Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Obama’s stand on mosque insensitive, GOP says

August 18, 2010

Advertisement

— Republican candidates around the country seized on President Barack Obama’s support for the right of Muslims to build a mosque near ground zero, assailing him as an elitist who is insensitive to the families of the Sept. 11 victims.

From statehouses to state fairs on Tuesday, Republican incumbents and challengers unleashed an almost unified line of criticism against the president days after he forcefully defended the construction of a $100 million Islamic center two blocks from the site of the 2001 terror attacks.

Recalling the emotion of that deadly day, Republicans said that while they respect religious freedom, the president’s position was cold and academic, lacking compassion and empathy for the victims’ families.

“He is thinking like a lawyer and not like an American, making declarations without America’s best interest in mind,” said Andrew Harris, a Republican running for Congress in Maryland against first-term Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil. That line — emerging as a boilerplate attack — forced the endangered Democrat to respond.

“I mean, it seems to me those are issues related to local zoning laws and so forth, and that’s a decision that they’re going to have to make, but I don’t see the federal government having any role in that,” Kratovil said.

In Ohio, where the president was headed Wednesday as part of a three-state political swing, Republican congressional candidate Jim Renacci took issue with Obama’s position and challenged his opponent, first-term Democrat John Boccieri, to do likewise.

“Just because we may have the right to do something, doesn’t necessarily make it right to do it,” Renacci said.

The Boccieri campaign said the candidate was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

In New York, one of the developers of the planned Islamic Center said in a television interview Tuesday he was dismayed that the project had become a national political issue. “I’m surprised at the way politics is being played in 2010,” Sharif El-Gamal told NY-1. “There are issues that are affecting our country which are real issues — unemployment, poverty, the economy. It’s a really sad day for America.”

Comments

Snodgrass 4 years ago

Democrats really are concerned about religous freedom for the Islamics. Religion for the Democrats is an important issue. They will go to the alter to save the religious Islamics.

Democrats don't even like it when buildings are built on Indigenous peoples burial grounds either. I've seen entire job sites shut down when an arrowhead is found.

The Arabic named one is deadset on becoming the defender of the Islamics and their quest to build a Cordoba style mosque by the Cemetary at ground zero. The Islamics, out of pure and total respect for the thousands of Americans incinerated by terrorists on 9-11, want to express their love and understanding to the surrvivors.

May Allah bless Barack Hussein Obama

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

Snodgrass, you're definitely a great addition to LJW on-line. Did you know LJW on-line has won awards?

As O'Reilly must've said 2-3 tims last night to his guests regarding this controversy, "since when did the left care so much about religion?".

0

Graczyk 4 years ago

Is Snodgrass your new sock account, Tom?

0

Grundoon Luna 4 years ago

You could not possibly be more wrong about this. I love it how the right has harped on how "unconsitutional" aspects of the current administration are but all of a sudden wants to throw out the 1st ammendment, change the 14th. Hypocrits! How about the mosque that is a few blocks from Ground Zero? It's been there for over 40 years, before the WTC was ever there. Should it be torn down? Freedom of religion means any religion but morons just don't get that. You won't even be able to see the Islamic Center from Ground Zero, for cryin' out loud - something the GOP has done very well for the last 18months in their Sore Loserism.

0

GardenMomma 4 years ago

"Sore Loserism." I like that.

0

grammaddy 4 years ago

Of course the GOP would say that. Islam has been their centerpiece for fear-mongering in this country since 9/11 happened. If everyone would try to learn something about Islam, it would take away the fear factor and what would they be left with.Never mind "religious freedom"or the fact that a few Muslims died that horrible day. It's all about keeping us all afraid.Or that the spot in question is already a Mosque and that the building was damaged when the towers fell and they just want to tear it down and build a new one.Could the GOP make a bigger stink about nothing?

0

Amy Heeter 4 years ago

Lately I am less worried about Islamic terrorists and more worried about the GOP.

0

John Kyle 4 years ago

So this is the GOP's platform for 2010? What about jobs and the economy?

0

reverber 4 years ago

It's a good thing the Liberals have CNN firmly in pocket, isn't it? Those members of the GOP who invoke the First Amendment to protect their hateful fear-mongering with regards to the building of this cultural center should look up the meaning of the word "irony."

The proposed cultural center is not within the bounds of ground zero, and so does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, who are the guilty party in holding up the approval of the site of the Orthodox church (which is on ground zero property.) Besides, last I heard, the church was still raising funds to begin construction.

0

seriouscat 4 years ago

Obama's stance on the issue ie. respecting the Consitution of the United States and freedom of religion, coupled with an apprehension about the wisdom and timing of the mosque, pretty much echos the sentiments of the majority. Any GOP people who try to eke out any more political advantage from this issue are clearly 'out of touch'.

0

Bob_Keeshan 4 years ago

Yes, Obama is being insensitive because Muslims aren't Americans.

We should send them all back where they came from, and then do the same with the drunken Irish and those sneaky chinamen.

And don't even get us real Americans started on those Catholics, we can't have them getting elected to office because they'll turn our country over to the Vatican.

0

Bob_Keeshan 4 years ago

Yeah, who is this Allah character anyway? Real 'Mericans know a little something about Jesus H. Christ thank you very much.

I'm with you, brother. If you don't love Jesus, you don't love America. It says so right there in the Constitution.

0

BigAl 4 years ago

Some of you far-right wingers need to make up your mind. Either President Obama supports the Constitution of the United States or he doesn't. Pick one.

But then again, quite a few of you only support the Constitution when it is convenient for you.... politically.

Have a wonderful day.

0

Grundoon Luna 4 years ago

This is America. They can have as many mosques as they want. 1,000,001 if they want. Just like a typical GOPer. As with the bible, so the consititution: Pick and chose as it suits you.

0

Mr_B9 4 years ago

Tom, you know better than to make fun of people who speak out both sides of their mouths. He cannot help it.... Poor man, don't you feel sorry for him? I bet it is very painfull. No wonder his Klan stands up so proudly for him..... Your right, poor man is an embarassment , but then again, his duped sheep are just following him to their slaughter..

