Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Mosque going up in NYC building


Guest American Woman

Recommended Posts

source

Why is it every liberal i speak to says everything the west is doing is causing more radicalization of muslims ?

This article is a good place to start.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/11/the-jihad-against-the-jihadis.html#

The data on public opinion in the Muslim world are now overwhelming. London School of Economics professor Fawaz Gerges has analyzed polls from dozens of Muslim countries over the past few years. He notes that in a range of places—Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh—there have been substantial declines in the number of people who say suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam. Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable.

The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where only 12 percent of Jordanians view suicide attacks as "often or sometimes justified" (down from 57 percent in 2005). In Indonesia, 85 percent of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "rarely/never justified" (in 2002, by contrast, only 70 percent opposed such attacks). In Pakistan, that figure is 90 percent, up from 43 percent in 2002. Gerges points out that, by comparison, only 46 percent of Americans say that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008. None of these groups or people have become pro-American or liberal, but they have become anti-jihadist.

Since 9/11, Western commentators have been calling on moderate Muslim leaders to condemn jihadist ideology, issue fatwas against suicide bombing, and denounce Al Qaeda. Since about 2006, they've begun to do so in significant numbers. In 2007 one of bin Laden's most prominent Saudi mentors, the preacher and scholar Salman al-Odah, wrote an open letter criticizing him for "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." That same year Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad abroad and accused both bin Laden and Arab regimes of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims." One of Al Qaeda's own top theorists, Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, renounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality. Sherif—a longtime associate of Zawahiri who crafted what became known as Al Qaeda's guide to jihad—has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They should.

That goes with the empathy statement.

The funding source is a legitimate issue. And still is, until they clear it up. Why haven't they?

Yes, his actions seem to be contrary to his words.

If one can't recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization, how so-called moderate can one be?

Anyways, what's worse is the evolving arguments of why the mega-mosque should be there.

First it had to be there because all Muslims aren't responsible for 9/11.

Then it had to be there because some of the victims of 9/11 were Muslims.

Then it had to be there because the Imam is a moderate.

Then it had to be there because it would show the world how tolerant America is.

Then it had to be there because strip clubs and other churches are around the same area.

Then it had to be there because if it doesn't get built, the terrorists win. (Yes, sadly somebody played the "if you don't do it, the terrorists win" card.

Actually, those arguments are only being made to counter the arguments against. They aren't something that people have simply come up with as justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Dre did a good job on that post indeed. The hate stays the same, however the reasons have changed.

I'm not surprised someone who admires al Qaeda would think that post was a "good" one. B) The admiration for terrorist organizations stays the same, so it shouldn't surprise me that y'all are now defending slum lords -- in this case, someone who has violated 12 fire codes and simply locked tenants out of their apartments rather than deal with the problem. Quite admirable. And I expect you to apply those same standard (make that lack of standards) to every person, every topic, in every discussion, from now on. :) Of course you say that Imam Rauf is to be believed, not doubted at all, when he speaks of this project. His ethics (make that lack of ethics) regarding his tenants has nothing to do with his character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised someone who admires al Qaeda would think that post was a "good" one.

To bad you can't point out exactly where I have shown any support or admiration for Al-Queda.

B) The admiration for terrorist organizations stays the same, so it shouldn't surprise me that y'all are now defending slum lords

No where have I defended him in terms of him being a slum lord. Good luck trying to find where I have defended him.

-- in this case, someone who has violated 12 fire codes and simply locked tenants out of their apartments rather than deal with the problem.

Overall, irrelevant to the opposition to the Mosque. Stay focused here please.

Quite admirable. And I expect you to apply those same standard (make that lack of standards) to every person, every topic, in every discussion, from now on. :) Of course you say that Imam Rauf is to be believed, not doubted at all, when he speaks of this project. His ethics (make that lack of ethics) regarding his tenants has nothing to do with his character.

Sure it has something to do with his character. But this bit with him as a landlord is only discovered after the initial protests and resistance to the mosque. Look into anyone's life enough and you will be able to bust them for something.

