Ground Zero Mosque Imam wants to destroy Israel.

There were human parts found there. Parts of the planes as well.

What a crock of BS.

Say it as often as you like. It is more then two blocks away. By definition, not at ground zero. Also the point is even if it was (and it most certainly is not) at ground zero, I still wouldn't object to it being built there. If George W. Bush trusts this Imam, then why don't you? This Imam and the people who ateend Islamic services in New York did not attack us on 9-11. They are Americans and have the right to build their Community Center anywhere allowed by zoning laws.

Those that are rasing the most objections to the Community Center are doing nothing more then helping Al-qaeda recuit more people over to their side, so thanks a lot sscott! Thanks for helping bin Laden.

There were human parts found there.

I'm aware of the landing gear part that hit the building, but body parts? Seriously you'll have to provide a credible source for that argument. But given your penchant for telling lies, I won't be surprised if you have no source.

it doesn't make you right. In fact, you are epically wrong.

Nope, still you. Ground Zero is a designated spot and it's even defined according to the Wiki entry

In and around New York City, "Ground Zero" is generally understood to mean the site of the World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase was being applied to the World Trade Center site within hours after the towers collapsed.

This particular Imam should not build a Mosque anywhere.

Regarding the content of your article:

Your statement that Rauf supports Hamas is deductive fallacy. Just because he supports sending aid an Israeli blockaded region (Gaza), does not mean he implicitly or even explicitly supports Hamas. For example, if you said, "Crusher doesn't like guns and doesn't want to own one, I conclude that he therefore opposes the second amendment". That's not only incorrect, it's also wrong.

If George W. Bush trusts this Imam, then why don't you?

R. Donald...I would NEVER have guessed you were such a Bush fan!

Those that are rasing the most objections to the Community Center are doing nothing more then helping Al-qaeda recuit more people over to their side, so thanks a lot sscott! Thanks for helping bin Laden.

Are you suggesting that Sscott should curtail his right to freedom of speech to appease terrorists? I think Al-Qaeda has been recruiting successfully long before the Ground Zero Mosque debate.

I've seen several arguments on the Vine lately that imply people should curtail (or have forbidden) their freedom of speech and protest rights to avoid pissing off Muslim terrorists. While I am fairly neutral on the GZM issue at this point (I think it should be up to New Yorkers to decide if they want a mosque there...my neighbors got to weigh in on whether or not I could build a garden shed), it is really disturbing to me that so many Liberals want to decide just what we have the rights and liberties to express our opinions about...especially because you are basing whether these opinions should be stated on whether a foreign terrorist group approves of their opinions...

Certainly I'm not a Bush fan, so I wonder why sscott doesn't like him or trust him?

Also I would never try to curtail anyone's right to free speech. I'm just reminding him of the consequences of those words. Words and actions do have consequences you know.

Yeah, and you know what else was found two blocks away? A passport in pristine condition with no scorch marks on it. Like it was placed there purposely.

The FBI even had to admit that at least 6 of the supposed "Muslim terrorists" had their passports stolen, are alive and well, and weren't involved in the attack. No, my feeling is this was a false flag attack designed to LOOK like Muslims were involved, which is why we someone also went to great pains to put a Koran in the suitcase and wills. The suitcases that magically never made it aboard the plane....and of course, nobody can explain why someone would put a will into a suitcase they expected to blow up. Hell, nobody can explain why terrorists brought luggage to a suicide mission anyway.

False flag, in my opinion. I'm never going to believe otherwise. The FBI REFUSES to this day to blame Bin laden for 9/11, stating that there is no evidence linking him to the attacks.

Are you suggesting that Sscott should curtail his right to freedom of speech to appease terrorists?

I think the intent of the comment was to explain that, the "All Muslims are terrorists" meme coupled with the "USA vs Islam" narrative is the same exact method that the Muslim extremeists are using to recruit more terrorists. It's not at all helpful and in fact much more detrimental if we ever want to have even a remote chance of winning against terrorists.

I doubt anyone is saying you should curtail your opinions to avoid pissing off Muslims, but seeking to curb one right (expression of religion) while proudly trumpeting another (free speech) isn't a very consistent stance, wouldn't you say?

Bigotry wears many disguises and by opposing the mosque and not other churches building in the vicinity; that person is actively proposing to discriminate against a religious minority which makes that opinion intolerant and bigoted.

I think it should be up to New Yorkers to decide if they want a mosque there...

Whereas I think the Constitution should decide, luckily it already has.

R Donald and Crusher both do not like the first amendment, and want to appease the Islamists.

Except of course that is a distortion of our posts to the point where it is an outright lie. If you had any morals or ethics or honesty you'd apologize for saying that, but I know you don't and you won't.

And sorry that all of you seem to be anti-semitic.

That would come as a huge shock to my Jewish wife and step-children.

R Donald and Crusher both do not like the first amendment, and want to appease the Islamists.

Still lying, I see...it's ok, that's all you've got left when faced with facts.

which means extermination of the Jewish state of Israel.

No, it doesn't mean that. Tell you what, why don't you link to all the comments or the whole interview so we can verify for ourselves that you're not taking his comments out of context in order to fit into your little narrative bull@!$%#.

Actually they are very up on current events as it pertains to Israel and the middle-east (not surprising I suppose) and none of them have any objection to the Imam or the Community Center. Your biased links are not the information they look for when making up their minds. They look for credible sources.

I don't give a flying flock who your family is.

You do realize that you can say @!$%# on Newsvine and not look silly by saying flock, don't you? As to you not giving a flying @!$%# who my family is, they and I don't give a flying @!$%# about that opinion. They're goo Jews and I'm sure don't care about you or your bigotry against Muslims. They're looking for real solutions and not hate from those such as you.

Bet they haven't heard the Imam's anti-semitic statements.

None of us have, because you haven't provided a full transcript of the interview in which he said the things you've quoted him as saying. That's called taking things out of context...so pony up.

Or the fact that you still support him even though he wants to destroy Israel.

I've already explained where you've illogically made your conclusion but you've doubled and even tripled down on this assertion. Asserting it be truth, given your numerous examples of lying, isn't remotely convincing, no matter how hard you try.

I don't give a flying flock who your family is.

Golly, how utterly Christian of you. <sarc>

(sigh) My comment was removed in violation of the coh and has been reported as such. Grow some commonsense. By the way, there's only one "t" in bigoted. You, of all people, should learn how it is spelled.

Tyler?

a part of the plane landed there.. that makes it part of ground zero. repeat as needed until that truth gets through

that might be futile for people who don't have any thing in their heads to get thru to

Crusher, the statements, if you had read the links, come from letters to the editors in the NY times.

