huskertim

Hey, let's give props to SDSU, they played their game extremely well. However, WTF? How in the hell does a top ten program invite an 0-2 FBS school in and almost get thier a$$es handed to them. Bo should be P###&* and the players should be humiliated. Yes, we won on a bad day, and fortunately no one was paying any attention, but the idea that this team will play down to an opponent is an ominious sign. Also, what the hell is wrong with Cody Green? For that matter, how bad could Zach Lee have gotten that the coachs keep sending CG out to fumble again? Seriously, was Lee hitting on Mary Pat or something? Heck let's pull mothballs off Latravis Washington or no knees Spano for mop up. CG needs to ride the pine till he gets his head out of his a**..

Interesting dilema. I'm pro vigilante and I believe that sometimes we have to brake the law (or rules if you prefer) to live with our selves despite the consequences. Still, I make the call, not to do so would be tantamount to committing the murder myself and I'm generally opposed to that.

I believe Bo called the run D embarassing, and I might well agree with that. WKU simply isn't that good and Bo, despite being head coach, is a obviouly a Defense minded guy. I'm pretty sure he expects the D to carry the offense this year, thus affording him the luxury of trying out a frosh QB. Overall, I think you could say the O looked more game ready last night then the D did. I thought it was rather apparent that people were out of position and communication was poor, particularly in the defensive backfield, this will not be a happy coaching staff.

That was definately a cheap shot by one brassed off big man and I'm pretty sure Delhome was extra pissed to be punked by a rookie to boot. Keep in mind though, Suh's just getting adjusted to this league, the idea that he's suddendly going to turn into a "thug" is a bit premature. I'm sure he'll make mistakes, what rookie doesn't? I can't wait to see what he's like by the end of the season.

That is eloquent, you can really sense the writters internal conflict and the futility of his experience. Very solid read, Thanks X.

I don't know, X, it's an alright read, but it certainly presumes to know the mind of the moderate as though somehow we're all identical or even unified in our beliefs. I realize he's generalizing for the sake of both agruement and brevity but I think he takes alot for granted here. The only line that really annoyed me was "Whatever is true now should be discoverable now". I'm pretty sure we don't know all things that are yet. Wouldn't that make us omniscient, and thus gods in our own right? I'm probably being petty here. That said, it's certainly food for thought and I as a moderate christian who thinks exploration of faith is critcal to faith thank you for that.

One lame retort deserves another. Touche sir.

Agreed 100 percent. We must ever be mindful not to decline into that bitter vitriol. No harm done, no harm intended.

I would, I'm sure, if I knew what felling better meant. Ouch brother, that's kinda bleak. Hope all's well.

Mea culpa. How silly of me to focus on the minuscule topic of religious intolerance and the trampling on one of the very bases upon which this country is founded when I should have been focusing on the greater harm of you being accused of being a Limbaugh listener, or ignorant of New York real estate prices, or unable to grasp nuance. Clearly those are far larger issues that we should be focusing on rather than silly things like freedom of religion. How the Founding Fathers failed to include any of the harms you've been victimized by in this thread in their Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights is beyond me. Clearly they were as derelict in their duties as am I. But you are focused on those things. Your so busy trying to paint me as everything I'm not. I find it laughable that you take upon yourself the defense of religious tolerance while at the same time impuning all religions. I have nothing but repect for Islam. As a christian you seem to think I must hate all other religions. That is so backward. I see all Muslims, Jews, and Christians as servants of the same God. My particular beliefs may vary from thiers in vast ways, but I see us all as branches of the same tree. (This would be an Abrahamic philosiphy). Further, I am able to separate a person from a group of people, by your standards if I where to be critical of Bush, I must hate all Texans, Christians, and middle aged white guys. Most of your posts are attacking positions I simply don't hold and frankly all evidence you have presented only reinforces this. Carlfense opened this thread with (among others) the comment that this was probably a bad PR move. The notion that it was so because ignorant hicks might misconstrue the intent is the primary focus of my retort. I don't believe that this was inadvertant but rather intentional. The idea that leader of a particular group of likeminded people might say or do things specifically design to antagonize others to the delight his or her followers is pretty commonplace. Maybe this is the only site that 100M will buy in NYC these days, not having shoped that market I could be wrong on that. Maybe locateing this cultural center closer to the largest concentrations of those who would most likely use it like say Bay Ridge or Crown Heights just isn't fiscally viable. It's just my opion that Feisal is poking the bear with a pointy stick and pulling the who, what, me? card. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I still defend this American's (Feisal to be clear) right to do so.

