News Stories

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Which would be relevent if opposition to the Mosque took the form of "No, we should build a Church there instead"
THEN, you'd have a point about no one religion getting support over another.

the opposition is not saying they should build a church instead
they are saying that they don't want a Mosque there.

this should be about giving NO religions belief (as in, freedom FROM religion) an advantage over A religions belief.

No, the protesters are not motivated by lack of belief. They are motivated by Christianity and racism, and are likely Teabaggers.

the fact that most of New Yorkers apparently think that its completely inappropriate.
THAT, is insensitive.

First, you'll have to provide evidence that "most" New Yorkers oppose it. Then you'll have to argue that smaller group have to yield to pressure from the majority, regardless of having the legal right, which leads to a slippery slope.

then ban ANY religious constructs if you will.
Build a huge Museum or a giant school for the arts, or whatever ELSE.
but don't create something with a religious connotation where people don't WANT it.

If people don't want religious connotation in a certain place, then why are there no protests against Christian churches in the area? Because these protests are nothing more than an attempt to establish Christianity as the correct religion of the US. Protesting against one religion's building but not another's is supporting one religion over another. If the people really don't want religion in a certain place, we should tear down all houses of brainwashing in the area.

religious faith divides us, by creating an in group and out groups.
regardless to whether or not they call it a "community center", its an ISLAMIC project.
if they really want to contribute and create something that improves the lives of everyone, make a religiously neutral project.

I absolutely agree (see my posts in the religion thread). However, America is not an atheist country, so that's not relevant to this issue.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I'd say to let them duke it out in "American Civil War II".

Yes, I'm enjoying it. Americans have the belief that they live in the free-est (grammar nazis, please correct me on this word) and most tolerant country in the world, and I love watching false beliefs collapse.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

and are likely Teabaggers.

Hey, what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms should be off limits here.

Yes, I'm enjoying it. Americans have the belief that they live in the free-est (grammar nazis, please correct me on this word) and most tolerant country in the world, and I love watching false beliefs collapse.

Because a bunch of right wing idiots making a political statement and trying to create controversy in an election year is less tolerant than banning muslim women from wearing veils in France or banning the construction of minarets in Switzerland.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

was Hiroshima destroyed BECAUSE Truman was Christian ?
was WWII motivated by religious beliefs ?

I'm sure Truman prayed over his decision, and when his God didn't tell him not to, he dropped the bomb ...bad j/k

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

if most New-Yorkers DON'T want them to build a Mosque there, then you shouldn't build a Mosque there.

The USA isn't really a country of majority rule, though (if it was, the congressional Democrats wouldn't have had to worry about the Republicans for the last 2 years ). In fact, nearly all of the American Constitution is set-up to protect the minority and the individual citizen. So, even if a majority of New-Yorkers, or even a majority of Americans, don't want the cultural center nearby the former site of the WTC, it really doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Religious belief should take a back seat to cultural sensitivity.

Believing in the right to practice a religion (or even be part of a religion) is not a religious belief, it is simply a fundamental right of the American Constitution...

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Americans have the belief that they live in the free-est (grammar nazis, please correct me on this word) and most tolerant country in the world, and I love watching false beliefs collapse.

The correct way to write that is... nah, I'm not taking the bait. Nice try.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

No, the protesters are not motivated by lack of belief. They are motivated by Christianity and racism, and are likely Teabaggers.


First, you'll have to provide evidence that "most" New Yorkers oppose it. Then you'll have to argue that smaller group have to yield to pressure from the majority, regardless of having the legal right, which leads to a slippery slope.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...iena_poll.html

And where is your proof that the majority who oppose the mosque being built are Christian? Or racist? Or even Tea-Partiers?

Obviously from you calling them Tea-Baggers, we know where you stand. Quite the opposite of my positions.

[ChainLegacy]

I don't understand why the Tea Party is being implicated in this. From what I've learned, the Tea Party is just an attempt to revive Goldwater style conservatism. It is being implicated as racist because Rand Paul said he was against the Civil Rights Act but that wasn't for racist reasons, rather how powerful he believes the federal gov. should be (weak). I support most of the ideals of the Tea Party and I support them building the Islam community center as well.

[iLney]

Intelligent people only read intelligent stuffs. That's why

[cors8]

The extremists that say the USA is against Islam must be salivating over this issue.

