Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[johnny karate]

Already answered and you acknowledged it-- stupidity, or as I stated, "ignorance". Why do you keep asking a question that was already answered?

Fair enough.

So we have bigotry, kowtowing to bigots, and stupidity as reasons to oppose Park51.

Does that complete the list, or is there anything else to add?

 

[Chaos]

Already answered and you acknowledged it-- stupidity, or as I stated, "ignorance". Why do you keep asking a question that was already answered?

Works great if you are absolutely blank on the issue, not so much if you have facts/partial information that you don't know is not correct. Why are you so rabid to label entire groups of people as "bigots" when clearly they could have answered based on unknown, false information?

That´s the nature of bigotry. Nobody thinks muslims are all evil while knowing they´re not - they think so because they are convinced it´s right. Which means they are ignorant while they are bigots.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Fair enough,i will accept Neally's position that opposition to the Islamic center is bigotry or stupidity.

 

[jakesteele]

Does anyone have to have a reason to engage in a perfectly lawful, Constitutionally-protected activity?

And why would an Islamic community center two blocks away from Ground Zero be "rubbing salt in the wound"?

You're not answering my questions. People don't have to have a reason, but they do have reasons for doing things like buying land and erecting buildings.

As to "rubbing salt in the wound", that depends on the answer as to why they did it. Was it a great deal on the land, was it location, was it to rub salt in the wounds?

These are the kind of questions that liberals are afraid to ask so, instead, they go all PC on you and start defending them. If it were the offices of the NAACP or Ebony magizine that got blown up by a small handful of Neo-Nazis/KKK guys, and then the Neo-N/KKK people in general tried to erect a branch office a couple, three blocks away, the liberals would be screaming bloody murder and picketing the site, etc.

I am asking a simple damn question...why?

 

[Taarkin]

These are the kind of questions that liberals are afraid to ask so, instead, they go all PC on you and start defending them.

The fact that Park51 is not rubbing any salt into any wounds is plainly obvious to anyone who has invested a single iota of effort into learning about it. Maybe you should invest a single iota of effort into learning something instead of throwing out baseless accusations while pretending that you actually want to learn things?

 

[johnny karate]

You're not answering my questions. People don't have to have a reason, but they do have reasons for doing things like buying land and erecting buildings.

I'm not answering your questions because there's no reason to do so.

What you or anybody else doesn't get to do is make nefarious implications about the motives behind this community center, and then force others to defend against something you've completely manufactured in your fevered imagination.

As to "rubbing salt in the wound", that depends on the answer as to why they did it. Was it a great deal on the land, was it location, was it to rub salt in the wounds?

Only a bigot or an idiot would think the construction of this community center has anything to do with "rubbing salt in the wounds".

These are the kind of questions that liberals are afraid to ask so, instead, they go all PC on you and start defending them.

It's actually the U.S. Constitution that's being defended here.

If it were the offices of the NAACP or Ebony magizine that got blown up by a small handful of Neo-Nazis/KKK guys, and then the Neo-N/KKK people in general tried to erect a branch office a couple, three blocks away, the liberals would be screaming bloody murder and picketing the site, etc.

You analogy is a poor one, and reeks of bigotry.

I am asking a simple damn question...why?

Just because a question is simple doesn't mean it can't also be stupid.

 

[leftysergeant]

As to "rubbing salt in the wound", that depends on the answer as to why they did it. Was it a great deal on the land, was it location, was it to rub salt in the wounds?

Haven't you figured that out yet?

These are the kind of questions that liberals are afraid to ask so, instead, they go all PC on you and start defending them.

Actually, it is because we are bright enough not to have to ask. We just know that it is their right and that there is no legitimate reason to deny people who have never harmed us the right to worship as they choose. Get a clue. They were already in the area and they lost their lease of their former location. There is no reason that they need to move to placate the people who buy Breitbart's and Geller's crap about this being a "victory mosque." Breitbart and Geller need a valid reason to do what they are doing and they have none. They are just obnoxious imebeciles without whom America would probably function much better, thank you very much.

If it were the offices of the NAACP or Ebony magizine that got blown up by a small handful of Neo-Nazis/KKK guys, and then the Neo-N/KKK people in general tried to erect a branch office a couple, three blocks away, the liberals would be screaming bloody murder and picketing the site, etc.

Well, sure, we would be upset about their being anyplace where decent people had to smell them. They're evil.

 

[leftysergeant]

Likewise, every person polled that opposes the mosque isn't necessarily a bigot as they may not have the correct information. In fact, to assume such, is in itself a form of prejudice or bigotry.

It is perfectly acceptable to consider some dimbulb who hears Glenn Beck or the Rushblob or Newt or that dirtbag Breitbart call it a mosque at ground zero and gets all bent out of shape a bigot.

Being a dimbulb is often the gateway to being a bigot.

Given that people who get their news and views from the four creeps I named will parrot that crap without consideration, you can see how a lot of disinformation has been propogated through the country.

Just accepting what the lunatic right says about Park 51 and not checking it out, but spreading the BS, is an act of bigotry.

Face it, lots of bigots listen to rightwing radio and have been conditioned to buy some really outrageous stuff.

There is, pure and simple, no valid reason to block the project. The only civilized reason (and even that is wrong) would be concern for the safety of the Muslim community after the shrieking monkeys have roused the rabble against them.

