This is where you and the crew are having a hard time following the bouncing ball. The fallacy is in the second question. Obama is not a Muslim (answer to the first question) , therefore the factual reason the media isn't reporting that he is a Muslim is because he isn't! Originally Posted by WTFI won't speak for the rest of "the crew" but I follow the bouncing ball just fine. It's going to land out of bounds so I choose not to chase it. If you wanna chase it all the way into the stands screaming "Out!"...that's up to you. I rather let the loon argue with the linesman over the obvious call.
- Sisyphus
- 08-27-2010, 10:21 PM
- TexTushHog
- 08-27-2010, 10:47 PM
If and when you speak out against the Port Authority and city of NY doing everything they can to block the RE-construction of the Greek Orthodox church in a public place that was destroyed during the events of 911, maybe you can have your anti-religious retoric card back. Or maybe you can look at yourself in the mirror and say with a clear voice, "I am a hypocrit and I don't like other peoples opinions even if they are factually supported." Originally Posted by DFW5TravelerI'd never heard of the dispute between the Port Authority and the Greek Orthaodox church until you mentioned it. The article you linked to didn't sound right, so I clicked through to the source they cited, the NYTimes.
Indeed, the link you cited has gross mischaracterizations of fact and flat out lies. (Incidentally, the link appears at fist glance to be a newspaper article. But it is, as best I can tell, a reader commenting in a newspaper under the nom de plume gold_digger.) I won't take the time to catalog all of the lies and misleading aspects of the article , but the the two most notable ones are in the first sentence:
1. The mosque is not being "fast tracked." As the current furor and delays amply demonstrate, nothing could be further from the truth.
2. Your article states that the "Greek Orthodox church being refused permission to rebuild on its original site." This is simply a lie, as will be illustrated in more detail below. They are only being allowed to rebuild on their own land and original site. And the negotiations that they have entered into for a $20 million subsidy and condemnation payment from the government has broken down.
From what I read in that one article, the negotiations broke down over the terms of a subsidy from the government entity (The Port Authority) to the church. It appears that the subsidy -- $20 million -- was in exchange for some concessions to the church and eminent domain condemnation from the church. In a situation like there, where a church and a government entity are bargaining at arms length over legal matters, I think either side should be free to bargain as hard as they want. And according to the NYTimes, the Port Authority broke off negotiations and after the church arguably rejected a deal that they had previously seemingly agreed to (although this final point is less than crystal clear in the article, hence the word "seemingly").
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/ny...urch.html?_r=1
But the bottom line was that the government left the church free to build any building they wanted on their land, but was going to initiate a condemnation suit on the basement.
The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/ny...urch.html?_r=1
As to whether church property should be goverened by the same condemnation law that governs other private property, I can envision an argument that it should not, but I find that argument terribly unpersuasive so long as religious institutions are not being singled out for such treatment.
And for what it's worth, the Greek Orthodox Church has taken no position on the building of the mosque.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/ny...0Church&st=cse
- Sisyphus
- 08-27-2010, 11:10 PM
First of all, I didn't say he was a muslim. I said people have right to ask the question without you libs jumping into their shit. Originally Posted by DFW5TravelerNewsflash...it's not just libs that are "jumping into their shit" for asking the question. Here's at least one "moderate" that finds it an exercise in silliness.
Nice strategy...ask a yes/no question. Get a "no" answer. Refuse to accept it. Keep asking. Get indignant when it's pointed out that the question has been asked & answered.
Have fun storming the castle, kids!!
For the sake of argument if he was a muslim why lie about it and IF he is lying about it, that shows a character flaw, IMHO. Originally Posted by DFW5TravelerThat's not an "argument"...it's circular reasoning....
Here you go, WTF! Hell with the stands...this one's gonna land in the parking lot....
Enjoy!
- Shasha Stars
- 09-01-2010, 03:31 PM
PERSONALLY I believe that in the beginning it was cool like wow the first black president!
now weeds gonna be legal and stuff like that but come to find out HE'S NOT EVEN BLACK that's messed up! it's just those tel tel signs that the end is near!!! it's all in his name really...OBAMA SOUNDS TOO MUCH LIKE OSAMA !Then people go around talking about OBAMANATION!IT TOTALLY FREAKS ME OUT!!!
now weeds gonna be legal and stuff like that but come to find out HE'S NOT EVEN BLACK that's messed up! it's just those tel tel signs that the end is near!!! it's all in his name really...OBAMA SOUNDS TOO MUCH LIKE OSAMA !Then people go around talking about OBAMANATION!IT TOTALLY FREAKS ME OUT!!!
