Koran-burning plan draws worldwide condemnation

[calfoxwc]

Faiz Khan. 9/11 radical truther, big time supporter of Hamas. Friend and close associate of this radical imam.

 

CORDOBA. He even changed the name to "Studio51" or something like that. But, he could change the name later,

 

after this thing is built.

 

13 floors, THREE FLOORS dedicated to sharia law.

 

"There are none so blind, as those Hecks who will not see"

[Kosar_For_President]

Meanwhile, Israel just started bombing Gaza again.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Agreed. This is a complete waste of time. Its merit as a national issue is entirely concocted.

[Westside Steve]

And what are Americans rightly offended by? The fact that the guy got a good deal on a building because the street is full of empty storefronts? The fact that he's a Muslim? The fact that it's really not at Ground Zero?

 

I don't see what's offensive. That's the whole point. I'm not offended at all. Because there's nothing I can find that's offensive.

 

Then again your views don't represent mainstream US opinion.

You may not be exactly "fringe" but at least you're what's commonly called "the base."

And c'mon, admit that you enjoy seeing the right offended.

 

And your NYT analogy doesn't work, of course. One was about potential illegal/criminal activity by the administration, and the other is about a yahoo in Gainesville. I want to know about the first, and don't care so much about the second.

 

 

I know.

As long as it hurts the Bush administration and gets more US servicepeople killed it's cool.

 

So do you agree with Chomsky this time (Obamas war crimes) and should the NYT actively sabotage the war effort by over reporting them?

WSS

[Mr. T]

You could probably bet that the only people who support "the Slum Lord Imam" with what he is doing by building a Mosque near ground zero, are the 24% of those who were in favor ov Obama's Commi Care.

 

IMO: These people Hate everything about America, and they want it to change! These folks believe that a country like France is fantastic. These same people must Hate Freedom and think this is okay here.

[Westside Steve]

Meanwhile, Israel just started bombing Gaza again.

 

 

So start up another pro Palestine thread.

There's plenty of room.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't think like you, Steve. I'm not fueled by this. I find it disappointing, not exciting.

 

As for the other part about me thinking it's cool to endanger soldiers, I think I hate myself again.

 

Steve, you are the king of barroom demagoguery. No one can touch you.

[calfoxwc]

Well, Heck, I believe he is only using your own weapon against you. Don't you hate that?

Most of the responses you get here, are you looking in a mirror... not that you get that.

Turnabout is fair play, and it's very amusing to see you and others complain about

being bested by your own input methods. You don't like the bounce back?

 

Try being a little sincere and start talking about what YOU think, not just attacking

what others think. But, be warned, you won't be as much a progressive leftist pseudo-intellectual.

 

There may be no going back. @@ (say, how about those Tea Party victories in primaries in several states? still

 

think it's just a few of us on this board?)

[Westside Steve]

I don't think like you, Steve. I'm not fueled by this. I find it disappointing, not exciting.

 

You're the one who stepped up to take a bullet for the mosque.

Your choice.

And may I remind you that even the president questioned the wisdom of that location in the midst of a waffling display.

So he was wrong? Pandering? To the right of you?

 

 

As for the other part about me thinking it's cool to endanger soldiers, I think I hate myself again.

 

Actually that's pretty much what you said Heck.

It's bad for an asshole preacher to endanger American soldiers to make some useless point but the NYT is performing a public service. Sorry Heck, that's f*cked up in most peoples' books.

 

Steve, you are the king of barroom demagoguery. No one can touch you.

 

 

At least not you.

I assume someone less committed to a party might.

Maybe.

 

Now type "barroom" a thousand more times to get it out of your system.

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

So start up another pro Palestine thread.

There's plenty of room.

WSS

 

Screw Israel, yea I said it.

[calfoxwc]

Hamas too? Palestinians too?

 

Please tell us you're an equal opportunity despiser... @@

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, that's pretty much what I said, Steve. If you look at it under the light, from the side, and then just say "xxxx it" and misrepresent it to make it sound as bad as possible, and ignore the actual issues completely, it's pretty much what I said.

 

"The press serves a vital function in a free society."

 

"So you think it's cool when solders die?"

 

You. Are. The. King.

[Westside Steve]

Yes, that's pretty much what I said, Steve. If you look at it under the light, from the side, and then just say "xxxx it" and misrepresent it to make it sound as bad as possible, and ignore the actual issues completely, it's pretty much what I said.