0

Bob_Keeshan 4 years ago

A boilerplate attack? "He is thinking like a lawyer and not like an American"

That's weird, because during nomination hearings for Supreme Court justices the GOP seems fixated on the attack "we are a nation of laws."

Golly, which one is it? Oh yeah, whichever one gives the GOP power so they can rape and pillage the rest of us like they did for the first 6 years of this decade.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"Obama’s stand on mosque insensitive, GOP says"

Uh huh. Except it appears it's not just the Republicans who think that. Obama's disapproval ratings took another rise, to the highest it's been, in Gallup's three-day tracking poll that started after the pres made his comments. If the 51% that disapprove of the president are all Republicans, you Democrats are scr*wed anyway.

And, incidentally, who would expect sensitivity to the memory of ground zero coming from the same White House that buzzed the Statue of Liberty with Air Force One for a photo op?

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Nobody expects the Pelosi Inquisition! “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York. Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.” “I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?” Republicans have signaled that they will try to turn the mosque into a campaign issue, and nearly all of the leading national Republicans have weighed in against the mosque's construction. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke with President Barack Obama recently in voicing opposition to the mosque, but Pelosi indicated support for the cultural center..." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41204.html#ixzz0wy0PjIJh

0

Grundoon Luna 4 years ago

Then in my case you should say "Goddess." Thank you.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

Our President's quote:

Mulims ""have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

Will one of the wingers please explain the insensitivity of these remarks.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

You can claim expressing support for our Constitution framework is a blunder, but you have not explained any insensitivity.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

His remarks were insensitive because they were insensitive. I see.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

Perhaps you'll supply some evidence of this "backtracking."

0

jafs 4 years ago

Why do you want the President to decide what's "inappropriate"?

I'm not looking for that in a president.

0

Gregory Newman 4 years ago

why don't you just run for office? You and the repugnants are operating on lunacy and oblivion. When does your brain get a rest? The Pope doesn't respond much as you. Those folks that are still in mourning are operating on pure hate and unforgiveness and God will deal with them in due season and that is not being Insensitivity its a warning.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Well, for one thing, scottie, he wasn't talking about a potential building site in Left Overshoe, Nebraska, he was talking about one within spitting distance of a big hole in the ground, a gaping wound in the psyche of most Americans.

Except, of course, those who share the president's lack of sensitivity.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

So you believe the Obama and the US government should assert the right to dictate the rights of private property owners within the vicinity? Funny, conservatives are usually in favor of private property rights and against government interferece with their free exercise.

How far away should this zone be drawn? What other entities in the vicinity should be prohibited? Are Muslims permitted to live within this zone? Are they permitted to gather or pass freely within it? Can they have a parade within your sanctified Muslim free zone. Should the existing mosques be removed from this zone?

You all have gone down this path, where do you propose to draw the lines? Inquiring minds want to know.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Learning to read would greatly improve the quality of your life, scottie. Seriously.

Did I say that either Obama or the United States government should actively prevent the building of the mosque? For that matter, did I say I was not in favor of allowing the mosque to be built? I said his comments were insensitive. And whether or not the builders of the proposed mosque have a right to build it there, or whether or not the government should take a role in the decision, they did not demonstrate sensitivity towards the feelings of, for example, the family of a friend of mine who was a fireman that died in the WTC, when they go to see the name of their son/husband/father on a memorial with the mosque in the background.

But since you brought it up (and I can see why you consider yourself to have an "inquiring mind", what with there being so very much you don't know), the government does indeed take a stand on what private property owners can build or not build. The Supreme Court ruled that a government can use eminent domain to evict a property owner and turn the land over to a developer because of the supposed benefit to the community. And it's not just economic benefit - ever hear of the National Registry of Historical Places? If the community decides that old building on your property should have a place on that registry, you can't tear it down to build anything.

I believe the right of the government to step in is well established, whether or not they should. But as I said, my post reflected nothing more than the president's insensitivity for opening his mouth in the first place.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

So to be sensitive, you believe the POTUS should have stated opposition to the exercise of the rights of private property owners, rather than stating his adherence to the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Got it.

And, again, how far and to what extent does this zone of protection from the evil of free exercise of religion extend to protect the sensitivities of those who lost relatives at that site on 9/11?

Does a similar zone extend to the Pentagon?

How is the property in New York different than that in Pennsylvania where the government did step in and exercise eminent domain? Is the NY property within any area where the government has exercised such authority, and where such restrictions, therefore, could be enforced?

Doesn't this all just boil down to republican's hatred of our duly elected President and intent to do anything possible to tear him down?

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

And again: Learning to read would greatly improve the quality of your life, scottie. Seriously.

Hey, you're in luck, scottie - school just started. It may not be too late for you to get into second grade and brush up on those skills.

Despite your whining and attempting to put words into my posts that weren't there, the posts are still there for anyone to read. Perhaps you'd like to go back up and find the post where I said 'to be sensitive, you believe the POTUS should have stated opposition to the exercise of the rights of private property owners'? Hmmm - saved you the trouble - it appears I never said that. So you were mistaken, or full of **** - then again, those things aren't always mutually exclusive.

I said (see if you can read it this time, big guy) that the president's comments were insensitive to people's feelings on the issue. Feelings, by their very nature, have nothing to do with constitutional rights, laws, justification, or even rationality. I said what I said because it's what I meant to say, and it's all I meant to say. Please do try to keep up, scottie, get someone to read the big words to you if you can't follow along.

0

rhd99 4 years ago

Where the DEMS are concerned, it's all summed up in 2 words: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

Stating and supporting Constitutional principles is now political correctness in the sick minds of the extreme right? How very sad.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

Life today in our part of the Oceanian province of Airstrip One.

0

50YearResident 4 years ago

Who is posting under Agnostick's screen name. I saw where he relinquished his forum membership yeaterday.

0

geekin_topekan 4 years ago

Once again the GOP comes out swinging on a position based entirely on speculation and emotion.

The hysteria continues, or as one hysterical rightwinger cried on TV, "I w-want my American baaaack!".

How can Repubs be trusted when they are so prone to emotion and addicted to each other's hysterics?