Yeah, I read your links. Those links don't give the entire story, they selectively post portions of the letters to the NYT using ellipses (...) which is called taking things out of context. As it is, I'm not taking the meandering thoughts and opinions of blogs as truth and neither should you. Find me one statement where Rauf says to the effect "Israel should not exist", I doubt you can or else you'd have posted it by now.

Just because you don't like the links doesn't make them not true.

Here's some additional context that your individual links don't mention, that ironically, I'm taking from Pam Geller's site which I got from your JihadWatch link. Keep in mind I had to type this by hand since a copy/paste option wasn't available, so any mistakes in transcription are my own.

We now have post-Zionism movements in Israel. We have a very broad spectrum of people in Israel who regard Israel as a nation state, as a secular state, as a multicultural state. the very fabric and demographic, and I would say even identity, of Israel has shifted enormously in the last 60 years since its founding. There's always a danger. It only takes one individual to kill someone like Rabin. Rabin was assassinated by a fundamentalist, and there's no doubt that there are those who are against Sharon. But my sense, again from what I've learned, is that those who are supporting the withdrawal from the territories are in the minority- I am sorry, those who support the withdrawal are in the majority. If not, I don't think Sharon would have had the broadbase to do that.

The differences, perhaps may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people's solution to Israel. And I personally-my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. But anyways it goes, there is no doubt that once there is peace, and there will have to be a peace in the region, the fallout of that will be enormously positive.

Now compare the bolded section with your quote in your article, I'll give you a nickle if you can spot the discrepancy in the quotes.

“And I personally – my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. So if we address the underlying issue, if we figure out a way to create condominiums, to condominiamise Israel and Palestine so you have two peoples co-existing on one state, then we have a different paradigm which will allow us to move forward.”

That's just one example of why I don't trust the sources of blogs as truth and your own quote is in dispute.

So tell me this, if the links are proven to be true, that he did say this, would it change your mind?

Given that I've already torched the credibility of one site, no. But even if your hypothetical came true, it still wouldn't change my mind. Because ultimately these Muslims have a Constitutional right to do what they like with their private property just as long as they do it within the confines of the law. Yes I know you're not contesting the constitutionality of it, but nevertheless that is what it boils down to. You can't oppose someone's rights to free speech and worship simply because you don't like their views , even if you incorrectly deduce those views are Anti-Semitic.

I gave one link, I found dozens, surely you are bright enough to find them too.

I'm not the one claiming Rauf is Anti-Semitic, that would be you. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders. Besides, I'm not your personal research assistant. You want to make claims, fine, but I'm not going to sit here and let you spread bull@!$%# and mask it as fact.

a part of the plane landed there.. that makes it part of ground zero.

Nope, your still wrong...try to keep up with the conversation.

youre wrong. part of the plane did land there. that makes it part of ground zero.

When United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, part of the plane's landing gear and fuselage came out the north side of the tower and crashed through the roof of 45–47 Park Place, and through two of its floors. The plane parts destroyed three floor beams, and severely compromised the building's internal structure.^{[37][21][38][39][40]}

link

youre wrong.

Nah, still you.

From my link which defines Ground Zero (the general term):

The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero as distinguished from zero point) may be used to describe the point on the Earth's surface where an explosion occurs. In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below an explosion (see hypocenter).

The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions and other large bombs, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter.

and

In and around New York City, "Ground Zero" is generally understood to mean the site of the World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase was being applied to the World Trade Center site within hours after the towers collapsed.

part of the plane did land there. that makes it part of ground zero.

I'm well aware of the plane parts hitting the building, that still doesn't make it GZ because by that logic, all the dust, debris, and ash that scattered everywhere would also be 'part of GZ'. That would make the radius of GZ stretch far beyond two blocks. Besides, GZ will cease to exist once the "Freedom Tower" is built on top of the old site.

And ultimately, it doesn't matter where the mosque is located because Constitutional rights aren't doled out or rescinded based on people's feelings. If you want to prevent the mosque from being built two blocks from GZ than ban all religious houses of worship or don't ban any. Any thing short of that and you're discriminating. And no amount of bull@!$%# about the definition of GZ and where it starts/stops, will change that fact.

ground zero is the point of impact and the immediate vicinity in which damage directly occurs

it is false to argue that only the point of impact period is ground zero

if your neighbors house catches on fire as a result of a plane crash and ashes from the fire settle on your house you can't say your house is part of the disaster zone. but if a part of that plane also crashes into your house that makes it part of the disaster zone and yes ground zero

so YES the proposed site is part of ground zero but for some reason you want to bull@!$%# that its not

And ultimately, it doesn't matter where the mosque is located because Constitutional rights aren't doled out or rescinded based on people's feelings.

you also have the constitutional right to call every black person you see the n-word

but most people feel that doing that is insensitive and most people whose heads are screwed on rite won't do it

so being sensitive and tolerant and acting out of consideration for the feelings of others is very rational and certainly not discriminatory in the slightest

its a real stupid lie to claim that all opposition is based on discrimination.

The mosque is not at ground zero.

The mosque is not at ground zero.

The mosque is not at ground zero.

The mosque is not at ground zero.

Repeat as needed until that truth gets through.

Who really cares where the mosque is

Here is something that was in my e-mail this morning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

I doubt anyone is saying you should curtail your opinions to avoid pissing off Muslims, but seeking to curb one right (expression of religion) while proudly trumpeting another (free speech) isn't a very consistent stance, wouldn't you say?

Whoa, whoa, whoa...back up there, buddy...show me where I attempted to curb anyone's expression of religion! It is not at all unusual for a church to be denied building permission due to objections from the community...here's an example from my own neck of the woods.

http://www.times-herald.com/local/Church-denied-permit-957724

Now, these people were told they could build a church there when they bought the property, they have zoning permission and were denied a permit to build because the neighbors just didn't want a church there. Simple as that. This has nothing at all to do with religion, just what the people who live there want to happen in their community...they didn't want a church there, so the church was denied permission to build.

I think it should be up to New Yorkers to decide if they want a mosque there...

Whereas I think the Constitution should decide, luckily it already has.

