1876 replies to this topic

[catsi563]

In essence yes that right. But its not just a matter of fear, everything Ive read about this seems to indicate it as a fact. the plans of the group behind it show a large building designed in an islamic design. the design is too use your own words a pompous, big, bold, and waaay over the top design.

As I said Its the literal equivalent of someone building a life sized metal statue of the Enola gay in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki replete with Fat man and Little boy statues, and copies of the pilots standing near by with big smiles on their faces and saluting an american flag.

Or as an American analogy itd be like the japanese building sometype of massive japanese palace and or shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

The end result would be a horrendous insult to the many japanese civillians who lost loved ones in the atomic bombings, or for the Americans who lost family to the Japanese sneak attack.

think of it from that perspective and youll see that just putting a plaque or monument out side the big renovated building just wouldnt sooth the pain of loss nor the anger of those who lost loved ones.

to put it in a muslim perspective would the muslim faithful accept an israeli plaque honoring the muslims lost in the fighting set outside the Keneset as a symbol that everything was allright?

The designers have a building in place, one which I could see getting a little shoring up and some quiet dignified renovation. But not this over the top structure that they plan along with tearing down the current structure.

Simply put the notion of a mosque being there doesnt offend me in the slightest. Muslims have a right to worship here just like Wiccans, Christians and Jews, and Catholics etc etc.

But this case is special in a number of ways. it is an issue that the muslim faithful cannot ignore nor can they push the whole issue off on bigotry and anti-muslim fervor either.

Like I said above can any muslim trully say that they wouldnt object to a desire by Jews to build a lovely and fancy synagogue near the site of the prophets tomb?

or would this act spark an out pouring of rage and quite possibly another Fatwah.

Ive always considered myself or at least tried my best to be tolerant of others beliefs even when they differed from my own. anyone that knows me knows Ive given the Vatican as much if not more crap then Islam on quite a few issues.

To be honest I dont think they should build anything there again. personally they should leave it as a solemn and respectful place to reflect on the loss of so many lives to the type of hate that mars and corrupts what should be a peaceful religion and one of the many good ways man can live a good life.

[Codus N]

^Hmm.... do you have a blueprint of that mosque?? I'd like to check it out first before replying to your post. And oh, catsi I think you're being a little too shortsighted about this. In my little town there's a Mosque that's placed not too faraway from a church and we don't go all crazy on it, either. So, I don't think that example of yours would apply to all Muslims. Just the radical ones. If you visited my country sometime, you'd realize that example doesn't apply. Hell, our grand Mosque of the country is placed only within a few miles away from the closest church and we don't go around complaining about it. As for your other examples, plausible and rather understandable. But the thing is, you're seeing it like "Muslims are terrorists".

Hiroshima & Enola Gay= the very thing that destroyed the city is placed right beside the destroyed building. And the soldiers are smiling so very undesrtandable why Japanese would oppose that. But the difference between this and the Mosque, is that this one is seriously harassing them directly. While the Mosque, you're saying a building for people to pray is harassing you when they only care about is a place to pray to God & follow his orders to worship him??
Shinto Shrine & Pearl Harbor= doesn't make sense as to why you would use this, but does it mean Shinto worshippers are killers?? is that what you're thinking??

[Insurrection]

Here http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=128720712

Try looking at this to help get some perspectives. I have no problem with the mosque personally (unless they're being flashy) but it's understandable why people can feel uncomfortable.

The whole mosque/islamic center is actually being built out of the remnants of a Burlington Coat factory to answer your question.

And in my town the nearest mosque is actually 5 miles down the road from the Hindu temple and I don't hear anyone complain either, but then again I've never set foot, be interesting way to spend your day though seeing how different religions worked in person.

And as for immigrants, good PR and lots of money, it's actually not as hard to become a citizen in the United States then in most places (it's the fact that several million have decided to skirt the system and strain it that we have a problem with).

Edited by Insurrection, 24 July 2010 - 07:11 AM.

[catsi563]

No specific blue prints at least none that I've searched for at least. most of my informations come from the news ((read not fox which is as tabloid as it gets.))