0

scott3460 4 years ago

Which people told him he screwed up? What proof of this claim do you have? Or is it just your wishful thinking? You can't decribe why what he said was "insensitive" as alleged in the headline and the rest of the mainstream corporate media and Obama is correct on the merits of his statement.

0

rhd99 4 years ago

Scott, you don't get it, do you? DEMS used political correctness to cancel out the principles of the Constitution. Look at THEIR federal court judges. They use the Constitution as a punch line for their own stinken agendas.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

As opposed to the right wing activists who rule that a corporation is entitled to the same rights as a real person. Could you please identify the activist decisions and acts of the liberal judges which so offend you?

0

geekin_topekan 4 years ago

"May your very own personalized and unique god bless you abundantly. " +++ I like that! Millions of alcoholics who seek recovery have struggled to find that very idea. May I use it?

0

feeble 4 years ago

“I mean, it seems to me those are issues related to local zoning laws and so forth, and that’s a decision that they’re going to have to make, but I don’t see the federal government having any role in that,” Kratovil said.

===========================================================

Too bad the GOP-led 2000 congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which essentiall removes all zoning laws related to Church construction.

0

Ricky_Vaughn 4 years ago

I love that the GOP is complaining! Aren't they the ones who scream about how we should be living by the Constitution? Religious freedom is clearly outlined in the Constitution.

Where's the Tea Bagger opinion on this one? My guess is that they only support the Constitution when it happens to be aligned with what they already believe.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

I believe they have every right to build the mosque, and I would be opposed to government interference to prevent it. However, you said yourself you don't like it, and the choice to build the mosque (and the president's comments) were insensitive to that, and to the feelings of the millions of others who would be offended.

I no more think the actions of the 9/11 perpetrators were representative of Islam than I think the actions of the KKK are representative of Christianity. But the fact remains that they used that shield of their religion as an excuse to commit a heinous act that deeply affected (most of) the people of this country. As I mentioned above, I had a friend who died in that attack, serving as a NYC fireman. I wonder how his parents/wife/children will feel having that reminder serve as a backdrop when they visit his memorial. It doesn't have to be legitimate, or justifiable, or even rational - it's their feelings I'm talking about, and emotions, pretty much by definition, are not rational.

Just because something is legal, or justified, or rational, it doesn't mean it isn't going to negatively impact people's feelings, and it's the insensitivity to those feelings that we're talking about here. If an elected official is claiming to be a representative of the people who elected him, then he should be more sensitive to how they feel.

0

CHANDLER007 4 years ago

My husband died there on 9/11. It was the most horrific day of my life and for that of our children. As a family member of a victim, I feel it's important (though painful) that the mosque not be blocked out of fear and hatred. That's just cementing part of the terrorists efforts to tear apart ur great county. I don't appreciate people trying to speak on my behalf in this matter, nor do other families, I'm sure. Fear not, right? Take a stand. They have not beaten us, nor will they ever. I refuse to be a victim, as does the remainder of my family. We stand together, strong, as Americans. We have to move on at some point. I support the mosque and our freedom of religion. I don't need the president or GOP to baby me and be "sensitive" to how I "feel". There are bigger issues in the country. Focus on those or get out of the way.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

I'm sorry for your loss. If you notice, I started my post with "I believe they have every right to build the mosque, and I would be opposed to government interference to prevent it."

I'm not speaking for you when I talk about the feelings of those who lost loved ones that day. I have plenty of feelings of my own, and know plenty of other people that do, too. I never said that the families don't want the mosque built, either. For the umpteenth time, I'm talking about the president's comments, and whether they were insensitive.

0

MyName 4 years ago

Insensitive to what? These imaginary people who are offended that the Executive is actually trying to enforce the laws without favoring any one group over another?

And considering how many legislators and presidents in this country have been lawyers, it's like the lawyers are making fun of lawyers for sounding like what they are! This just doesn't make sense...

0

jafs 4 years ago

The president is not obligated to the "will of the people", and certainly not the "will of the majority, no matter how slim".

He swears an oath to uphold the constitution.

That should over-rule the majority opinion, if there's a conflict, in my opinion.

By the way, is any majority, even a teeny tiny one, enough to qualify it as the "will of the people"?

0

jafs 4 years ago

Didn't answer my question or respond to my post in a meaningful way.

0

jafs 4 years ago

Again, non-responsive.

0

Jim Phillips 4 years ago

Tell me jafs, just where is the Constitution being violated? There is no law preventing the building of a mosque on that site. Just because there is, in your words, a majority opinion that a mosque should not be built on that site does not make it a Constitutional violation. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The Constitution allows us to freely express our opinion. Constitutionally, it is the will of the people that dictates what happens in this country. I invite you to read Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Besides, BHO and company have not worried too much about the Constitution anyway.

No one is saying Shari'a Muslims cannot practice their faith in New York City. Most would just prefer they not do it in an area where Americans were murdered by the cowardly act of Muslim terrorists.

What really baffles me is all the uproar over "religious freedoms" by a group of people dedicated to limiting the religious freedoms of Christians (i.e. anti-Nativity scenes, taking prayer out of public schools, removing any religious artifacts from government owned property, demanding that under God be removed from the Pledge of Alligiance, etc.). I am also baffled by the way women's rights are being cast aside in support of a place of worship where Shari'a law is practiced.

0

jafs 4 years ago

"Constitutionally it is the will of the people that dictates what happens in this country".

That is just flat out wrong, and exactly the position I am debating.

  1. The "will of the people" is not equal to the "will of the majority".
  2. If the will of the majority violates the constitution, then it does not and should not dictate what happens.

The distinction between freedom to practice one's religion and the merging of state and religion seems lost on you.

So it's on feminist grounds that you criticize this group of Muslims? Really?

0

Jim Phillips 4 years ago

  1. Oh, but whether you like it or not, it is the same.
  2. It doesn't-moot point.
  3. It always has because the Libs made an issue where one never existed. There is no state mandated religion, just a freedom to follow whichever religion one chooses. This is what the Founding Fathers intended.
  4. Way to gloss over the point without responding to it.
0

jafs 4 years ago

I don't know who you're arguing with - some of your responses seem odd.

