Front Office Football Central
Page 107 of 264 « First < 757979899100101102103104105106 107 108109110111112113114115116117157207 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

EagleFan 08-14-2010 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2334690)
The Bible has just as much stuff in it like this. Selling your daughters into slavery, stoning people for working on weekends, even justified rape of virgins (after you kill all the children and married women). I could go on and on with what the Bible condones and demands of people.

This shouldn't be a "Islam causes a shit ton of problems" discussion. It should be a "religion causes a shit ton of problem".

The difference is at least that Christianity has evolved beyond being savages... and only has the 10 commandments and the golden rule (none of which condone what you speak of).

If people would live by my rules on this everything would be so much better. You believe what you want, I believe what I want and I only give a damn about your beliefs if you start thinking that others need to suffer and die because they don't follow your beliefs. Once you cross that line, then we have a problem.

DaddyTorgo 08-14-2010 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2334686)
Sorry DT, but you're talking purely out of your liberal ass on this one. Or does Mr. Webster not suit you?

Main Entry: en·e·my
Pronunciation: \ˈe-nə-mē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural en·e·mies
Etymology: Middle English enemi, from Anglo-French, from Latin inimicus, from in- 1in- + amicus friend — more at amiable
Date: 13th century

1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly
3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force

What element is missing? What simple word in plain black & white do you not understand?

Any American that would attempt to deny with a straight face that "enemy" is wholly applicable to Islam is either in denial, a damned fool, gullible beyond measure, or willfully acting in collusion.

What Flasch says in post 11005 (2 below).

It's a lot more complicated than "Islam bad." And this coming from someone who tends to agree with Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" hypothesis. But that still doesn't mean that all branches of Islam, or all Muslims are our enemies. To perpetrate that worldview, and act in that way, will only be detrimental to us in the end. In the end, we're going to have to work with some branches of Islam - not like we can wipe out all of the Muslims in the world.

But you know...I know that's far too "shades of gray" for your "black and white," "absolutes are the only true facts" worldview. It might force you to actually stop and think and make differentiations based upon subtle differences.

Fuck that...much easier to just say "everyone who's not a carbon copy of me as far as religion/ethnicity/political ideology/beliefs is a POS."

You're intellectually lazy.

AENeuman 08-14-2010 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2334682)
Amazing - all that and he could legally beat his wife if he lived under an Islamic state!

I'm amazed you were able to write this sentence given your obvious ability to access porn. Pervert.

AENeuman 08-14-2010 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2334693)
The difference is at least that Christianity has evolved beyond being savages...


"It has been estimated that during the Bosnian War between 20,000 and 50,000 women, mainly Muslim, were raped.[20][21] A Commission of Experts appointed in October 1992 by the United Nations concluded that "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosnian Muslims, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs." (from wiki "Yugoslav wars")

I guess it was after this all Christians evolved. Catholics must not count or FLDS or abortion doctor killers or...

RainMaker 08-14-2010 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2334693)
The difference is at least that Christianity has evolved beyond being savages... and only has the 10 commandments and the golden rule (none of which condone what you speak of).
Depends what part of the world. The Tarok tribe in Nigeria is Christian and has committed genocide. Bush has even stated that the war in Iraq was done because God told him to. Not that it matters since the Bible advocates genocide.

The 10 commandments are in the Qu'ran as well, although slightly different (but the same principles). The religions are eerily similar. I agree that we keep our crazy religious people under wraps much more than they do. Just saying it's not an issue of Islam vs Christianity, it's an issue of religion in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2334693)
If people would live by my rules on this everything would be so much better. You believe what you want, I believe what I want and I only give a damn about your beliefs if you start thinking that others need to suffer and die because they don't follow your beliefs. Once you cross that line, then we have a problem.
I agree. The problem is that most major religions do not believe in that. If you are not part of their religion, you are an enemy and in many cases should be killed. It's a different story if their religions taught everyone to mind their own business, but their holy books tell a different story.

Dutch 08-14-2010 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2334694)
You're intellectually lazy.

OH HE WENT THERE...


...AGAIN!

molson 08-14-2010 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2334690)
The Bible has just as much stuff in it like this. Selling your daughters into slavery, stoning people for working on weekends, even justified rape of virgins (after you kill all the children and married women). I could go on and on with what the Bible condones and demands of people.

This shouldn't be a "Islam causes a shit ton of problems" discussion. It should be a "religion causes a shit ton of problem".

Sure, but there's actually Islamic law countries that, as a government, practice the "beating wives is cool" version of Islam. That's a little different than finding weird shit in the front of the bible.

molson 08-14-2010 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2334702)
"It has been estimated that during the Bosnian War between 20,000 and 50,000 women, mainly Muslim, were raped.[20][21] A Commission of Experts appointed in October 1992 by the United Nations concluded that "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosnian Muslims, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs." (from wiki "Yugoslav wars")

I guess it was after this all Christians evolved. Catholics must not count or FLDS or abortion doctor killers or...

Wow, Islam MUST be the one true religion!!

(Weird to see the usual elements who are paranoid about anything Christian now waving the flag of Islam)

I mean, isn't it weird to have the president and a mayor so outspoken about how important it is to have a particular religious building in a certain place? Why is this a government issue at all? Whoever owns the land can put what the hell they want there (assuming compliance with reasonable zoning laws), and whatever private citizens don't like it can oppose it or put barriers in the way utilizing legal means (the actual land ownership/usage situation might be more complicated than that, I haven't bothered to look that up).

