“I totally agree with you...which is to say, the odds of this comment appearing at all are almost nil. In fact, this site is so unashamedly biased it has effectively undermined any possibility of there being a fair assessment of EITHER Obama or Clinton. One is either racist or clueless for so much as questioning Obama or, as I've tried doing in earlier posts (which incidentally, were either never published or published long after the original article was lifted from Huff Po's front page) is that Obama has NEVER called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He has repeatedly stated the Iraq issue as merely "open to discussion" and thus not to be tabled. I am willing to bet any amount of money that four years of Obama will translate into four more years of, this time, hypocritically "well-reflected" as opposed to "blind" troop commitment.
Obama, in short, is an over-archingly savvy politician and nothing else. But suggesting as much on this post, along with the assertion that "star quality" is what makes for 99% of his appeal, is forbidden. Again, too bad my supportive comments of your excellent observations equally have a 99% chance of being censored.”
“I totally agree with you Manueltransmission. But you shouldn't be surprised at the number of vicious tools on this post. The vast numbers incapable of uttering a coherent thought about Clinton and Obama's policies with reference to the war all seem to flock here. I respect your loss and feel very strongly that politicizing these honorable deaths--because they ARE in fact honorable, because these kids DID do what they thought was right, whether or not they were manipulated as HuffPo's majority claims--is dirty and cheap.”
“I agree. Why not throw in the Democrats as well? One voted for the war and applauded the surge with enthusiasm. The other has promised to "review" the situation--about as much a commitment as his 112 "present" votes in Congress. Why not, in other words, STOP BEING HYPOCRITES?”
PhilosophicalPotato on Mar 25, 2008 at 11:23:08
“I agree that the Dems who enabled Bush to launch this war are just as guilty. Which is why I did not vote for Hillary in my Cacus. Her vote and her unrepentant attitude is the biggest deal breaker right there for me. Edwards at least acknowledged his mistake which is something at least.”
MsLiz on Mar 25, 2008 at 08:43:19
“Put in the people who voted for Bush in 2004.”
fignozzle on Mar 25, 2008 at 01:48:11
“are "presents", therefore, non-committed?”
swift goat pet for truth on Mar 25, 2008 at 01:28:24
“Really? "Seriously warped"? I trust you're not speaking as "a typical black person"--or does that comment offend you?”
littleblackcat on Mar 21, 2008 at 23:07:56
“I'm not a "typical black person" and I find everything Faux News says offensive. By the by, what IS a "typical black person"? I'm a not-quite-fully-vested senior member of the populace (63 years of age), white, divorced, living in poverty for the past 18 years so maybe I'm just not sophisticated enough to appreciate the comment(s). I see one hell of a lot of stupidity ballyhooed as fact, and this country has been skinned, gutted, and hung up to dry in the doing. When the paid staff of Fox is so disgusted with what their contemporaries are saying that they walk out of it, that warning bell should be a klaxon horn that nothing they say is worth listening to. Old rupert needs to consign himself to the local nursing home, and the rest of the world needs to get its head out of its butt and get down to the business of saving this country before it's too late.”
Anyone on this post who claims they don't experience the least concern in the presence of an overt showing of religious fervor in an aviation era marked by the Islamic terrorist commandeering of planes on 9/11 is desperately scrambling for argumentative points by deliberately lying to themselves and others.”
Highnotes on Oct 20, 2010 at 07:03:55
“No. Juan is being ignorant. There's a huge difference. There are religious Muslims that aren't looking to kill themselves. Would it be okay to judge all Catholic priests the way you judge muslims? Should I see a Catholic Priest in an ice cream shop and go into a shiver? If I were to say I didn't...would I be lying to myself and others?”
callmemara on Oct 20, 2010 at 06:20:10
“there are some things you never speak aloud. especially a newscaster. wow.”
“Your statement expresses traditional American White racism towards Blacks--your use of a knee-jerk association of Blacks to pickpockets has nothing to do with the genuine concern over terrorist attacks.”
“This was a very well-written article, not because it brought tears to my eyes--it did, but then again, a vivid description of conditions which might induce someone to the act can never be less than saddening--but because it brings to light a number of realities I never thought about.
I tend to forget that an interpreter, even if in uniform, couldn't possibly perceive themselves as soldiers--as part of a killing machine.
My idea of an interpreter is pretty much the same as anyone's: some good at spontaneously translating words from one language to another, making sure to keep to the same inflections, taking in a range of meanings and choosing the correct one and so on.
I've just described a machine. And I'm sure people in MIT are perfecting just this sort of device--Noam Chomsky began talking about language in terms of algorithm and a "sixth-order Markov matrix model" close to fifty years ago.
Such machines have no eyes which can fully appreciate a prisoner being stripped naked. Nor a mind and emotional history that can fully seize the implications. Nor the ability to empathize, nor distinguish an adult prisoner from a teen-ager.