I was suggesting that even if the majority opposed this mosque project, that the Muslims had the constitutional right to build it, due to their right to freedom of religion.

The "will of the people" would mean the will of all the people, not just a majority, especially if it's a small one.

You are completely wrong about "the will of the people" dictating things - our constitution and system are built with a number of checks and balances. They were certainly not built with the intent that a simple 51% majority should be able to dictate what happens here. There are fundamental rights which cannot be abridged, etc.

I just had a hard time believing you were a feminist! To respond to your argument, many religions have different roles for men and women - Orthodox Judaism separates them during prayer, for example, and doesn't allow women full equality in the running of the services.

The issue of religious freedom and women's rights is a very complex one - would you argue that any religion which doesn't grant full equality to women be suppressed?

0

Jimo 4 years ago

Anything to avoid talking about all that boring important stuff like war and taxes, problems for which today's GOP has no solutions to offer.

TPers: why do you keep being surprised when you vote for candidates pushing "wedge issues" (abortion, gays, Muslims, flag burning) who then, learning well what really motivates you, turn around to spend money and bail out big banks?

Based on past performance - and their complete lack of detailed proposals with math that can be verified - why would anyone believe that the GOP has finally had a change of heart?

0

Jimo 4 years ago

The bank bailout was requested by the Republican administration (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney), supported by the Republican presidential ticket (John McCain and Sarah Palin), supported by the House Republican leadership (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Roy Blunt), the Senate Republican leadership (Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl) and many prominent conservatives (Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck).

These are facts.

Keeping on topic: why do Tea Party voters keep voting for candidates that do the opposite of what the Tea Party voters demand?

Answer: because they can't keep from kicking gay Muslims from Mexico who burn the flag and abort white babies while breeding terror babies and anchor babies!

0

Jimo 4 years ago

What? Another cop out?

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin, Boehner, Cantor, Blunt, McConnell, Kyl, Romney and Beck are responsible for their own actions - despite your oh-so-convenient rewriting of history to conform to your political spin.

That's okay - every rational person realizes that you just conceded the point, and weren't man enough to admit it.

0

Jimo 4 years ago

Your point is to avoid the point. You're not considering any Democrats to vote for, only Republicans.

So: why do you keep voting for Republicans who tempt you wish shiny sparkly "wedge issues" and then find yourself surprised that they -- correctly -- think that your demands for limited spending are the equivalent of waste droppings from the back end of male cows?

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"Anything to avoid talking about all that boring important stuff like war and taxes, problems for which today's GOP has no solutions to offer."

Yeah, 'cause your Democrats have done just a whiz-bang job fixing those problems, jimmie.

0

Jimo 4 years ago

Or to quote one of the right-wing Cato Institute bigwigs:

"By 2012, our national debt will be larger than the entire U.S. economy....So what's on the front burner in Washington these days? Zoning issues in lower Manhattan!...It's a bogus issue seized by the GOP establishment to distract the rank-and-file from the party's reluctance to shrink government." Corporate lobbyist must be chortling with delight at the persistence of Republican/Wall Street coziness in the shadows. Like horny teenagers without adult supervision.

And you fell for the distraction, jayhawk, like a bull chasing a red cape.

Sorry to avoid being pigeon-holed but I'm not a Democrat. They're as hopeless as today's GOP. I've been complaining about out of control spending equally during both Dem and Repub administrations since you had acne.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Guess that would explain it. If you've been doing all that since I had acne, jimmie-boy, you must be pretty senile.

And I'm the one pigeon-holing?

Maybe this hasn't occurred to someone of your limited ability to think about more than one thing at a time, jimmie, but believe it or not, the fact that someone takes an interest in this issue does not necessarily mean they're incapable of working on anything else. Or is it your contention that the president of the United States is not working on jobs and the economy and the wars, since he took the time to comment on the situation? How about Pelosi, who wants to start investigations? How about Harry Reid? Are you saying they're not doing anything either, since they're all talking about the mosque? Come to think of it, jimmie-boy - how many posts have YOU put on this thread?

0

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Change the headline please: "The GOP's stand on mosque insensitive." 1. It's not a mosque. But Sean Hannity says it is so it must be. 2. It's not at Ground Zero but Glen Beck says it is so it must be. I guess if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck it must be a...zebra! yeah, that's it. 3. The tinfoil hats say they want to smear the building in the face of America because they refused the offer of free land to build on if they would move. Never mind that it's a community center being asked to move miles from the community it's being built to serve. 4. Why are all of these right wingnuts not screaming about the real mosque that's already there across the street from Ground Zero? Nah it all comes down to one thing; nobody wants sand n****rs and towelheads in their backyard. Welcome to the GOP in an election year. Now pardon me while I go throw up and lay down.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

“How badly did Barack Obama fumble the mosque controversy last weekend? No fewer than three media columnists now want Obama rescued by George W. Bush. Byron York reports on the desperate pleas: “It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.” And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…” For the moment, with Obama failing to live up to expectations, Bush-bashing is over…” http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/18/to-save-obama-left-cries-out-for-george-w-bush/

0

IndusRiver 4 years ago

Build it just to piss 'em off.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

And thank you to IndusRiver, for so aptly demonstrating why trying to explain insensitivity to people like him is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

0

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Actually, there is nothing to build. The building already exists. They're renovating it to meet their needs. (So sorry for those people expecting domes and minarets.) But yeah, I'm in agreement. If I was put through all of the religious persecution, bigoted BS and race hate these people were put through I would certainly go ahead and do it to piss 'em off. New York is the new Mississippi. The big difference is that most native New Yorkers could care less about it. It's the rest of the country with their undies in a bunch.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"If a religious center in Manhattan offends the sensibilities of the families of the victims then they need to check themselves and move on past the hatred of anything or anyone that was actually involved in the attacks. Period."

How lucky of you to have never experienced the loss of someone dear to you and had to feel the way they do. Admittedly an assumption on my part, I don't know any other way to explain your suggestion that the families of the victims just need to "move on".