Personally, I'd rather not there be a mosque/prayer area there, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop it. Part of religious freedom is having religious preferences - even if you're not a practicing member of any religion. One can think that Islam is "worse" than Christianity or Judaism, either because of the philosophies, the practice, the impact in the current world, whatever (Just like one can think that they all suck).

AENeuman 08-14-2010 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2334711)

I mean, isn't it weird to have the president and a mayor so outspoken about how important it is to have a particular religious building in a certain place? Why is this a government issue at all?

I can understand the mayor getting involved because he is basically making your point; it's private property, do what you want. Obama on the other hand, total mistake.

DaddyTorgo 08-14-2010 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 2334714)
I can understand the mayor getting involved because he is basically making your point; it's private property, do what you want. Obama on the other hand, total mistake.

Yeah - the mayor and the local authorities can say what they want. I agree that it was a mistake for Obama to go and get himself involved. He doesn't really have a say in it, and because the right-wing media was up in arms about it and trying to rally support against it and essentially calling him out for allowing it, he decided that he should make it his business, when he really should have just made a statement saying "it's a local issue...i have no influence in it" and left it at that. instead, he tried to do too much (yet again), and let somebody else dictate the battlefield.

weak.

JonInMiddleGA 08-14-2010 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2334694)
You're intellectually lazy.

You're morally bankrupt.

I'll take my chances with my flaws, wouldn't want to live a second with yours.

DaddyTorgo 08-14-2010 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2334719)
You're morally bankrupt.

I'll take my chances with my flaws, wouldn't want to live a second with yours.

:lol:

See - the funny thing is that I'm only morally bankrupt in your eyes because you have an intellectually lazy uncompromising worldview.

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of posters on this board would say that I do indeed have morals. Hell, even most of those who don't agree with my morals would agree that at least I have morals. They might disagree with what they are, but they would agree that I have them.

JPhillips 08-15-2010 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2334715)
Yeah - the mayor and the local authorities can say what they want. I agree that it was a mistake for Obama to go and get himself involved. He doesn't really have a say in it, and because the right-wing media was up in arms about it and trying to rally support against it and essentially calling him out for allowing it, he decided that he should make it his business, when he really should have just made a statement saying "it's a local issue...i have no influence in it" and left it at that. instead, he tried to do too much (yet again), and let somebody else dictate the battlefield.

weak.

He basically said, "it's a local issue and we have freedom of religion, so get over it." Bloomberg and Obama only spoke out because it became the mainstream opinion of the GOP that the government should stop Muslims from building houses of worship. If the outrage wasn't so pronounced and high profile there wouldn't have been a response. Personally I admire both men for standing up and defending one of our core founding principles.

JPhillips 08-15-2010 11:46 AM
I love this.

Quote:
Our Daughter Isn't a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn't Read
Atlas Shrugged.
BY ERIC HAGUE

- - - -

I'd like to start by saying that I don't get into belligerent shouting matches at the playground very often. The Tot Lot, by its very nature, can be an extremely volatile place—a veritable powder keg of different and sometimes contradictory parenting styles—and this fact alone is usually enough to keep everyone, parents and tots alike, acting as courteous and deferential as possible. The argument we had earlier today didn't need to happen, and I want you to know, above all else, that I'm deeply sorry that things got so wildly, publicly out of hand.

Now let me explain why your son was wrong.

When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter.

That's why, when Johanna then began berating your son, accusing him of trying to coerce from her a moral sanction of his theft of the fruit of her labor, in as many words, I kind of egged her on. Even when Aiden started crying.

You see, that Elmo ball was Johanna's reward for consistently using the potty this past week. She wasn't given the ball simply because she'd demonstrated an exceptional need for it—she earned it. And from the way Aiden's pants sagged as he tried in vain to run away from our daughter, it was clear that he wasn't anywhere close to deserving that kind of remuneration. By so much as allowing Johanna to share her toy with him, we'd be undermining her appreciation of one of life's most important lessons: You should never feel guilty about your abilities. Including your ability to repeatedly peg a fellow toddler with your Elmo ball as he sobs for mercy.

Look, imagine what would happen if we were to enact some sort of potty training Equalization of Opportunity Act in which we regularized the distribution all of Johanna's and Aiden's potty chart stickers. Suddenly it would seem as if Aiden had earned the right to wear big-boy underpants, and within minutes you'd have a Taggart Tunnel-esque catastrophe on your hands, if you follow me.

Johanna shouldn't be burdened with supplying playthings for every bed-wetting moocher she happens to meet. If you saw Johanna, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold aloft the collective weight of an entire Tot Lot's worth of Elmo balls with the last of her strength, what would you tell her to do?

To shrug. Just like we've instructed her to do if Child Protective Services or some other agent of the People's State of America ever asks her about what we're teaching her.

After all, we've managed to raise a bright, self-reliant girl who achieves her goals by means of incentive and ratiocination and never—or very rarely—through the corrupt syllogism of force. We know, despite what you and a number of other parents we've met have said—as they carried their whimpering little social parasites away—that Johanna's defiant, quasi-bellicose nature only superficially resembles that of an out-of-control toddler, and in truth posits her as more of a latter-day Dagny Taggart than any kind of enfant terrible.

Yes, she's blossomed into everything we ever hoped or post hoc rationalized she would. In our house we no longer say, "Who is John Galt?" Instead we say, "Who's our little princess?"

EagleFan 08-15-2010 12:10 PM
Mischief in Manhattan

JPhillips 08-15-2010 12:29 PM
Regardless of their knowledge of Islam, when they repeatedly talk about a mosque at ground zero they're obviously full of shit.