Obviously not...if a church can be denied permission to build in a little town in Georgia just because of neighborhood objections...why are you unwillling to grant New Yorkers the same rights?

ground zero is the point of impact and the immediate vicinity in which damage directly occurs

LOL thanks for validating what I've already said.  Damage *directly* occured at the the twin towers and two blocks from the "immediate vicinity" sure as @!$%# ain't the point of impact.  Whereas some damage *indirectly* occurred from the disaster at Park51.

it is false to argue that only the point of impact period is ground zero

Congratulations, you've just contradicted yourself.

but if a part of that plane also crashes into your house that makes it part of the disaster zone and yes ground zero

No it doesn't because as you correctly (although I doubt it was your intent) pointed out damage was directly (key word) caused at your neighbors house, not at yours.  Because by your logic, if part of the plane skips your house and hits your neighbor on the other side of the house; then your house ceases to be part of ground zero and therefore leaving a gap in the radius of 'ground zero'.  "Ground zero" doesn't skip around and leave gaps depending on where plane parts landed. 

so YES NO the proposed site isn't part of ground zero but and for some reason you I want to bull@!$%# that its not it is because I like to weasel my way through an argument by arguing finer points instead of focusing on the main issue.

There, that's much better.

and certainly not discriminatory in the slightest

If it's voluntary, sure that's not discriminatory.  But if people want to use gov't force as has been attempted and continues to be proposed (eminent domain), by the GOP gubernatorial candidate for NY, then that's being discriminatory.

its a real stupid lie to claim that all opposition is based on discrimination.

Nonsense.  I'm not saying all opposition is based on discrimination, but I think it's fair to say a majority of it is.  Because, for most people, there is no real honest (earth to SScott) reason to oppose the Cordoba house unless it wasn't about religious affiliation.

Shall I start taking apart your statements grammatically? That's how I treat spelling Nazi's.

I would strongly suggest that you learn Skitt's Law before attempting to do so.

show me where I attempted to curb anyone's expression of religion!

And I wasn't implying that *you* were and frankly, it's pretty clear from your statement that you're neutral on the issue. I was applying that statement to other groups (mostly those opposing), not you as an individual.

It is not at all unusual for a church to be denied building permission due to objections from the community...

Sure, and I agree that it does happen, but those reasons for denial very rarely involve the fact that, in this case, some people allude that something sinister may be afoot. The point is, this group of Sufi Muslims has gone through all the proper channels and in addition to that, it has also taken the extra step by taking the issue to the local community board.

were denied a permit to build because the neighbors just didn't want a church there. Simple as that. This has nothing at all to do with religion

I'll note that in your community and directly from the article you sourced:

Under Coweta's zoning ordinances, there is nowhere that a church is allowed as a "by right" use. Churches can be built in any zoning district but must be granted a conditional use permit.

The Cordoba house is in a completely different state, different community with different ordinances, etc. so the point that you're trying to make that we should defer to the local community is fine with me but the local community board in lower Manhattan has already approved the project. There's no zoning violations and everything has been done by the book. This group of Sufi Muslims has already been worshiping inside the Park51 building since at least May before this whole issue became a national controversy.

Obviously not...if a church can be denied permission to build in a little town in Georgia just because of neighborhood objections

The community laws (afforded to by the Constitution) in Georgia (state Constitution) have decided the rights of the church to not build. Much in the same way, the local community laws in lower Manhattan have decided the right for this Muslim group to build. In each example, the laws of the community, state, and federal were most likely followed correctly (otherwise there'd be a lawsuit). Ergo, the Constitution has already spoken on the matter.

...why are you unwillling to grant New Yorkers the same rights?

The neighborhood and local community board in lower Manhattan has already spoken on the matter and those who oppose the Park51 project lost.

Not yet they haven't. The board must be elected.

The local community board isn't going to revisit a decision, especially since the last vote came down to 9-0. The votes are over dude, you can keep posting as if you know the truth and I'll keep knocking it down. The community ruled and according to this article, the project has been cleared for construction.

The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9 to 0 against granting historic protection to the building at 45-47 Park Place in Lower Manhattan, where the $100 million center would be built. That decision clears the way for the construction of Park51, a tower of as many as 15 stories that will house a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, and a pool. Its leaders say it will be modeled on the Y.M.C.A. and Jewish Community Center in Manhattan.

The only other option the opposition has is to hope Carl Paladino wins the governors office and he attempts to take the property by eminent domain. Which would still have to pass judicial muster and I very much doubt it will.

The only other option the opposition has is to hope Carl Paladino wins the governors office and he attempts to take the property by eminent domain.

i'm mad as hell, and carl paladino scares me.

Damage *directly* occured at the the twin towers and two blocks from the "immediate vicinity" sure as @!$%# ain't the point of impact. Whereas some damage *indirectly* occurred from the disaster at Park51.

it was hit and seriously damaged by part of the @!$%#ing plane that hit the wtc. you can't get more damn direct than that.

"Ground zero" doesn't skip around and leave gaps depending on where plane parts landed.

it sure as @!$%# does

when a tornado goes around and destroys one house and part of an other.. you don't argue and say one house wasn't at ground zero for the tornado because it was only partially destroyed

the lengths to which some people will go to deny the truth

teh internets

never cease to amaze!

And I have yet to see you post one credible source that says the Imam hates Israel or wants it destroyed.

Oh and the mosque still isn't at ground zero. It simply is not.

We're keeping pretty good records nowadays. No need for revisionism.

Hmm, isn't that an interesting choice of words?

i, too, have yet to see any evidence of the hate described, or the words that call for the destruction of israel. i guess that we are in fantasy land.

when a tornado goes around and destroys one house and part of an other.. you don't argue and say one house wasn't at ground zero for the tornado because it was only partially destroyed

New York City was not attacked by a tornado. The World Trade Center was brought down by terrorists in two jetliners. The site of the World Trade Center is ground zero. A closed Burlington Coat Factory two blocks away is not.

Besides, even if they were building a Community Center (with a Mosque) on the very site of the World Trade Center as part of the Freedom Tower, I still wouldn't object. In fact I think it would be a great idea to show that most Americans are smart enough and understanding enough to know that we were not attacked by the Islamic religion on 9-11 and that we are not at war with Islam.

we are not at war with islam. gorilla parrots rds.

ground zero is the point of impact and the immediate vicinity in which damage directly occurs

it was hit and seriously damaged by part of the @!$%#ing plane that hit the wtc. you can't get more damn direct than that.

Damage directly occurred at point of impact when the planes hit the towers. The landing gear that hit the Park51 building wasn't the direct point of impact, it was an indirect point of impact.

it sure as @!$%# does

No it doesn't. Because by that standard, every building in the area whose windows were blown out when the tower and debris came down would also be considered 'ground zero'.

when a tornado goes around and destroys one house and part of an other.. you don't argue and say one house wasn't at ground zero for the tornado because it was only partially destroyed

I noticed you've changed your analogy to some other manufactured disaster. If the tornado struck a house, even if only partially destroyed, it makes the house ground zero because the tornado was directly responsible for the damage. Now if a tree fell on top of a house because of a tornado, that's an indirect cause of the tornado. In much the same way, the landing gear hitting Park51 was an indirect result of the planes hitting two buildings 2 blocks away.

the lengths to which some people will go to deny the truth...never cease to amaze!

