Front Office Football Central - The Obama Presidency

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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?

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 01:43 AM.

Page 214 of 527