Next Round of Obstructionism Starts ... Now

So is this infrastructure proposal those shovel-ready jobs we heard about last year but that never seemed to show up?

On the Mosque debate I read earlier that only 22% of those polled supported building.

It's funny Mike, that you are so far left, you consider Obama in the center but apparently the majority feel him to be left of center or you wouldn't have to continually make the same claim, that is convincing no one.

"So is this infrastructure proposal those shovel-ready jobs we heard about last year but that never seemed to show up?"

Wow I don't even know what to say. Well, actually I do. That has got to be the most dishonest post you have ever posted on this website.

How so? We were told the stimulus would fund jobs that were just waiting for money generally infrastructure and construction jobs. Stimulus passed, I didn't see or hear about those jobs being done. Now a year later we need new funding for infrastructure jobs. What happened to the money last year?

The money last year was for more localized fundings. I saw plenty of it around here. There is an entire loop being built with that money. Maybe you need to look a little harder into the funding from last year than I suspect you are instead of making completely inaccurate statements.

I've seen lots of stimulus money spent in Nebraska, just not much on the "shovel-ready" jobs we were told it would support. I've seen millions go to schools which spent the money in ways they were told not to. I've seen millions more go to other state agencies, what I haven't seen is the infrastructure development we were told would happen. Apparently that isn't the case in Arkansas so good for them, but just a quick perusal of recovery.gov doesn't show me how those shovel ready jobs got funded. But since I contradicted your dogma, I must be outright lying again huh?

Contradicted my dogma? Stretch for it SW, but I have to tell you that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ask John Boehner about the shovel-ready jobs that he has claimed time and time again while home in Ohio that he was responsible for if they don't exist. You might want to try a little harder next time in your perusal. Just in my area alone I found funds awarded equaling close to $20 million for the highway department.

I won't say you're lying SW just that you need to hone your skills at research, or at the very least, research.

How does that $20 Million compare with the rest of the spending in Arkansas? How much went to Education or Health and Human Services or Agriculture? I think you help me prove my point, that not much of the funding provided the effect that people were told would occur.

You keep changing how much funds you believe went into infrastructure. First it was that the funds never showed up, then you claim that the funds were primarily supposed to be for infrastructure (I never heard about that can you point me in the direction of that claim) and then your final claim is that not much of it showed up.

When you keep changing how much went into it of course your point is proven.

You have been caught on this one SW continually misleading in an attempt to prove that funds didn't go where they were supposed to go (apparently though only where you thought they should have gone).

In the end the money was sent to the states. How and what the states spent it on (whether infrastructure, education, health and human resources, all covered in the stimulus bill) was largely left to them.

"I think you help me prove my point, that not much of the funding provided the effect that people were told would occur."

Actually that is a completely new point that you just came up with that had nothing to do with your ever-changing amounts of funds towards infrastructure. Care to elaborate how no know that the funding provided didn't have as much as an effect as people were told? Anything at all?

By the way you keep saying shovel ready jobs. You do know that the funds from the stimulus bill were meant for more than just "shovel ready jobs", don't you?

I know you are latching on to one phrase that President Obama used after the bill was passed, but you seem convinced that's all that money was for.

Yah! Misinformation!

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=09&year=2010&base_n...

Let's take Texas for example. Governor Perry swore that he would not take any federal dollars from the stimulus. He of course had a change of heart.

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/statesummary.as...

Which is the top recepient of funds? Why, the Texas Department of Transportation of course. Odd that the Governor's office is second but oh well.

When we look at the top funded agencies. Transportation comes in second (slightly more than your never, hardly and barelies).

What about Nebraska?

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/statesummary.as...

More of the same.

Please feel free to browse through the site. I believe you may have forgotten to the first time around. Looking where the money was actually awarded pokes holes in all your arguments about the funding not going where it was supposed to.

Shows what happens when you actually research.

reformedrightwinger,

My point is that listening to 22% of the population does indeed sound "tone deaf" do you disagree?

Mike,

I'm sorry I just have no idea what you're talking about. What ever changing funds numbers are you citing? You say I keep changing my numbers when I don't recall ever stating any.