Whereas the lengths some will go to manufacture and distort bull@!$%# arguments in an attempt to oppose a religious group from exercising their rights, never cease to amaze me. I guess I'll just have to conclude that I can't reason you out of a position you've already reasoned yourself into. So, carry on in your mistaken beliefs that Park51 is part of GZ, you haven't shown yourself to be even remotely reasonable or logical.

And this is not about the Mosque,

Jesus, you're full of @!$%# today; according to your article tags:

politics, israel, islam, ground-zero-mosque, imam

Besides, you're a bit late trying to revert back to the subject of Imam Rauf's beliefs, after you've already addressed the Park51 controversy in your comments.

about the first amendment, while trampling on it themselves.

That comment is loaded with irony coming from a guy who wrongly deletes a comment that wasn't a CoH violation, which was itself a CoH violation. Seriously, no one is trying to silence the opposition to the mosque here on NV, because assuming we're all on good standing, we all have the right to speak our piece.

And I have yet to see you post one credible source that says the Imam hates Israel or wants it destroyed.

Don't hold your breath, it isn't coming anytime soon. Matter of fact, I've already shown Sscott one example (#2.18) of how his quote mining is now in dispute, thus deflating his paper thin argument even further.

I say let them build it, the union construction workers need the work, have some really big cost overruns, use half the rebar and sell the rest, use half of the concrete for the mortar and sell the rest, make sure you use substandard plumbing, and then see if it will pass inspection.

Way to miss the point with your usual ignorant comment.

Nonsense.

What a long winded load of crap it is.

It takes a lot of space to rebut the fact free stuff you post. I use solid arguments based on consistentency, logic, and well-reasoned responses. Whereas you don't; but that's not my problem, its yours.

Learn how to post shorter, then people might even read your crap.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm doing just fine posting the way I have been. As usual, I'll take your assertions with a huge boulder sized grain of salt.

The point is this particular Imam should not build anywhere. His support of terrorists and his anti-Semitic comments should make any board turn his ass down.

And my response is simply that until he's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to support terrorism, then he can build we ever he wants. You've repeatedly failed in trying to prove that Rauf supports terrorists due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You've only proved it to yourself, using wrongly quoted statements, lies, and distortions of fact coupled with illogical conclusions. Thankfully you're not an attorney, because I'd wager you'd be laughed out of court.

I posted his comments, and his support for Hamas.

And I've already explained where your so called conclusions are @!$%#ed up and not remotely convincing or well reasoned. And one of Rauf's quotes in your main article is in dispute as I've already pointed out.

As I said, you've only proved to yourself what *you* want to believe. Frankly, there's nothing more for me to add but once again, its certainly amusing watching you argue yourself into a @!$%#ing pretzel using circular logic.

The fact that you don't see it, proves where your head is.

Right, way to break number 4 of the CoH, in fact several times today.

I have a Muslim friend who isn't running around screaming "DEATH TO AMERICAAA", so no, not all Muslims want to destroy non-Muslims. Only the Radicals.

True. None are so blind than those who refuse to see.

Don't the Muslims want to destroy all that aren't Muslim?

YEP... in the same way that ALL WHITES wanna KILL BLACKS... and ALL BLACKS wanna kill WHITES... and ALL DOGS wanna kill CATS!

WOW!

Some REALLY NEED to wake up and SMELL what they're SHOVELLING!

Read the Muslim bible. It's all there.

Don't the Muslims want to destroy all that aren't Muslim?

Riiiggghhhtt, that's why we have Muslims in the US military fighting against Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. It's the classic fallacy of composition here on wonderful display.

None are so blind than those who refuse to see.

Yeah, that's a pretty apt description of yourself.

Read the Muslim bible. It's all there.

Yep sure is, including several statements which praise Jesus and Moses as revered prophets. Why don't you take you're own advice, before proudly displaying your ignorance on the Koran.

Read the Muslim bible.

You mean the Qur'an don't you? The book those @!$%#s in Florida are planning on burning on Sept 11?

That's the one.

Then why not call it by it's proper name? Just curious.

Oh and do you think they should go ahead and burn the Qur'an, even though it's only going to be used a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda, the same way the objections to the Community Center are? Why would anyone want to help bin Laden?

What was the name of that Muslim in the us military at fort hood that was fighting the fundamentalists?

Why not call it the Muslim bible?

You mean the Qur'an don't you? The book those @!$%#s in Florida are planning on burning on Sept 11?

There's actually a lesson in the statement for jrone to learn, though I doubt his ignorance will allow him to see it. Obviously he's pushing the 'they're all terrorists' meme based on the actions of a few Islamic fundies. So, therefore, lets do the same thing with Christians and call them all terrorists because of the actions of a few Christian fundies.

Sound good to you jrone?

What was the name of that Muslim in the us military at fort hood that was fighting the fundamentalists?

Thanks but no thanks for the red herring.

Yes, and there are rabbis in Israel calling for the killing of gentile babies. So what's your point?

He was no red herring. He was a Muslim army major. His name is nidal malik hasan. Didn't say all Muslims are terrorists but if you want to call all Christians terrorists by all means have at it.

You bringing it up was a red herring however. I agree with Crusher. Thanks, but no thanks.

He brought up Muslims in the military. So it's his red herring. Thank him.

No thanks.

jrone

Realizing your Islamicphobia do try and learn something. I know SS won't but don't follow his lead.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091122/NEWS01/711229953

Great link Edison!

Thanks for the link. Do you need one to the Muslim bible?

Didn't say all Muslims are terrorists

You are aware that all of your comments on other seeds are available for others to read right? Because from the looks of it you're full of sarcastic remarks that show you alluding to the "all muslims are terrorists" schtick.

It's ok, you don't have to hide your ignorance here, it's coming through loud and clear.

He brought up Muslims in the military.

Only to counter you're mistaken belief that all Muslims want to conquer non-Muslims.

So it's his red herring.

LOL, you have no idea what a red herring is do you? Allow me to walk you through the discussion. You painted with a broad brush by insinuating that all Muslims want to destroy non-Muslims and you were given an example to show where you were wrong. Then you deliberately attempted to divert the argument (red herring) by bringing up an example of a lone extremist terrorist who happened to be in the Military in order to imply that Muslims in the Military aren't there to serve the country but to be terrorists.

