home

The Substantive Effect Of The "GZM" Debate?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:56:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Greg Sargent wrote:

I totally agree that the political impact [of the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate] is overstated -- which is why Dems should stop running away from the project. But it's not impossible that this controversy could have a substantive effect: It could end up forcing the center to move. [. . .] What's more, this is about insisting that Dems show spine at politically difficult moments. It's an important story on many levels.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's simply not true. The "debate" can not force a move of the Cordoba Center. Does anyone believe in the Constitution anymore? As for Dems showing spine, I am for Dems showing spine on issues they have INFLUENCE over - like the health bill, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay rights, immigration, and, oh yes, THE ECONOMY.

No politician has any effect on the right of the Corodoba Center to be built. Nothing any pol has said, or any person has said, effects that. That was sort of the point of what President Obama said last Friday. Which is why he did not need to say it.

Speaking for me only

< Jobless Claims Jump | Obama No FDR >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Substantive Effect Of The "GZM" Debate? | 112 comments (112 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    A rant on one of my pet peeves (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:18:55 AM EST
    Why do we always adopt the opposition's framing on a subject?

    The proposed Cordoba Center is not at ground zero. Referring to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque" just reinforces the erroneous talking point (propaganda) in the minds of the general public.

    I understand the intent here with the quotes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    But I wish others would use quotes or more accurate words, especially the MSM of course, the most egregious offender. It really does make me want to throw something at the TV.

    Parent
    hence (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:21:37 AM EST
    the quotes I would think

    Parent
    Do you believe that (none / 0) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    quote marks actually prevent reinforcing the false statement when people hear or even read it?

    Parent
    Our readership (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:37:22 AM EST
    is very intelligent.

    Parent
    Yes they are (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    but are the readers of the Washington Post (Sargent's readers) or those who hear the phrase on whatever new program they watch.

    Parent
    CNN has been (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    knocking itself out since a couple days ago to refer to it both on screen and from reporters/anchors as the "Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero."  Good for them for making a real effort to avoid the false catchphrase.

    Parent
    This whole issue is migraine-inducing, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    and seems to be turning otherwise rational people into something else.

    Imagine if the encounters with the media went like this:

        So, Senator X/Representative Y/President Obama, what is your position on whether or not a Muslim center and mosque should be built near the World Trade Center site?

        Am I supposed to have a position on this?

    Well, sir, some people feel that it's too near the actual site of the 9/11 attacks and would be inappropriate.

        And I'm guessing that some people either have no problem with it, or feel it isn't their place to weigh in one way or the other.

        Well, sir, that's true, but isn't it important for the American people to know where their representatives stand on this?

        I think the American people/the people of my state want me to be thinking about the economy and jobs and Afghanistan and health care, and don't need me to be opining about religious matters.

        But, but...

        Do you have a question for me about the economy?

        Uh, well...how do you think the building of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero will affect the economy in the area?

        Oh, good one - nice try - I guess we're done here - thank you!

    [things make so much more sense in my imaginary world]

    Sure, they'd make something of whatever anyone said - and read things into what people don't say - but that's just the way of the world; it's how the media make their living, for pete's sake.

    Too late now - it's devolved into a food fight with a mud-wrestling undercard, and all because the political egos are so large they truly do believe that what they think about something that doesn't involve them, that they have no legislative or executive responsibility for, matters.

    And they will learn no lessons from their mistakes on this, of that I am certain.

    Easier than that (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    Don't comment at all.

    The President ignores questions all the time.

    Parent

    But quite a few of our members of (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    Congress have not, media hogs that they are.

    And people like Howard Dean?  I mean, why, Howard?  Why do we need to know what you think about this?  

    I wonder if they would get the message if I sent them a postcard with a picture of a STFU mug on it?

    Probably not; I'd just end up in some FBI file...assuming I don't already have one...