My feeling is Alyssa was easily as much a victim as anyone interrogated or humiliated.
And I believe her family--AND HER COUNTRY--are owed reparations. We are owed reparations by the military personnel who gave the direct orders as well as the system which made such orders possible.”
“Where were you when the Huffington Post needed you?
Why were you silent while Huffington Post built up Obama as The Second Coming and took every opportunity to trash Hillary, her husband, and even their daughter?
Why is your hypocrisy, for a hypocrite you are, so selective?
Of course everything you state in the above is true!
But YOUR presentation makes it appear as if this is the omigod FIRST, very very FIRST time a media outlet has been duped or complicit in duping others.
Where were you when the Reuters "massacre" video was released?
Better still, where were you when it was established, by the Wikileaks itself, that the video was taken totally out of context--that it deliberately gives the impression US soldiers were lazily circling the city looking for civilians to kill.
That in fact, the incident occurred in the middle of a firefight where another helicopter had just been hit. And that these soldiers were young and frightened.
Why wasn't there a peep out of you?
Why wait until now? Unless YOU are part of this very lie-mongering mechanism.
Finally, you never raise the First Amendment. Doesn't a free media militate in favor of anyone saying anything they wish? However true or false?”
Luketer on Sep 12, 2010 at 05:57:10
“Thats HP for you...and the lefties...they all hang around here”
“Now, you throw around "lie," "old strategy"--ah, but "popular"!
Oh, I see now. Yes, how very cunning of anyone to rely on verifiably FALSE data and additionally to insidiously employ a web of logical fallacies EVERYONE with your vast command of the subject REALLY has their finger on the pulse of.
Hence, the "surely"....my, my, my.
Well, "surely" YOU must be aware that the basest form of argumentation hangs on good old reliable res ipsa loquitur (why, ANYBODY will tell you, EVERYBODY knows) because the thing SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
And we're all children for needing you to spoonfeed us this info. Oh, poor little things we are.
The only thing you've said which is NOT an outright falsehood is indeed, Cordoba House has been renamed to Park51.
Otherwise, blindjester, throw in deaf and dumb as well. Insofar as your command of truth is concerned.”
blindjester on Sep 5, 2010 at 14:45:14
“"And that the center will no longer be named that in any case.
Surely you know this by know. Certainly."
You just admitted you knew that it will be called Park51, and yet you act as if I've stated an opinion rather than a matter of fact.
“Your knowledge of Cordoba under Islam makes for fabulous story-telling. Especially the periphery you love to spin around.
Oh, you know--the extensive taxation imposed on all non-Muslims...the martyrdom of St Eulogius for writing brief biographies of the dozen and more Christian clerics who were similarly martyred--including torsos hung upside down for public exhibit after beheading.
Of course, these "martyrs" are only recognized as such because they acquired prominence in the Catholic Church. As for the thousands of little people...I mean, who really gives a damn about them, right?
"they were allowed to work, study and worship in peace--more peace than was found in virtually any other city in the world."
Let me guess, you work for Disney Studios, correct? You...write for Marvel Comics? Well, if not, you're letting your creative imagination go to waste!”
blindjester on Sep 5, 2010 at 14:42:41
“Yes, Disney invented the very concept of "convivencia," and the term was popularized by Stan Lee, not historians. You caught me. /sarcasm
How easily you overturn decades of historical thought. Your original research must be very compelling.
Or you feel bluster is all it takes to win an argument.”
“By religious people "being in your face" I should think destroying the WTC in the name of ALLAH as really quite sufficient.
There would be no plodding along quietly and peacefully of a community center on that site IF THAT SITE WASN'T INCINERATED IN THE NAME OF ISLAM in the first instance.
You throw around euphemisms like "non-distinct" "peaceful" "minding its own business" and "non-descript" as if you own copyright.
As a reminder: The. World. Trade. Center. Was. Destroyed. In. The. Name. Of. ALLAH!!!
So kindly put a sock in your fatuous, sanctimonious sophistry, tyruler.”
Yasmine on Sep 5, 2010 at 18:46:06
I happen to think that those who want to build that Islamic Center there.........would be WISE to understand why Obama talked about The WISDOM of building it THERE ,meaning they should think again.
And if I were Feisal Rauf I would talk about a CONDITIONAL COMPORMISE.
and Matt do you agree about the burning of the Koran and the burning of the site of the Mosque in Tennessee ????”
blindjester on Sep 5, 2010 at 16:24:29
“Why do you conflate the criminal terrorists who attacked the WTC with a completely different group of people in NYC?
"As a reminder: The. World. Trade. Center. Was. Destroyed. In. The. Name. Of. ALLAH!!!"
Are you suggesting that honest, law-abiding Muslims are contaminated by the actions of a group of criminals merely because they use the same name for "god"?