Look I can only go off of what people say, when people say something then that doesn't happen that's what I'm left with. We were sold a bill of goods saying this would create jobs. Then it save or create jobs. Then we were told it saved jobs. We were told unemployment would top out. We were told this was to build infrastructure. We weren't told this money would prop up schools and pay for salaries of people already employed, when the school should be able to pay its own salaries. We weren't told this would go to fund grants to study any number of personal pet projects.

Narrowly focusing on infrastructure projects that will mainly hire temporary and seasonal workers is not going to bring back the economy. It's just going to bring down unemployment for a brief period then when the projects are done, unemployment will go back up like it is now with the census workers. Then they'll come back saying we need to spend more money on infrastructure again. Well, technically this is the "again" part since the stimulus was passed and many of those projects are gone or coming to an end along with the jobs that were needed to get them done. These projects are going to be targeted at hiring seasonal and temporary workers because nobody is going to hire permanent, full-time employees when they can't work year round and when they are only needed for a few projects. Spending billions on one industry for temporary employment to revive an entire economy hasn't worked and it won't work the second time around. All it does is give the President an excuse to claim "it would have been worse if we didn't do it". People aren't buying that line anymore, btw.

Obama and his buddies in Congress need to stop scaring businesses from investing. Businesses are afraid to make money so they are holding onto it, waiting for a climate that's actually friendly to businesses who want to make profits on their own with a level playing field for all businesses. Giving people tax credits for the Volt reveals a lot to businesses about how the government is willing to disadvantage other businesses in a market where the government has obtained an interest.

Demonizing companies for having conferences in Vegas, delegating what companies should pay their people and a generally hostile tone towards the whole concept of a market free from special treatment by the government for one business over another... eliminate that and it will do more than the billions that would be spent on temporary jobs in just one area (construction industry) of the economy.

Bottom line is that Stimulus didn't work to jumpstart the economy and Stimulus II will see the same failure. They need to drop the argument that this will do anything to get us out of the economic mess we're in because unemployment was supposed to be 8% within less than a year of passing the stimulus but here we are over a year and a half later and it's at 9.6% with no hope of seeing it go down. As winter nears and those projects are completed or delayed, those workers will be fired and it will go up higher, likely back up to between 9.7%-10% where it was before the construction season got underway. When we come up on the 2 year mark of the stimulus being passed, it's still highly unlikely we will see the 8% unemployment rate that was used to sell it in the first place.

See, the stimulus was supposed to stabilize everything and start making positive progress after its first year but that's not happening. Our only hope is for Congress or the President to take the target off the backs of businesses. Whether it is through a change in policy or leadership, when that happens, then we'll see the economy start to turn around because businesses can invest confidently again without fear of attack by the government for their audacity to make as much money as they can.

Yeah I figured that's the direction you would take, sw, total denial. No big surprise there. What is different is your selective memory loss. So here's a refresher of what you said. No doubt you will try another denial method but here it goes anyways:

"So is this infrastructure proposal those shovel-ready jobs we heard about last year but that never seemed to show up?"

"We were told the stimulus would fund jobs that were just waiting for money generally infrastructure and construction jobs. Stimulus passed, I didn't see or hear about those jobs being done. Now a year later we need new funding for infrastructure jobs. What happened to the money last year?"

"I've seen lots of stimulus money spent in Nebraska, just not much on the "shovel-ready" jobs we were told it would support. I've seen millions go to schools which spent the money in ways they were told not to. I've seen millions more go to other state agencies, what I haven't seen is the infrastructure development we were told would happen. "

"How does that $20 Million compare with the rest of the spending in Arkansas? How much went to Education or Health and Human Services or Agriculture? I think you help me prove my point, that not much of the funding provided the effect that people were told would occur."

Go ahead change the meanings of your words.

Except that the stimulus did work McCook. Strange huh?

So because Obama says that a religious group wants to build a building has that right to do it because of the Constitution, he is now tone deaf, sw?

Interesting.

And before you go twisting my words that is what Obama said he never once said he supported the actual building he said he supported the religious group having the right to build it there.

Unless you are saying that only 22% of Americans think that Religious Rights matter, then that's just pretty strange. But you aren't saying that now are you?

"Narrowly focusing on infrastructure projects that will mainly hire temporary and seasonal workers is not going to bring back the economy. It's just going to bring down unemployment for a brief period then when the projects are done, unemployment will go back up like it is now with the census workers."

