Anyone want a beer?

Sure, I'll have one.

Ok EP I give up. What's the picture mean other than something to make fun of Muslims?

I'm pretty sure that's the point.

It fits well with the Republicans' latest campaign strategy of stirring up anti-muslim sentiment in their xenophobe base.

There's a big fuss over that Muslim center in NYC. I agree, they could pick a less controversial place for it, but I wonder why nobody remembers that innocent US Muslims just trying to make a living were also killed in those buildings on 9/11?

Ratzilla wrote:

There's a big fuss over that Muslim center in NYC. I agree, they could pick a less controversial place for it, but I wonder why nobody remembers that innocent US Muslims just trying to make a living were also killed in those buildings on 9/11?

yes and radical muslims have no problem killing innocent muslims and anyone elese for that matter in the name of jihad for allah

LukeTHr wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

There's a big fuss over that Muslim center in NYC. I agree, they could pick a less controversial place for it, but I wonder why nobody remembers that innocent US Muslims just trying to make a living were also killed in those buildings on 9/11?

yes and radical muslims have no problem killing innocent muslims and anyone elese for that matter in the name of jihad for allah

And our Christian leaders don't ask a persons religion or their alliegences before they bomb a city or invade a nation for false reasons either. So what's the point?

Face it man, The big boys in control of the puppet shows don't give a shit about any of us regardless of the story they preach. Why were 90% of our forces sent to Iraq when Osama Bin Laden was reported to be hiding in Afghanistan and when it was know he and Saddam didn't like each other? Don't hate a culture, religion, or race. Hate the bastards on top who play the cards for their, and only their benefit.

There's no question that they have the right to build their "cultural center." They bought the land. However, there should be an investigation into where they're getting the $100,000,000 to build this thing. There's also the matter of why the US taxpayers are paying for the imam from this mosque to travel to the Middle East with State Department sponsorship. Is he raising money while he's there? Is any of that money coming from sources forbidden to invest in the United States?

Finally, there's a matter of whether it's appropriate to build this mosque and cultural center at the edge of Ground Zero. Would the Native Americans have a problem if a White Cultural Center was built at Wounded Knee? Would it be right to build a Nazi Cultural Center next to the Holocaust Museum? Should there be a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor?

I agree with what you have both said. It is an inappropriate location no matter what their "right to build" may be. It is just throwing fuel on the fire, putting salt in the wound. I would hope that people will revolt againt it and our "fearless leaders" will wake up and change their support of it. Anymore it seems that our elected officials are more concerned about what another country thinks than what the people in this country want. and yes I know, it is all about big business and what THEY want. The only time "we the people" seem to matter is when election time rolls around.

I know that most of you don't care for silly notions like 'context', but here's some info about how this whole bruhaha got started:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/index.html

Quote :

MONDAY, AUG 16, 2010 07:01 ET
How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began
A viciously anti-Muslim blogger, the New York Post and the right-wing media machine: How it all went down VIDEO
BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT

AP
Blogger Pamela Geller and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
A group of progressive Muslim-Americans plans to build an Islamic community center two and a half blocks from ground zero in lower Manhattan. They have had a mosque in the same neighborhood for many years. There's another mosque two blocks away from the site. City officials support the project. Muslims have been praying at the Pentagon, the other building hit on Sept. 11, for many years.

In short, there is no good reason that the Cordoba House project should have been a major national news story, let alone controversy. And yet it has become just that, dominating the political conversation for weeks and prompting such a backlash that, according to a new poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans now say they oppose the project. How did the Cordoba House become so toxic, so fast?

In a story last week, the New York Times, which framed the project in a largely positive, noncontroversial light last December, argued that it was cursed from the start by "public relations missteps." But this isn't accurate. To a remarkable extent, a Salon review of the origins of the story found, the controversy was kicked up and driven by Pamela Geller, a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger, whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post.

Here's a timeline of how it all happened:


Dec. 8, 2009: The Times publishes a lengthy front-page look at the Cordoba project. "We want to push back against the extremists," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the lead organizer, is quoted as saying. Two Jewish leaders and two city officials, including the mayor's office, say they support the idea, as does the mother of a man killed on 9/11. An FBI spokesman says the imam has worked with the bureau. Besides a few third-tier right-wing blogs, including Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs site, no one much notices the Times story.

Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, while guest-hosting "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox. In hindsight, the segment is remarkable for its cordiality. "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," Ingraham says of the Cordoba project, adding at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do."
(This segment also includes onscreen the first use that we've seen of the misnomer "ground zero mosque.") After the segment — and despite the front-page Times story — there were no news articles on the mosque for five and a half months, according to a search of the Nexis newspaper archive.