I hope the opponents, especially people like Newt Gingrich, tone it down a bit and all parties are able to come up with a reasonable solution.

I still think if it is forced to move, it'll set a very bad precedent for future projects.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

And where is your proof that the majority who oppose the mosque being built are Christian?

68% of New Yorkers are christian. 64% are opposed to the mosque. You can't get that 64% without the majority being Christian, unless you assume near 100% opposition among non-christians, and that's still only give 50% of the opposition not being christian, so christians, while not an absolute majority would still be half.

Edit: That's probably not worded very well...

[OceanBlue]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I don't understand why the Tea Party is being implicated in this. From what I've learned, the Tea Party is just an attempt to revive Goldwater style conservatism. It is being implicated as racist because Rand Paul said he was against the Civil Rights Act but that wasn't for racist reasons, rather how powerful he believes the federal gov. should be (weak). I support most of the ideals of the Tea Party and I support them building the Islam community center as well.

Actually, that's not why they're implicated as being racist. I, at least, have that preconception because of things like Mark William's letter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-letter.html

Obviously, the worst of the group don't represent the majority, but seeing as parts of the media seem to like linking the Tea Party to news like that, it can't be helped that the Tea Party gains that reputation.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

68% of New Yorkers are christian. 64% are opposed to the mosque. You can't get that 64% without the majority being Christian, unless you assume near 100% opposition among non-christians, and that's still only give 50% of the opposition not being christian, so christians, while not an absolute majority would still be half.

Edit: That's probably not worded very well...

That's no proof, only speculation. That being said, I can't see why or how you'd claim that most of the people against this aren't Christian. I'm surprised only 68% of New Yorkers are Christian though.

Anyway, most of the people acknowledge the legal right, so it's probably that many of them just disapprove. I doubt all of the people who disagree with the idea protest. Chances are, the reason some people disagree with the idea is because they feel it's a sensitive issue and that conflict should be avoided, instead of having any strong feelings for or against it.

Edit again:
The article justinstrife linked mentioned that President Obama showed his support for the project. Why would he do that? It's an issue that has more to do with the state/region than the country, and you'd think that he'd learn the hazards of speaking out too much.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

Actually, that's not why they're implicated as being racist. I, at least, have that preconception because of things like Mark William's letter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-letter.html

Obviously, the worst of the group don't represent the majority, but seeing as parts of the media seem to like linking the Tea Party to news like that, it can't be helped that the Tea Party gains that reputation.

Apparently they aren't even the minority but rather posers trying to profit off of the movement:

The Tea Party has been billed as an organic grassroots operation, but a newly uncovered document obtained by Politico suggests the movement has been successfully co-opted as a Republican fundraising ploy.

GOP political consultant Joe Wierzbicki floated the proposal a year ago today to create the Tea Party Express, a nationwide bus tour to "give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force as the 2010 elections come into focus." His idea eventually became one of the best known brands in the Tea Party movement.

The document cautioned planners to be careful when discussing the ruse to use Tea Parties for political gain. "We have to be very, very careful about discussing amongst ourselves anyone we include 'outside of the family' because quite frankly, we are not only not part of the political establishment or conservative establishment, but we are also sadly not currently a part of the 'tea party' establishment," Wierzbicki wrote.

Wierzbicki, who works for the Sacramento firm Russo Marsh + Rogers, went on to outline how conservative media including Fox News could be leveraged to hype the Tea Party Express. He recommended using "mentions and possibly even promotion from conservative/pro-tea party bloggers, talk radio hosts, Fox News commentators, etc..."

Citing Michigan as an example, he noted that one of the plan's primary goals would be to elect Republican candidates. "It is also worth considering making a return run to Michigan. Former Republican Michigan governor, John Engler, has recently stated that he believes the Republican Party will do quite well in Michigan," he continued.
Story continues below...

But the primary goal was fundraising for the founding firm's PAC. Despite quadrupling their take in March they told Politico, "We're hardly making any money at all."

Ken Vogel, who broke the story, discussed it on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann Wednesday.

"The firm, Russo Marsh, and its operatives have really pushed back hard against this idea that they're making a lot of money off of it. They say, yes, we received $1.9 million in payments from this PAC, which is now the Tea Party Express, but a lot of that was for overhead," Vogel told Olbermann.