Where's your proof, McCook, or is this just an opinion?

"Where's your proof, McCook, or is this just an opinion?"

It's not so much provable or opinion as much as it is one possible scenario.

Another possible scenario is that it lowers the unemployment rate enough that businesses are more confident about hiring people

150 miles of runway isn't really that much.

Personally, I think don't Obama has been the kindest to the businesses he wants to hire people.

I'm not impressed with Unions lately.

So it begins...

John Boehner has come out with an economic plan that he believes will help kick start the recovery. Here is his plan:

First, the plan calls for Congress to freeze most government spending for next year at 2008 levels, before the near $800 billion dollar stimulus bill was passed.

Second, Republicans want to enact a two year freeze on all current tax rates. This is intended to stop all Bush era tax cuts from expiring.

So, wait that's it? Boehner's plan to kickstart the economy is to do absolutely nothing? Brilliant.

By the way, not sure if anyone has really thought about his but if the Bush-era tax cuts have done absolutely nothing to help the economy since at least 2007 (I stand my belief that the tax cuts never helped but let's go with the other idea) then what makes anyone think that extending those same tax-cuts will actually help ... anything?

http://dailycapitalist.com/2010/09/08/urgent-letter-to-the-president/#more-6381

This guy actually makes sense. I don't agree with all of it but he might be correct.

Interesting the author offers absolutely no proof to back up his absolute statements. There is one really good reason. He has no proof of this. It is only his opinion. It's a good job of promoting those ideas that they are actually factual and true but unprovable nonetheless.

Of course under his system ALL of the tax cuts would stop since it is wasteful spending. But wait he actually encourages tax cuts which would add to the deficit which would throw his entire thesis out.

At least he's offering ideas and that's a start.

I know a lot of you were probably expecting and probably hoping (both those that agree with me and disagree with me) that I would blog about the proposed Qur'an burning in Florida (interesting though since it's been pounded to death on this site that only liberals burn books), however I am not going to spend any more time than this on the intolerant nature of this "religious" group.

Instead I am going the other way. On 9/11 I am planning on joining a counter protest of sorts. I am going to go out and buy a Qur'an. I encourage you all to do the same as well and give as little credence to that "religious" group in Florida as possible.

I actually like the idea I've seen postulated around of buying bibles in Arabic and sending those to these crazies. Allow them to desecrate there own magic book without them even knowing it!

That would bring us to the most dangerous point about both of them. There belief system is correct while all others is flawed. The very foundation of Faith in your specific system rests on this. If a holy war of this nature did break out I think I know who the clear winners would be, Voltaire knew it long before we were thought of.

God is always on the side of the big battalions.

- Voltaire

On somewhat of a side note if your not familiar with him do some reading he was a VERY interesting character.

Actually Natso her main argument which you for some reason completely ignored just so you could go after her and telling her that she was like an idiot cartoon dog, was that there are limitations on speech when it poses a threat.

The military believes that the Qur'an burning that is planned could cause harm to soldiers in Afghanistan. Following the interpretation of the Constitution, the burning could be put to a stop. The classic line was that a person had the freedom to yell fire in a movie theater but if they did and it caused injury to people they could be charged with crimes.

Now I know you are angry because you feel that people are attacking a religion but to go after Molly the way you did, especially saying that people are free to their opinions just seems out of bounds. But hey that's my opinion.

You can call it attacking Christianity if you want, I see it as Christians challenging other Christians on their interpretations of the Bible.

It would be a nice peaceful world if we could all just get along and not offend other people but that isn't the real world.

@NatsoGouda I don't agree with the Muslim teachings either. I also don't however see any of them burning bibles either. Nor do I see Islamic TV shows demonizing Christianity.

Although I don't agree with either religion. I disagree more with demonizing an entire group of people like this for the actions of a few.

"As a matter of fact, you were pretty supportive for the whatever you want to call it at ground zero." -NatsoGouda

Your right. Why wouldn't I be? Aren't you? I have no reason not to be.If they own the land, have no reason not to get the particular permits, great. They have every legal right to build whatever they want there.

Why are you all condemning the Florida group? They are just exercising their rights.