May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by a New York City community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of 9/11 victims (called by the reporter), who offer differing opinions. The New York Post, meanwhile, runs a story under the inaccurate headline, "Panel Approves 'WTC' Mosque." Geller is less subtle, titling her post that day, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." She writes on her Atlas Shrugs blog, "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem." (To get an idea of where Geller is coming from, she once suggested that Malcolm X was Obama's real father. Seriously.)

May 7, 2010: Geller's group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!" (SIOA 's associate director is Robert Spencer, who makes his living writing and speaking about the evils of Islam.) Geller posts the names and contact information for the mayor and members of the community board, encouraging people to write. The board chair later reports getting "hundreds and hundreds" of calls and e-mails from around the world.

May 8, 2010: Geller announces SIOA's first protest against what she calls the "911 monster mosque" for May 29. She and Spencer and several other members of the professional anti-Islam industry will attend. (She also says that the protest will mark the dark day of "May 29, 1453, [when] the Ottoman forces led by the Sultan Mehmet II broke through the Byzantine defenses against the Muslim siege of Constantinople." The outrage-peddling New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser argues in a note at the end of her column a couple of days later that "there are better places to put a mosque."

May 13, 2010: Peyser follows up with an entire column devoted to "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero." This is a significant moment in the development of the "ground zero mosque" narrative: It's the first newspaper article that frames the project as inherently wrong and suspect, in the way that Geller has been framing it for months. Peyser in fact quotes Geller at length and promotes the anti-mosque protest of Stop Islamization of America, which Peyser describes as a "human-rights group." Peyser also reports — falsely — that Cordoba House's opening date will be Sept. 11, 2011.
Lots of opinion makers on the right read the Post, so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative — and then mainstream — media like fire through dry grass. Geller appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show. The Washington Examiner ran an outraged column about honoring the 9/11 dead. So did Investor's Business Daily. Smelling blood, the Post assigned news reporters to cover the ins and outs of the Cordoba House development daily. Fox News, the Post's television sibling, went all out.

Within a month, Rudy Giuliani had called the mosque a "desecration." Within another month, Sarah Palin had tweeted her famous "peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate" tweet. Peter King and Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty followed suit — with political reporters and television news programs dutifully covering "both sides" of the controversy.

Geller had succeeded beyond her wildest dreams.

Bighead wrote:

I know that most of you don't care for silly notions like 'context', but here's some info about how this whole bruhaha got started:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/index.html

Quote :

blah, blah, blah...try to redirect the topic...blah, blah, blah...make it all about the "evil Americans"...blah, blah, blah

I don't see an answer to any of the questions that I posed. Guess that means you can't answer them.

No, it meant that I wasn't interested in your rhetorical questions.

The upcoming elections in November are the ONLY reason that this is even a national issue. The Republicans know how to rile up their fearful, small-minded, xenophobe base. It's an effective strategery for getting out the vote... but it's gonna bite 'em in the ass in the long run.

Bighead wrote:

No, it meant that I wasn't interested in your rhetorical questions.

The upcoming elections in November are the ONLY reason that this is even a national issue. The Republicans know how to rile up their fearful, small-minded, xenophobe base. It's an effective strategery for getting out the vote... but it's gonna bite 'em in the ass in the long run.

The source of a hundred million bucks is a rhetorical question?

And it's not just Republicans who are against the location. Harry Reid has said it should be built somewhere else. David Patterson is going to try to convince them to build it elsewhere.

Is it any wonder that The New York Times (hardly a bastion of conservatism) published a story today that said 24% of Americans think BO is secretly a Muslim?

One other little problem they're likely to encounter: Let's see if they can find a licensed contractor in New York who will do the job without their workers walking out.

Yes, it was a rhetorical question: a statement facetiously phrased as a question. In other words, you're not interested in an answer- you've already made up your mind.

Personally I don't give a rat's ass one way or another about "The Mosque at Ground Zero". But the whole thing looks artificial to me- especially considering that it isn't really a mosque. And it isn't really at 'ground zero'.

But hey, it's 'political silly-season'- and it's fun to watch. I'm really looking forward to 2012... it's gonna be a circus.

LukeTHr wrote:

I agree with what you have both said. It is an inappropriate location no matter what their "right to build" may be. It is just throwing fuel on the fire, putting salt in the wound. I would hope that people will revolt againt it and our "fearless leaders" will wake up and change their support of it. Anymore it seems that our elected officials are more concerned about what another country thinks than what the people in this country want. and yes I know, it is all about big business and what THEY want. The only time "we the people" seem to matter is when election time rolls around.

