Demokrat Pelosi wants investigations into those who acknowledge a lawful right to build the mosque but have spoken out in protest of it.

Obama made this a national issue with the prepared speech in support of the victory palace, and now Pelosi wants to investigate why it is a national issue. This is why demokrats are so destructive... half their own party opposes it, there is no partisan divide on the issue but she is trying to create one.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/

Complain via first amendment rights and be investigated? That is truly censorship when the speaker of the house wants to put you on trial for expressing an opinion that opposes her's.

""There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some [YEAH, OBAMA WENT ON TV TO STATE HIS SIDE, THAT'S CALLED MAKING IT AN ISSUE - CV]. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," ... as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."" [TALK TO 'BAMA, HE WENT ON TV - CV]

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2010 10:46AM by conVince.

Funny how the Imam behind this worked with the Bush Administration for years and has been behind a peace and reconciliation movement between Muslims and the West since the 1990s. You know, I hear all the "Conservatives" out there talking about the need for Muslims to come forth and condemn terrorism and encourage a peaceful dialogue. Then when moderate Muslims try to do it, you call them terrorists and call their building an "Islamic Victory Palace."

Maybe you should just stop talking out of both sides of your asses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

But if you watch the news plenty of Democrats pretty much say the same thing, legally okay but here is why they should choose not to do it. I'm trying to find the point where this became a party issue, probably when bigmouths Palin and Gingrich commented on it.

I can't agree with trials for people with that opinion though, Bloomberg said that was totally un-American and I have to agree with that. Investigate people (and presumably put them on trial) for that opinion? Is that really a reasonable response?

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But if you watch the news plenty of Democrats
> pretty much say the same thing, legally okay but
> here is why they should choose not to do it. I'm
> trying to find the point where this became a party
> issue, probably when bigmouths Palin and Gingrich
> commented on it.
>
> I can't agree with trials for people with that
> opinion though, Bloomberg said that was totally
> un-American and I have to agree with that.
> Investigate people (and presumably put them on
> trial) for that opinion? Is that really a
> reasonable response?

Censorship occurs when the government constricts your freedom of expression. When Senators, Congressmen and, potentially, a President begin to condemn that expression, when does it cross the line to becoming an infringement on a right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2010 11:03AM by WashingTone-Locian.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> justsayin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But if you watch the news plenty of Democrats
> > pretty much say the same thing, legally okay
> but
> > here is why they should choose not to do it.
> I'm
> > trying to find the point where this became a
> party
> > issue, probably when bigmouths Palin and
> Gingrich
> > commented on it.
> >
> > I can't agree with trials for people with that
> > opinion though, Bloomberg said that was totally
> > un-American and I have to agree with that.
> > Investigate people (and presumably put them on
> > trial) for that opinion? Is that really a
> > reasonable response?
>
> Censorship occurs when the government constricts
> your freedom of expression. When Senators,
> Congressmen and, potentially, a President begin to
> condemn that expression, when does it cross the
> line to becoming an infringement on a right?

Funny, I have never seen any problem in the past with Congressmen or the President voicing their opinions and somehow having that infringe on anyone's rights. Matter of fact, opinions seem to be the main thing most of those folks have. So I don't even see how that question is relevant - or realistic.

Seriously, the rational view of 'they have the right to build it but does that mean they should build it there' seems to be the best way to look at the issue so far. Why is it wrong to question the logic of building there? I heard a comment this morning - if the Japanese had tried to build a memorial in Pearl Harbor to promote better understanding between the nations in 1944 or even 1950, does anyone here really think it would have been allowed?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Certainly when they call for investigations funded by taxpayers. Who besides a government entity initiates and executes an investigation? So I'd say when government calls for an investigation and government resources are used to investigate, and the results presumably end up with a decision to put someone on trial or not, that that is an infringement.

If you turn it around, the way to avoid an investigation is to not give a public opinion on why the mosque shouldn't be there. That is certainly speech infringement if your public comments (aside from obvious ones like fire in a theater and making physical threats) put you under threat of a government investigation.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't agree with trials for people with that
> opinion though, Bloomberg said that was totally
> un-American and I have to agree with that.
> Investigate people (and presumably put them on
> trial) for that opinion? Is that really a
> reasonable response?