Cordoba group

And oh, catsi I think you're being a little too shortsighted about this. In my little town there's a Mosque that's placed not too faraway from a church and we don't go all crazy on it, either. So, I don't think that example of yours would apply to all Muslims. Just the radical ones. If you visited my country sometime, you'd realize that example doesn't apply. Hell, our grand Mosque of the country is placed only within a few miles away from the closest church and we don't go around complaining about it

No I would assume you dont. But the point im trying to make is that what is at contention here is that what theyre planning appears to be very large and extravagant and they plan it near a site that is verysolemn in its nature. A plce where Islam suffered one of its darkest moments.

the equivalent to continue your example would be what if thsoe who ran the church wanted to rebuild it into a 10 story cathedral near one of your most holy sites? Maybe not all muslims would be upset, but can you say that those who were upset wouldnt have a reaosn to be?

But the thing is, you're seeing it like "Muslims are terrorists".

thats Incorrect. I no more see all muslims as terrorists then I see all jews as money grubbing theives, or all Catholics as witch burning fanatics, nor any other stereotype.

However in the context of this issue we cannot deny that it was 20 men claiming the muslim faith as their own who perpetrated this horrendous act. whether you think as I do that they commited the ultimate blasphemy against Alah with their actions, they did this in the name of Islam.

This fact alone merits some consideration in regards to this issue.

Still even with that in Mind my disagreement is with the austentatiousness of the proposed build, not its purpose nor the religion it exemplifies.

Hiroshima & Enola Gay= the very thing that destroyed the city is placed right beside the destroyed building. And the soldiers are smiling so very undesrtandable why Japanese would oppose that. But the difference between this and the Mosque, is that this one is seriously harassing them directly. While the Mosque, you're saying a building for people to pray is harassing you when they only care about is a place to pray to God & follow his orders to worship him??

Again its not the building that is at question at least not by me. Its the symbolism behind the religion which the mosque represents. this isnt as simple as a cowboys fan walking into a washington redskins game in full cowboy regalia.

this is like going onto an indian reservation and building a giant cowboy statue. the staues supposed to represent the values of the pioneering west, but for the indians its a harsh and constant reminder that at one time a bunch of cowboys rode in and massacred them.

not all cowboys are the same as the oens who did the massacre, but its still going to be a sore spot for the indians to be reminded of this.

to shift the analogy back to its more modern context. Quite a lot of people are simply not going to be happy to be reminded that the symbol of a religion (islam) is sitting in plain view of the site where a number of people using that religion as an excuse committed one of the greatest acts of mass murder ever.

Shinto Shrine & Pearl Harbor= doesn't make sense as to why you would use this, but does it mean Shinto worshippers are killers?? is that what you're thinking??

Nah probably one of my worst analogies I couldnt think of an appropriate one in that regard. It was more to demonstrate the point.

I visited pearl harbor on a trip to honolulu. it was a quiet dignified and somber place. a place of reflection for those lost to the attack. I held no special anger towards the japanese pilots who committed the attack, theyw ere just following orders.

But in the context of our conversation I could imagine a great deal of anger and objection if the japanese military asked for or tried to build a big flashy statue of one of its battleships be built in pearl harbor. A great many people would find it deeply insulting and highly innappropriate.

the point of the conversation for me is that the group seriously needs to rethink its strategy here. while yes they do have a right to worship, and yes the mosque is no more a symbol of evil then a synagog or church is.

The proposed location to me just isnt the appropriate place for such a symbol of Islam. no more then a big flashy church would be at the prophets tomb. or at mecca it self.

I hope Im not offending Im simply trying to put my thoughts into words as best I can here. the issue to me is one of appropriate location and design. ground zero just is not an appropriate place for any type of church of any sort, no more than a church would be at the vietnam memorial.

[Codus N]

Here http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=128720712

Try looking at this to help get some perspectives. I have no problem with the mosque personally (unless they're being flashy) but it's understandable why people can feel uncomfortable.

The whole mosque/islamic center is actually being built out of the remnants of a Burlington Coat factory to answer your question.

And in my town the nearest mosque is actually 5 miles down the road from the Hindu temple and I don't hear anyone complain either, but then again I've never set foot, be interesting way to spend your day though seeing how different religions worked in person.