Hardly claiming to be a victim, just pointing out the hypocracy. I have to point out that I think alot of people are a**es but I'm pretty sure most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, and I'm still waiting for something other than a vague inferrance that I ever said Feisal was even remotely involved or that I have condemned one of the world's major religions out of hand. Gotta cut off, work needs me.

I think he's an A** because he's being insensitve and even provacative with his choice of loacation. I don't and haven't blamed Feisal or the rest of the ownership group for 9/11 The distance thing was admittedly a cheap shot, but not by any means an acusation and again, the cleric I'm referring to is Fesal (see above) Now, if Carlfense wants to lump all Limbaugh listener, Manhattan wants to assume my ignorance of geography cause I'm from Nebraska (and apparently am naive enough to think $100,000,000 might just get you a property in other parts of NYC), or Huskerbob wants to lump all Americans as unable to grasp nuance...well, I guess that's fine. Plenty more fish in the bucket, how's the ammo holding up?

I guess I must be blind. I'm reading your examples and don't see what your talking about. 1. Feisal Abdul Rauf isn't all of Islam 2. The owners of this property aren't all of Islam 3. 2 blocks distance isn't all of Islam 4. This cleric isn't all of Islam. Please, if I am blind, help me to see.

Good, the first step is admitting it. Now don't you fell better?

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link ***snip*** I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opinon of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile. Ummm . . . the astrological sign thing is part of the eBlogger format. And if Newt was a Phd in history that means that he too was a graduate student . . . you do realize that this grad student may soon have a PhD as well right? That is how these things work . . . What an odd argument. So, we discount one who has attainned a Phd in favor of one who may? Yeah, makes sense to me. My point is simply that Newt is every bit as informed as the author with the advantage of experience in world affairs that this guy couldn't possiblly bring to the table. I'm pretty sure you understood that anyway, so why the cheecky rebuttial? The primary difference, as I see it, is that your willing to lend credibility to the arguement that best suits you. While this is human nature, I would guess that if you were presenting a case to a jury you might prefer the credenialed witness to one seeking credentials because acceptance of ones words based on their accomplishments is also human nature (and a great deal more logical to boot). If you think Newt is actually arguing from a historical perspective and not just taking political jabs to further his party I don't know what to tell you. Obama is a Constitutional law scholar . . . do you automatically defer to his knowledge? Somehow I doubt it. I would counter that you assume the author of the piece has no political axe to grind which I frankly find unchacteristically naive. Actually, I would defer to Obama on knowledge of Constitutional Law, I differ in interpetation and the ideological application that he generally chooses.

You have a lot of nerve playing the victim here, you who have been throwing all of Islam under the bus for the actions of one fringe group which does not believe in what Islam teaches. Firstly, I include myself in my critisism and I accept the discourse as it is, just read the post. Secondly, at what point did i throw Islam under the bus. Methinks your reading what I'm not writing.

Who told you that you couldn't voice a protest? Nobody has curtailed your right to free speech here. No one. Usually my BTWs are simply asides, food for thought, if you will. In our zeal to prove our point we all tend to discount those who hold a different view as being somehow inferior. I've seen accusations of bigotry, hypocracy and support of religous intolerence in this very thread. I've been accused of supporting the OKC bombing and failing high school geography (apparently by someone intimately familiar with mahattan island real estate values). Thing is, I'm okay with all that. It's just the forum and sometimes it gets a bit raw. I just think that it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves once in awhile that though we disagree, we do support each others right to speak. BTW, did anyone notice that I defend this action as legal if not wise (a bad PR move)?