Now is it resistance to the mosque itself or now is it just the Imam himself? IF it's a problem with the Imam, then say so. And well you'd have a valid point, based on his character, then the landlord information WOULD be relevant.

If it's just opposition to the mosque in general, then no matter what the Imam or any Imam does for that site will not be welcomed.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

To bad you can't point out exactly where I have shown any support or admiration for Al-Queda.

It's right there. In your posts. It's as plain as my "hate" is.

No where have I defended him in terms of him being a slum lord. Good luck trying to find where I have defended him.

Sure you have. You've defended him as clearly as I've shown hate for Islam/Muslims.

Overall, irrelevant to the opposition to the Mosque. Stay focused here please.

Totally relevant in spite of your efforts to divert and claim otherwise. I suppose it doesn't fit in well with your defense, though. :)

Sure it has someething to do with his character. But this bit with him as a landlord is only discovered after the initial protests and resistance to the mosque. Look into anyone's life enough and you will be able to bust them for something.

Yes, that's true; and of course the seriousness of that "something wrong" isn't relevant. Just the fact that we've all done something wrong. Imam Rauf may have violated fire codes endangering his tenants' lives, and then locked them out of their apartments after a fire broke out, but Joe down the street jaywalks!! The horror! <_<

Furthermore, this is happening in the present. It's not a matter of having "looked into his life enough" to find the information. It's not like Bush's DUI way back when, it's now. Are you following?

Now is it resistance to the mosque itself or now is it just the Imam himself? IF it's a problem with the Imam, then say so. And well you'd have a valid point, based on his character, then the landlord information WOULD be relevant.

Obviously I have a problem with both. The problems with the mosque just keep multiplying. I no longer would believe in Rauf's sincerity regarding his "purpose" even if he moves the mosque to a different property. I think his character (make that lack of character) shows he only cares about his own interests.

If it's just opposition to the mosque in general, then no matter what the Imam or any Imam does for that sire will not be welcomed.

A mosque on that property will raise opposition no matter who is involved, but the fact is, it's this Imam. Imam Rauf. The one who cares so much about people that he locked them out of their apartments after a fire broke out when 12 fire code violations had been issued, making it even less likely that people will come to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's right there. In your posts. It's as plain as my "hate" is.

Oh ffs AW. Again I was not the one calling you a bigot. And you have lumped me in with the other posters you obviously have had issues with in this almost (I called it!!) 200 page thread.

Sure you have. You've defended him as clearly as I've shown hate for Islam/Muslims.

So you have nothing.

Totally relevant in spite of your efforts to divert and claim otherwise. I suppose it doesn't fit in well with your defense, though. :)
Yes, that's true; and of course the seriousness of that "something wrong" isn't relevant. Just the fact that we've all done something wrong. Imam Rauf may have violated fire codes endangering his tenants' lives, and then locked them out of their apartments after a fire broke out, but Joe down the street jaywalks!! The horror! <_<

I agree it does say something about his character.

Furthermore, this is happening in the present. It's not a matter of having "looked into his life enough" to find the information. It's not like Bush's DUI way back when, it's now. Are you following?

Well if he is a crappy landlord then I hope he gets sued for everything he is worth. If there was no controversy regrading the mosque, you would not have heard squat about how he is as a landlord. This is why I claim it as irrelevant to the overall protest and resistance to the mosque itself.

Obviously I have a problem with both. The problems with the mosque just keep multiplying. I no longer would believe in Rauf's sincerity regarding his "purpose" even if he moves the mosque to a different property. I think his character (make that lack of character) shows he only cares about his own interests.

Alright so it's a little of both. Fair enough.

A mosque on that property will raise opposition no matter who is involved, but the fact is, it's this Imam. Imam Rauf. The one who cares so much about people that he locked them out of their apartments after a fire broke out when 12 fire code violations had been issued, making it even less likely that people will come to accept it.

So, no matter WHO would run the place, people don't want the mosque at that location. So whether it is Rauf or another Imam (and the problems pertaining to any Imam) is almost irrelevant to the whole issue regarding the mosque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Oh ffs AW. Again I was not the one calling you a bigot. And you have lumped me in with the other posters you obviously have had issues with in this almost (I called it!!) 200 page thread.