These wouldn't be trials, they would be hearings looking into who is funding the opposition groups and, I imagine, their motivations to do so (whether they are genuine concerned citizens or partisan political hacks or, what is probably the case, a mix of both--the line defining the true motivations of these groups here is pretty hard to draw), which would be interesting to know, but I don't think is the job of congress to investigate since either way I don't think it's illegal. This would be more of a job of the press, in my opinion.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously, the rational view of 'they have the
> right to build it but does that mean they should
> build it there' seems to be the best way to look
> at the issue so far. Why is it wrong to question
> the logic of building there? I heard a comment
> this morning - if the Japanese had tried to build
> a memorial in Pearl Harbor to promote better
> understanding between the nations in 1944 or even
> 1950, does anyone here really think it would have
> been allowed?


One can not convert to "Japanese." That is the difference.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how the Imam behind this worked with the
> Bush Administration for years and has been behind
> a peace and reconciliation movement between
> Muslims and the West since the 1990s. You know, I
> hear all the "Conservatives" out there talking
> about the need for Muslims to come forth and
> condemn terrorism and encourage a peaceful
> dialogue. Then when moderate Muslims try to do it,
> you call them terrorists and call their building
> an "Islamic Victory Palace."
>
> Maybe you should just stop talking out of both
> sides of your asses.


Bush also celebrated the Iftar thing or whatever the hell it's called too. Never heard that much about it and he kept it low key by not making any controversial statements.

Bush also was dead set on this "new tone" thing which was naive on his part from the beginning. One of his biggest miscalculations was not wanting to upset the State Department personel and continuity of operations. I would have at least cleaned house of the most radical Clinton holdovers and tried to reset policy dialed in a little closer to my ideology but he didn't. Condi Rice was very moderate in this respect and definitely wasn't an upset the apple cart kind of gal. The State Dept. in my opinion is somewhat of a rogue operation. We never know what they're doing over there.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Seriously, the rational view of 'they have the
> > right to build it but does that mean they
> should
> > build it there' seems to be the best way to
> look
> > at the issue so far. Why is it wrong to
> question
> > the logic of building there? I heard a comment
> > this morning - if the Japanese had tried to
> build
> > a memorial in Pearl Harbor to promote better
> > understanding between the nations in 1944 or
> even
> > 1950, does anyone here really think it would
> have
> > been allowed?
>
>
> One can not convert to "Japanese." That is the
> difference.

Ok, so radical Islam killed more people then the Japanese did in Pearl Harbor - even more reason to not allow a mosque within proximity of their target while we are still fighting them.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so radical Islam killed more people then the
> Japanese did in Pearl Harbor - even more reason to
> not allow a mosque within proximity of their
> target while we are still fighting them.


That wasn't the point I was making. Islam is a religion, Japanese is not.

Pelosi is dead wrong on this. I hope she just said something that she later realized was stupid and won't actually act on that. We don't need to be investigating those who oppose the mosque any more than we need to be investigating those who won't to build it. That's not the way things work in this country.

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pelosi is dead wrong on this. I hope she just
> said something that she later realized was stupid
> and won't actually act on that. We don't need to
> be investigating those who oppose the mosque any
> more than we need to be investigating those who
> won't to build it. That's not the way things work
> in this country.

The only reason she felt obliged to open her pie hole was to counter Harry Reid. They had all better learn to keep their yaps shut or this damn thing WON'T go away!

Paterson should have seen this coming...

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Mosque-Developer-Says-No-Meeting-Scheduled-With-Gov-100967889.html



...oooh. Yeah... Nevermind.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Pelosi is now backpedaling and saying the funders of the mosque should be investigated, as well as those "funding" the opposition. Where is my check, I want to know who is supposed to be paying me for expressing my opinion. So now Pelosi wants everyone investigated. The backpedal is worse than the original comment!

"“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’"


Because this has been blown up so much and become a national hotrod, that place will always be a spot for protesters, the spot where everyone has their 9/11 candlelight ceremonies to remember the victims, etc. I respect the right for it to be built even though the idea is distasteful to many Americans. So be it, that's a very easy walk from Ground Zero and the victims can be remembered there too.

