Of course not. That would be a rational position and explanation.
Because the guy is a muslim, he must be supporting terrorism when he makes a
statement like that.
On 20 August 2010 09:41, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
I'm not familiar with the man or the quote, but could he have
(although he has denied that Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 attacks).
I'm not familiar with the man or the quote, but could he have been
denying that the people who did it were really Muslim the same way I
deny that Westboro Baptist Church is really a Christian church?
, August 19, 2010 10:24 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Where are you getting that so-called fact from?
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Eric Roberts
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com wrote:
What are you talking about? The summer prior
:
This was a well known story in the news back then.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:24 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Where are you
as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
And you mock foxNews
I used the proper spelling :)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Eric Roberts
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com wrote:
Yet the Bush Administration did fund the Taliban the summer prior to the
9/11 attackshmmm
? The summer prior to the attack, the Bush
administration sent the Taliban 43 million dollars. That is a fact.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:53 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero
Nope. Funds never went to Bin Laden. The 9/11 commission was very clear on that.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually the US never funded the Taliban or Al Queda during the Soviet
occupation. For one thing the Taliban did not exist at the time.
hmmm
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:17 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Actually the US never funded the Taliban or Al Queda during the Soviet
Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:53 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
And you mock foxNews
I used the proper spelling :)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Eric Roberts
ow
Nope. Funds never went to Bin Laden. The 9/11 commission was very clear on
that.
The 9-11 Commission? LOL.
Liberals (and some conservatives) have said that the Commission was a cover
up for years. I guess your not one of them. Do you take everything in the
report as fact? I am just curious.
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Actually the US never funded the Taliban or Al Queda during the Soviet
occupation. For one thing the Taliban did not exist at the time. The
Taliban was formed after the Soviet, then the American withdrawals
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html
In summary:
U.S. covert aid went to the Afghans, not to the Afghan Arabs
The Afghan Arabs were funded by Arab sources, not by the United States
The United States never had any relationship
Bravo Larry.
Stand by the facts!
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
Careful, Larry, it almost seems as if you are defending the Bush
administration :D
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion
This was a well known story in the news back then.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:24 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Where are you getting that so-called
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Where are you getting that so-called fact from?
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Eric Roberts
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com wrote:
What are you talking about? The summer prior to the attack, the Bush
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:54 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Good enough for me.
Guilty!
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:54 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Good enough for me.
Guilty!
On Thu, Aug 19
Oh, that $43 million.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
Powell also called on other nations to send aid to the Central Asian nation.
If the international community does not take immediate action,
countless deaths and terrible tragedy are certain to follow, Powell
said.
It not a matter of whether or not they have permission to build a church,
its a matter of who is going to pay for it.
And when they can build it.
By moving, they can rebuild sooner. By not moving, they will need to wait,
even though it is their land.
J
-
Experience hath shewn, that even
Give me one valid reason, and I'll retract my criticism.
One does not have to have a valid reason to have an opinion. An informed
opinion yes, but opinion, no. Just because one has an uninformed opinion
does not make one an idiot. President Obama stated his uninformed opinion
on the Henry
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
Typical response of all liberals and progressives. We know what is best
for everyone.
Well, that is no more annoying than the conservatives who only care
about what is best for themselves. :D
--
Scott Stroz
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
Me, of course :)
Typical response of all liberals and progressives. We know what is best
for everyone.
Oops! I'm neither! Nice try.
--
No matter how close to yours another's steps have grown
In the end there is
I am not sure I understand your point. The Greek Orthodox church in
question is not being asked to re-build at a different location.
To me, this snippet shows how unrelated this issue is to the mosque issue:
The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original
site, and we will
...@threeravensconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:07 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: RE: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
I call it self enforced stupidity. Ignorance can be cured by education,
but
stupidity, whether caused by mental limitations or a persons refusal to
learn despite
Yes. Nobody, sans-Jerry, thinks they should not be allowed to build.
Which Jerry?
I think they have the right to build, just to clarify. I don't think it's a
good idea.
J
-
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms those entrusted with
power have, in time, and by slow
Well, that is no more annoying than the conservatives who only care about
what is best for themselves. :D
That would probably be libertarians. Leave me alone and I'll take care of
myself.
By conservatives, you probably mean, what's good for big business.
J
-
Experience hath shewn, that even
thought it deserved to be in horror.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Roberts [mailto:ow...@threeravensconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:07 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: RE: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
I call it self enforced stupidity
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that is no more annoying than the conservatives who only care about
what is best for themselves. :D
That would probably be libertarians. Leave me alone and I'll take care of
myself.