One thing, though: Does your belief that those offended by religious symbology should just 'get over it' apply to muslims, jews, hindus, wiccans, and everybody else that's offended by a Christmas tree in a town square?

0

scott3460 4 years ago

Those who oppose religious symbols on public policy are entirely consistent in objecting to the government imposing this restriction on public property. It is sad you do not understand this core principle of our form government.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

ooops, make that public "property" not policy.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Not quite as sad as your utter lack of understanding of what this issue is about. And yet one MORE time, for the painfully-reading-challenged: Sensitivity, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with constitutionality, legality, government interference, restrictions on private property, or any of the other numerous straw men you seem to have a limitless army of. This is about whether what the president said was insensitive to the feelings of the people who heard what he said (which, given the nature of his position, includes about everyone). Apparently you can't grasp that simple fact for the same reason IndusRiver is having trouble.

0

thusspokezarathustra 4 years ago

You can grasp the simple fact that the argument that you brought up confuses the issue of religious expression on private & public property can't you? There is a distinction. If the issue was sensitivity & not constitutionality why did you bring up Christmas trees on public property? That is a constitutional question not one of sensitivity.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

The argument I brought up? Hey, thusspoke - scroll up to the top of the page, and tell me what the headline reads. The headline that's at the top of the story that spawned this discussion. The story is about whether Obama's remarks were insensitive. Not whether they were constitutional, not whether they were legal, not even whether or not the darned mosque should be built, on public or private property. It's about whether or not what he said was insensitive.

whatthehell made a statement that the 9/11 victims family should, essentially, get over it and "move on". He said they shouldn't have their sensibilities offended by a religious center in Manhattan. I asked a simple question as to whether people of other faiths should be similarly unoffended by a Christmas tree. I didn't ask whether the Christmas tree was constitutional, legal, justified, okey-dokey, or anything else other than whether they should be, in his opinion, offended by it. I asked that question because it was the question I meant to ask, and it was ALL I meant to ask. And if you, or scott, want to respond to my posts, then you could at least attempt to answer the question I asked rather than make one up of your own that you think you know the answer to.

0

thusspokezarathustra 4 years ago

Actually the headline is "Obama’s stand on mosque insensitive, GOP says". The article isn't "about whether or not what he said was insensitive." as you claim but that the GOP is trying to make that claim. The accusation is that Obama is "is thinking like a lawyer and not like an American, making declarations without America’s best interest in mind". Of course the President takes an oath to defend the constitution not be sensitive to the families of victims. If the issue is really insensitivity then what in Obama's comments was Un-American or didn't have America's best interest in mind? As for your argument the "muslims, jews, hindus, wiccans, and everybody else that's offended by a Christmas tree in a town square?'" are offended because the tree is on Public Property not that it's within vicinity of hallowed ground. It is a flawed analogy.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"The article isn't "about whether or not what he said was insensitive.""

Perhaps, then, you might enlighten me as to what "stand" they're talking about, since, if you'd bothered to read the president's comments, he went out of his way to say he wasn't taking a stand on whether or not the building should open.

"If the issue is really insensitivity then what in Obama's comments was Un-American or didn't have America's best interest in mind?"

Okay, one more time, since when does sensitivity to people's feelings have anything at all to do with America's best interests?

Perhaps you missed this: "the president’s position was cold and academic, lacking compassion and empathy for the victims’ families". Again, if you read the president's comments, he dismisses those people's feelings with one or two sentences while coldly analyzing the legality of the situation. This is akin, as I've said before, with a lengthy analytical discussion of the legal and constitutional basis and/or the history of the use of eminent domain, without taking into consideration the feelings of the family that's about to be displaced.

On another thread in this paper, there was quite a discussion of a campaign contribution from Fox News' parent company to a GOP concern. One poster repeatedly asked "Is it legal" and was repeatedly castigated for asking. The lengthy discussion, from many of the same posters here, was centered on people's objections that were not based on constitutionality or legality, they didn't like it. The consensus on that thread, again from many of the same people posting here, seems to be that whether or not something legally can be done, that has little bearing on whether it should be done.

"It is a flawed analogy."

[sigh]

My kingdom for someone with a sixth-grade reading comprehension.

What part of "I asked that question because it was the question I meant to ask, and it was ALL I meant to ask" are you having trouble with? It wasn't an analogy, it wasn't a referendum on the rights of use of public versus private property. As a matter of fact, the original post from whatthehell that I responded to (the response that you and scott felt compelled to challenge) didn't say anything about whether or not there should be a mosque at ground zero. What he said was that the victims' families should get over their offended sensibilities and move on past their resentment of anyone or anything connected to the attacks. I asked a simple question that you keep insisting on rewriting to suit your answer. I did not ask if it was okay to put up a Christmas tree on public property, I asked if people of other faiths should be offended by the presence of such a symbol. Got it yet?

0

thusspokezarathustra 4 years ago

Of course you are comparing religious expression on Public Property with religious expression on Private Property. Last I checked the Burlington Coat Factory building wasn't public property. The issue with the Christmas tree in a town square is not one of being offended but by allowing it on public property you violate the establishment clause by showing preferential treatment to one religion over others.

0

estespark 4 years ago

The opposition should get better organized and purchase the property and the rights to development.

0

IndusRiver 4 years ago

And thank you to IndusRiver, for so aptly demonstrating why trying to explain insensitivity to people like him is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

Really? Well I'm here now because I became diametrically opposed to dropping liquid fire on naked children fleeing in Vietnam. Today, I'm diametrically opposed to American helicopters hovering over huddled citizens on the ground while the gunnery guys open fire.

I wouldn't choose lethal injection for you and your types. I would choose firing squad.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Ah, your sensitivity is heartwarming, river. Of course, it doesn't extend to the families of several thousand Americans who were literally pulverized by millions of tons of collapsing rubble (if they didn't leap a thousand feet or so to the pavement to escape the flames, that is), Americans who were guilty of the horrendous crime of showing up for work that morning. Who cares, let's "build it just to piss 'em off", right, cretin?

0

jafs 4 years ago

This criticism is interesting.

Sensitivity doesn't seem to have been a major value of the GOP until just now.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

From the look of the comments in this thread alone, jafs, the Democrats don't have much room to speak.