    Parent

    This was a prepared statment he gave at the Iftar (none / 0) (#20)
    by steviez314 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    dinner at the WH.  There were over 30 ambassadors of Islamic countries attending.  Don't you think there might have been a foreign policy advantage to this?

    I'm not so sure how many of those ambassadors believe in our 1st Amendment, or think we do.

    Heck, I'm not even sure how many Americans believe in it anymore.  (I mean the real 1st Amendment, not the Dr. Laura/Sarah Palin version)

    Parent

    I know intentions were good (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    and it would have been beneficial for foreign policy if it had not been election season and every pol in the country was going to get asked about it. They care less about the big picture than their little hides.

    Just really bad timing.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:01:44 AM EST


    Parent
    Nice strawmen (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    I think the American people/the people of my state want me to be thinking about the economy and jobs and Afghanistan and health care, and don't need me to be opining about religious matters.

    Actually this is not about religion.

    It is about war, peace, foreign relations and politics.

    And that is why it is such a big deal.

    The proposed mosque supposedly is being built to promote good will, peace, understanding and curing all the ills of mankind....

    The problem is that the non-Muslim population think it is too early to be reminded that it was radical Muslims who hijacked those planes, cut throats and flew them into the WTC.

    I cannot believe that the Muslims promoting the GZ mosque did not know this long before they went public.

    But in any event they know it now.

    That they won't heed what they are hearing tell us exactly this.

    They don't give a ^%$( about the feelings of the non-Muslim American public's feelings and the real reason for the mosque is, and always was, to celebrate the slaughter of innocents by radical Muslims on 9/11 in a way that is visible to the whole world.

    Parent

    The problem... (none / 0) (#39)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    The problem is that the non-Muslim population think it is too early to be reminded that it was radical Muslims who hijacked those planes, cut throats and flew them into the WTC.

    It's not too early. It's been 9 years. Beside it's not too early to be reminded since nobody needs reminding, obviously. Lastly, it was, in fact, radical Muslims who hijacked those planes. It was not the Muslims trying to build this center.

    ... the real reason for the mosque is, and always was, to celebrate the slaughter of innocents by radical Muslims on 9/11 in a way that is visible to the whole world.

    Mind reader? or can you provide some proof?

    I am from New York. Many of my colleagues were killed on 9/11. I don't see the connection between Al Qaida and the folks trying to build this cultural center a few blocks from the attack, other than the continuing efforts of those who make a living dividing Americans while the REAL business of improving this country is left floundering.  

    Parent

    The fact that you don't see the connection (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:31:45 PM EST
    speaks for itself.

    Let's have the investigation on the money sources.

    BTW - The need for "unity" is always the cry from politicians wanting to herd and hide.

    If the Muslims pushing this wanted to build unity they would take their plans and build in New Jersey.... or Peroia... or Omaha...

    Their tone deafness says all that needs to be said when it comes to their motives.

     

    Parent

    There is no money (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:37:15 PM EST
    for crying out loud.  They haven't raised a cent for it yet.

    Parent
    So, now there shouldn't (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:36:03 AM EST
    be any mosques in NYC at all?


    Parent
    Why Take a Chance (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 01:07:55 AM EST
    They could be commies, mexicans, or spies.

    Parent
    Nonresponse (none / 0) (#101)
    by PatHat on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 10:31:13 AM EST
    "Mind reader? or can you provide some proof?"

    No you aren't and no you didn't. Very troll-like of you.

    You think the Muslims should try to build unity by caving in to the irrational and bigoted opinions of SOME people? Are you all for "separate but equal" too?

    Parent

    Evidently President Bush did not view (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Cordova Center, as a radical Muslim bent on celebrating the slaughter of innocents by on 9/11. The U.S. State Department, twice during the Bush administration, hired Rauf to travel to the Middle East as part of an outreach tour to to discuss Muslim life in America and promote religious tolerance. He has just arrived in arrived in Bahrain for the start of a 15-day tour also sponsored by the  State Department.

