Re: Is a Mosque at Ground Zero equivalent to a McDonald's in Baghdad?
John S
> It's not a mosque,
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
you to share. The Washington Post stated that the proposed building is
"a cultural center that will contain a mosque." [2]
it's not at ground zero, and the message didn't
> even say anything about it.
A building that stood on the site of the proposed mosque was heavily
damaged by landing gear of the hijacked aircraft being flown by Islamic
terrorists on 11 September 2001 [3]. I would certainly consider the
site of building destruction by Islamic terrorists to be "Ground Zero."
But maybe this is a great idea afterall, Peter. And perhaps Ryder
should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
Now Nanci Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) is questioning the motives of
anyone who does not think the mosque is a great idea, and wants to
investigate opponents. [4] As Speaker of the House, she has subpoena
powers to aid her in her "investigation."
Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that the mosque/Islamic center backers will
not rule out using funds from Iran and Saudi Arabia. [5]
So, Peter, care to revise your statement?
--Sources and References used in my post--
[1] http://tinyurl.com/3635vmk
[2] http://tinyurl.com/2acuj7m
[3] http://tinyurl.com/245kpjr
[4]
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/nancy-pelosi-wheres-mosque-opp.html
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/18/2010 1:10 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > It's not a mosque,
>
> The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
> mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
> you to share. The Washington Post stated that the proposed building is
> "a cultural center that will contain a mosque." [2]
It is a community center, modeled on the 92nd St Y (one of the major
cultural institutions of New York City), that will house, along with
sports facilities, auditoriums, etc., a "prayer room."
Not inappropriately, the 92nd St Y started out as a YM & YW HA.
> it's not at ground zero, and the message didn't
>
> > even say anything about it.
>
> A building that stood on the site of the proposed mosque was heavily
> damaged by landing gear of the hijacked aircraft being flown by Islamic
> terrorists on 11 September 2001 [3]. I would certainly consider the
> site of building destruction by Islamic terrorists to be "Ground Zero."
So you've never actually been in the neighborhood.
And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
Nor was it worth repairing.
> But maybe this is a great idea afterall, Peter. And perhaps Ryder
> should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
> Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
Do you propose to ban all churches within some number of blocks of the
Murragh Federal Building site, and to ban all synagogues within some
number of blocks of where Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a fanatical
Orthodox Jewish terrorist?
> Now Nanci Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) is questioning the motives of
> anyone who does not think the mosque is a great idea, and wants to
> investigate opponents. [4] As Speaker of the House, she has subpoena
> powers to aid her in her "investigation."
_FINALLY_ she is beginning to use the tactics of the republicans.
The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
> Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that the mosque/Islamic center backers will
> not rule out using funds from Iran and Saudi Arabia. [5]
They haven't raised any money for it at all yet.
Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia sent the terrorists on their mission.
> So, Peter, care to revise your statement?
Not in the slightest.
> --Sources and References used in my post--
>
> [1]http://tinyurl.com/3635vmk
>
> [2]http://tinyurl.com/2acuj7m
>
> [3]http://tinyurl.com/245kpjr
>
> [4]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/nancy-pelosi-wheres-mosqu...
>
> [5]http://tinyurl.com/29yp3xu
John S
> On Aug 19, 10:51 am, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>> On 8/18/2010 1:10 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> It's not a mosque,
>>
>> The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
>> mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
>> you to share. The Washington Post stated that the proposed building is
>> "a cultural center that will contain a mosque." [2]
>
> It is a community center, modeled on the 92nd St Y (one of the major
> cultural institutions of New York City), that will house, along with
> sports facilities, auditoriums, etc., a "prayer room."
>
> Not inappropriately, the 92nd St Y started out as a YM& YW HA.
Even Barack H. Obama called the mosque a mosque. Do you have additional
information that he is not privy to? Please share.
See also http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/07/26/14835681.html
>
>> it's not at ground zero, and the message didn't
>>
>>> even say anything about it.
>>
>> A building that stood on the site of the proposed mosque was heavily
>> damaged by landing gear of the hijacked aircraft being flown by Islamic
>> terrorists on 11 September 2001 [3]. I would certainly consider the
>> site of building destruction by Islamic terrorists to be "Ground Zero."
> So you've never actually been in the neighborhood.
Please explain where you read that. Read again, carefully. And again.
>
> And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
> one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
> Nor was it worth repairing.
Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
damaged?"
See also http://tinyurl.com/2878y93 "On 9/11, landing gear from one of
the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
interior."
>
>> But maybe this is a great idea afterall, Peter. And perhaps Ryder
>> should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
>> Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
>
> Do you propose to ban all churches within some number of blocks of the
> Murragh Federal Building site, and to ban all synagogues within some
> number of blocks of where Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a fanatical
> Orthodox Jewish terrorist?
I made no such proposal, nor is a synagogue nor church planned at the
site of a mass terror attack. I also note that you mentioned synagogues
and churches and not merely "prayer rooms."
>
>> Now Nanci Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) is questioning the motives of
>> anyone who does not think the mosque is a great idea, and wants to
>> investigate opponents. [4] As Speaker of the House, she has subpoena
>> powers to aid her in her "investigation."
>
> _FINALLY_ she is beginning to use the tactics of the republicans.
So you are endorsing a speaker of the house's proposed tactics of
threatening to use her power to investigate those who are concerned,
rather than to legislate? Be consistent.
>
> The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
> the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
> waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
>
>> Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that the mosque/Islamic center backers will
>> not rule out using funds from Iran and Saudi Arabia. [5]
>
> They haven't raised any money for it at all yet.
Yet.
>
> Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia sent the terrorists on their mission.
Nobody claimed that they did. But how fitting that a country like our
"friend" Saudi Arabia, which strictly forbids women from doing such
heinous acts as driving a car, would fund a mosque at ground zero.
>
>> So, Peter, care to revise your statement?
>
> Not in the slightest.
Of course not! You couldn't even support your statements either. I
provided plenty of sources for mine.
>
>> --Sources and References used in my post--
>>
>> [1]http://tinyurl.com/3635vmk
>>
>> [2]http://tinyurl.com/2acuj7m
>>
>> [3]http://tinyurl.com/245kpjr
>>
>> [4]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/nancy-pelosi-wheres-mosqu...
>>
>> [5]http://tinyurl.com/29yp3xu
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/19/2010 1:44 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 10:51 am, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
> >> On 8/18/2010 1:10 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>> It's not a mosque,
>
> >> The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
> >> mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
> >> you to share. The Washington Post stated that the proposed building is
> >> "a cultural center that will contain a mosque." [2]
>
> > It is a community center, modeled on the 92nd St Y (one of the major
> > cultural institutions of New York City), that will house, along with
> > sports facilities, auditoriums, etc., a "prayer room."
>
> > Not inappropriately, the 92nd St Y started out as a YM& YW HA.
>
> Even Barack H. Obama called the mosque a mosque. Do you have additional
> information that he is not privy to? Please share.
Evidently I do. I listen to local radio that interviews the principals
in the dispute (which is not the business of anyone outside the
immediate area).
Do you think that the oath of office makes a president's every word
infallible? Do you think he was right to begin every confrontation
with the republicans from what should have been the compromise
position, and then further give in to their every demand, knowing full
well that they would never vote for the final bill that they had
succeeded in watering down?
> See alsohttp://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/07/26/14835681.html
Ah, I'm sure a "comment" in a small Canadian newspaper is in a better
position to know what is to be known (there are no plans yet; there is
no architect yet; there is no funding yet) than the actual proponents
of the center, and the community board that approved it with a single
dissenting vote out of 30.
I've never heard of the Toronto Sun. Is it owned by Rupert Murdoch?
We don't need Outside Agitators.
> >> it's not at ground zero, and the message didn't
>
> >>> even say anything about it.
>
> >> A building that stood on the site of the proposed mosque was heavily
> >> damaged by landing gear of the hijacked aircraft being flown by Islamic
> >> terrorists on 11 September 2001 [3]. I would certainly consider the
> >> site of building destruction by Islamic terrorists to be "Ground Zero."
> > So you've never actually been in the neighborhood.
>
> Please explain where you read that. Read again, carefully. And again.
You simply don't know what the phrase "Ground Zero" means. If you had
ever been here, you would know. You have no idea how far away the Park
Place site is from Ground Zero.
> > And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
> > one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
> > Nor was it worth repairing.
>
> Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
> different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
> demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
> damaged?"
No idea.
> See alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2878y93 "On 9/11, landing gear from one of
> the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
> interior."
I don't do "tinyurl."
> >> But maybe this is a great idea afterall, Peter. And perhaps Ryder
> >> should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
> >> Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
>
> > Do you propose to ban all churches within some number of blocks of the
> > Murragh Federal Building site, and to ban all synagogues within some
> > number of blocks of where Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a fanatical
> > Orthodox Jewish terrorist?
>
> I made no such proposal, nor is a synagogue nor church planned at the
> site of a mass terror attack. I also note that you mentioned synagogues
> and churches and not merely "prayer rooms."
Because the word you're using is "mosque" (even though your complaint
is factually inaccurate).
> >> Now Nanci Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) is questioning the motives of
> >> anyone who does not think the mosque is a great idea, and wants to
> >> investigate opponents. [4] As Speaker of the House, she has subpoena
> >> powers to aid her in her "investigation."
>
> > _FINALLY_ she is beginning to use the tactics of the republicans.
>
> So you are endorsing a speaker of the house's proposed tactics of
> threatening to use her power to investigate those who are concerned,
> rather than to legislate? Be consistent.
It's exactly what the Outside Agitators are doing here.
> > The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
> > the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
> > waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
>
> Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
Oh, don't be stupid. Now you sound like the morons who claim there are
no racists among the teabaggers.
What, exactly, did the millions and millions of dollars wasted on
"investigating" "Whitewater" produce?
> >> Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that the mosque/Islamic center backers will
> >> not rule out using funds from Iran and Saudi Arabia. [5]
>
> > They haven't raised any money for it at all yet.
> Yet.
Yes, yet. At some point, they will begin an appeal for financing.
> > Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia sent the terrorists on their mission.
>
> Nobody claimed that they did. But how fitting that a country like our
> "friend" Saudi Arabia, which strictly forbids women from doing such
> heinous acts as driving a car, would fund a mosque at ground zero.
It would? You have a pipeline to the Finance Ministry in Riyadh?
> >> So, Peter, care to revise your statement?
>
> > Not in the slightest.
>
> Of course not! You couldn't even support your statements either. I
> provided plenty of sources for mine.
