I hear you. Lately I've been going back to check out the Huffpo threads; there's actually some intelligent comments there. I'm close to giving up on the comments here; you have to scroll through so much to find something worthwhile. And considering how pathetic Huffpo has become, that's saying something. Keep up the good fight, like you I'd hate to see our neighbours go down the political toilet :)

I think by "stalker" Chris1962 means anyone who challenges her warped political thinking which she consistently fails to respond to.

She also cherishes her "on-line anonymity" as she puts it and she feels she can make any preposterous statement at will and not back it up with any facts because she is 'protecting' her online anonymous persona.

And, just to let you know ... I'm officially done with this thread. It's kind of old and there are only so many hours in the day. :)

I've missed you around here, number one; and, number two ... you should know that while chris1962 can dish it out pretty good, 'she' can't take it.

So, be kind. :)

We've got some Leftie propaganda hat-wearers around here, engaging in full-frontal personal attacks, and I'll be darned if I can find anyone taking them to task. But not to upset the double-standard applecart, I'm more than happy to comply with your wishes, NYpoet, regarding PUBLIC fair-game POLITICAL FIGURES, regardless of that proud, rich tradition and great all-American pastime of tearing them apart every which way from Sunday.

As for my own peace, by all means, let's everybody continue not to notice the stalker I've had on my heels since day-one on this board.

I have to go with nypoet on this.. Although I missed the MadCow reference..

I always give a little sigh when I see the Left post things like "Rethugs" or "Repugs" or all the "cutsey" (read in "pathetic") names for Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. Not to mention Bush or Cheney. (Which reminds me, Nypoet.. Check some of the recent comments.. Someone was doing the exact same thing to Cheney).. I give a little sigh because such actions indicate to me that the person saying them doesn't have a reasonable argument and is simply resorting to childish attacks...

OK, being called funny names based on my last name was a bane of mine growing up, so maybe I am a tad oversensitive to it. :D

Anyways, I have stated that I point out good points no matter where they come from, so....

NYpoet has a good point...

Michale.....

Because I'm a strategist, by profession, and I'll be damned if I can figure out a viable selling proposition. I wouldn't know how to sell this tube of toothpaste if ya held a gun to my head.

this being the case, i suppose it is not surprising that you're continuing your work role in this forum. i enjoyed your detergent analogy and your contribution to the media discussion. however, unless you are able to remove your righty propagandist hat, you will not be well regarded here. although conservative views are generally given fair consideration, limbaugh style name-calling ("rachel madcow?"), accusations and innuendo without support or qualification, will not long be tolerated here.

It just seems to me that the Left, in general, will bend over backways, sideways and every way in their efforts to make sure that voters are not disenfranchised..

UNLESS....

Unless the voters vote in a way that the Left doesn't like...

Then they can't disenfranchise voters fast enough...

Time will tell how this all plays out. I really can't see the SCOTUS, with it's current make-up, upholding the original Judge's decision...

Is there any reason to think that the SCOTUS will even take the case??

Michale.....

Well, when you tell me explicitly to "stop whining", what's a poor girl supposed to think? :)

I know you are not whining... If I gave the impression I thought that, I am most sincerely sorry...

By the way ... this is ALL about equal rights under the law versus discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Here's an idea...

Why not have the gay community get together and sponsor a measure that would designate gay partnerships as "civil unions" and give said unions ALL the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are afforded to couples that are married..

I would be willing to wager that such a measure would pass overwhelmingly in California.

But, I don't think the gay community would go for it.. Because it doesn't appear that it is about "equal rights"...

It appears to me that the issue is about "equal acceptance"...

And that's just not legislatable...

That is PRECISELY what I have been saying, Michale. Regardless of whether people accept gay marriage or not, the SCOTUS will rule on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

You can't possible believe that the will of the people trumps the constitution!

No, I don't...

And if the SCOTUS decides that gay marriage is constitutionally protected then that becomes the law of the land..

However... If the SCOTUS decides that gay marriage is NOT constitutionally protected (as is likely, given the make-up of the court) what then??

Michale.....

By the way ... this is ALL about equal rights under the law versus discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

And, I'm not whining! Geesh.

There will be those who will never accept gay marriage, even if the SCOTUS deems gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right...