    According to the State Department, it will be Rauf's fourth U.S.-government sponsored trip. He traveled twice to the Middle East in 2007 during the Bush administration and once earlier this year. link


    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#44)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    the politics of division. By dividing us, those in power continue to get what they want and continue to distract us from what we need.

    They don't need no stinkin' facts...it's OBVIOUS that those building the Center want to celebrate what the terrorists did to us on 9/11.

    Parent

    Previous stupid acts do not (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    justify the continuation of more stupid acts.

    Parent
    I've got news for you, Jim (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    these particular Muslims' aren't the only ones in the country who could give a flying f*ck about "the feelings" of the bigoted ignoramus demograph..

    Or maybe you hadn't noticed.

    Parent

    Yes, I have noticed (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    and so have 70 plus % of the country.

    Let's see how it plays out.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    70 percent believe Saddam Hussein was tied to 9/11.

    100 percent of people thought that the way to prove a Witch was a Witch was throwing her in a lake, and if she sunk or floated she was a Witch.

    100 percent that Jews used christian baby's blood to make ritual unleavened bread.

    It goes to prove that most, if not all people,  get to show how foolish, gullible, and stupid they are from time to time.

    Parent

    I see you have been (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:49:47 PM EST
    using the Internet for your "facts" again.

    hahahaha

    Parent

    "Facts"? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:32:20 PM EST
    Since when do you believe in facts?  All you do is make stuff up, then say it's "common sense".  Gotta hand it to you, ...

    ... it is a lot easier than using actual facts to support your argument.

    Parent

    Nonresponse (none / 0) (#102)
    by PatHat on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    Do you think that the majority opinion should rule in all cases? Even when the Constitution protects the rights of the minority?

    Parent
    You're delusional (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    the real reason for the mosque is, and always was, to celebrate the slaughter of innocents by radical Muslims on 9/11 in a way that is visible to the whole world.

    ... unless, of course, you're psychic.

    Guess which one pays 300 to 1.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    I'm reasonable and very rational.

    No reasonable or rational Muslim would claim to want to heal wounds and love, etc., etc. and then try and put a mosque at the site of an attack by radical Muslims..... if their motive wasn't to stick a thumb in the eyes of the non-Muslim citizens.

    That's just plain old common sense.

    Parent

    You're neither (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:28:23 PM EST
    But you gotta love the wingnuts.  When they have zero evidence to support their fantasies about the motives of others, they just chalk it up to "common sense" because, hey, after all ...

    ... it makes sense in their tiny, little minds.

    Parent

    Some of these folks (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:38:46 PM EST
    have "issues" they probably ought to see somebody about, if you know what I mean.

    Parent
    I love it when moonbats (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 03:30:26 PM EST
    deny the actions of people right in front of their eyes.

    Repeat after me:

    Their actions are the proof.

    Parent

    Repeat after me, JimBob (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 09:59:06 PM EST
    Delusional fantasies are "proof" of nothing.

    Parent
    it's only a stick (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:01:38 AM EST
    in the eye of bigots who think all Muslims are like the 9/11 Muslims..

    Who else would be offended and for what reason?

    Parent

    It's at the Burlington Coat Factory (none / 0) (#103)
    by PatHat on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 10:35:02 AM EST
    Has the mosque at the Pentagon been removed to soothe the minds of those affected by the attack there?

    Parent
    That is not a mosque (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    It is a prayer room, such as is available at colleges, etc.

    Parent
    Gee, that's what people like Weiner (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    have been saying, and they've been taking a pounding for it on the blogs and in the media.

    Parent
    Absolutely crazy! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    Once again, we are a nation of laws and everything is legally on course.  But I'm supposed to pressure Dems to say stuff, which will make the debate grow, and then the project will be moved?  It isn't my right to move it!  I'm not even a New Yorker, it means very little to me where they build it.  But I'm supposed to hope that the law is beaten out by fear? What a great country!