JonInMiddleGA 08-15-2010 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2334728)
They might disagree with what they are, but they would agree that I have them.

You could have a bank account too, but if there's nothing of value in it ...

JonInMiddleGA 08-15-2010 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2334766)
Personally I admire both men for standing up and defending one of our core founding principles.

Yep, they're real statesmen.

Just following in the proud tradition of FDR & Truman when they supported German & Japanese efforts to build recruiting centers all over the country back in the 40's.

Oh wait.

EagleFan 08-15-2010 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2334792)
Regardless of their knowledge of Islam, when they repeatedly talk about a mosque at ground zero they're obviously full of shit.

Because you say so?

Get over yourself...

:rolleyes:

EagleFan 08-15-2010 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2334766)
it became the mainstream opinion of the GOP that the government should stop Muslims from building houses of worship

That is such a laughable statement. You lose ALL credibility as soon as you say that. There is no reason to even listen to you at that point.

JPhillips 08-15-2010 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2334818)
Because you say so?

Get over yourself...

:rolleyes:

It's not a mosque and it's not at ground zero.

Saying something is what it is not is generally referred to as lying.

JPhillips 08-15-2010 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2334819)
That is such a laughable statement. You lose ALL credibility as soon as you say that. There is no reason to even listen to you at that point.

Look around. In TN, in CA, in NY there are largely GOP groups opposing the construction of mosques. A leading figure of the Christian right said that no new mosques should be built in the US.

I'm honestly surprised that you don't agree with what I stated. Opposing mosques isn't a fringe position within the GOP.

Ronnie Dobbs2 08-15-2010 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleFan (Post 2334819)
There is no reason to even listen to you at that point.

You must be new to this board, people stopped listening to each other years ago.

Dutch 08-15-2010 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2334821)
It's not a mosque and it's not at ground zero.

Saying something is what it is not is generally referred to as lying.

It's not a mosque???

According to wikipedia it is.

Quote:
Cordoba House, renamed Park51 and sometimes referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", is a planned $100 million, 13-story, glass and steel Islamic community center, which will include a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, a swimming pool, a restaurant, and a bookstore.[5] The center also aims to provide space for Friday prayers for 1,000–2,000 Muslims.

I think the coup de grace for the Islamic extremists is when they can have the call to prayer broadcast to earshot of ground zero every day. The terrorists are undoubtedly going to very much appreciate our efforts to honor their dead comrades. I doubt we can stop it, but I don't have to sit here and talk about how wonderful of an idea it is because it's not.

molson 08-15-2010 03:38 PM
After reading what Obama actually said, I don't know what else he could have said (except nothing)

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding."

There ya go, I don't think you can disagree with that. What avenue to people "opposed" to the mosque think the government should take, exactly? Make Islam illegal?

Young Drachma 08-15-2010 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2334825)
What avenue to people "opposed" to the mosque think the government should take, exactly? Make Islam illegal?

I'm sure that's the position of some, for sure.

RainMaker 08-15-2010 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2334801)
Yep, they're real statesmen.

Just following in the proud tradition of FDR & Truman when they supported German & Japanese efforts to build recruiting centers all over the country back in the 40's.

Oh wait.
Or join the United States military.


Oh wait.

Marc Vaughan 08-15-2010 05:01 PM
To those of you who appear to be equating Islam with Terrorism.

I lived in England and commuted through London when the IRA were conducting their bombing campaigns. On frequent occasions trains and busses I was travelling on were delayed because of suspect devices (including a few bomb squad detonations).

Strangely though just because a subversive Christian group were terrorising the country we didn't prevent anyone from building Christian churches .... terrorists might hide partially behind a religion but its power and influence they're interested in, don't tar all believers of whatever relgion it is just because of a few idiots.

duckman 08-15-2010 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2334830)
Or join the United States military.

Oh wait.
If you have any shred of decency, you'll take that picture of the piece of shit off this board.

Dutch 08-15-2010 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2334841)
To those of you who appear to be equating Islam with Terrorism.

I lived in England and commuted through London when the IRA were conducting their bombing campaigns. On frequent occasions trains and busses I was travelling on were delayed because of suspect devices (including a few bomb squad detonations).

Strangely though just because a subversive Christian group were terrorising the country we didn't prevent anyone from building Christian churches .... terrorists might hide partially behind a religion but its power and influence they're interested in, don't tar all believers of whatever relgion it is just because of a few idiots.

When they start blarring their "Call to Prayers" out across the WTC memorial everyday, they will be doing a much better job of equating Islam to 911 than folks on this message board could ever do. I would say that the damage they will do to the image of their religion is a valid argument for not building it.

Tigercat 08-15-2010 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2334878)
When they start blarring their "Call to Prayers" out across the WTC memorial everyday, they will be doing a much better job of equating Islam to 911 than folks on this message board could ever do. I would say that the damage they will do to the image of their religion is a valid argument for not building it.

Huh? Why would a community center with an auxiliary prayer area inside blare out a "call to prayer?"

DaddyTorgo 08-15-2010 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2334766)
He basically said, "it's a local issue and we have freedom of religion, so get over it." Bloomberg and Obama only spoke out because it became the mainstream opinion of the GOP that the government should stop Muslims from building houses of worship. If the outrage wasn't so pronounced and high profile there wouldn't have been a response. Personally I admire both men for standing up and defending one of our core founding principles.