That is PRECISELY what I have been saying, Michale. Regardless of whether people accept gay marriage or not, the SCOTUS will rule on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

You can't possible believe that the will of the people trumps the constitution!

The voters have spoken.

Quit whining...

Accept it..

Michale.....

No...

In other words, gay couples can accept the will of the California voters or they can move to where the can label their lifestyle as they would like to..

Whether people accept gar marriage or they don't accept gey marriage has no bearing on whether gay marriage is deemed constitutional.

There will be those who will never accept gay marriage, even if the SCOTUS deems gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right..

As I said, you can't legislate feelings...

At the heart of the dilemma is whether marriage is a state institution or a religious institution..

It's actually both, but in this case, the gay community wants to impose the state view onto the religious view.

The voters in California decided that the religious view is the paramount view.

Like I said above.. It's not about equal rights..

It's about the gay community's attempt to legislate opinions and feelings..

Michale.....

In other words, people can accept gay marriage or, not. It doesn't matter.

Whether people accept gar marriage or they don't accept gey marriage has no bearing on whether gay marriage is deemed constitutional.

I hope that is clear as mud.

Ultimately, your point is not worth the space in the blogosphere that you are using to try to make it.

Sorry.

"Q: Will Barack Obama be a one-term president?

A: Yes, he might last that long.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41134.html

I thought you would like this article.. :D

Michale.....

You can force someone to like or accept someone else...

Arrggghhhh!!! I can't believe I made such bonehead mistakes... :D

That should read, "You can't legislate feelings"

and

"You can't force someone to like or accept someone else..."

My bust.

Michale.....

You can't legislation feelings.

You can force someone to like or accept someone else...

And THAT is exactly what the gay community is doing.

It's trying to FORCE people to accept the idea of gay marriage...

Such acceptance can NEVER be forced.

If history has taught us anything, it is that if such acceptance is forced upon people, people will fight that much harder and longer against it.

Michale.....

Because it would show that they are more interested in equal rights than they are interested in forcing their lifestyle upon someone else...

Let me put it to you this way.

Let's postulate a scenario where you worked long and hard to obtain a certification. You spent years studying and studying and you finally obtain the A-1 Certification For Excellence... You are as pleased as punch..

Then you see this guy who was able to obtain the EXACT A-1 Certification For Excellence just by plopping down $29.95 on some website.

Now, wouldn't that just piss you off a little???

For many in the US, "marriage" is a religious and moral institution. Now, I don't partake of that idea because I am as agnostic as they come..

But I *DO* understand and acknowledge that, for many in this country, it IS a religious/moral issue.. And they have as much right to THEIR opinions and THEIR freedom as gay couples have to theirs..

The people of California voted in a free and fair election to state that "marriage" is between a man and a woman..

I don't agree with that, but I do acknowledge the right for Californians to decide that way.

If Gay Couples want to exercise their lifestyle freely and openly with ALL the designations and labels that "regular" couples have, then they need to move to an area where such is the case.

Apparently, California is NOT one of those areas..

Put it into another context...

You have a Jewish family that lives in the heart of Dearborn which is the largest community of Muslims in the United States..

They are uncomfortable with their neighbors and they want the entire area to change more to their liking.

Now, what would your response be to that Jewish Family. Would it be, "Yer damn right!! We need to change EVERYONE in the city of Dearborn, so you can be comfortable because dammit, that is your right!!!"

Or would it be, "Ya know, the entire area is Muslim. If you want acceptance and comfort within your religion, perhaps Dearborn MI is not the place for you to be."

I think that most logical and rational people would opt for the latter response..

And so it is with gay couples..

It may not be fair.. Just like it wasn't fair for the US military to avoid sending interracial couples to places like Mississippi and Alabama. Slowly that changed, but it took time..

It wasn't legislated or demanded or forced upon. We gradually grew up and accepted such things..

The gay community are really shooting themselves in the foot by forcing the issue and demanding acceptance..

Because, if it DOES get to the SCOTUS in the next couple years (which is likely), the gay community will lose and lose big..

Then what??

Michale.....

I don't know but, why should they?

I'll be happy to explain it. But I just want you to answer the question I asked above.

Do you think the gay community would accept a situation whereas their partnerships would have all the rights and privileges afforded to regular married couples but that there partnership would NOT be called a "marriage" but rather a civil union?

Michale.....