- Guest040616
- 09-01-2010, 03:51 PM
PERSONALLY I believe that in the beginning it was cool like wow the first black president!Don't fret and more importantly don't buy into the Far Right Wing Wackos "the sky is really falling this time" theory.
now weeds gonna be legal and stuff like that but come to find out HE'S NOT EVEN BLACK that's messed up! it's just those tel tel signs that the end is near!!! it's all in his name really...OBAMA SOUNDS TOO MUCH LIKE OSAMA !Then people go around talking about OBAMANATION!IT TOTALLY FREAKS ME OUT!!! Originally Posted by Shasha Stars
I promise that when you wake up tomorrow morning and every morning thereafter, there will still be a sky overhead! Hell, we made it through 8 disasterous years of GW and his incompetent gang of malcontents, so we should be able to make it through anything!
- pjorourke
- 09-01-2010, 05:45 PM
- charlestudor2005
- 09-01-2010, 06:59 PM
Nope, he sounds more like Jimmy Carter to me. Originally Posted by pjorourkeEverybody pans Carter. History will see him as GREAT! It's already beginning (from http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ast31_ST_N.htm):
•Presidents must be tough. Carter was the most successful peace negotiator of modern times, say those who have participated in subsequent efforts. He stood up to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat when a peace agreement seemed fleeting.
When Sadat once threatened to bolt from Camp David, Quandt says, Carter told him firmly that it would threaten U.S.-Egyptian relations. Sadat eventually told Carter a deal might be possible in two or three years.
"Two or three years in diplomatic parlance is not bad," Quandt says. "I remember thinking, 'We've got it.' "
On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestine Liberation Organization head Yasser Arafat both rejected U.S. offers at Camp David in 2000. At that point, Miller recalls, "the summit was over."
- pjorourke
- 09-01-2010, 07:21 PM
- charlestudor2005
- 09-01-2010, 08:42 PM
- TexTushHog
- 09-01-2010, 10:41 PM
Carter wasn't, in my judgment, an ineffective leader. He was a visionary who was 1) way ahead of his time; and 2) a victim of circumstance in some respects. Every time I think of him, I'm reminded of the passage from Luke: "And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country." (Luke 4:24).
Read his so-called "Malaise" speech some time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/fil ... risis.html
Much derided at the time, today it reads like amazing prophecy.
I won't talk about all the amazing lines from the speech. But among the most forward looking messages were his linking of our national security to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It's a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
Then he delivered these lines, which have become more and more stark as the decades have passed:
What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.
Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift.
This paralysis and stagnation that the President talked about had not dominated politics before the late 1970's. And by today's standards, it hardly paralysis and stagnation at all. but it was so uncharacteristic of the preceding three-quarters of a century that the President felt compelled to comment on it. Of course, not single paragraph could not better describe out political system a mere thirty-one years later.
And lest one think that he spoke only of governmental matters, he also spoke of the rot that has eaten away at out nation's soul. That has led to television being a vast waste land. That has led to rampant consumerism and fame for fame's sake:
In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.
He then spoke of two paths, one leading to success and the other to failure.
We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
Surely there can be no doubt which path we chose. But it cannot be said that it was for lack of being warned by a wise man with great foresight.
A failure? I think not.
Read his so-called "Malaise" speech some time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/fil ... risis.html
Much derided at the time, today it reads like amazing prophecy.
I won't talk about all the amazing lines from the speech. But among the most forward looking messages were his linking of our national security to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It's a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
Then he delivered these lines, which have become more and more stark as the decades have passed:
What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.
Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift.
This paralysis and stagnation that the President talked about had not dominated politics before the late 1970's. And by today's standards, it hardly paralysis and stagnation at all. but it was so uncharacteristic of the preceding three-quarters of a century that the President felt compelled to comment on it. Of course, not single paragraph could not better describe out political system a mere thirty-one years later.
And lest one think that he spoke only of governmental matters, he also spoke of the rot that has eaten away at out nation's soul. That has led to television being a vast waste land. That has led to rampant consumerism and fame for fame's sake:
In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.
He then spoke of two paths, one leading to success and the other to failure.
We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
Surely there can be no doubt which path we chose. But it cannot be said that it was for lack of being warned by a wise man with great foresight.
A failure? I think not.
- atlcomedy
- 09-01-2010, 10:58 PM
- Ansley
- 09-01-2010, 11:08 PM
- pjorourke
- 09-02-2010, 07:44 AM
- nevergaveitathought
- 09-02-2010, 08:16 AM
- WTF
- 09-02-2010, 08:26 AM
