Quote :

"credibility +1"

qntmfred on Obama's original statement concerning the the New York mosque in question.

My response:

Quote :

"That's all great until Obama flip-flops--and he almost always does. Obama threw Reverend Wright under the bus, you think he won't throw one Imam Rauf under there, too? LOL!"

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=556098&page=67

And then, right on cue, Obama flip-flopped--just as I predicted he would (with multiple sources from multiple political viewpoints):

Obama's mixed message on New York mosque helps no-one
1 hour ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/15/barack-obama-defence-new-york-mosque

Barack Obama backtracks over Ground Zero mosque support
August 15, 2010

http://tinyurl.com/2cm3oqy

'This Week' Transcript
August 15, 2010

Quote :

"[Christianne AMANPOUR]: So I guess, is that, do you think, what caused the backtracking?"

Quote :

"[Matthew] DOWD: I think they figured out this is a real political problem they have. And I think they either had a tin ear at the beginning of this and how it was going to come across or they mishandled it totally from the beginning, because if they understood, I think, the public on this, where two-thirds of the public say they have a right but two-thirds of the public say don't do it, he would have given a speech going directly to those points, instead of saying – one day saying they have the right and the next day saying I didn't necessarily say it was the right thing to do."

Quote :

"[David IGNATIUS:] I was sort of sorry that he was trying to walk it back in these more nuanced comments yesterday."

Quote :

"[Cokie ROBERTS:] But the -- but the political issue will continue, because even though the president's remarks Friday night started a firestorm, I think the backtracking is even worse, because, you know, you can make a case that what he said Friday night is just a matter of fact, it is an American right, but to keep -- to keep saying, well, now I'm not sure about this, and then what tomorrow is like..."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-economic-panel/story?id=11404136&page=3

Some of you will attempt to argue that this is not yet another in a long sad line of Obama's flip-flops---you'll be wrong. Most of the media types listed above don't like to be so direct as to use the term "flip-flop"--but make no mistake that this is exactly what they mean.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 6:15 AM. Reason : Credibility -1.]

8/16/2010 6:15:11 AM

Since you're making the exact same post in two different topics, is it considered a double-post?

8/16/2010 9:01:32 AM

You did call it hooksaw. Although he didnt reverse his position just backed off a bit to put some fog out that he might oppose it personally.

8/16/2010 9:03:59 AM

apparently it's better to continue to be wrong about something rather than to change your position

8/16/2010 9:09:40 AM

This isn’t a flip-flop, and flip-flop isn’t a real term anyway, it was coined to be used against John Kerry.

A flip-flop is when someone reverses a position, and this isn’t what Obama is doing. He’s “calibrating” his statements.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM. Reason : ]

8/16/2010 9:32:10 AM

Quote :

"A flip-flop is when someone reverses a position"

I'd like to suggest that "flip-flop" should mean when someone reverses a position, then reverses back.
Hence, a flip without a flop is simply changing your mind, perhaps for the better.
And a flip-flop would be something everyone could agree is nuts.
[/m2¢]

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM. Reason : ]

8/16/2010 9:57:45 AM

I don't care what the drive-by media says about this.

His initial statement shows he is sensitive to both sides of the issue. While he could be seen as tacitly endorsing the religious center by saying Muslims have the right to build one in lower Manhattan, reminding that people have the right to do something is not the same as endorsing it.

So, his follow-up statement is completely consistent with his first. It's only inconsistent to those who presumed he was endorsing the center.

8/16/2010 10:00:18 AM

^^^^ Perhaps Obama could have simply waited one day before initially commenting (or not have commented at all) and thus avoided yet another flip-flop/backtrack/walk-back/clarification/"calibration"?

^^^ Wrong. Just because a term is informal doesn't mean it's not "real." After all, "flip-flop" is listed right here in Webster's American Dictionary (2nd College Edition). In any event, I'm not going to debate the meaning of "flip-flop" while you attempt to shift the focus off Obama--he's earned this focus by putting it squarely on himself.