And as for immigrants, good PR and lots of money, it's actually not as hard to become a citizen in the United States then in most places (it's the fact that several million have decided to skirt the system and strain it that we have a problem with).

Umm... are you replying to me or to catsi? I'm not too sure who you're replying to after reading your link. And oh, why don't you go ahead and try?? I've heard of people doing that, and it gave them interesting experiences

No specific blue prints at least none that I've searched for at least. most of my informations come from the news ((read not fox which is as tabloid as it gets.))

Cordoba group


Again its not the building that is at question at least not by me. Its the symbolism behind the religion which the mosque represents. this isnt as simple as a cowboys fan walking into a washington redskins game in full cowboy regalia.

this is like going onto an indian reservation and building a giant cowboy statue. the staues supposed to represent the values of the pioneering west, but for the indians its a harsh and constant reminder that at one time a bunch of cowboys rode in and massacred them.

not all cowboys are the same as the oens who did the massacre, but its still going to be a sore spot for the indians to be reminded of this.

to shift the analogy back to its more modern context. Quite a lot of people are simply not going to be happy to be reminded that the symbol of a religion (islam) is sitting in plain view of the site where a number of people using that religion as an excuse committed one of the greatest acts of mass murder ever.

Symbolism. There. You said it yourself. You're symbolizing Mosque=Islam=Terrorists. It's the symbol that you're looking at. Not beyond it. What everyone has been looking at is the symbol, not what's beyond it. The Mosque isn't supposed to represent that. You're just trapped in the image of Islam=Terrorism. If you took a moment to see things with a cool head, you would be able to see the other side of things. making sure you don't fall in the trap as Insurrection's link says, is the key to this problem. While yes I do understand what you're saying with your example with the Indian & cowboys, but compared that to this, this one has some other purpose. The cowboy monument would be just about bragging rights. But the Mosque is really different. It's for praying. Sure, it's gonna be a sore spot. But keep in mind that this is about people trying to pray to God. Not about reminding them the pain of losing their loved ones. Yes, it will still remind them regardless of what I say, but what's important is to move on. Move on but never forget. The pain should be used as motivation to live your life to the fullest 'cause you never know that the same thing could happen to you.

I agree that the Mosque's design seem to be a bit over the top. I think they should make it less flashy. Most of the mosques in my country isn't that grand, either. But they're probably trying to make it bigger because:

1. The bigger the better. Why?? more people will be able to pray also not to mention if there a lot of people praying at the same time (like Friday prayers) you get the number of "awards" from God times the number of participants in the prayer. (according to our belief)
2. They're trying to build a huge learning center for Muslims. Especially for the young ones. Books on Islam are very limited, that's why they're trying to gather them as much as possible & put it there. the place could also serve as a convention center for Muslims to discuss various topics.

Bu I do agree that this could be built in a much more modest fashion.

Edited by Newkerz, 24 July 2010 - 04:45 PM.

[Dreamer]

I know what your saying Newkerz but i still would perfer a better built trade center or nice stone/granite/marbel monument instead of a mosque. I don't even know how they got plans to build a mosque there in the first place with ideas that i mentioned above.

Edited by Uzumakikage, 24 July 2010 - 04:25 PM.

[Insurrection]

I know what your saying Newkerz but i still would perfer a better built trade center or nice stone/granite/marbel monument instead of a mosque. I don't even know how they got plans to build a mosque there in the first place with ideas that i mentioned above.

The mosque is being built three blocks from ground zero. You know that right?

Edited by Insurrection, 24 July 2010 - 06:00 PM.

[Dreamer]

The mosque is being built three blocks from ground zero. You know that right?

My bad, i didn't know that. Is that still enough room for a new and improved world trade center?

[Insurrection]

My bad, i didn't know that. Is that still enough room for a new and improved world trade center?

Walk three blocks from your front door and then check to see how far away you are then. Personally I don't know but if you're three blocks from the site that's still close but not as close as people think.

Also I'm adding another word to the politicalisms, (Bushisms, Obamanisms such as Strategery or misunderestimate).

