselves. Unbelievable. Between this and not understanding the benefits of separation of church and state the faithful are really missing the boat on what makes this country great.

 

[MongoL3]

Oh yeah, a real wimp, standing up for the Constitution and freedom of religion even though it may go against public opinion - that doesn't take any courage. He shouldn't have acted like such a wuss and instead just said he wouldn't discuss it because it was a local zoning issue.

Oh yes, Obama the defender of our Constitution... ....It is funny when Obama only shows courage when Muslim faith is involved.

It will never cease to amaze me how the religious wish to do away with government protection of religion when it doesn't directly benefit themselves. Unbelievable. Between this and not understanding the benefits of separation of church and state the faithful are really missing the boat on what makes this country great.

Define great.....

 

[jon_mx]

Oh yeah, a real wimp, standing up for the Constitution and freedom of religion even though it may go against public opinion - that doesn't take any courage. He shouldn't have acted like such a wuss and instead just said he wouldn't discuss it because it was a local zoning issue.

Oh yes, Obama the defender of our Constitution... ....It is funny when Obama only shows courage when Muslim faith is involved.

It will never cease to amaze me how the religious wish to do away with government protection of religion when it doesn't directly benefit themselves. Unbelievable. Between this and not understanding the benefits of separation of church and state the faithful are really missing the boat on what makes this country great.

No one is stopping Muslims from worshiping. If there was a spot where Christians killed 3000 Muslims, I would not support some church wanting to build a church there either. It is just tasteless and there really is no question the motives of those involved are. This isn't a question of a right to worship. This is hate speech which is gonna piss off a lot of Americans.

 

[Chewbanks]

Obama backs mosque near ground zero

Good to see the First Muslim weigh in on this.

 

[DrJ]

It is YOUR interpretation that Obama is in a "war of words with the press" while Bush wasn't. I'm simply giving you an example of Bush attacking a news organization. If you believe that that one's OK, but that the Obama one isn't, fine. But that's your subjective opinion, not a matter of fact. I really don't see any difference myself.

Even if your comparison were accurate, and it isn't, it's pretty pathetic that anyone would want to use Bush as the basis of comparison. Or shady characters like Nixon. This was supposed to be a new breed of politician, that was going to bring a new level of honesty, openness, and all that other jazz to the office. That's why it supposedly didn't matter that he had virtually no experience whatsoever. Admitting that he's no better than previous administrations on character basically takes the wind out of those sails, and all you have left is an inexperienced guy in over his head, that is still the old breed of politician.

 

[Josie Maran]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

 

[McJose]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

 

[DrJ]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

Yet another Bush policy that Obama is continuing. Hope, change, or bust. I'm going with bust.

 

[jon_mx]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

Nice hyperbole. Let the adults handle this discussion.

 

[McJose]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

Nice hyperbole. Let the adults handle this discussion.

How about responding to the article, Goob.

 

[DrJ]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

Nice hyperbole. Let the adults handle this discussion.

How about responding to the article, Goob.

Since Obama tells us every day how much he respected the leadership Bush provided, and this is pretty much consensus opinion, it's understandable why you'd want to use Obama being so similar as a feather in his cap.

 

[mad sweeney]

Oh yeah, a real wimp, standing up for the Constitution and freedom of religion even though it may go against public opinion - that doesn't take any courage. He shouldn't have acted like such a wuss and instead just said he wouldn't discuss it because it was a local zoning issue.

Oh yes, Obama the defender of our Constitution... ....It is funny when Obama only shows courage when Muslim faith is involved.

Afghanistan down?

 

[Josie Maran]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

Yet another Bush policy that Obama is continuing. Hope, change, or bust. I'm going with bust.

The point is that this is yet another example of Obama taking #### for policies/statements/actions that other Presidents have done with no complaints (or even any notice) whatsoever.

 

[timschochet]

It is YOUR interpretation that Obama is in a "war of words with the press" while Bush wasn't. I'm simply giving you an example of Bush attacking a news organization. If you believe that that one's OK, but that the Obama one isn't, fine. But that's your subjective opinion, not a matter of fact. I really don't see any difference myself.

Even if your comparison were accurate, and it isn't, it's pretty pathetic that anyone would want to use Bush as the basis of comparison. Or shady characters like Nixon. This was supposed to be a new breed of politician, that was going to bring a new level of honesty, openness, and all that other jazz to the office. That's why it supposedly didn't matter that he had virtually no experience whatsoever. Admitting that he's no better than previous administrations on character basically takes the wind out of those sails, and all you have left is an inexperienced guy in over his head, that is still the old breed of politician.