    New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:49:29 AM EST
    (as reported in the NYT) seemed it wise to weigh in with his  support  for finding a new location for the planned Islamic center and mosque.  He defended the religious freedom of Muslims, but said the project's leaders should heed the views of those who have criticized it as an affront to the the memory of the 9/ll victims.  His  Eminence  also indicated that he would gladly serve as a mediator so that proponents and critics could reach a compromise.  Somehow, the offer of the good bishop's mediation services does not strike me as a wise one.  However, maybe Dolan was impressed by the Jon Steward/John Oliver Daily Show skit on the difference between "could" and "should" as applied to his denomination.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    but said the project's leaders should heed the views of those who have criticized it as an affront to the the memory of the 9/ll victims.

    Why should they have to heed irrational and erroneous views? It's just insulting.

    Parent

    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    They can say whatever they want. But the Cordoba center folks should not be told they should 'heed their views'.

    Parent
    So you're saying (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    Those who disagree should just shut up?  In other words, if they don't agree, then they do not have First Amendment rights?

    Parent
    I don't think that's what's being expressed. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:15:32 PM EST
    I, too, question why the property owners are under any obligation to "heed" the protests of those who object to the Center - but that is an entirely different thing from the objectors' right to speak their views.

    They can speak all they like, but those whom they oppose are not required to heed those objections.

    Parent

    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    But it seems that there are some here (and elsewhere - and I'm not singling out ruffian - just seemed like the best place to respond) that because they don't like the message (or their interpretation of the message) that is coming from those with whom they disagree, that those people should "shut up" (or as squeaky puts it, "It's a local issue, so STFU.")

    Apparently, to some, the First Amendment only applies to religious freedom and not to those who express a different opinion.

    Parent

    I am not among those (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    and if I have implied such I'm sorry. I'm not telling anyone to STFU. Just objecting strenuously when I believe they are not making sense. And, as Anne said, I object to the idea that anyone has to 'heed their views'.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    That's why I said I wasn't calling you out - it was just the best place to respond.

    Parent
    Hypocrite (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    My saying STFU is as much an exercise of freedom of speech as is your pathetic support of bigotry.

    So STFU.

    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    The rules don't apply to you and you are allowed to be a jerk.

    And wrong, as usual.

    No surprise.

    Parent

    I apologize that squeaky was rude toyou (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    But the First Amendment? I mean really? Are you going Dr. Laura here?

    Parent
    Obviously not a 1st Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:48:12 PM EST
    issue since the 1st Amendment applies to everybody equally.

    Parent
    The problem, in my view, is that (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    Squeaky supports the First Amendment rights of the Cordoba project developers but tells anyone who doesn't live w/i shouting distance of the site to STFU.  Of course, he has a perfect First Amendment right to say that!

    Parent
    "Problem"? (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    Why's that? I certainly do not expect, or require, pig head people to follow my exhortations.

    Parent
    The problem, or, as Dr. Laura used (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    to say the "dilemna," is those you so harshly tell to STFU are not "pig heads," any more than you are.  This is a blog.  People comment.  Deal with it.

    Parent
    Those who disagree should just shut up? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    Certainly I am not saying that, but the saying does not make you immune from criticism or comment. Or were you getting at something else?

    Parent
    "All animals are equal (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    but some  are more equal than others."

    "Animal Farm," George Orwell

    That does seem rather apt, eh?

    Parent

    According to the same NYT article (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    Archbishop Dolan declined a request from the NYT to explain his position and thinking more fully.  

    Parent
    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:33:39 AM EST
    The same Catholic Church that defended and protected pedophile priests for years, that didn't heed anyone's protests or anguish or damage as a result of real and documented abuse, that thought it was just peachy to send those priests into new communities with young children without even a warning, is up on its moral high horse suggesting the Cordoba Center move somewhere where people will not be so affronted by its presence?

    Well, isn't that just so special?  Ugh.


    Parent

    So Democrats are still responsible for (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    opposing the Civil War and Civil Rights?