If that's all he said then that's fine. But I still maintain that a large part of his problem is that he's been too reactive and not proactive enough with things like this - letting the GOP and the right-wing media define the battlefields.

JPhillips 08-15-2010 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2334897)
If that's all he said then that's fine. But I still maintain that a large part of his problem is that he's been too reactive and not proactive enough with things like this - letting the GOP and the right-wing media define the battlefields.

In general I agree, but in his instance the only reason anything had to be said was because of the right wing freak show. If Newt, Palin et al didn't try to make this an issue there would be no need for Bloomberg or Obama to defend the 1st amendment.

Dutch 08-16-2010 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigercat (Post 2334886)
Huh? Why would a community center with an auxiliary prayer area inside blare out a "call to prayer?"

Most mosques are "inside".

Tigercat 08-16-2010 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2334945)
Most mosques are "inside".

This isn't a mosque per se. Expecting external blaring calls to prayer from a Islamic community center of this nature is like expecting a Christian community center with a small chapel inside to ring loud bells outside as if it did large regular masses.

Dutch 08-16-2010 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigercat (Post 2334947)
This isn't a mosque per se. Expecting external blaring calls to prayer from a Islamic community center of this nature is like expecting a Christian community center with a small chapel inside to ring loud bells outside as if it did large regular masses.

From what I've read, the Islamic Center will house a mosque capable of offering prayer 5 times daily AND provide for 2,000 to have Friday sermon and teachings. It's not comparable to a small chapel. Now, whether or not they have a loudspeaker "call to prayer" is debatable, I don't know, I'm going off past visual/audible experiences of how mosques generally work.

lungs 08-16-2010 05:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2334959)
Now, whether or not they have a loudspeaker "call to prayer" is debatable, I don't know, I'm going off past visual/audible experiences of how mosques generally work.

Ahh, so getting worked up over an assumption you don't know to be true.

DaddyTorgo 08-16-2010 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2334959)
From what I've read, the Islamic Center will house a mosque capable of offering prayer 5 times daily AND provide for 2,000 to have Friday sermon and teachings. It's not comparable to a small chapel. Now, whether or not they have a loudspeaker "call to prayer" is debatable, I don't know, I'm going off past visual/audible experiences of how mosques generally work.

Never heard of a mosque in the US that broadcast loudspeaker "call to prayer." I know it's common elsewhere, but I've never even heard of it happening here in the US.

And insofar as this is a moderate sect and a moderate leader who has in the past shown an inclination to be respectful I'd presume that they wouldn't either.

Plus...there's noise ordinances to consider also. Maybe that's why you don't get that here in the US.

Dutch 08-16-2010 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2334963)
Ahh, so getting worked up over an assumption you don't know to be true.

Based on traditional Islam, it's not an assumption. DT better clarifies it for me though.

lungs 08-16-2010 08:48 AM
I guess we were working from opposite assumptions. I never remembered any loud calls to prayer coming from mosques in Minneapolis.

molson 08-16-2010 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2334959)
From what I've read, the Islamic Center will house a mosque capable of offering prayer 5 times daily AND provide for 2,000 to have Friday sermon and teachings. It's not comparable to a small chapel. Now, whether or not they have a loudspeaker "call to prayer" is debatable, I don't know, I'm going off past visual/audible experiences of how mosques generally work.

There's already 100 full-blown "mosques" in New York City - I'm not sure that they don't practice calls to prayer, but I'd be pretty surprised if they did and this wasn't a huge news story already. It's not like there's little rural areas in NYC you can tuck these places away in. I don't seem to remember the right being all up in arms over these "recruiting centers" in NYC during the Bush administration.

One of the amazing things about NYC, and "ground zero", is that it's not like going to the Vietnam Memorial in D.C or something - city life goes on, as it has for years. You'd have to pay attention to even know you were near the site of the attacks.

Sure, there's a risk that this place becomes something more than a "mosque" (really just because of the attention everyone's paying to it). I hope that we monitor the shit out of it.

Dutch 08-16-2010 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2334987)
I guess we were working from opposite assumptions. I never remembered any loud calls to prayer coming from mosques in Minneapolis.

I'm basing my info on mosques in the Middle East. If Stateside mosques don't have a call to prayer 5 times daily and this mosque isn't disruptive to the 9/11 site, I'm less inclined to think it's a big deal.

JediKooter 08-16-2010 11:02 AM
There goes that damn constitution getting in the way of discrimination again...

molson 08-16-2010 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2335024)
I also hope that you wished we "monitored the shit" out of largely Irish Catholic congregations in Massachusetts during The Troubles.


Absolutely. Within legal means, of course.

molson 08-16-2010 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2335024)
And again, I fail to see how any sort of extremist Islamic center can have an indoor swimming pool as part of it.

Do we know if women will be allowed in there?

Islamic men are allowed to get almost naked with each other. Most of the stricter rules only apply to women, in practice.

molson 08-16-2010 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2335024)
I also hope that you wished we "monitored the shit" out of largely Irish Catholic congregations in Massachusetts during The Troubles.

But yes, two blocks may seem close if you live in even a medium-sized city. But, two blocks in Manhattan is almost a different community. And again, I fail to see how any sort of extremist Islamic center can have an indoor swimming pool as part of it.

Are you a closet muslim or something? I must admit its refreshing to see you so passionately defending the practice of a religion. I guess anything the right opposes you need to become a strong supporter of.