Your "statements" are bigoted and irrelevant, so where you copied them
from is not of any interest at all.
Roger Lincoln
> should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
> Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
And perhaps we should allow Catholic churches next to elementary
schools.
John S
> On Aug 19, 11:47 pm, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>> On 8/19/2010 1:44 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 10:51 am, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/2010 1:10 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's not a mosque,
>>
>>>> The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
>>>> mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
>>>> you to share. The Washington Post stated that the proposed building is
>>>> "a cultural center that will contain a mosque." [2]
>>
>>> It is a community center, modeled on the 92nd St Y (one of the major
>>> cultural institutions of New York City), that will house, along with
>>> sports facilities, auditoriums, etc., a "prayer room."
>>
>>> Not inappropriately, the 92nd St Y started out as a YM& YW HA.
>>
>> Even Barack H. Obama called the mosque a mosque. Do you have additional
>> information that he is not privy to? Please share.
>
> Evidently I do. I listen to local radio that interviews the principals
> in the dispute
Wow, good for you! So what is this omniscient radio program that knows
more than the POTUS? Clearly they must know more about the proposed
mosque than its own builders, which describe the mosque as a "mosque."
http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm [7]
> (which is not the business of anyone outside the
> immediate area).
Oh really? What happens at a major terrorist calamity site where over
3,000 people died from across the country, and across the world died is
not the "business of anyone outside the immediate area?"
Wrong again. Even the POTUS, not to mention US Congressmen from Nevada,
California, etc. are weighing in.
>
> Do you think that the oath of office makes a president's every word
> infallible? Do you think he was right to begin every confrontation
> with the republicans from what should have been the compromise
> position, and then further give in to their every demand, knowing full
> well that they would never vote for the final bill that they had
> succeeded in watering down?
Whatever you are talking about does not seem to be part of the subject
being discussed. There have not any bills filed related to the mosque
at this time, which is the topic of this discussion.
>
>> See alsohttp://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/07/26/14835681.html
>
> Ah, I'm sure a "comment" in a small Canadian newspaper is in a better
> position to know what is to be known (there are no plans yet; there is
> no architect yet; there is no funding yet) than the actual proponents
> of the center, and the community board that approved it with a single
> dissenting vote out of 30.
>
> I've never heard of the Toronto Sun. Is it owned by Rupert Murdoch?
Hmm, somebody said something about "ignorance" earlier.... Guess
you'll have to do some research....
>
> We don't need Outside Agitators.
Ahh, agitators. Like the President of the United States?
>
>>>> it's not at ground zero, and the message didn't
>>
>>>>> even say anything about it.
>>
>>>> A building that stood on the site of the proposed mosque was heavily
>>>> damaged by landing gear of the hijacked aircraft being flown by Islamic
>>>> terrorists on 11 September 2001 [3]. I would certainly consider the
>>>> site of building destruction by Islamic terrorists to be "Ground Zero."
>>> So you've never actually been in the neighborhood.
>>
>> Please explain where you read that. Read again, carefully. And again.
>
> You simply don't know what the phrase "Ground Zero" means.
Wrong again. Again, please explain where you read that I've "never
actually been in the neighborhood," which is what YOU are asserting.
> If you had
> ever been here, you would know. You have no idea how far away the Park
> Place site is from Ground Zero.
It is one of the buildings damaged by airliners hijacked by Islamic
extremist terrorists. Are you seriously trying to argue that is not part
of ground zero?
>
>>> And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
>>> one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
>>> Nor was it worth repairing.
>>
>> Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
>> different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
>> demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
>> damaged?"
>
> No idea.
Of course not!!!
>
>> See alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2878y93 "On 9/11, landing gear from one of
>> the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
>> interior."
>
> I don't do "tinyurl."
And yet you pontificate about the "ignorance" of others.... If you
can't get to a link, fortunately I quoted the relevant section for you.
>
>>>> But maybe this is a great idea afterall, Peter. And perhaps Ryder
>>>> should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
>>>> Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
>>
>>> Do you propose to ban all churches within some number of blocks of the
>>> Murragh Federal Building site, and to ban all synagogues within some
>>> number of blocks of where Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a fanatical
>>> Orthodox Jewish terrorist?
>>
>> I made no such proposal, nor is a synagogue nor church planned at the
>> site of a mass terror attack. I also note that you mentioned synagogues
>> and churches and not merely "prayer rooms."
>
> Because the word you're using is "mosque" (even though your complaint
> is factually inaccurate).
That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
2001? Bull.
>
>>>> Now Nanci Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) is questioning the motives of
>>>> anyone who does not think the mosque is a great idea, and wants to
>>>> investigate opponents. [4] As Speaker of the House, she has subpoena
>>>> powers to aid her in her "investigation."
>>
>>> _FINALLY_ she is beginning to use the tactics of the republicans.
>>
>> So you are endorsing a speaker of the house's proposed tactics of
>> threatening to use her power to investigate those who are concerned,
>> rather than to legislate? Be consistent.
>
> It's exactly what the Outside Agitators are doing here.
Yes, "outside agitators...." like the POTUS. I asked a question.
Again, you are sidestepping. Are you endorsing a speaker of the house's
proposed tactics of threatening to use her power to investigate those
who are concerned...
>
>>> The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
>>> the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
>>> waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
>>
>> Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
>
> Oh, don't be stupid.
Asking for evidence for a ridiculous claim is hardly stupid.
Now you sound like the morons who claim there are
> no racists among the teabaggers.'
No such claim has been made in this thread. Please read more carefully.
>
> What, exactly, did the millions and millions of dollars wasted on
> "investigating" "Whitewater" produce?
>
>>>> Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that the mosque/Islamic center backers will
>>>> not rule out using funds from Iran and Saudi Arabia. [5]
>>
>>> They haven't raised any money for it at all yet.
>> Yet.
>
> Yes, yet. At some point, they will begin an appeal for financing.
>
>>> Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia sent the terrorists on their mission.
>>
>> Nobody claimed that they did. But how fitting that a country like our
>> "friend" Saudi Arabia, which strictly forbids women from doing such
>> heinous acts as driving a car, would fund a mosque at ground zero.
>
> It would? You have a pipeline to the Finance Ministry in Riyadh?
I am discussing the proposed mosque, not any pipelines which I may or
not have personally. Please try to pay attention.
>
>>>> So, Peter, care to revise your statement?
>>
>>> Not in the slightest.
>>
>> Of course not! You couldn't even support your statements either. I
>> provided plenty of sources for mine.
>
> Your "statements" are bigoted and irrelevant, so where you copied them
> from is not of any interest at all.
You claim that direct facts about the topic are "irrelevant," yet you
are willing to dredge up weird claims about pipelines and racists....
You even admit that you are ignorant of the factual citations, which I
have provided for you. Please explain what statements are "bigoted" and
why.
So Peter, do YOU think that building an Islamic Center/Mosque in this
location is a good idea and in good taste?
Are you seriously trying to claim that the a mosque is *not* being
proposed, when even the proposers are calling it a mosque?
--Sources and References used in my post--
[4]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/nancy-pelosi-wheres-mosqu...
Bolwerk
> On 8/20/2010 7:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> If you had
>> ever been here, you would know. You have no idea how far away the Park
>> Place site is from Ground Zero.
>
> It is one of the buildings damaged by airliners hijacked by Islamic
> extremist terrorists. Are you seriously trying to argue that is not part
> of ground zero?
It is not. Plenty of buildings in Lower Manhattan were damaged that
were not part of "Ground Zero" (rather silly as that term is).
What is commonly known as Ground Zero can be seen here, the relatively
blank area south of Vesey Street.
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=40.711297,-74.008992&spn=0.005815,0.013937&z=17
(For the record, my building several blocks to the southeast was also
damaged on 9/11, though slightly.)
>> Because the word you're using is "mosque" (even though your complaint
>> is factually inaccurate).
>
> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
> 2001? Bull.
Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
area. Let's ban them!
> So Peter, do YOU think that building an Islamic Center/Mosque in this
> location is a good idea and in good taste?
Monotheists caused 9/11, so it's quite clear that _any_ monotheistic
institution near Ground Zero is defiling hallowed ground.
> Are you seriously trying to claim that the a mosque is *not* being
> proposed, when even the proposers are calling it a mosque?
Not that I care too much about the distinction, but my understanding was
also that there was not to be a mosque there - simply prayer
accommodations for pious Muslims, who must bow towards Mecca several
times a day. That some in the national media don't know the difference
isn't very surprising to me, and even if they do the term "mosque" has
entered the echo chamber.
As for the rest of this silly (national) debate, it's solely to drum up
feelings of impotence in Republikans so they'll be angry and vote.
There's nothing that can be done to keep anyone from building a mosque,
church, synagogue, temple of Baal, or any other monument to human
superstition there.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/20/2010 7:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 11:47 pm, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
> >> On 8/19/2010 1:44 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 10:51 am, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/18/2010 1:10 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>>> It's not a mosque,
>
> >>>> The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
> >>>> mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
> >>>> you to share. The Washington Post stated that the proposed building is
> >>>> "a cultural center that will contain a mosque." [2]
>
> >>> It is a community center, modeled on the 92nd St Y (one of the major
> >>> cultural institutions of New York City), that will house, along with
> >>> sports facilities, auditoriums, etc., a "prayer room."
>
> >>> Not inappropriately, the 92nd St Y started out as a YM& YW HA.
>
> >> Even Barack H. Obama called the mosque a mosque. Do you have additional
> >> information that he is not privy to? Please share.
>
> > Evidently I do. I listen to local radio that interviews the principals
> > in the dispute
>
> Wow, good for you! So what is this omniscient radio program that knows
> more than the POTUS? Clearly they must know more about the proposed
> mosque than its own builders, which describe the mosque as a "mosque."
WNYC. (For Outside Agitators like you, you can listen at wnyc.org and
presumably access the archives for the last few weeks to hear fact-
based discussions of many aspects of the situation.)
Your trust in the omniscience of POTUS is touching. Did it also extend
to bush?
> http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm[7]
>
> > (which is not the business of anyone outside the
> > immediate area).
>
> Oh really? What happens at a major terrorist calamity site where over
> 3,000 people died from across the country, and across the world died is
> not the "business of anyone outside the immediate area?"
It's not _at_ a "major terrorist calamity site," and the two are not
visible from each other.
> Wrong again. Even the POTUS, not to mention US Congressmen from Nevada,
> California, etc. are weighing in.