You make it seem like that
I am not sure I understand your point. The Greek Orthodox church
in question is not being asked to re-build at a different location.
The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site,
and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that
building,
The
You make it seem like that is a bad thing. I see nothing wrong with the
'you leave me alone, I will leave you alone' attitude.
Not my intention. I am a full on believer in this point of view.
Is there a difference between conservatives only caring about themselves
and only caring about big
I must be blind, because I saw nothing in that article that says the
church has to wait for other work to be done before they can proceed.
Even if they had to wait, they are not being told they are not welcome
or being asked to go elsewhere.
Again, these two issues are completely unrelated. The
Well don't take this personally because you seem like an intelligent
person. It's just that almost everything you post here is stupid. It's
the content.
I was insulted several times before I insulted back. But your stupid
posts can't recognize that.
Great that you keep archives, sad that you
You mis-quoted the document.
I wasn't sure if you felt that way or it was a simple error. As for
this thread you were the only one that made the statement and people
kept referring to it so I was pointing that out.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes.
Liberalism isn't just about who you vote for. It's also about how you
attack people with different opinions.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:56 AM, G Money gm0n3...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
Me, of course :)
Typical response of
The issue is the city is moving at mock speed to approve a brand new
mosque/ center while stalling the reconstruction of a Church. I think
the point is if this was a mosque instead of a church there would have
been outrage years ago and you would be singing the opposite tune.
On Wed, Aug 18,
The same could be said of conservatism. With a fair deal more accuracy
if what I've seen of Rush is any indication.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:19 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports
Fair play to you. But in his defense, he's always called the nastiest
things first.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
The same could be said of conservatism. With a fair deal more accuracy
if what I've seen of Rush is any indication.
at face value is a lot of things, but bigoted is not one of
them.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:11 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Well don't take this personally
Sam sees everything in very stark black and white terms. If you
disagree with him, then you an evil leftist socialist. Forever. That
sort of personal absolutism I have little or no tolerance for.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, you are a bit off
The 'City' is not stalling anything with the reconstruction of the
church. The Port Authority of NY/NJ is NOT a city agency. And, it
seems the church may be just as responsible for the delays as any
other agency.
Once again, as the article shows, this is nto a matter of can or
should they
I also do not agree the 'City' is moving at mach (not mock) speed to
approve the mosque, this has been going on for quite some time.
So they are moving with mock speed but not mach speed.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology
-community
Subject: RE: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
I call it self enforced stupidity. Ignorance can be cured by education,
but
stupidity, whether caused by mental limitations or a persons refusal to
learn despite the facts is a terminal illness that cannot
is a lot of things, but bigoted is not one of
them.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:11 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Well don't take this personally because you seem
You know Sam you really need to get rid of your sense of
victimization. It would make you far less touchy and less likely to
see everything and everyone who disagrees with you as an attack when
it isn't. You'll also come across as far more reasonable.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Sam
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Liberalism isn't just about who you vote for. It's also about how you
attack people with different opinions.
I've never attacked you Sam. I don't call you all those names other people
do.
I do call certain positions how I see
Just because Sam thinks everyone is out to get him doesn't mean they
aren't! Psychological disorders can be fun.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Larry C. Lyons larrycly...@gmail.comwrote:
You know Sam you really need to get rid of your sense of
victimization. It would make you far less
Just as an aside, there is too much confusion today with labels.
Many people use liberal and Democrat and conservative and
Republican interchangeably.
They are not the same.
Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I am talking about the
politicians. Not the rank and file Democrats or
I must be blind, because I saw nothing in that article that says the church
has to wait for other work to be done before they can proceed.
I didn't read the article. I heard about the situation on the radio.
Even if they had to wait, they are not being told they are not welcome or
being asked
What I read was that the PA were supposed to give the church $20
million to rebuild on the current site. I have not seen anything that
says the PA would give them money if they moved.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
I must be blind, because I saw
A quick search brought this back:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot/
The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which
the P*ort Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild
it in a new
Dohmy bad, it is in the article Sam posted.
However, I still do not see the connection. The church can rebuild on
the old site (the article says that as well). Again, its not a matter
of whether thy can or should re-build, it a matter of where the money
is coming from. If the mosque was
Yea, I went back an re-read the article and saw that - my bad (see my
previous post)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Jerry Barnes critic...@gmail.com wrote:
A quick search brought this back:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot/
However, I still do not see the connection. The church can rebuild on the
old site (the article says that as well). Again, its not a matter of whether
thy can or should re-build, it a matter of where the money is coming from.