 

"The press serves a vital function in a free society."

 

"So you think it's cool when solders die?"

 

You. Are. The. King.

 

 

Sorry Heck.

I understand it makes you uncomfortable to read your own stuff "under the light" so you skipped everything but this.

 

The NYT in overreporting the allegations put our troops in danger and undermined the war effort.

The asshole in Florida does that same thing by exercising his constitutional rights.

 

You accept one and not the other and the difference to me is who's waging which war.

 

I guess it's good that you have a newfound respect for Petraeus though.

WSS

 

[calfoxwc]

Say, I haven't heard the leftist Dems say "BeTRAY-us" anymore.

 

How things change with liars and thieves who masquerade as Dems these days.

 

Heck keeps getting caught in his own hateful quips. He can't keep up with his contradictions, either.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sorry Heck.

I understand it makes you uncomfortable to read your own stuff "under the light" so you skipped everything but this.

 

The NYT in overreporting the allegations put our troops in danger and undermined the war effort.

The asshole in Florida does that same thing by exercising his constitutional rights.

 

You accept one and not the other and the difference to me is who's waging which war.

 

I guess it's good that you have a newfound respect for Petraeus though.

WSS

 

That's the difference to you because you're clueless, and this is just another example in your long, storied history of not being able to tell two unlike things apart.

 

And then you follow it up with another priceless example of your demagoguery - that I have a "newfound" respect for General Petraeus. I don't suppose you can cite an example of me not having respect for him. I suppose you're going off a MoveOn.org ad, and attributing that sentiment to me.

 

Seems fair.

 

But if you want to pat yourself on the back for supposedly making me realize something that you haven't made me realize, much like Cal does, feel free. You get closer and closer to his level of discourse with each passing month.

 

The press has a duty to report evidence of government wrongdoing when they discover such evidence. In this case it was about a wiretapping program - one that senior members of Bush's own administration believed was both unwise and unconstitutional. (Because they also think its cool when soldiers die.) The debate we ended up having about the legality of such a program was due entirely to the reporting of the NYT, and later Frontline. You don't think it's important to have that debate. I do.

 

The government or the military does not get to do everything it wants to do in pursuit of its goals. They're bound by law. They're bound by the Constitution. If a program like this runs afoul of either, it's the duty of the press to report it, no matter who is president.

 

You'll see lots of liberals and civil libertarians upset that Obama, while having re-instituted the ban on torture, has continued many of the Bush-era surveillance programs. That's because presidents don't usually cede powers that they've inherited. It's really uncommon. Which is why you have to inform the public about what's going on. And yes, sometimes that affects the programs in question. This is the give and take we have in a free society, rather than the fascist one you prefer, where just about any "effective" means of preventing crime or terrorism is fine by you.

 

I'll give you another example: Obama has issued an order making it permissible to target American citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorism for assassination. I think that's unconstitutional, and that he doesn't have the power to do that. I certainly won't weep for the people they drew up this rule for - we know who they are, and they are involved in terrorism. But that's not really the point - it's that American citizens are entitled to due process. It's also about the idea, like I mentioned before, that this power is going to stay with the president who comes after Obama, too, and I might not like how they choose to use it. So I'd rather Obama doesn't have it either.

 

Now you can mumble some bullshit about how I love MoveOn and want the troops to die.

[calfoxwc]

Heck,

 

you have done this biz many times, I believe. You say all this antagonistic, completely liberal stuff,

and you don't realize what you are saying, when you continue to parrot the liberal viewpoints against

any subject brought up by anybody, that doesn't fit the moveon scheme of leftist things.

 

You say you do "this" for a living? I figured before you had an ulterior motive for arguing the liberal case

against every subject brought up. Remember I said that ?

 

Most of us here are getting your constant attacking, and never leaving a simple explanation of where

YOU stand on things. You just attack, and figure out better? how to effectively "fight" against anybody elses'

stand on things, if they don't match the leftists' stand on things. So far, you never have started a thread

on any subject I remember. Maybe I missed one?

 

Steve has your number, that's all. Stop pouting.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, I believe I've told you a dozen times. I don't start threads because I have no interest in what you have to say, and I already know what you have to say because it's a carbon copy of what other wingnuts have already thought for you, with you adding that we're in big, big trouble.

 

I'm more interested in what misinformation you're spreading.

 

Ex: no liberal I've ever known knows who Saul Alinsky is, or what Cloward-Piven is. I have to explain it to them when they say, "What the hell is New Gingrich talking about?"