I find it funny that a tiny church has the power to incite violence against America but that thousands of protesters in Muslim countries burning American flags and chanting "Death to America" is accepted as a near daily occurance. Maybe we should try to have a little perspective here, why should we let 50 people dictate what millions do?

Damu, I may have missed it, but do you then support the burning of the Koran by this Florida group? Also you said: "I also don't however see any of them burning bibles either. Nor do I see Islamic TV shows demonizing Christianity."

How much Islamic TV do you watch? Would you rather the church burn the flag of Saudi Arabia, etc?

@SWn Yes, I support them burning Korans in Florida. I personally think its stupid, but those people have every right to do it.

I'm talking about in America though, sectarian countries can do what they want. Here though were guaranteed religious freedom and freedom of free speech/expression.

Damu,

Interesting choice of words, since people can do much more of what they want here than in sectarian countries. I'm sorry, I didn't understand you meant in America when I quoted you. How much American Islamic TV do you watch?

Personally I DON'T support them burning the Koran but I understand they have a legal right that enables them to do so. I would refer back to my previous arguments that just because someone has a right doesn't make it right.

Mike,

I have a very specific question, when has it been "pounded to death on this site that only liberals burn books"?

Guillermo,

Do you truly believe "we" are intolerant? As I asked for some perspective, a church of 50 people is now to represents America on the whole? Or are they to only represent Christian America on the whole? I haven't seen anyone come out in support of them ideologically, but to listen to most of the posters here, one would think you are responding to a large swathe of society that thinks burning Koran's is a great idea.

Do you think these people's burning of the Koran is going to suddenly turn 1.5 billion Muslims against the US? Or is it more likely that the same people who are already radicals will just see this as another excuse to hate? If non-radical Muslims can't see this for what it is, then I think we have much more to worry about than the radicals that already exist.

At least Damu is consistent in his beliefs, if it is within your rights, you should do what you want.

@SWN Honestly I don't watch any Islamic TV here. Is it even available? I'm in the dark as I don't have cable, dish ect.

I'm curious what percentage of Americans you think believe that Islam is the root of terrorism? I would guess a fairly large percentage. The hoopla were going through in regard to president Obama being a Muslim should give you a pretty good idea.

I actually like the way Collin Powell put it:

"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion that [Obama] is a Muslim and might have an association with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Only you SW can come out in support of burning Qur'ans but against building a Muslim Center near Ground Zero and be confused about what intolerance is. OF course I am sure I am conflating what you said (in your mind) so you will naturally attack me for (though in your book it won't be attacking because you are so much better than the rest of us).

But here is my grander point. I hadn't wanted to talk about what is going on in Florida (and SW and Natso no matter how you feel the group is intolerant and a horrible representation of Christianity) but I pretty much knew that once that topic was started we were going to stay on it.

My larger point to SW and Natso is that apparently you two believe that being angry about the planned Muslim Center and not wanting it to be built are perfectly fine (and yes I know both of you have stated that they have the right to do it but you have both stated that you don't support it). Yet when it comes to the planned burnings of the Muslim holy book (Qur'an) both of you don't understand why people are against it. If fact, SW you went as far as justifying the Qur'an burning "because thousands of protesters in Muslim countries burning American flags and chanting "Death to America". As my elementary school teacher and mother taught me (and I would hope you were taught the same) two wrongs don't make a right.

Just as an aside you asked me where on this blog had it been pounded in that only liberals burn books (the answer being by MrsSmith, a former poster that has been banned, just as examples), so now I ask you a similar very open ended question, You said earlier that "thousands of protesters in Muslim countries burning American flags and chanting "Death to America" is accepted as a near daily occurance (by the way it is spelled occurrence)." I wonder where is this happening that the burning of American flags and chantings of "Death to America" have been accepted? I must have missed that memo.

In conclusion, though, how do you two justify the supporting of protesting and disagreements with the Muslim Center and yet complain (loudly I might add) that people are upset about a planned Qur'an burning?

Guillermo,

When I asked if you thought we were intolerant I was inferring from your post that because people protested the mosque, etc. that they were intolerant. You then said we should be better than the intolerant in other countries, I took from that post you felt we were not less intolerant. But I understand your point now, that you don't think "we" are intolerant. Thank you.