I mean, we freak out on this board over "christian-influenced" law preventing gay marriage. Under "islamic-influenced" laws, those gays can be executed. Presumably, no gays will be executed at this particular "prayer center", but I'm sure many member/attendees make religious pilgrimages to a place where they are (in fact, they're required to, if they're good muslims)

Shouldn't Islam get at least as much venom from the far left as Christianity?

molson 08-16-2010 12:11 PM
Are there smaller sects of Islam, like Christianity, that don't oppose homosexuality, equal rights for women, etc?

Protestan christianity is a very different animal than the than the christianity that the right makes so visible. Perhaps the same is true in Islam, and I'm being unfair making the generalizations. But I grew up Lutheran, a church that has openely gay members (and now, openly gay pastors). I did the whole confirmation/sunday school thing and nobody ever taught me anything about gays or abortion being bad. It was mostly just hippie jesus, which I think is actually a great, hugely tolerant philosophy, regardless of what anyone believes about the "literal truth" of the religion (something at least the Lutherans I grew up with didn't care about in the least).

Islam IS different, as far as I know. If you're a Muslim, Mecca and Medina aren't optional. It's not like the pope RE: Christianity. If you're a Muslim, you don't get to opt out of the Middle East version, or at least, there certainly hasn't been any wide-spread attempts at a mainstream, more tolerant sect of Islam, compatable with Western laws and ideas. That does make Islam more dangerous.

JPhillips 08-16-2010 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2335039)
Are there smaller sects of Islam, like Christianity, that don't oppose homosexuality, equal rights for women, etc?

Protestan christianity is a very different animal than the than the christianity that the right makes so visible. Perhaps the same is true in Islam, and I'm being unfair making the generalizations. But I grew up Lutheran, a church that has openely gay members (and now, openly gay pastors). I did the whole confirmation/sunday school thing and nobody ever taught me anything about gays or abortion being bad. It was mostly just hippie jesus, which I think is actually a great, hugely tolerant philosophy, regardless of what anyone believes about the "literal truth" of the religion (something at least the Lutherans I grew up with didn't care about in the least).

Islam IS different, as far as I know. If you're a Muslim, Mecca and Medina aren't optional. It's not like the pope RE: Christianity. If you're a Muslim, you don't get to opt out of the Middle East version, or at least, there certainly hasn't been any wide-spread attempts at a mainstream, more tolerant sect of Islam, compatable with Western laws and ideas. That does make Islam more dangerous.

I'm not an Islamic expert, so I'll refrain from commenting on different strains there. However, you're not really correct on protestantism. There certainly are tolerant churches like you grew up in, but some of the more conservative forms of Christianity are in protestant churches (ie Southern Baptist, Seven Day Adventist, etc.)

I also think it's important to remember that Christianity had a six hundred year head start on Islam. It doesn't excuse a lot of the really awful laws and customs in most Islamic countries, but it looks different if you compare it to Christianity in the 1400s.

lungs 08-16-2010 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2335039)
But I grew up Lutheran, a church

Completely off the subject, but the only time I've ever questioned my non-Christian, agnostic lifestyle has been in a Lutheran Church.

Wasn't enough to get me to convert, but if I ever decided one day to start going to church I'd head straight to my local Lutheran church.

molson 08-16-2010 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2335063)

Wasn't enough to get me to convert, but if I ever decided one day to start going to church I'd head straight to my local Lutheran church.

Should that day arrive, just make sure you go ELCA and not Missouri Synod. :) The latter is NOT what you have in mind....

(Also, Lutheran chicks are hot).

lungs 08-16-2010 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2335066)
Should that day arrive, just make sure you go ELCA and not Missouri Synod. :) The latter is NOT what you have in mind....

(Also, Lutheran chicks are hot).

It was definitely an ELCA church. Won't argue on the women either. The best looking church-going women in our town are definitely at that church.

Kodos 08-16-2010 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2335067)
The best looking church-going women in our town are definitely at that church.

Sounds like a different kind of Sunday worship. ;)

lungs 08-16-2010 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 2335074)
Sounds like a different kind of Sunday worship. ;)

Not to mention the attractive female pastor they have too.

JediKooter 08-16-2010 03:29 PM
But do they put out like the catholic girls?

Marc Vaughan 08-16-2010 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2335039)
Are there smaller sects of Islam, like Christianity, that don't oppose homosexuality, equal rights for women, etc?
They have their extreme groups in exactly the same manner as all religions but the vast majority of Moslems I've met in England are very similar to most Christians.

That is they're fairly chilled, they don't take it 'too seriously' and aren't about to go nuclear over their beliefs in a hurry.

My dentist back in England was a Moslem and he had Christian staff, they ribbed each other about the differences in holidays and fasts etc. in the same way which people back home do about supporting different soccer teams - nothing nasty; just good natured wind ups.

(to be honest Christians in America seem more 'devout/hardcore' than Moslems back home ...)

JediKooter 08-16-2010 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2335168)

(to be honest Christians in America seem more 'devout/hardcore' than Moslems back home ...)

Uh-oh. Now you've done it Marc. Queue the 'not true christians' rallying cry.

JPhillips 08-17-2010 07:25 AM
Another really important issue for the FL governor:

albionmoonlight 08-17-2010 07:44 AM
I think that all the GOP candidates getting raging boners over Islamic Center outrage might be the least bad option for the Democrats. What's the other conversation option here? 10% unemployment? An unsustainable deficit? As the incumbent party, the Democrats don't really have answers for those.

But, if the GOP keeps this Islamic Center pressure up, I could see an eventual Dem pivot to "The only answer the GOP has to your unemployment is a noun, a verb, and an Islamic Center on the other side of the country."