They would never have heard of it were it not for Outside Agitators
like Fox News, which has nothing to talk about since the republicans
have no agenda other than obstructionism.
> > Do you think that the oath of office makes a president's every word
> > infallible? Do you think he was right to begin every confrontation
> > with the republicans from what should have been the compromise
> > position, and then further give in to their every demand, knowing full
> > well that they would never vote for the final bill that they had
> > succeeded in watering down?
>
> Whatever you are talking about does not seem to be part of the subject
> being discussed. There have not any bills filed related to the mosque
> at this time, which is the topic of this discussion.
If you know nothing about American politics, why are you invoking
American politics in your Outside Agitating?
> >> See alsohttp://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/07/26/14835681.html
>
> > Ah, I'm sure a "comment" in a small Canadian newspaper is in a better
> > position to know what is to be known (there are no plans yet; there is
> > no architect yet; there is no funding yet) than the actual proponents
> > of the center, and the community board that approved it with a single
> > dissenting vote out of 30.
>
> > I've never heard of the Toronto Sun. Is it owned by Rupert Murdoch?
>
> Hmm, somebody said something about "ignorance" earlier.... Guess
> you'll have to do some research....
Why? Why should a "comment" in a minor Canadian newspaper concern me?
> > We don't need Outside Agitators.
>
> Ahh, agitators. Like the President of the United States?
This is probably the second time he's put his foot into a racial-type
situation. He started out on the right side of the question -- noting
that they indisputably have the right to erect a mosque or anything
else wherever they want, so long as it conforms to local zoning
regulations. (And once they have an architect, the design will conform
to local zoning regulations.)
> >>>> it's not at ground zero, and the message didn't
>
> >>>>> even say anything about it.
>
> >>>> A building that stood on the site of the proposed mosque was heavily
> >>>> damaged by landing gear of the hijacked aircraft being flown by Islamic
> >>>> terrorists on 11 September 2001 [3]. I would certainly consider the
> >>>> site of building destruction by Islamic terrorists to be "Ground Zero."
> >>> So you've never actually been in the neighborhood.
>
> >> Please explain where you read that. Read again, carefully. And again.
>
> > You simply don't know what the phrase "Ground Zero" means.
>
> Wrong again. Again, please explain where you read that I've "never
> actually been in the neighborhood," which is what YOU are asserting.
>
> > If you had
> > ever been here, you would know. You have no idea how far away the Park
> > Place site is from Ground Zero.
>
> It is one of the buildings damaged by airliners hijacked by Islamic
> extremist terrorists. Are you seriously trying to argue that is not part
> of ground zero?
Yes, it is not part of ground zero. It is several blocks away from
ground zero.
> >>> And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
> >>> one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
> >>> Nor was it worth repairing.
>
> >> Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
> >> different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
> >> demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
> >> damaged?"
>
> > No idea.
>
> Of course not!!!
>
>
>
> >> See alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2878y93 "On 9/11, landing gear from one of
> >> the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
> >> interior."
>
> > I don't do "tinyurl."
>
> And yet you pontificate about the "ignorance" of others.... If you
> can't get to a link, fortunately I quoted the relevant section for you.
Without naming your source so that its reliability can be evaluated.
> >>>> But maybe this is a great idea afterall, Peter. And perhaps Ryder
> >>>> should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
> >>>> Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
>
> >>> Do you propose to ban all churches within some number of blocks of the
> >>> Murragh Federal Building site, and to ban all synagogues within some
> >>> number of blocks of where Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a fanatical
> >>> Orthodox Jewish terrorist?
>
> >> I made no such proposal, nor is a synagogue nor church planned at the
> >> site of a mass terror attack. I also note that you mentioned synagogues
> >> and churches and not merely "prayer rooms."
>
> > Because the word you're using is "mosque" (even though your complaint
> > is factually inaccurate).
>
> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
> 2001? Bull.
There is no proposed mosque, so you are tilting at windmills.
> >>>> Now Nanci Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) is questioning the motives of
> >>>> anyone who does not think the mosque is a great idea, and wants to
> >>>> investigate opponents. [4] As Speaker of the House, she has subpoena
> >>>> powers to aid her in her "investigation."
>
> >>> _FINALLY_ she is beginning to use the tactics of the republicans.
>
> >> So you are endorsing a speaker of the house's proposed tactics of
> >> threatening to use her power to investigate those who are concerned,
> >> rather than to legislate? Be consistent.
>
> > It's exactly what the Outside Agitators are doing here.
>
> Yes, "outside agitators...." like the POTUS. I asked a question.
> Again, you are sidestepping. Are you endorsing a speaker of the house's
> proposed tactics of threatening to use her power to investigate those
> who are concerned...
Once again, since you know nothing of American politics, stop trying
to invoke American politics.
> >>> The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
> >>> the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
> >>> waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
>
> >> Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
>
> > Oh, don't be stupid.
>
> Asking for evidence for a ridiculous claim is hardly stupid.
>
> Now you sound like the morons who claim there are
>
> > no racists among the teabaggers.'
>
> No such claim has been made in this thread. Please read more carefully.
And apparently you have trouble with simple English as well. You don't
know what "sound like" means?
> > What, exactly, did the millions and millions of dollars wasted on
> > "investigating" "Whitewater" produce?
>
> >>>> Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that the mosque/Islamic center backers will
> >>>> not rule out using funds from Iran and Saudi Arabia. [5]
>
> >>> They haven't raised any money for it at all yet.
> >> Yet.
>
> > Yes, yet. At some point, they will begin an appeal for financing.
>
> >>> Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia sent the terrorists on their mission.
>
> >> Nobody claimed that they did. But how fitting that a country like our
> >> "friend" Saudi Arabia, which strictly forbids women from doing such
> >> heinous acts as driving a car, would fund a mosque at ground zero.
>
> > It would? You have a pipeline to the Finance Ministry in Riyadh?
>
> I am discussing the proposed mosque, not any pipelines which I may or
> not have personally. Please try to pay attention.
You made the lying claim that it will be financed by Iran and Saudi
Arabia.
As it happens, at the moment the imam is in various of the Gulf
Emirates, ostensibly on an official US govt. good-will tour, but
presumably also making contacts among wealthy locals. The last time
anyone looked, the Emirates are good friends of ours.
> >>>> So, Peter, care to revise your statement?
>
> >>> Not in the slightest.
>
> >> Of course not! You couldn't even support your statements either. I
> >> provided plenty of sources for mine.
>
> > Your "statements" are bigoted and irrelevant, so where you copied them
> > from is not of any interest at all.
>
> You claim that direct facts about the topic are "irrelevant," yet you
> are willing to dredge up weird claims about pipelines and racists....
You have no facts.
> You even admit that you are ignorant of the factual citations, which I
> have provided for you. Please explain what statements are "bigoted" and
> why.
I've never heard of a bigot reforming his views simply because they
are quoted back to him.
> So Peter, do YOU think that building an Islamic Center/Mosque in this
> location is a good idea and in good taste?
Of course it is. Why don't you consult the statements of the
developers and the imam, and of the local Community Board and the
Mayor of New York? (It does not concern anyone from anywhere else.)
> Are you seriously trying to claim that the a mosque is *not* being
> proposed, when even the proposers are calling it a mosque?
A "prayer room" inside a cultural center is not a "mosque."
Is the United Nations headquarters a mosque?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Aug 20, 9:00 am, John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
> > On 8/20/2010 7:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > Evidently I do. I listen to local radio that interviews the principals
> > > in the dispute
>
> > Wow, good for you! So what is this omniscient radio program that knows
> > more than the POTUS? Clearly they must know more about the proposed
> > mosque than its own builders, which describe the mosque as a "mosque."
>
> WNYC. (For Outside Agitators like you, you can listen at wnyc.org and
> presumably access the archives for the last few weeks to hear fact-
> based discussions of many aspects of the situation.)
If you had tuned in to the radio station (or to the web page) almost
as soon as I posted the above message, you would have heard (from
11:30 to 11:45 EDT) a call-in only for people living in the immediate
area to express their opinions. They kept a line free for anti-
community center callers -- and did not get a single one.
Not sure what time the archived broadcast becomes available;
presumably later on the same day. They also (sometimes?) do
transcripts.
Whereas, a day or two ago, they had a "discussion" with
representatives of pro- and anti-center 9/11 family organizations. The
woman representing the organization with by far the larger number of
members favors the center, the man representing the opposing view has
far fewer supporters. His presentation consisted of nothing but the
standard Fox/Limbaugh/Palin/... Outside Agitator bigoted and ignorant
line -- and he mentioned that he has been debating this question
everywhere (for the whole two weeks it's been raging?). They took no
calls from listeners during that segment, but I would very much like
to know what funds he's living on during his crusade. (That's the kind
of funding Pelosi suggests looking into.)
John S
Did their "fact based discussion" dispute that the mosque's developer
has called the mosque a mosque? :)
>
> Your trust in the omniscience of POTUS is touching. Did it also extend
> to bush?
Bush has not weighed in on the proposed mosque, so is not relevant.
>
>> http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm[7]
>>
>>> (which is not the business of anyone outside the
>>> immediate area).
>>
>> Oh really? What happens at a major terrorist calamity site where over
>> 3,000 people died from across the country, and across the world died is
>> not the "business of anyone outside the immediate area?"
>
> It's not _at_ a "major terrorist calamity site," and the two are not
> visible from each other.
I didn't say anything about "visible" from street level.
>
>> Wrong again. Even the POTUS, not to mention US Congressmen from Nevada,
>> California, etc. are weighing in.
>
> They would never have heard of it were it not for Outside Agitators
> like Fox News, which has nothing to talk about since the republicans
> have no agenda other than obstructionism.
>
>>> Do you think that the oath of office makes a president's every word
>>> infallible? Do you think he was right to begin every confrontation
>>> with the republicans from what should have been the compromise
>>> position, and then further give in to their every demand, knowing full
>>> well that they would never vote for the final bill that they had
>>> succeeded in watering down?
>>
>> Whatever you are talking about does not seem to be part of the subject
>> being discussed. There have not any bills filed related to the mosque
>> at this time, which is the topic of this discussion.
>
> If you know nothing about American politics, why are you invoking
> American politics in your Outside Agitating?
False premise fallacy.
>
>>>> See alsohttp://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/07/26/14835681.html
>>
>>> Ah, I'm sure a "comment" in a small Canadian newspaper is in a better
>>> position to know what is to be known (there are no plans yet; there is
>>> no architect yet; there is no funding yet) than the actual proponents
>>> of the center, and the community board that approved it with a single
>>> dissenting vote out of 30.