Why wouldn't I lump you in with them? It was your post referring to "hate" that I was responding to. You think accusations of "hate" are any better than accusations of "bigot?" :rolleyes:

So you have nothing.

I have exactly what you and the rest of your ilk have.

I agree it does say something about his character.

Of course it does.

Well if he is a crappy landlord then I hope he gets sued for everything he is worth. If there was no controversy regrading the mosque, you would not have heard squat about how he is as a landlord. This is why I claim it as irrelevant to the overall protest and resistance to the mosque itself.

Oh, I'm sure we would have "heard squat about it" even if there were no controversy. He's made himself a very public figure, and public figures can't engage in this type of behavior and have it remain invisible. As long as he was 'getting his word out,' actions such as this would also have gotten out. So it's very relevant to the whole issue, even as you try so hard to say otherwise.

Alright so it's a little of both. Fair enough.

Yes, it is a little of both, so thank you for that. I'm not asking that people agree with me/my views; only that they recognize them for what they are.

So, no matter WHO would run the place, people don't want the mosque at that location. So whether it is Rauf or another Imam (and the problems pertaining to any Imam) is almost irrelevant to the whole issue regarding the mosque.

Of course it's relevant. As I said, having just cause to doubt his sincerity makes the likelihood of the project being accepted even less likely. What it likely will do is raise the opposition, making the stated "purpose" of the mosque/center even less likely to be attained.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Islamism has been gaining greater influence all throughout the middle-east, whether with the recent developments in Turkey, or the rise of Hamas (which is more Islamist than its rival Fatah), or the coming to power of Ahmadinejad, who is much more deeply Islamist than his predecessors (though of course the supreme leader is a theocrat in any case), or the rising influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and even looking at the types of political parties now being successful in Iraq.

I agree. I don't see how anyone can argue differently. Women in these societies have been relegated back to the Dark Ages all too often, but there are also problems in regards to issues such as converting from Islam, homosexuality, etc. and the penalties involved, not to mention jihad against infidels; and as I said, it's difficult to understand how Imam Rauf could be in the Middle East, speaking of problems with Islam within America, while not addressing these problems within the Middle East. And if he had, would he have been invited/allowed to speak within these countries? What would the result have been? At any rate, I think trying to win acceptance in the West while ignoring these problems in the Middle East is going to be largely counter-productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't I lump you in with them? It was your post referring to "hate" that I was responding to. You think accusations of "hate" are any better than accusations of "bigot?" :rolleyes:

You would lump me in with them because you can't read, or automatically thinking I am in with the rest or those who don't see it your way. I think that is called transgressions. But if you want to keep painting yourself, the target will be easier to hit.

I have exactly what you and the rest of your ilk have.

And who said you don't paint everyone with the same brush!?!? :D

Oh, I'm sure we would have "heard squat about it" even if there were no controversy. He's made himself a very public figure, and public figures can't engage in this type of behavior and have it remain invisible. As long as he was 'getting his word out,' actions such as this would also have gotten out. So it's very relevant to the whole issue, even as you try so hard to say otherwise.

If you hear about him, and he was not the Imam for the mosque, would it make a difference to you at all in regards of not wanting the mosque there in the first place.

Yes, it is a little of both, so thank you for that. I'm not asking that people agree with me/my views; only that they recognize them for what they are.

Yeah, you are welcome, I guess.

Of course it's relevant. As I said, having just cause to doubt his sincerity makes the likelihood of the project being accepted even less likely. What it likely will do is raise the opposition, making the stated "purpose" of the mosque/center even less likely to be attained.

I don't believe it is relevant since it is resistance to the Mosque itself no matter who is running it. And that is your words. So even if there was an Imam who people respected and supported and had a stellar record, it would mean diddly because people simply do not want the mosque there. It does not matter what Imam will run it which is why I say the info on Rauf is essentially irrelevant. You'd just try to dig up whatever you can on the other Imam to show that your view is correct.

It will go in a building that has not been occupied since 1995, but people still think it's available simply because of collateral damage from the 9/11 attacks.