Many NYC'ers who feel hurt by the idea should be asking Pelosi who she thinks should be paying them for their opinion. What an insult to Americans, that disagreeing with her means they are being paid to do it.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paterson should have seen this coming...
>
> http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Mosque-D
> eveloper-Says-No-Meeting-Scheduled-With-Gov-100967
> 889.html
>
>
>
> ...oooh. Yeah... Nevermind.

I knew it when I read it last night! I'm really liking this. Seems like it just won't go away. I really do sympathize with the 9/11 victims but I find the controversy compelling in a good kind of way.

I was hoping to see it happen. I mean Geez! It would have been one funny ass photo op. The Imam and cock eyed Paterson the developers and a bunch of blood sucking attorneys... Classic!

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I was hoping to see it happen. I mean Geez! It
> would have been one funny ass photo op. The Imam
> and cock eyed Paterson the developers and a bunch
> of blood sucking attorneys... Classic!


Kind of like when Obama went to Denmark to learn that the U.S. didn't get the Olympics. You don't publicly commit to something unless you know the answer. It was idiotic for Paterson to have announced this if his people hadn't at least had the meeting set up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I was hoping to see it happen. I mean Geez! It
> > would have been one funny ass photo op. The
> Imam
> > and cock eyed Paterson the developers and a
> bunch
> > of blood sucking attorneys... Classic!
>
>
> Kind of like when Obama went to Denmark to learn
> that the U.S. didn't get the Olympics. You don't
> publicly commit to something unless you know the
> answer. It was idiotic for Paterson to have
> announced this if his people hadn't at least had
> the meeting set up.

Paterson's response sounded a bit fishy. He emphasized the point several times in his statement espousing his unwavering support for the mosque at the intended location. "I think they would like to stay where they are, and I certainly respect that and I certainly respect them," Paterson said.

Perhaps it wasn't the Imam's mosque developers that nixed the meeting but maybe pressure from the White House and a nasty ass call from Mayer Bloomberg telling him to butt out or else.

Paterson is not well liked by the Democrat machine and they can't wait to throw him under the bus at their first opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he got "the phone call".

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how the Imam behind this worked with the
> Bush Administration for years and has been behind
> a peace and reconciliation movement between
> Muslims and the West since the 1990s. You know, I
> hear all the "Conservatives" out there talking
> about the need for Muslims to come forth and
> condemn terrorism and encourage a peaceful
> dialogue. Then when moderate Muslims try to do it,
> you call them terrorists and call their building
> an "Islamic Victory Palace."


Rauf moderate?

"I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

"In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."

During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Abdul Rauf declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization.

-------------------------------------

I hadn't realized it was the position of moderate Muslims to excuse terrorist actions.

Beck: "Did we deserve 9/11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators? ... Yes"




Capt. Obvious Wrote:
>
> Rauf moderate?
>
> "I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved
> what happened. But the United States’ policies
> were an accessory to the crime that happened."
>
> "In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin
> Laden is made in the USA."
>
> During an interview on New York WABC radio in June
> 2010, Abdul Rauf declined to say whether he agreed
> with the U.S. State Department's designation of
> Hamas as a terrorist organization.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> I hadn't realized it was the position of moderate
> Muslims to excuse terrorist actions.

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beck: "Did we deserve 9/11? No. But were we
> minding our business? No. Were we in bed with
> dictators? ... Yes"


So, you defend one callous asshole by pointing out the rambling nonsense of a brain dead asshole.

Do you have a point?

The point is if you believe we didn't do anything to piss off these people that attacked us you are naive.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is if you believe we didn't do anything
> to piss off these people that attacked us you are
> naive.

So, you agree with Beck. I think that says enough right there.

Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that Glenn Beck is the most popular host on Fox News and his books are all best sellers. You guys are such big fans of popularity polls and ratings that I assume you think it means something. According to the right, the most popular thing is always the right thing. And Glenn Beck is popular so he must be right. And he thinks that we weren't minding our business and we were in bed with dictators. The popular guy can't be a radical can he?


Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is if you believe we didn't do anything
> to piss off these people that attacked us you are
> naive.