I agree it's rubbing salt in to build there, but I'm afraid that if we are willing to demand the politicians stop it then we as a nation will be saying the Constitution is worthless. It's bad enough that alot of politicians already think so without us giving them a push to defy it. If it is a legal establishment by definition in zoning then there is nothing the authorities can do other than make the area look unsuitable to them.

If everyone is so upset they should take up a collection and open a place next door that sells pork products or something else highly offensive to Muslims. Maybe an open air ribs joint.

Ratzilla wrote:

LukeTHr wrote:

I agree with what you have both said. It is an inappropriate location no matter what their "right to build" may be. It is just throwing fuel on the fire, putting salt in the wound. I would hope that people will revolt againt it and our "fearless leaders" will wake up and change their support of it. Anymore it seems that our elected officials are more concerned about what another country thinks than what the people in this country want. and yes I know, it is all about big business and what THEY want. The only time "we the people" seem to matter is when election time rolls around.

I agree it's rubbing salt in to build there, but I'm afraid that if we are willing to demand the politicians stop it then we as a nation will be saying the Constitution is worthless. It's bad enough that alot of politicians already think so without us giving them a push to defy it. If it is a legal establishment by definition in zoning then there is nothing the authorities can do other than make the area look unsuitable to them.

If everyone is so upset they should take up a collection and open a place next door that sells pork products or something else highly offensive to Muslims. Maybe an open air ribs joint.

After gay marriage is declared legal in the entire country, and there's good constitutional grounds for it, what do you think would happen if a couple of guys show up and want the imam to marry them. Think they'll leave with their heads? Good luck.

As I recall, Greg Gutfeld wants to put in a muslim-oriented gay bar next door. Maybe somebody else can buy out the building on the other side, and set up the Pork Rind Emporium.

It would be a much better solution than the Republicans' apparent willingness to ignore the constitutional rights and property rights of people who had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 thing.

Bighead wrote:

Yes, it was a rhetorical question: a statement facetiously phrased as a question. In other words, you're not interested in an answer- you've already made up your mind.

No, I haven't. Nobody knows where this money is being raised, and they aren't talking.


They won't build it! Hardhats vow not to work on controversial mosque near Ground Zero

If the money is there, they'll build it. But I have a feeling that the muslims will find another less controversial location- much to the disappointment of the Republican Party.

But I'm sure the Repubs can pull another non-issue outta their ass to make political hay with.

Bighead wrote:

If the money is there, they'll build it. But I have a feeling that the muslims will find another less controversial location- much to the disappointment of the Republican Party.

But I'm sure the Repubs can pull another non-issue outta their ass to make political hay with.

I'm actually thinking that Patterson will convince them to do just that. It looks like he's offering state aid to get it done. Doesn't ,matter to him. He's not running for re-election. Oh, yeah. He's a Democrat, too.

Okay, how about this for a new non-issue. Ann Coulter has been dropped as a speaker at a WorldNet Daily conference because she's speaking a HomoCon 2010, a conference of gay Republicans. Their program describes her as a right wing Judy Garland, whatever that means.

Well I suppose he'll fit right in among the other drag queens.

Though I can't for the life of me understand why a gay person would even consider the Republican Party. But there are stranger things out there I reckon.

Bighead wrote:

Well I suppose he'll fit right in among the other drag queens.

Though I can't for the life of me understand why a gay person would even consider the Republican Party. But there are stranger things out there I reckon.

I can't understand why any sane person would join the Democrat Party. Or most of the Republican Party these days, for that matter. I'm a registered Libertarian these days, but I'd consider going back if I could vote for Ron Paul in the 2012 primary.

I mean, I can understand a Black Republican- few and far between as they may be.

But a Gay Republican? Is it a self-hate thing?

Bighead wrote:

I mean, I can understand a Black Republican- few and far between as they may be.

But a Gay Republican? Is it a self-hate thing?

Wanna bet that there will be at least one black gay Republican at that conference?

Bighead wrote:

I mean, I can understand a Black Republican- few and far between as they may be.

But a Gay Republican? Is it a self-hate thing?

And I saw a report last night that said Sarah Palin's biggest demographic support group was Republican pot smokers. WTF?

Ratzilla wrote:

LukeTHr wrote:

I agree with what you have both said. It is an inappropriate location no matter what their "right to build" may be. It is just throwing fuel on the fire, putting salt in the wound. I would hope that people will revolt againt it and our "fearless leaders" will wake up and change their support of it. Anymore it seems that our elected officials are more concerned about what another country thinks than what the people in this country want. and yes I know, it is all about big business and what THEY want. The only time "we the people" seem to matter is when election time rolls around.