 

I can translate crazy for regular people. I bring your alternate reality to the regular reality.

[calfoxwc]

Nice try, actually.

 

but I start threads on subjects I'm interested in, and if anybody

 

wants to comment, that's cool, and we can talk.

 

Here, let's try this:

 

You start a thread, leave me out of it, say what YOU THINK for a change,

 

and I'll keep quiet on your thread, and I'll just read what others have to say.

 

If you had any integrity and honor about it, you'd have thought of that yourself.

 

Go ahead, excuse maker. I suppose exactly what I'm saying, makes you think I'm just

 

a bassackwards anomaly. But there are millions and millions of Americans who will show you

 

what REAL reality is this November. You want me to post a hundred articles about how

 

much trouble we are/may be headed for as a country?

 

Or, you know about them, and you don't have the nads to admit that there is a huge current

 

of concern all over this entire U.S. Talk about nonsense "reality"... you deny it all you want.

 

But you are laughably wrong to think that you are with the mainstream of Americans who want

 

some freakin common sense started in our fed government.

[calfoxwc]

Oh, and Heck, you runaway scared rabbit, don't make excuses.

 

I don't remember you ever letting YOUR positions be known on issues

 

as a thread starter, and it just seems like you only attack other's stances,

 

which is the kind of pseudo-intellectual crap you libs crave.

 

You don't like that I think we're in big, big trouble? You don't have to believe me...

 

but David Rosenberg is a bigtime economist, and he says we are heading into

 

a 1930's DEPRESSION.

 

Just so you know, HECK, "depression" is bad, not good. And, I didn't tell Rosenberg what to write.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38831550

[heckofajobbrownie]

You are aware that when I counter other people's opinions, I'm expressing my opinions, or laying out the counter-argument, right? I don't need to start a thread to do that. You realize this, correct?

 

You really need to find something else to do with your time than to worry about what I'm not thinking about.

[calfoxwc]

No, do you realize that there is a difference between always taking the opposite argument

 

with most of us? is different from you starting your own thread?

 

Hey, you said it was my fault you didn't start your own subjects... so I called you out,

 

and said go ahead, and I will not post in your thread, as long as you leave me out of it.

 

Go ahead. Either put up, or wise up. No more flimsy excuses.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're a very strange man. I don't know what you imagine starting a thread proves about someone. If I cut and paste an article, this would mean I have strong beliefs? That I've taken a stand?

 

 

[calfoxwc]

No, that isn't the point. It is just an example of how you could INITIATE

 

conversation, INSTEAD of PICKING and CHOOSING your PERSONAL ATTACKS.

 

See? You SAID you didn't start threads because of me. So, I SAID you go ahead now,

 

and start one, and I would stay out of it unless you bring me into it.

 

Isn't that fair enough? Are you afraid of someone else attacking what you post, like

 

you always have been doing to others?

 

You always go for the personal insults when you are challenged in your statements.

 

Go ahead. Don't be afraid. YOU start a thread on some political subject. Really, I PROMISE

 

I won't make you look stupid in it, I won't post in it at all, unless you start dragging me into it.

 

What do YOU think is a good political thread to start?

[Westside Steve]

Ex: no liberal I've ever known knows who Saul Alinsky is, or what Cloward-Piven is. I have to explain it to them when they say, "What the hell is New Gingrich talking about?"

 

 

Seriously?

I'd guess at least knowing who Alinski is would be a fairly basic knowledge for anybody who's part of your political "inner circle."

WSS

[Westside Steve]

That's the difference to you because you're clueless, and this is just another example in your long, storied history of not being able to tell two unlike things apart.

 

Sure Heck.

While your motto is "if it's our guys it's a good clean hit, but their guys it's a cheap shot."

 

And then you follow it up with another priceless example of your demagoguery - that I have a "newfound" respect for General Petraeus. I don't suppose you can cite an example of me not having respect for him. I suppose you're going off a MoveOn.org ad, and attributing that sentiment to me.

 

Seems fair.

 

Well since you're the self appointed arbiter of truth where was the outrage from you or any other Democrat faithful?

 

But if you want to pat yourself on the back for supposedly making me realize something that you haven't made me realize, much like Cal does, feel free. You get closer and closer to his level of discourse with each passing month.

 

Talking point #27. Check.