I'm not saying that this is a winning hand for the Dems. But maybe its like holding a pair of threes when you thought that you were holding nothing.

JPhillips 08-17-2010 07:48 AM
Except that now the Senate majority leader has come out against the mosque as well.

Regardless, how any of this is important for a FL governor is beyond me. I'd actually want to hear about how you are going to benefit FL rather than how you feel about issues that don't impact FL.

JonInMiddleGA 08-17-2010 07:49 AM
Those damned Republicans and their focus on issues that don't matt ... umm, never mind.

My Way News - Reid against plan to build mosque near ground zero
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate's top Democrat on Monday came out against plans to build a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, moving away from President Barack Obama on the controversial election-year issue.

Locked in a tight race, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid became the highest profile Democrat to respond to Obama, who last week backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero. Since his comments Friday, the Democratic president and his aides have worked to explain the statement, which drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."

albionmoonlight 08-17-2010 07:52 AM
Yeah. Reid deserves to lose basically based just on that. Politically insane.

JPhillips 08-17-2010 07:53 AM
A devout Mormon should know better.

Shameful.

JonInMiddleGA 08-17-2010 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2335405)
Yeah. Reid deserves to lose basically based just on that. Politically insane.

It's apparently keeping Rahm busy to prevent a number of other D's from doing the same thing, Reid might just be the start of something.

When you've got 2/3rds of the country opposing it -- regardless of your stance on the subject -- it's pretty obvious that it was a bad political step for Obama to take. He's going to find more candidates going the Roy Barnes route & staying as far away from him as possible as November approaches.

JPhillips 08-17-2010 08:29 AM
It's a problem short term, but long term it's a bigger issue for the GOP. Already this year they've done their best to lose the Latino and Muslim vote for the next fifty years. They'll likely benefit in 2010 and 2012, but it's a very shortsighted strategy.

Kodos 08-17-2010 08:35 AM
Sometimes you just have to wait for the dinosaurs to die out.

molson 08-17-2010 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2335404)
Those damned Republicans and their focus on issues that don't matt ... umm, never mind.

My Way News - Reid against plan to build mosque near ground zero
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate's top Democrat on Monday came out against plans to build a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, moving away from President Barack Obama on the controversial election-year issue.

Locked in a tight race, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid became the highest profile Democrat to respond to Obama, who last week backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero. Since his comments Friday, the Democratic president and his aides have worked to explain the statement, which drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."

He still doesn't say how exactly he would accomplish this. You can't just be "against" something but propose no means to make it go away.

molson 08-17-2010 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 2335168)
They have their extreme groups in exactly the same manner as all religions but the vast majority of Moslems I've met in England are very similar to most Christians.

That is they're fairly chilled, they don't take it 'too seriously' and aren't about to go nuclear over their beliefs in a hurry.

My dentist back in England was a Moslem and he had Christian staff, they ribbed each other about the differences in holidays and fasts etc. in the same way which people back home do about supporting different soccer teams - nothing nasty; just good natured wind ups.

(to be honest Christians in America seem more 'devout/hardcore' than Moslems back home ...)

Does he spend a lot of time hanging out at Muslim "community centers"? Because that's the "kind of muslim" at issue here.

And I'm not sure Europe is the shining beacon of how Muslims and non-Muslims can get along.

albionmoonlight 08-17-2010 11:55 AM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...g-nothing.html

Quote:
This post is directed at Republican voters, especially if you're antagonistic toward the established order in Washington DC, and sympathetic to the Tea Party movement. You've long been upset about the size of government, the national debt, and the budget deficit. In the 2010 midterms and the 2012 general election, you're hoping to elect representatives who'll resist further expansion of federal power, or even shrink government.

What I'd like you to do is to reflect upon the sudden controversy over the construction of a mosque and community center near Ground Zero. Forget about the merits of the issue. Is it good for your agenda that this is suddenly the most controversial matter in America? Doesn't it worry you when the public conversation shifts into culture war territory, where right-of-center politicians can garner votes and support without having to address the issues you ostensibly care about most? A campaign about the bank bailouts, health care reform, and deficit reduction might be more difficult to win, but victory would give the GOP a mandate to reverse the worst excesses of the Obama domestic agenda.

If a new Congressman knows that he owes his election to populist wedge issues like the so-called Ground Zero mosque, is he going to propose tough spending cuts when he gets to Washington DC? Or is he going to become addicted to wedge issues, and never do the hard work of persuading voters that our current fiscal course is unsustainable? Too often we're electing precisely the politicians who are most adept at exploiting wedge issues.

You've probably wondered why the Republicans you've sent to Congress in the past haven't made any headway on shrinking government. It's largely because a motivated constituency stands ready to oppose any significant cut. But a small part of the blame can be assigned to a base that is forever distracted by whatever irrelevant kerfuffle is thrust before it. Do you remember the last big story that the conservative media brought to national attention? It was a videotape of a speech by Shirley Sherrod, an obscure USDA official in rural Georgia. Andrew Breitbart, proprietor of several Web sites increasingly visited by your fellow conservative Republicans, claims that he published an excerpt in order to demonstrate the supposed racism of the NAACP.

There is precious little that the right could've gained from this kind of story in the best case scenario (which of course didn't happen). Imagine that instead of embarrassing Mr. Breitbart, the episode had proved that a Georgia chapter of the NAACP once hosted a speaker who said objectionable things. Would that help shrink government? Would the freedom of the average American increase? Would our unsustainable entitlements be reformed?