He said there's "no doubt" the plan "has been a wild success beyond the sort of most ambitious expectations of these operatives." The GOP has successfully "tapped the Tea Party for a sustainable revenue stream," he added.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

That's no proof, only speculation. That being said, I can't see why or how you'd claim that most of the people against this aren't Christian. I'm surprised only 68% of New Yorkers are Christian though.

64% of new yorkers are opposed
32% are not christian
Unless those numbers are wrong, it is mathematically impossible for christians to be less than 50% of those opposed to it's construction. Once again, that's assuming nearly 100% of non-christians are opposed to it, which considering that 32% of new yorkers being non-christian includes muslims, and Jewish, buddhist, atheist, non-religious, ect people don't really have much of a reason to be more opposed to than christians are, it's safe to say the percentage of those opposed is more than 50% christian. Now they're from polls, so it's entirely possible to be wrong, which would shoot down my point.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

Edit:

That's no proof, only speculation. That being said, I can't see why or how you'd claim that most of the people against this aren't Christian. I'm surprised only 68% of New Yorkers are Christian though.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that, in the "worst" case, 50% of protesters are Christians. And that requires that the 32% non-Christians New Yorkers be, to a man, among the opponents to the Mosque. (Yes, including the Muslims...)

And that's not speculation. Assuming the 64% et 68% numbers are right, mathematics dictate that lower bound.

[OceanBlue]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

64% of new yorkers are opposed
32% are not christian
Unless those numbers are wrong, it is mathematically impossible for christians to be less than 50% of those opposed to it's construction. Once again, that's assuming nearly 100% of non-christians are opposed to it, which considering that 32% of new yorkers being non-christian includes muslims, and Jewish, buddhist, atheist, non-religious, ect people don't really have much of a reason to be more opposed to than christians are, it's safe to say the percentage of those opposed is more than 50% christian. Now they're from polls, so it's entirely possible to be wrong, which would shoot down my point.

No, you're right. I completely wasn't thinking when I said that. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Apparently they aren't even the minority but rather posers trying to profit off of the movement:

From what I understand of this, it's just a scheme for candidates and other groups to gain money from the Tea Party, right? I don't understand what that has to do with the idea that people view the Tea Party as racist, but then, I don't keep up with political news that often. Has there been some major news about the Tea Party Express that leads people to label them as racist?

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/25/a...rs-racist.html

It's stuff like this that make people believe the Tea Party is racist.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

From what I understand of this, it's just a scheme for candidates and other groups to gain money from the Tea Party, right? I don't understand what that has to do with the idea that people view the Tea Party as racist, but then, I don't keep up with political news that often. Has there been some major news about the Tea Party Express that leads people to label them as racist?

The link you sent me was from the Tea Party Express. The article I sent proves that group is not really part of the movement.

[Irenicus]

It's a reactionary popular* movement aimed at perceived rapid changes in a multiethnic society. Of course it has an undertone of ethnic conflict.

*In the sense of the word, "populist."

As a history student it is actually immensely interesting in witnessing such a movement in progress. The rhetoric that borrows heavily from accepted national ideologies and myths -- and the implicated question of whose national ideology is being accepted in the first place -- the mobilization of old and new media, the nature of the movement's general demands, the demographics of the members, etc., would no doubt become interesting research material. As a contemporary citizen, however...

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...iena_poll.html

And where is your proof that the majority who oppose the mosque being built are Christian? Or racist? Or even Tea-Partiers?

Christians already demonstrated by others to be true. Racism demonstrated by attack on Egyptian Christian protesters, "This is not your country" pic to be true. Tea Party, as heterogeneous as it is, demonstrated by their rage at everything to be true.

Obviously from you calling them Tea-Baggers, we know where you stand. Quite the opposite of my positions.

Yes, I am proud to say that I hold the opposite of most of your positions, except for self-defense and guns. I support freedom and civil rights for people, and I support government regulation of corporations.

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

Obviously, the worst of the group don't represent the majority, but seeing as parts of the media seem to like linking the Tea Party to news like that, it can't be helped that the Tea Party gains that reputation.

The people in the Tea Party who aren't racist have no idea what they're getting into. Racists don't like what they perceive as white Christian culture being eroded (and "big government"), so they joined the Tea Party as a platform.

That's no proof, only speculation. That being said, I can't see why or how you'd claim that most of the people against this aren't Christian. I'm surprised only 68% of New Yorkers are Christian though.