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that
> Glenn Beck is the most popular host on Fox News
> and his books are all best sellers. You guys are
> such big fans of popularity polls and ratings that
> I assume you think it means something. According
> to the right, the most popular thing is always the
> right thing. And Glenn Beck is popular so he must
> be right. And he thinks that we weren't minding
> our business and we were in bed with dictators.
> The popular guy can't be a radical can he?

No, but he can be a dumbass.

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that
> Glenn Beck is the most popular host on Fox News
> and his books are all best sellers. You guys are
> such big fans of popularity polls and ratings that
> I assume you think it means something. According
> to the right, the most popular thing is always the
> right thing. And Glenn Beck is popular so he must
> be right. And he thinks that we weren't minding
> our business and we were in bed with dictators.
> The popular guy can't be a radical can he?
>
>
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The point is if you believe we didn't do
> anything
> > to piss off these people that attacked us you
> are
> > naive.


OK then my point was if you believe we didn't do anything to piss off these people that attacked us you are naive. I didn't mean to speak for you, sorry.

And I don't agree with him on anything else I can think of, but sure, if he takes the view that 9/11 didn't occur in a vacuum but that fact doesn't justify the actions of the hijackers then yes, I agree with him on that.

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that wasn't my point. My point was that
> Glenn Beck is the most popular host on Fox News
> and his books are all best sellers.
> --------------------------------------------------

Wrong again Voter. Or should I say " How does it feel to be proven a dumb fuck every time you open your pie hole"? (sorry I can't resist the hate)

Damn it Voter I like you ...But you're making it hard.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/17/cnn-finishes-fourth-or-worse-for-100th-time-in-2010-cable-news-ratings-for-monday-august-16-2010/60243

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for August 16, 2010

5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 2,085,000 viewers (590,000) (977,000)

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor– 2,942,000 viewers (703,000) (1,331,000)

O'Reilly has the largest FOX audience.

Who is the bigger douchebag? Who knows for sure but I say Beck no matter what the numbers are. I bet I hate him more than you do!

Think we can tell who is winning the ratings war.............


5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 2,085,000 viewers (590,000) (977,000)
Situation Room—542,000 viewers (168,000) (274,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews – 464,000 viewers (143,000) (211,000)
Fast Money– 248,000 viewers (a scratch w/50,000) (172,000)
Showbiz Tonight — 222,000 viewers (85,000) (22,000)

6PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report w/ Bret Baier – 1,999,000 viewers (476,000) (829,000)
Situation Room—474,000 viewers (157,000) (237,000)
Ed Show —508,000 viewers (157,000) (262,000)
Mad Money —176,000 viewers (a scratch w/49,000) (123,000)
Prime News – 221,000 viewers (91,000) (149,000)

7PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The Fox Report w/ Shep – 1,654,000 viewers (415,000) (760,000)
John King USA – 378,000 viewers (137,000) (200,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews – 500,000 viewers (124,000) (235,000)
Kudlow Report– 141,000 viewers (a scratch w/47,000) (83,000)
Issues – 443,000 viewers (134,000) (234,000)

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor– 2,942,000 viewers (703,000) (1,331,000)
Rick’s List –378,000 viewers (118,000) (147,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann – 1,005,000 viewers (263,000) (509,000)
Business Nation–210,000 viewers (128,000) (137,000)
Nancy Grace – 605,000 viewers (166,000) (304,000)

9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity– 1,995,000 viewers (518,000) (964,000)
Larry King Live —539,000 viewers (119,000) (174,000)
Rachel Maddow Show —685,000 viewers (185,000) (375,000)
Bio: The Rockefellers – 261,000 viewers (103,000) (144,000)
Joy Behar – 389,000 viewers (115,000) (218,000)

Johnny Walker wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
>"The point is if you believe we didn't do anything to piss off these people that attacked us you are naive."

This is just the MODERATE MUSLIM SYMPATHIZERS REASONING to SIDE with the TERRORISTS, acting as though WE DESERVED what we got. And they are trying to rationalize that because we DESERVED IT, it was JUSTIFIED(like Jihad) and NOTHING WRONG WAS DONE.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.