"The Mosque at Ground Zero"

[Majikthise]

Many of the stupid ones do.

How wonderfully tolerant of you.

 

[doppelganger]

How wonderfully tolerant of you.

If you work for a living, Reagan screwed you and your family.

 

[Majikthise]

If you work for a living, Reagan screwed you and your family.

And what would that have to do with tolerance were it fact?

 

[doppelganger]

And what would that have to do with tolerance were it fact?

It would have to do with the rather simple concept that if you celebrate somebody who screwed you and your family over, you aren't very smart.

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.[39]
Another recent critique of Reagan's policies stem from Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The tax reform would ostensibly reduce or eliminate tax deductions. This legislation expanded the AMT from a law for untaxed rich investors to one refocused on middle class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax states.[40] This parallel tax system hit middle class Americans the hardest by reducing their deductions and effectively raising their taxes. Meanwhile, the highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) were proportionately less affected, thereby shifting the tax burden away from the richest 0.5% to poorer Americans.[41] In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code.[42] As of 2007, the AMT brought in more tax revenue than the regular tax which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.[41]

 

[doppelganger]

Then there's media de-regulation, which made it more and more difficult for the general public to know just how stupid it was becoming.

NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Big Media - Regulations Timeline | PBS

 

[Majikthise]

Ouch, that hurt. (yawn). Yes, I'm an idiot.

 

[Majikthise]

My wife wants to go on facebook, (shudder), see you later.

 

[doppelganger]

Ouch, that hurt. (yawn). Yes, I'm an idiot.

Seriously, take a look at what has happened to the middle class and how wealth had been redistributed upwards under the myth of "trickle down." Look at the stats. It's undeniable that the middle class is disappearing. Or don't, and just stick your head in the sand and be a slave to ideology and party. That's your prerogative, of course.

The most ridiculous thing is the "conservative" preoccupation with "family values" at the same time they are destroying the ability of a family to support itself with a single income or to build for its future. Yes, modern "conservatives" are idiots - IF - they also happen to work for their income.

 

[Smoke]

How wonderfully tolerant of you.

I'm probably the most tolerant person you'll ever encounter. I never interfere with the rights of idiots, however much they interfere with mine. I just don't lavish my respect on those who don't deserve it.

 

[MoonWater]

It's perceived as a backing off because his original statement was a nice, clear affirmation of the freedom of religion. His second statement was a wishy washy compromise in which the first, clear statement was affirmed but the concept of the "wisdom", or the lack thereof, of freely practicing religion was pointlessly introduced to muddy the issue, all to appease the likes of Glenn Beck.

It doesn't seem all that wishy washy to me. He's still standing by his statement that freedom of religion allows muslims to build a mosque at the location in question. He's just also pointing out that it's not his place to judge whether or not it is "wise" for muslims to build a mosque at the location in general. Which in truth it isn't his place and often times it takes more strength to not give into emotional pulls and avoid judgement than it does to outright judge something. I imagine if he HAD tried to state whether or not it is "wise" to build a mosque at that location people would be complaining that he was passing ethical judgement on something he had no buisness passing such judgement on. And in that instance I would agree. I can see how some people might construe the statement as Obama being wishy washy but when you really look at it he's just stating a simple truth: Muslims have the right and he, as the president, has no place passing judgement about the right, however he does have the obligation to ensure that right is protected. I fail to see how that is "wishy washy".

edit:

Edit: as John Stewart put it, "YES WE CAN! BUT SHOULD WE?"

What does this quote have to do with "wishy washyness"? This is actually a very wise question to ask and one that the Muslim community should consider the answer to and implications of while going forward with this project.

 

[blackout]

What is "Ground Zero"?

Ground Zero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point[2]) 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.