Unfortunately, addressing difficult, consequential issues is no longer required to become a successful conservative entertainer or a hero in the minds of the rank-and-file. All that's required to achieve that status is a talent for flattery: people read Big Government not because the site capably tackles the most important issues in America -- a hidden video expose about census workers being paid for their lunch hour! -- but because its coverage of insignificant controversies is emotionally satisfying. Its readers are complicit in maintaining an incentive system where the most lucrative, popular thing for media savvy conservatives isn't to make real hard fought advances for the cause -- something that has been achieved on the right before -- so much as to flatter adherents that their preconceptions are true and their ideological opponents are malign (and all the better if the zinger fits on Twitter).

That brings us back to the so-called Ground Zero mosque. It's the latest battle in the culture war, and soon enough it'll be over. Either the project will be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero, or else the organizers will bow to pressure and relocate elsewhere. Maybe 20 blocks from Ground Zero. And what a victory that would be for the right. The New York Post would get its momentary hike in newsstand sales, its readers would feel 10 minutes of fleeting emotional satisfaction, and the politicians most adept at exploiting culture war issues would be marginally more likely to win a Congressional seat.

And when some Republican member of the ruling class is next faced with an issue where a party whip or a lobbyist wants him to do one thing, and his conservative constituents want him to do another? He'll think to himself, "I wonder if I can afford to lose some support from my base on this vote, and make it up by taking a populist stance on a culture war issue that doesn't cost me anything." In the past, the answer to that question has usually been yes.

RainMaker 08-17-2010 12:01 PM
We've had some dumb political issues over the years, but this may rank up there as one of the dumbest fucking things ever.

JonInMiddleGA 08-17-2010 12:12 PM
Sorry albion, but I don't believe Sullivan has much credibility left with most conservative voters. Here he seems to rather obviously overlook the reality that the "culture war" is the one most important to win.

miked 08-17-2010 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2335483)
Sorry albion, but I don't believe Sullivan has much credibility left with most conservative voters. Here he seems to rather obviously overlook the reality that the "culture war" is the one most important to win.

That's true, I found in Civ4 the best thing to do is amass so much culture you assimilate all cities in your radius.

albionmoonlight 08-17-2010 12:18 PM
I wasn't posting it for the credibility of the author but on its own merits. For you, the culture war is the important war, so that post doesn't really speak to you. In fact, you may have the opposite take--an undue focus on economic issues distracts from that about which you most strongly care.

But, for those conservatives most strongly motivated by the desire to reduce deficits and control spending, questioning the utility of cultural wedge issues seems to be a relevant exercise.

Mizzou B-ball fan 08-17-2010 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 2335484)
That's true, I found in Civ4 the best thing to do is amass so much culture you assimilate all cities in your radius.

Just wanted to make sure this post wasn't lost in the muck. Well done.

RainMaker 08-17-2010 03:35 PM
I can't wait for Civ 5 by the way.

Greyroofoo 08-17-2010 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 2335484)
That's true, I found in Civ4 the best thing to do is amass so much culture you assimilate all cities in your radius.

I always found the best way to win was to nuke every big city on the map so you could easily win a diplomatic victory.

JPhillips 08-17-2010 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2335483)
Sorry albion, but I don't believe Sullivan has much credibility left with most conservative voters. Here he seems to rather obviously overlook the reality that the "culture war" is the one most important to win.

Just to clarify, that isn't Sullivan, but a guest blogger, Conor Friedersdorf.

JonInMiddleGA 08-17-2010 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2335618)
Just to clarify, that isn't Sullivan, but a guest blogger, Conor Friedersdorf.

My bad I guess, I just went with the version posted here & took a leap on the author because of the linkage.

edit to add: In that context, it's really not surprising. This dumbass has already gushed his support of the location previously, so naturally he'd attack those who understand it for what it is

Glengoyne 08-17-2010 05:29 PM
Mosque smosque. I'll go so far to say that it may be insensitive to the community, but that will largely be determined after the fact, and by the manner those that visit conduct themselves.

Bottom line though, the government should make no opposition to the building of this mosque or any other. That isn't how this country works. This reminds me of the Arab Emirates company that was acquiring the company that manages some/most functions of port security for the US, and the outcry at that time. IIRC an outcry led by Democrats.

Edward64 08-17-2010 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glengoyne (Post 2335666)
This reminds me of the Arab Emirates company that was acquiring the company that manages some/most functions of port security for the US, and the outcry at that time. IIRC an outcry led by Democrats.
If I recall, there was some legitimate concerns about national security in that situation.

Edward64 08-17-2010 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2335607)
I can't wait for Civ 5 by the way.
Yes. It'll play on my new desktop but hoping it does okay on the laptop's integrated graphics too.

ISiddiqui 08-17-2010 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2335674)
If I recall, there was some legitimate concerns about national security in that situation.

It was still moronic. Considering the UAE is supposedly one of our close allies.

Glengoyne 08-17-2010 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2335674)
If I recall, there was some legitimate concerns about national security in that situation.

Pretty much "They are Arabs, and can't be trusted with our security". There were no substantive elements to the objection. Only baseless hypothetical scenarios and conjecture. I believe the thread on that topic here is the one that got me suspended ever so briefly. My assessment at that time, is that the issue then was simple racism and intolerance as well as an appeal to the base characteristics of society, much as this issue is now.

Noop 08-17-2010 08:08 PM
Can we please evolve and get rid of mass religion? I still think the whole mosque thing was done for publicity.

