Isn’t the right to argue also part of that First Amendment you like so much?
He’s not baffled with the right of people to argue. Just that they’d argue it. Everyone’s free to claim that the moon landings are fake, for example. But I’m baffled that so many people believe it.
Does he have a hat?
Not according to sharia law, which we on the left are commited to imposing. But you knew that, right?
The problem is nothing is being built at ground zero. They should have rebuilt the towers immediately. Since it is a wasted pit now, we have to bitch about what is being built at ground 2. The building is not at ground zero.
This whole mess feeds the view that America is at war with, and hates Muslims. It can only cause hard feelings while empowering the haters. Obama should have backed the building fully.
Agreed. If the boot were on the other foot – for example, if some other religious group claimed that a place was “hallowed ground” to their religion, and no Christian church should be built there – then the religious right would complain noisily. But they don’t understand that rights are reciprocal. They complain that Christianity is persecuted, but they would like to persecute Islam.
The delays in construction have been ridiculous but it’s not just a wasted pit. They are building stuff there. I think the new tower is 30-odd stories tall right now. But it’s not expected to be finished for another three years, and I think other buildings will still be under construction after the tower is done. It’s probably true that if construction was finished, or at least the main tower was done, then this would upset people less.
He was trying to give a weaselly non-answer, and he got caught. No reasonable person questions the right of Muslims to build mosques - If Obama was asked if he specifically supporting building a mosque right there, then the answer “I support their right to build a mosque” will be, and no doubt was intended to be, interpreted as saying Yes, I support the mosque. Now it turns out that the mosque is not popular in NYC, so he is trying to change his tune.
He should show some backbone for once.
Besies, what doe she mean about having no opinion on how wise it is to exercise your rights under the Constitution? Does he mean sometimes we should just keep our heads down and let the bigots intimidate us?
This is typical politician’s fluff, and it should have addressed in a non-politician way. Say, out loud, "Look, Islam didn’t attack us. Nobody who will pray at the mosque attacked us. This is the United States of America, we have freedom of religion, and I for one would like to keep it that way.
Let’s not allow our fears to overcome our better natures. Islam is not our enemy."
Probably too late for him to say it now. Only thing that will help now is “Hey, Reid - STFU.”
Regards,
Shodan
The mosque was known to be unpopular before he said anything about it. I question how unpopular it is in NYC. (I think someone linked to a survey about that upthread.) But I agree with you that it would have been better if he’d just said ‘they have the right to build there and religious freedom is important’ and left it at that without the clarifications or whatever you want to call them.
Obama H. Christ, Shodan is exactly on the money.
I think you mean Barackhu Ackbar.
I actually agree that he should have been more forceful in his rebuttal of the haters, 100%, it is weaselly, but my point still stands he did not change his stance and the media saying he did is lying.
Just wanted to take the opportunity to say that Shodan is exactly right. Defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not an area to even give the appearance of giving ground.
Not only should he and everyone else tell Harry Reid to STFU, but they should look at his example. Did Reid’s weak-kneed capituation to the sociopolitical terrorism of the right wing buy him any quarter? No, they attacked him nevertheless. May as well do the right thing in the first place, dickhead.
It’s about votes in November, not attacks in the press right now. I hear that Reid’s Republican opponent has been all over him on this issue, so he decided to sell out.
The unfortunate thing is that this was an opportunity to reach out to moderates, and he blew it. Obama campaigned on the notion that he was a new kind of elected official, and yadda yadda. Here he could have actually done it. Instead he made a politician’s choice, and he is just not good enough/experienced enough to get away with it. If Clinton had had that question, he would have figured out a way to blame everything on Republicans. Clinton knew how to do the Sister Souljah approach long before he got within ten miles of the White House.
Obama can’t bring that kind of thing off, and so he shouldn’t try.
Sometimes ISTM that a President of pirinciple needs to put concerns about the November mid-terms on the back burner and concentrate on actually being President - spend your political capital on something you believe is worthwhile. If Obama had been forthright in his support for letting the Muslims build where ever they wanted, maybe it might have cost the Democrats ten thousand votes in November. So what? He may or may not have made up for the lost votes of the lunatic fringe by picking up votes from the reasonable folks - who knows?
But if your only purpose as President is to get re-elected, then there doesn’t seem to be much point in getting elected in the first place.
is a concept that can be used by sore losers, but it forms the basis for much of the motivation of statesmen as well.
Regards,
Shodan
It hasn’t done them fuck-all good in the last two years. They didn’t learn their lesson any of those occasions. What makes anyone think that this would be different.
Dear Charlie Obama and Harry Brown - Lucy McConnell is still going to pull the fucking football away.
-Joe
Well that’s part of the thing that’s so frustrating. In the first place, he was very careful to use wording that did not mention whether or not he thought the building of the mosque there was a good idea, and decided to state that it is their right to do so. The media then ran with that, and interpreted that as his support of building the mosque at ground zero, and then when he clarified that he never said that (when he so conspicuously and deliberately never sat that,), they started saying he changed his position!
It would be funny if this weren’t SOP of the news media these days. Yes, he gave some weasely non-answer answer, which is bad enough, but instead of the media criticizing him for that, they made something up, and then criticized him for it. Why do they need to resort to these bogus tricks, when what he actually said was bad enough?
Why do so many of you seem to think that the Constitution is implicated in this situation? It’s not. The free exercise clause just says that Congress (and the states) shall make no law inhibiting the free exercise of religion.
No such law is at issue. The only issue is whether people like the mosque at that location or not. Not liking it doesn’t do any damage to the free exercise clause or the idea behind it.
Sometimes the issue is a principle or an ideal, and not just a paragraph, subsection, clause or fourth word. Do you see the Constitution as relevant to the expression of the supposed principles of the country?
Generally, it would be desirable to have our leaders stand on principle.