This is completely unfair. With his leaving the economy as bad as it is, there are actually fewer illegals in the country.
Obama is mostly talk and very little action or follow through, and the little he has gotten done has been rushed and forced through without stopping to formulate the plans in such a way that they would reap the most benefits to Americans (the stimulus with far too little job creation and far too much postponement of spending the funds; the failure to cover anyone over 26 with the health care plan until 2014 etc). I’m hoping he loses his party’s nomination for the next election, but we’ll see.
But like many similar “wedge issues,” how many people who react this way would’ve considered voting for Obama anyway? Especially since, as you put it, one would have to think he’s a Muslim AND hold it against him?
Don’t blame the constitution, blame the *institution. * The problem is that over time we’ve allowed a lot of loopholes and procedural bollocks into congress. It’s so bad now that anything can be held up indefinitely if someone is truly motivated to do so. We badly need procedural reform. It’s like when we have an interesting thread steaming along here on the SDMB and it quagmires down on a grammar nitpick or etymological argument. It devolves into a morass and is eventually abandoned.
Doesn’t mean the POTUS has to “Strongly Support” - the chosen location, and planned dedication date, is nothing but a flagrant middle finger to the survivors and the family’s of those lost in the attack. Those who think this an innocent action are sorely mistaken.
Here again, the POTUS has missed an opportunity to gain serious positive points by not trying to negotiate a change of venue to a non-sensitive location.
Before this brouhaha were people walking past the former site of this coat factory, snapping photos and pointing in wonder? Were tourists having their pictures taken in front of it or something? If the new tenants weren’t Muslims, no one would care about it. The location isn’t what’s sensitive here. What if it it were a sex shop? Would anyone be complaining about how it’s in such bad taste to open an SM shop so close to where so many people died horribly, etc.? Would you be gossiping about it at all? I doubt it.
I saw what your president had to say about this. It’s sad he had to, but I’m pretty pleased he stood up to the right wing nattering nabobs of negativity for a change. Good for him.
Not only is it Constitutionally legal, but it also is completely in the spirit of the American ideal of freedom of religion. Just as there should not be “free speech zones” so should there not be “free religion zones.”
Furthermore, it is a great strength of the President to specifically deny legitimacy to the extremism and bigotry that would conflate any Muslim mosque with the 9/11 attackers.
As a thought experiment, if there were going to be a display of the unity of peaceful religious worship by placing the symbols of world religions on a large plaque at ground zero, would you advocate that symbols of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and so forth should be included, but a symbol of Islam should be excluded because it would somehow be like a middle finger?
I wish that all my fellow Americans would realize that the primary way to uphold American ideals should be by actually living them, not by mere symbolism or by idolatry to some ensign depicting American ideals.
They could have had Hillary - I really think she could have done a much better job. Also, Obama’s points of differentiation from Hillary during the primary campaign sounds so much hollow now after all the back-pedalling he has done. Moreover, the criticisms hurled against him during the primaries were pretty much spot on. Too bad Hillary was so much despised by the Kool-Aid drinking left.
Hillary was no strong liberal either. She would not have been doing much differently than Obama. She was part of the uber-centrist DLC. Hell, she may have even been afraid of pushing forward on health care, given her previous experience. On the other hand, maybe she wouldn’t have wasted so much time seeking collaboration with the Republicans in Congress.
I agree with you that Obama’s back pedaling makes his promises ring hollow, but I don’t think that means Hillary would be moving in the directions of Obama’s promises.
Obama is doing at least as well as anyone else who could have plausibly been elected in this environment. If that sounds like faint praise, that’s because it is, but it means I don’t regret any of my votes and I’ll have no problem supporting him next time around.
Hillary would not be doing better. John McCain would sure as hell not be doing better.
His support for the NYC mosque, despite 70% of Americans opposing it? That’s called leadership, and it’s what Presidents are supposed to do. It’s one of the better moments of his term so far.
Neither do I. My point is, if he’s backpedalled on his positions so much that his positions now are identical to Hillary’s, why him instead of Hillary? At least with Hillary, you would have a much more competent president.
I disagree, but so what if it is a “flagrant middle finger”? It would still be protected religious expression and/or freedom of speech, and rightly so.
The Westboro Baptist wingnuts are most certainly (and perhaps on occasion, literally) giving the finger to every religious interpretation other than their own. We can be annoyed at them. We can counter protest them. But we can’t make them shut up because of that pesky Constitution.
Good for Obama for pointing this out, and sad for us all that he had to.
I prefer to think of it as a flagrant middle finger to those Murricins who fail to read, let alone properly understand and respect, the Constitution of the United States.
New York’s got this, thanks. Most of the people screeching over Park 51 have never left their cowtowns.
Because she ran her campaign so much more competently.
Starting out with hundred per cent name recognition and a massive campaign fund, then allowing an initially underfunded newcomer to mount an insurmountable lead.
Haven’t seen anything from Mrs Clinton to indicate competence at running any kind of large enterprise.
Anybody who lost a campaign is seen by the naive as incompetent. Name recognition and massive campaign funds are no match for a media that all but completely supports your opponent. Her loss in the primaries doesnt’ mean anything.
With Barack, up to that time, aside from winning elections, what has he really accomplished? His legislative accomplishments in the State Senate were gifted to him. He was practically a non-practicing lawyer with no achievements in that field. His stint as an educator was as a “guest lecturer” and assistant professor, and in both capacities did not distinguish himself. He was with the US Senate for less than two years before deciding to run. Surely Hillary’s track record was superior to this.
And compare how Hillary is running the State Department as compared to how Barack Obama is running his office. No contest there.