DaddyTorgo 08-17-2010 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noop (Post 2335727)
Can we please evolve and get rid of mass religion?

+1

Marx was right about religion.

DaddyTorgo 08-17-2010 11:42 PM



Great picture showing the proposed site of the new Islamic mosque/community center and the already existing mosque in the area, a whole two blocks further away.

So here's the question for anti-mosquers:
  1. If the currently existing mosque is too close to Ground Zero, by what method should the congregants be removed? Arrest? Angry mob? Or maybe the building should be crushed to rubble by a wrecking ball? What would make you feel good?
  1. If it's not too close, where is the line of demarcation? How wide should the mosque exclusion zone be? 3 blocks? 2.2 blocks? 3.8 blocks? And on what basis is that line of demarcation drawn?

stevew 08-18-2010 12:05 AM
I'm really pissed that the Burlington Coat Factory is going out of business.

JediKooter 08-18-2010 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2335813)
I'm really pissed that the Burlington Coat Factory is going out of business.

That is the real travesty in all of this that is being overlooked.

stevew 08-18-2010 11:27 AM


this is like fucking hilarious. follow @dameshek on twitter...dude is awesome

JPhillips 08-18-2010 11:54 AM
If you overuse lens flare the terrorists win.

JediKooter 08-18-2010 12:00 PM
JJ Abrams is a terrorist?

Glengoyne 08-18-2010 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2335813)
I'm really pissed that the Burlington Coat Factory is going out of business.

Say it Ain't So!

Edit: Oh Only that one Store!

Man I went hard after that one. Still I fear they will go the way of Circuit City.

Dutch 08-18-2010 12:55 PM
Sounds like you'd like the Rude Pundit to nail you!

JediKooter 08-18-2010 02:08 PM
1 Attachment(s)
.

JPhillips 08-18-2010 02:16 PM


Not all of the conservatives have gone batshit crazy.

Ronnie Dobbs2 08-18-2010 02:20 PM
Ted Olson is just a RINO.

Glengoyne 08-18-2010 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2334979)
Never heard of a mosque in the US that broadcast loudspeaker "call to prayer." I know it's common elsewhere, but I've never even heard of it happening here in the US.

And insofar as this is a moderate sect and a moderate leader who has in the past shown an inclination to be respectful I'd presume that they wouldn't either.

Plus...there's noise ordinances to consider also. Maybe that's why you don't get that here in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2334987)
I guess we were working from opposite assumptions. I never remembered any loud calls to prayer coming from mosques in Minneapolis.


Wow, I'm surprised that not everyone has been hearing about these issues. I googled "mosque noise issue" and the top was a link to a complaint about a mosque with a "loud call to prayer" in the Bronx. Granted the site's name itself doesn't lend it any credibility as an independent source, but I've been hearing about communities all over the country complaining about "Noisy" calls to prayer for the past few years.


I didn't watch the video in the link above, but I've heard examples of what neighborhoods are subjected to on NPR, and it would be quite annoying. I think it is largely based on the Imam, and his willingness to be a good neighbor or unwillingness to compromise his beliefs in any way. That is my uneducated and uninformed opinion about the motivation, but there are clearly several communities struggling with this issue.

Mizzou B-ball fan 08-18-2010 08:06 PM
Good Lord. Just when this couldn't get any dumber, Pelosi chimes in........

AUDIO - Rep. Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition - Washington Times

This whole issue is just obnoxious.

Flasch186 08-18-2010 08:11 PM
...eh, left out a bit of equalizing there to fit the narrative.

typical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelosi
“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’

Greyroofoo 08-18-2010 08:45 PM
More proof that muslims are violent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffington Post
Carl Levin, Michigan Senator, Gets Hit In Face With Pie During Q&A Session

The Huffington Post | Nick Wing

Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) joined a well-documented list of famous people who have taken pies in the face Monday, when a Michigan State student hit the lawmaker with a confectionery projectile during a question and answer session at a deli in Big Rapids, Michigan.

Ahlam Mohsen, the 23-year-old perpetrator of the saccharine assault, later told local news that the act was meant to protest the perceived pro-war legislative record of Senator Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Carl Levin is one of the most respected senators in Congress," Mohsen said, according to The Big Rapids Pioneer. "People tend to blame the war on Republicans, but we wanted to target Levin today to send a message that liberals and Democrats are just as implicated in the violence as the Republicans."

Mohsen was arrested and charged with assault and battery after the incident, but has yet to be arraigned, CNN reports.

Levin's immediate response was to say that someone who "throws something at somebody or hits somebody with something doesn't understand the blessings of America," but the Senator later released a statement on the incident:

"I hold meetings like this morning's so I can hear the views of Michiganians, and I'm more than willing to hear from people who disagree with me," Levin said. "But at the end of a great meeting this morning, two young people took advantage of the gathering to read a long statement accusing senators of war crimes, and one of the young people threw a pie in my face. They didn't hurt me, but they hurt their cause even more than their own extreme words had already done."

My Senator has been pied down in his prime by this terrorist.

Mizzou B-ball fan 08-18-2010 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2336109)
...eh, left out a bit of equalizing there to fit the narrative.

typical.

There's nothing equalizing about it. It's idiotic that any leader, not to mention the person 3rd in line to be president is wasting any time with this stupidity. There's obviously a side bet between Democrats and Republicans to see who can make the dumber statements this week.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 PM.
Page 107 of 264 « First < 757979899100101102103104105106 107 108109110111112113114115116117157207 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.