I was for the mosque before I was against it. --BO

Quote :

"Some of you will attempt to argue that this is not yet another in a long sad line of Obama's flip-flops---you'll be wrong. Most of the media types listed above don't like to be so direct as to use the term 'flip-flop'--but make no mistake that this is exactly what they mean."

hooksaw

^ Wrong. Thin-skinned Obama obviously cares what the media says--I mean, why would his intitial statement need any clarification whatsoever?

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 10:10 AM. Reason : Some of you know I'm right about any number of things--but you just can't stand it. ]

8/16/2010 10:03:34 AM

Hahaha.

All you say to me is "wrong."

What a joke.

Oh okay. Decided to append that, huh?

Quote :

"why would his intitial statement need clarification"

Because people presumed that he endorsed it, when he really didn't intend to.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

8/16/2010 10:08:26 AM

^ Wrong again. Actually, I posted this, too:

Quote :

"Thin-skinned Obama obviously cares what the media says--I mean, why would his intitial statement need any clarification whatsoever?"

1. Do you deny that Obama and members of his administration are thin-skinned?

2. Why would Obama's intitial statement need any clarification whatsoever?

8/16/2010 10:12:54 AM

Slow down and collect your thoughts before you hit post. You just fucked up this thread through edits.

8/16/2010 10:17:00 AM

^ Wrong again.

8/16/2010 10:19:33 AM

So you're just going to leave that redundant post there, or do you not realize I already addressed it?

8/16/2010 10:22:31 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps Obama could have simply waited one day before initially commenting (or not have commented at all) and thus avoided yet another flip-flop/backtrack/walk-back/clarification/"calibration"?"

People don't always say things perfectly, for example in this thread your post response edits have caused things to be very confusing. Why don't you just judge him on what he says rather than playing an immaturely trying to yell "GOTCHA!"?

8/16/2010 10:24:10 AM

^^ No, you didn't.

^

Quote :

"People don't always say things perfectly. . . ."

LOL!

Look, folks, Obama flip-flopped on this--I can't help that you don't like it--and the whole mess is going to cost Democrats big come election time.

Call it what you will, but it's flip-flopping.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 10:35 AM. Reason : I've presented more than enough evidence for support--you've presented nothing. ]

8/16/2010 10:33:37 AM

Quote :

"Within 24 hours, Mr Obama was insisting that he had not meant to indicate that he supported the building of the community centre, but was simply making a legal point. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding." "

It's a judge's job to make a "legal point", it's the president's job to lead. The president can and should use the bully pulpit to comment. Obama blew the chance to score some positive points (for a change) with the majority of American people. He should've said something to the effect of ...

"While it is their legal right to build, that area is considered hallowed ground for our country and I strongly urge them to take into account the feelings of many Americans who remember that 911 was in part the result of a twisted interpretation of Islam. I strongly urge them not to build this mosque there. "

8/16/2010 10:42:11 AM

Quote :

"Look, folks, Obama flip-flopped on this--I can't help that you don't like it--and the whole mess is going to cost Democrats big come election time. "

It's not I don't like it, it's I don't care. You seem to think because he clarified his statement or whatever that somehow makes his statement wrong, or makes him an ineffective leader, or possibly something even stupider than those two, it doesn't matter, they're all logically wrong.

8/16/2010 10:57:50 AM

Quote :

"^^ No, you didn't."

Quote :

"Because people presumed that he endorsed it, when he really didn't intend to."

Your thin-skinned comment turned into a question is irrelevant.

Quote :

"I've presented more than enough evidence for support"

You've presented statements by other people who wrongly presumed he endorsed the center like you have. That is not "evidence" that he endorsed the center. His own words are the only evidence, and there is no clear endorsement in them. There is no way for you to objectively argue otherwise.

8/16/2010 11:00:35 AM

^ Of course there is: Politics is perception. And, among other reasons, there is also the issue of historical evidence of Obama's past flip-flops. Let me guess: you deny those, too?

