Obama supports mosque... SURPRISE
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Heheheh .... a nice (if feeble) try and a good (if doomed) effort on your part I suppose, considering that it came from you ....
Unfortunately for you, the true reality of it on the ground is that that picture is much more representative of the fan club of the folks you seem to support than for the PRO goobers .... (they're a different type of Boobus .....)
Can't say that I'm really much of a fan of either side or faction ...
One only has to spend a little time out in the environment looking around, to make the observation ....
Of course, if one can't make that observation you're either myopic ..... or maybe just comatose ....
...... and speaking of myopathy ...... I'm always really amused when someone whose own level of visual acuity requires them to sport a pair of coke bottles on their nose, then makes it a practice to lecture others about what they ought to be seeing .....
And BTW, if your above comments were supposed to be humorous (..... or was it ludicrous ?) my advice would be: don't quit the day job .....
.... George Burns you ain't .....
Last edited:
Just a clarification, "myopathy" is a muscular dystrophy disease in which the muscle fibers do not function for any number of reasons. The primary defect is within the muscle itself, as opposed to the nerves, as with neuropathies or neurogenic disorders.
"Myopia", on the other hand, is a refractive defect of the eye in which the light entering the eye produces an image that is focused somewhere in front of the retina, instead of at the rear of the eye onto the retina itself.
Those with myopia see near objects clearly but far away objects appear blurred. That's me. I'm "nearsighted". With myopia, the eyeball is too long, or the cornea is too steep, so images are focused in the gooey, vitreous inside the eye rather than on the retina at the back of the eye.
The opposite defect of myopia is hyperopia, or "farsightedness" or "long-sightedness", where the cornea is too flat (as often happens as people age) or the eye is too small, and people can see up far away just fine, but things that are up close are blurred. Often, these people do not have arms that are long enough. When that happens, corrective lenses are needed.
Another form of visual refractive defect is "astigmatism", and 1-in-3 people suffer from it to one degree or another. It's where the cornea isn't perfectly spherical and the slope of the cornea produces a different refractive power and angle on the the horizontal plane than it does on the vertical plane, resulting in stereo images that aren't quite lined up and in focus. I've got that, too, and it too increased with age, both in severity and in prevalence.
Myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism are generally easily corrected by corrective lenses. Once corrected with eyeglasses to 20/20 vision, then 20/20 is 20/20 regardless of whether the lenses are tissue thin or Coke bottle thick, doesn't matter.
Blindness is the condition of lacking visual perception and acuity due to physical (physiological, not psychological) and neurological factors. The term "legally blind" is only applied to someone who's vision cannot be corrected with lenses to at least 20/200 (or 6/60) (and/or those with a visual field of less than 20 degrees diameter, or a 10 degree radius. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet from an object to see it, while wearing corrective lenses, with the same degree of visual acuity and clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet away.
So, if you're looking at the world through Coke bottles, if those Coke bottles correct your vision to 20/20, then the world looks exactly the same as it does to someone who has 20/20 vision and does not require corrective lenses.
I'm not sure that a correlation can be made between someone's successfully corrected vision and their level of intelligence and critical thinking abilities.
Here's a seldom considered point brought out in an op-ed piece from today's Wall Street Journal: in this age of negotiation and comprimise, has there been any willingness on the part of Imam Rauf and the muslim community of NYC to negotiate and comprimise on the ground zero mosque issue? Apparently not. This seems to be the normal modus operandi for these people - everyone else has to make comprimises for them. To his credit, Gov. David Paterson offered a parcel of state-owned land as an alternative location, but was rejected by the muslim developers. It seems that any sacrifices on the part of Imam Rauf and his group are out of the question. One wonders if there has been any discussion about scaling back the size and scope of the project - perhaps building a community center with fewer stories and making a separate mosque located farther away. In spite of the fact that they have the legal right to build there, the muslims seem to be unconcerned with the opinion showing 53% of New Yorkers against their project, and more like 70% of the nation's population disapproving. It appears that Imam Rauf and the other muslims involved are a bit myopic.
Review & Outlook: The Mosque of Misunderstanding - WSJ.com
"The West can't triumph unless the silent majority of Muslims, too often prone to passivity and prevarication, stands up to the violent fundamentalists in their midst. As important, Islam can undermine al Qaeda and its offshoots if its believers see that they can thrive in open and pluralistic democracies, being tolerated as well as being tolerant.