<And THAT will never happen. The more they fight for it, the more they try to ram it down people's throats, the more people who don't approve, will fight against it...

This is an extremely common argument, often used to deny the recognition of minority rights when the majority does not approve.

I like to call it the 'ram it, jam it' argument. Heh Heh

You have added another irrelevant component to it by arguing that they want to legislate acceptance. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean but it is a spurious argument, at best.

Perhaps you could explain to me how fighting for recognition of your rights is somehow ramming something down someone else's throat. In this case, how is the recognition of gay marriage infringing upon the rights of anyone else?

And THAT simply will never happen...

What are gays gonna do if this gets before the Supreme Court — which could actually happen soon — and they lose the ruling? What then? That's gonna be end of the road.

You're right, Michale: If gays want acceptance, they can't force it upon society. They have to let it evolve, naturally. Think about if Roe v. Wade had come before the Supremes in the 1950's. Does anyone believe it would've been passed into law? No way.

I think gays are pushing for this a little too forcefully and a little too soon.

If you can find anything in the US Constitution that specifically allows gay marriage, then I would agree with you...

Look, I support gay marriage completely and unequivocally...

But, apparently, the voters in California feel differently..

It appears to me that the gay community wants acceptance to be legislated..

And THAT will never happen. The more they fight for it, the more they try to ram it down people's throats, the more people who don't approve, will fight against it..

Let me put it another way..

Would the gay community accept a situation whereas each and every right that is afforded traditional married couples is afforded to gay couples, but that the designation for gay marriage would NOT be called "marriage" but rather "civil union"??

I don't think they would...

And therein lies the issue...

By and large, gay couples don't want equality...

They want acceptance...

And they are trying to get it thru legislation..

And THAT simply will never happen...

Much as a Jewish family wouldn't live in Saudi Arabia if they wanted to openly practice their faith, a gay family would have to relocate to a region where their lifestyle is accepted, if it is acceptance that they seek...

In other words, I am all for fighting for equal rights and such...

But I firmly believe that you simply cannot legislate acceptance and to try and do so just makes it that much harder to gain the equality.

And it's equality that is important...

Michale.....

I hope you don't believe that the majority of California voters can usurp equality rights enshrined in the constitution.

In other words, the will of the people will stand unless it is contradicted by the constitution, no?

Oh, that had to hurt. 'D

In spades... :D

Liz,

There doesn't appear to be any valid constitutional argument for reversing the original decision.

Other than dis-enfranchising 7 million California voters, I would agree with you.

Michale.....

This usually means that the Appeals Court feels that the plaintiffs may have a good chance to succeed in the appeal.

This development may be just what we need. The Appeals Court decision on this, assuming it goes against the plaintiffs, will give the original decision more weight with a certain segment of the populaton.

There doesn't appear to be any valid constitutional argument for reversing the original decision.

I just read this interesting op-ed in the NYTimes about 'two Americas' and the Cordoba House.

I thought it was extremely well written and might go a long way toward bridging the great divide on this issue right here!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Oh, that had to hurt. 'D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

This usually means that the Appeals Court feels that the plaintiffs may have a good chance to succeed in the appeal.

Michale.....

Well, I guess even a busted watch is right twice a day... :D

Ol' Harry doesn't have much choice in the matter. His Tea Partier opponent would just hammer him into the ground if he were to side with Obama (and Hamas!) and against popular public opinion. I'm sure Harry would've preferred not to have answered one way or the other, given the hot political potato this has turned out to be. (Way to go, Obama.) But he was never gonna get away with that on the campaign trail.

Rahm Emanuel must be spitting fire right about now.

In lieu of wasting too many minutes of my time responding further to any of your comments in this and previous threads, let me give you fair warning that your unique brand of nonsense will no longer be tolerated at http://www.chrisweigant.com. In future, if you should insist on posting such nonsense it will be competently called out for the puerile babble that it is.

Suffice to say that this important space in the blogosphere puts a very high premium on reality-based political analysis and on thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments that stand or fall on the proven facts, in context, of any given issue. We are accustomed here to friendly discussions and heated debates, based on informed opinion and infused with a very healthy dose of good humour. All of this is a reflection right back upon our extraordinary host, Chris Weigant, whose enlightened political analysis and personal integrity are second to none in the blogosphere.