 

The press has a duty to report evidence of government wrongdoing when they discover such evidence. In this case it was about a wiretapping program - one that senior members of Bush's own administration believed was both unwise and unconstitutional. (Because they also think its cool when soldiers die.) The debate we ended up having about the legality of such a program was due entirely to the reporting of the NYT, and later Frontline. You don't think it's important to have that debate. I do.

 

As a matter of fact I don't think it's a good thing for it to be overreported for the purpose of damaging a war effort and the president.

Any more than you'd like to see the same amount of energy put into exposing Obama's "war crimes."

 

The government or the military does not get to do everything it wants to do in pursuit of its goals. They're bound by law. They're bound by the Constitution. If a program like this runs afoul of either, it's the duty of the press to report it, no matter who is president.

 

 

And I think in war playing the milquetoast is stupid.

 

You'll see lots of liberals and civil libertarians upset that Obama, while having re-instituted the ban on torture, has continued many of the Bush-era surveillance programs. That's because presidents don't usually cede powers that they've inherited. It's really uncommon. Which is why you have to inform the public about what's going on. And yes, sometimes that affects the programs in question. This is the give and take we have in a free society, rather than the fascist one you prefer, where just about any "effective" means of preventing crime or terrorism is fine by you.

 

Yes. Just about. I'm not comfortable sacrificing innocent people for a left wing ideology.'

 

I'll give you another example: Obama has issued an order making it permissible to target American citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorism for assassination. I think that's unconstitutional, and that he doesn't have the power to do that. I certainly won't weep for the people they drew up this rule for - we know who they are, and they are involved in terrorism. But that's not really the point - it's that American citizens are entitled to due process. It's also about the idea, like I mentioned before, that this power is going to stay with the president who comes after Obama, too, and I might not like how they choose to use it. So I'd rather Obama doesn't have it either.

 

I think he should have that option.

So is Obama a war criminal like Bush??????

Even though I don't see assasination as a particularly effective plan

I don't suppose the killing of OBL (or any US leader) solves much and probably would just piss off whoever you think the enemy is.

 

Now you can mumble some bullshit about how I love MoveOn and want the troops to die.

 

 

Actually just a fellow traveler.

And I don't think you want the troops to die.

You think its a sad but unavoidable consequence of the NYT political jihad.

 

I think you'd be pissed if they dedicated the same energy to the victims of Obama's ongoing war.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Seriously?

I'd guess at least knowing who Alinski is would be a fairly basic knowledge for anybody who's part of your political "inner circle."

WSS

 

And you'd be wrong. No one has ever heard of him. I'd never heard of him either. Not one person I know has. Until he was suddenly our intellectual forefather who we all took our cues from.

 

And you shouldn't be surprised that you're wrong.

[heckofajobbrownie]

As for this, "Well since you're the self appointed arbiter of truth where was the outrage from you or any other Democrat faithful?"

 

Are you joking? That ad was widely condemned by Democrats. And I said the ad was stupid and a bad idea. As for being outraged, I'm not a politician, so I don't have to get "outraged" over newspaper ads.

 

Come back to reality, man. It's nice here.

 

 

As for this, "You think its a sad but unavoidable consequence of the NYT political jihad."

 

You. Are. The. King.

 

[calfoxwc]

No, Steve is right on the money, Heck.

 

Your arrogance, and personal attacks never end.

 

I thought once you'd stop it, when you escaped away for a while

 

to collect your ego when Steve was kicking your liberal butt all over every thread.

 

but, alas, you've gone right back to it pretty quickly in this last emergence.

 

The point is, Saul Alinkski? You didn't know? LOL, ROF,LMAO !

 

We've been talking about him for months before the presidential election, Heck.

 

Unless you really can't comprehend what you read, which would explain your fright

 

of starting your own threads...

 

But I think the "liberal chicken" explanation is more valid. I could be wrong... @@

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're right, Cal. He was my professor, my mentor, and also my Dad.

[calfoxwc]

Now you just played the sissy liberal "victim" card.

 

I never once brought your family into it, nor would I.

 

That is very unnecessary. Just because you have no

 

real answer for never starting your OWN threads, after

 

clearly blaming me, as in, not wanting to discuss a subject with me...

 

you simply revert to the liberals whining subconsious self-defense mechanism

 

in a childish cya maneuver.

 

You never really offer your own threads, lest, apparently, someone finds fault with them, like you do theirs.

 

It is apparently SO "intellectual" to hide and do hits on others' opinions.