My reasoning for the religion thing is very simple. Chances are most Muslims don't oppose the center. Buddhist, Hindus, etc. have no motive to oppose it. That leaves Christians and Jews, and while New York has a high Jewish population that doesn't explain anti-mosque demonstrations in other parts of the country. Hence, the guilty party is very obvious. That, and as you said people who don't like confrontations and so back those who complain.

Edit again:
The article justinstrife linked mentioned that President Obama showed his support for the project. Why would he do that? It's an issue that has more to do with the state/region than the country, and you'd think that he'd learn the hazards of speaking out too much.

Obama is showing his support for diversity and the rights of minorities, or some such. Since there is fervent anti-minority feelings across the US, it's not just a local issue.

[OceanBlue]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

The link you sent me was from the Tea Party Express. The article I sent proves that group is not really part of the movement.

Wow, I'm messing up a lot today. Sorry.

To be honest, I'm not really familiar with the Tea Party, and I didn't realize that he was a spokesman for the Tea Party Express. Just trying to explain why some people feel that the Tea Party is racist.

[SaintessHeart]

Well it isn't just places of worship that are getting scrutiny in the US, even home shelters are :

One-fourth of renters will never buy a home: survey

(Reuters) - More than a quarter of Americans currently renting houses and apartments have no intention to ever buy a home, according to a survey published on Wednesday.

The survey, by real estate search site Trulia.com, found 27 percent of renters do not plan to ever buy a home. Although 72 percent still expect to buy eventually, that proportion is down from 77 percent six months ago.

Of those who do hope to become homeowners, two-thirds say they will wait two years or more.

This reluctance to buy could drag out the real estate market's slump longer than many have predicted, Trulia said.

"Renters converting into buyers are crucial to turning around the housing slump, but the current economic crisis is causing people to become very hesitant to get off the fence and buy a home," said Trulia Chief Executive Officer Pete Flint.

Among the factors affecting sentiment: Renters are unable to save for a down payment, or they are waiting to get a new job or for mortgage rates to go even lower.

U.S. home loan rates are the lowest since record-keeping began in 1971. The average 30-year rate fell to 4.44 percent in the week ended August 12, according to loan company Freddie Mac.

U.S. mortgage applications leaped last week as the rock-bottom rates lifted demand for home refinancing loans to its highest level in 15 months, the Mortgage Bankers Association said on Wednesday.

Trulia's online survey of about 2,000 Americans was conducted by Harris Interactive in late July.

And Americans are just pushing responsibilities everywhere...

Why He Turns Voters Off

Voters are tired of the president pursuing policies they don't want, and he'll find out just how much in November. Douglas E. Schoen on the message in the latest polls-and how Obama can turn it around.

There is a fundamental problem with the way President Obama has governed.

Since taking office, he has systematically put forth policies the American people do not want. The net result is a crisis of confidence and legitimacy in the American political system and our institutions.

The president is now at record low levels of approval-close to 40 percent overall, and in the mid- to low 30s among swing voters.

A majority of voters now believe that Obama has failed on the federal budget deficit, reducing government spending, changing business as usual in Washington, and the economy.

The GOP now holds a six- to seven-point advantage in the generic vote for Congress-which, come November, almost certainly will give the Republicans control of the House and make control of the Senate a real possibility as well.

Put simply, we are looking at an unprecedented electoral blowout because the administration has made a systematic set of bad decisions that have had an adverse impact on public opinion.

Indeed, those closest to the president have made clear that he is pursuing policies that do not have the support of the American people.

A majority of voters now believe that Obama has failed on each of the 12 issues tested on the August 2010 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, particularly the federal budget deficit, reducing government spending, changing business as usual in Washington, and the economy.

And in an extraordinary survey of 1,100 likely voters that has gotten little attention or publicity, the president's own pollster, Joel Benenson, has shown clearly and demonstratively that the administration's policies and general approach to governance not only have failed, but also have not addressed the American people's fundamental concerns.

The Benenson survey shows that the administration's approach is fundamentally at variance with the one voters desire. Voters favor tax cuts over government investment by a clear majority and are looking for candidates and parties that champion fiscal discipline, limited government, deficit reduction, a free market, pro-growth agenda, and comprehensive plans to create employment opportunities, enable entrepreneurship, and aid business creation.