I still believe that if 50 nutjobs can so turn harm our relationship, then our relationship is not nearly so strong as people portray.

"erode our nation's primary founding principles" I'm surprised you feel this way, I figured you would recognize that this falls directly in line with our founding principles, free speech and whatnot. This is no government agency dictating religion how does this erode our principles?

Mike,

So one poster who has been banned for extremist ideas is "pounding and idea home" huh?

I'm aslo hpapy you are now the splelnig ploice. Don't I recall you complaining about that several times in the past Mr. Pot?

Now on to picking your post apart, or "attacking" as you say:

Where did I come out supporting the burning or for that matter against the mosque? I facetiously point out your hypocrisy and you go crazy.

I don't think I'm confused about intolerance, but you never asked what I think, you just assign motives because I disagree with you.

"My larger point to SW and Natso is that apparently you two believe that being angry about the planned Muslim Center and not wanting it to be built are perfectly fine (and yes I know both of you have stated that they have the right to do it but you have both stated that you don't support it)."

Let me see if I have this straight. You admit that I say something, but what I say doesn't matter because you already know what I think?

What are you even talking about, where did I imply that I don't understand why people are upset by the book burning? All I said was it is their right to do so, just as it is the right of Cordoba House to build where they want, and the right of people to protest.

"I wonder where is this happening that the burning of American flags and chantings of "Death to America" have been accepted? I must have missed that memo." This has to be one of the most poorly thought out statements I've seen you make. It happens throughout the world, and when it is reported on the American news what hue and cry goes up about it?

Can you give me an example of my loud complaints that people are upset about a Koran burning? I really don't know what you're talking about. In both cases I thought I was clear that although they have a right to do so, I don't think it is the right thing to do. How can you not get that through your seagull poo decorated skull?

In no way did I justify the burning of the Koran I just asked for some perspective on how 50 people can so ruin our image and cause so much harm when all reporting is that no one supports them.

To turn your question around, how do you justify supporting people expressing their rights, building where they want, but not supporting the free expression of a group you disagree with without it being hypocrisy?

Guillermo,

Well you seem to have come to the crux of the matter, where does one right intersect with another right.

So you think the reason FOR America is religious freedom? Interesting since you are so anti-religion.

How does 50 nutjobs burning Korans interfere with a person's right to practice religion. I suppose you could make this argument if they are attacking muslims and stealing their Korans to burn but I don't think that is the case here.

When you say formed, do you mean original colonizing, or the break from England, or what?

Molly:

"But it is their right, because apparently our commander in chief will allow it."

This is a very frightening comment to me. We are a nation of laws not a nation where one man gets to dictate what people can or can't do. I hesitate to question your experience because you get so defensive about it, but really is that the type of country you want to live in? One in which the President tells people what they can or can't do? It might be fine when your guy is in office, but what about next cycle when the other side is, have you considered that?

It is their right, NOT because the President allows it, but because the Constitution allows it.

"So is it OK that our military will be encountering new challenges because of this?"

No.

Wait who called my hair seagull poop? That's funny but doesn't surprise. When you can't discredit a person's points you try to discredit them.

If the military feels that an act can cause a clear and present danger to them steps can be taken to stop that action.

You are throwing up smokescreens SW, Molly is right about that. We went through years when anyone that questioned anything about the war effort was labled a traitor, yet here is the commander of the forces in Afghanistan (who has served under a Republican and Democratic president) stating that the Qur'an burning could be dangerous to the troops and there seems to be no care about it.

By the way there are limits on freedom of speech and religion. Protesting a site because you don't agree with that particular religion is protected. Burning the books of another religion is pretty clouded. I would like to see someone sue the group to stop the burning just so the case could go to the Supreme Court so that we could get a answer to it.

Maybe the grander point is being missed here. I think this group (besides being absolutely intolerant of another religion) is taking away from the victims and the meaning of 9/11. That's the real "crime" here. If you want to support their right to burn religious texts because of nothing more than fear than go for it, but why is nothing being said about the fact that these two groups (Florida and Tennessee) are planning it on a day that we are supposed to remember those who perished.

I guess building a religious center near 9/11 is spitting on the memory of those who died on that day but burning the Qur'an? Well, that's just fine and dandy. What say you SW and Natso?

