Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[Cicero]

Then why do you care? You have over 7000 posts here at the JREF boards.

How many other lawsuits against "slumlords" have you posted about?

How many slumlords have Rauf's high profile? Isn't everything S.P. says and does after the 2008 election fair game for you all because she is a high profile person, not because she is running for any political office?

 

[Ladewig]

Who is denying Rauf any of the Bill of Rights?

Here is a Time Magazine poll[/url] says that about 30 percent of Americans believe that Muslims should not be eligible to sit on the Supreme Court or to run for president. So pretty close to half of all the opponents to the Mosque are willing to admit to a pollster that First Amendment rights do not apply to Muslims. Add to that number the folks that believe it is OK to build a church there but not a mosque and one gets a pretty significant percentage of Americans.

He appears to be interested in a compromise of some sort. If he doesn't decide to build the mosque at ground zero will you and others maintain that his rights were violated?

Hmmm, I'm going to say that is a tough call. If death threats and threats of property destruction force someone to sell his property, were his rights violated. I am not prepared to say.

 

[johnny karate]

Don't you think Rauf smeared himself when he elected not to be a conscientious landlord?

I'm sorry... has this been proven in a court of law? Was Rauf convicted of crime? Or are these merely allegations at this point? I guess innocent until proven guilty is another right you don't think he should have.

Why do you feel it is OK for Rauf and Daisy to exercise their freedom to take advantage of their tenants in a manner that even you would not approve of if you lived there?

I look forward to seeing the post in which you quote me stating anything remotely approaching this.

 

[johnny karate]

I think you would still be upset if Fred Phelps was going to build a new church next door to you, right? Perhaps you would even hold some signs outside of the planned site protesting him. Maybe you would hope that public opinion and media pressure (Okay, bad example, this would never work on Fred Phelps) would convince him to build his church elsewhere.

Or perhaps he would actively petition the government to intervene in Phelps' lawful construction of said church, thus denying him his First Amendment rights.

If you're going to make comparisons to the anti-mosque protesters, don't leave out that part. It makes you look dishonest.

 

[johnny karate]

All dissent to the "recreation center" is "bigoted" even when it isn't. OK.

What was the non-bigoted reason for opposing Park51 again?

 

[A'isha]

How many slumlords have Rauf's high profile?

Donald Trump, maybe (the Los Angeles Times famously described him as "super landlord, sometime slumlord, real estate magnate, casino mogul, occasional yachtsman and all-around deal maker")? I don't recall you ever complaining about his projects.

And Rauf is only "high profile" because idiots are making a huge fuss about his Park51 project for no logical reason. This whole "slumlord" thing is only important because it shows that those who oppose Park51 will try to scrabble at any straw they can, after having all their other idiocy and lies shot down.

Isn't everything S.P. says and does after the 2008 election fair game for you all because she is a high profile person, not because she is running for any political office?

No, it's because she did hold political office, and appears likely to run for another political office, and in the meantime is injecting herself into politics in a way that Rauf is not doing and never has done.

 

[Praktik]

What was the non-bigoted reason for opposing Park51 again?

the fact he yelled GOD DAMN AMERICA in a sermon...

oops! wrong script...

 

[Cicero]

Here is a Time Magazine poll[/url] says that about 30 percent of Americans believe that Muslims should not be eligible to sit on the Supreme Court or to run for president. So pretty close to half of all the opponents to the Mosque are willing to admit to a pollster that First Amendment rights do not apply to Muslims. Add to that number the folks that believe it is OK to build a church there but not a mosque and one gets a pretty significant percentage of Americans.

"More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center."

TIME wasn't satisfied with this answer that their own polling (Abt SRBI, surveyed 1,002 adults ) found and so they decided to find a way to make this some indictment against Muslims. How do 1,002 adults represent 30% of Americans? Is TIME's agenda in doubt?

Hmmm, I'm going to say that is a tough call. If death threats and threats of property destruction force someone to sell his property, were his rights violated. I am not prepared to say.

Tough call? You can't accept Rauf's possible decision to build the mosque elsewhere at face value? Has Rauf ever said that he can't build the mosque because of "death threats and threats of property destruction?" Where did you get this "if" scenario?

 

[Cicero]

What was the non-bigoted reason for opposing Park51 again?

"More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center." Time Magazine, Abt SRBI, surveyed 1,002 adults

 

[Cleon]

"More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center." Time Magazine, Abt SRBI, surveyed 1,002 adults

Appeal to popularity. The fact that the majority feels that way does not mean it's not bigotry.

 

[johnny karate]

"More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center." Time Magazine, Abt SRBI, surveyed 1,002 adults

I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Praktik]

"More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center." Time Magazine, Abt SRBI, surveyed 1,002 adults

Not surprising. I wonder what the same question asked last december would look like: a heckuva lot lower that's for sure.

But when people get exposed to a prepackaged angle on things they end up snagging it. In this case, take out Geller and the associated noise machine, and I'm sure the same question would poll MUCH lower.

It was when people were invited to see it as an insult in the media, that they began to see it as such.

When it was the underdog-makes-good-in-America-look-how-great-our-freedoms-are story last fall - no such interpretation existed except for a fringe, who only found their entrance to the echo chamber this election season.

 

[Cicero]

I'm sorry... has this been proven in a court of law? Was Rauf convicted of crime? Or are these merely allegations at this point? I guess innocent until proven guilty is another right you don't think he should have.

Currently, this is about the court of public opinion. Do you think Union City Mayor Brian Stack has it in for Rauf? The video of the conditions at Rauf's property seems compelling evidence to his dereliction.

I look forward to seeing the post in which you quote me stating anything remotely approaching this.

So you do condemn Rauf for his mistreatment of his tenants? OK.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Currently, this is about the court of public opinion.

Which has nothing to do with Rauf and everything to do with Islam. You can't spin the bigotry away.

 

[Cicero]

Appeal to popularity. The fact that the majority feels that way does not mean it's not bigotry.

Was that what Ladwig was doing when he cited the TIME's survey? But don't worry. TIME 's appeal to popularity made sure that their readers didn't miss how these majority opinions have to be cloaked in 'bigotry."

 

[Cicero]

Which has nothing to do with Rauf and everything to do with Islam. You can't spin the bigotry away.

No. Everything to do with the video and interviews of his tenants. Or do you think his tenants have unflattering things to say about his property management abuses because he is a Muslim?

 

[Cleon]

Was that what Ladwig was doing when he cited the TIME's survey?

Um, no. He was providing evidence for his claim. You were being fallacious.

Do you not know what the term "appeal to popularity" means?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Was that what Ladwig was doing when he cited the TIME's survey? But don't worry. TIME 's appeal to popularity made sure that their readers didn't miss how these majority opinions have to be cloaked in 'bigotry."

There is no cloak to it. It's obvious. Why do 70% of americans surveyed feel this way?

 

[johnny karate]

Currently, this is about the court of public opinion. Do you think Union City Mayor Brian Stack has it in for Rauf? The video of the conditions at Rauf's property seems compelling evidence to his dereliction.

But not proven in a court of law. And last time I checked, the "court of public opinion" had absolutely no legal foundation.

So you do condemn Rauf for his mistreatment of his tenants? OK.

If he is proven guilty of a crime, then of course I would condemn his criminal acts.

Do you believe Rauf is innocent until proven guilty?

 

[johnny karate]

Was that what Ladwig was doing when he cited the TIME's survey? But don't worry. TIME 's appeal to popularity made sure that their readers didn't miss how these majority opinions have to be cloaked in 'bigotry."

Your feeble attempts at a dodge aside... what was that non-bigoted reason for opposing Park51 again?