0

jafs 4 years ago

Maybe not.

But it's the GOP that's using this newfound desire for sensitivity to criticize the president.

Maybe I'm cynical, but it seems more like finding and using a political advantage than a sincere desire for sensitivity.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

And you're going to claim - with a straight face - that the president's remarks were not, in themselves, carefully chosen for political reasons?

Incidentally, does your low opinion of criticizing the president on this issue for political gain also extend to Harry Reid, half the Democratic candidates for office in New York, and all the other Democrats who aren't just saying the president erred, but that the mosque shouldn't be built?

0

jafs 4 years ago

All politicians make politically motivated choices, and I generally find many of them objectionable.

On this one, I think Obama is in a difficult position - no matter what he says or does, he will be seriously criticized by somebody.

And, the thing I don't like is political posturing masquerading as something else - like a sincere desire for sensitivity in politics.

I have no problem with people honestly expressing their opinions.

If the GOP is honestly interested in sensitivity in our political sphere, then I would expect to see some evidence of that in the way they speak and act.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"On this one, I think Obama is in a difficult position - no matter what he says or does, he will be seriously criticized by somebody."

I totally agree. Which is why he probably should have kept his mouth shut. Even better, he could have expressed some empathy with the people who were deeply affected by the tragedy without indulging in a lengthy diatribe of the technical points. Just as he was accused, he spoke like a lawyer rather than as a president concerned about the people he works for.

Incidentally, you keep focusing on the GOP. Hasn't Harry Reid openly said the mosque should not be built? Aren't Democratic candidates split on the issue? The drop in the polls after Obama made his remarks can't all be from Republicans, jafs.

0

jafs 4 years ago

Could be.

He's a smart guy, but not a particularly warm one.

If I had to choose between that and the reverse in a president, I'd choose the smart one. But other people feel differently.

The article is about the GOP's criticism.

I haven't followed what Democrats think about it, and/or why.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Doesn't it bother you at all that the story is about the Republican criticism, when they aren't the only ones disagreeing with the president, jafs?

And you've presented a false choice again. Your choice implies that one can not be smart AND warm. If I had to choose, I'd pick someone that is both.

0

jafs 4 years ago

Not particularly - I assume there are plenty of stories out there about Democratic criticism as well, from the comments you've made.

If we had a candidate who was smart and warm, and I generally found their politics better than their opponents, I'd vote for that candidate too.

But it does often seem that we have candidates who are "folksy" and friendly, but not too bright, and candidates who are bright, but not as warm.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

And, incidentally, by stating that the president is smart but not warm, you've essentially confirmed exactly what the story says:

"Republicans said ... the president’s position was cold and academic, lacking compassion and empathy for the victims’ families."

Does that mean you're turning into a Republican, jafs?

;)

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Wonder how much it would cost to build a mosque next door to Dear Leader's mob-financed Chicago mansion?

0

IndusRiver 4 years ago

Who are you calling Republican, jafs?

0

parrothead8 4 years ago

“He is thinking like a lawyer and not like an American, making declarations without America’s best interest in mind,” said Andrew Harris, a Republican running for Congress in Maryland.

Funny. Usually the GOP accuses the Dems of thinking with their hearts instead of their heads. Now they're accusing them of doing the opposite.

0

mr_right_wing 4 years ago

Maybe we could also build a monument right on ground zero to the men who gave their lives honorbly serving allah; against this great satan nation and us, the infidels of this country. The only other thing that would make it better is if said monument was paid for 100% by our tax dollars!

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

II got one for you... until the invasion of the Dutch between 1609 and 1660.. Long Island was the home of the Corchaug, Canarsee, Esopus. Housatonic. Hackensack, Haverstraw, Massapequa, Montauk, Manhasset, Merrick, Matinecock, Nissequog, Nyack, Poosapatuck, Patchogue, Ramapaugh, Raritan, Rankokas, Rockaway, Shinnecock, Seakonke, Siwinoy, Seatauket, Tappan, and Wappinger tribes. In 2010, only the Poosapatuck, Montauk, and Shinnecock peoples remain, and after 250 years of waiting the Shinnecock tribe, whose land was stolen in 1859 to create the Long Island Railway and the Hamptons, is going to get federal recognition from the US Government this year. I currently work with a tribe of Munsee people who originally called Long Island their home until the Dutch arrived and murdered their neighbors, the Raritans and Wappingers. These Munsee people were driven to Franklin County, KS, by American Expansion between 1660 and 1859. It is really their land this mosque is being built on. There's nothing wrong with American Amnesia when it comes to history right? Just be misinformed and be mad about next to nothing especially when one of the complicit political parties does nothing for policy or platform and uses this emotive bs to get votes. No disrespect to 9/11 but thousands of tribal people were killed in their loss of lands on Long Island. Mohawk Iron workers built the Twin Towers. Lastly the law is the law.... The First Amendment allows free practice of religion... if Islamic faith is offensive to some people here.. how do you think people like the Lakota feel about having a Christian Church on Wounded Knee where American soldiers from the seventh cavalry opened fire on old people, women, and children with cannons and carbines shooting people in the back and throwing them into mass graves on December 29, 1890? no one stops christian churches from destroying or supplanting indigenous practices and religions around the continent and the world do they? Why do dumb politicians open these cans of worms without realizing the historical consequences just to win votes from uneducated voters? something about America I guess.....

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Wow. Your people got their butts kicked by the Dutch? How did that happen?

0

Jim Phillips 4 years ago

Thank you for so eloquently stating the sentiment. There is little difference between what the United States did to the Natives then and what is being debated now, except the mosque will not be built by government mandates. It would not surprise me however, if Obama-Pelosi mandate federal monies for it.