Use your damn heads people and THINK for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't see how anyone can argue differently. Women in these societies have been relegated back to the Dark Ages all too often, but there are also problems in regards to issues such as converting from Islam, homosexuality, etc. and the penalties involved, not to mention jihad against infidels; and as I said, it's difficult to understand how Imam Rauf could be in the Middle East, speaking of problems with Islam within America, while not addressing these problems within the Middle East. And if he had, would he have been invited/allowed to speak within these countries? What would the result have been? At any rate, I think trying to win acceptance in the West while ignoring these problems in the Middle East is going to be largely counter-productive.

I agree. I don't see how anyone can argue differently.

One way would be if they considered the EVIDENCE available.

it's difficult to understand how Imam Rauf could be in the Middle East, speaking of problems with Islam within America, while not addressing these problems within the Middle East. And if he had, would he have been invited/allowed to speak within these countries?

This is just dopey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newsweek ? hahahahahahahahahahahahah Please you have to do better then a lefty rag that recently sold for less then 1/10 of what a McDonalds employee makes an hour . Maybe you could quote Daily Kos or DU next time LOLOLOLOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would lump me in with them because you can't read, or automatically thinking I am in with the rest or those who don't see it your way. I think that is called transgressions. But if you want to keep painting yourself, the target will be easier to hit.

And who said you don't paint everyone with the same brush!?!? :D

If you hear about him, and he was not the Imam for the mosque, would it make a difference to you at all in regards of not wanting the mosque there in the first place.

Yeah, you are welcome, I guess.

I don't believe it is relevant since it is resistance to the Mosque itself no matter who is running it. And that is your words. So even if there was an Imam who people respected and supported and had a stellar record, it would mean diddly because people simply do not want the mosque there. It does not matter what Imam will run it which is why I say the info on Rauf is essentially irrelevant. You'd just try to dig up whatever you can on the other Imam to show that your view is correct.

It will go in a building that has not been occupied since 1995, but people still think it's available simply because of collateral damage from the 9/11 attacks.

Use your damn heads people and THINK for once.

I don't believe it is relevant since it is resistance to the Mosque itself no matter who is running it. And that is your words. So even if there was an Imam who people respected and supported and had a stellar record, it would mean diddly because people simply do not want the mosque there.

Its relevent in a public relations, and "culture war" standpoint though. See... once youve made that initial decision you described "I dont want the mosque there", then it makes sense to try to denigrate the other side... Call in to question their motives, their character, the stategy, their persective, and so on.

Everything but the kitchen sink!

You gotta realize AW is someone thats fully made up her mind, and is actively campaigning against this. Youre not going to get an honest philisophical argument out of somebody like that. Youre going to get a list of justifications for a pre-existing position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newsweek ? hahahahahahahahahahahahah Please you have to do better then a lefty rag that recently sold for less then 1/10 of what a McDonalds employee makes an hour . Maybe you could quote Daily Kos or DU next time LOLOLOLOL.

If you dont like the source you can read the same article elsewhere. A lot of the information actually comes from a London School of Economics professor who has studied polling data from muslims countries over the last few years.

But you didnt read a word of it anyways. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

You would lump me in with them because you can't read, or automatically thinking I am in with the rest or those who don't see it your way. I think that is called transgressions. But if you want to keep painting yourself, the target will be easier to hit.

What do you mean, I can't read? This post doesn't refer to "hate?" Or it's not your post? Which part couldn't I read? :rolleyes:

Dre did a good job on that post indeed. The hate stays the same, however the reasons have changed.

And who said you don't paint everyone with the same brush!?!? :D

Are you even responding to what I said? Because that makes no sense at all. You said there was no proof that you support al Qaeda and defend slum lords, I said there's as much proof as there is of my "hate," you then replied that there is nothing, to which I replied "I have exactly what you and the rest of your ilk have. So I repeat. I have as much proof of your admiration of al Qaeda and defending slum lords as you do of my "hate," and I do; so if you say it's nothing, it's finally an admission that your accusations are based on nothing.