>>
>>> I've never heard of the Toronto Sun. Is it owned by Rupert Murdoch?
>>
>> Hmm, somebody said something about "ignorance" earlier.... Guess
>> you'll have to do some research....
>
> Why? Why should a "comment" in a minor Canadian newspaper concern me?
>
>>> We don't need Outside Agitators.
>>
>> Ahh, agitators. Like the President of the United States?
>
> This is probably the second time he's put his foot into a racial-type
> situation. He started out on the right side of the question -- noting
> that they indisputably have the right to erect a mosque or anything
> else wherever they want, so long as it conforms to local zoning
> regulations. (And once they have an architect, the design will conform
> to local zoning regulations.)
Uh huh. By the way, even the mayor of New York is calling the mosque a
mosque. Is the mayor a "local agitator" too? :)
>
>>>>>> it's not at ground zero, and the message didn't
>>
>>>>>>> even say anything about it.
>>
>>>>>> A building that stood on the site of the proposed mosque was heavily
>>>>>> damaged by landing gear of the hijacked aircraft being flown by Islamic
>>>>>> terrorists on 11 September 2001 [3]. I would certainly consider the
>>>>>> site of building destruction by Islamic terrorists to be "Ground Zero."
>>>>> So you've never actually been in the neighborhood.
>>
>>>> Please explain where you read that. Read again, carefully. And again.
>>
>>> You simply don't know what the phrase "Ground Zero" means.
>>
>> Wrong again. Again, please explain where you read that I've "never
>> actually been in the neighborhood," which is what YOU are asserting.
>>
>>> If you had
>>> ever been here, you would know. You have no idea how far away the Park
>>> Place site is from Ground Zero.
>>
>> It is one of the buildings damaged by airliners hijacked by Islamic
>> extremist terrorists. Are you seriously trying to argue that is not part
>> of ground zero?
>
> Yes, it is not part of ground zero. It is several blocks away from
> ground zero.
The building was damaged during the terrorist attacks.
>
>>>>> And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
>>>>> one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
>>>>> Nor was it worth repairing.
>>
>>>> Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
>>>> different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
>>>> demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
>>>> damaged?"
>>
>>> No idea.
>>
>> Of course not!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>>> See alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2878y93 "On 9/11, landing gear from one of
>>>> the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
>>>> interior."
>>
>>> I don't do "tinyurl."
>>
>> And yet you pontificate about the "ignorance" of others.... If you
>> can't get to a link, fortunately I quoted the relevant section for you.
>
> Without naming your source so that its reliability can be evaluated.
The Manhattan Local News service. Maybe you will claim a local downtown
Manhattan news article is an "outside agitator" too? :) :)
>
>>>>>> But maybe this is a great idea afterall, Peter. And perhaps Ryder
>>>>>> should open a truck rental facility on Fifth and Robinson in OKC, and
>>>>>> Bosch could build an oven factory at Auschwitz.
>>
>>>>> Do you propose to ban all churches within some number of blocks of the
>>>>> Murragh Federal Building site, and to ban all synagogues within some
>>>>> number of blocks of where Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a fanatical
>>>>> Orthodox Jewish terrorist?
>>
>>>> I made no such proposal, nor is a synagogue nor church planned at the
>>>> site of a mass terror attack. I also note that you mentioned synagogues
>>>> and churches and not merely "prayer rooms."
>>
>>> Because the word you're using is "mosque" (even though your complaint
>>> is factually inaccurate).
>>
>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>> 2001? Bull.
>
> There is no proposed mosque, so you are tilting at windmills.
And yet you claim that I am ignorant. Listen to Mayor Bloomberg discuss
the proposed mosque. Listen to the President Obama discuss the proposed
mosque. READ THE WEBSITE OF THE MOSQUE DEVELOPERS WHO DESCRIBE THE
MOSQUE AS A MOSQUE. As a convenience to you, I already provided a
citation to the aforementioned website. :)
>
>>>>>> Now Nanci Pelosi (Democrat-San Francisco) is questioning the motives of
>>>>>> anyone who does not think the mosque is a great idea, and wants to
>>>>>> investigate opponents. [4] As Speaker of the House, she has subpoena
>>>>>> powers to aid her in her "investigation."
>>
>>>>> _FINALLY_ she is beginning to use the tactics of the republicans.
>>
>>>> So you are endorsing a speaker of the house's proposed tactics of
>>>> threatening to use her power to investigate those who are concerned,
>>>> rather than to legislate? Be consistent.
>>
>>> It's exactly what the Outside Agitators are doing here.
>>
>> Yes, "outside agitators...." like the POTUS. I asked a question.
>> Again, you are sidestepping. Are you endorsing a speaker of the house's
>> proposed tactics of threatening to use her power to investigate those
>> who are concerned...
>
> Once again, since you know nothing of American politics, stop trying
> to invoke American politics.
Nice strawman fallacy. Care to try again? :)
>
>>>>> The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
>>>>> the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
>>>>> waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
>>
>>>> Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
>>
>>> Oh, don't be stupid.
>>
>> Asking for evidence for a ridiculous claim is hardly stupid.
>>
>> Now you sound like the morons who claim there are
>>
>>> no racists among the teabaggers.'
>>
>> No such claim has been made in this thread. Please read more carefully.
>
> And apparently you have trouble with simple English as well. You don't
> know what "sound like" means?
Yes I do, and your analogy fails badly.
>
>>> What, exactly, did the millions and millions of dollars wasted on
>>> "investigating" "Whitewater" produce?
>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, ABC is reporting that the mosque/Islamic center backers will
>>>>>> not rule out using funds from Iran and Saudi Arabia. [5]
>>
>>>>> They haven't raised any money for it at all yet.
>>>> Yet.
>>
>>> Yes, yet. At some point, they will begin an appeal for financing.
>>
>>>>> Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia sent the terrorists on their mission.
>>
>>>> Nobody claimed that they did. But how fitting that a country like our
>>>> "friend" Saudi Arabia, which strictly forbids women from doing such
>>>> heinous acts as driving a car, would fund a mosque at ground zero.
>>
>>> It would? You have a pipeline to the Finance Ministry in Riyadh?
>>
>> I am discussing the proposed mosque, not any pipelines which I may or
>> not have personally. Please try to pay attention.
>
> You made the lying claim that it will be financed by Iran and Saudi
> Arabia.
Clearly, you did not read what I actually said. Please try again.
>
> As it happens, at the moment the imam is in various of the Gulf
> Emirates, ostensibly on an official US govt. good-will tour, but
> presumably also making contacts among wealthy locals. The last time
> anyone looked, the Emirates are good friends of ours.
Great.
>
>>>>>> So, Peter, care to revise your statement?
>>
>>>>> Not in the slightest.
>>
>>>> Of course not! You couldn't even support your statements either. I
>>>> provided plenty of sources for mine.
>>
>>> Your "statements" are bigoted and irrelevant, so where you copied them
>>> from is not of any interest at all.
>>
>> You claim that direct facts about the topic are "irrelevant," yet you
>> are willing to dredge up weird claims about pipelines and racists....
>
> You have no facts.
FACT: The developer is calling the mosque a mosque and clearly indicated
as such on their own website, which I've already cited. :)
>
>> You even admit that you are ignorant of the factual citations, which I
>> have provided for you. Please explain what statements are "bigoted" and
>> why.
>
> I've never heard of a bigot reforming his views simply because they
> are quoted back to him.
Groundless name calling does not advance your argument.
>
>> So Peter, do YOU think that building an Islamic Center/Mosque in this
>> location is a good idea and in good taste?
>
> Of course it is. Why don't you consult the statements of the
> developers and the imam, and of the local Community Board and the
> Mayor of New York? (It does not concern anyone from anywhere else.)
Yes, even the Mayor of New York is calling it a mosque. "By doing so,
it is my hope that the mosque..." --Mayor Bloomberg
>
>> Are you seriously trying to claim that the a mosque is *not* being
>> proposed, when even the proposers are calling it a mosque?
>
> A "prayer room" inside a cultural center is not a "mosque."
Please explain why you refuse to call a mosque a mosque, when even the
backers are calling their mosque a "mosque."
>
> Is the United Nations headquarters a mosque?
Is the builder of the UN headquarters calling it a mosque? :)
John S
Even ignoring national media, the proposers have called the mosque a
mosque. Why attempt to argue it is something else?
>
> As for the rest of this silly (national) debate, it's solely to drum up
> feelings of impotence in Republikans so they'll be angry and vote.
> There's nothing that can be done to keep anyone from building a mosque,
> church, synagogue, temple of Baal, or any other monument to human
> superstition there.
Nah, the incumbent party has nothing at all to worry about. They're
doing such a swell job everywhere.
John S
> On Aug 20, 11:17 am, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 9:00 am, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>>> On 8/20/2010 7:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>>> Evidently I do. I listen to local radio that interviews the principals
>>>> in the dispute
>>
>>> Wow, good for you! So what is this omniscient radio program that knows
>>> more than the POTUS? Clearly they must know more about the proposed
>>> mosque than its own builders, which describe the mosque as a "mosque."
>>
>> WNYC. (For Outside Agitators like you, you can listen at wnyc.org and
>> presumably access the archives for the last few weeks to hear fact-
>> based discussions of many aspects of the situation.)
>
> If you had tuned in to the radio station (or to the web page) almost
> as soon as I posted the above message, you would have heard (from
> 11:30 to 11:45 EDT) a call-in only for people living in the immediate
> area to express their opinions. They kept a line free for anti-
> community center callers -- and did not get a single one.
Probably because some people work for a living during the day or have
better things to do. Are you seriously suggesting that a call-in radio
show reflects an accurate sample poll?
>
> Not sure what time the archived broadcast becomes available;
> presumably later on the same day. They also (sometimes?) do
> transcripts.
>
> Whereas, a day or two ago, they had a "discussion" with
> representatives of pro- and anti-center 9/11 family organizations. The
> woman representing the organization with by far the larger number of
> members favors the center, the man representing the opposing view has
> far fewer supporters. His presentation consisted of nothing but the
> standard Fox/Limbaugh/Palin/... Outside Agitator bigoted and ignorant
> line -- and he mentioned that he has been debating this question
> everywhere (for the whole two weeks it's been raging?). They took no
> calls from listeners during that segment, but I would very much like
> to know what funds he's living on during his crusade. (That's the kind
> of funding Pelosi suggests looking into.)
