DanG
-
Content
6,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by DanG
-
Actually, the two issues are not similar at all in that sense. The intent of buring the Koran is to piss Muslims off. That's not an unfortunate side effect, it's the whole purpose. The government has a responsibility to state that being anti-Islam is not what America is about. The intent of building the community center (with mosque inside) is to provide a place of worship and inter-faith fraternity. The fact that a small group of people became pissed off about it after a right wing blogger made it an issue is an unfortunate side effect. The government has no responsibility to speak out against the building of the mosque. I now await your one liner about how the real purpose of the community center is to declare victory over America. Or some such nonsense. - Dan G
-
Already have. - Dan G
-
If your argument is that they should be allowed to build it but that you find it distatseful, I'm fine with that. People keep quoting polls that say X percentage of people who are against the mosque still believe they should have the right to build it. I'm cool with that. It's the (100-X)% people I have a problem with. My argument here is that the Florida church should have the right to burn the Koran, but that we should do everything we can to convince them not to, or at least express our disgust at the idea. How do you feel about that? - Dan G
-
No, we can change their mind. I think that these idiots should have the right to burn the Koran. I also think the rest of us, including our elected leaders, need to speak out against their actions and make it known that we don't support such nonsense. Posters up thread were complaining about the government asking (not ordering, asking) the church not to do the burning. Those posters don't get it. The government has every right, and indeed a responsibility, to speak out against this. On the other hand, I'd be the first in line to vote against a law that prevented book burning. Making something criminal and speaking out against it are not the same thing. - Dan G
-
I find it funny that not a single "lib", either here or quoted in your previous post, have said they are against hisright to protest. Yet, that's what you want to hear, so that is what you hear. - Dan G
-
Is English difficult for everyone on the extreme right, or just the people who post here? - Dan G
-
Who said that we should change our society? If the ultimate end game is that our two societies become more alike to the point that we understand each other, I'd prefer that their society adapt to be more like ours. That will only happen if we show them our best, not our worst. - Dan G
-
Do we have to do the fucking Pelosi plane thing again? This is at least the third time. I can't stand Pelosi. She's shrill and annoying and I believe a unneccesarily confrontational pedagogue. But the stupid jet thing is tired. - Dan G
-
I'm sure that's exactly how the Taliban will spin it to the uneducated and isolated people in the tribal regions. - Dan G
-
Not all of us are special unique snowflakes like you. - Dan G
-
And that's different for the people on the right... - Dan G
-
Yeah, no one ever points out when Pelosi or Reid lies. From your own post: You don't read the forums much, do you? - Dan G
-
Just hit the speed brakes. They'll fly right on by. - Dan G
-
People are threatened by him because for some reason his listeners believe the bullshit he says. And may presumably vote based on his lies, half-truths, and fabrications. You may say the same for Obama, if you like. - Dan G
-
Obama. Do I get a cookie? Does that mean that we should look past Beck's lies? - Dan G
-
They should both be called to account. Feared? I don't really fear either one on a day to day basis. - Dan G
-
Hmm, never said that. Of course, now I'm supposed to rant about people putting words in my mouth. Gotta love the SC. - Dan G
-
Well, I doubt it's the same people, but I think I get your point. In fact, your point is the same as mine: neither side has a stranglehold on hypocrisy. The only way to change that is for individuals to stop being hypocrits themselves. You really believe Beck is non-political? How about Palin? She's not an elected official anymore, should she be given a free pass on honesty? How about Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, Maddow, etc? They are all political, and they are trying to shape political debate. We have every right to call them on their bullshit just like we should call elected officials on their bullshit. Sometimes I think the commentators are even worse, because they can't be voted out of office. Right back at cha' - Dan G
-
You said you questioned why they want to build at that location. I'm pretty sure that has been answered. There are some potentially legitimate questions about funding, but the siting issue has been discussed at length. - Dan G
-
Ironically, I totally agree. I think an excellent example of such a hypocrisy is that the very first response to this thread about Beck's lie was one about how Obama is liar. Not what I'd expect from people being consistent across the board. - Dan G
-
Um, no. Try reading what I wrote. I think having the debate is fine, great even, and no one should be silenced. I just think that if people truly believed in the Constitution, no one would be debating their right to build the mosque wherever they wanted. Some people, apparently not you, are saying that they should not be allowed to build their mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Good, then we agree. Those questions are fine. I personally think they have been answered over and over again, and most likely can never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. - Dan G
-
So, do you believe that Billy's statement, "Johnny threw the rock," when in fact Billy himself threw the rock, is just as much a lie as when Billy said, "Mom, I promise that I will get all A's this semester," when Billy wasn't sure what his grades would be? Can you at least admit (if not in writing, then in your own mind) that if Obama lied about holding Washington's Inaugural Address in his own hands, that you would throw a royal shit fit? - Dan G
-
Can you elaborate? I think I was fairly clear, but I don't know what you're trying to say. You're right, the debate is great. The fact that we need to have the debate at all is what troubles me. If the only objection were that the site is insensitive, and the debate was about how the mosque builders should proceed, then I think the debate would be warranted. However, there are a lot of people who are arguing that the mosque should not be allowed. You, yourself, keep bringing up questions of funding and intent. You are not just debating about the sensitivity of the site, you are making (very fuzzy) arguments about the right to build the mosque at all. The fact that you think it is unrelated is the problem. It is wholly and completely related. - Dan G
-
I'd love to know what you think, believe, or fear, but since you won't tell us, I guess I'll just have to be disappointed. I fear that the American people have forgotten the point of our experiment in democracy. Or, perhaps, the experiement is over, and the conclusion is that a democracy cannot protect the rights of minorities. I also think that people don't have any idea how terrorism works. The goal of terrorism is not to destroy buildings and kill people, it is to provoke a backlash in the community. They seek to change our behavior, and erode our confidence in the ideals that make us great. The only way the terrorists can effect a change in the US is if we effect the change for them. Unfortunately, we're on the path of doing exactly what they want. Bin Laden sought to draw the US into a global war with Islam, and look where we are. They can only win if we help them, and throwing out the Constituition is the best help they can hope for. - Dan G
-
Are you, perhaps, assuming too much as well? - Dan G