Cuz that would be a perfect example of irrational thought.”
“This time you refer to, the days of sweetness and light between the Moslem invasion of Europe in the name of Allah, the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Christ, the Massacre of St Barthélémy in the name of the Vatican--oh, but yeah--that was ages ago.
More recently though, as for the attack on the WTC in the name of Allah--I agree.
"this EXCESSIVE RELIGIOSITY will make one SICK," to quote you.
Now, you're probably feeling 2001 is on the scale of 1492 or 1572, and how we should just get past all that ancient sickening stuff.
Well, as someone who, in addition to not only living in MORE than four countries but holding nationality in two: France AND the US--the loss of two friends in the WTC religious massacre must make me a sickeningly old fogey in your eyes.
It's one thing to put religion "in your face" by typing.
Quite another to put it in your face by murdering 3000 people.
Yasmine, if you cannot tell the difference between the two, then, just as when earlier you explain "I guess only decent people can get it" in the context of MY not getting as certainly NOT a claim that I am indecent...coupled with the accusation that I twist things around to serve my purposes--I'd say the value of any single one of your statements is nil.
I'd add: this EXCESSIVE REFUSAL TO THINK will make anyone who appreciates rational argument SICK.”
Yasmine on Sep 5, 2010 at 20:40:29
i foget to reply to your first line.
I did not refer to any particular time......rather the modern way of NOT wearing religion on their sleeves......which was praised as the NON-Hypocritical way of going about.
you continue to stretch my very simple statement..........so you can contradict me.”
Yasmine on Sep 5, 2010 at 18:25:12
several days have passed as it is dimanche 6:20 pm
your love of not only disagreeing with me , but attacking me has not diminished.
Again, i have difficulty in understanding what you say.
I can only refer you to going back to what i wrote,,,,,,,,,,and calm down a bit.please.
EVERYBODY who knows me says I think too much and am very fair and just when it comes to discussions.”
“Or, for that matter, eating humans? What do you think morality is, anyway? The institution of slavery has existed in every society--the glory that was ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome--everywhere on the planet--China, India, Africa--all of Europe.
Morality was never raised in this instance in any of the revered ancient manuscripts. Where's the proscription one expects to find in the Bible or Koran against merchandising in human flesh.
And if you can buy and sell human beings, what's eating them but a logical extension?”
“Yes, Yasmine--thank you for reminding me how "indecent" I am for talking about the US Constitution.
You must be accustomed to Fatwas issued from Imams as your guiding legal principles.
Sorry, I live in a different land. One in which The US Constitution is law--and where even the like of Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and ALL First Amendment protections during the Civil War.
Oh, yeah, "Civil War," "Lincoln," you weren't talking about history either...neither the Constitution nor history.
You were being "decent"...According to what metric of "decency" make I ask? Certainly if it doesn't involve legal principle or history, we can rule out anything intellectual.
Is that what you mean? Only "i guess only anti-intellectual people can get it"?
In this case, I solidly agree.”
Yasmine on Aug 31, 2010 at 23:11:50
“saying that i was being decent...........does not mean you are indecent.
i think you stretch things to your liking.
the constitution gives them the right to freedom of religion and worship................and the NY city board allowed them to build it there.
SOME people jumped on this and agigated ..............and suddenly people declared they were against that...............
so , Obama brought up the question of wisdom ......which actually matched what the opponents started saying too.
so what is the big deal if i suggest a CONDITIONAL COMPROMISE...............???
you will have to work harder if you want to convince me that I was wrong.”
“Yes, I forgot "that little part"--you're very observant. Except my point is the "little part" that begins with "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT..." or, to quote the original, which you also seem to miss..."Congress shall make no law"
Yes, that's too subtle for you.
Let me repeat:"Congress shall make no law"....now, Israel4Ever, why do you try it?”
Additionally, the First Amendment reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It is clear from a casual, and even a careful, reading that this statement refers to the Federal Government establishing a State-sponsored religion.
What this has to do with the merits of Park51 is beyond me.
The debate is over what relgious groups other than Islam deem appropriate. It is also about how the families of the victims of the Ground Zero massacre deem appropriate.
A complex of the immensity of that mosque billing itself as Hustler or Playboy magazine headquarters would be just as offensive.
And objections intolerant would be equally intolerant!”
blindjester on Sep 5, 2010 at 14:58:45
“"The debate is over what relgious groups other than Islam deem appropriate. It is also about how the families of the victims of the Ground Zero massacre deem appropriate."
Unless they're on the board of directors for the development, they don't get a say. It's not their call.
They can protest, of course. Anybody can protest anything. But why they would care about the actions of a group of people completely unrelated to the events of their lives, I couldn't say.”
Yasmine on Aug 30, 2010 at 00:05:53
“I WAS NOT talking about the constitution. so you can rant on as much as you wish.
that does not make Yasmine wrong.
this suggestion is extremely decent................so i guess only decent people can get it.”