It is my fervent hope that you will choose to become a part of this phenomenal atmosphere which Chris has very carefully cultivated and that your comments will reflect a great respect for this special place that we are all so proud to be a part of.

You say "credit".. I say "blame"...

But it amounts to the same thing. :D

Michale.....

Actually, that was pretty funny.

But, you know ... I bet that we don't know the half of what Harry Reid has been doing to move the president's agenda forward. Whether you like that agenda or not, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Reid deserves more credit that he is usually given.

I just don't know that much about him to offer anything remotely resembling an informed opinion.

About what??

About Harry Reid being a busted clock??? :D

Michale.....

Are you trying to prove me wrong?

You aren't the one around here who should feel like an idiot.

:)

Well, I guess even a busted watch is right twice a day... :D

Michale.....

I'm sorry I've left it up to you folks to counter some of the negative stuff here, but hopefully, as I said, things will get back to normal soon.

Now that I know you'll be out of commission for a while, I'll try to put more effort into that. Glad you checked in because I had about given up hope that we would ever get back to normal around here.

In the meantime, take good care and get well soon!

Sorry to hear yer not doing good... I feel like an idjut for making jokes..

Michale.....

Here's whatcha do: Go to the eye doctor, and if you don't already have reading glasses, they'll prescribe them. And when you get the order filled, go for that special coating they're always pushing, which helps with monitor glare. It costs a small fortune, but it's well worth it. You'll notice a difference.

This is what Lefty spinners are truly talented at: deliberately missing the point and then dumping on the Rightie for a point he/she has neither made nor contested, nor is even at issue. (It's called "changing the subject.") MediaMatters does that to frickin' Glen Beck all the time. LOL. That poor guy. And then, of course, Olbermann and Rachel Madcow run with it that evening. And then ya go to the HuffPo the next day, and all the folks are regurgitating it as "fact." LOL. Ah, fun and games. Fun and games.

Aaaaaaany day now.

Lower back pain. Here's what you do: Stack books on your desk, stick your computer on top of it, and write while standing up. Donald Rumsfeld did all his desk work standing up and not until I started getting writer-related lower-back pain did I understand why.

Also, in the morning, before drinking coffee or tea, drink a glass of water and take a baby aspirin. That'll keep your circulation going in your legs, which is another malady writers suffer from. (That's dangerous, y'know.)

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the problem is not so contagious that your wife may be at risk. Better yet that it is not contagious at all. I think I may be having a similar problem in that my vision is getting slightly fuzzy from spending so much time on the computer. I look forward to hearing your problem is done with.

Actually, I have a minor medical problem currently which makes it very hard to sit in front of a computer for any length of time. It's been all I can do to get each day's article out, and I realize I've been falling down on the comments, for which I apologize. Hopefully this problem will be resolved soon, and things will return to normal here.

I'm sorry I've left it up to you folks to counter some of the negative stuff here, but hopefully, as I said, things will get back to normal soon.

-CW

So, we should see a Christian Church in Mecca and a Synagogue in Medina soon???

Michale.....

hehehehehehehehehehe :D

As far as the Mosque issue, Obama is talking apples and alligators..

It's as if he said,"I want to address the Mosque issue. Dogs barking can't fly home without umbrella"

One statement has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

The issue with the Mosque is not that they don't have the RIGHT to build the Mosque. Assuming the funding issue is proven, of course they have the RIGHT to build it..

The issue is why this group is so adamant about tying this mosque to the 9/11 attacks??

THAT is the issue that I would like to see Obama address..

I know, I know.. Fat chance of that, eh??

Michale.....

Notice how Bloomberg is sloooooooooowly backing away.

"...Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

Al-Zahar spoke on 'Aaron Klein Investigative Radio' on WABC-AM in the U.S. He is a co-founder of Hamas and its chief on the Gaza Strip. http://tinyurl.com/22kyyn9

Oh, good. The president of the United States and Hamas are on the same side in this issue, in stark contrast to the majority of Americans.

Repeat: I sometimes wonder whose side Obama is on. And I ain't talking political parties.

First let us speak to Chris.

You'll speak to Chris when Michale, Rush and I decide you'll speak to Chris.

Michale,

First let us speak to Chris.

"I am fine. Please do everything that Michale says."
-CW

Michale.....

First let us speak to Chris.