    Parent
    you do realize (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    that all the Dems who opposed the Civil War are dead.

    If there are any current Democrats who still oppose the civil war and civil rights than we should certainly expose them.

    Parent

    Well, try this (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    Would it be okay to be a Catholic church next door to a middle school?

    Parent
    absolutely (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    and um... have you ever heard of a Catholic school?

    Parent
    Dont confuse him (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:22:50 AM EST
    with too much new information all at once.

    The point is, the 9/11 terrists was muslims, so all muslims is 9/11 terrists.

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:14:02 PM EST
    That is how many of my gay friends learned how to f*ck...  Mentorship is a blessing for some.

    Parent
    Amazing. (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:08:19 AM EST


    Parent
    a little o/t (none / 0) (#42)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    Being a Catholic, I am no longer surprised at the horrible choices the RC hierarchy make. They are clueless. I give only to my local parish, never the diocese. At least I see the good that the local parish does.

    Parent
    Doesn't the local parish... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:06:19 PM EST
    have to pay a tribute to the diocese, who pays a tribute who pays a tribute all the to the Pope?Much like how a local crew pays a tribute to the underboss who pays a tribute to head of the crime family?

    Parent
    you are right kdog (none / 0) (#48)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    I'd rather not provide support at all, but some wars (with wives) are best left unfought.

    Parent
    Say no more... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    I don't mean to be the party-pooper...keep thinkin' of the good the local parishes do when the plate comes around and your old lady elbows your ribs:)

    Parent
    unfotunately (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    its starting to look like the debate could force a move.

    and as far as doesnt anyone believe in the constitution, surely some do but indications are not good for a majority.

    No it can't (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    Cordoba Center can choose to move but no one can force them to move.

    Parent
    well sure (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    they cant force them but if the pressure and the hysteria get high enough the effect could be the same, no?

    Parent
    Abslolutely not (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    There is a huge difference between legally mandated moves and public pressure moves.

    I can't believe this needs explaining.

    Parent

    Everyoe Seems to Assume... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    ...that all Dems have the same view.

    It's ridiculous to even make the argument, but apparently not everyone is pro-Constitution when it comes to brown people.  See AZ SB1080 & Cordoba Center non-sense.

    If anything arguing for the Cordoba House will shift the right even further right.  I suspect they want dems to bite, then turn on the mass-hysteria.

    The media has already bought into the Mosque on Ground Zero meme.

    To your point (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    I have seen little evidence that Dems are pro-Constitution at all. Erosion of 4th Amendment rights that have occurred with their blessing is just one example.

    Parent
    And that is actually substantive (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:42:36 AM EST
    as opposed to pointless posturing.

    Parent
    Why must everyone insist that if you (none / 0) (#36)
    by tigercourse on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    oppose the center it's because you have a problem with brown people? That's not going to help win anyone over.

    Parent
    Because admitting that the opposition (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    is about the politicial/foreignpolicy issues
    hurts too much.

    Parent
    Foreign policy?? (none / 0) (#41)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:20:42 PM EST
    Are you saying that those who think that Center should be built wherever they want it built are cow-towing to the Muslim world? You couldn't be more wrong. It isn't a foreign policy debate, it's a Constitutional rights issue! It's an issue of fairness and moving forward.

    Parent
    Try to focus (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:40:20 PM EST
    This is not a grand conspiracy. It is merely a group of extremists wanting to show their buds just how far America can be pushed in the name of "tolerance and diversity."

    Move forward to what? Sharia law within the US?

    It is very much a foreign policy debate.

    Parent

    The fact that your drool (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    is tolerated at this site is substantial proof enough that we're all about tolerance and diversity in this country.

    If you have substantial evidence that there are "extremists" involved with the mosque in NYC, lets see it.

    Otherwise, stop lying-out-your-as*.  

    Parent

    Try reading what the Imam has (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:48:22 PM EST
    said. That should give you a clue. That it won't is clear demonstration of your inabilities.