I agree it's rubbing salt in to build there, but I'm afraid that if we are willing to demand the politicians stop it then we as a nation will be saying the Constitution is worthless. It's bad enough that alot of politicians already think so without us giving them a push to defy it. If it is a legal establishment by definition in zoning then there is nothing the authorities can do other than make the area look unsuitable to them.

If everyone is so upset they should take up a collection and open a place next door that sells pork products or something else highly offensive to Muslims. Maybe an open air ribs joint.

hey then we could be equal opportunity offenders......... the jews don't like pigs either. and new york has lotsa jews....

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I mean, I can understand a Black Republican- few and far between as they may be.

But a Gay Republican? Is it a self-hate thing?

And I saw a report last night that said Sarah Palin's biggest demographic support group was Republican pot smokers. WTF?

Alaska was the first state to decriminalize under an ounce of weed for personal use. Polls show that over 50% of Alaskans think use by adults should be legal, and about 75% approve medical weed. I think not freezing important body parts off or having them bitten off by polar bears are bigger issues to Alaskans rather than who smokes weed.

LukeTHr wrote:

hey then we could be equal opportunity offenders......... the jews don't like pigs either. and new york has lotsa jews....

Free rib samples might attract Rosie O'Donnell which would repel just about everything.

Ratzilla wrote:

LukeTHr wrote:

hey then we could be equal opportunity offenders......... the jews don't like pigs either. and new york has lotsa jews....

Free rib samples might attract Rosie O'Donnell which would repel just about everything.

Not to mention offend absolutely everyone.

I can hardly wait 'til 2012. It's going to be a year-long circus, followed by weeping and gnashing of teeth.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/

3 Reasons the “Ground Zero Mosque” Debate Makes No Sense
By: Gladstone August 20th, 2010329,770 views
1,209
diggs
digg
Share
I don’t usually write about politics. It’s important, but something I want no part of – kind of like a raw sewage treatment facility. But frankly, I haven’t been this upset in a long time. And it’s due to the logic-hating, herd-mentality rhetoric that some have been flinging in opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” For the uninitiated, there are plans to construct an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. And, of course, lower Manhattan is where the World Trade Center stood before terrorists destroyed it, thereby murdering 3,000 Americans. I was working in New York City at the time. As was my father. As was my pregnant wife. I remember the day well. And the days that followed. I think most of all, I remember standing on the Staten Island Ferry, coming home with 200 other silent, reverent New Yorkers of every age, race, and religion, as we watched our city still smoldering a full week later. And it is with this backdrop that I can say to every politician spouting off and opposing the construction of this Islamic community center: “Shut up. Go away. You hate America.”

I’m talking about people like professional political tumor, Newt Gingrich, and future worst President ever, Sarah Palin, who have both slammed supporters of the Islamic community center with rhetoric so flawed, I’m afraid even linking to it might impair your computer’s higher functioning circuits. But it’s not just them. Due to the wave of misinformation being spread, apparently 68% of Americans also oppose the mosque.

How did this happen? Well, basically a complacent or a complicit media helped perpetuate three ideas that are either outright lies or intellectually dishonest arguments designed to bring out the very worst in all of us. And as you continue to hear them–and you will–take out this column which you will have already printed and laminated, and recite thusly:

1. It’s Not at Ground Zero
The proposed structure is not on the hallowed ground of the former World Trade Center. It’s at an abandoned and private building blocks away that used to be the Burlington Coat Factory. That means that if every one of the “g’s” that Sarah Palin drops when she’s talkin’ folksy were 10 by10 feet large, you could still stack over 120 of them from Ground Zero to this community center. Easy.

That sort of makes all the difference, doesn’t it? I know, when I first heard they were building a mosque at Ground Zero, I literally said, “What the frack.” Like out loud and everything. I didn’t even pull a “WTF” despite years of writing for the Internet. That’s because for the last nine years, we New Yorkers have listened to countless proposals and plans and ideas of how to best rebuild the area while honoring the memories of those who died. And suddenly it seemed we were being told, “Yep, it’s all decided. Mosque. We want a mosque here. Just feels right.”

So yeah, of course, no one was on board. That just made no sense. What happened to that proposed waterfall and wall of names? Nothing happened. Because no one was ever building a mosque on that site. It’s just a lie that was told to you by people who wanted you to be afraid, upset, and hurt. People who wanted to manipulate your tender emotions to inspire contempt for the government. It’s about as intellectually dishonest as manipulating debate footage to make it appear that “Drill, baby, drill” is Sarah Palin’s stance on partial birth abortions. It’s just wrong.

