B.O. Supports Mosque near ground zero.

[Ian K]

Interesting OpEd piece in the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html?_r=1&sudsredirect=true

Ian

 

[Doug S.]

Now see what you started Pete? :shrug:

:lurker:

C'mon, Keith.....you know Pete enjoys a good tussle now and then.....I've seen him say "pass the popcorn" a few times, himself, over the years!

Cheers, Pete....enjoy!

Doug

 

[Jim Craik]

Hay, Doug,

Hows that retirment going?

 

[40 Bud]

Congratulations Pat. I think you have nailed it!

 

[Jim Craik]

Bud, We are still waiting for you to give is a few examples of "most of the people I have known" who immagrated some where else because they were unhappy with our country.

Please tell me what part of Pats post "nailed it"

 

[Mark Worthington]

Jim, I'm pretty sure this is the part of his post that Pat nailed:

Jim, You are obviously a liberal zealot and your constant protestations that you are merely trying to strike a balance against the blatant conservatives who post here makes me want to puke.

 

[40 Bud]

Not that I owe you diddly Jim, but 1 to Chile, 2 to Australia, 1 to New Zealand and one poor dufus to the UK - they are all still gone and happy. I also know numerou people who immigrated to this country because of our conservative values and are not happy with liberal tack that has been taken. I am done with my piece in this discussion.and will conclude with the commet that I have not heard so much BS from one source in a long time!

 

[Jim Craik]

I have not heard so much BS from one source in a long time!<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Posted by Bud.

You mean since you turned off the radio!

 

[Doug S.]

Jim, I'm pretty sure this is the part of his post that Pat nailed:

Jim, You are obviously a liberal zealot and your constant protestations that you are merely trying to strike a balance against the blatant conservatives who post here makes me want to puke.

Mark, I would respectfully ask what is wrong with striking a balance? There are plenty of "...conservative zealot"s on this forum.....not to be a surprise that the great majority of the members here would be rather right in their orientation, considering the focus of the forum in general......but there's no truth to be gained in any conversation in which only one viewpoint is to be offered.

Jim and I and a few others do tend to be a bit more leftist than the general population here, but, again, I believe that to be a valuable contribution to what would otherwise be a rather one-sided discussion.

Believe me, we feel like we've taken knives to a gun fight, the way we're so outnumbered here, but in the end the sincerity of Jim's beliefs is consistently displayed, as is his disgust in the manner in which certain topics can be misrepresented by anyone who is passionate about the issue, regardless of political orientation.

My only question might be.....of all those who seem to be misrepresenting the issues here (and there are plenty here in the Paddock, thank goodness!), why does it seem to be that the VAST majority of such manipulative misrepresentation does seem to come from the radical right?

Yeah, there, I've said it, if you don't believe it, go to the paddock and re-read the threads that are political in orientation and count for yourself. Jim is only pointing out the obvious, much to the dismay of those whose personal agendas don't coincide with his, and has taken considerable abuse for doing so. He's been like a lone tree in the wind.....but he's at least consistent and steady, and I say thank goodness for Jim's diligent efforts to bring a better balance to the political discussions in the Paddock!

To Pat, I would say.....if you do manage to get disgusted enough to puke, please take video of it and post it on YouTube so that the rest of us can enjoy it, too :furious: , otherwise, just be thankful that you live in a country in which opposing viewpoints are not only welcome but encouraged.

Doug

 

[Jim Craik]

Doug,


Thank you very much.

I wish I could say things with your eloquince, then perhaps I could say what I'm trying to say without making everyone so angry. But alas I have no tact.

Thanks again.

 

[Pat Buckley]

Pat,

There have been numerous posings on this site from concervative sources that were taken out of context, missleading and out right fabrications. These are the kind of things that led us into WAR!!!!! What I said was the truth. But obviously "you cant handle the truth".

Can you name anything like that from the "normal" news sources?

You folks post missleading, out of context lies and you have the nerve to call me a pig?

Most people stopped calling people names in the fourth grade, GROW UP!

You're accusing ME of calling people names?

Beside the fact I haven't called anyone names, this sure is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Pat Buckley]

Mark, I would respectfully ask what is wrong with striking a balance? There are plenty of "...conservative zealot"s on this forum.....not to be a surprise that the great majority of the members here would be rather right in their orientation, considering the focus of the forum in general......but there's no truth to be gained in any conversation in which only one viewpoint is to be offered.

Jim and I and a few others do tend to be a bit more leftist than the general population here, but, again, I believe that to be a valuable contribution to what would otherwise be a rather one-sided discussion.

Believe me, we feel like we've taken knives to a gun fight, the way we're so outnumbered here, but in the end the sincerity of Jim's beliefs is consistently displayed, as is his disgust in the manner in which certain topics can be misrepresented by anyone who is passionate about the issue, regardless of political orientation.

My only question might be.....of all those who seem to be misrepresenting the issues here (and there are plenty here in the Paddock, thank goodness!), why does it seem to be that the VAST majority of such manipulative misrepresentation does seem to come from the radical right?

