On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:42:30 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:47:08 -0700, wrote:

The law, including the 1st amendment, is not offensive.

Previously you said that you "may or may not" agree with it. Now
you're implying that you agree, but as usual, not saying clearly. Do
you agree with the 1st or not? Can you muster the sincerity to answer
such a simple question without any more weaseling?

OK, simple declarative statement you may be able to comprehend: I
support the U.S. constitution and all of its amendments, and always
have.

I did not ask if you supported the 1st, I asked if you *agreed* with
it, specifically because you indicated that you may not. Who do you
think you're fooling?

This is where, after receiving a black-letter
simpleton-zeolot-comprehensible response, you label it as a lie and me
as a liar.

Then where's the quote? All I can see is more of your smears.

And weasel, your favorite slur.

It fits you perfectly. Simple and direct questions cause you to engage
in an orgy of transparent misdirection.

Why do you now say "may"? Previously you wrote "New Yorkers think a
block and a half is too damned close".

Some do, according to my daughter who lives there.

So what? Millions thought that their Toyotas were conspiring against
them. They were all wrong. Should we have taken a vote to determine if
Toyotas were conspiring? I bet you'll deny the parallels, but face it:
you're the hysterical one now.

to some is the behavior of a group proceeding in
a completely legal but possibly insensitive and callous manner.

Why do you now say "possibly"? Previously you accused them of "an
overtly contemptuous gesture like a raised middle finger, like
spitting on American graves, ****ing on their tombstones and defying
us to object". And you claimed that the building is designed to
"symbolically mark and claim the spoils". Then you judged the builders
as being "not merely a group of faithful muslims seeking a place to
peacefully worship in a land of religious freedom". Do you need a link
for your own quotes?

I think those quotes taken in context would be a bit different than
you represent them here, but I won't quibble.

And yet you resort to weaseling...

That is how I think I
would feel if I were one of the survivors

Ah, so all that stuff you wrote wasn't *your* opinion! Weird how the
extended detail didn't include mention of it being something you
imagined of *others*. Too funny.

If there is another reason for choosing that site,
I've not heard it though I've asked that question several times.

Did you ever bother to ask yourself how many building sites are
available for such a project in a crowded city? Do you have some
inside information that they had lots of other choices, and picked an
abandoned Burlington Coat Factory that nobody else wanted... just to
**** you off? Why would you even bother to pretend that you want to
know any answers anyway when you've made it clear that you formed your
opinion based on *nothing* sensible? Who do you expect to believe that
you're seeking answers, when you continually ignore every fact put
before you?

The "bridge of understanding" response has no meaning without
definition of how building an Islamic center on that site might create
a bridge of understanding.

Clearly, the "enemy" is guilty of neglecting to put up a dictionary
for you!

Dissing the feelings of survivors probably
isn't the best way to build a bridge of understanding.

They *aren't* dissing anyone. *You* insist that you're being dissed,
the same as the hysterical insisted that their Toyota computers were
out to get them. The cure is the same in both cases - examine the
*actual evidence* and act accordingly. The problem is that the cure
only works on those who remember to put their brain in gear.

I tried to advocate some
non-legislated tolerance in the other direction, some sort of empathy
for and resolution of the strong feelings some of the survivors have.

Oh yeah, I remember that...

chorus
Previously you accused them of "an
overtly contemptuous gesture like a raised middle finger, like
spitting on American graves, ****ing on their tombstones and defying
us to object". And you claimed that the building is designed to
"symbolically mark and claim the spoils". Then you judged the builders
as being "not merely a group of faithful muslims seeking a place to
peacefully worship in a land of religious freedom".

back to the misdirection

Most religeons advocate kindness, don't know about Islam but I'm not
seeing any evidence in practice.

"Who is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That wilfully will nother
here nor see. - J. Heywood

Christians have also committed some
atrocities.

No ****?

You, scorning all religions with contempt, can have no
comprehension of the emotions that might be relevant here.