But such tolerance and sensitivity go both ways. Mr. Rauf's insistence in building his mosque at Ground Zero reveals an obstinacy that suggests a desire to make a political, as much as a religious, statement. Other Manhattan sites were and are available for such a project.
As our colleague William McGurn has noted, Pope John Paul II once asked the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He did so out of respect for what that site represented to Jews around the world. It was an act of ecumenical good faith.
If Mr. Rauf truly wants to assist the cause of interfaith understanding, he'll build Cordoba House somewhere else."
Review & Outlook: The Mosque of Misunderstanding - WSJ.com
"The West can't triumph unless the silent majority of Muslims, too often prone to passivity and prevarication, stands up to the violent fundamentalists in their midst. As important, Islam can undermine al Qaeda and its offshoots if its believers see that they can thrive in open and pluralistic democracies, being tolerated as well as being tolerant.
But such tolerance and sensitivity go both ways. Mr. Rauf's insistence in building his mosque at Ground Zero reveals an obstinacy that suggests a desire to make a political, as much as a religious, statement. Other Manhattan sites were and are available for such a project.
As our colleague William McGurn has noted, Pope John Paul II once asked the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He did so out of respect for what that site represented to Jews around the world. It was an act of ecumenical good faith.
If Mr. Rauf truly wants to assist the cause of interfaith understanding, he'll build Cordoba House somewhere else."
For the Muslim community to insist on building a mosque near Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act and they know it. As usual, the Muslims use the freedoms of our open society to exploit the system. As usual, the handringers will appease them. These same handringers will be so pleased with themselves... glowing with self-admiration.
Can anyone point to a nation on Earth where appeasing the Muslim community has worked? Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization. Never has been, never will be. Michael Bloomberg and his ambitious sidekick -Obama- must be unfamiliar with Neville Chamberlain. Islam seeks nothing short of world domination. These liberals are going to be our ruin.
Can anyone point to a nation on Earth where appeasing the Muslim community has worked? Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization. Never has been, never will be. Michael Bloomberg and his ambitious sidekick -Obama- must be unfamiliar with Neville Chamberlain. Islam seeks nothing short of world domination. These liberals are going to be our ruin.
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
OK, so let's hear your solution. How do we deny them the property and the building of a mosque at the site, while reconciling that decision with the Constitution?
They cannot legally be denied their wishes to build. Just because it's legal doesn't make it a proper or wise thing to do. I don't think the proposed mosque will actually come to fruition, but it might. One possible solution is for the Muslim community to acknowledge the anguish Americans feel about the attacks of 9/11 and choose to build somewhere less controversial.
Some time after 9/11, when "the anguish Americans feel" was also running pretty high, one man drove his pickup truck dead center through the front doors of a mosque, in suburban Cleveland [Parma Hts] Ohio.
When rational thinking is overtaken by emotion, there is no safe place.
Yeah, the pickup driver was definitely wrong in his actions. How does that relate to building a mosque near the 9/11 attacks?
So in letting them build it, because we cannot legally prevent them from doing so, are we still then appeasing them?
That's my problem with a lot of people who oppose this. Even you here, with the "As usual, the handringers will appease them. These same handringers will be so pleased with themselves... glowing with self-admiration," when the stone-cold fact is it's not appeasement at all. Not even close.
Appeasement is to literally yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles. But that's not what is happening here. The opposite of appeasement is resistance and provocation. But there are no legal grounds for resistance or provocation here, only emotional ones, and the only thing we as a nation are yielding to is our own rule of law. If we do anything other than let them build it, then we ourselves are the ones taking action at the expense of justice and our own founding principles.
So to say that liberals are appeasing the Muslims in this case, and by logical inference that conservatives would not yield, even though we all know that conservatives would have no legal leg to stand on, is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
I agree with you that just because it's legal doesn't make it particular wise or a proper thing to do. There are, believe it or not, a large number of Muslims in this country who oppose as strenuously as many non-Muslims the building of a mosque at that site. I read an article just the other day where comments from about 20 people were included, Muslim and non-Muslims, some for it and some against, with roughly the same percentage of Muslim-Americans being against it (64% IIRC) as the non-Muslim Americans.
The mosque may or may not come to fruition. If it does, I don't think life as we know it will end. But regardless of what happens, there's no need to go all drama queen about appeasement that's not even happening by the liberals and the resulting impending doom of the American Way of Life.