[edit] History of term

The origins of the term ground zero began with the Manhattan Project and the bombing of Japan. The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the use of the term in a 1946 New York Times report on the destroyed city of Hiroshima, defines "ground zero" as "that part of the ground situated immediately under an exploding bomb, especially an atomic one."
The term was military slang — used at the Trinity site where the weapon tower for the first nuclear weapon was at "point zero" — and moved into general use very shortly after the end of World War II.

 

[blackout]

So really it would be more accurate to say,

the mosque near ground zero,
or
the mosque visible from ground zero.

 

[Smoke]

So really it would be more accurate to say,

the mosque near ground zero,
or
the mosque visible from ground zero.

Perhaps "visible from a helicopter hovering over Ground Zero." You certainly couldn't see it from the ground, or anywhere near the ground.

 

[blackout]

Perhaps "visible from a helicopter hovering over Ground Zero." You certainly couldn't see it from the ground, or anywhere near the ground.

So what are they actually building on ground zero?
Just curious.

(I'm not really following any of this,
because I don't really care, to be honest.)

 

[Smoke]

So what are they actually building on ground zero?
Just curious.

(I'm not really following any of this,
because I don't really care, to be honest.)

They're planning a new World Trade Center which is not expected to be nearly as ugly as the former one.

 

[blackout]

funny how I can find "ground zero mosque" on wiki,
but nothing on "ground zero memorial".

Anyway, I suppose even the damage to the Park 51 building
from 911 plane parts does not technically make it "ground zero" locale,
but more a direct extention of damage from ground zero.

but I digress....

 

[Copernicus]

It doesn't seem all that wishy washy to me. He's still standing by his statement that freedom of religion allows muslims to build a mosque at the location in question. He's just also pointing out that it's not his place to judge whether or not it is "wise" for muslims to build a mosque at the location in general...

MoonWater, the President is not making these statements in a political vacuum. Why did he think it necessary to talk about the "wisdom" of building a mosque there? It is obvious that he perceived his original statement as being too strong, so he wanted to send a message that it wasn't meant to be taken too literally. But he will still claim to "stand by his statement". He is obviously trying to have it both ways. A strong president would have chastised those in his own party who were running in fear of the fear mongers and demagogues. This president keeps sending mixed messages. I was a strong supporter of his in the past, but I find it difficult to listen to him now. This is not the first time he has retreated in the face of mild criticism, and it will not be the last. Every squeaky noise on Fox News is magnified tenfold in his hearing, but he has developed a real tin ear for the Democratic base whose enthusiasm carried him to election. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt that he will see that enthusiasm again.

Which in truth it isn't his place and often times it takes more strength to not give into emotional pulls and avoid judgement than it does to outright judge something. I imagine if he HAD tried to state whether or not it is "wise" to build a mosque at that location people would be complaining that he was passing ethical judgement on something he had no buisness passing such judgement on...

Actually, there are politicians who have the courage to stand up to the fear mongers. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has been a strong proponent of the mosque. Obama should take this opportunity to explain the concept of religious freedom to Americans. Instead, he passes on a chance to lead.

And in that instance I would agree. I can see how some people might construe the statement as Obama being wishy washy but when you really look at it he's just stating a simple truth: Muslims have the right and he, as the president, has no place passing judgement about the right, however he does have the obligation to ensure that right is protected. I fail to see how that is "wishy washy".

If you claim to see how some people might "construe the statement as wishy washy" then your last statement is a contradiction. He takes a strong stand, and, just as people start to applaud and defend his position, he hedges it. Politically, that is just plain dumb. He ought to know better. He is the president now, not a junior senator.

What does this quote have to do with "wishy washyness"? This is actually a very wise question to ask and one that the Muslim community should consider the answer to and implications of while going forward with this project.

There is no reason for any American to question the wisdom of building a mosque there, only the wisdom of trying to emulate the bigoted hatred that led to the destruction of the towers. Muslims died in those towers, and it shows our strength as a nation that we still hold strong to our tradition of religious tolerance. What is terrorism about if not to terrorize Americans into changing their lifestyle and their culture? The First Amendment means nothing if we hesitate to defend the principles it was founded on.