How did we get to Limbaugh and Palin in this discussion again? Just a
few minutes ago, you were (attempting) to argue that the proposed mosque
is not actually a mosque. :)
John S
Hey, don't just take my word for it! Now even President Obama is
blaming the Democrat controlled Congress for inaction and his woes!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/08/obama-mosque-jobs-economy.html
Peter T. Daniels
Why would that have come up? These people have known the imam and his
existing mosque for decades (it's been there since 1983), and they
know what the new facility is intended to be.
> > Your trust in the omniscience of POTUS is touching. Did it also extend
> > to bush?
>
> Bush has not weighed in on the proposed mosque, so is not relevant.
Oh, you believe that presidents are omniscient only when discussing
proposed community centers? or only this particular community center?
> >>http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm[7]
>
> >>> (which is not the business of anyone outside the
> >>> immediate area).
>
> >> Oh really? What happens at a major terrorist calamity site where over
> >> 3,000 people died from across the country, and across the world died is
> >> not the "business of anyone outside the immediate area?"
>
> > It's not _at_ a "major terrorist calamity site," and the two are not
> > visible from each other.
>
> I didn't say anything about "visible" from street level.
Well, if it were part of it, it would certainly be visible within it!
> > If you know nothing about American politics, why are you invoking
> > American politics in your Outside Agitating?
>
> False premise fallacy.
How? You've demonstrated your ignorance of American politics several
times in this thread.
> > Yes, it is not part of ground zero. It is several blocks away from
> > ground zero.
>
> The building was damaged during the terrorist attacks.
Then, for the third time, you clearly do not know what "ground zero"
refers to. Trinity Church's organ is not part of ground zero. The
Winter Garden in the World Financial Center is not part of ground zero
(even though the giant palm trees didn't survive).
> >>>>> And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
> >>>>> one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
> >>>>> Nor was it worth repairing.
>
> >>>> Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
> >>>> different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
> >>>> demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
> >>>> damaged?"
>
> >>> No idea.
>
> >> Of course not!!!
>
> >>>> See alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2878y93"On 9/11, landing gear from one of
> >>>> the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
> >>>> interior."
>
> >>> I don't do "tinyurl."
>
> >> And yet you pontificate about the "ignorance" of others.... If you
> >> can't get to a link, fortunately I quoted the relevant section for you.
>
> > Without naming your source so that its reliability can be evaluated.
>
> The Manhattan Local News service. Maybe you will claim a local downtown
> Manhattan news article is an "outside agitator" too? :) :)
Never heard of it. What is its pedigree?
It's the sort of name rightwing nutcases come up with when they want
to pretend they're legitimate news outlets.
> >>>>> The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
> >>>>> the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
> >>>>> waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
>
> >>>> Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
His name is Darrel Isa, a representative from Orange County, CA, a
rightwing nutcase going way back.
Sancho Panza
"John S" <joh...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:i4ma13$vut$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 8/20/2010 11:55 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 11:17 am, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 9:00 am, John S<joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>>>> On 8/20/2010 7:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>>> Evidently I do. I listen to local radio that interviews the principals
>>>>> in the dispute
>>>
>>>> Wow, good for you! So what is this omniscient radio program that knows
>>>> more than the POTUS? Clearly they must know more about the proposed
>>>> mosque than its own builders, which describe the mosque as a "mosque."
>>>
>>> WNYC. (For Outside Agitators like you, you can listen at wnyc.org and
>>> presumably access the archives for the last few weeks to hear fact-
>>> based discussions of many aspects of the situation.)
>>
>> If you had tuned in to the radio station (or to the web page) almost
>> as soon as I posted the above message, you would have heard (from
>> 11:30 to 11:45 EDT) a call-in only for people living in the immediate
>> area to express their opinions. They kept a line free for anti-
>> community center callers -- and did not get a single one.
>
> Probably because some people work for a living during the day or have
> better things to do. Are you seriously suggesting that a call-in radio
> show reflects an accurate sample poll?
Especially on the radio station of the city run by Michael Bloomberg, a
staunch advocate of the mosque.
Sancho Panza
"Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:AOudnQIAadStBPPR...@earthlink.com...
>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>> 2001? Bull.
>
> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that area.
> Let's ban them!
Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
> There's nothing that can be done to keep anyone from building a mosque,
> church, synagogue, temple of Baal, or any other monument to human
> superstition there.
Municipal jurisdictions all over the United States deal with placing houses
of worship all the time--and not without ardent arguments from both sides.
And not without rulings against said houses of worship.
Garrett Wollman
Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>Especially on the radio station of the city run by Michael Bloomberg, a
>staunch advocate of the mosque.
You're a decade and a half out of date on that one. (As I recall, the
WNYC Foundation just finished paying off the bonds they issued when
Giuliani sold the station to them.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>>> 2001? Bull.
>>
>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
>> area. Let's ban them!
>
> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
These Local Agitators apparently want to define Ground Zero as only the
actual WTC collapse site.
More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
actual WTC collapse site.
John S
Interesting that you area asking why relevant facts were discussed on
the program you are alleging as your source for such facts.
>
>>> Your trust in the omniscience of POTUS is touching. Did it also extend
>>> to bush?
>>
>> Bush has not weighed in on the proposed mosque, so is not relevant.
>
> Oh, you believe that presidents are omniscient only when discussing
> proposed community centers? or only this particular community center?
I made no such claim about presidents being omniscient. Please try to
pay attention again.
>
>>>> http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm[7]
>>
>>>>> (which is not the business of anyone outside the
>>>>> immediate area).
>>
>>>> Oh really? What happens at a major terrorist calamity site where over
>>>> 3,000 people died from across the country, and across the world died is
>>>> not the "business of anyone outside the immediate area?"
>>
>>> It's not _at_ a "major terrorist calamity site," and the two are not
>>> visible from each other.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about "visible" from street level.
>
> Well, if it were part of it, it would certainly be visible within it!
>
>>> If you know nothing about American politics, why are you invoking
>>> American politics in your Outside Agitating?
>>
>> False premise fallacy.
>
> How? You've demonstrated your ignorance of American politics several
> times in this thread.
How so? Are you trying to argue that somehow you an expert on American
politics and I know nothing? Please provide evidence of your claim.
>
>>> Yes, it is not part of ground zero. It is several blocks away from
>>> ground zero.
>>
>> The building was damaged during the terrorist attacks.
>
> Then, for the third time, you clearly do not know what "ground zero"
> refers to. Trinity Church's organ is not part of ground zero. The
> Winter Garden in the World Financial Center is not part of ground zero
> (even though the giant palm trees didn't survive).
Cite for your own assertion? By your logic, 612 N Robinson in OKC is
not part of "ground zero" because you can't see the Murray site.
>
>>>>>>> And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
>>>>>>> one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
>>>>>>> Nor was it worth repairing.
>>
>>>>>> Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
>>>>>> different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
>>>>>> demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
>>>>>> damaged?"
>>
>>>>> No idea.
>>
>>>> Of course not!!!
>>
>>>>>> See alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2878y93"On 9/11, landing gear from one of
>>>>>> the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
>>>>>> interior."
>>
>>>>> I don't do "tinyurl."
>>
>>>> And yet you pontificate about the "ignorance" of others.... If you
>>>> can't get to a link, fortunately I quoted the relevant section for you.
>>
>>> Without naming your source so that its reliability can be evaluated.
>>
>> The Manhattan Local News service. Maybe you will claim a local downtown
>> Manhattan news article is an "outside agitator" too? :) :)
>
> Never heard of it. What is its pedigree?
Local, regional, and national news issues affecting Manhattan. See
their website for additional information. I've already provided the
link for your convenience.
>
> It's the sort of name rightwing nutcases come up with when they want
> to pretend they're legitimate news outlets.
Oh? So you are now claiming this is not a legitimate news outlet? THAT
is your argument? (While simultaneously accusing others of ignorance!!
:) :)
>
>>>>>>> The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
>>>>>>> the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
>>>>>>> waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
>>
>>>>>> Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
>
> His name is Darrel Isa, a representative from Orange County, CA, a
> rightwing nutcase going way back.
Evidence? Quote? I thought we were talking about Waxman's committee,
because you said "Waxman's comittee." The Ranking Member of Waxman's
committee is Joe Barton. Now, what were you saying about ignorance of
American politics again? :) Oops, you deleted your own silly claims
(and my factual rebuttal) that the mosque is not a mosque from your
reply. I'm sure that was just a mere oversight on your part. Keep
posting, PLEASE. You provide nearly endless amusement. :)
Steven M. O'Neill
And what did the organizers of the mosque in question have to do
with it? The people who hijacked the planes all had two arms.
In what radius from the site shall we ban humans with two arms?
You cannot solve hate with more hate.
-smo (was hoping to avoid this off-comment topic)
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo
Peter T. Daniels
It's not a poll. It's an opportunity for listeners to express an
opinion.
> Especially on the radio station of the city run by Michael Bloomberg, a
> staunch advocate of the mosque.-
Don't flaunt your ignorance. (John S's is bad enough.) WNYC has had no
connection with the City of New York since Giuliani sold it to a
provate consortium ca. 1996. It no longer even rents studio and office
space in the Municipal Building but has its own location on Varick
Stret.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:AOudnQIAadStBPPR...@earthlink.com...
>
> >> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
> >> 2001? Bull.
>
> > Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that area.
> > Let's ban them!
>
> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
"560 feet"? as the pigeon flies?
> > There's nothing that can be done to keep anyone from building a mosque,
> > church, synagogue, temple of Baal, or any other monument to human
> > superstition there.
>
> Municipal jurisdictions all over the United States deal with placing houses
> of worship all the time--and not without ardent arguments from both sides.
> And not without rulings against said houses of worship.
And such rulings are never -- cannot be -- based on irrational
prejudice against any particular religion.
Bolwerk
>> also that there was not to be a mosque there - simply prayer
>> accommodations for pious Muslims, who must bow towards Mecca several
>> times a day. That some in the national media don't know the difference
>> isn't very surprising to me, and even if they do the term "mosque" has
>> entered the echo chamber.
>
> Even ignoring national media, the proposers have called the mosque a
> mosque. Why attempt to argue it is something else?
Why even care? The thing that shrivels the nuts of the authoritarians
in the first place is that there are Muslims free to worship as they
please at all. They can't come right out and admit that, but they can
use opportune symbolism (a mosque "at" Ground Zero, as opposed to a
mosque across the Hudson River with 7000 feet of ground zero) to drum up
vague insinuations about "enemy" encroachment. Of course, that anything
in NYC would be claimed as a symbol by the pasty thugs who make up the
Republikan leadership is rather amusing, given their general contempt
for any place with a culture of tolerance.