And to those who say that any location in lower Manhattan is too close for a Muslim structure, let me remind you that right now, in the shadow of what would be the former World Trade Center, there’s a Halal Meat Hot Truck with a multi-denominational line that wraps around my building every day at lunch time. And I’m positive that’s owned by a Muslim. And I’ve even suffered at his hands. (Spoiler alert: avoid the goat rhoti). Should he move a few more blocks away too? Of course, not. That would just be silly, right? Is it different? Why? Because mosques are religious and the 911 terrorists perverted Islam into something violent and hateful? Guess what? Those knights did the same thing to Christianity for the 300 years of the Crusades, and no one’s saying that churches shouldn’t be built anywhere in … Europe.

2. It’s Not Strictly A Mosque
A mosque by definition is a purely religious structure. This is a large proposed community center, open to the public and set to house, among other things, a basketball court. Yes there will be a prayer space inside it as well, but you don’t call St. Mary’s Hospital a church because it happens to have a chapel inside it, do you? Well, maybe you do. You read about politics on the Internet from a guy who claims not to write about politics, so maybe you’re functionally illiterate. But the point is, you shouldn’t.

But “Islamic Community Center open to the public” doesn’t have the same ability to scare people the way “mosque” does. I mean, you hear “mosque” you think mosquito, you think STING! You hear “mosque” you think “mask,” you think DECEPTION! You hear “community center” you think “OK. One more place I’ll never go.” So, yeah, clearly the decision was made by those who hate you to call this the “Ground Zero Mosque” even though it’s not at Ground Zero and not technically a mosque. Why are we still discussing this? Why haven’t you already asked Sarah Palin if she’s the devil on her Twitter account? Oh, that’s right. Because the devil is supposed to be good at lying.

3. You Can’t Simultaneously Acknowledge A Right And Insist That Your Government Suppress It
But the real reason I’m writing is not just because of people like Sarah Palin, but because of shameful, spineless panderers like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Here’s a statement from each of them designed to give the appearance of being tolerant while adhering to good old-fashioned common sense values:

From Sarah Palin’s Twitter Feed:

“We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?”

And from Harry Reid’s spokesperson:

While respecting that Muslims have a First Amendment right to religious freedom, Reid “thinks this mosque should be built some place else,” his spokesman Jim Manley said Monday.

Let me make something clear. In order to make these statements you must hate two things: logic and America. There is NO way to say that an individual has a protected right to do something and simultaneously criticize your government for not suppressing the execution of that right. There is no way for President Obama or any other president to put a stumbling block in the way of the free exercise of religion without violating the sanctity of that freedom. Should I say it more simply? OK.

You can’t legally stop people from obeying the law.

The Burlington Coat factory is private property. Those who want to build on it are private citizens. They are violating no law in wanting to build a community center. Under what authority do you propose we stop them? There is no “unless you’re a Muslim within X yards of a national tragedy exception” to the free exercise of religion. Do the Gingrichs and Palins and Reids want to start a precedent where you can compel people not to exercise the freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution provided enough people don’t like you?

And what are we saying to Muslims? That if they were good Americans they would willingly give up their rights? I can’t think of anything less American than that? This is America. We do what we want. And all you have to do to have that right is be a citizen here. And if you’re a traitor, well then we will prosecute you for treason and penalize you for taking up arms against the greatest country in the world, but we will NOT start curtailing your freedoms based on mere speculation fueled by lies about what you’re building and where you’re building it.

In the days following 911 it was very popular to say that we couldn’t do anything differently in America or “the terrorists would win.” We can’t stop driving gas guzzling cars. We can’t stop supporting dictators in other parts of the world for financial or political gain. We can’t vote for a Democrat. Most of that was rhetoric. Some of it was probably true. But one thing is definitely true: if we ask our leaders to start dishonoring the freedoms that make this country great, the terrorists surely will have won. And I don’t want to see that. Because unlike those with power and influence who would lie to you, I love America.



Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/#ixzz0xIX4RGwC

This is really not unusual. The American Indian was once hated. Germans during and after both world wars were viewed as all being homicidal maniacs. Japanese, even those born here, were not trusted for years following WWII. Even the North and South had this same feeling for one another for decades following the Civil War.

It may not be nice to hate someone just because of who they are, but it has been the norm around the globe as long as man has existed to distrust or even fear anyone who has ties to an enemy. Being accepting of those individuals is always going to conflict with a certain amount of natural survival instincts.

Yeah, it's human nature... you'll get no argument from me on that point.