Aside from being ticked off, are you OK? You've been greatly missed in the comments for some time now. Hope all is well with you, Mrs. CW, and your vehicle :D

CB and I have kidnapped CW..

We will turn him over to Rush for indoctrination unless ALL of you capitulate and renounce Obamaism and embrace Michale'ism..

You have 24 hours to comply...

:D

Michale.....

It's obvious what the Democrats are doing.

They know they are going to lose their majority, likely in both houses of Congress.

So, they are doing their utmost to move forward their own agenda before they do..

Unfortunately, their agenda is NOT the agenda that best serves the country.

Michale.....

"Banks to benefit most from White House effort to fight foreclosures."
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/114349-banks-to-benefit-most-from-white-house-program-to-stave-off-foreclosures

But it's the Republicans who are in bed with the banks, right?

Plus, as if it weren't bad enough that the Dems cut the food stamps program to bail out the teachers (union campaign contributions, anyone?), catch the other article entitled "Dems may use food stamp money to pay for Michelle Obama's nutrition initiative." This is precisely the personal-liberty "intrusion" the majority of Americans are pissed off about. And it's also the kind of spending that's infuriating them. Yet the Dems just keep on doing it.

Aside from being ticked off, are you OK? You've been greatly missed in the comments for some time now. Hope all is well with you, Mrs. CW, and your vehicle :D

I sometimes wonder whose side Obama is on. And I ain't talking political parties.

I often wonder the same thing about you.

"Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November's elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls." - http://tinyurl.com/2akb2wd

This is gonna be ugly. I think the Dems are gonna get seriously stomped in November, because for the life of me, I can't think of anything that can happen between now and November that would change voters minds — including, say, the capture of Osama bin Laden. I don't think even THAT would change anything, given the jobs situation AND the fear that this country is turning into a socialism.

Bearing in mind that the Democratic party is 39% of the electorate, check out Obama's new record-low approval rating with Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Even if this 42% were to include the approval of every last Democrat in the country, that means a mere 3% of the rest of the country approves of the job he's doing. And that's according to a poll with +/- 3% margin of error.

The problem for Dems is not that they can't get their communications act together: it's that they've got nothing to trumpet. The majority of the country wants the Dems' victorious HCR repealed; this enormously expensive "recovery" plan is a wholesale failure, with the recession on the threshold of a double-dip; the jobs numbers are horrifying...

So WHAT is the message? What are Dem candidates supposed to say? THAT is the problem, Chris.

One has to follow the likely voters polls to realize this, but the Dems have been on the wrong side of virtually every legislation and issue that's transpired over the past year and half. For example, the majority never wanted HCR legislation OR the Student Aid legislation. They never supported the Nuke agreement Obama cut, with 77% saying, to this day, that the more nukes the better, in terms of protecting this country. The majority is against Obama's Arizona lawsuit; they're against his drilling moratorium; they're against the GZ mosque; they were against the terrorist trial in NYC; they were all for reigning in Wall Street, but NOT for the huge new agency that's being created, or the Federal Government giving itself the authority to simply seize any financial business that LOOKS rocky to them; they were against the auto bail-outs; they're aginst cap-n-trade... I mean, virtually EVERYTHING the Dems have been for, the majority has been against.

So what campaign message would you recommend, Chris? Because I'm a strategist, by profession, and I'll be damned if I can figure out a viable selling proposition. I wouldn't know how to sell this tube of toothpaste if ya held a gun to my head.

Let's not forget the part where the food stamps program was cut in order to "stand up" for the paychecks of first responders and teachers, all because states have been spending just as recklessly as the federal government and now — surprise, surprise — can't pay their bills.

http://www.chris11962.com/blog/files/e831468dd5f32187853c738c005ffdc0-175.html

Check out the second part of that video, with Christie talking about how he closed Jersey's $11B deficit without raising taxes. The only reason the states are cutting teachers/firefighters is because they're not willing to cut the tons of entitlement programs they've created, though CAN'T AFFORD; plus, they're scared to death to take the teachers (and other) unions on.

"We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack."

Small band of terrorists???? Al Qaeda extends well beyond "the small band of terrorists who planned and executed the attack." Al Qaeda is all over the world, with training camps and indoctrination centers and money-funneling organizations — you name it. Yet this entire White House seems to regard al Qaeda as some pesky little organization that simply won't stop annoying us with attacks and attempted attacks upon the homeland.