Either way, a prayer room vs. a mosque is the difference between
bedtimes prayers and worship - solitary groveling vs. more elaborate
ceremonies.
>> As for the rest of this silly (national) debate, it's solely to drum up
>> feelings of impotence in Republikans so they'll be angry and vote.
>> There's nothing that can be done to keep anyone from building a mosque,
>> church, synagogue, temple of Baal, or any other monument to human
>> superstition there.
>
> Nah, the incumbent party has nothing at all to worry about. They're
> doing such a swell job everywhere.
The incumbent party is largely Republikan Lite. Their only grace _is_
they're incompetent enough to prevent the full brunt of Republikan
policies from being implemented.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Sancho Panza" <otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
Nonetheless, the "wider area" is not part of "ground zero." Do you
want to include City Hall in "ground zero"? Stuyvesant High School?
Peter T. Daniels
How stupid can you be? I was talking about the 15 minutes you could
have tuned in to, not the two weeks or so of serious discussions
they've hosted so far.
> >>> Your trust in the omniscience of POTUS is touching. Did it also extend
> >>> to bush?
>
> >> Bush has not weighed in on the proposed mosque, so is not relevant.
>
> > Oh, you believe that presidents are omniscient only when discussing
> > proposed community centers? or only this particular community center?
>
> I made no such claim about presidents being omniscient. Please try to
> pay attention again.
Several times you cited POTUS's calling it "a mosque" as proof that it
is a mosque.
> >>>>http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm[7]
>
> >>>>> (which is not the business of anyone outside the
> >>>>> immediate area).
>
> >>>> Oh really? What happens at a major terrorist calamity site where over
> >>>> 3,000 people died from across the country, and across the world died is
> >>>> not the "business of anyone outside the immediate area?"
>
> >>> It's not _at_ a "major terrorist calamity site," and the two are not
> >>> visible from each other.
>
> >> I didn't say anything about "visible" from street level.
>
> > Well, if it were part of it, it would certainly be visible within it!
>
> >>> If you know nothing about American politics, why are you invoking
> >>> American politics in your Outside Agitating?
>
> >> False premise fallacy.
>
> > How? You've demonstrated your ignorance of American politics several
> > times in this thread.
>
> How so? Are you trying to argue that somehow you an expert on American
> politics and I know nothing? Please provide evidence of your claim.
It's very clear from what you have posted here that you know nothing
of American politics.
> >>> Yes, it is not part of ground zero. It is several blocks away from
> >>> ground zero.
>
> >> The building was damaged during the terrorist attacks.
>
> > Then, for the third time, you clearly do not know what "ground zero"
> > refers to. Trinity Church's organ is not part of ground zero. The
> > Winter Garden in the World Financial Center is not part of ground zero
> > (even though the giant palm trees didn't survive).
>
> Cite for your own assertion? By your logic, 612 N Robinson in OKC is
> not part of "ground zero" because you can't see the Murray site.
I have no idea what that address refers to, nor what "the Murray site"
might be.
> >>>>>>> And you must have a strange definition of "heavily damaged," since no
> >>>>>>> one saw any need to demolish the building over the past nine years.
> >>>>>>> Nor was it worth repairing.
>
> >>>>>> Wrong again. "Need to demolish" and "worth repairing" are quite
> >>>>>> different from heavily damaged. Has the Kaiser Wilhelm Church been
> >>>>>> demolished? Repaired? Would you claim also that it is not "heavily
> >>>>>> damaged?"
>
> >>>>> No idea.
>
> >>>> Of course not!!!
>
> >>>>>> See alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2878y93"On 9/11, landing gear from one of
> >>>>>> the planes crashed through the building’s roof and heavily damaged the
> >>>>>> interior."
>
> >>>>> I don't do "tinyurl."
>
> >>>> And yet you pontificate about the "ignorance" of others.... If you
> >>>> can't get to a link, fortunately I quoted the relevant section for you.
>
> >>> Without naming your source so that its reliability can be evaluated.
>
> >> The Manhattan Local News service. Maybe you will claim a local downtown
> >> Manhattan news article is an "outside agitator" too? :) :)
>
> > Never heard of it. What is its pedigree?
>
> Local, regional, and national news issues affecting Manhattan. See
> their website for additional information. I've already provided the
> link for your convenience.
You don't even know the word "pedigree"?
> > It's the sort of name rightwing nutcases come up with when they want
> > to pretend they're legitimate news outlets.
>
> Oh? So you are now claiming this is not a legitimate news outlet? THAT
> is your argument? (While simultaneously accusing others of ignorance!!
I am stating that, on the basis of what you claim to have learned from
it and on the basis of its name, it appears not to be a legitimate
news outlet.
> >>>>>>> The Ranking Member of Waxman's committee has _already_ vowed that, if
> >>>>>>> the republicans somehow manage to take control of the House, he will
> >>>>>>> waste the next two years on investigating the Obama administration.
>
> >>>>>> Evidence? Quote? And why would an investigation be a "waste?"
>
> > His name is Darrel Isa, a representative from Orange County, CA, a
> > rightwing nutcase going way back.
>
> Evidence? Quote? I thought we were talking about Waxman's committee,
> because you said "Waxman's comittee." The Ranking Member of Waxman's
> committee is Joe Barton. Now, what were you saying about ignorance of
> American politics again? :) Oops, you deleted your own silly claims
> (and my factual rebuttal) that the mosque is not a mosque from your
> reply. I'm sure that was just a mere oversight on your part. Keep
> posting, PLEASE. You provide nearly endless amusement. :)-
So now you're admitting that the mosque is not a mosque?
Clearly you've given the initial troll ("Tibetan monkey") a great deal
of amusement with your bigoted ignorance.
It's nice that you're now going to stop.
Scott M. Kozel
Certainly include the properties with buildings that were structurally
damaged by the aircraft and collapses.
Scott M. Kozel
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> How? You've demonstrated your ignorance of American politics several
>>> times in this thread.
>> How so? Are you trying to argue that somehow you an expert on American
>> politics and I know nothing? Please provide evidence of your claim.
>
> It's very clear from what you have posted here that you know nothing
> of American politics.
He knows a lot more than you do. And I am an American.
> So now you're admitting that the mosque is not a mosque?
He has PROVEN it with the respective organization's own website.
Bolwerk
Without even opening that, why would that surprise anyone? The
Demokrats have always been a party of disparate interest groups banded
together to win elections. I mean, jeeze, the southern segregationists
that became today's Republikans were voting for Demokrats two
generations ago, and they were doing so alongside socialists from the
Upper West Side of Manhattan.* Today the Dems are a majority-minority
of credentialed professionals (approximately Bildungsbürgertum, except
mostly suburban, e.g., doctors, architects, etc.), big city political
machines, African Americans, other ethnic groups, civil libertarians,
high finance, billionaires, academia, a few really bizarre fringe groups
(LaRouche?), and many others who can't be Republikan out of reasons of
good taste or because Republikans don't like them. Most of those groups
have nothing to do with each other culturally, socially, or
ideologically, and once they get into the majority they start infighting
- just like we're seeing now.
To say the least, the Dems are the more conservative of the two parties.
They go out of their way to preserve the status quo, deliberately or not.
* In another fit of outright historical fuckeditiness, the authoritarian
wing of this socialist culture broke off to foment neo-conservatism.
Bolwerk
>
> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AOudnQIAadStBPPR...@earthlink.com...
>
>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>>> 2001? Bull.
>>
>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
>> area. Let's ban them!
>
> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
Why is 560' (as the crow flies?) wrong and 800'(?) okay? And it's
considerably more than 560' walking, I would think from the map.
This seems like the kind of hysteria that leads to bans on alcohol
consumption within 200' of a house of worship. What does that 200' even
accomplish?
>> There's nothing that can be done to keep anyone from building a
>> mosque, church, synagogue, temple of Baal, or any other monument to
>> human superstition there.
>
> Municipal jurisdictions all over the United States deal with placing
> houses of worship all the time--and not without ardent arguments from
> both sides. And not without rulings against said houses of worship.
Assuming they follow the constitution, there's not a lot that can be
done to prevent free exercise. Even animals sacrifices have been ruled
A-OK!
Bolwerk
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>>>> 2001? Bull.
>>>
>>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
>>> area. Let's ban them!
>>
>> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
>
> These Local Agitators apparently want to define Ground Zero as only the
> actual WTC collapse site.
The ground zero metaphor refers to a specific point. By definition,
when you move further away from the point, you are no longer at ground zero.
> More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
> collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
> debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
> actual WTC collapse site.
And like all sensitive people, they then use those bodies as political
symbols to try to stir up bigotry against a group of people who have
done nothing illegal!
(Really, let's just ban mosques everywhere. At this point, the whole
world is breathing in disintegrated ground zero corpses!)
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>>>>> 2001? Bull.
>>>>
>>>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
>>>> area. Let's ban them!
>>>
>>> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
>>
>> These Local Agitators apparently want to define Ground Zero as only the
>> actual WTC collapse site.
>
> The ground zero metaphor refers to a specific point. By definition,
> when you move further away from the point, you are no longer at ground
> zero.
If you are going to define it as a "point", then even one meter away
from the "point" is not "ground zero".
The direct damage zone is certainly relevant.
>> More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
>> collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
>> debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
>> actual WTC collapse site.
>
> And like all sensitive people, they then use those bodies as political
> symbols to try to stir up bigotry against a group of people who have
> done nothing illegal!
>
> (Really, let's just ban mosques everywhere. At this point, the whole
> world is breathing in disintegrated ground zero corpses!)
Launch personal attacks and throw up strawmen, rather than address the
issue.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>>>>>> 2001? Bull.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
>>>>> area. Let's ban them!
>>>>
>>>> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
>>>
>>> These Local Agitators apparently want to define Ground Zero as only the
>>> actual WTC collapse site.
>>
>> The ground zero metaphor refers to a specific point. By definition,
>> when you move further away from the point, you are no longer at ground
>> zero.
>
> If you are going to define it as a "point", then even one meter away
> from the "point" is not "ground zero".
>
> The direct damage zone is certainly relevant.
I realize it's a metaphor, but it's a bit absurd to call an intact
building that is not part of the complex "Ground Zero." Where does the
Repuglikan Party want me to think Ground Zero extends to? (It's awfully
convenient they're the ones who get to decide, rather than those of us
who live and work nearby!)
