US Politics #2

[BloodRider]

From the last thread:

This is my point. While Healthcare has not been around long enough to make an informed decision, every other talking point is how we fucked up the economy in the first place. I just do not understand it. How can any person with half a brain accept this as a viable platform. It is an abject failure. It has proven to be the two times it was tied. But they want to do it again???

I'll take mt risks with the guys who want rational regulation on businesses and who acknowledge the reality that taxes are going to have to go up. I'll take the guys who put their jobs on the line to do what they think is right, and so far have accomplished a bunch of big things for our country.

I'll say it again. Until the Repubs come up with a platform that is not more of the same, they are not worthy of my vote or money again.

In the meantime this is fun. Teabaggers go nuts over a fake Onion story.

Have at it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

I couldn't disagree with you more on the Mosque issue. Should people's right to freely exercise their faiths really be curtailed in order to smooth over other people's irrationality in tarring all muslims with the terrorist brush?

[awesome possum]

FLoW,

I guess it's also wrong for Christians to have churches on or near land where Native Americans were slaughtered or brutalized (by Christians)? Which means pretty much all churches in the United States should be shut down to avoid feelings being hurt.

[The Progressive]

I'm surprised that you guys are still entertaining flow's morally bankrupt and historically inaccurate vitriol.

Back to the story of the villification and redemption of Ms. Sherrod, she might not be inclined to accept the new position offered to her. I think Vilsack ought to be the one who should be ask to be resigned for letting teabagger idiots in the media pressuring the discharge of Ms. Sherrod:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/politics/23sherrod.html

Perhaps Obama does need another beer summit with Ms. Sherrod and the Spooners family.

[Ser Reptitious]

FLOW,

See, one thing that I just don't get about Conservative individuals such as yourself is that they generally will fervently defend the right of people with disgusting and offensive opinions (such as Ann Coulter or Jerry Falwell to name but two) to air their vile and hateful thoughts wherever and whenever they want, because free speech is a fundamental right. People's sensibilities be damned, since a fundamental right cannot (and should not) be infringed on such a basis (or at all, really).

Yet when it comes to the freedom to worship for Muslims whenever and wherever they want, suddenly you argue that it should be okay to restrict that freedom a bit in order to not hurt certain people's feelings.

Seems inconsistent!

[awesome possum]

The 24 Types of Libertarian - It's funny because a lot of it is true.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Mcbigski

I don't think there's that much true ugliness spawned here though. It just reveals that there's a subset of NAACP activists for whom racial greviances trump fairness, and that the Obama administration is pretty far from the post racial paradise we were promised by all of the Journolisters out there.

Your eyes have a pretty brown color to it, m'dear.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Rep.,

You did see my post, right?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

In rebuttal:

The 24 Types of Authoritarian:

http://deadlinelive.info/2010/07/16/the-24-types-of-authoritarian-satire/

[BloodRider]

Newt Gingrich, Ladies and Gentlemen. Who knew he visited these boards.*

Hey Scott, that was pretty good. And about half of them are right too! :kiss: :kiss:

*I know, Occam's Razor simply suggests that FLoW and SYM just gives good copypasta, and that they do not have original thoughts. But I think it is fun to think that Newt read GRRM and now posts here.

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

In rebuttal:

The 24 Types of Authoritarian:

http://deadlinelive.info/2010/07/16/the-24-types-of-authoritarian-satire/

Nice!

[Ser Reptitious]

Scot,

Ser Rep.,

You did see my post, right?

Yes I saw it, which is why I was careful to write "Conservative individuals such as yourself [i.e. FLOW]". I realize that not every Conservative person falls into that category. I'm glad that you're taking the position you are. You and I may hold different political views on certain issues, but your positions are generally (as far as I can tell) consistent and logical (from a small-c conservative point of view).

[alguien]

Should people's right to freely exercise their faiths really be curtailed in order to smooth over other people's irrationality in tarring all muslims with the terrorist brush?

Not to mention the fact that the mosque is a few blocks away.

To me, its a triumph of the human spirit TO build it near there. It tells terrorists, "We won't give into your bullshit fear-mongering. You don't represent the Muslim people. We (and they) reject you."

The potential benefits (promoting understanding, peace, dialog, and tolerance in the US) far outweigh the potential damage (giving terrorists a morale boost--an idea which I find suspect anyway)

It reminds of when I heard Archbishop Desmond Tutu speak about reconciliation in South Africa. Sometimes the moral high ground can also be the practical one.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

I couldn't disagree with you more on the Mosque issue. Should people's right to freely exercise their faiths really be curtailed in order to smooth over other people's irrationality in tarring all muslims with the terrorist brush?