Refudiate (Verb-Palin).

Edited by Insurrection, 24 July 2010 - 11:48 PM.

[catsi563]

let me add another one.

Faction ( Noun- what glenn beck believes his new book should be labled under)

also what most current republican politicans, and tea partiers spout as policy, and what fox news claims as real news.

[Insurrection]

let me add another one.

Faction ( Noun- what glenn beck believes his new book should be labled under)

also what most current republican politicans, and tea partiers spout as policy, and what fox news claims as real news.

But Faction is an actual word. Like Truthiness.

[Nick Soapdish]

This line was a dishonest claim by a bunch of Democrats having to explain why they voted for a war that was losing popularity. Bush was constantly called a dunce by liberals, but he couldn't have been that stupid if he managed to con enough of them to get both war resolutions, right? Don't they have a duty to investigate the evidence before they vote on it, especially from a President they apparently didn't trust? I guess not.

I think you can legitimately debate whether the information they had at that time was sufficient for the resolution, but I think the BUSH LIED!! about all of it is a totally dishonest claim used by a bunch of Democrats that found themselves be forced to explain a vote their base hated. Rather than actually say, "I screwed up" they regurgitated that line ad nausium.

Of course, people forget that it wasn't just the United States that believed he had WMD. The Brits thought he did. The French thought he did. The Russians thought he did. It was also learned that Saddam had been intentionally trying to get people, notably the Iranians, to believe that he did, in fact, possess such weapons. Added to the fact, was that he's actively pursued them, repeatedly booted weapons inspectors, and even used them on both the Iranians and his own people.

Bush didn't lie about Iraq. His administration just selectively looked at evidence, ignoring what they knew was wrong and touting stuff that wasn't confirmed, but did back their beliefs.

It goes both ways. Both Catsi's story are anecdotal. Catsi's own situation doesn't prove anything other than that SHE chose not to make that choice. Ditto for the MSNBC story. Many would find deliberately hanging out the doles when they otherwise didn't have to morally repugnant as a matter of principle. I posted that intending to ask a legitimate question: How long should they last? Shall we extend them in perpetuity, because they will always be people facing long-term unemployment. It's more rampant problem in a down economy, but that we recover doesn't eliminate it.

Prior to the extensions, the norm was 26 weeks, but even if a good economy there we be those who can't find a job in that span no matter how hard they try. It's sad and, they could argue that it's not fair they didn't get 99 weeks because their prolonged unemployment didn't occur at a time when constantly extending them was more popular.

So, I ask again....How long and under what conditions she they be extended?

So you want a timetable? How long should we stay in Iraq? How about Afghanistan?

To me, it's kinda easy to give a rough timetable. We've lost 8 million jobs since 2007 - even after subtracting the few that have come back. Until we get a bunch of those back, we keep unemployment benefits going. Maybe 3/4 of them? We do need some unemployment for a health economy after all.

But cutting off those 8 million people isn't going to do our economy any favors when their houses get foreclosed on - or they get kicked out of apartments leaving more vacancies. The housing market is already in the tank with millions of foreclosed homes across the nation and that's been a significant drag on the economy.

Like John McCain said in the primaries before he drove the Straight Talk Express into the ditch and set it on fire, a lot of these jobs aren't coming back. Those workers are going to need to retrain and then hope that the jobs that they've trained for are in their area. Unemployed people living on half of their income usually don't have much expendable income to move across the nation. And what if the new worker has a spouse who hasn't lost their job? Do they move for the one and hope that the other can get a job in their new locale? It probably depends on the quality of the job and pay, but either way, it's not as simple as each job immediately getting filled.

And to the employers that are complaining that they can't get workers, there are tons of high school and college students out there, unable to find jobs. Their unemployment rate is over 25% (or was recently). Or y'know, maybe raise wages?

Unemployment insurance is usually a percentage of what you make. I used those numbers to illustrate a basic economic point, though I'll conceed that type of example was more symptomatic of welfare abuse as opposed to unemployment insurance.

I know. I think the percentage is an average of around 40%, but I wasn't sure. I was giving the maximum amount that you could get which was still well under your assumption.

