Ponderosa

I doubt I'll make any more headway with you than others in this thread. So when you say, "Those who are protesting..." - I read that as being "All who are protesting..." or as "Nearly all who are protesting...". Is that a fair assessment?

That seems to be a distinction without a difference, merely semantics. A (giant) community center with a (tiny) mosque or mosque with a community center. But that was not Mr. Olbermann's point. He said, "This is not a mosque."

The bold (and only the bold) is simply incorrect. A mosque is part of the plan. From the Park51.org website FAQ: According to Google Maps: 51 Park Pl, New York, 10007 is approximately two blocks (approximately 0.1 mile) from the WTC site.

The Giants signed him yesterday (probably the same as being added to the roster that nuance mentioned). But they also cut a guy - a safety. He just might make the roster.

You are very selective. You have a habit of not addressing many parts of a reply/post but then parsing the crap out of certain words elsewhere. I already pointed out that most Republicans have supported the President in Iraq & Afghanistan which you ignored. They aren't going after him - no matter the cost. The President made his position known, people reacted. It isn't gotcha politics - people have an honest difference of opinion. And as others have pointed out - who care's what Bin Laden says? He's not an honest player. The Dems have had policy agreements with him as well, so what? How do you figure? Because he is your favorite punching bag? You like to paint with a broad brush? Newt has not held office for over a decade and isn't likely to win the 2012 nomination. McCain was the nominee in '08. It is proably just frustrating that there isn't just one person to go after. So you pick one out of a hat and do the collective guilt thing. Not really. As I said, the converse is true as well. That is merely a truism. Everybody gets that. Despite guffawing from the left - that is why it is called the WoT. How to do it is the issue.

He shoots - he scores...winner!

I've heard many a libertarian use the exact same phrasing and I don't get it. (Note: I'm not saying you are a libertarian or speak for them - just that I've heard it many times.) Speaking only for yourself - why are those three items the highest on your list/mentioned first? If nothing else, all three are already legal (to some degree) and all are already accessible. I have a hard time with labels myself. I use the world libertarian to describe my philosophy most of the time. As for the three I listed, they're examples, but not necessarily in order of importance. In my opinion the most pressing issue facing our country is the idea that the federal government is designed to solve the minutia of our lives. It isn't. It just seems like you're leading with your chin that's all. Otherwise I strongly agree with the bolded item. At least at 30,000 foot level. The devil (heh) is in the details.

I didn't know we let Al Qaeda's preferences dictate our opinions now... At any rate, what Al Qaeda really sees as a victory is this backlash against Muslims. If we were open and accepting and treated this the same way as any church, it'd be a lot harder to try to stir up radicalism in youth. As it is, the "Americans hates your brother muslisms" card is a lot easier for them to play. So if you will, all this backlash is an Al-Qaeda "recruiting victory." Exactly. Al-Qaeda wins if this "war on terror" changes into a war between the US and Islam. That is simply a war without end . . . and one that we cannot and will not win. Bin Laden (if he is still alive) LOVES this backlash against the proposed mosque. This is exactly what he wants. Beck/Limbaugh/Fox/Republican Party are more than willing to give Bin Laden what he wants (division between Islam and the US) if it makes Obama/Democratic Party look bad. It's sickening. To use your own words: Any factual basis for the bold? That sounds entirely fabricated. What sickens is that this is what passes for civil discourse. People disagree with you are and they are bigots, collaborators or worse. Surely. Just give me time to find an article about some Republican lawmaker repeating BS talking points about the mosque and a parallel story about Bin Laden saying that he wants the war to be defined as "US vs. Islam." I'll edit this as soon as I get to it. here you go Mediamatters? The first quote is from a guest on MSNBC - big woof. How are either of those sources any more valid than a Limbaugh or Fox (both of which you preemptively dismiss)? -- Anyway, we can play the quote game all day - I can give you the director of Al-Arabiya TV, Harry Reid, 50% Dems in a national poll oppose it, etc. And you'll return fire. So, I will stipulate that several or even many Republicans have said inappropriate things. OK there. But so what? How do the opinions of a few condemn the "Republican Party"? The GOP ranges from Arnold to Newt to Graham to Paul, etc. You seem all too comfortable blasting those who disagree with you on a policy position. -- As for making Pres. Obama look bad - it seems to me the President has received very strong support for his Iraq and Afghanistan policies from most Republicans (except the Paulista wing). This is a separate issue. Besides, they aren't the ones talking about cutting funding. -- Finally, the easy counter argument to American intolerance - there are already mosques here. One within four blocks of the former WTC. It has been there for 40 years. But somehow if this new one doesn't get built Bin Laden wins! Or loses! [depending on POV] Can we have a little more hyperbole? Cripes.