Molly you can be as immature as you want. I know I am. Besides your implication that I called Mike those things is, as you like to say.....dishonest! I called Mike, Mr. Pot and said his skull was decorated with seagull poo, I didn't say anything about his hair nor did I question his age.

As much as I dislike long wars, I will readily admit that I fear the breakdown of American law more than the thought of permanent war. At least with law there can be some constraints upon war.

The reason people can POSSIBLY complicate a military mission but can't yell BOMB! is that declaring there to be a bomb is a direct threat. Speculating on person's possible reaction to a possible event is not a direct threat, at least in my opinion. Your analogy is faulty.

Mike, I think Molly called your hair seagull poop.

Well maybe she didn't call it that, but she indicated that she will in the future.

Mike,

Do you even read my responses or do you just see that I post then repeat your earlier comments?

Talk about smokescreens:

"We went through years when anyone that questioned anything about the war effort was labled a traitor"

Who other than right wing extremists said that? I don't recall military or administration officials taking that stance. Besides, as my elementary school teacher and mother taught me (and I would hope you were taught the same) two wrongs don't make a right.

"stating that the Qur'an burning could be dangerous to the troops and there seems to be no care about it."

Do you even pay attention to the world or are you too wrapped up in Liberal fantasyland? What do you mean no one cares about it. I challenge you to find legitimate sources that isn't denouncing these actions.

"Burning the books of another religion is pretty clouded"

Do you have any evidence to support this claim or is it just your opinion?

You talk about smokescreens when you rarely answer a direct question and when you do, you pick and choose which questions to answer. I always make an effort to answer any questions put to me, I don't know if you are lazy, stupid, or afraid to do the same.

I thought I have made this PAINFULLY obvious, so much so that a person with little experience or intellect could understand it. Apparently I have failed so I'll try again.

"I guess building a religious center near 9/11 is spitting on the memory of those who died on that day but burning the Qur'an? Well, that's just fine and dandy. What say you SW and Natso?"

I don't think it is fine and dandy to do either of those things. I also don't think it is illegal to do either or both.

Btw,

Apparently the kook has seen reason and called off Koran burning so the day is saved and no more will any Muslim try to harm Americans.

SW as soon as you want to ask serious questions and not once again falling back on questioning my intelligence let me know. I will answer you then.

"You talk about smokescreens when you rarely answer a direct question and when you do, you pick and choose which questions to answer. I always make an effort to answer any questions put to me, I don't know if you are lazy, stupid, or afraid to do the same."

No, SW, what I do is act like an adult and answer the serious questions and ignore the ones where you deride, name-call, and question my intelligence.

I could take your answers and questions a lot more serious if you just did that but nope you always have to follow it up with personal attacks. Then you go and question the maturity of other posters. Tell you what, SW, grow up answer questions or ask questions without feeling the need to personally attack and maybe I will take you seriously.

It sounds to me more like the good reverand trying to get a little MORE attention thrown his way and possibly making up a story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/quran_burning

@GI Saw that earlier, people will have to continue getting nailed with dirty urine to get out of the military.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/39089770#39089770

I saw that last night Damu. Rachel always does really good investigative reporting. But watch out because it is almost a certainty that at least one of the posters will refer to her as a man, all the while feeling the need to protect little miss Sarah Palin.

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that a pastor that got kicked out of a church that he co-founded has been caught in a huge lie regarding why he decided to call of the Qur'an burning. Nevermind that the insurgency in Afghanistan is already using the originally planned burning to their advantage. Nevermind that Robert Gates called him personally.

Nope he canceled because he was "promised" that the Muslim Center (which he naturally lies and calls it the "Ground Zero Mosque") would be moved and moved quickly.

Unfortunately someone forgot to tell the planners as they have no intention to move the site. All that they agreed to was a conversation at some point down the road. They never agreed to a meeting on 9/11 because it is a day to remember those who died on that day (it's nice to know someone remembers the reality of 9/11 and not trying to use it as some sort of political ploy).

Watch out now Molly SW is libel to call you stupid, immature, lazy, scared, or any of a myriad of other names for calling him on his hypocritical stances, holier than thou stances, or simply calling him out.