Of course, there's not much point in addressing this FUD. Even if a
mosque was to be located on Ground Zero (the real one), I have a hard
time seeing the harm that would be. Likewise if it's located in another
borough, I still don't see the harm.
I'd be rather surprised if there isn't going to be an interfaith center
of some sort there, and it will likely include Muslims, which I believe
are the third largest broader religious sect in NYC after Christians and
Jews.
>>> More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
>>> collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
>>> debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
>>> actual WTC collapse site.
>>
>> And like all sensitive people, they then use those bodies as political
>> symbols to try to stir up bigotry against a group of people who have
>> done nothing illegal!
>>
>> (Really, let's just ban mosques everywhere. At this point, the whole
>> world is breathing in disintegrated ground zero corpses!)
>
> Launch personal attacks and throw up strawmen,
You're the one who pretended those who know the distinction between the
WTC complex and something two blocks away are not "sensitive." If
that's not a personal attack, what I said certainly isn't.
Do you even know what a strawman is? Probably not. And you apparently
do not know what "reductio ad absurdum" is either. I bet it sounds
really foreign, like ter'rist talk, right? To list another fallacy you
probably can't distinguish, I simply followed the red herring to its
logical conclusion.
> rather than address the issue.
Of course I wasn't addressing the issue. I was addressing the strawman
you made up about "sensitive people."
The real issue is, again, a bunch of political and religious demagogues
simply want to discriminate against Muslims, but lack the balls to
advocate it publicly.
Peter T. Daniels
So (ObTrans) the South Ferry subway line shouldn't be operating, and
the Cortlandt Street stations shouldn't reopen, and the PATH terminal
shouldn't be rebuilt, and the Fulton St. Transit Center shouldn't be
created, because it's a "shrine"?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
> As for the rest of this silly (national) debate, it's solely to drum up
> feelings of impotence in Republikans so they'll be angry and vote.
> There's nothing that can be done to keep anyone from building a mosque,
> church, synagogue, temple of Baal, or any other monument to human
> superstition there.
That's the best I've read so far. We could actually build a Monument
to Human Ignorance right on Ground Zero.
Here are some random results to Monument to Ignorance (and waste)...
http://englishrussia.com/images/sins_monument/1_010.jpg
http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/senegal-monument-controversy-2009-9-23-10-42-25.jpg
I think we should include the pyramids, don't you think?
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/20/2010 2:35 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bolwerk wrote:
>
> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> >>>> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote
Didn't Libeskind's master plan include such a thing? (Not that the PA
has paid any attention to the master plan that they nominally
adopted.)
> >>> More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
> >>> collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
> >>> debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
> >>> actual WTC collapse site.
>
> >> And like all sensitive people, they then use those bodies as political
> >> symbols to try to stir up bigotry against a group of people who have
> >> done nothing illegal!
>
> >> (Really, let's just ban mosques everywhere. At this point, the whole
> >> world is breathing in disintegrated ground zero corpses!)
>
> > Launch personal attacks and throw up strawmen,
>
> You're the one who pretended those who know the distinction between the
> WTC complex and something two blocks away are not "sensitive." If
> that's not a personal attack, what I said certainly isn't.
>
> Do you even know what a strawman is? Probably not. And you apparently
> do not know what "reductio ad absurdum" is either. I bet it sounds
> really foreign, like ter'rist talk, right? To list another fallacy you
> probably can't distinguish, I simply followed the red herring to its
> logical conclusion.
>
> > rather than address the issue.
>
> Of course I wasn't addressing the issue. I was addressing the strawman
> you made up about "sensitive people."
>
> The real issue is, again, a bunch of political and religious demagogues
> simply want to discriminate against Muslims, but lack the balls to
> advocate it publicly.-
You haven't been keeping up with the news ... check out yesterday's
Limbaugh.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/20/2010 11:55 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Whereas, a day or two ago, they had a "discussion" with
> > representatives of pro- and anti-center 9/11 family organizations. The
> > woman representing the organization with by far the larger number of
> > members favors the center, the man representing the opposing view has
> > far fewer supporters. His presentation consisted of nothing but the
> > standard Fox/Limbaugh/Palin/... Outside Agitator bigoted and ignorant
> > line -- and he mentioned that he has been debating this question
> > everywhere (for the whole two weeks it's been raging?). They took no
> > calls from listeners during that segment, but I would very much like
> > to know what funds he's living on during his crusade. (That's the kind
> > of funding Pelosi suggests looking into.)
>
> How did we get to Limbaugh and Palin in this discussion again?
I forgot to reply to this stupid point.
All the lies and bullshit you're regurgitating come directly from the
rightwing noise machine -- maybe they're Frank Luntz's daily talking
points, maybe they're Phyllis Schlafly's. Whatever the ultimate source
of the lies, they reach the gullible public via a large company of
rightwing screamers.
(Thom Hartmann just had a colloquy with the ignoramus who is
organizing a Qur'an-burning for 9/11/10. The ignoramus refused to
respond to Thom's question as to why he is so eagerly doing Osama's
bidding.)
Sancho Panza
"Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:i4mfi8$knp$3...@reader1.panix.com...
If the use of the name Cordoba does not make clear the purpose of the
project, then not much else will.
Bolwerk
I never heard it officially, but I assumed it was abandoned.
Actually, the last I heard anything from Libeskind, he was sounding like
he was trying to save face by enthusiastically agreeing with the changes
the new architect (David Childs?) made.
I don't consider him news, nor do I have a TV or radio. For the most
part, it helps me stay informed.
Either way, Limbaugh is an outlier. He might say publicly things Palin,
Gingrich, McCain, and other authoritarians don't think they can get away
with.
I bet the talk show hosts intentionally design their propaganda mills to
give elected officials they trumpet wiggle room.
Clark F Morris
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
According to the Wall Street Journal and ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-seize-ground-mosque-campaign-issue/story?id=11411490,
Harry Reid, majority leader from Nevada is saying that while they have
the right to build it, they shouldn't build it there. Sharron Angle
his opponent also has the same view. This race has two kooks of
different ideologies running against each other.
I am of mixed feelings on the whole affair and await with interest the
inevitable outing of all the details of who is behind this. Either
everything is as currently portrayed or it has questionable backers. I
can`t get excited about it either way. and frankly think that the
Republicans who are getting agitated about it are over the top, a view
shared by many conservative commentators who believe at most the whole
thing is a side show.
>
>Your trust in the omniscience of POTUS is touching. Did it also extend
>to bush?
While I`m not John, normally I vote for the person that disquiets me
the least. I could have voted for Scoop Jackson over Nixon but not
McGovern.
Clark Morris
>
Scott M. Kozel
>
> According to the Wall Street Journal and ABC News
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-seize-ground-mosque-campaign-issue/story?id=11411490,
> Harry Reid, majority leader from Nevada is saying that while they have
> the right to build it, they shouldn't build it there.
So is former NYC mayor Giuliani, and he has advanced a proposed site in
the vicinity that would generate much higher public consensus.
Scott M. Kozel
More illogical statements. The WTC 7 replacement has been built, and
the new WTC 1 is almost 200 feet above the street in its construction.
There has been high public consensus for these projects, which are
commercial and not religious.
Bolwerk
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> So (ObTrans) the South Ferry subway line shouldn't be operating, and
>> the Cortlandt Street stations shouldn't reopen, and the PATH terminal
>> shouldn't be rebuilt, and the Fulton St. Transit Center shouldn't be
>> created, because it's a "shrine"?
>
> More illogical statements. The WTC 7 replacement has been built, and the
> new WTC 1 is almost 200 feet above the street in its construction. There
> has been high public consensus for these projects, which are commercial
> and not religious.
There was a near-consensus in favor in the community board review.
There doesn't appear to be much organized opposition within the broader
City of New York either; indeed, Jewish groups have helped advise on the
process.
It appears the only organized opposition is from reactionary outside
politicians, who mostly see NYC as nothing more than a piggy bank to rob
for their local pork barrel projects, and commentators.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>> new WTC 1 is almost 200 feet above the street in its construction. There
>> has been high public consensus for these projects, which are commercial
>> and not religious.
>
> There was a near-consensus in favor in the community board review. There
> doesn't appear to be much organized opposition within the broader City
> of New York either; indeed, Jewish groups have helped advise on the
> process.
>
> It appears the only organized opposition is from reactionary outside
> politicians, who mostly see NYC as nothing more than a piggy bank to rob
> for their local pork barrel projects, and commentators.
I was referring to both local and non-local consensus. Given that
almost 3,000 people died there that day, many from all over the country
and from other countries, it is appropriate that both areas of consensus
are considered.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:i4mfi8$knp$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> >>> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
> >>>>> 2001? Bull.
>
> >>>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
> >>>> area. Let's ban them!
>
> >>> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
>
> >>These Local Agitators apparently want to define Ground Zero as only the
> >>actual WTC collapse site.
>
> >>More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
> >>collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
> >>debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
> >>actual WTC collapse site.
>
> > And what did the organizers of the mosque in question have to do
> > with it? The people who hijacked the planes all had two arms.
> > In what radius from the site shall we ban humans with two arms?
>
> > You cannot solve hate with more hate.
>
> > -smo (was hoping to avoid this off-comment topic)
>
> If the use of the name Cordoba does not make clear the purpose of the
As the imam explained, Cordoba was chosen because it was the cultural
center of Muslim - Jewish - Christian coexistence and cooperation in
Muslim Andalusia.
The moment Ferdinand & Isabella finished dispossessing the Muslims
from Iberia (1492), they turned to expelling the Jews.
Peter T. Daniels
You haven't been keeping up with the news ... Sarah and Newtie are out
there saying exactly the same things. The main difference is that they
have live audiences.
> I bet the talk show hosts intentionally design their propaganda mills to
> give elected officials they trumpet wiggle room.-
? The elected officials don't acknowledge their existence -- except,
of course, when Gibbs publicly complains about the "professional left."
Peter T. Daniels
Most of the reporting staff that had given the WSJ its great
reputation (so long as you didn't look at the editorial page, which
had a completely different management) resigned when Murdoch took
over.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-seize-ground-mosque-campai...,
> Harry Reid, majority leader from Nevada is saying that while they have
> the right to build it, they shouldn't build it there. Sharron Angle
> his opponent also has the same view. This race has two kooks of
> different ideologies running against each other.
Most of us cannot imagine how Reid got to be Majority Leader.