We don't need to have any more reason to side with the Park 51 project other than that it is what civilized human beings are supposed to do. And it is incumbent on people like Breitbart and Geller and the rest of the poo-flingers to shut the hell up.

 

[Chaos]

You're not answering my questions. People don't have to have a reason, but they do have reasons for doing things like buying land and erecting buildings.

As to "rubbing salt in the wound", that depends on the answer as to why they did it. Was it a great deal on the land, was it location, was it to rub salt in the wounds?

These are the kind of questions that liberals are afraid to ask so, instead, they go all PC on you and start defending them. If it were the offices of the NAACP or Ebony magizine that got blown up by a small handful of Neo-Nazis/KKK guys, and then the Neo-N/KKK people in general tried to erect a branch office a couple, three blocks away, the liberals would be screaming bloody murder and picketing the site, etc.

I am asking a simple damn question...why?

No you´re not. You keep bringing up that "rubbing salt in the wound" meme.

A group that has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 wants to build something that has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 on a plot of land that has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

So how the **** is that "rubbing salt in the wound"?

And stop the "but liberals would" crap. Conservatives, in this case, did. Until liberals do, keep your mouth shut about "but liberals would".

Not to mention that equating Sufis with the KKK is another example of the intellectual dishonesty of the opponents of the "Ground Zero Mosque".

 

[Neally]

I do know that they are stupid enough to think that the current mess can be fixed without raising taxes on those who benefited most from the stupidity of the ecconomic policies of the GOP over the last thrity years.

Dim bulbs, the lot of them.

Explain how calling everyone that is a member of a group that may or may not agree with your economic opinion a "moron" is not bigotry and how that is different from calling every Muslim a "terrorist".

 

[leftysergeant]

Explain how calling everyone that is a member of a group that may or may not agree with your economic opinion a "moron" is not bigotry and how that is different from calling every Muslim a "terrorist".

They also think that Breitbart is a decent citizen.

Breitbart is a bigot.

Morons.

 

[Ladewig]

These are the kind of questions that liberals are afraid to ask so, instead, they go all PC on you and start defending them. If it were the offices of the NAACP or Ebony magizine that got blown up by a small handful of Neo-Nazis/KKK guys, and then the Neo-N/KKK people in general tried to erect a branch office a couple, three blocks away, the liberals would be screaming bloody murder and picketing the site, etc.

I am asking a simple damn question...why?

I, personally, have two responses. The first is that the analogy is flawed in that every single member of the NN/KKK groups believe that the appropriate response to blacks is somewhere between mild violence to enforce segregation and genocide. But more importantly, I could ignore that part and I would still defend their right to build. If a chapter of the KKK who had committed no crimes had legally purchased the land and complied with all zoning laws, I would defend their right to build there. Even if you increased the death toll in your analogy to be 3000, I would still defend the NN/KKKs.

Furthermore, one of the most liberal organizations in the history of Western Civilization¹, the ACLU, has already supported the rights of Neo-Nazi pinheads, KKK kooks, and other bigots.

I hope I have sufficiently answered your simple damn question.


...............................
1) not my definition, but it is the definition according to Beck, Limbaugh, and those folks.

 

[Ladewig]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? In the same way a Phillip Morris poll on smoking would affect the results of the poll.

I wasn't clear. I understand that a polling organization's bias can skew the results of a poll either by not selecting a representative sample or by wording the question in a misleading way. My question was which of these techniques do you believe TIME used in pushing their alleged agenda and what evidence do you have to support the accusation.

 

[Neally]

They also think that Breitbart is a decent citizen.

Breitbart is a bigot.

Morons.

Avoidance and reaffirmation of your bigotry noted.

 

[leftysergeant]

Avoidance and reaffirmation of your bigotry noted.

They think Breitbart is not a bigot. He is. Only bigots admire bigots for their bigotry. Bigots are generally dimwits.

 

[Neally]

They think Breitbart is not a bigot. He is. Only bigots admire bigots for their bigotry. Bigots are generally dimwits.

Continued avoidance in answering the question noted.

Assumption that everyone in a group believes something that you define as bigotry is an act of prejudice and bigotry in itself.

 

[Taarkin]

Assumption that everyone in a group believes something that you define as bigotry is an act of prejudice and bigotry in itself.

Why are you so rabid to label a person a "bigot" when clearly they could have answered based on unknown, false information?

 

[Neally]

Why are you so rabid to label a person a "bigot" when clearly they could have answered based on unknown, false information?

Your attempted sarcasm doesn't even make sense.

 

[leftysergeant]

Continued avoidance in answering the question noted.

Assumption that everyone in a group believes something that you define as bigotry is an act of prejudice and bigotry in itself.

They believe that low taxes will still allow the government to function and perform its normal services and still reduce the deficit. They are dimwits. Dimwits tolerate and often agree with bigots. They take no special steps to see that bigots do not infiltrate their demonstrations and disrupt or discredit them.

I see no reason to believe that they are not the bigots they appear.

I also believe that the ardent defense of bigotry is a sign of bigotry.

It is not bigotry to call someone a bigot who welcomes bigots into his mob.

 

[johnny karate]

Continued avoidance in answering the question noted.

Speaking of which, and back on topic:

So we have bigotry, kowtowing to bigots, and stupidity as reasons to oppose Park51.

Does that complete the list, or is there anything else to add?