The Democrat Thread

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1

 

Good.

[NorthSideSox72]

Good.

Until she said "much like building a mosque at ground zero", which is both inacurrate and a laughable comparison.

 

But at least she did say something about it being wrong, I'm glad to see that part.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Until she said "much like building a mosque at ground zero", which is both inacurrate and a laughable comparison.

 

But at least she did say something about it being wrong, I'm glad to see that part.

 

This is true, she must have read my post here! I have to say the radio silence from the anti Burlington Coat Factory Community Center that she represents was getting pretty deafening until this week.

[GoSox05]

John Boehner said the same thing. Comparing it to the mosque at ground zero. So I guess thats the talking point going around.

[StrangeSox]

See, burning a religion's holy book to mock and degrade that religion is just like building a community center with a mosque in it. Identical.

[Balta1701]

See, burning a religion's holy book to mock and degrade that religion is just like building a community center with a mosque in it. Identical.

Here's the deal...Christians will stop burning Muslim holy books, and Muslims will stop worshiping. Fair trade, right?

[NorthSideSox72]

Imagine for a moment, if a mosque in the US decided to have a bible burning session. Now imagine the outcry in this country in response.

 

[Balta1701]

Imagine for a moment, if a mosque in the US decided to have a bible burning session. Now imagine the outcry in this country in response.

But...they promise to cancel it if you pledge not to build any more churches.

[Controlled Chaos]

Imagine for a moment, if a mosque in the US decided to have a bible burning session. Now imagine the outcry in this country in response.

I imagine the bigger outcry would be from liberals that it's freedom of speech and while they don't advocate it, they have the right to do it. That's the message that would dominate the airwaves....not the opposition to the bible burning.

[StrangeSox]

I imagine the bigger outcry would be from liberals that it's freedom of speech and while they don't advocate it, they have the right to do it. That's the message that would dominate the airwaves....not the opposition to the bible burning.

The message that he has the right to do it but that it's ridiculously stupid and probably harmful to Americans abroad and at home is the message dominating the airwaves.

 

plenty of liberals are christians. hope that helps.

[Balta1701]

I imagine the bigger outcry would be from liberals that it's freedom of speech and while they don't advocate it, they have the right to do it. That's the message that would dominate the airwaves....not the opposition to the bible burning.

It, well it is frustrating. Now, on the other hand, we are a government of laws. And so, we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning. But that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us. You know, part of this country's history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we're following the laws. And that's part of what I love about this country.

Those words came from the commie/nazi in the white house.

[Balta1701]

I think this commentary also applies excellently to Kap's continual "How dare you insinuate that the tea party is racist!" gag line.

Speaking just now on MSNBC James Zogby made a very good point -- and pressed Andrea Mitchell on it. His point was that sure, this Pastor Jones fool is one guy, who's managed to get worldwide attention for his stunt. But you cannot separate him, as I noted below, from the whole climate of hate speech and anti-Muslim agitation from the Newt Gingriches and the Sarah Palins and the rest of them.

 

At that point, Mitchell jumped in and said, wait, Palin said she disagrees with the Koran burning. To which Zogby replied, something to the effect of 'C'mon'. ANd that's just the right reply. This is the standard approach of race haters and demagogues. They keep stirring the pot, churning out demonizing rhetoric and hate speech. Then some marginal figure does something nuts and suddenly ... oh, wait, I didn't mean burn Korans. Where'd you get that idea from? We were just saying that Islam is a violent, anti-American religion and that American Muslims should stop building their mosques and focus on apologizing for 9/11 and maybe get out of America. But burn the Koran? No way.

 

That's a bit much.

 

Actions have consequences. This isn't about one guy.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think this commentary also applies excellently to Kap's continual "How dare you insinuate that the tea party is racist!" gag line.

 

Yep, disagreeing with building a mosque next to ground zero is EXACTLY the same kind of act as literally burning the Koran. Totally indistinguishable. What gaul these folks have drawing a distinction between the two.

 

And seriously, look at this issue with a little more context. I have no problem with the response this idiot is getting for this. He deserves it. It's a stupid act, and the US is probably going to look bad for it. But that's precisely why we have this freedom of speech thing. It's why Obama should not have stuck his nose into this. It'd be no different than Nixon telling anti-Vietnam protestors that they can't burn the American flag or be unpatriotic because it would disrupt our missions overseas. It's not his place to tell the country what speech is ok and not ok.

 

Also, I find it pretty funny the response this guy is getting from the rest of the world, as if one nutcase burning a book is worse for American-Muslim relations than, oh, I dunno, extremist Muslims killing westerners on a constant basis. Again, burning a book, versus slicing peoples heads off. Totally tit for tat there.

[Balta1701]

Also, I find it pretty funny the response this guy is getting from the rest of the world, as if one nutcase burning a book is worse for American-Muslim relations than, oh, I dunno, extremist Muslims killing westerners on a constant basis. Again, burning a book, versus slicing peoples heads off. Totally tit for tat there.

Really, on this point you're right. Where are we going to wind up if every time some nutcase in Florida decides to do something nutty regarding Muslims it ignites worldwide protests? The end result of that of course is that it's going to wind up with a lot more nutcases doing nutty things.

[Balta1701]

Yep, disagreeing with building a mosque next to ground zero is EXACTLY the same kind of act as literally burning the Koran. Totally indistinguishable. What gaul these folks have drawing a distinction between the two.

And what gall you have in continuing to B.S. about the location.