If the mosque was getting money from the PA then not only would the
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:44 AM, G Money gm0n3...@gmail.com wrote:
Liberalism isn't just about who you vote for. It's also about how you
attack people with different opinions.
I've never attacked you Sam. I don't call you all those names other people
do.
I was referring to you calling
Dude, if you insult me, as you always do, and then attack me for
insulting you back, as you always do, I might want to correct you. Not
always but sometimes.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Larry C. Lyons larrycly...@gmail.com wrote:
You know Sam you really need to get rid of your sense of
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
I stated I was concerned about the funding, the motive for that
location over every other and the refusing to denaunce terrorism. All
issues that could easily be answered and when I get a satisfactory
answer I'll give them my
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
For the record thinking that 70% of the country opposes the mosque
because that's what the news said isn't bigotry.
I never said it was.
I said calling that 70% prejudice is bigotry.
I hesitate to call poll
results
True.
And I agree that they do have to deal with a 'when' condition.
However, at this point, the 'when' is self-inflicted. They can build
on the old spot right now (at least that is what I got out of the
article), they just don't have the money to do so. So they need to
start clamoring for the
Correction: YOU weren't one of the ones that called me intolerant.
Speed reading
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
We're not talking about the poll. We're talking about you and others
Once again, no one said that the 70% were prejudiced.
Please show where someone said that..pretty please with sugar on top?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
For the record thinking that
Why do you even bother stating things like this?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Larry C. Lyons larrycly...@gmail.com wrote:
Sam sees everything in very stark black and white terms. If you
disagree with him, then you an evil leftist socialist. Forever. That
sort of personal absolutism I
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
The 'City' is not stalling anything with the reconstruction of the
church. The Port Authority of NY/NJ is NOT a city agency. And, it
seems the church may be just as responsible for the delays as any
other agency.
It
Just observing. You can actually come across as a reasonable person
once in a while. The problem is that when someone calls you on
something, instead of answering in a reasonable manner, you get into
the personal attacks. I think your exchange with Scott is a good
example. You stated that 4
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
The 'City' is not stalling anything with the reconstruction of the
church. The Port Authority of NY/NJ is NOT a city agency. And, it
seems the church may
Sam it is bigotry if 1% or 99% of the population felt like that.
Percentage has nothing to do with attitudes.
The logic you're using is that we all ought to eat sh*t - trillions of
flys do it.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 AM,
I'm trying to get you to see yourself as you come across to others.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you even bother stating things like this?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Larry C. Lyons larrycly...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sam sees everything in very
Well there's this:
GMoney:
If this number is true, then 70% of my countrymen are fucking idiots.
Which is when you changed your opinion to for building the mosque.
Then we go to this:
SS:
It has everything to do with intolerance.
If it was a new Christian Church or Jewish temple being built,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Well there's this:
GMoney:
If this number is true, then 70% of my countrymen are fucking idiots.
I was calling everyone fucking idiots on Monday, and my uninformed
countrymen got lumped in with them.sorry.
Today, I
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
It states the government has stalled.
They are completely different agencies dealing with different issues.
Not a fair comparison..and you know it.
I don't. I was going by what was in the article
Not sure where you get
Did you just call yourself a bigot?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Larry C. Lyons larrycly...@gmail.com wrote:
Sam it is bigotry if 1% or 99% of the population felt like that.
Percentage has nothing to do with attitudes.
The logic you're using is that we all ought to eat sh*t - trillions
I guess that is something, but, still neither GMoney nor myself said
that 70% of Americans were prejudiced against Muslims.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Well there's this:
GMoney:
If this number is true, then 70% of my countrymen are fucking idiots.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:44 AM, G Money gm0n3...@gmail.com wrote:
So you rejected the reasons I gave you from their mouths?
Can I ask why?
The answer was a press release. It wasn't an explanation. So the wife
says they want to bring unity? Hows that working? Let them answer the
real
Because taking out a tape measure to determine what distance is
acceptable is asking an unanswerable question. How does one arrive at
that? It's being obnoxious. My response was 4 blocks just to point out
that a mosque was already there and it had nothing to do with
intolerance to Muslims as a
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com
wrote:
For the record thinking that 70% of the country opposes the mosque
because that's what the news said isn't bigotry.
I never said
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
It states the government has stalled.
They are completely different agencies dealing with different issues.
Not a fair comparison..and you know it.
I
You had made a very definitive statement when stating a distance, but
could not supply a reason. Just hostility.
