Obama supports the Constitutional Right of Mosque being built near WTC

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
thats what i was thinking. shouldn't they have had insurance?..would it even cover it? guess they would claim act of war though.

60 million is going to build a hell of a church though. considering the city gave them property.

nicer than an LDS Temple! :)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
What work? Defending the rights afforded by the constitution?

To be honest, I think it's a mistake to say the issue is the constitution protecting Muslims' rights, because it implies that people are right to want to have that position, the only issue is saying that the constitution is in the way, like the constitution has some mistake in it that we just have to go along with, but in a perfect world, the people against this are right not to want it and the constitution wouldn't allow it.

It's like saying 'well, the constitution protects Nazis to speak too, and we just have to let them speak to protect freedom of speech for all of us'.

It's implying the connection of Muslims to Al Queda has some validity, and these 'tainted' people have to get their rights even though they're 'unsavory'.

That's wrong. The constitution isn't protecting some 'bad people' from doing wrong.

As I explained at length, this is nothing but the wrong linking of the attacks to everyone Muslim - which is what the attackers wanted.

To be specific, the attackers wanted the reverse - they wanted to attack America so badly that for political reasons, America would have to invade a Muslim country, and they wanted the Muslim world to then move from their moderate and anti-Al Queda position, to one of uniting against the invader of a Muslim country and ally with Al Queda - but creating the animosity between the US and Muslims was just fine with them too.

The people - whether 9/11 families or not - who say it's not 'sensitive' of the Muslims need to understand that they are the wrongs 'tainting' innocent people.

I have no problem with expecting the Muslims to show 'sensitivity' based on other reasons - the same as any group. We wouldn't want McDonald's on the site would we?

But when they are singled out not for other types of sensitivity, but just 'you Muslims are somehow at fault for this attack, and so you are limited from building' that's wrong.

That is pandering to irrational linking and demonization of people that serves the agenda of Al Queda to create conflict between Muslims they want to recruit and the US.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
To be honest, I think it's a mistake to say the issue is the constitution protecting Muslims' rights, because it implies that people are right to want to have that position, the only issue is saying that the constitution is in the way, like the constitution has some mistake in it that we just have to go along with, but in a perfect world, the people against this are right not to want it and the constitution wouldn't allow it.

It's like saying 'well, the constitution protects Nazis to speak too, and we just have to let them speak to protect freedom of speech for all of us'.

It's implying the connection of Muslims to Al Queda has some validity, and these 'tainted' people have to get their rights even though they're 'unsavory'.

That's wrong. The constitution isn't protecting some 'bad people' from doing wrong.

As I explained at length, this is nothing but the wrong linking of the attacks to everyone Muslim - which is what the attackers wanted.

To be specific, the attackers wanted the reverse - they wanted to attack America so badly that for political reasons, America would have to invade a Muslim country, and they wanted the Muslim world to then move from their moderate and anti-Al Queda position, to one of uniting against the invader of a Muslim country and ally with Al Queda - but creating the animosity between the US and Muslims was just fine with them too.

The people - whether 9/11 families or not - who say it's not 'sensitive' of the Muslims need to understand that they are the wrongs 'tainting' innocent people.

I have no problem with expecting the Muslims to show 'sensitivity' based on other reasons - the same as any group. We wouldn't want McDonald's on the site would we?

But when they are singled out not for other types of sensitivity, but just 'you Muslims are somehow at fault for this attack, and so you are limited from building' that's wrong.

That is pandering to irrational linking and demonization of people that serves the agenda of Al Queda to create conflict between Muslims they want to recruit and the US.

Just a small correction... keep in mind this new location is hardly "on the site". It's blocks away.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
It's good to have a president who takes his oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,002
136
If this group building two blocks away from ground zero does not denounce terrorism, then why should we treat them any better than terrorists?

When pressed on the matter, the guy speaking for them had the wrong answer.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I thought he wouldn't take any stance on it, as its a local issue. Why take a stance on this issue if he didn't have to? Lose/Lose situation.