In any event, you have yet to prove that those sources I listed have no credibility. All you've offered is your own opinion, which you obviously hold in high esteem. I'm sorry, but I'm going to need something more than that.

8/16/2010 11:07:00 AM

Quote :

"And, among other reasons, there is also the issue of historical evidence of Obama's past flip-flops. Let me guess: you deny those, too?"

The strawman has become your only method of arguing with anyone about anything. You refuse to argue against the points that one makes, chosing instead to argue against some argument you made up that you want to respond to.

8/16/2010 11:11:51 AM

Quote :

"In any event, you have yet to prove that those sources I listed have no credibility."

The sources are irrelevant. Only his words are important regarding a reversal of position.

You, in another thread:

Quote :

"Having the right to build it does not mean that it's right to build."

Similarly, reminding people that muslims have the right to build the center it is not equivalent to endorsing its construction.

8/16/2010 11:20:20 AM

^^ You have no points--just your own flawed opinion. Past performance is, in fact, one indicator (some argue a good indicator) of future performance. Since Obama has flip-flopped in the past--and he definitely has and this thread is full of examples--this is relevant to the question at issue.

^ Those sources are not irrelevant. And I find your continual assertion concerning this to be both ridiculous and annoying.

NEWSFLASH: Since some of you are obviously uninformed, Amanpour, Ignatius, and Roberts (among a number of others) are not right-wingers, folks! They are Obama's constituency!

And I'm not going to do the to-and-fro with your ilk about this. I've made my point quite clear.

BTW, see you in November. After Election Day you can just call everyone stupid when you lose.

8/16/2010 11:34:25 AM

there is no flip-flop, you are a partisan hack

8/16/2010 11:57:06 AM

^ See the top of the page. Thanks.

8/16/2010 11:58:05 AM

Quote :

"Since Obama has flip-flopped in the past--and he definitely has and this thread is full of examples--this is relevant to the question at issue"

This is blatantly flawed logic.

His past reversals have nothing to do with whether this is a reversal.

Quote :

"Those sources are not irrelevant. And I find your continual assertion concerning this to be both ridiculous and annoying."

I find your continual assertion that others' flawed perception of Obama's words are more important than the words themselves both ridiculous and annoying. Additionally annoying is that you are using the supposed political bias of these journalists to lend credibility to your argument, espcially when we all know you would decry their bias if it didn't suit you. I don't listen to the drive-by media to form my opinion, and neither should you.

8/16/2010 11:58:26 AM

Obama's Beach Weekend with Michelle and Sasha

Quote :

"Obama's beach weekend with First Lady Michelle and Sasha Obama hole in one. BP oil spill over, and the beach weekend with the Obama's looked fun. The President swam in Saint Andrew Bay off of Alligator Point. BP oil spill seems long gone, but at least one photographer was allowed near the beach on Saturday. It was White House photographer Pete Souza. The official photo is part of the White House effort to show that Gulf Coast beaches and waters are in good shape despite the BP oil spill. The president, first lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha reinforced that message Sunday by taking a boat ride. The presidential vessel, a converted 50-foot Navy Launch called the Bay Point Lady, had a large American flag waving from the stern. The Obamas could be seen looking for dolphins in St. Andrews Bay and chatting with members of the U.S. Coast Guard crew. "As a result of the cleanup effort, beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, they are safe, and they are open for business," Obama said in a statement before he headed out for the coast. Obama swam in Saint Andrew Bay off of Alligator Point, but technically not the Gulf of Mexico. Nine-year-old Sasha stole the show, hitting a hole-in-one off the first tee, much to the delight of her father, an avid golfer."

http://www.newsoxy.com/politics/obamas-beach-weekend-michelle-sasha-14229.html

8/16/2010 11:59:09 AM

^^ It's not flawed logic at all. If one is a known flip-flopper, this has relevance.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 12:08 PM. Reason : I mean, why do, say, potential employers look at past performance? ]

8/16/2010 12:01:02 PM

Explain why it has relevance.