He likes to act like the smartest person on the boards but what it really is is that you are challenging him on what he says and the number of times he changes definitions or what he has actually said so that he can remain right.

You are holding your own Molly, keep up the good work. Apparently these guys only like a strong woman with her own mind as long as they agree with what they are saying, once a woman disagrees with them they throw every insult in the book at them.

Mike,

I'm sorry I've offended you, because I honestly want people to answer questions I'll stop teasing you, so you won't take your ball and go home ok?

In all seriousness, do you take the time to read my posts or not, you seem to assign positions to me that I have not stated, will you please stop doing that? If you question my position please ask me to clarify rather than state what I think.

Molly,

Why do you see a difference of opinion as an indication of dishonesty. Is it not possible for people to have different interpretations without one being dishonest? I don't think you are dishonest in your opinions, nor do I think any of the extremist posters on this site are. Can you explain why you think I am dishonest?

Guillermo,

We will have to disagree, I feel that this church has been given importance far out of proportion to its true status. I understand where you are coming from, can you not do the same for me?

If a church of 50 people can so upset millions of people that they hold it against the rest of the country even though the rest of the country has denounced their actions. What else could we do to show that this thinking is not in the mainstream? Are American bigots no longer allowed to do or say things that could be offensive to Muslims, especially those in other countries?

Does not the fact that almost all public statements have been against the intolerance of a very very small group of people show that on the whole America is religiously tolerant. How can the country be held responsible for the actions of every single person?

I think this endagering our troops is a strawman argument. Would those radicals not be attacking us anyway? How many public Koran burnings led to the recruitment of Al Qaeda before 9/11/01? If this burning doesn't take place, will hordes of former radicals now embrace us?

When I expressed a personal opinion that the mosque builders in New York should have considered public feeling, you and others here told me that is was their right to build wherever they wanted, I agree. How is this case different? It is within legal rights to do this, but the majority of the population think they shouldn't.

Mike,

"Apparently these guys only like a strong woman with her own mind as long as they agree with what they are saying"

This is an interesting observation, do you see a parallel with how Sarah Palin is thought of by the left?

Damu,

I will respectfully ask you to please consider your harmful language before you utter it. Do you truly believe that Sarah Palin has a cognitive disability? If so you are mistaken, and if not please choose a term less offensive to large segment of the population to describe her stupidity.

For all of her inane babbling, she is undeniably a "strong woman" as is shown by her following. Just because I disagree with her on most subjects doesn't mean I feel it necessary to denigrate her person.

This is why I found it so odd that the feminist lobby was so against her during the election, she was the epitome of the stated ideals of that movement, she just chose a conservative path.

@SWN I will take your suggestion under consideration and then respectfully ignore it. I have the same right to use that particular verbiage regardless of my political affiliation. Unlike Sara would have you believe.

As far as her actually possessing a cognitive disability. I'm not sure if common sense can be considered one, actually no I think it can be so yes I believe she does.

Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck both have large followings, would you ascertain they are strong men?

@GI http://i.imgur.com/yEzJO.png

@Molly You forgot Numero tres.

3. She looks good in a dress and heels.

"Mike,

I'm sorry I've offended you, because I honestly want people to answer questions I'll stop teasing you, so you won't take your ball and go home ok?

In all seriousness, do you take the time to read my posts or not, you seem to assign positions to me that I have not stated, will you please stop doing that? If you question my position please ask me to clarify rather than state what I think."

Wow digging deep for the insults now aren't you. I read every single one of your statements. You assign your own positions to yourself and then deny doing it and then blame a poster for assigning a position to you that you had already assigned to yourself.

It's nothing new, just surprising that you are still trying to deny doing what you are in fact doing. I don't question your positions because you make yourself perfectly clear. It's when you change your position in order to give the allusion that you were right in the first place that gets confusion.

I knew you would go to the Sarah Palin trough, that was just too easy. You want to know the problems that liberals (which in this case is anyone left of a far right conservative) have with Mrs. Palin? She's a liar for one. She pushed for months the lie about the death panels knowing full well nothing of the sort existed. She uses her family to score political points at every single opportunity. She's a quitter. She quit the governorship of Alaska half way through her term. It has nothing to do with her being a strong woman. She just is a horrible politician that didn't even know what the office she was running for in 2008 even did.