0

voevoda 4 years ago

Most of the arguments against the building of the Muslim-sponsored community center are not rooted in the facts of the situation. Some opponents root their arguments in prejudice ("all Muslims are anti-American terrorists"); others in emotion ("imagine how survivors of 9/11 feel") that Republican operatives spurred through crass fear-mongering; and some (fewer) others in lack of understanding about the Muslim community in question ("didn't their imam actually applaud terrorism"). It is only with the third group that there is any hope of rational discussion; there is no arguing with illogic. For that third group, I recommend this new Fact Check article from a thoroughly mainstream source:

http://us.mg204.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.partner=sbc&.gx=1&.rand=1skpico2on6h4

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"Most of the arguments against the building of the Muslim-sponsored community center are not rooted in the facts of the situation."

First of all, while there have been several stories related to whether the community center should be opened, this particular story is about whether the president's remarks were insensitive. And while it was probably inadvertent, you have just given a perfect example of what they're talking about.

Of course the emotional reaction isn't rooted in the facts. Emotions are not based on fact. But the president, and you, apparently, think they should be. You think people's emotions are caused by Republican fear-mongering? Do you know anyone that died that day, voevoda? I do. Two people from my high school died as a result of that attack, one a NYC firefighter, one had just boarded a plane in Boston on her way to California for a vacation. I grew up just outside the City, I watched the towers go up, they were an anchor, a familiar sight on the already-impressive skyline when flying to the East Coast for a visit. Watching something that monumental - literally - collapse in seconds after the years it took to build, knowing that thousands of New Yorkers died, learning later that I knew some of them - let me assure you, voevoda, I don't need anyone's fear-mongering to have an emotional response.

There is no solution to this problem that would not involve emotion. Some issues are just that way. I mentioned eminent domain earlier in this thread - how does one have a rational, logical discussion over a city taking property from a homeowner to turn over to a developer and expand the tax base, without also considering the feelings of a family that is being displaced from a home, a home their forefathers may have lived in for generations? How does one rationally decide whether the city can without also considering whether they should?

And that is exactly what we're talking about here. From the story: "Recalling the emotion of that deadly day, Republicans said that while they respect religious freedom, the president’s position was cold and academic, lacking compassion and empathy for the victims’ families." And that is absolutely true. The president said in his remarks "So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders." He doesn't understand squat. He paid lip service to those who had died and their families, while discussing in cold, rational terms whether the developers had the right to build. If you read his comments, it appears he's much more concerned about offending Muslims than offending those who lost loved ones that day. What would it have cost him to at least acknowledge what the people who object were objecting to?

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

guardian I don't really care for your take that Obama Pelosi will provide monies for it like there's some of democratic gestapo going on here. I just survived a theocratic gestapo that lasted eight years that many of you people who voted for that gestapo refuse to acknowledge their evil. It's funny that when someone who comes along and actually tries to use the US Constitution to protect peoples from the intolerant masses they're the ones being called fascists by the people who've actually supported fascists and still do with the denials of lasting impacts on the economy. Until you all can come to terms with a Democrat who does things and isn't afraid of polls to do the right thing, stop with this gestapo and fascist bs. Harry Truman wasn't afraid of polls when he signed an executive order integrating the US Military in 1948 and subsequently lost the Southern racist Democrats who became dixiecrats and later evangelical republicans and the parents of these horribly confused and embarrassing tea party people over the next five decades. Courage to stand in the face of you all and do what he has done is enough to get my vote again. Remember being held hostage by Bush/Cheney for eight years? I do... they had no feasible ideas and these clowns playing on anger and fear have no plausable ideas.... just fear.... and fear is no substitution for substance... which something few if any remaining republicans have... so tell me again why the drunk driving republicans who spent eight years wrecking this country deserve to drive again and wreck the country more? any answers?...... I didn't think so....

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

notajayhawk doesn't know the history of this country... why am I not surprised....

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.

Coming from someone who really doesn't know much about anything, and that makes up his own history (then retreats to it and lives it), that's quite a mouthful. Thanks, though, tuschie - it's always good to wake up with a laugh, and you're a never-ending supply of them.

My comment had nothing to do with history, tuschie - I was just commenting that it was the Dutch! Wow! Has anyone else ever got their butts kicked by the Dutch?

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

nice of you to refute facts.. maybe you should go make up stuff on a black board like another depthless blowhard, Glenn Beck. Facts really annoy loud opinionated factless people don't they? It must really hurt to go through life thiniking your right because you never use facts and attack those that do. The day where baseless smart aleck quips end is on the horizon? what wil you do?

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Facts? Where there any facts in your mind-numbing diatribe? Let me guess what they were: 'The white man scr*wed the Native Americans, and it was the Republicans' fault.' Do you ever talk about anything else, on any thread attached to any story on any topic?

If you had any facts or any history in your post, tuchie, they were lost in your usual ranting, devoid of things such as sentence structure or coherence.

By the way, tuschie, here's a fact for you - Obama didn't "[come] along and actually [try] to use the US Constitution to protect peoples from the intolerant masses". As a matter of fact, tuschie, he very carefully said he was not going to comment on whether or not the mosque/community center should be built in that location. He said that we should respect religious beliefs, yada yada yada, but he was not going to say one way or the other whether it should be built. And he's not using the constitution for anything, since he isn't having the government intervene in anything.

What's really amusing, tuschie, is you - you attempt to villainize people for having misgivings due to the sensitive and emotional nature of the attack, yet you are here day in and day out spewing hatred and resentment because 8 or 10 generations ago some Europeans stole your ancestors' land. You lump all white people, all Republicans, all of whichever other group you're ticked off at today, into one big group, and spew your bile incessantly, then accuse others of being "intolerant".

You're a piece of work, tuschie - but you ARE always good for a chuckle.

0

jimmyjms 4 years ago

"Republican candidates around the country seized on President Barack Obama’s support for the right of Muslims to build a mosque near ground zero, assailing him as an elitist who is insensitive to the families of the Sept. 11 victims."

Every time you hear this argument, keep in mind that the GOP blocked the "9/11 Health and Compensation Act" twice this year, in May and July.

So let's get the R's argument straight: in order to be sensitive to 9/11 victims families, we need to trample on the Constitution, give the actual terrorists a PR talking point, and refuse to help the still-living first responders with the health problems caused by their heroic first responding.

Up is down, black is white.