"Yeah, the pickup driver was definitely wrong in his actions. How does that relate to building a mosque near the 9/11 attacks?"
The building of a mosque there is an emotional thing to a lot of people. Some of them emotionally unstable enough to drive a pickup at those insane New York City speeds into the front of the mosque, cracking the glass doors of the building and denting the pickup's plastic bumper. Or, someone might just car-bomb it. Goose and gander, that sort of thinking.
That's my problem with a lot of people who oppose this. Even you here, with the "As usual, the handringers will appease them. These same handringers will be so pleased with themselves... glowing with self-admiration," when the stone-cold fact is it's not appeasement at all. Not even close.
Appeasement is to literally yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles. But that's not what is happening here. The opposite of appeasement is resistance and provocation. But there are no legal grounds for resistance or provocation here, only emotional ones, and the only thing we as a nation are yielding to is our own rule of law. If we do anything other than let them build it, then we ourselves are the ones taking action at the expense of justice and our own founding principles.
So to say that liberals are appeasing the Muslims in this case, and by logical inference that conservatives would not yield, even though we all know that conservatives would have no legal leg to stand on, is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
I agree with you that just because it's legal doesn't make it particular wise or a proper thing to do. There are, believe it or not, a large number of Muslims in this country who oppose as strenuously as many non-Muslims the building of a mosque at that site. I read an article just the other day where comments from about 20 people were included, Muslim and non-Muslims, some for it and some against, with roughly the same percentage of Muslim-Americans being against it (64% IIRC) as the non-Muslim Americans.
The mosque may or may not come to fruition. If it does, I don't think life as we know it will end. But regardless of what happens, there's no need to go all drama queen about appeasement that's not even happening by the liberals and the resulting impending doom of the American Way of Life.
"Yeah, the pickup driver was definitely wrong in his actions. How does that relate to building a mosque near the 9/11 attacks?"
The building of a mosque there is an emotional thing to a lot of people. Some of them emotionally unstable enough to drive a pickup at those insane New York City speeds into the front of the mosque, cracking the glass doors of the building and denting the pickup's plastic bumper. Or, someone might just car-bomb it. Goose and gander, that sort of thinking.
A reason would have to be given to deny the building of it. If that reason violates the Constitution, there ya go. Considering what you have in your signature, you of all people should know that.
But are we now talking about a hypothetical community center, built possibly anywhere, or has the Ground Zero Mosque that you are so outraged about now considered by your to be a community center for the purposes of being able to deny it based on non-religious reasons?
What a hoot.
Turtle... let's put this on a micro level: if, God forbid, someone or some group murdered your family... how would you feel about them moving in next door to you? Allah Akbar, right?
I understand how your feel. I do, however, believe that there is NO such thing as "Group Guilt". I know far too many very good, very pro American Muslims. As hard as it might be I would at least first have to try to get to know my new neighbors. Unless I KNEW that they were of the "dark side" I would have to, at very least, leave them alone. I am NOT saying that it would be easy. I do, however, believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
That's interesting. We don't go to war against a single individual, we go to war against nations, governments and groups.
There are many interesting things like that, my friend. My Italian grandparents were able to live here in the U.S. without a problem during WWII. That is in spite of the fact that we were at war with Italy.
Yes, the American-Italians made an extreme effort to show their patriotism to the USA during WWII by volunteering for the toughest combat we faced. They renounced Mussolini and the fascists in the strongest terms possible and many died on battlefields in service to our country. They have a proud and distinguished history of serving America.
BTW, if you don't believe in group guilt, will you volunteer to make apologies in person to the cities of Dresden, Germany... Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan?
That's kind of a straw man argument, tho. If the murderers themselves wanted to move in next door to me, then I wouldn't like it one bit, and there are legal ways to prevent that. But I'm not aware that anyone having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks are the ones trying to develop the mosque. They merely have the same religion is all.
But let's put it on a micro level that is more analogous. Let's say the murderers themselves were black people. Should I be upset with all black people now? Should I somehow deny them the right to move in simply because they're black, even if they didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the murders, but I think they did because they're black?
What if the murderers were white people? What then?
Or is it only certain groups, like religious groups that count? What if the murderers were, God forbid, Charles Manson, et al, who was a Scientologist? Should I then try and prevent Greta van Susteren and her husband from moving in next door? And further, prevent Greta's evil compatriots Jenna Elfman and Catherine Bell and Leah Remini from visiting next door?