My point is it's irrelevant. I don't think Obama is either a great president (yet) or a terrible president (yet), but this charge that he attacks the press and that lowers the presidency is a false one based on history. Of the examples I listed, the first one was Harry Truman, which I consider among the very best presidents we've ever had, but was not so good in this regard. I just don't think it matters one way or the other.

 

[timschochet]

The point is that this is yet another example of Obama taking #### for policies/statements/actions that other Presidents have done with no complaints (or even any notice) whatsoever.

Of course you're right, but what's new about that? I distinctly recall liberals giving Bush flack for stuff that they neglected to complain about when Clinton did it. Remember Clinton and the FBI files scandal? The left was silent about that. Then Bush did something similar, and we had one editorial after another about how we were turning into a dictatorship. Conversely, the right ripped Clinton for the FBI scandal and defended Bush vigorously.Both sides are equally hypocritical. But so what?

 

[Josie Maran]

The point is that this is yet another example of Obama taking #### for policies/statements/actions that other Presidents have done with no complaints (or even any notice) whatsoever.

Of course you're right, but what's new about that? I distinctly recall liberals giving Bush flack for stuff that they neglected to complain about when Clinton did it. Remember Clinton and the FBI files scandal? The left was silent about that. Then Bush did something similar, and we had one editorial after another about how we were turning into a dictatorship. Conversely, the right ripped Clinton for the FBI scandal and defended Bush vigorously.Both sides are equally hypocritical. But so what?

So what? So let's dance!

 

[DrJ]

It is YOUR interpretation that Obama is in a "war of words with the press" while Bush wasn't. I'm simply giving you an example of Bush attacking a news organization. If you believe that that one's OK, but that the Obama one isn't, fine. But that's your subjective opinion, not a matter of fact. I really don't see any difference myself.

Even if your comparison were accurate, and it isn't, it's pretty pathetic that anyone would want to use Bush as the basis of comparison. Or shady characters like Nixon. This was supposed to be a new breed of politician, that was going to bring a new level of honesty, openness, and all that other jazz to the office. That's why it supposedly didn't matter that he had virtually no experience whatsoever. Admitting that he's no better than previous administrations on character basically takes the wind out of those sails, and all you have left is an inexperienced guy in over his head, that is still the old breed of politician.

My point is it's irrelevant. I don't think Obama is either a great president (yet) or a terrible president (yet), but this charge that he attacks the press and that lowers the presidency is a false one based on history. Of the examples I listed, the first one was Harry Truman, which I consider among the very best presidents we've ever had, but was not so good in this regard. I just don't think it matters one way or the other.

Alright, that's fair. Your Bush comparison is still a pretty horrible one, but that's fair. It's still a mark on his character though IMO, which was his biggest selling point and pretty much the sole reason he's in office today.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

LGF sure has changed their tune over the last few years. That site used to be a go-to for the hard right.

 

[Josie Maran]

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Promoted America for the Bush Administration

US News | Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:03:51 am PDT

The State Department responds to the ridiculous complaints by Republican populists that Imam Feisal Rauf shouldn’t be sent overseas to represent and promote America.

The State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

“His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36..._AdministrationI can't believe GWB was a seekrit terrist moslem too. This is getting crazy.

LGF sure has changed their tune over the last few years. That site used to be a go-to for the hard right.

Yeah, the guy that writes it came to his senses.

 

[Chewbanks]

Oh yeah, a real wimp, standing up for the Constitution and freedom of religion even though it may go against public opinion - that doesn't take any courage. He shouldn't have acted like such a wuss and instead just said he wouldn't discuss it because it was a local zoning issue.

Oh yes, Obama the defender of our Constitution... ....It is funny when Obama only shows courage when Muslim faith is involved.

Afghanistan down?

Yes it is actually, why?

 

[Da Guru]

This will not help Obama.

 

[Josie Maran]

This will not help Obama.

You're right, it is a courageous move.

 

[nephilim]

can't believe anyone other than a nut-job gives a rat's ### about this. freedom of religion ring a bell?? i'm not a fan of ignorance and stupidity. i'll side with the islam nut-jobs. as far as i'm concerned all the magic men are equal (0/stupid/what the hell?)....

your opinion may vary but doesn't matter. my local gun shop/range does love you however - i have become a popular customer - and not because of the left but because of the so-called right.

the right is where i perceive the danger.

i do need more 3" 00 buck however - only have 500 rounds... i have plenty of 9mm, .38, .22, .223 and .308. 00 buck is the real crowd pleaser however - and 12 round clips eat it up...

