On 8/16/2010 8:48 PM Harry K spake thus:

On Aug 16, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Very much agree. As does the President. I am amazed at all the
"Obama supportsd buildign the mosque" lies across all spectrums of
discussion forums.

Agreed. Obama supports building the mosque one-step-removed.

He didn't and doesn't he "supports" the constitution and then adds tht
it is a very bad idea.

No, he said he supports the Constitution. The next day he said he would not
comment on whether building the mosque was a good idea.

Correct. I misheard it yesterday and heard the right quote today. A
politician trying to stay balanced on the fence so as not to lose
votes

Well, maybe, maybe not: I actually think Obama got it right here in both
of his statements, including the later one that's been portrayed by the
MSM pinheads as "backtracking". What he actually said is that he didn't
think he should express an opinion one way or the other as to the
propriety of placing the Islamic *community center* (not a mosque--there
is already a mosque in that neighborhood that nobody has said a peep
about before all this)--at that location, but reasserting their *right*
to do so under the Constitution, which is the correct position here.

The politicians who are acting craven and hypocritically are those
Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who are coming out against
placing the "mosque" there, simply out of fear and against their
principles. (One of the Democrats who got it right is Rep. Jerome Nadler
of New York, who strongly supports the right to build the center there.
The rest are a bunch of chicken****s.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Aug 18, 2:20*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/16/2010 8:48 PM Harry K spake thus:





On Aug 16, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Very much agree. *As does the President. *I am amazed at all the
"Obama supportsd buildign the mosque" lies across all spectrums of
discussion forums.

Agreed. Obama supports building the mosque one-step-removed.

He didn't and doesn't he "supports" the constitution and then adds tht
it is a very bad idea.

No, he said he supports the Constitution. The next day he said he would not
comment on whether building the mosque was a good idea.

Correct. *I misheard it yesterday and heard the right quote today. *A
politician trying to stay balanced on the fence so as not to lose
votes

Well, maybe, maybe not: I actually think Obama got it right here in both
of his statements, including the later one that's been portrayed by the
MSM pinheads as "backtracking". What he actually said is that he didn't
think he should express an opinion one way or the other as to the
propriety of placing the Islamic *community center* (not a mosque--there
is already a mosque in that neighborhood that nobody has said a peep
about before all this)--at that location, but reasserting their *right*
to do so under the Constitution, which is the correct position here.

The problem of course is that Obama's first statement on the issue
clearly left the impression that he was endorsing actually building
the mosque. And yes, while it's a "community center", it contains a
mosque, which is the controversial part that everyone is focused on,
so I don't see any problem with using that term. Had he said that
they had a constitutional right to build it, but if they seek harmony
and reconciliation and are tolerant, they should consider the views of
the 911 families and others before proceeding, then there would have
been no big uproar. Instead, first he endorsed it, then the next day
he backtracked saying he won't comment on the "wisdom" of putting it
there. If he didn't want to comment on the wisdom, then he should
have never made the first remarks and entered the debate, because that
is the core issue.

Why he chose to get involved is inexplicable, as it was another case
where he's clearly on the opposite side of most of the American
people. I guess he wants to lose even more seats in Congress this
Nov.





The politicians who are acting craven and hypocritically are those
Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who are coming out against
placing the "mosque" there, simply out of fear and against their
principles. (One of the Democrats who got it right is Rep. Jerome Nadler
of New York, who strongly supports the right to build the center there.
The rest are a bunch of chicken****s.

Actually, Nancy Pelosi is very much in favor of building the mosque.
In fact, yesterday she called for the investigation of those that are
against building it, to find out where their funding is coming from,
who's really behind them stirring this up. So, I guess we should
start the investigation with Harry Reid. Harry's an interesting
case. In 1993, he made a speech about anchor babies, the problem with
it, how it needs to end. You would have thought you were listening
to Rush Limbaugh. By 2000, he appologized for making the speech.
Now, since it's campaign time, he's flipped once again.

On 8/19/2010 7:39 AM spake thus:

On Aug 18, 2:20 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

The politicians who are acting craven and hypocritically are those
Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who are coming out against
placing the "mosque" there, simply out of fear and against their
principles. (One of the Democrats who got it right is Rep. Jerome Nadler
of New York, who strongly supports the right to build the center there.
The rest are a bunch of chicken****s.

Actually, Nancy Pelosi is very much in favor of building the mosque.
In fact, yesterday she called for the investigation of those that are
against building it, to find out where their funding is coming from,
who's really behind them stirring this up.

My bad; I was wrong about Pelosi. But Howard Dean is another example of
a craven, spineless Democrat who came out against the "mosque" yesterday.

By the way, Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican, remember) has come out
strongly in favor of the Cordoba Center project.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)