Now, you can keep playing the denial/innocent game all you like, but you're not impressing me with your derail attempts and drive-by trolling.

Do you need one to the Muslim bible?

Given the amount of disinformation you're trying to spread, no thanks I've got my own credible sources.

Thanks for the link. Do you need one to the Muslim bible?

Do you need one to the Christian bible? Here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8300/8300-h/8300-01h.htm

And here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7999/7999-h/book01.htm

If you actually read the bible (and I doubt you ever have) you'd find that it is even more violent then the Qur'an.

Read it again. You brought up Muslims in the military. Your red herring. In any post you read did I say Muslims are terrorists? And use those sources to read the Muslim bible.

So all you've got is more denial...unsurprising. Tell you what, here's your chance to prove us all wrong by commenting about what you really think of the Muslim faith sans the sarcasm. Try posting a complete paragraph, instead of one-liners.

Yes or no? Did you find a post?

What's that? So, you've offered nothing to counter the claim that you're an Islamophobe based on your statements here and elsewhere on NV...shocking.

Any one care guess when jrone will provide a detailed view of what he thinks of Muslims?

It's been 12 hours and no detailed response from jrone countering the claim he's not a Islamophobe, so using SScott's illogical deductive thinking, I guess that proves he actually is an Islamophobe.

scott

crusher did not call the poster an islamaphobe. he used what he perceives to be your distorted logic to make a statement, which would make the poster an islamaphobe. in essence, he is saying that you called, or would call, jrone, an islamaphobe.

Referring to someone an Islamophobe isn't any different that referring to someone as a homophobe. It's not a personal attack at least by reasonable standards. You keep trying to get me suspended and you keep losing.

800lb. is correct. I don't honestly know whether jrone is an Islamophobe or not but based on his comment history and using your standard of leaping to conclusions using circumstantial evidence, it won't surprise me if there's a kernal of truth to that.

Like you said in post #12.1: "I give what I get." You set the precedent in this article for illogically deducing things and manufacturing bull@!$%#, and I'm just passing it on. If you don't like, than stop making @!$%# up.

crusher

it is often good to give posters plenty of time to respond. i, often, am not on the internet for a day or two at a time. i am sure that this is also the case for others. otherwise, carry on.

800. I usually do give people plenty of time, but in jrone's case and looking at his brief posting history, I doubt he'll be back. He's doesn't seem to be known for well thought out responses.

Crusher, you are the one making up ignorant @!$%#. In your case, that comes easily.

Would you care for me to document here where you've manufactured bull@!$%#, on this article and others? It's a long list but I'd be happy to show everyone here how often you lie.

when an other viner calls on an other to prove some thing about them selves I call bull@!$%# and think they are more than justified in ignoring the demands of the self appointed judge and jury

after all I've seen some people actually do it and got told what they posted wasn't good enuff.. no thing would be good enuff for that kind of person.. they are trolls

facts are facts, especially when supported by several reliable sources. many other things are subjective. a person may strongly feel that they are right, but if it is opinion, or unsubstantiated speculation, then it is subjective. also, one can not presume to know the mind of another, unless the person being discussed tells you directly, and even then they could be lying to you.

facts are facts? not when theyre posted to you. I should know.. I've tried.

3.32 reported as a violation of the CoH.

a civil debate is good. the insults are not needed. it seems that the problem here lies in the interpretation of one comment. scott says that the imam wants to destroy israel, and that this is implied by his comment that there should be one state, an arab state, with an israeli minority. i believe that crusher is taking the comment much more literally, and then of course, he is right for the imam has not said directly that he wants to see israel destroyed. in the end, the two of you are arguing two different points, which means that you could both be right. there are a few issues with some of the points of the argument, but that is how i see the overall debate; that you are not debating the same thing exactly. to get mad, and to insult each other seems pointless to me. i hope now, i will not be the target of your ire. it is just how it appears to me, and i was hoping that this comment might help.

as my father always says, "fight nice."

If you ever met a holocaust survivor you'd know why.

So... you don't really have an answer?

I asked several questions.

One, why a libertarian would like the statist situation of Israel.

Two, why a libertarian, who tend to see non-interventionist, would agree with using U.N. power to decide the fate of land elsewhere.

"Because it feels right" is an absurd response when I've questioned it compared to your the libertarian principles you repeatedly tout.

Another lie.

Dodging the question.

Israel is it's own nation.

Did it just appear out of thin air? No, a certain group (another nickle if you can guess what group) adopted a resolution which created Israel.

and they have no say in ours.

Sure, they do...ever heard of Lobbyists from AIPAC

Another lie. Never once mentioned the UN.

You said they were owed a land of their own. They were given one by the U.N. You then... supported the actions of the U.N.

If this isn't your intent, who were they 'owed' a nation from?

Yep.

Yet you haven't proved so from any credible source, now have you? I wonder why that's not surprising?

Carolyn...you are right. Muslims have some strange ideas about non-muslims, I saw someplace where they think an infidel in muslim lands can be captured and treated as chattel, I believe they call them Kafirs although Im not sure of the spelling, and these Kafirs can be sold, killed or whatever as though they were an animal.

R.Donald....you mentioned this Koran burning being used as a recruiting tool by bin laden. I dont think he needs any help recruiting, he has those idiots lined up around the block to be martyrs so they can get the 72 virgins. An interesting thought, what do female suicide bombers get???

Who is Barack Hamas Oblamer? I've never heard of him?

conservative10

And you have proven yourself to be an Islamaphob plus you comment is full of bull@!$%#.

"Who is Barack Hamas Oblamer? I've never heard of him?"

Weren't you paying attention in Nov 2008? You voted for him. Or were you too blinded by the light and awe perpetrated by the liberal media that surrounded him and his campaign that you could see the real candidate you voted for. The only sitting Pres to snub the Prime Minister of Isreal in recent memory. At least Carter did show his true anti-Semitic ways till he left Office.

No, I voted for a man named Barack Hussein Obama. I didn't see the other guy you mentioned (Barack Hamas Oblamer?) anywhere on the ballot? Though if this
Oblamer" guy is anti-semitic I can see why you'd be upset. Good thing Obama isn't huh?

Also, you can't be referring to former President James Earl Carter Jr. in the 2nd half of your comment, because he's not anti-semitic in any manner. Must be someone else you're talking about.

with witty talking points and intelligent rejoinders, conservative10 is wiping the debate floor with you guys, not!

lol!