And what if financial ties to terrorist organizations pop up down the road? What is Obama gonna say THEN? This wouldn't be the first time a mosque project was shut down in this country, due to terrorist-tied funding. I recall a similar thing going down in in Florida. Yet here's the president of the United States, with no clue where this money is coming from, throwing his support behind this project.

I sometimes wonder whose side Obama is on. And I ain't talking political parties.

"Rauf’s wife failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its website to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mosque-grows-near-brooklyn

Scary, ain't I?? :D

Yet look how firmly their heels are, nevertheless, dug in. It seems no other location but the foot of the attack site will do for "Cordoba" House. Red flag, anyone?

No other explanation fits the facts..

Regardless of one's position vis a vis the Cordoba Mosque, one simply must admit what a bonehead move it was for Obama to state his position so adamantly, then back-pedal furiously the next day..

I think this latest boner rivals Obama's "Cops acted stupidly" moment...

And THAT was a huge boner and a hard act to follow...

Michale......

Yet look how firmly their heels are, nevertheless, dug in. It seems no other location but the foot of the attack site will do for "Cordoba" House. Red flag, anyone?

ROFL! Where the heck do you come up with these quotes, Michale. Please don't tell me you actually have them stored in your memory banks.

Simply because the mosque developers are not known to be the Moslem equivalant of a fundamentalist Christian group. On the contrary, they are known to be moderate Moslems.

"Moderate" Muslims would not choose to name their group, "Cordoba"....

Michale.....

Shall I find another media link that says the opposite? No, I don't think so.

Feel free... :D

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Mosque+rejects+Paterson+offer&btnG=Google+Search

And I am certain that the Christian Fundamentalists in my analogy would show themselves to be "moderate" as well.

The association is with the religion itself. Let's face it, as much as it would like to pretend otherwise, Islam is not the most tolerant of religions...

Michale.....

You have to admit, the Cordoba Group scheduling the ground-breaking on 11 Sep is pretty inflammatory..

They could have chosen 364 different days..

WHY would they choose THAT particular day to break ground on their new Mosque??

Because the Cordoba designation, as it pertains to Islam, requires it..

Michale.....

According to a WSJ, the Mosque group rejected Gov Paterson's offer to relocate the Mosque...

Shall I find another media link that says the opposite? No, I don't think so.

But WHY doesn't it make sense.

Simply because the mosque developers are not known to be the Moslem equivalant of a fundamentalist Christian group. On the contrary, they are known to be moderate Moslems.

According to a WSJ, the Mosque group rejected Gov Paterson's offer to relocate the Mosque..

Which is in keeping with the Cordoba designation, as Cordoba requires that the site of conquest be marked with a Mosque...

Michale....

This rant will be more appreciated at the Huffington Post.

You find more comrades-in-arms there, too.

"...Democrats — at least some who were willing to comment — could barely contain their frustration over Obama's remarks, saying he had potentially placed every one of their candidates into the middle of the debate by giving GOP candidates a chance to ask them point-blank: Do you agree with Obama on the mosque, or not?"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41069.html

Notice the sign the woman is holding. Muslims know the significance of the name "Cordoba." The fact that the building was named that, of all things, raises a red flag. That the Imam won't disclose who's funding it is another flag. That the groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for September 11th of next year — the tenth-year anniversary of the attack — is another red flag. And there's Obama — whose JD should be following the money, but isn't — is throwing his support behind this project, with no clue who's funding it.

And you wonder why I raise the I-word? This guy is either as incompetent as the day is long or (a disturbing thought) he's an "internationalist" who puts the world first and America second.

Frankly, the more I watch Obama and look at the people he surrounds himself with, the more he's looking like he holds attitudes not too terribly dissimilar from Louis Farrakahn. (His Attorney General is disciple of Farrakahn if I've ever seen one.) I think there's a lot more to the dreamy, Kumbaya, heartwarming Obama story than has been told. For instance, does anybody really know what his "politics" were when he was in college? Because I'm getting the strong sense that he was a lot more radical than we know. Like, a few steps beyond the blame-America-first crowd.

But WHY doesn't it make sense.

That's my question....

Thanx for the link.. Reading now.. :D

Michale.....

You are apparently unaware of how capable the treasury department is in figuring out these things.