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link ***snip*** I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opinon of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile. Ummm . . . the astrological sign thing is part of the eBlogger format. And if Newt was a Phd in history that means that he too was a graduate student . . . you do realize that this grad student may soon have a PhD as well right? That is how these things work . . . What an odd argument. So, we discount one who has attainned a Phd in favor of one who may? Yeah, makes sense to me. My point is simply that Newt is every bit as informed as the author with the advantage of experience in world affairs that this guy couldn't possiblly bring to the table. I'm pretty sure you understood that anyway, so why the cheecky rebuttial? The primary difference, as I see it, is that your willing to lend credibility to the arguement that best suits you. While this is human nature, I would guess that if you were presenting a case to a jury you might prefer the credenialed witness to one seeking credentials because acceptance of ones words based on their accomplishments is also human nature (and a great deal more logical to boot).

This entire post presupposes that the builders of that mosque supported/believed in/agreed with/are happy about 9/11 based on the tissue-thin evidence that 1) they are Muslim and 2) Osama bin Laden professes to follow Islam. This is as logical as supposing that Christians - all Christians - endorse the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Question: Why do you support that bombing, and the murder of those innocents, huskertim? Except that McVeigh was NOT a Christian, he was an Atheist. Actually, all I'm presupposeing is that this cleric is an A** and his actions prove it. I'm all for intra-Abrihamic peace and interaction, I just don't buy that that is the motivation here. BTW at what point do all us patriotic defenders of everyone's right to build the mosque get around to defending people's right to be opposed to this? Agree or not, everyone has the right to speak his mind (or lack therof sometimes).

Let's be real. You're not talking about defending the historic status of this building, you're talking about the proximity of the building to the WTC site. Your quote is pretty obvious here. Relax, the landing gear thing was just tounge in ceek, I'm not making the claim that this is a historical site, I has merely making reference to the case before the preservation board.

And this is relevant to this mosque... how? Not the mosque, the building see edited above.

Part of one of the planes landing gear crashed through the building. That was actually one of the reasons for the landmark designation arguement.

If you're talking about this: that's not carlfense's astrological symbol, that's a board icon because he indicated he's male in his profile. I'm pretty sure I've got one in my profile, too. Somewhere. No, I'm refering to the article that was linked.

I feel like this is really pretty simple. They knew this was going to upset people, and they did it anyway. Either this is callous or it is calculated. As to how close is too close, well if you think two blocks is a great distance I'd have to ask what close is, obviously it wasn't too far for landing gear to travel. Still, it's their land.

You might want to rethink this. Apparently you weren't a history major either. link Interesting read, but I am in fact familiar with the history. In the early centeries of Islam it was common for muslim rulers to allow the citizens of a newly conquered territory to continue in their faith. This was a great advantage to being conquered by the muslims instead of the Byzintines and went along way toward quelling revolts. However, Cordoba did symbolize power in a former Roman stronghold (even though when it fell it had been under the control of the visigoth christians for some time). Also, conversion to Islam "after a generation" was not optional unlike in northern Africa were christianity (et al) was an accepted part of daily life. <BR><BR>Essentially, they took over a city that had been important to the super power of the day but had fallen away as the empire weakened under it's own corruption and moral ambiguity, refitted it to their porposes and made it the capital of Islam's western frontier. Yeah, your right, no parallels here. <BR><BR>Sorry I didn't anotetate or link, I'm just speaking from memory so I couldn't site dates but, then again wasn't Newt a Phd in history, somehow, that didn't seem to impress as much as the opion of a grad student who includes his astrological sign in his profile.