This is true, and God also gave us eyes to see and ears to hear. He gave us a mind to think with too. Does that mean we go around ignoring his warnings? Nope, it just means we are better equiped to see those warnings. If we chose to ignore them then that is on us and then we are the foolish ones for doing so.

I really don't believe the "Truthers" I think our Government is particularily incompetent and all the CIA operatives were looking at kiddie porn when 9/11 went down but painting Muslims as the enemy has been awful convient for the Military/ Corporate powers that really run this country. I mean we have been reduced to kissing Communist China's ass so we can't paint them as the enemy and religious zealot Muslims are dangerous in their own countries so it is just convienient. Can't justify massive military spending/corruption without a real enemy.

Find out what nation would benefit from pushing such anti muslim propaganda and you will know who really committed the attacks against the WTC and the Pentagon.

mostly saudi arabian nationals.. saudi arabia has done pretty well since 9/11

Sorry, didnt mean to make you cry.

arent you a little trooper!

bogota

they got a crazy good deal of $4 million or something on that building site. they would be hard-pressed to find a suitable site like that in the immediate vicinity. they are trying to expand an already existing mosque that exists in lower manhattan. coincidentally, the existing mosque is not far away from that site.

The fact that they are not being so considerate means to me that they are not true to their stated mission and have another, undisclosed agenda, whatever that may be.

...or they just don't want to take the entire project back to the drawing board which would require buying a new property (that could be tens of millions more expensive), redoing the architecture, and so on.

If they were truly about peace,love and understanding, they should be walking the walk by simply finding another acceptable site in Manhattan that does not consistute an affront to those who, for whatever reason, are offended by the thought of a Muslim-oriented, 13-story, $100million tower so close to sacred ground.

Perhaps you haven't heard that there are mosque protests erupting all over the country and that people are planning to burn Korans? How far away is enough when you have several Christian pastors going on record as stating that we should not be giving out any more permits for mosques in the USA?

So yes, it is becoming more and more about the religion. Even though I find Islam and Christianity to be pretty much the same thing (read: silly), they still have the right to build if they want to.

They've bought the property, they've checked with the local councils to see if they could build it there, and the New Yorkers around there approved it. The issue is done.

All of these liberals on this page that are touting the constitutional right to build this Mosque near ground zero. You are absolutely right.

My question, however, is if you are so strong about defending the constitution - why are you same liberal posters not defending the church in Florida in it's right to burn Qurans? By the way, I also disagree with the burning of the Qurans, but my point is most liberal's position on each issue indicates that their interest is to defend liberalism first, constitution second - or only if it fits with their liberal ideology.

My question, however, is if you are so strong about defending the constitution - why are you same liberal posters not defending the church in Florida in it's right to burn Qurans?

This liberal thinks that they can do whatever they want to those Korans, despite the fact that the whole idea of book burning is pants on head retarded. Haven't we learned that from the Nazis? (In other words, I disagree with them.)

That's especially evident when you read the Koran and Bible, they're the exact same thing with the small exception that Muslims don't believe Jesus was God's son. They think he was a prophet who did all the same things that the Christians believe he did.

That being said, pretty much all organized religion is just flat out silly.

michael

there are many conservatives who also believe that they have a right to build the center. however, you are also right that there are many hypocrites out there. liberals certainly do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

800 lb gorilla, I am a conservative and also fully agree that they have the constitutional right to build the mosque. I do not think any fair minded person would disagree with that issue. The question is if it is in good judgement to do so. I think not - but has nothing to do with their constitutional right.

Same can be said about the Quran burning - has the constitutional right but question is if it is in good judgement. (I also think this is poor judgement)

If any person regardless of political side of the spectrum told me that they believe the Quran burning is a bad idea, I would not accuse them of: 1) not supporting the constitution 2) fearing Christians 3) hating Christians 4) etc...

Unfortunately, these are the labels that I see put on people that disagree with the building of the Mosque.

michael

If any person regardless of political side of the spectrum told me that they believe the Quran burning is a bad idea, I would not accuse them of: 1) not supporting the constitution 2) fearing Christians 3) hating Christians 4) etc...

certainly i am not putting you in that group, but many others have done this exact thing. for the hypocrites that say they support our constitution (either side of the aisle), then they need to let each side have their rights, otherwise, it is called hypocrisy.

800 lb gorilla, well said

I think they have the right to build it there and should build it there. It's not at ground zero. It's not on any kind of sacred ground anymore then the local strip clubs there are.

As for burning the Qur'ans, of course they have the right to, but that doesn't mean they're not @!$%#s for doing it.

And I think it is our right to protest, to picket, and to blackball any company that helps them.

And to use non-violent means to stop it. And it will be stopped.

sowing hate and lying is a dishonorable way to do it though. if one can make good, valid points and convince people to protest and block the building, then that is much more honorable.

wheres he sowing hate or lying? all I see from the promosque group is hate and lies. your group saying every body thats opposed are haters thats not true and its hatefull. your group saying theres no mosque when park 51 says there will be one. man up and stop lying and we will take you seriously

unless the imam miraculously comes up with $99.9 mil it isn't going to be built any way

gee where could he get that kind of cash?

jerry lewis style telethon? lols

sol

first, i am not in a group. i do not identify that way. my group is american, and the human race, not necessarily in that order. when people say that the mosque is located right at ground zero, or that you can see it from the world trade center site, then it is disingenuous. when the opposition says that they should just pick another location, buy it, and build there (as if they have an unending supply of money, and buildings in lower manhattan are going dirt cheap), then it is disingenuous. when people say that this is some sort of victory mosque that is named after cordoba because that is some secret meaning name that indicates that muslims are trying to take over, then that is some seriously deluded conspiracy theory stuff. the opposition saying that the imam wants to destroy israel, but providing no evidence, or that the imam takes money from terrorists, and yet still provide no credible evidence, then that would be them being disingenuous. this is what is means to spread hate and misinformation. if you have proof, then so be it, but so far in the many weeks, and months of this debate, i have seen very little to no evidence for the vast majority of these claims. does any of this mean that the mosque should, or should not be built? no, but it would be nice if it was an honest debate.

i have never seen or read any hateful words from the imam. even his quotes here do not scream hate, or whisper it for that matter. has he said hateful words in his life? probably, unless he is a robot, or an alien, or something.

Well, they apparently tracked the funding for this mosque to Al Waleed bin Talal.

Guess what? This guy is also the largest shareholder in News Corp. outside of the Murdoch family. So Fox News could actually be funding the mosque indirectly.

Therefore, if you want to stop the mosque, stop watching Fox. Who knows? You might even regain your brain back, too!

They have not tracked ANY funding yet gunshark. NONE.