I don't think it's tarring all moslems with the terrorist brush. If it was, wouldn't that mean opposing all mosques everywhere, and all moslems?

Like I said, it's the potential for a "trophy" issue for me. Warring moslem and Christian states both used the construction/conversion of religious buildings as a type of trophy in the past. Since our foes seem to be the type that are wallowing in that same medieval mindset, I don't see the need to give them a propaganda victory.

As a practical matter, whatever the presumably benign motivations/worldview of the particular folks establishing this center, there is no guarantee it will remain consistent with their vision. And if it gets built and then subverted by radical islamists, preaching hate from that site would be a stomach-churning mess we'd be powerless to stop. I just don't understand why it needs to be right there, right now. Well, actually I do. The proponents deliberately want it to be a symbol directly related to 9/11. And I'm not sure why some people who support its construction seem to insist that it really doesn't have anything to do with 9/11 at all.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

But you have to make the assumption the Mosque will be taken over by radical muslims. Should churches be denied building permits because they may, someday, become host to a branch of the Westboro Baptist Church and all of its outrages?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

See, one thing that I just don't get about Conservative individuals such as yourself is that they generally will fervently defend the right of people with disgusting and offensive opinions (such as Ann Coulter or Jerry Falwell to name but two) to air their vile and hateful thoughts wherever and whenever they want, because free speech is a fundamental right. People's sensibilities be damned, since a fundamental right cannot (and should not) be infringed on such a basis (or at all, really).

Yet when it comes to the freedom to worship for Muslims whenever and wherever they want, suddenly you argue that it should be okay to restrict that freedom a bit in order to not hurt certain people's feelings.

Seems inconsistent!

Actually, I'm being completely consistent on that. Free speech is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. People generally are free to say whatever they want because you can't censor a point of view. They just can't always say it when, where, and how they might prefer. For example, you may need to get a permit, be precluded from getting within a certain distance of provate property, etc.

I'm simply saying that it's not unreasonable to apply some form of that to religion. Just as you can't censor speech for it's content, you shouldn't be able to censor a religion. But more reasonable restrictions might be appropriate. Let's say you had the "Church of the Aryan Race", bought some land next to Buchenwald, and wanted to set up shop there. Okay, I might agree that church has a right to exist, but not there. I don't support Phelps and his vermin having the right to set up shop where funerals are taking place.

To me, locations of historically significant, tragic events (Wounded Knee would be another example, Same with Pearl Harbor) should be able to get a bit of breathing space and not used for other purposes, as the folks who want to build this center admittedly want to do.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

But you have to make the assumption the Mosque will be taken over by radical muslims.

It is the same religion, and there would be nothing to prevent radicals from adopting that center even if they don't have control simply because of its proximity to the site.

Should churches be denied building permits because they may, someday, become host to a branch of the Westboro Baptist Church and all of its outrages?

The Westboro Baptist Church has a right to exist. But I wouldn't want them building a church right nest to Wounded Knee, for example. Or perhaps a better example would be that I wouldn't want them putting up a church next to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

But we aren't talkinf about "The Church of the Aryan Race" here just a moderate Muslim place of worship. Unless you want to ban all churches because of the possibilty of "the Church of the Aryan Race" taking hold your example doesn't work.

[Ser Reptitious]

Let's say you had the "Church of the Aryan Race", bought some land next to Buchenwald, and wanted to set up shop there. Okay, I might agree that church has a right to exist, but not there.

I think a better comparison between your example here and 9/11 would then if a group openly supporting al-Qaeda's goals and vision wanted to set up shop at or near the WTC site.

Disallowing a mosque would be the equivalent of disallowing a church to be built next to Buchenwald because Hitler and his perpetrators were (in their minds at least) Christians.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

But we aren't talkinf about "The Church of the Aryan Race" here just a moderate Muslim place of worship. Unless you want to ban all churches because of the possibilty of "the Church of the Aryan Race" taking hold your example doesn't work.

Well, would you agree that a church should be barred from a location if its tenets are sufficiently offensive to a sensitive nearby site? Like Westboro next to the Stonewall Inn?

Because if so, then we're really just talking about matters of degree. And in that case, I think the possibility of radical islamists congregating at an open to the public moslem center near the WTC is far more likely than the Aryans buying a particular church. And that's not mentioning the "trophy" issue I think alone is sufficient justification given that we are still engaged in very active hostilities.

Also, as I said, I have a general opposition to encroaching with anything controversial to sites of that nature.