If this is true, then it would behoove the Treasury Dept to settle the question of the Cordoba Mosque funding.

Until such time, CB's assertion that the funding is in question is accurate..

Michale.....

Analogies must at least make sense. This one did not. This one compared apples with oranges and, therefore, failed to make your point.

Here's a link for you about the possibility of a change in location for the mosque ... I can't vouch, however, for the accuracy of the article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/13/2010-08-13_we_can_talk_about_move_sez_mosque.html

Your analogy is flawed because it implies facts not in evidence. :)

Analogies are rarely "factual"... That is why they are analogies. :D

Have you heard that the mosque developers are open to relocation? How far away from the attack site is far enough for those opposed to the mosque being built (in the proposed place), I wonder.

I have not heard that... I would love to read about it if you have the link...

As far as how far?? Beyond the nationalistic isues, that would be a better question to those who lost loved ones on 9/11..

But, what I have heard is very distressing in that they are equating the people involved with the mosque with the people involved with the 9/11 attacks.

That's because there IS a direct link, as much as it is not PC to point it out...

Just as there is a direct link between Christian fundamentalists and the likes of McVCeigh and Rudolph, just as there is a direct link between the Japanese people and those that attacked Pearl Harbor...

Anyone who lost a husband, wife, son, daughter, father or mother on 9/11 simply cannot help but make the link between Islam and Islamic terrorists...

And it's damn insensitive to ask ANYONE that lost a loved one to accept the instrument of terrorism mere blocks away from the site of the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the United States.

As I said above, if the idea was to build bridges, the Cordoba Mosque is already a dismal failure. The main reason being because they chose the Cordoba name, thereby invoking the Cordoba legend as it pertains to Islam.

Michale.....

Nope, you're still the only one who is quite clueless about all of this.

You are apparently unaware of how capable the treasury department is in figuring out these things.

So, you may continue on with your nonsense - ad nauseam - inspired by your own cluelessness, if you wish, but you are only succeeding in portraying yourself as just another member of the ill-informed electorate ... or worse ...

To my knowledge, NO ONE has addressed the funding concern. Which, in my mind, makes that a VERY important issue..

NY congressman Peter King has been harping on this funding from the start. He's on the Homeland committee, so if "intel" were involved, he would know about it. The fact is that the Imam is just refusing to say who's funding it:

"...in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Rauf told the newspaper that funding would come from Muslims in the United States and from overseas.

In interviews with US media, Rauf has insisted funds would be raised here."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO

So he's got two two different stories going on. That, right there, is a red flag. And here's Obama, standing up for the project with no clue who's funding it.

One more point about the sensitivity issue.

I haven't heard a lot from the family members of those killed in the attack on the World Trade Center complex. But, what I have heard is very distressing in that they are equating the people involved with the mosque with the people involved with the 9/11 attacks.

Sadly, that only betrays their ignorance and does nothing to validate their sensitivities.

Perhaps if the mosque developers and their supporters were to sit down with the family members and others opposed to building the mosque so close to the attack site, they might reach a compromise that would build bridges.

It's becoming apparent that, due to the complete and utter insensitivity of the Muslim community over this issue, bridges are being destroyed, not built...

Have you heard that the mosque developers are open to relocation? How far away from the attack site is far enough for those opposed to the mosque being built (in the proposed place), I wonder.

I really enjoyed reading [28] ... I just wanted to say that. :)

Perhaps you can explain exactly why or how the analogy is flawed...

Your analogy is flawed because it implies facts not in evidence. :)

Would it have been appropriate to build a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor in 1950??

Michale.....

But, that doesn't mean that Obama, Biden and Geithner are clueless, too.

You actually raise a very good point.

It IS possible that Obama et al DOES know the exact funding sources for the Cordoba Mosque.

It's also possible that they CAN'T say they know because it would compromise intelligence assets to get into specifics.

However, since the funding question is one of the issues against the Cordoba Mosque, it would behoove Obama to make it clear that the funding is NOT coming from terrorists.

To my knowledge, NO ONE has addressed the funding concern. Which, in my mind, makes that a VERY important issue..

Regardless, there are still very real emotional issues that are valid, above and beyond the question of funding..

Muslim groups are saying the Cordoba Mosque is meant to build bridges...

It's becoming apparent that, due to the complete and utter insensitivity of the Muslim community over this issue, bridges are being destroyed, not built...