Instead what I am suggesting is that when confronted with that sort of
counter, look at your reasons why. For instance if it the response was
it feels better, I'm more comfortable
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
I never said they were intolerant. I think they have the right to build
there but I certainly understand why people are in an uproar about it.
It's a bad idea and it's going to cause so many problems that the
message
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:14 PM, G Money gm0n3...@gmail.com wrote:
I was calling everyone fucking idiots on Monday, and my uninformed
countrymen got lumped in with them.sorry.
Today, I would call them either ignorant, or misguided.
I still see no valid reason to oppose the
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to see that again, I remember you posting a pr and an op-ed,
nothing more.
Here's the entire release from the AP:
An Islamic Center including a mosque is proposed for a site in lower
Manhattan that's two blocks from
Sam...Revisionist history...no...
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:00 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
Still insulting content, not person. Saying the comments
, 2010 11:37 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com
wrote:
I never said they were intolerant. I think they have the right to
build
there but I certainly understand why people
BTW I keep hearing the 70% figure but no citation for it. What poll showed this?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM, G Money gm0n3...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
I never said they were intolerant. I think they have the right to
You brought out the tape measure first when you said the proposed site
was too close to Grouns Zero, so all I wanted to know was, if this
site is 'too close', how far away would be enough.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Because taking out a tape measure to
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
No wiggle room huh? You have the info you need to make that decision?
I'm glad you've become such an expert on the matter so quickly.
I have all the information I am entitled too...and more. The track record of
these people is
Which in turn is good for themselves because then big business fills their
coffers...
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:43 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
You right, you said intolerant.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess that is something, but, still neither GMoney nor myself said
that 70% of Americans were prejudiced against Muslims.
I'd like to think we can agree that there is a difference between
calling someone 'intolerant' and calling them 'prejudiced' :D
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
You right, you said intolerant.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com
I offered a correction
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Sisk, Kris ks...@gckschools.com wrote:
I never said they were intolerant. I think they have the right to build
there but I certainly understand why people are in an uproar about it.
It's a bad idea and it's going to cause so many
I saw that about 2 minutes after I sent this.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:15 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Controversy swells as Obama supports Ground Zero mosque
I offered a correction
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:30
CNN poll that started the thread
It was 68%
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Larry C. Lyons larrycly...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW I keep hearing the 70% figure but no citation for it. What poll showed
this?
~|
Order the Adobe
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:44 PM, G Money gm0n3...@gmail.com wrote:
I have all the information I am entitled too...and more. The track record of
these people is one of promoting peace and tolerance. Why would I suddenly
decide they are NOT going to do that with this Mosque?
The flotilla was
I tend to think intolerance towards Muslims is prejudice.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Scott Stroz boyz...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to think we can agree that there is a difference between
calling someone 'intolerant' and calling them 'prejudiced' :D
I still see no valid reason to oppose the mosqueso either:
1) They don't know any better (ignorant).
2) They have their facts wrong (misguided).
and...that's about it.after that.we're left with
either stupidor...bigoted.
So, now everyone who disagrees with you is not an
Points taken. I was being attacked and ridiculed from all sides and
became very short fused.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Larry C. Lyons larrycly...@gmail.com wrote:
You had made a very definitive statement when stating a distance, but
could not supply a reason. Just hostility.
Instead
BTW I keep hearing the 70% figure but no citation for it. What poll showed
this?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/cnnopinion-research-poll-august-6-10/
J
-
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms those entrusted with
power have, in time, and by slow operations,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
But does it make me an idiot to oppose?
Nope, which is why i retracted that. It makes you either:
- Ignorant
- Misguided
- Bigoted
I went with ignorant, and now i'll add willfully ignorant, for reasons
previously stated.
--
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Sam sammyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Points taken. I was being attacked and ridiculed from all sides and
became very short fused.
As was I on Monday when I called 70% of my bro's effing idiots. They aren't.
I still don't agree with any of Sam's so-called
Here are a few definitions I found:
intolerance: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in
opinions or beliefs
prejudice: a prejudgement: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or
judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case
They are similar, but there are some subtle, but
Personally I'm taking what they say at face value.
Good for you.
You should check out some of Iman Abdul Rauf's quotes. Especially the ones
in Arabic magazines, websites, and publications. The ones where he says
that he wants Sharia to be implemented in the United States. The ones where
he
But, see, for me, THAT is a much better (and more important) argument to
have.
Is this guy a good guy?
What is the source of the funding?
That perfectly reasonable question is getting lost in all the other junk.
It is the same question, though, that would and should be asked about any
large
1 - 100 of 445 matches
Mail list logo