Yeah, there, I've said it, if you don't believe it, go to the paddock and re-read the threads that are political in orientation and count for yourself. Jim is only pointing out the obvious, much to the dismay of those whose personal agendas don't coincide with his, and has taken considerable abuse for doing so. He's been like a lone tree in the wind.....but he's at least consistent and steady, and I say thank goodness for Jim's diligent efforts to bring a better balance to the political discussions in the Paddock!

To Pat, I would say.....if you do manage to get disgusted enough to puke, please take video of it and post it on YouTube so that the rest of us can enjoy it, too :furious: , otherwise, just be thankful that you live in a country in which opposing viewpoints are not only welcome but encouraged.

Doug

Thanks Doug, but I really don't need you to tell me if I should be thankful or not......but more to the point, are you saying that I should be thankful that the zealot posts here and that I should just read what he spews without comment?

(Jim - calling you a zealot realy can't be described as "calling someone names", BTW. Or was it the pig reference? Well that was just an analogy)

 

[Jim Craik]

I have also decided against posting on any of this stuff - you bring to mind that old saying, "never argue with a pig, you'll just get dirty and the pig likes it".<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Posted by Pat.

Gee Pat....

You were arguing with me..................


Pat, if you consider pointing out inconsistancys, missleading posts and outright fabrications as "spewing", then put on your wet suit.

 

[Pat]

Veek, What error, I never mentioned Mrs Obama



So Veek, you get caught making an error by saying what you really know to be true and suddenly you consider even the discussion of the slandering of a good person to be offensive. Give me a break.

Who were the two women from Chicago you were referring to? Mrs Obama has gone on record as saying in 2008, "For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country". That is a matter of public record. If there are OTHERS that have made such public announcments, I unaware of them. But there is no dispute she did.

I'm impressed that you've learned your Saul Alinsky lesson though, "According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” That way we'll change the subject of the administration's handling of the mosque debate. They are taking flip-flop lessions from John Kerry.



You refuse to admit that she was also referrring to the Clinton years. As far as "slander" goes, buy yourself a dictionary.

 

[Jim Craik]

diminished the US's standing in the world - the only ones I know who were ashamed of being American during Bush's time were two women from Chicago. While most of my non-US friends were not big Bush fans, most are now very unhappy with BHO

Posted by Domtoni

Veek,

The above was posted by Domtoni, I had absolutly no idea what he ment by two women in Chicago!

Only two woman from Chicago were ashamed of being American during Bush's time. Domtoni another load of crap. When I heard of the torture I was ashamed, most Americans were ashamed.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Posted by me in respone, it sounded like he felt only two women from Chicago were ashamed. It seemed rediculus then and rediculus now. It's a pritty obscure referance but I must assume he was talking about Mrs Obama and ??????

I never mentioned Clinton, you are confused.

 

[Pat]

Posted by Domtoni

Veek,

The above was posted by Domtoni, I had absolutly no idea what he ment by two women in Chicago!



Posted by me in respone, it sounded like he felt only two women from Chicago were ashamed. It seemed rediculus then and rediculus now. It's a pritty obscure referance but I must assume he was talking about Mrs Obama and ??????

I never mentioned Clinton, you are confused.

I'm sure Dom is accurate as he seems pretty much on target with most of his posts. I was merely adding some historical context. Ms Obama has admitted not being proud of being an American until 2008 so the historical context is that she wasn't proud before Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11 or George Bush (the favorite liberal blame target). But I would certainly assume that Ms Obama's comments would have encapsulated the Bush II presidency as well. I just wanted to be sure that it was noted that her critique included the previous democratic White House as well. I wonder what the Clinton's think of the mosque. You'd think that Hillary (also from Chicago) and recently the junior senator from New York would have an opinion, it's surprising we haven't heard it. On the attached she seems to have an opinion on everything else...
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Opinions

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Because of the 17 of the 19 terrorist being saudi, we should have contacted the saudis, given them 72 hours to evacuate a remote palace, and nuked the palace. No Afganistan war, no Iraq war, no more terrorism, and no American deaths.

 

[Ian K]

As far as Michelle Obama's comments - it disturbs me that people construe what she said (and many seem to be misquoting her) to mean that she was never proud of her country before.

What she said was:

What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud.

Taking the whole quote in, that moment in US history made her "really" proud to see that people who never before participated in the election process chose this opportunity to participate.

A good analysis:

Michelle: I've always been proud of U.S. :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Mary Mitchell

Ian

 

[Jim Craik]

Because of the 17 of the 19 terrorist being saudi, we should have contacted the saudis, given them 72 hours to evacuate a remote palace, and nuked the palace. No Afganistan war, no Iraq war, no more terrorism, and no American deaths.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Posted by Al.

You think that by nuking Soudi Arabia it would end war and no American Deaths?

You want to nuke Mecca? How many Islamic countries have nuclear weapons? Pakistan, India, Iran?................how many nuclear weapons will Soudi money buy?

You think no American deaths, you obviously have no Idea what a whorlewind of distruction you would start.

No more terrorism..............you could not be more wrong.


Because of something 17 people did you want to start an nuclear war??????????

 

[Damian]

Ian not for nothing but you are the one reaching as her own words were in fact "What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" How can that be taken any other way. The rest of the text goes on to REAFFIRM that she was ONLY NOW proud of her country. I don't see how that could be taken any other way.