8/16/2010 12:08:25 PM

^ It's self-evident. But I'll give it a go.

For example, would you want a known liar testifying against you in court? Of course you wouldn't! You (or more likely your lawyer) would be the first one to point out that the witness is a known liar.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM. Reason : I mean, why do, say, potential employers look at past performance? ]

8/16/2010 12:11:25 PM

Obama launching 3 days of fundraising travel

Quote :

"MENOMONEE FALLS, Wis. — President Barack Obama is out to make sure his presence pays for Democrats, launching a three-day fundraising trip on Monday in which he will touch nearly every region of the nation and play up his economic agenda. Obama is spending the heart of his Monday in Wisconsin, raising money for gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett and other Wisconsin Democrats. Barrett was an early supporter of Obama's once long-shot White House bid. He will cap his day at a glitzy fundraiser in Los Angeles for congressional Democratic candidates. With Congress gone and much of Washington in vacation mode, Obama is squeezing in a largely political trip that foreshadows how he will campaign in the fall — aggressively, in places where is he wanted. Over three days, Obama will be raising dollars for Democrats in five states, from the Midwest to the West, Northwest to Northeast, South and back home. The presidential agenda each day will underline Obama's efforts, supported mostly by Democrats in Congress, to turn around a lumbering economy by investing long-term in a new foundation. On Monday, the president's first stop was ZBB Energy Corp., a company near Milwaukee that makes batteries and "intelligent" power systems that use renewable sources of energy. The company received a $1.3 million federal stimulus loan, which it is putting toward a factory renovation the company says will triple its manufacturing capacity. The company says it could keep nearly a dozen workers on the job as a result of the project and hopes to hire about 80 new workers over time. By pairing official events with political ones, the White House can bill taxpayers for most of the cost of the trip. President to all but leader of the Democratic Party, Obama has a political job description that demands he help elect lawmakers and state chief executives who support his agenda. And that often means showing up to support their campaigns. "The president takes that role seriously," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "And we obviously are getting closer and closer to some very important elections." In November, all 435 House seats, one-third of the Senate, and a majority of governor's and legislative jobs will be on the ballot. Democrats now control the House and Senate, but the ailing economy has turned voters against incumbents. All together, Obama will visit Wisconsin, California, Washington, Ohio and Florida before returning to the nation's capital Wednesday night. Each stop involves tight races in states that could be vital to Obama himself in 2012."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD9HKLVRG0

8/16/2010 12:14:40 PM

Quote :

"Thanks for your input."

8/16/2010 12:18:38 PM

Yup, he's a pretty shitty president. There's just no two ways about it. He's wildly ineffective, lacks direction, doesn't lead his own party let alone the country, and has done nothing to bolster economic confidence (not suggesting he is responsible for economic performance, the president gets far too much blame and credit depending on the state of the economy) but he has just been wrong so often on economic issues that neither wall street nor the public trust him on the economy any more.

8/16/2010 12:28:22 PM

Quote :

"It's self-evident. But I'll give it a go. For example, would you want a known liar testifying against you in court? Of course you wouldn't! You (or more likely your lawyer) would be the first one to point out that the witness is a known liar."

Whether he made a reversal does not depend on his testimony of said reversal.

We have his words to see for ourselves. His past reversals do not make his words more likely to be contradictory.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2010 12:31:27 PM

With Obama address, Democrats revive specter of GOP threat to Social Security

Quote :