"This is why I found it so odd that the feminist lobby was so against her during the election, she was the epitome of the stated ideals of that movement, she just chose a conservative path." Really? Really? This little comment shows you don't have a clue about what the feminist movement was truly about (or more closely you are parroting what other people have said which you will of course deny, but this is not the first time I have heard or seen those exact words, and they did not come from you). Sarah Palin stands for everything the feminist movement fought against not stood for.

By the way is anyone on here (SW of course excluded as he can never keep the same opinion twice) really all that surprised by the silence coming from the Republican leadership over the "Burn a Koran (forget the gross misspelling of the book, it would be like spelling Bible, Bibal)" controversy?

Usually silence is golden, but in this case silence is condemning. Surely they have an opinion on it. McCain almost always has an opinion on everything and even he is being tight lipped about it.

This is fairly disturbing if you haven't seen it before...

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

As far as Palin goes there is a whole list of reason to dislike this woman.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?currentPa...

Here is a really cool graph I found. In regard to the presidents.

http://portfolio.rachelmercer.org/projects/2666196#1

But wait Sarah Palin haters...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/245871/refudiating-vanity-fair-palin-piece-...

Gives you an idea how far the haters are willing to go.

One article gets it wrong (you know I am the first to always point out just how bad journalism has gotten) and somehow that absolves Palin quitting her elected office half way through a term, absolves her from not knowing what the Vice President does (despite running for that office), absolves her for exploiting her children and putting them into the public light and then getting angry when people talk about her children?

No it really doesn't, but I am sure it makes you feel better to once again protect the defenseless Palin.

WOW!!! How very correct you are. And you have President Obama quitting his Senate office half way through his term. You have Vice President Biden who has no understanding of what the vice president's office does, which is to make the president proud he selected him. And you had a presidential candidate who exploited his children, and got angry when they were brought up, Barack and Michelle.

Thank for the information, Bud.

What in the world are you talking about? President Obama quit his Senate seat because he was running for President, Chunky. Are you seriously trying to compare the two? Palin quit the governorship under the guise that there were too many ethic violations (and of the course the lame stream media), but really there was just a bigger paycheck for her going around the country. She didn't quit until AFTER she lost in the election.

The charge against Biden makes no sense, except that you are trying to cover for Palin so you make a baseless charge against Vice President Biden.

I didn't realize that Michelle Obama ran for president. When did that happen? What exploitation are you talking about?

Who is this Bud you are talking about? My name is Michael.

Turns out the good reverend Terry Jones is running a cult.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/koran-burner-creepier-you-think

Just thought I would tell all of you that I still went out and bought a Qur'an today as I had stated I would.

@MH Pics or it didn't happen.

By the way it has been said on here that the planned Qur'an burning wasn't that big a deal over in Afghanistan and that 50 people burning a religious text wouldn't cause any more hate from Muslims than we are already facing.

Does anyone care, then, to explain why this proposed Qur'an burning was HUGE news in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations before the story ever broke in the United States?

Since the previous answer was never answered how about a new question.

One of the reasons some of the posters here have given as why the Muslim Center should be moved but not the strip clubs, bars, or other seedy places is the grandfather clause. Basically because these places (supposedly) where there before 9/11 they should not have to move.

Well here's the funny thing, there was a Muslim Prayer Room in the WTC (as I'm sure other prayer rooms as well). IF we want to go ahead and use the grandfather clause as a reason not to allow the Center to be built where it is planned should we not also use the same clause to justify it being built at Ground Zero? The prayer room just for clarification was there at the first attack and it was never suggested it be moved or that it was a victory mosque.

Very interesting.

Sorry yes in my first sentence it should have been:

Since the first question was never answered.

My apologies.

"How very correct you are. And you have President Obama quitting his Senate office half way through his term."

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Sep 11, 2010, at 8:24 AM

First of all CPB thank you for finally admitting that I was right. Secondly before you push a lie you heard from somewhere else you might want to research it first. Obama was sworn in as a Senator in January of 2005. Which means he served three years as Senator. That's hardly quitting half way through his term. I know, though, I know, facts don't matter to you. You thought you had a great comeback for me showing my hypocrisy and then you whiffed on every single point.