0

2002 4 years ago

The GOP is wrong on this one. This is a religious freedom issue. I've been a republican for years and am seriously thinking about changing my affiliation to Independent because of this. I think that Obama is almost completely incompetent but he was correct to support freedom in this case. The most disgusting actions, however, are those wrapping themselves in the flag or "America" and then opposing the rights of other Americans to exercise their rights.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Um, no, it isn't. Because this story isn't about anyone infringing on anyone else's rights. It's about whether the community-organizer-in-chief made comments that were insensitive to those that lost loved ones in the WTC.

Did you read the story?

0

2002 4 years ago

Yes, I did read it. Obama is clearly incompetent and flip flops regularly. My point is simply, that at he core of this issue is a freedom issue. It isn't about sacred remains and Snodgrass tries to argue below because if they were talking about building a Catholic cathedral or a Starbucks at the site nobody would be talking about it.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Of course the emotional reaction has to do with who wants to build there, not the building itself. If they were constructing a billboard that would be in the backdrop of the USS Aizona memorial, probably nobody would care if the advertisement was for C. A. Parsons and Company (who designed the Arizona's engines) - but there might be some who object to an ad for Fuji Heavy Industries, the company that was reborn from Nakajima Aircraft Industries (who made the 'Kate' torpedo bomber). Both companies would, and should, have an equal right to advertise on such a sign - but there would be people who question the sensitivity of the latter doing so. Is that justified, or even rational? Probably not, especially as Parsons is now part of Siemens, a German company. But people's feelings are not rational.

0

feeble 4 years ago

If a body is vaporized, it is converted to a gas and would not likely "land" anywhere.

0

whats_going_on 4 years ago

well of COURSE the GOP said that. Would they ever not take a chance to nitpick? Noooot so much.

He stayed out of it for this reason, and then when he says SOMETHING, all he says is that they have a right to do it. If he had said ANYTHING else or nothing at all, he would have been criticized for that. So...its a lose lose.

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

snodgrass, romanticism is not history nor is it fact. I know Mohawks having been to St. Regis-Akwesasne, Kanwake, Grand River, and Kanestake, on both sides of the border in my travels. If I had a dime for every battle over a native princess, I'd be rich. Notajayhawk, keep the bullying tone of not knowing history to attack those who know history... in a dumbed down environment... it works well for you? maybe you're the smartest simpleton at a tea party gathering. The first amendment is the first amendment whether it's used by bigots to attack gay people or used by lunatics to protest dead soldiers. The first amendment is not for one side to deny another. Somewhere in the process of this discussion is dialogue which will probably never happen when one political party has no diologue skills and winds people like some of the posters on here to get them to froth at the mouth, talk nonsense and act emotionally without thinking. Oh well.

0

beatrice 4 years ago

The Constitution must be an insensitive document then.

Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave right now over the things people are doing and saying in the name of conservatives.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

The irony on this one is just too much to pass up.

Is the Constitution, bea, an aging piece of paper with ink marks on it, capable of sensitivity?

The Constitution has nothing to do with emotion, bea. Laws have nothing to do with emotion, bea. What the president's critics are saying is that a cold, analytical review of the legality and Constitutionality of the issue ignored people's feelings on the issue. And your post, along with many others on this thread, has attempted to defend the president by employing the very thing he was accused of.

But then, I wouldn't expect someone as utterly devoid of emotions such as yourself to understand that.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

And just what are those "feelings" nota?

Aren't they that the landowners private property rights should be restricted in violation of our Constitution? The victim's feelings trump law and property rights. Interesting that doesn't seem to be the position taken by conservatives when discussing Native American or slave reparations issues. Why?

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

scott3460 (anonymous) replies…

"And just what are those "feelings" nota?

"Aren't they that the landowners private property rights should be restricted in violation of our Constitution?"

And some day, scottie, when you grow up, maybe you'll know the difference between a thought and a feeling. (I doubt it, but hey, they found the Titanic at the bottom of the ocean, so I suppose less likely events are possible.)

[sigh]

I've suggested you get help with your reading, scottie. I've even suggested where you could turn for that help. Perhaps you'd like to have someone with a better reading comprehension level - a kindergartner, for example - to read my posts back to you, and you can point out where I said that anyone's property rights should be restricted? Or that property rights should be trumped by the victim's feelings? (Incidentally, scottie, that should be the victim's families'' feelings, since the victims aren't feeling much of anything anymore.) Maybe you could find where I said that the victim's families feel that the mosque shouldn't be built?

Really, scottie, I know it must be difficult for you to find reasons to feel good about yourself. But if you're going to make an attempt to respond to my posts, you should at least respond to what I said, not to what you made up to match your answers, just so you could believe you got it right.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

nota, I asked a question which you have not answered. Will you? You are the one who is criticizing our President for ignoring people's feelings. I am simply trying to understand what those feelings are so that I can evaluate whether our President has done so.

Your attempts at condescension are amusing, but reveal more about you than harm me.

Regarding victims: you apparently assume the families and individuals who have suffered murdered relatives are not victims of these acts. I do not share that analysis. They, also, are victims.

0

bisky1 4 years ago

thank you barrick and nancy hope the november elections work out well for you idiots

0

beatrice 4 years ago

Someone not knowing how to spell the first name of the President of the United States of America calling anyone an idiot: Priceless.

0

jayhawklawrence 4 years ago

I listened to Rush Limbaugh for awhile while driving. I have not done that for a few years. He was speaking on this issue and I was stunned to listen as one false statement after another spewed out of his mouth like box cars on a long train.

I have a hard time wondering how people can take this kind of discussion seriously at all. Obviously, the Republicans are masters at this game.

I think the more the truth comes out, if it does, the more we will discover that this so called controversy is political nonsense. It is almost totally contrived just as the death panels were. I have considered voting Republican because of some issues but I cannot have any respect for them if they are this phony.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

You mean Harry Reid is a Republican now, hawk?

0

Mike Ford 4 years ago

dummies never admit mistakes or the fact that they not only created the problems Obama's stuck with but they're simotaneously stopping anyone from fixing their problems.. they're like the person who doesn't want the car to go so they step on the brake for everyone.

0

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Oh? And what did Obama try to "fix" today, tuschie?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.