He needs to hire better advisers.

Yes.

This is a lose-lose and he had no real reason to enter the fray. Reminds me of the Cambridge prof thingy. Another case of involvment in a local issue; it's not a fed gov or even state-level issue.

This looks to be largely emotionally driven, and cuts across party lines in NYC. So, it's a lose-lose situation.

And, yes, his political advisors are doing him a dis-service.

Wouldn't matter. If he had kept his mouth shut the left would condemn him for silently supporting bigotry and the right would call him a muslim loving pussy anyway. Obama is in a no win situation, as usual.

The way to "win" is to not get involved, particularly because it was unnecessary. The matter is resolved, they have to permission to proceed with the mosque etc.

I suspect there are some Dems up for reelection who privately wish he had just stayed out of it.

As I have said before, the Dems are particulalry poor at picking which battles to fight when. And let's not charge them with something they haven't done ("condemn him for silently supporting bigotry")

Fern
 
Last edited:

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
If this group building two blocks away from ground zero does not denounce terrorism, then why should we treat them any better than terrorists?

When pressed on the matter, the guy speaking for them had the wrong answer.
Do you also want to ban Falafel Shops, especially if the proprietor doesn't denounce Humas..err..Hamas?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Yes.

This is a lose-lose and he had no real reason to enter the fray. Reminds me of the Cambridge prof thingy. Another case of involvment in a local issue; it's not a fed gov or even state-level issue.

This looks to be largely emotionally driven, and cuts across party lines in NYC. So, it's a lose-lose situation.

And, yes, his political advisors are doing him a dis-service.



The way to "win" is to not get involved, particularly because it was unnecessary. The matter is resolved, they have to permission to proceed with the mosque etc.

I suspect there are some Dems up for reelection who privately wish he had just stayed out of it.

As I have said before, the Dems are particulalry poor at picking which battles to fight when.

Fern
Well when you have hate mongering assholes like Gingritch, Palin and Faux Noise making a big stink over it I think was appropriate for him to say what he did.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Well when you have hate mongering assholes like Gingritch, Palin and Faux Noise making a big stink over it I think was appropriate for him to say what he did.
Yeah, sounds like Obama was trying to get ahead of the narrative that Fox Noise and company were trying to pigeonhole him into.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Well when you have hate mongering assholes like Gingritch, Palin and Faux Noise making a big stink over it I think was appropriate for him to say what he did.

exactly... meanwhile they ignore the people who went to ground zero to help. Disgusting. What a pathetic group of people.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
He has to enter the fray to beat back the pieces of shit in our society.. the scum that run the radios and fox news et al...

I cannot believe how disgusting american christians are.. sick sick sick...
christians calling to burn korans
retarded talk shows and christians thinking the muslims want to build that place to TAUNT US... how god damn sick do you have to be to generate these thoughts and spread them

^^^ do you christians EVER wonder WHAT our GOVT did/does to Arab/ME states over the years to make them fucking hate us...
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
He has to enter the fray to beat back the pieces of shit in our society.. the scum that run the radios and fox news et al...

I cannot believe how disgusting american christians are.. sick sick sick...
christians calling to burn korans
retarded talk shows and christians thinking the muslims want to build that place to TAUNT US... how god damn sick do you have to be to generate these thoughts and spread them

^^^ do you christians EVER wonder WHAT our GOVT did/does to Arab/ME states over the years to make them fucking hate us...

Look at the typical hypocrite have a conniption fit lumping all Christians together, sounds familiar, like I've heard it somewhere in this thread ...but I think they were talking about ...lumping all Muslims in together.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Yeah, sounds like Obama was trying to get ahead of the narrative that Fox Noise and company were trying to pigeonhole him into.