If you hear about him, and he was not the Imam for the mosque, would it make a difference to you at all in regards of not wanting the mosque there in the first place.

I think I made that very clear already.

I don't believe it is relevant since it is resistance to the Mosque itself no matter who is running it.

And I repeat that it is relevant because the likelihood of people coming around to acceptance, and the likelihood of his achieving his "purpose" are both reduced because of his character/lack thereof. Furthermore, it could result in even more opposition. It also makes me question the sincerity of the project, even if it is moved to another location, which I've also made quite clear. His involvement is likely to garner a certain amount of opposition now no matter where it's built.

And that is your words.

No, that wasn't my words. That's your take on my words even though I clearly stated what my words mean.

So even if there was an Imam who people respected and supported and had a stellar record, it would mean diddly because people simply do not want the mosque there.

At this point, yes, it would mean diddly. I've made that quite clear. I've also clearly said why it is ultimately relevant.

It does not matter what Imam will run it which is why I say the info on Rauf is essentially irrelevant.

Yes, it does matter, and I've just explained why. Again. If you still act as if I haven't, you'll have to carry on a discussion with yourself, because I may as well not be on the other end of the discussion, wasting time stating my views. You may not agree or approve of why it makes a difference, why it is relevant, but that doesn't change the fact that it is relevant.

You'd just try to dig up whatever you can on the other Imam to show that your view is correct.

Are you really this ignorant? I clearly pointed out that one didn't have to "try to dig up" anything regarding Imam Rauf. It's in the news. You may choose to ignore it, but you're an ignoramus if you try to accuse me of "trying to dig up whatever I can" on Imam Rauf. I'ts out there. In the news. And seriously, this is coming dangerously close to dismissing his transgressions.

The thing is, and this is so obviously true, nary one of you can address the facts or what's been brought up; it's all about me. It's all about throwing accusations at me, trying to make me into someone who "hates" Islam/Muslims, a "bigot," someone "trying to dig up dirt," someone who "whines," cries "victim," and on and on it goes.

Yet only in response to that crap have I just recently sunk to the level of you and your ilk, giving some of the crap that I have had thrown at me over and over again (Cue the 'whining/victim' responses :rolleyes: ) back at you in hopes that you would come around to seeing how ignorant it is/how ignorant you are acting.

Seriously. What we have is pages and pages of people attacking me, rather than addressing what's been said. And you're continuing the pattern now, with this ignorant accusation.

It will go in a building that has not been occupied since 1995, but people still think it's available simply because of collateral damage from the 9/11 attacks.

Really? So those were imaginary people working for an imaginary Burlington Coat Factory when the building was struck by the plane the terrorists flew into the WTC on 9-11? And I'm supposed to give credence to what you have to say?

Use your damn heads people and THINK for once.

I can only hope you are talking to yourself, and taking your advice. <_<

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Bubber, that's how it works. If his supporters are going to keep referring to his sterling character to deflect questions, then it's entirely reasonable to discuss how sterling his character really is.

Alternately, you could not be so easily distracted and say "His character has nothing to do with it. It's the symbolism, stupid!"

By allowing yourself to get distracted, you muddle your argument so that nobody has a clue as to why you're opposed to the project. This week it's his landlord-tenant relations. What do you throw at the wall next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

This week it's his landlord-tenant relations. What do you throw at the wall next?

No, it's not "his landlord-tenant relations," it's his character. In light of his claims, his character is very much a part of the whole picture. But it's good to see you reduce his violations of fire codes, an actual fire, and locking tenants out, a law suit, to simply "landlord-tenant relations." As I said, I look forward to your applying the same loose standards to everything, everyone, every topic in the future. :)

And on the topic of his court case, apparently he was a no-show.

While the Imam behind plans for a mosque near Ground Zero was jetting around the globe and advocating for his Downtown project, a pair of dilapidated apartment buildings he owns in New Jersey fell into such disrepair that cops have to stand watch in the event of a fire.

The fire watch, at taxpayer expense, was revealed during a court hearing today when Union City lawyers asked to have two buildings owned by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf placed into receivership so that rent s could be used to fix dozens of violations, including inoperable alarms and sprinklers.