    BTW - Nice insult. Let me see. I'll do a Squeaky:

    STFU

    hahahahahaahahaha

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    STFU, you have no business about what goes on in my neighborhood, particularly from the deep red south.

    Fix your own problems. Move that mule because he is sh*tting to close to where you buy meat, don't allow your saloon to be close to the day care center, etc. Get the rednecks to park their truck somewhere it does not wake the dead when it starts up...

    But STFU about what goes on in my neighborhood, unless you want to buy some property..... Then we will be all ears, and do we have lots to sell you, that is if you are a qualified buyer...lol


    Parent

    Yes I do (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    After all, we are our brother's keepers.

    hahahahahaa

    Parent

    Im just glad (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    they have that deep pit around the teabagger enclosure..

    Parent
    That's actually funny (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:41:14 PM EST
    You obviously haven't read beyond Glenn Beck/Newt Gingrich selected excerpts.  Try reading more of what he actually said instead of letting others pick and choose for you.

    Parent
    His actions speak (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    louder than words.

    Parent
    What Imam? (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:05:04 AM EST
    and what specifically did he say?

    Like I said, talking out your as* and blowing smoke..

     

    Parent

    I've read what he's said, ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 08:50:16 AM EST
    ... and it's far from "extremist".  Presumably (although you cite no actual statements, as usual), you're referring to Rauf's statement that "the United States policies were an accessory to the 9-11 attacks."  That's pretty funny, considering it's the best the wingnuts can come up with, let alone the fact that it's far from extreme.  In fact, it's quite mainstream.  9-11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said as much when they acknowledged: "We face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world -- a trend to which our own actions have contributed."  The former vice-chair of the NIC agrees that US policies and the perceptions of them can lead to terrorism.  Hell, even wingnut Glenn Beck, talking about "why do you think they hate us in the Middle East," said: "When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

    Try again.

    Parent

    Sharia Law? (none / 0) (#104)
    by PatHat on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    your ignorance is glowing. It's been fun trying to debate with you, but I will tolerantly ignore you from here on.

    Parent
    Ignore the facts? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    Yes, that what you do quite well.

    Parent
    Ignore the fantasies (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 10:04:53 PM EST
    ... since your posts are blissfully fact-free.

    Parent
    "That is an excellent question. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    Thank you.  I strongly support the rights of private property owners, as do my esteemed colleagues across the aisle."

    Yup. easy. (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:00:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Love it! (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:45:33 PM EST
    Why aren't these maroons paying YOU the big bucks to tell them how to navigate these things?

    Why are all of them, ALL of them, too dim to figure out the answer you just suggested?

    Parent

    the view that ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by nyrias on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    "No politician has any effect on the right of the Corodoba Center to be built. Nothing any pol has said, or any person has said, effects that."

    is simply naive. Sure, they may not have the AUTHORITY, but certainly they have influence.

    That is why broccoli growers are upset when a president says he does not like broccoli.

    Politics is not only about rules, but also about shaping of sentiments and perceptions.

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    See how Obama has helped with his statements?

    You people are insane.

    Broccoli is sold to the public.

    A Mosque does not require paying customers.

    Parent

    I get you BTD (none / 0) (#53)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    Don't want you to bust a blood vessel thinking you are not being understood.

    Parent
    Are you denying that ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by nyrias on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    some people have strong emotions tied to mosques?

    If so, you don't understand people at all. No one says Obama is HELPING. But you can't deny what he said has an effect.

    The point is that you don't need to have direct authority to have an effect in public opinion, as succinctly demonstrated by Obama's action.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    Some people also have strong feelings towards rapists, too. Particularly white rapists, if the rapist happened to be white.

    Good thing that if the initial crisis counseling fails to stanch the victim's pain and suffering, and the victim goes on to develop a fear, anxiety and hatred when in the presence of a white person, even if they themselves are white, there is a solution.