If you'd read his speech at the 2008 convention in Denver, you'd have
thought it was a great speech. Unfortunately, he didn't send someone
with a personality to read it, and PBS actually showed the whole
thing.
The only reason the Mormon commented was that the rightwing noise
machine will try _anything_ to get their crashing and burning teaparty
candidate (Angle) out of the news for a day.
> I am of mixed feelings on the whole affair and await with interest the
> inevitable outing of all the details of who is behind this. Either
> everything is as currently portrayed or it has questionable backers. I
> can`t get excited about it either way. and frankly think that the
> Republicans who are getting agitated about it are over the top, a view
> shared by many conservative commentators who believe at most the whole
> thing is a side show.
>
> >Your trust in the omniscience of POTUS is touching. Did it also extend
> >to bush?
>
> While I`m not John, normally I vote for the person that disquiets me
> the least. I could have voted for Scoop Jackson over Nixon but not
> McGovern.
I take it, then, that you were at most a child in 1972.
Or, if not and you did not vote at all, shame on you.
Peter T. Daniels
> Clark F Morris wrote:
>
> > According to the Wall Street Journal and ABC News
> > Harry Reid, majority leader from Nevada is saying that while they have
> > the right to build it, they shouldn't build it there.
>
> So is former NYC mayor Giuliani, and he has advanced a proposed site in
> the vicinity that would generate much higher public consensus.
Really? Is he going to donate it?
Paterson is crawling dangerously close to the edge of the First
Amendment when he offers (first) to provide an alternate site on State
land and (second) to mediate a discussion of a new site (a discussion
that the developers say they have heard nothing about and are not
interested in anyway).
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Certainly include the properties with buildings that were structurally
> >> damaged by the aircraft and collapses.-
>
> > So (ObTrans) the South Ferry subway line shouldn't be operating, and
> > the Cortlandt Street stations shouldn't reopen, and the PATH terminal
> > shouldn't be rebuilt, and the Fulton St. Transit Center shouldn't be
> > created, because it's a "shrine"?
>
> More illogical statements. The WTC 7 replacement has been built, and
"7 WTC" was nothing but a commercial address. It had nothing to do
with the World Trade Center, which was the two towers and four smaller
buildings (5 was the Borders store, and 6 was the Customs House).
> the new WTC 1 is almost 200 feet above the street in its construction.
> There has been high public consensus for these projects, which are
> commercial and not religious.
The 92nd St. Y isn't religious. It's cultural.
(Another thing the PA has scrapped from the plan is a theater for the
City Opera and similar fairly large scale performing arts
organizations. And what's the latest on the Greek Orthodox church
replacement?)
Peter T. Daniels
Far, far more victim families favor the project than oppose it. They
see it as an opportunity for reconciliation -- as the very voice of
"moderate Islam" against the terrorists that the lying rightwingers
claim does not exist. They more than any others know that the event
was not caused or sponsored by "Islam" but by a crazy fanatic who
could not find a welcome in any civilized Muslim country. (In
particular, not in Iraq, but that's a different argument.)
Sancho Panza
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:22701927-7ebe-447a...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
That isn't what the other Ferdinand said in 1236.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 8/18/2010 1:10 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > It's not a mosque,
>
> The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
> mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
> you to share.
Turns out you've been lying about what Obama said. They've played both
clips several times today, on both WNYC and WWRL. On Friday, at the
Eid dinner, he said there is no reason not to build "a cultural center
containing a prayer room" on the site so long as it has the approval
of local authorities.
It was only on Saturday, after your rightwing nutcase buddies had been
making a fuss all day about that statement (and falsely asserting that
the building would be "a mosque"), that he said he "was not
recommending that a mosque be built."
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The WTC 7 replacement has been built, and
>
> "7 WTC" was nothing but a commercial address. It had nothing to do
> with the World Trade Center, which was the two towers and four smaller
> buildings (5 was the Borders store, and 6 was the Customs House).
It was destroyed by the collapse of the north tower (1 WTC),
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I was referring to both local and non-local consensus. Given that
>> almost 3,000 people died there that day, many from all over the country
>> and from other countries, it is appropriate that both areas of consensus
>> are considered.-
>
> Far, far more victim families favor the project than oppose it.
Cite from a credible source?
Besides, I wasn't limiting it to victim families. Or do you think that
only victim families should get to influence whether local developers
get to build condos and big box stores next to the Gettysburg
battlefield? Or that only Adams County PA residents get to decide?
Miles Bader
>> The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, said it is indeed a
>> mosque. [1] Are you privy to information that he is not? I encourage
>> you to share.
>
> Turns out you've been lying about what Obama said. They've played both
> clips several times today, on both WNYC and WWRL. On Friday, at the
> Eid dinner, he said there is no reason not to build "a cultural center
> containing a prayer room" on the site so long as it has the approval
> of local authorities.
A tea-bagger, lie?!
Well, to be fair, I guess most of them are just very ignorant, gullible,
and easily frightened.
-miles
--
Sabbath, n. A weekly festival having its origin in the fact that God made the
world in six days and was arrested on the seventh.
John S
>
> To say the least, the Dems are the more conservative of the two parties.
> They go out of their way to preserve the status quo, deliberately or not.
Preserving the status quo would be neither conservative nor liberal.
Both conservatives and liberals desire change.
John S
> On Aug 20, 1:23 pm, "Scott M. Kozel"<koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Sancho Panza"<otterpo...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bolwerk"<bolw...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>>>>> 2001? Bull.
>>
>>>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
>>>> area. Let's ban them!
>>
>>> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
>>
>> These Local Agitators apparently want to define Ground Zero as only the
>> actual WTC collapse site.
>>
>> More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
>> collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
>> debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
>> actual WTC collapse site.
>
> want to include City Hall in "ground zero"? Stuyvesant High School?
Were they damaged on 11 Sept 01? I think not.
John S
Oh really? Even some (New York City) unions are starting to state that
they will have no part in construction of the proposed mosque. Those
union guys, you know, just another part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
John S
> On Aug 20, 7:04 pm, "Scott M. Kozel"<koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>
>>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>>>> More illogical statements. The WTC 7 replacement has been built, and the
>>>> new WTC 1 is almost 200 feet above the street in its construction. There
>>>> has been high public consensus for these projects, which are commercial
>>>> and not religious.
>>
>>> There was a near-consensus in favor in the community board review. There
>>> doesn't appear to be much organized opposition within the broader City
>>> of New York either; indeed, Jewish groups have helped advise on the
>>> process.
>>
>>> It appears the only organized opposition is from reactionary outside
>>> politicians, who mostly see NYC as nothing more than a piggy bank to rob
>>> for their local pork barrel projects, and commentators.
>>
>> I was referring to both local and non-local consensus. Given that
>> almost 3,000 people died there that day, many from all over the country
>> and from other countries, it is appropriate that both areas of consensus
>> are considered.-
>
> Far, far more victim families favor the project than oppose it.
Really? Please provide your evidence and your numbers that you base
your "far far more" on.
> They
> see it as an opportunity for reconciliation -- as the very voice of
> "moderate Islam" against the terrorists that the lying rightwingers
> claim does not exist.
Supporting evidence? (Maybe you heard something on some radio program
at sometime :) :) )
They more than any others know that the event
> was not caused or sponsored by "Islam" but by a crazy fanatic who
> could not find a welcome in any civilized Muslim country. (In
> particular, not in Iraq, but that's a different argument.)
A " 'civilized' muslim country....." Which one? A country that grants
full rights to women and treats them the same as men perhaps?
John S
I'm not convinced he would even favor letting Cumberland Twp residents
decide.....
John S
> On Aug 20, 6:15 pm, "Scott M. Kozel"<koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> "Scott M. Kozel"<koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Certainly include the properties with buildings that were structurally
>>>> damaged by the aircraft and collapses.-
>>
>>> So (ObTrans) the South Ferry subway line shouldn't be operating, and
>>> the Cortlandt Street stations shouldn't reopen, and the PATH terminal
>>> shouldn't be rebuilt, and the Fulton St. Transit Center shouldn't be
>>> created, because it's a "shrine"?
>>
>> More illogical statements. The WTC 7 replacement has been built, and
>
> "7 WTC" was nothing but a commercial address. It had nothing to do
> with the World Trade Center, which was the two towers and four smaller
> buildings (5 was the Borders store, and 6 was the Customs House).
"Nothing to do" except it was part of the world trade center and was
destroyed in the Sept 11 attacks. It's always good to have our resident
expert on NYC weigh in!
>
>> the new WTC 1 is almost 200 feet above the street in its construction.
>> There has been high public consensus for these projects, which are
>> commercial and not religious.
>
> The 92nd St. Y isn't religious. It's cultural.
But the proposed mosque certainly IS religious.
>
> (Another thing the PA has scrapped from the plan is a theater for the
> City Opera and similar fairly large scale performing arts
> organizations. And what's the latest on the Greek Orthodox church
> replacement?)
Why don't you tell us, since you proclaim to be such the expert :) :)
John S
> On 8/20/2010 1:23 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>> That the location of the proposed mosque was not damaged on 11 Sept
>>>>> 2001? Bull.
>>>>
>>>> Mosque, prayer room, or whatever, there are already mosques in that
>>>> area. Let's ban them!
>>>
>>> Not within 560 feet of what you define as ground zero.
>>
>> These Local Agitators apparently want to define Ground Zero as only the
>> actual WTC collapse site.
>
> you move further away from the point, you are no longer at ground zero.
Huh? Where is this defined? How far away from this mythical "point"
does one have to be when their status changes from "at ground zero" to
"not at ground zero?" 10 miles? A mile? 1000 ft? 100 ft? 1 ft?
>
>> More sensitive people realize that what caused those buildings to
>> collapse (fuel-filled airliners impacting at around 500 mph) caused
>> debris and body parts to be thrown over a wider area than just the
>> actual WTC collapse site.
>
> And like all sensitive people, they then use those bodies as political
> symbols to try to stir up bigotry against a group of people who have
> done nothing illegal!
What bigotry? Are you referring to the terrible injustice of calling a
mosque a mosque?
> (Really, let's just ban mosques everywhere. At this point, the whole
> world is breathing in disintegrated ground zero corpses!)
Slippery Slope Fallacy. Nobody has seriously suggested banning mosques
everywhere.
John S
> Launch personal attacks and throw up strawmen, rather than address the
> issue.
Personal attacks, strawmen.... Yeah, for a moment, I thought it was
Peter Daniels posting. Maybe he has another pseudonym?