I didn't know we let Al Qaeda's preferences dictate our opinions now... At any rate, what Al Qaeda really sees as a victory is this backlash against Muslims. If we were open and accepting and treated this the same way as any church, it'd be a lot harder to try to stir up radicalism in youth. As it is, the "Americans hates your brother muslisms" card is a lot easier for them to play. So if you will, all this backlash is an Al-Qaeda "recruiting victory." Exactly. Al-Qaeda wins if this "war on terror" changes into a war between the US and Islam. That is simply a war without end . . . and one that we cannot and will not win. Bin Laden (if he is still alive) LOVES this backlash against the proposed mosque. This is exactly what he wants. Beck/Limbaugh/Fox/Republican Party are more than willing to give Bin Laden what he wants (division between Islam and the US) if it makes Obama/Democratic Party look bad. It's sickening. To use your own words: Any factual basis for the bold? That sounds entirely fabricated. What sickens is that this is what passes for civil discourse. People disagree with you are and they are bigots, collaborators or worse.

I've heard many a libertarian use the exact same phrasing and I don't get it. (Note: I'm not saying you are a libertarian or speak for them - just that I've heard it many times.) Speaking only for yourself - why are those three items the highest on your list/mentioned first? If nothing else, all three are already legal (to some degree) and all are already accessible.

Right, but this one will only be two blocks away. Four blocks is OK. Two blocks is an international incident. So saith Glenn Beck and the Rest of the Right. What are you saying? Reid (a bigot?) and Beck are calling for the removal of mosques in Manhattan? Beck speaks for the "Right"? The "Right" all think alike? Or did you just create/define a new group: "The Rest of the Right"?

Dustin may have lost been hosed...but I win! We're all just Dustin the wind.

10 would be better and I think they'd still be just as hungry but I can live with 16. But why is Alabama the consensus #1? They lost 9 guys on defense plus one more was declared ineligible. OSU seems like a better choice.

Great find indeed! Heh, love that.

I know. I posted about this in my status update a week ago. He's been gone for over two weeks. Did he say he was going on vacation or something? Does Nexus Twitter? Or is it Tweet? Or Twit?

Huskers see 'whole new' QB in first practice

O'Hanlon was cut on Friday. Actually it says waived/injured. I looked but I could not find any info on his injury.

Doh!

Walt Wells Offensive Centers/Guards Rev. Jim (Christopher Lloyd)

So in support of tolerance, you go with...let's review the tape shall we: a talking point, hatred, a straw man, bigots, schmucks, a sweeping generalization, bigots, anger, hypocrites and bigots. Please stop with the racist/bigotry BS. It is tedious and smacks of intimidation. Do others see the disconnect here? I don't see a disconnect. Why is it hypocritical to be intolerant of those who are intolerant of the rights of others? We must stand up for those who are having their rights besieged by people who love to claim the solidarity of the rights of the constitution when it comes to things they agree with, but then want to deny it to people who they don't like. I do not tolerate racism. If I saw a KKK member, it wouldn't be a "disconnect" if I called them a racist or a bigot. It would be accurate. Of course you don't. Do you seriously expect us to believe you are only talking about; two or three "hicks" from WY, four white dudes from LI and your parents. Really? You're not implying anything further with the "real Americans" & national news language and now latest example? Either you are using the same tactic of 'Collective Responsibility' on those who oppose the mosque; the same argument you vehemently reject, if done to Muslims. Or as you "support the effort to construct the mosque 100%." - it isn't just a few bad apples; you think 100% of the opposition is bigoted to the core. I doubt it is even possible for you to envision an argument or formulation against the mosque that isn't in some manner racist...at least to you. You can see into the souls of men, you know their hearts' (at least in Wyoming) - is there a legitimate argument to be made? If so, let's hear it, so that our poor benighted countrymen may escape your righteous wrath... Other points: "Little Syria"? Most of the "Syrians" were Christians of one sort or another and the neighborhood faded by the 20's and was gone by the 40's. What is the relevance? "...nobody has ever had problems with the Arabic community in New York." ??? Nobody ever? Or is it never, ever? Way over the top. Besieged? The Board vote was unanimous, the Mayor supports it, the Governor and President are at worst indiffferent. How can people in BFE suppress the rights of people in NYC? They have no power, say or vote in New York city or state. Straw man.

So in support of tolerance, you go with...let's review the tape shall we: a talking point, hatred, a straw man, bigots, schmucks, a sweeping generalization, bigots, anger, hypocrites and bigots. Please stop with the racist/bigotry BS. It is tedious and smacks of intimidation. Do others see the disconnect here?

FWIW... Iowa would be correct - the list is referring to the states not the schools. Then it still doesn't make sense. Y'all are still going to playing games in Iowa. You may be over-thinking this a bit much. As it is a t-shirt. But if not - let's... OK so we "get" that Nebraska will still play in Iowa, given that the University of Iowa is in the Big 10. Right? Hmmmm....[Looking at map] Wheew. Right! There it is - Ioway. Next to Illinoise. Also, Nebraska will eventually...just a guess...play again in TX, KS, MO OK and CO. But as for the ISU fans they...um... will...um...still live in Iowa. They would be the Ex's. The t-shirt could have: - left Iowa off entirely - gone with Iowa or Iowa (St.) - just listed Iowa (best option) since most won't either think about nor be confused Mostly the t-shirt is just making a funny.