Michale.....

Perhaps you can explain exactly why or how the analogy is flawed..

That would be "peachy keen wonderful" as my lovely wife would say... :D

Michale.....

You may be clueless as to who is funding the mosque.

But, that doesn't mean that Obama, Biden and Geithner are clueless, too. You really should try to refrain from projecting so much. It relflects so poorly on you.

There you go AGAIN making false, not to mention ludicrous, analogies.

These analogies only deflate your arguments.

Since, as fellow Huffington Post blogger Matt Osborne is fond of saying, "I'm still waiting for my first check from George Soros,"

As the old saying goes, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free??"

:D

And then some bright spark decides that what Obama really needs is to woo independents and centrists back. And the easy way to do this is to pick up a two-by-four and beat the Left over the head, once again. Yeah, sure, that's the ticket!

Yea, that's kinda my point.

Obama is NOT this stupid...

Is he???

This is despicable. Now, we are no fans of Stevens or Palin, around here. In fact, we think they're two of the worst things ever to come from the state of Alaska. But, seriously, there is a line of propriety in politics, and that line is labeled: "Don't joke about the deaths of politicians, past or future." Horrigan crossed that line. The only thing saving him from the MDDOTW award this week was the fact that he promptly resigned his state House seat, and withdrew from the upcoming election. At least he recognized the magnitude of his error, in other words.

The Lefties from a previous commentary should remember these despicable acts when they pontificate that it's always the Right that is mean and nasty and the Left is as pure as the driven snow..

"Well, looks like the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it."
-Joyce DeWitt, THREES COMPANY

(Had to reach REALLY far back for THAT little gem, eh?? :D )

To be quite blunt, this is known as leadership.

Exactly..

And, since Obama is a "Leader In Training", he is making mistakes left and right. (No pun intended)

CB,

This mosque thing is likely Obama throwing his base a bone. But there's more to it than that, I think, Michale. Because here's the president of the United States getting behind this mosque with no clue of who's funding it. THAT disturbs me.

I know that many here think that the Mosque issue is much ado about nothing...

While it has been firmly established that, all things being equal, Muslims have the right to build a mosque on private property, the one's opposed to the mosque do make good points. Emotional points, to be sure, but good points nonetheless..

Postulate a scenario where a fundementalist Christian group, a group that Timothy McVeigh belonged to for example, wanted to build a "church" a block away from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Do you think that the citizens of Oklahoma City would think that was a really great idea???

Of course not..

So, why should the citizens of New York be an exception??

Michale.....

This is true, though not necessarily for the reasons Grayson lays out. Gibbs resigning says "Fine, ya big buncha babies. I'll leave so that the president doesn't have to be distracted by your incessant whining." Obama's firing him says "I won't tolerate a show of disrespect to American citizens of the Democratic party."

BIG difference in the message sent out to this country.

See now, this is what "the professional left" is upset about, Mister Gibbs. This is exactly the heart of the entire freakin' problem -- the Left isn't asking for everything on their agenda to be done yesterday, all they're asking for is a damn seat at the table.

That "seat at the table" reminds me of that sweet little Dr. Margaret Flowers, who got arrested at the Max Baucus hearing. Listen to the WAY she says "...and they said noooooooooo."

http://chris11962.com/Seat%20at%20the%20table.mov

I keep thinking to myself, "Do these politicians even understand that Dr. Margaret Flowers is their boss; that she hired them; that she pays their salaries; that THEY are supposed to be working for HER? Evidently not, because Dr. Flowers ended up in handcuffs, and all she and her fellow "activists" — otherwise known as American citizens — were asking was for ONE lone representative to have a seat at that looooooooooooooooooong table. There is something very, VERY wrong with that shot of "we, the people" in handcuffs.

The difference between Tea Partiers and Libs/Progs is that Tea Partiers aren't taking it anymore and the Libs/Progs still are.

I need some editing, please ... sorry.

The White House needs to issue an apology to that OTHER class of folks on the left who actually ARE dedicated to writing and speaking for the cause ... writers like you, for example.

Should read as,

The White House needs to issue an apology to that OTHER class of folks on the left who actually ARE dedicated to writing and speaking for the cause - writers like you, for example - for not responding to all of the nonsense from the left a whole lot sooner than almost half-way through their first term.