LOL Well, THAT worked well, didn't it? I suspect Fox News will make me look bad because I haven't denounced a Hamas-supporting group building a victory mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero. So even though I have ABC/CNN/NBC/CBS/New York Times/LA Times/etc. running interference for me, even though there's a huge political downside and almost no upside, and even though my opinion has zero effect on this already-approved project, I'm going to preemptively jump out there and make myself look like a total America-hating douchebag. That way they can't possibly make me look any worse! In fact, first I'll spend the taxpayers' money to send this imam around the world to drum up support for the USA, even though he says we brought 9/11 on ourselves (USA is an accessory, Osama bin Ladin is made in the USA), because in the modern world a good victory mosque deserves a good victory tour.

So nice to have a SMART president for a change!
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Look at the typical hypocrite have a conniption fit lumping all Christians together, sounds familiar, like I've heard it somewhere in this thread ...but I think they were talking about ...lumping all Muslims in together.


The good ones keep their mouths shut - that goes for all religions.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Well when you have hate mongering assholes like Gingritch, Palin and Faux Noise making a big stink over it I think was appropriate for him to say what he did.

Fern is correct here. It won't matter to many Americans that what he said was legally correct. Just that what he said doesn't sit well with many of us. And I'm not talking about the bigots and the haters, because frankly whatever some of you might think of me, I am not one of them. But the fact is, due to what happened to me personally on 9-11, I'm not comfortable with Obama injecting himself into a local issue firstly, and secondly I am not completely convinced of the innocence of the Mosque's chosen location, particularly as it might (and likely will) be viewed as a monument/victory symbol overseas.

In some ways, I feel Obama is trying to lecture us about how to be good global citizens first, as if that takes precidence over being American or prioritizing American concerns. It does not! At least not to me, and quite clearly not to many of my countrymen. I apologize if this offends some of you.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Fern is correct here. It won't matter to many Americans that what he said was legally correct. Just that what he said doesn't sit well with many of us. And I'm not talking about the bigots and the haters, because frankly whatever some of you might think of me, I am not one of them. But the fact is, due to what happened to me personally on 9-11, I'm not comfortable with Obama injecting himself into a local issue firstly, and secondly I am not completely convinced of the innocence of the Mosque's chosen location, particularly as it might (and likely will) be viewed as a monument/victory symbol overseas.

In some ways, I feel Obama is trying to lecture us about how to be good global citizens first, as if that takes precidence over being American or prioritizing American concerns. It does not! At least not to me, and quite clearly not to many of my countrymen. I apologize if this offends some of you.
Your ignorance doesn't offend me.

BTW, the "Hallowed Ground" were it'll be built

groundzero05.jpg
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
Your ignorance doesn't offend me.

BTW, the "Hallowed Ground" were it'll be built

groundzero05.jpg

whoah whoah whoah. They are planning on replacing a Dunkin' Donuts? NOW we have issues. That is in fact sacred ground. Where do I sign the anti-Mosque petition? Is it on foxnews.com somewhere?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Fern is correct here. It won't matter to many Americans that what he said was legally correct. Just that what he said doesn't sit well with many of us. And I'm not talking about the bigots and the haters, because frankly whatever some of you might think of me, I am not one of them. But the fact is, due to what happened to me personally on 9-11, I'm not comfortable with Obama injecting himself into a local issue firstly, and secondly I am not completely convinced of the innocence of the Mosque's chosen location, particularly as it might (and likely will) be viewed as a monument/victory symbol overseas.

In some ways, I feel Obama is trying to lecture us about how to be good global citizens first, as if that takes precidence over being American or prioritizing American concerns. It does not! At least not to me, and quite clearly not to many of my countrymen. I apologize if this offends some of you.

Freedom of religion is an American concern, and so are private property rights. The rights of a group to express their religion on their private property are very much an American concern. Whether you are convinced of its innocence or whether it sits well with you is not an American concern. The president took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not your feelings.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
whoah whoah whoah. They are planning on replacing a Dunkin' Donuts? NOW we have issues. That is in fact sacred ground. Where do I sign the anti-Mosque petition? Is it on foxnews.com somewhere?
You think that's, check this out

groundzero02.jpg



Lol, actually that's just the neighborhood. Not a real classy place and definitely not "Hallowed Ground"