Israel4Ever on Aug 29, 2010 at 23:20:36
“No. I don't want the mosque built but you are mischaracterizing the 1st amendment terribly. See that little part there where it says "or prohibiting the free exercise therof"? That's the part that applies to Park 51.”
“It's sad that both the JDL and Fareed Zacharia fail to come to terms with the more compelling reason for rethinking the mosque: its name--Cordoba House.
There exist numerous sites which have taken on the issue of naming the mosque such as reason for existence, and they are right.
The Cordoba Caliphate constitutes the greatest inroads into European civilization made by the Islamic armies. Under the reign of Ramman II (forgive my spelling), the persecution of Christians and Jews was open and rampant--the Catholic Encyclopedia cites the martyrdom of St Eulogius among the victims. Otherwise, the merger of the indigenous Christian Visigoths was far from harmonious--both Christians and Jews, in the best of times, were forced to pay enormous taxation for the time of which Muslims were exempt.
If indeed this mosque is meant to signify anything other than full-scale gloating, why not merely choose another name? Why not "The Peace and Blessings of Allah"?
"Cordoba House" is the genuine issue. Why not raise it?”
RockyMissouri on Aug 8, 2010 at 16:27:10
“There are fools in every religion, every culture in every country that has ever existed---they make mistakes----is there nothing of value to learn from the people of faith who have suffered and paid the price, for anothers' religion.”
tj101 on Aug 8, 2010 at 15:56:33
“Yeah, newt tried spewing this half truth.
He neglected to tell you that Cordoba housed one of the greatest libraries in Europe with 600,000 books (some estimate it was up to 1 million). The largest xtain library in Europe contains about 400 manuscripts.
It was a cultural and learning center for all of Europe.
The Cordoba House is a great name.”
Saskanuck on Aug 8, 2010 at 13:51:34
“Well, that encapsulation may be a bit selective... May I suggest for further reading the following:
“Check out other sources for hist. facts!! "Catholic Encyclopedia" says it all!”
Ergon on Aug 8, 2010 at 13:38:50
“St. Eulogius was killed in 859 A.D
Sheesh, what a long time to carry a grudge, and for your information, the Golden Age of Andalusia referred to here began in the 12th century, when Kaballah's greatest gem, The Zohar, was written there. But I guess peaceful co-existence's outside your frame of reference:)”
Cay on Aug 8, 2010 at 13:29:08
“"Cordoba House" is a dodge, not the genuine issue. The real issue is that Muslims are part of our society and have a right like everyone else to build in our country.”
“I don't believe a close, or even cursory, reading of Shivani suggests "writing not driven by its social and political context should categorically invite disdain."
If you were aware of a single work by Thomas Pynchon, easily the most politically and socially motivated of living writers, you'd realize Mr Shivani--who compares Vollmann to a "third-rate Pynchon" certainly IS very much driven by his sense of the intrinsic morality of literature.
Your mistake arises from being "moved" to anger, lust, etc. (very possibly to your detriment) by formulaic, trite, and insipid pretenses of social and political awareness.”
Danno 5-0 on Aug 8, 2010 at 20:04:06
“From the article: >Bad [writers] desire to be politically irrelevant, and they have succeeded… <
From the comments on Antonya Nelson: >Nor is Nelson particularly interested in the way the world at large shapes our private lives." Translation, she's a dull craftswoman who has never questioned realism, and has no clue about history or politics.<
The implication seems clear enough to me. Literature that doesn't take on BIG THINGS is apparently not worth reading and, likewise, morally flaccid. Strongly disagree.”
“I completely agree. And there's that added insensitivity attached to Stein's membership in a minority which has suffered far worse--often beginning with slander in the guise of humor.
His article was meant to be light and in good fun, I'm sure. But the good fun images of the "miserly Jew" evolved into made it acceptable to go that extra step--from humor to banking conspiracies to everything else that brought Hitler into power.
Humor is the most dangerous weapon of all simply because it is so subtle. It perniciously lulls you into a sense of acceptance of whatever traits it pokes fun at. Stein passes smoothly from genius to less genius to tacitly stupid in a few brief phrases.
Already some comment on this article refers to getting computer help via telephone from someone whose English is unintelligible. Next come jokes about jobs being taken away from more deserving "real" Americans.
And soon you have the very unfunny AZ law. Or in the case of German Jews, laws providing for members of the German-Jewish community to carry IDs at all times, signifying what percentage "Jewishness" ran in their genes.
We had the same thing in America after the Civil War. In Louisiana, an "Octaroon" was someone one-eighth Black, and thus ineligible to ride in White railroad cars.
Well, Mr. Stein--I've just fed you a line I'm sure you shouldn't pass up: "macaroon" for "Octaroon"...pretty funny, ain't it?”