War funding will always be a different animal for most politicians. If funding isn't granted and we have to pull out and the place collapses, who wants that around there neck? I predict Obama will still be in Iraq by the time his first terms ends for this reason. I'm sure he hates it, but he doesn't want defeat crammed down his throat. Second, I don't know why anyone would expect a different result after Republicans supported the wars for all these years. I don't know anyone that expect them not to support the war now and solely on the grounds of a pay-go rule they didn't implement. Call it what you want, but no one wants to be the one responsible for losing a war.

Tax cuts are another one of those exceptions. Nobody worried about how to pay for the Bush tax cuts back in '03 and those are contributing a bigger share of the US debt than the stimulus packages. And the Republicans are pushing for them to be extended, with or without compensating cuts.

All I'm saying is that everybody has their pet issues as exceptions. For the Democrats, it's unemployment insurance and other social issues.

If the benefits are so necessary, I don't see the reason not to draw them from the Stimulus since Pelosi just claimed that they are such a boon from the economy. To date the funds primary use has been to prop up over extended state budgets. That part I genuinely don't understand and, if the Republicans genuinely meant it, I think that it is a fair compromise, especially if the true concern for all involved is the fate of the unemployed. If it's BS, then Pelosi/Reid should call the bluff and embarrass them. Why is new spending required when the amount requested is such a meager percentage of the stimulus, especially if the point of stimulus is economic recovery.

As I said, that Pay-go was going to be nothing but a partisan tool used to whip the opposition over the head with and should be abandoned.

I assume that you're counting all of the infrastructure spending as being to prop up state governments in that assessment. Otherwise, the biggest chunk of it goes to tax cuts - $275 billion.

The only people that genuinely believe the Stimulus created 2.5 to 3.4 million jobs is the Obama Admiistration and the members of Congress who passed it. I suppose you could say he "saved" a bunch of state level jobs by delaying the day of reckoning for state budgets.

If you cite the CBO, I'm going to need more than just an estimation. I need to know all the assumptions they used in arriving at the conclusions. I know a number of people have claim the Keyensian multiplier 1.5, but no one can prove this is true. It's just a stated assumption.

That's the average. It's 1.64 for unemployment benefits because these are generally not-well off people who will be spending a lot of it on essentials and locally. It's about 1.59 for construction, like road-building. It's about 1.39 for aid to state governments. (Not sure how you'd calculate it if the aid to state governments is infrastructure projects). Then some are much lower - like the space program or tax cuts. The stimulus package probably doesn't average 1.5 because so much of it is tied into tax cuts and it also has some very expensive energy projects - which are great down the road, but don't do much in the short term. Part of the reason that tax cuts is so low is that people have been saving the money from their tax cuts or using it to pay down bills. That's great for our economy in the long run because our debt ratio is ridiculously high. But it's not helping in the short term.

I know I'm giving out exact numbers, but those are averages (from what I recall). It depends on other circumstances and also the exact amounts (such as the original tax rate and what it was decreased to because it'll make a difference if it's 100% taxed and dropped to 60% or 65% and dropped to 5%).

And the CBO and most economists also believe that it created 2.5 - 3.6 million jobs. I'm assuming that the million is distributive.

It's ObamaCare score is good case in point.

I think it's kinda cute how you call the plan proposed by The Heritage Foundation (including counterproposals by Orrin Hatch during the 90s health care debate) and first implemented by Mitt Romney, "ObamaCare".

This was likely in response to the NAACP's resolution decrying Tea Part "racism." It particular the racial slurs alleged thrown back in March that have yet to be proven true. Andrew Breitbart is still offering $100K if you got some proof of that.

That's because Breitbart gets to decide whether it's racist and he's a deplorable excuse for a human being that deliberately edited a tape to try and make somebody else look racist and shift attention. Ironically, he has succeeded in showing the USDA is racist - against blacks.

It wasn't a true kickback. It and the "Louisiana Purchase" (Mary Landriue) involved those Senators initially saying the were going to vote against the bill and then changed that vote when their state received certain exemptions under ObamaCare or massive pork (or both). Ben Nelson was the final vote needed for ObamaCare to pass in the Senate. Coming from a red state that did not want ObamaCare to begin with and to watch their Senator do that....his voters were pissed.