[StrangeSox]

Also, I find it pretty funny the response this guy is getting from the rest of the world, as if one nutcase burning a book is worse for American-Muslim relations than, oh, I dunno, extremist Muslims killing westerners on a constant basis. Again, burning a book, versus slicing peoples heads off. Totally tit for tat there.

 

Funny you should mention that...

 

US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies'

 

We've killed plenty of Muslims in the past 9 years.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Imagine for a moment, if a mosque in the US decided to have a bible burning session. Now imagine the outcry in this country in response.

 

It would be more apt if you were talking about bible burnings in other countries, which happen a lot. Heck there are Christian churches that are getting burned all over the world and our media hardly talks about it. The response is moot because we hardly ever hear about it. Then again if the media ignored it like they ignore the atrocities that happen to Christians all over the world, no one would care about this either.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I think this commentary also applies excellently to Kap's continual "How dare you insinuate that the tea party is racist!" gag line.

 

Did I miss MSNBC make the same point about the environmental terrorist who took over Discovery Channel?

[Jenksismyhero]

And what gall you have in continuing to B.S. about the location.

 

I still don't understand why people have an issue with this. 2 blocks was well within the zone of damage/destruction caused by 9/11. You state this as though the site is some tiny 10 foot by 10 foot plot of land.

 

(and my position has always been it's f***ing stupid for these guys to not use common sense with this. Should the government step in and stop them? No. Is it purely anti-Muslim, racist outcries? No. It's akin to the US putting up a monument to the creator of the atom bomb in Hiroshima 10 years after ww2. I think the reactions are justified)

[NorthSideSox72]

I still don't understand why people have an issue with this. 2 blocks was well within the zone of damage/destruction caused by 9/11. You state this as though the site is some tiny 10 foot by 10 foot plot of land.

 

(and my position has always been it's f***ing stupid for these guys to not use common sense with this. Should the government step in and stop them? No. Is it purely anti-Muslim, racist outcries? No. It's akin to the US putting up a monument to the creator of the atom bomb in Hiroshima 10 years after ww2. I think the reactions are justified)

What?

 

This is a private owner putting up a religious and community center. The bomb is, you know, a weapon. And this isn't the government of Afghanistan putting it up anyway. That comparison is atrocious. You are basically equating Islam with a weapon of mass destruction - and if that comparison is true, then the Catholic Church is the neutron bomb.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Thanks for stating your bigotry so bluntly. To be a proper analogy, you'd need this:

 

Hiroshima:US building monument to Oppenheimer/others::WTC:Al Qaeda building monument to Bin Laden

 

The US was directly responsible for the atomic bombs. All muslims are not directly responsible for 9/11.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What?

 

This is a private owner putting up a religious and community center. The bomb is, you know, a weapon. And this isn't the government of Afghanistan putting it up anyway. That comparison is atrocious. You are basically equating Islam with a weapon of mass destruction - and if that comparison is true, then the Catholic Church is the neutron bomb.

 

It's not the greatest of comparisons, but it makes sense to me. These guys, purposefully or not, want to build a center to worship their religion, which was the basis for the attacks, on the very spot where the attacks occurred. Just like wanting to place a monument to celebrate the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. It lacks all common sense and social tact, and IMO the people who don't like the idea are completely justified in thinking that way.

[StrangeSox]

Your argument lacks sense and factual basis.

 

They want to build a place to practice their religion, among other things. Some extremists carried out an attack 9 years ago nearby, not "on the very spot", in the name of their particular extremist interpretation of that religion. How is that at all like placing a monument to a weapon?

 

What is not "common sense" about building a religious community center a few blocks from the WTC? Why does it lack "social tact" to want to build this? How far away would it have to be to have common sense and social tact (TN not far enough for some!)? How long does this "no muslims" exclusion zone last?

 

 

[bigruss]

It's not the greatest of comparisons, but it makes sense to me. These guys, purposefully or not, want to build a center to worship their religion, which was the basis for the attacks, on the very spot where the attacks occurred. Just like wanting to place a monument to celebrate the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. It lacks all common sense and social tact, and IMO the people who don't like the idea are completely justified in thinking that way.

You do realize that Christians have killed in the name of their "God" before too, does that mean we should restrict their ability to worship freely for what a few crazy people did (and really, religion was an outclause for them, just like how some Christians who were murderers in the past did, they used "God" as their excuse for their f***ed up actions).

 

And whose to say that the mosque is built to be a common place for free religion and understanding, much like a monument would be there to honor those who had fallen due to the horror of the past, but iis marking the progress (yes I know, that dreaded word) of the people and how we have remembered and learned from the situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

Your argument lacks sense and factual basis.

 

They want to build a place to practice their religion, among other things. Some extremists carried out an attack 9 years ago nearby, not "on the very spot", in the name of their particular extremist interpretation of that religion. How is that at all like placing a monument to a weapon?

 

What is not "common sense" about building a religious community center a few blocks from the WTC? Why does it lack "social tact" to want to build this? How far away would it have to be to have common sense and social tact (TN not far enough for some!)? How long does this "no muslims" exclusion zone last?

 

Seriously, am I the only one that sees why the people of New York wouldn't want this? Building a mosque (not a community center. It's a community center as much as a catholic church is a community center. Do you really think catholics or jews or athiests will be welcome with open arms?) near ground zero (which as I stated above, is not some 10 foot square plot of land, but encompassed practically all of lower manhattan) isn't slightly disrespectful to the worst attack on american soil? Just a little? Really?