Indeed, when asked which approach to strengthening the economy they prefer, 54 percent of the respondents in the Third Way/Benenson poll preferred cutting taxes for businesses to help jump-start private sector job creation and economic growth, while 32 percent said they prefer making new government investments.

Just 14 percent of respondents said the government is doing a good job handling problems such as inflation and unemployment, compared with 41 percent who say it's doing a poor job. Meanwhile, 43 percent of the respondents said the Democrats in Congress support a failed economic agenda, while 34 percent said the same of the Republicans.

Confidence in the president and congressional leadership's economic policies are the lowest they have been since the start of the Obama administration.

A majority of respondents in the Third Way/Benenson poll said the steps taken by the president and Congress on the economy over the past 18 months have hurt the national economy and made it weaker.

There is a widespread perception that the health-care legislation is going to increase rather than reduce costs and has put government in a position that does not emphasize deficit reduction and reining in spending.

Sixty percent of all voters now favor repeal of the health-care bill, and more voters say they are likely to oppose a lawmaker who backed the president's health-care initiative than those who say they would support such a candidate.

The crisis in confidence has led to economic dislocation at an unparalleled, unprecedented rate. Since April, 1,155,000 unemployed people dropped out of the active labor force and were not counted as unemployed. Had they been counted, the unemployment rate would have been 10.2 percent in July, rather than 9.5 percent.

Consumer confidence is plummeting as a result. The latest Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan survey of consumers found that consumer confidence dropped in July to its lowest level in nine months.

Voters are worried about the cost implications of the stimulus, as well as the effectiveness of Obama's job creation policies and the expansive deficit, a trend that is likely to be exacerbated with the national debt now exceeding $13 trillion.

For consumers, a "weak job market, heavy debt burdens and lacking political leadership are adding to consumer caution," Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan says in its July survey of consumers.

As a result, consumers are reluctant to spend, entrepreneurs are reluctant to invest, and employers are reluctant to hire to the degree necessary to spur economic growth.

This crisis in confidence is pushing voters to support Republicans and widening the enthusiasm gap between the two parties.

At this point, Democratic support has been so depleted that the only option voters have is to support a largely but not entirely discredited GOP.

But make no mistake: Neither party is perceived to have offered a comprehensive set of policy initiatives based on fiscal discipline, limited government, deficit reduction, and a free market, pro-growth agenda.

Voters are no more confident in the Republican leadership's agenda than the Democrats'-the GOP is seen as the "Party of No," failing to offer anything except across-the-board opposition to Obama's policies.

Indeed, the Third Way/Benenson survey found that one-third of the electorate believes the GOP has no economic agenda. Moreover, when voters were asked to identify which party "cares about taxpayers," "Is trying to create economic growth," and "is on your side," the Republicans trailed the Democrats in all three.

And in the August 2010 WSJ/NBC news poll, 43 percent of voters said they are concerned "that the Republicans have offered no specific plans or programs to deal with the issues facing the country so it is hard to know what they would do if they were to win the majority in Congress."

And indeed, it is because of this finding that the administration and the president are increasingly becoming partisan and political in their approach.

But the swing voters who hold the fate of the Democratic Party in their hands care about three things first and foremost: reigniting the economy, deficit reduction, and job creation.

Looking ahead to the November midterm elections, more than twice as many voters said they would prefer a candidate for Congress who will start from scratch with new ideas to shrink government, cut taxes, and grow the economy (64 percent) over one who will stick with Obama's economic policies (30 percent).

Winning the votes of swing voters will require a bold new focus from the president and the Democratic Party. They must put forth a set of focused initiatives aimed at reducing the debt, and cutting spending, with an emphasis on tax cuts, fiscal stimulus, and a series of initiatives to stimulate and encourage job creation.

They must abandon their failed policies and adopt a bold new commitment to fiscal discipline and targeted fiscal stimulus of the private sector and entrepreneurship. Finally, they must accept the fact that only private enterprise can create jobs-more stimulus money is not the answer.

If the Obama administration is unable to change the widespread perception that it's not interested in reducing spending, taxes, and regulatory burdens, the president's hopes of winning re-election, as well as the Democrats' prospects for success in this fall's midterm elections, will disappear.

Most people apparently think that the US economy broken by money grubbing megalomaniacs can be fixed within days.

[cors8]

I'd say the majority of Americans have no clue what they want or the best way to go about it.

Slogans are nice and all but when you get down to the nitty-gritty details, you can see eyes glazing over.