 

[Venatoris]

They're planning a new World Trade Center which is not expected to be nearly as ugly as the former one.

last I checked, they scrapped this plan in favor of two reflecting pools at ground level and some kind of underground museum thing. Apparently the big glass atrium spire thing was structurally unsound, and the second plan was too close to the road and vulnerable to the simplest of terrorist attacks.

 

[MoonWater]

MoonWater, the President is not making these statements in a political vacuum. Why did he think it necessary to talk about the "wisdom" of building a mosque there? It is obvious that he perceived his original statement as being too strong, so he wanted to send a message that it wasn't meant to be taken too literally. But he will still claim to "stand by his statement". He is obviously trying to have it both ways. A strong president would have chastised those in his own party who were running in fear of the fear mongers and demagogues. This president keeps sending mixed messages. I was a strong supporter of his in the past, but I find it difficult to listen to him now. This is not the first time he has retreated in the face of mild criticism, and it will not be the last. Every squeaky noise on Fox News is magnified tenfold in his hearing, but he has developed a real tin ear for the Democratic base whose enthusiasm carried him to election. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt that he will see that enthusiasm again.


Actually, there are politicians who have the courage to stand up to the fear mongers. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has been a strong proponent of the mosque. Obama should take this opportunity to explain the concept of religious freedom to Americans. Instead, he passes on a chance to lead.


If you claim to see how some people might "construe the statement as wishy washy" then your last statement is a contradiction. He takes a strong stand, and, just as people start to applaud and defend his position, he hedges it. Politically, that is just plain dumb. He ought to know better. He is the president now, not a junior senator.


There is no reason for any American to question the wisdom of building a mosque there, only the wisdom of trying to emulate the bigoted hatred that led to the destruction of the towers. Muslims died in those towers, and it shows our strength as a nation that we still hold strong to our tradition of religious tolerance. What is terrorism about if not to terrorize Americans into changing their lifestyle and their culture? The First Amendment means nothing if we hesitate to defend the principles it was founded on.

We don't know the circumstances that brought up his statement. If he just brought it up after recieving a few glares from others then I could agree with your point. However if he was actually asked about the wisdom of building a mosque there, or in some other way was discussing something that led to such a topic then he would have to comment on it. The point is we don't have the quotes in context, unless there's a link somewhere that will provide it.

We also don't know what his mindset was in making such a statement. Did he have a mindset of apprehension and wanting to back off or simply wanting to clarify his point? What were his actual intentions with this statement? We just don't know. Sure maybe he was being wishy washy, but he may also not have meant it that way. We just don't know.

As for your perceived contradiction my last comment was not about Obama's quote specifically but how I took what he said and the intent behind the words. Yes I can see how what Obama said could be construed as him being wishy washy, however I fail to see how it is wishy washy if his intent was to support the muslim right to build there while not passing judgement on how wise or ethical it is to do so; and that is how I took what he said. And I still stand by what I said earlier, it is not his place to pass such judgement.

 

[MoonWater]

There is no reason for any American to question the wisdom of building a mosque there, only the wisdom of trying to emulate the bigoted hatred that led to the destruction of the towers. Muslims died in those towers, and it shows our strength as a nation that we still hold strong to our tradition of religious tolerance. What is terrorism about if not to terrorize Americans into changing their lifestyle and their culture? The First Amendment means nothing if we hesitate to defend the principles it was founded on.

Actually there is reason. With 70% of americans being against the building of a mosque there you can bet that many of them will try to take matters into their own hands and make life very difficult for those trying to build the mosque and attend it once finished. I wouldn't be surprised if the place wound up being bombed sky high before completion. That isn't to say questioning the wisdom of building it should lead them to move it to a new location, as yes that would be giving in to hate and fear mongering. However questioning it can help make those working on it more aware of the social and political effects the mosque will have as well as the possible backlash and as such make them better prepared to deal with it.