I'm not certain this is why he is doing it, but I bet it is part of the reason for his position.

I agree about the Cornhusker Kickback, but not the Louisiana Purchase. Louisiana shouldn't be penalized because it recovered somewhat from Hurricane Katrina. They were going to get MedicAid cut because their unemployment rate dropped at a certain speed, even though they were still in the tank from Katrina.

Seems to me both Fox and Obama screwed this up (and Andrew Breitbart who I think originally posted the video). If Fox is such a right-wing, biased. etc. etc., why would the administration make a reactionary firing from a source they don't trust?

Fox News is.

Is it really a coincidence that whenever a Republican politician gets caught with his pants down, they put a (D) by his name?

Remember the Climategate e-mails? They were completely absolved of any wrong-doing. That little "trick" with the graph? Well, it was cleverly hidden somewhere that Fox News would never be able to find it - in a science journal from 10 years ago as a necessary adjustment to ice core samples. But Fox News hasn't bothered to mention that anywhere.

Or ACORN? Once the complete, un-edited tapes were released (on the condition that O'Keefe be granted immunity), ACORN was mostly exonerated - although their training of workers was criticized. But Fox News brought O'Keefe in wearing his pimp suit - that he hadn't worn at any of the ACORN offices.

Or the poll that added up to 135%? Sure, they said that nobody would be stupid enough to think that you were supposed to add the numbers, but they didn't count on the stupidity of Steve Doocy who specifically said that during the broadcast.

Or Greta Carlson criticizing Obama for not praying about the oil spill one day. And then criticizing him for praying about it the next.


And as to why the administration immediately jumps to the public reaction of a story from a chancy source? It's because they're Democrats which means that they're gutless bastards.

Speaking of screw ups....

http://dailycaller.c...eremiah-wright/

http://dailycaller.c...-down-fox-news/

Whoops.

Nice try deflecting from the latest example of Fox News bias by finding an example of liberal bias from media from a story two years ago. Yes, there are problems on both sides, but for Fox News, it's a daily (or perhaps just weekly) occurrence of flagrantly spinning the story.

Edited by Nick Soapdish, 26 July 2010 - 12:28 AM.

[Strangelove]

A bow to Tennessee, they just found someone with a lower IQ than Palin.

[Insurrection]

A bow to Tennessee, they just found someone with a lower IQ than Palin.

He was a candidate 3rd Congressional District of Tennessee...Yeesh. Poor Chattanoga.

Edited by Insurrection, 02 August 2010 - 02:35 AM.

[Dreamer]

Good lord, how did he even become a running candidate? I can understand being camera shy (stuttering) but his grammar needs some working on and he just isn't make much sense.

Edited by Uzumakikage, 01 August 2010 - 03:21 AM.

[catsi563]

Screw his grammar I've heard worse. But the ideals he was espousing make me shudder.

no gun control what so ever jsut carry one if you want too? plant grass on every lot and sell it?

not even gonna touch the other craziness.

[Insurrection]

Screw his grammar I've heard worse. But the ideals he was espousing make me shudder.

no gun control what so ever jsut carry one if you want too? plant grass on every lot and sell it?

not even gonna touch the other craziness.

I know someone who would.

Because who would pass this race up?

Edited by Insurrection, 01 August 2010 - 05:48 AM.

[catsi563]

good god hes stupider then I even realized.

Edited by catsi563, 01 August 2010 - 08:19 PM.

[Strangelove]

remove all gold french fries, everyone carry guns, stop traffic stops, and his name ends with dot com. How cool is that?

If i was in Tennessee i would vote for him.

[Dreamer]

remove all gold french fries, everyone carry guns, stop traffic stops, and his name ends with dot com. How cool is that?

If i was in Tennessee i would vote for him.

Boy i tell you what, i drove 55 in a 25 with my 67 chevy pickup passing everybody on the road with a flatbed and john boat stick out the back. Whoowe! it doesn't get better than that.

I'm not bashing it's just that i've seen this in my own state.

Edited by Uzumakikage, 01 August 2010 - 09:31 PM.