"Reviving a political tactic that Democrats have used before, President Obama said in his radio address Saturday that "some Republican leaders in Congress" want to privatize Social Security -- even though few GOP lawmakers today support the idea. The specter of a threat to the program that provides retirement income to senior citizens is a preview of an attack that Democrats intend to make this fall, as they hope to blunt what appears to be a Republican surge in congressional elections. "I'd have thought that debate would've been put to rest once and for all by the financial crisis we've just experienced," Obama said of privatizing Social Security. "I'd have thought, after being reminded how quickly the stock market can tumble, after seeing the wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days, that no one would want to place bets with Social Security on Wall Street." But GOP leaders are not pressing for privatization. The idea proved so unpopular when President George W. Bush proposed it in 2004 that Congress, then led by Republicans, never took it up. The concept lives on in a budget proposal by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, but only a handful of GOP lawmakers have signed on to that measure. And, in the aftermath of the worst shock to the financial system since the Great Depression, many Republican lawmakers would just as soon see the idea forgotten. "

Quote :

"Coalition members plan to buttonhole lawmakers as they campaign for reelection this fall, demanding that they sign a pledge to oppose any cuts to program entitlements, such as raising the retirement age. "Over the coming weeks and months, we're making sure every politician is put on notice: If you're looking to raise the retirement age, you should be looking to retire in November," said Nita Chaudhary, campaign director at MoveOn.org. Such an effort could make the work of the deficit commission far more difficult. Commission members from both parties view Social Security as a prime opportunity for compromise -- far easier to address than, for example, an overhaul of the tax system -- and say they want to stabilize the program's finances. But forging a bipartisan compromise is likely to require cost-cutting as well as higher taxes. Boehner and House Democratic leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) have both suggested raising the retirement age, which leading economists and budget experts have advocated. The commission is also studying less dramatic options, such as changing the way inflation is measured for benefit adjustments and slowing the rate of increase in benefit payments for better-off retirees. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/14/AR2010081400858.html

8/16/2010 12:31:36 PM

^^ Opinions vary.

Quote :

"^ Thanks for your input."

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2010 12:32:26 PM

Obama had facts wrong about visit here
Finance director: Stimulus dollars didn't aid project
August 20, 2010

Quote :

"A local project that President Barack Obama cited during a visit Wednesday to Columbus as an example of how the federal stimulus package has worked isn't actually being funded with stimulus dollars."

Quote :

"But although federal money is being used for the project in question, there are no stimulus dollars involved, said Columbus Finance Director Paul Rakosky, a Democrat. Rakosky said the project is not a police station but rather the renovation of an abandoned warehouse that the city purchased on the South Side in 2007 to house the city's police crime lab and property room."

Quote :

"When White House spokesman Matt Lehrich was asked about the discrepancy, all he would say is: 'The president's trip to Columbus was, in part, to highlight the role that small businesses, like Joe's, will play in creating jobs in communities across the country. That's a fact, and it's why he's been urging Republicans to stop blocking a proposal to cut taxes for small businesses that are looking to grow and hire more workers.'"

http://tinyurl.com/2f5af3k

Hey, when you get the facts wrong just blame Republicans--who are in the minority in Congress.

8/20/2010 7:42:39 AM

HE'S ON VACATION AGAIN

8/20/2010 8:58:28 AM

U.S. government funds mosque renovation and rehabilitation around the world
August 24, 2010

Quote :

"While much attention has been focused on questions surrounding the Ground Zero mosque and the appropriateness of the State Department funding Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's trip to the Middle East, little attention has been given to the fact that U.S. taxpayer money is funding mosque development around the world. Just a cursory search of the term 'mosque' on the State Department's list of 'projects' reveals 26 examples of federal funds going to fund construction, renovation, and rehabilitation of various mosques abroad. The benefiting countries include Bulgaria, Pakistan, Mali, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Egypt, Tunisia, the Maldives, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Serbia and Montenegro."

Quote :

"The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has also spent millions reconstructing and financing multiple mosques in Cairo and Cyprus, as well as providing computers for imams in Tajikistan and Mali. Interestingly, however, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, 'USAID funds may not be used for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for inherently religious activities'."

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/24/u-s-government-funds-mosque-renovation-and-rehabilitation-around-the-world/

Can we get some condemnation up in here about this? NO?!

And I can't wait to see how some of you spin this.