So there is no wiggle room? There needs to be compromise on both sides wouldnt you agree?

The "rhetoric of the Muslims" that's an interesting choice of words Mr. sscott.

I guess I would be wasting my time if I asked you if you saw anything wrong with the way you are stereotyping Muslims, or perhaps if you might not see a similarity to your mind set and that of that of those "rhetorical" Muslims you speak of?

scott

Many believe that there are more "good Muslims" than bad. I believe they are wrong.

are you speaking of american muslims, or muslims in general? the vast majority of american muslims are just like the vast majority of americans. if not, then we would see a lot more suicide bombings, beheadings, and terror attacks (of which we see none, or very little) in america.

Well Mr. sscott,

I'm so sorry you are offended by my asking you a simple question;

might not see a similarity to your mind set and that of that of those "rhetorical" Muslims you speak of?

That, my friend, is a question not a comparison, it is also asking you to "think" rather than react. A lesson an extremely ignorant person like myself learned a long time ago. You should try it some time.

Speaking of flying airplanes into buildings.

Did you ever bomb a church with eight innocent children inside?

Did you ever lynch a man simply because he was black?

Did you ever water hose people and put dogs on them because they wanted to register to vote?

Did you?

Would you like to be judged by the actions of a few? How would you like your race, or religion to be described as the GOOD ones or the BAD ones.

But what would I know, I'm extremely ignorant.

sscott,

You're quite the unusual fellow.

So far you've compared yourself to the extremest who flew their planes into the World Trade Center.

Now you're comparing yourself to racist.

All because I asked you a few innocent questions.

Could it be that its easier for you have these little irrational temper tantrums than it is to reflect, to self analyze, and to take a good long look at yourself and your Religion instead of that of someone else.

I've got an idea, Mr. sscott, why don't YOU grow a set and call yourself out.

Try that on for size.

Getting testy are we not Mr. sscott.

Show me where in any of my post did I compare you to anyone or anything.

Please, please quote me. I'm sure a man of your extrodinary intelligence will be able to cut and paste.

Please show me where I did anything other than vainly try to demonstrate to you that your mind set is just as poisonous as that of those you so roundly condemn.

You condemn the whole by the actions of a few.

While your at it, please show me where in any my post I addressed you by anything other than your name, or made any point to you that was not as if I were addressing a fellow human being, not scorning an enemy.

I don't need to anything about your religion Mr. sscott. You are, as you represent yourself.

Now, cut and paste away......

pretty obvious you twisted his words.. when some one cant have an honest discussion why post a comment at all? unless its to troll..

Solidarity Nite

Please tell me, tell me what words did I twist... spell it out for me. Tell me exactly what words of his did I twist, how and where.

wehn you said he compared him self to "the extremest who flew their planes into the World Trade Center" that was twisting what he said.. he didn't compare him self to them. he said

And until I fly a plane into buildings, or stone women to death, I would appreciate you not comparing me to them.

pretty clear.. hard to understand hows telling you not to compare him to them got turned round in to you claiming he compared him self to them

why am I bothering? like you'll stop.. waste of time

Why don't you try reading the exchange from the begining and then you won't be wasting my time or yours.

I asked him to "consider" (think about) maybe his mind set may the same as the people he condems. Lumping everyone into one basket.

He responded with the "fly a plane" remark.

If you and my dear Mr. sscott don't want to see beyond your noses, then have a good life.

Live in a world where people like us, who are supposed to know better, adapt the the same stupid, narrow minded, views as that of a small sub set of a religion of billions.

May GOD have mercy on us all.

Mr. sscott,

I'd like to think that you are not beyond hope, but your pitiful attempts at rebuttal, your name calling, your refusal to answer directly any question, you cursing by acronym are an example of person who a much to say, but says nothing.

I will leave you with a quote from the Holy Bible, the first chapter of John, pay attention to the last sentence, it most certainly applies to you:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I wish you well Mr. sscott, you will need it.

I'd like to think that you are not beyond hope,

He is. Sscott's just frustrated that people don't take his bare assertions, twisted logic, and political spin as fact. He has yet to put forth a compelling argument that isn't riddled with more holes than swiss cheese. So instead, to mask his insecurities about his arguments, he parades his stuff around as fact. He's a one trick pony and that's his M.O.; to get attention by being dishonest.

your refusal to answer directly any question

Don't hold your breath, when you put Sscott's feet to fire, he usually tries to divert your attention to something else or fails to respond.

Where do you see in those statements a desire by the Imam to "destroy Israel"?

Sscott's response was "By calling for a one-state solution". What seems to evade Sscott is whether that one state solution is controlled by an Israeli gov't or a Palestinian gov't. To my knowledge, Rauf doesn't specify. However, if you look at the trends in population located in Israel's border, you'll see that for the past several decades, the Palestinian population has been growing and the Israeli population is shrinking. For Israel to be a "Jewish State", it has to rely on maintaining it's majority Jewish demographic.

Using those facts alone one might think or suggest that Rauf is calling for the elimination of the Jewish state, but that he hasn't said anything remotely close to that. And simply calling for a one-state solution doesn't specify which one-state he's calling for. I'm not willing to put words in Rauf's mouth, but it certainly seems that Sscott is more than willing to go that route.

Rauf is calling for a majortiy Arab state, I think you know that

No he isn't *calling* for a majority Arab state, he's saying is own personal view is that a one state solution is best. I disagree with that stance, just as you do. But having a personal view isn't the same as a *demanding* a one-state solution. Here, re-read his quote:

The differences, perhaps may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people's solution to Israel. And I personally-my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. But anyways it goes, there is no doubt that once there is peace, and there will have to be a peace in the region, the fallout of that will be enormously positive.

Note the bolded words. What Rauf is saying is that a two state solution, in his mind, isn't a viable solution, but he doesn't explain why it isn't viable. I suspect he's pessimistic about an Israeli state and Palestine state being able coexist. They certainly aren't able to coexist under a one state solution now either. I think Rauf's pessimism, of a two state solution, is unfounded but I also recognize that he knows a @!$%#-load more than you or I do concerning the tensions inside Israel. Until he clarifies his statement, I don't think it's wise to put words in his mouth. I plan on watching his interview tonight on CNN to see if there is some clarification of his prior statements.

And since Hamas, who is in charge of the palestinians now

Did you even consider that they can also be voted out and cease to be in charge? That can happen, but I think Israel is going to have to start making concessions, like stopping the constructions in the settlements. Likewise, who ever is in charge of Gaza, will also have to police their own much better than Hamas is doing right now.