Rauf skipped today’s hearing as did his wife Daisy Khan. Their lawyer, Tomas Espinosa, said he didn’t know why the Imam didn’t come to court.

link

His lawyer, in spite of all the evidence, still retains faith in his client, though. Why? “There is integrity and character” and “He is a man of peace.”

I'm wondering where the "integrity and character" is, and as I pointed out, his involvement will likely result in more opposition as more of his "integrity and character" comes to light.

**********

As a postscript, I'll add for Gosthack's benefit: I didn't have to "dig" for this information at all; it's in the news. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that you keep capitalizing liberal, nicky.

It's a lot of work, since the book isn't provided in a format that can be cut-and-pasted and has to be transcribed by hand. Nonetheless, since you ask so politely...

"Islamic history offers models of pluralism that could be quite instructive for modern American society, such as a court system that decided cases according to different religions' laws. Throughout most of Islamic history, laws differed not only from region to region but also within a given region. Laws were applied based on the litigants' beliefs, especially in matters of marriage and divorce, custody, and inheritance." (page 2)

(if that sounds familiar, it's because he said something similar in his Huffington Post piece about Sharia:

"At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

(...)

"In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.")

And Media Matters quotes pages 86-87 of "What's Right With Islam":

"For America to score even higher on the "Islamic" or "Shariah Compliance" scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation's practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws."

To make explicit what he's talking about, one of the widely circulated quotes available from the book:

"(it) also would not be a violation of church-state separation to have a

subsidiary entity within judiciary that employs religious jurists from diverse religious

backgrounds to comment on the compliance of certain decisions with their religious laws and to

provide guidance to their religious communities on how kosher or Shariah compliant these

decisions are." (p111, quoted here among others)

I dispute the premise that there's anything "liberal" about wanting courts to be overseen by clerics, priests, rabbis, houngans, sorcerors, witch-doctors, shamans, or fortune-tellers.

Past my bedtime; will do more tomorrow or Saturday.

-k

If this is all you have, then I don't know what to say other than the fact that you've gone beyond grasping at straws here. He may have his views on religion, but they nicely conform with our views on pluralism and the rule of law, yet you still won't call him a liberal. This is textbook fear mongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newsweek ? hahahahahahahahahahahahah Please you have to do better then a lefty rag that recently sold for less then 1/10 of what a McDonalds employee makes an hour . Maybe you could quote Daily Kos or DU next time LOLOLOLOL.

You think Newsweek is "lefty"?

I hope you have some expansive analysis to back up this incredible claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This buisness of "some of the people killed on 9/11 were Muslims?" Sure they were - and Muslim fanatics will talk a 15 year old boy into killing himself after becoming a human bomb..Muslims kill Muslims all the time...and the guy flying the planes knew that Muslims were in the towers - but the fact that they worked there made them western style infidels..so killing them was part of the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is all you have, then I don't know what to say other than the fact that you've gone beyond grasping at straws here. He may have his views on religion, but they nicely conform with our views on pluralism and the rule of law, yet you still won't call him a liberal. This is textbook fear mongering.

If you consider "pluralism" and "the rule of law" to define a liberal then everybody from Stephen Harper to George W Bush to the Pope are liberals.

And having clerics advise judges on decisions might nicely conform with your views of the rule of law, but doesn't fit mine.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think Newsweek is "lefty"?

I hope you have some expansive analysis to back up this incredible claim.

LOL! Incredible claim? It's just an acknowledgement of reality. Take a look at their editors and writers. Hell, this is the magazine that claimed "We're All Socialists Now!" :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! Incredible claim? It's just an acknowledgement of reality. Take a look at their editors and writers. Hell, this is the magazine that claimed "We're All Socialists Now!" :rolleyes:

Again: some meaningful examples (rather thna an eye-cathcing headline) would be useful.

This cherished "leftist media" theme has become so promiscuously overwrought , that it's no wonder people can't comprehend even basic media reality.

:) Jeesh--part of a large corporation is "socialist," now.

We're actually at the point where that claim can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...