BUT, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A PING-PONG TABLE--NOT 'INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS'! RAWR!!!1

8/26/2010 3:00:58 PM

If true it's total bullshit.

8/26/2010 3:05:07 PM

I'll post the part you forgot to copy/paste.

Quote :

"In a document provided on Monday to Indiana Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the State Department explained that the practice of funding such projects became acceptable in 2003 when the Justice Department declared that the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause did not preclude federal funds from going to preserve religious structures if they had cultural importance. The DOJ wrote: “That advice is provided in the following paragraph that appears in every AFCP request for grant proposals… ‘The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution permits the government to include religious objects and sites within an aid program under certain conditions. For example, an item with a religious connection (including a place of worship) may be the subject of a cultural preservation grant if the item derives its primary significance and is nominated solely on the basis of architectural, artistic, historical or other cultural (not religious) criteria.’”"

I, for one, don't have a problem with the State Department attempting to buy some goodwill in the Muslim world, while also helping to preserve historically significant places. Fuck me, right?

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 3:38:57 PM

^ I didn't forget anything; I was aware of that. Just because something has been interpreted to be legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

And, yes, I'm obviously aware that it also happened during the Bush years. None of this makes it right--but I predict we'll hear very little out of the "separation of church and state" crowd here or elsewhere about such funding.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM. Reason : I didn't post that.]

8/26/2010 3:44:59 PM

You definitely forgot to expound upon why it's such a bad idea though.

8/26/2010 3:55:01 PM

Quote :

"I predict we'll hear very little out of the "separation of church and state" crowd here or elsewhere about such funding."

Maybe because "I, for one, don't have a problem with the State Department attempting to buy some goodwill in the Muslim world, while also helping to preserve historically significant places. Fuck me, right?"

8/26/2010 3:56:07 PM

^^ and ^ So, regardless of the reasons for it, you think it's a good idea that taxpayer money goes to funding religious sites? Really?

Not that I actually want this to happen, but why can't we get some funding to build, say, new churches right here at home? It'd "buy some goodwill" that Obama desperately needs, right?

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 3:59 PM. Reason : Just wow. The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. ]

8/26/2010 3:57:31 PM

The following link doesn't seem right to me, if for no other reason than its reliance on its estimate cost of the Iraq war:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html

Quote :

"The key point in the mantra is an alleged $3 trillion cost for the war. Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but... the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion..."

Quote :

"* Obama's stimulus... will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more. * Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war. * Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted. * Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame. * Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War. * The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion). * During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War..."

My understanding is that the Iraq war's full costs aren't included in federal budget data. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 4:02:15 PM

Quote :

" regardless of the reasons for it"

Who said that?

It's pretty evident to anyone that can manage to rub two brain cells together what State's reasoning for this is. And, like I already pretty clearly stated, I'm good with it. I think it's good policy.

Quote :

"Just wow. The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me"

What's amazing is that you're such an ideologue that you cant even begin to grasp the concept of diplomatic pragmatism.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 4:05:23 PM

^ You listed "buying some goodwill" and preserving "historically significant places" as reasons for supporting the mosque funding. So, "anyone that can manage to rub two brain cells together" should be able to see what I was referring to.

But let's get everyone on record here:

Do you support using taxpayer money to fund religious sites? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: No.

2. jwb9984: Yes.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM. Reason : HORRIBLY WORDED QUESTION! RAWR!!!1 ]

8/26/2010 4:13:13 PM

No, there is no good reason for my tax money funding the construction of a religious building anywhere on this planet.

8/26/2010 4:29:05 PM

Do you support using taxpayer money to fund religious sites? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: No.

2. jwb9984: Yes.

3. disco_stu: No.

8/26/2010 4:51:44 PM

I'm going to take a whack at it and guess that if this money were going to say, renovate and restore the Notre Dame cathedral, you wouldn't be crying about it, would you Hooksaw?

8/26/2010 5:04:49 PM