 

[jon_mx]

can't believe anyone other than a nut-job gives a rat's ### about this. freedom of religion ring a bell?? i'm not a fan of ignorance and stupidity. i'll side with the islam nut-jobs. as far as i'm concerned all the magic men are equal (0/stupid/what the hell?)....your opinion may vary but doesn't matter. my local gun shop/range does love you however - i have become a popular customer - and not because of the left but because of the so-called right. the right is where i perceive the danger. i do need more 3" 00 buck however - only have 500 rounds... i have plenty of 9mm, .38, .22, .223 and .308. 00 buck is the real crowd pleaser however - and 12 round clips eat it up...

 

[jon_mx]

The real question here is not is this allowed by the Constitution, the question is really is this the right thing to do. The Westboro Baptist can go around protesting at funerals. Sure, technically the constitution allows such idiocy, but is that right. Should they not be condemned for their actions. To most people this is the exact same behavior. It is not about bigotry, it is about human decency which the Constitution does not address.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

To most people this is the exact same behavior.

No it isn't.

 

[jon_mx]

To most people this is the exact same behavior.

No it isn't.

Yes, to most people this is a statement of hate, not a desire to worship.

 

[mad sweeney]

To most people this is the exact same behavior.

No it isn't.

Yes, to most people this is a statement of hate, not a desire to worship.

link? Most polls I've seen have a spike in the "not in good taste" category, not in the "statement of hate" choice.Hop in your car and go protest it. It's your right, just as much as they have the right to build their center there, even if they're doing it as a statement of hate. Keep us updated for when they start preaching hate.

 

[MongoL3]

To most people this is the exact same behavior.

No it isn't.

Yes, to most people this is a statement of hate, not a desire to worship.

link? Most polls I've seen have a spike in the "not in good taste" category, not in the "statement of hate" choice.Hop in your car and go protest it. It's your right, just as much as they have the right to build their center there, even if they're doing it as a statement of hate. Keep us updated for when they start preaching hate.

This is a mosque right?

 

[mad sweeney]

To most people this is the exact same behavior.

No it isn't.

Yes, to most people this is a statement of hate, not a desire to worship.

link? Most polls I've seen have a spike in the "not in good taste" category, not in the "statement of hate" choice.Hop in your car and go protest it. It's your right, just as much as they have the right to build their center there, even if they're doing it as a statement of hate. Keep us updated for when they start preaching hate.

This is a mosque right?

It's this attitude that makes me wonder, with all the Muslims in America, how there are any buildings left standing in any city with a sizable population of them. How so very, very few end up committing crimes against the US, yet lumping "them" all together, united in purpose is ok while at the same time calling Christians who kill in the name of their beliefs fringe nuts who don't represent the majority or aren't "true" Christians.

 

[jon_mx]

It's this attitude that makes me wonder, with all the Muslims in America, how there are any buildings left standing in any city with a sizable population of them. How so very, very few end up committing crimes against the US, yet lumping "them" all together, united in purpose is ok while at the same time calling Christians who kill in the name of their beliefs fringe nuts who don't represent the majority or aren't "true" Christians.

Most Muslims here came to escape the kind of radical Islamic practices/teachings which dominates most Middle Eastern countries. If I could see the money was local and this was a real grass roots effort to have a center at that location it would be fine. But I really don't see that is the case.

 

[timschochet]

If I could see the money was local and this was a real grass roots effort to have a center at that location it would be fine.

Though I disagree with you most of the time, I have little reason to doubt your integrity. But this time I simply don't believe you. The primary complaint about this building is its location. The stuff about the funds for it being suspect came afterwards and I don't even know how accurate it is.

 

[jon_mx]

If I could see the money was local and this was a real grass roots effort to have a center at that location it would be fine.

Though I disagree with you most of the time, I have little reason to doubt your integrity. But this time I simply don't believe you. The primary complaint about this building is its location. The stuff about the funds for it being suspect came afterwards and I don't even know how accurate it is.

You can doubt all you want. I trust the overwhelmingly vast majority of the Muslims in this country. But if outside money controls this, which I have always thought, I see the intent as pure evil.