Oh yeah, my opinion of religion in general couldn't have anything to
do with the atrocities committed in their name.

This may be incomprehensible to you because you clearly delight in
being disagreeable and ****ing people off. You've bragged about that.
You've admitted that you live to ridicule others. You hide behind
anonymity, far off-grid so you can do it with impunity.

Now you're just lying again. As I've repeatedly told you, my "lair" is
a whole half hour from Walmart, and several posters have visited it.
So it can't be very hard to find, and gummer has assured readers that
he knows where it is. Are you saying that you don't believe him?
guffaw So I have no "impunity" except perhaps that those who would
wish me harm based on my words, are just a bunch of loudmouths who
tell whoppers about who they have and will kill etc. The trouble for
them is that it's pretty obvious that the main reason they don't live
their BS is that it would require them to get up out of their chairs.
Apparently that time is reserved for crapping and maybe tea party
rallies. There just isn't enough of it for going on commando raids, or
even earning a living in some cases.

Regardless, most of the points I've made here have been voiced by
others as well, so this talk of my "impunity" is just another of your
lame distractions.

Gunner, while obviously having some disagreeable attitudes and practices,

Now wait just a darned minute there! While most of us might consider
his "great cull" to be his most disagreeable wet dream so far, you
alone have claimed to be on his list of participants. So I don't see
how you can call him disagreeable. snorf

is clearly of far superior
intellect to yours.

Well sure. Because as we all know, people of superior intellect tend
to live on "acreage" and run up decades of liens.

He may or may not be a psychopath.

Yeah, that's the thing with those of superior intellect - they can't
have everything, right?

Either way, he
certainly is not a stupid psychopath.

Well, disregarding for a moment that a cull participant who thought it
wise to publicly declare 1.5 billion guilty by association might
chuckle not be the best person to be judging who's stupid and who
isn't... exactly how many smart people do you know who spend their
scant income on cigarettes rather than paying their property taxes?
Can you explain why smart people prefer to thieve net access from
their neighbor's provider? Enquiring minds and all that ...

If anyone is offended, they'll probably have no recourse other than to
bitch about it --

"If" they're offended? Are you sending us code that your opinion has
changed?

Ya got me, Ms. Grammar. Should have said "Those who are offended will
probably have no recourse than to bitch about it."

Wrong again. Those who are offended can and will do a lot more than
bitch. They're going to use every dickish tactic they can think of.
The builders will need to consider practicalities ranging from spit in
their coffee to short-bagging of their concrete.

and if they do

There's no "if" about it. You and others have advocated a sort of
tiered 1st Amendment - complete freedom for those you and Newt deem
worthy, but some kind of second-class freedom for others.

Asked nnd anseerd.

BS Your theory that the builders can have full freedom "somewhere
else" is ridiculous.

Or, they might hope that the construction crew hits an old Indian
sacred site that would might cause a hold on construction for a decade
or two -- first amendment, you know. They were there first!

You know, when I predicted that their suffering would make you happy,
in a moment of hopefulness I figured that you might be smart enough to
keep such feelings to yourself. Notice that I said "might".

Another of your irresponsible baseless troll assertions. No suffering
makes me happy. I've seen suffering. I'm a vet.

Sure, you *should* be able to empathize, but clearly you can't.

Whom do you assert is suffering,

As you well know, the effects of the hysteria you've engaged in will
probably take decades to die down, if ever. We're all the worse for
it, but the project builders will feel the persecution the most,
directly and indirectly. I can only imagine how much their costs will
go up, I wouldn't be surprised if the project is scuttled for that
reason alone. Don't bother to pretend that that possibility wouldn't
please you.

and whom do you think should give a
****?

Everybody. At least, everybody sensible.

Rights are rights, right? Isn't that your soap box here? Are
you advocating a tiered 1st amendment?

What an idiot.

"For Christ's sake, listen to yourself" - Ed Huntress

Not his finest editorial form, but we all have off days.

He was trying to help you. Can't see it, eh?
What a shock.

Wayne