Let me ask you something, does Israel deserve any criticism in your book? Especially over the past several years?

I know he feels it would be a big honor to die for his belief in a violent way.

And just how do you "know" this? Please tell me.

I know he feels it would be a big honor to die for his belief in a violent way.

And just how do you "know" this? Please tell me.

good call.

They believe

who believes? them?

it is a great celebration of life and compassion. pastor jones should be sainted for his love of all humans!

10,000 rockets? i had read that only 15 people were killed by those rockets between 2001 and 2008. i know that there have been other casualties and damages, but man i can not believe that 10,000 rockets only killed 15 people. the israeli army wiped out 18 members one of family by accident in 2007 in one incident. i am not sure if the response truly meets the aggression.

right, but if they don't do much damage, or do not kill anyone, then it shows that their methods and equipment are not really that good. if a rocket kills one israeli, should they go in and kill 40 civilians, or something? i am just wondering what you think.

That's partially true, but that's why you check the sources to make sure they check out AND THEN post the article. That's what I do.

I don't go by everything they say, but they are a good starting point.

Wow, we finally agree on something.

but you're caught up in the hating anyone who opposes Obama too much to even notice.

Not at all. If you look at some of my clipped seeds and comment history, you'll see that I think Obama deserves criticism in some areas.

And I don't hate individuals, I hate the irrational and unreasonable positions of the people who oppose Obama just for the sake of opposing him.

But we're off topic, now.

Why does Israel spy on their "greatest ally?"

And we are their protector, and they are ours as well.

Now that is a very serious line of pure bull pucky.

or are you just throwing sticky boogers?

That is what you do NO thanks.

with good friends in Israel.

I think the cat's out of the bag in terms of the real reason for this "article."

oh noes. he has good friends in Israel.. he must be..

M O S S A D !!!!!

ride the paranoia train much?? lols

What are you saying lopes? Do you have the gonads to be a bit clearer, or are you just trolling?

In your Glenn Beck thread, you called disqualifying bias on someone having Democrats in their twitter follow list. You called that a bias that you said would automatically taint anything they do professionally.

That was just on twitter - that wasn't even showing the man personally knew the figures on his twitter list.

You've just admitted to personally knowing people of the country in question - by your lines of logic, that makes you even more surely disqualified for reasonable information or discussion.

Summary - if Twitter followers discredits the 87k figure for Beck's rally, your personal connections to Israel certainly discredits you in any related discussion via bias :)

We might as well be talking to the Zionists involved with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, or the 1922 League of Nations mandate.

theres a huge diff between demonstrable political bias and just knowing people from an other country.. what a stupid comment

demonstrable political bias

"Demonstrative political bias" is following people on twitter?

This is the quote that sscott said showed 'proven bias' in terms of the estimates.

CBS hired a Michael Moore groupie to do their crowd “estimates”:

Here is the Twitter page for the owner of the aerial imaging company:

Curt Westergard

Aerial imaging and 3d landscape architectural visualizations

http://twitter.com/curtwestergard

Check out some of the people Curt follows on Twitter:

Michael Moore
http://twitter.com/MMFlint

Al Gore
http://twitter.com/algore

Also, another one of his friend:

@ariannahuff http://twitpic.com/o6t6x - my alma matter...yours to?
12:24 AM Nov 4th, 2009 via TwitPic

Someone take a screenshot before he unfollows Michael and Al.

That's supposed to prove his professional work is suspect?

and just knowing people from an other country..

There's also a few things missing - it was 'good friends' and they aren't 'from' but 'in' that country. :)

"Demonstrative political bias" is following people on twitter?

if arguing that having a link to some body on fb indicates political leanings then yes.. because when the muslim cabbie stabber was investigated he had a link on fb to the right and the left said it was proof he wasn't a leftie

That's supposed to prove his professional work is suspect?

it does to me.. any follower of michael moore has got to be either a fruitcake or a masochist

oh for @!$%#s sake.. I have good friends from all over the place.. it wouldn't either qualify or disqualify from talking about any thing

if arguing that having a link to some body on fb indicates political leanings then yes.. because when the muslim cabbie stabber was investigated he had a link on fb to the right and the left said it was proof he wasn't a leftie

I've never said it doesn't indicate a worker at the company has political ideas. Really, people vote, everybody will have political leanings - that's pretty much a silly thing for me to even have to say.

However, the question becomes whether the personal political ideals would automatically compromise professional work.

So, in the case of the Glenn Beck 'article' - Sscott wants to discredit a company's professional work because he finds that a person high in the company votes (*gasp* people vote?). Of course, that line of logic would then have to discredit Fox's estimates, as they're financially linked to Beck, but that doesn't seem to be worth mentioning.

As I said in the other thread of conversation, to discredit someone for having 'political leanings' at all, and to claim everything else they do in life is then tainted by political leanings, with no other reasoning beyond that, ends up discrediting everybody.

it does to me.. any follower of michael moore has got to be either a fruitcake or a masochist

So, it isn't any kind of logic of 'being a follower on twitter' but the specific people involved. You're not objectively judging the situation, you're subjectively only eyeing the specifics and making conclusions off of personal feelings.

Hey I work at aplace with people from over 30 countries, do those count to?

By your logic, it would seem to. Following someone on twitter discredits them, so personal relationships would have to.

LOL. Thelopes grasps at straws, loses grip.

Yet, you can't really speak against my argument, only make hollow swipes with nothing.

it does to me.. any follower of michael moore has got to be either a fruitcake or a masochist

I thought about this a little too late for that post, but I find this rather ironic. This is a personal, emotional reaction to the people involved.

A personal reaction is what sscott accuses the company CBS looked to for numbers of doing. Accusing them of having a personal reaction instead of a professional attitude to their work.

This is what I see here - "I have good friends in Israel" - would identify this kind of seed about Israel as... wait for it... a personal, emotional reaction. There's no objectivity to actually read statements in context, there's only rhetoric in response. I suppose I could wonder if I'm going crazy if they can't see it themselves, happening in front of them, but fortunately there's these other posters that put it right in context again.

lopes

i do not think that they get it. you can not use their own logic against them, for their logic contorts and twists to their view only. in other words, their logic is illogical in some cases.

by scott's logic, if israel says that they will use every means possible to defend themselves, then it means that the israelis are willing to eat the children of all of those in hamas in order to lower their numbers in the future. i can not believe it, but scott said it was so because, even though they do not do that, well, you can follow the logic. spock would not be proud, for this is highly illogical.

for their logic contorts and twists to their view only.

Unfortunately, this is true. And it really makes any kind of real conversation impossible as things like "principles" become jokes.