    Medication, long term psychiatric help and hospitalization if necessary.

    Glad we got that cleared up.

    Parent

    All churches and mosques (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    require paying customers.

    Parent
    You'd think. I do too. (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:20:03 PM EST


    Parent
    "It's not in my (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    job description"/not in my bailiwick/a Q best left to state/local officials" is almost always a sorry cowardly excuse, as it is here.  And I would have thought history would have taught that the RW and the bigots will just continue to run wild and even prevail when they go unchallenged.  

    In this case (none / 0) (#51)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    since the issue is local, without any substantive governmental involvement, how would letting the RW run wild affect the construction of the Center?

    Oh, it would galvanize them around yet another divisive issue, but how does challenging them on it change anything? All it did was divide the Dems and that benefits the RW even more. The Dems really need to learn something about politics if they want to accomplish anything.

    Parent

    I think Greenwald today (none / 0) (#55)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    cites to news stories showing how for weeks now this has not been merely a Lower Manhattan tale about one Muslim religious center and that anti-Muslim sentiments have been boiling up in areas across the country.

    Thus the need at least for the top dog to speak out.  Beyond that, I think it's gotten so big, that it's almost impossible for any pol running for election not to be questioned about it, or then called out for avoiding it -- no getting around that set of circumstances.

    As for dividing the Dems, it's still the Big Tent Party and some of that is to be expected.  But by and large I expect the right people in my party to be speaking out from a high moral ground, and not enabling the forces of darkness.  

    This goes beyond politics I'm afraid, and if Ds get dinged a few seats this Nov (doubtful, but possible), then so be it ...

    Parent

    The New York Pols (none / 0) (#59)
    by PatHat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:27:57 PM EST
    perhaps, because they represent the people in NYC, but I think you have the tail wagging the dog here. The Dems will never be able to govern this country is they don't learn how to deal with distracting and divisive issues that the RW and the MSM decides to throw around.

    Brodie, tell me what good any of this has done anyone? Those against are still against. Those willing to let it be are still willing. Only the fundraisers have profited from this.

    To me, it's like politicizing Terry Schaivo. It should never have been done, but was done for political gain.

    Parent

    I tend to agree with this (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:54:11 PM EST
    I'm not down on Obama, as pres, reminding everybody about what the 1st Amendment means.  I wish he'd done it much earlier, and I sure as heck wish he'd left it at that and not endorsed anything specifically or seemed to walk it back the next day.

    The primacy of the 1A is a national issue, and I note that the GOPers and wingnuts only began to explicitly acknowledge the absolute 1A right to build this thing after Obama spoke out.

    Parent

    if muslim leaders ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by nyrias on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    feel that this may further deteriorate groups relations, they may opt to back down. In fact, isn't that happening?

    They may also worry about protests and harassment around the center AFTER it is built.  

    Parent

    I don't think backing down (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    now is going to help much, with the anti-mosque efforts multiplying across the country these days.

    Seems very, very clear they did not think this thing through before they proposed it, and Politico has an interesting piece today about the outreach they failed to do to prepare the ground for their announcement.

    As for security, I only hope Ray Kelly or somebody is aware they're going to really need it for the construction as well as after it opens, whether it's at the proposed location or somewhere else.

    Parent

    If this Politico Story is true then (none / 0) (#70)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:04:30 PM EST
    It makes Obama's speech even dumber then it was.

    LINK

    Are you telling me all this hubbub is about a building that will never be built?

    More interesting (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:01:47 AM EST
    to me is the article's litany of things the Islamic center people did not do to pave the way for their announcement and their ham-handed and ineffective PR efforts since then.  The hired PR guy communicating with media almost entirely in snippy Twitter posts?  Good grief.

    It's not that unusual to announce a project before beginning serious fund-raising, though I think it's not a good idea generally, and surely has backfired here.

    Parent

    The Substantive Effect Of The "GZM" Debate? | 112 comments (112 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment