magekillr

Well I never said that. He did prevent a Second Great Depression, he did save several million jobs, he did prevent the entire world economy from going under (as if our banks went under, the rest of the world would have been [bleep]ed). So all in all, he is handling it pretty well, thanks. The bad part is, we don't need someone to handle it pretty well, we need another FDR. And sadly for us, with our Congress that doesn't want to do anything even when basic economics says we should be spending more money to create jobs, he's kind of strapped. This is why I criticized him early on when he came with his first stimulus plan. It was far too small, and then Presidents Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter arbitrarily cut it by $100 billion for no reason but to make it smaller, it hurt states. As much as the federal government is doing, it didn't do enough because states and local governments are cutting their spending, which is offsetting the federal stimulus. We had a $1.4 trillion housing bubble to fill. You can't fill that with $787 billion in stimulus over two years, especially when state and local governments are cutting spending. Also, HAMP, which is entirely a Treasury program, has been a complete and utter failure. However, dirty [bleep]ing hippies such as myself knew that from the get-go yet Geithner and Summers didn't is surprising if I'm not being cynical, and if I were to be cynical I'd say they made it that way on purpose to help the banksters some more.

What changed, ratchet? You tell me, because that's the only thing that changed. These people hate liberals, or anyone they perceive to be a liberal--as Obama is not a liberal; they are the rump of what's left of the Republican party, a bunch of ignorant theocrats. Don't even try and say it's an "independent movement" because that flies in the face of evidence. They are Republicans, and they never, ever, see a Democratic president as legitimate. Plain and simple. And no, I don't miss that torturous war criminal who doubled the size of our debt through fiscal recklessness and left our economy in shambles.

The Taliban vs. the Mosque America fails so hard to understand these basic concepts.

LOL! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIBZ5v7VK1U

Brace yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg

Man, you're one of the biggest hacks I've ever seen. Perhaps of the Poe's Law variety: CBS estimates 87,000 Estimates range from 78,000 to 96,000 The only one who says 350,000 is Beck, and he just keeps inching that number higher and higher as time goes on, as this graph shows:

Well this is wrong. I can look at it and I believe that it's done far more harm than good on the net. We don't just look at the negative, we see it as an overall negative with the positive being outweighed. It's brought a hell of a lot more bad. Take for example Mother Teresa. She is oftentimes elevated to saint-like status. I think she was a net-negative in her charity work. I don't believe in altruism, everyone wants something out of everything; even if it's as small as a congratulations. I joined a service fraternity because I love doing service, and I didn't want to join your average fraternity. However, I still wanted to meet other people and have something for my resume. Even without those added bonuses I still would have done it, and they weren't the main thrust for why I wanted to join. I can't say the same for Mother Teresa. I see her main thrust to be proselytizing, not to help other people. That's not saying she didn't have good intentions along with that main motive, but that's still where her focus was. She was a religious fanatic, and she actively has killed millions--along with the Pope--for arguing against contraceptives in parts of the world that need them the most. It's a catch-22. The Salvation Army supposedly feeds a lot of homeless people, though they attach quite a pious guilt trip to it. But at least they don't do more harm than good--even though they are bigoted and xenophobic--which is what the Catholic Church does with its severely outdated teachings on contraception and forced childbearing. This is just one example, and it doesn't even go into the factor of its ability to rouse a crowd into a frenzy over The Other with wars, genocides and military invasions. The part that I don't think you've tried conceiving is that most atheists were once religious themselves.

What do we not understand about it? Also, what is there to appreciate?

200 years have passed huh. Ok no more freedoms, time to kill woman and children in the street if they arn't Christan. Stick the men in camps having them work to provide food, water, electricity, etc. Ever wanted to cuss out a support guy over the phone helping you with a problem? Well now you can, it's even encouraged, they're second class citizens now that 200 years have passed! THINK before you type something out. He/she did think before typing it, you're the one who didn't understand his/her point. The point being made is that a lot of the Constitution is largely irrelevant in today's society, and there's a certain truth to that. As time goes on, governments and society progress and change. In many ways, parts of the document are outdated; amendments like the second one and the tenth one, although the tenth is mostly just misunderstood by a lot of people who argue that the federal government has stepped on the states. The electoral college is also very outdated, and some argue that we should abolish the Senate completely because it's undemocratic. The House was expected to be the most powerful part of the government, but slowly the Senate and the Presidency are becoming far more powerful. However, I largely believe their intentions are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they intended, it was 200 years ago, and they weren't Gods Among Men. What I find most ironic about people like Beck who claim to love the Constitution is that people like Beck would have been AGAINST the Constitution during the Continental Congresses. The Tea Partiers obviously have no true knowledge or understanding of the history of the United States and the Constitution. While it is true that their intellectual inspiration can be traced back to the days of the Founding, it is manifestly not true that the Founders are their inspiration. Their heroes properly should be those who opposed the Constitution, the anti-Federalists. Alexander Hamilton and the other Founders are their intellectual enemies, not their intellectual forebears.

The thing is though, that this was founded as a Christian nation, but it accepts everyone else. Which is kind of confusing when you think of it. So we are Christian, yes. But yet, we do also have equal rights for everyone. So the people complaining we are a Christian nation are right. The people complaining we are a nation built for everyone is right. I just like to say we should accept everyone. And be done with it. Most of the founding Fathers weren't Christian anyway... I know you mean well and I get the idea you're trying to get at, but this is a bit muddy. ~James Madison. Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785 ~James Madison, Detached Memorandum The *majority* of the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of a Christian nation or one otherwise married to religion. They were hardly unanimous. However, the great minds who contributed the bulk of the text to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution (Jefferson and Madison) were believers in the separation of church and state. Madison, as a lawyer, challenged the right of the Anglican/Episcopal (then the "state" religion of Virginia) church to collect assessments from Virginians of other faiths. Jefferson was instrumental in the creation of Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom as its writer; Madison got the bill passed by Virginia's legislature. Jefferson and Madison had some very influential supporters on the national level (Franklin and Washington) to name two. Jefferson and Franklin were Deists (though some later would consider them Unitarians). Washington and Madison were Anglican/Episcopalians who distrusted the power of the organized church. Oddly, Madison had a relative who was an Anglican bishop. Washington eventually fell away from churchgoing. Patrick Henry led the charge for a greater public and legal role for Christianity and had much support from numerous lesser-known founders. He is a hero today for the "Christian Nation" camp.

So you're saying that some arbitrary Head of the Muslim Faith condones extremism and terrorism? By the way, actions speak louder than words, and while the Catholic Church may not condone rape and molestation in their church doctrine, they've done a hell of a lot to keep priests from being prosecuted: ~Belgian Sex Abuse Tapes Amplify Catholic Scandals And some pro-lifers are terrorist extremists, that is undeniable. So what? Are all pro-lifers terrorist extremists? No. Careful, Yomi, you just cited a far-left liberal terrorist America hater.

I wasn't saying I dont care, I was saying that I did not understand your writing. I didnt know what I was supposedly caring or not caring about How is athiesm a religion? Actually by definition it is a lack of religion. I do not believe in anything. I observe facts and make logical deductions about the nature of reality. My views about the world are not fixed and I hold no "beliefs" or "faiths". Right now, I have concluded that evolution was the process that brought humans into existance, but if new evidence emerged then my views would change. Religion is a belief in one thing, a belief based on faith and not on evidence. It is irrational, and illogical. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a belief, and it is not a faith in anything. So tell me, what is your 'logical deduction' of how the universe came to be? We don't know. The funny thing is, oh high and mighty one, neither do you. So cool beans, we're on the same field. "Goddidit" doesn't help and only leads to more questions. However, there is some speculation that there are multiple universes, and when two collide, a new one is created or something like that. This is of course speculation, though.

[hide] Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson Angry protesters descend on mosque 'Burn Quran Day' an outrage to Muslims *Sigh* Time to make a burn a bible day, and I will justify it by saying that Christians are a threat to the future of the United States and its freedoms. Seriously, do people just want to cause conflicts now a days? Is life really that boring that people have to intrude into other people's lives and beliefs? Pathetic. [/hide] It's not even the burning event that's bad; I have no real problem with people burning the Qur'an or the Bible or w/e; that's their right and their right to speech. It's the context that you need to look for, and clearly this context is racially obscene and could lead to violence; in fact, I think Pastor Jones is looking for violence.

If I were referring to you, I would have said Y_Guy. OneGuy is from Sweden and has stated that this is strictly about the location and that acts of violence like these "happen all of the time." Anyway, I understand why you may have thought I was referring to you, as your name is close, but I was not. As to this post, if you're opposed to this mosque, I can't see how you wouldn't be labeled "anti-Islamic." You're attributing what some Muslims did to the entire crowd. I know some Muslims who oppose the mosque, but it's because they fear for their [bleep]ing lives, so I can understand that opposition in a sense, and my white privilege gives me an advantage here; I have no real skin in this game, they do.

Lol, what I find ironic is that this audacious clown and his Caribou Barbie sidekick had the nerve to yell about the mosque, and here they are, on the anniversary of MLK's I Have a Dream Speech to "reclaim" the Civil Rights Movement. These people would have all been Southern Democrats if this was back during the Civil Rights Movement. Everything MLK stands for is the opposite of what Palin and Beck preach. Few know this today because every side likes to try and claim MLK (the Republicans list all sorts of anarchists and socialists on their website who "were famous Republicans" thinking people will be ignorant of ideology...people like Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass), but MLK didn't just preach for an end to segregation and racism, he called for social democracy and an equal opportunity for all. ~MLK, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 1967 In any case, Beck's a huckster, plain and simple. If spreading liberal ideology made him more money, he'd do that.

I'm sure these are all unrelated, and OneGuy will just keep ignoring it: Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson Angry protesters descend on mosque 'Burn Quran Day' an outrage to Muslims

Age 15-16: Lifeguard for a local community pool. Horrible management, even worse residents. Parents never watched their children, and I was working more hours than I was allowed to, legally. Age 17-18: Worked at a restaurant called Pancho Villa from 10 AM to 4 PM 5 days a week, and then walked across the street to work at a hotel from 4 PM to 10 PM. On the weekends I had a third job in landscaping. I averaged 70 hour weeks, and I once hit 85. Age 18-19 and 20-22: Worked at a resort called Rainbow Lake in Brevard, North Carolina, and also did side work in alternative energy for Thermacraft. Age 20: Worked as a telemarketer for some scam-artist. I thought some of what the company was doing was illegal, and sure enough, after I left, they were taken to court. Worked 60 hour weeks for them. Present: College student and political activist for local Representatives. Future: I'm an aerospace engineer, but I plan on going into the Peace Corps.

Yeah, can't have my biased articles from MSNBC, CNN, NYT, or the Washington Post tread your lovely Fox News Obama is a socialist commie mantra now can you, Reb? The true question is, who is funding the anti-mosque rhetoric with that recent rally? The answer is war-monger and neo-con Islamophobe Frank Gaffney.

Because they're so fixated on their hatred that they don't know that there actually IS a memorial being erected inside of this "mosque," and there's a place for people of all faiths to worship there. The people obsessing about Muslims "celebrating" just want a culture war, which is exactly what bin Laden wants. The neo-cons have been beating this drum forever. Count me out of your wars, I'm tired of it. When we bomb Iran, and there's a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that either we or Israel will, they will use this as an example of why we should do it. And if Israel does it without us, we still would have given them the green light. FOX trying to bring in Iran out of nowhere..as usual. Never mind the fact that Iran is one of the few nations--both Western and Middle Eastern--that commemorated 9/11 and had candle light vigils. OK, I never heard that a memorial would be inside the culture center. Thanks for that. And let me say that despite the fact I am a conservative and FOX is a conservative news channel, I think that most of them are idiots and wouldn't know proper journalism if it hit them in the face. I just watch the nightly world news anymore, because it's just reading the headlines, minus all the idiotic debates and all the stupid guests. As I said before, I can respect my differences with conservatives--whatever that word means anymore--just not with Republicans or Fox News Zombies (which more or less describes the Tea Party and current Republican party). And let's just talk about offensive for a second while we're on the note of Fox News. Why isn't there mass outcry over Glenn Beck speaking where MLK gave his I Have a Dream speech on the anniversary? Talk about offensive, that's as offensive as you can get. The theme of the rally is 'restoring honor,' which can only be interpreted as a call to get the half-black man out of the White House. Jim Crow technically ended forty-five years ago, and no one wants to harp on the injustices of the past. But we have a right to use the anniversary of the I Have a Dream speech to look back and remember the way things were and what it took to change them. Instead, we are treated to a Glenn Beck rally at the site of the great speech that will be headlined by Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin recently defended a radio shock jock's repeated use of the word 'ni66er' by saying she shouldn't apologize but 'reload.'

Because they're so fixated on their hatred that they don't know that there actually IS a memorial being erected inside of this "mosque," and there's a place for people of all faiths to worship there. The people obsessing about Muslims "celebrating" just want a culture war, which is exactly what bin Laden wants. The neo-cons have been beating this drum forever. Count me out of your wars, I'm tired of it. When we bomb Iran, and there's a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that either we or Israel will, they will use this as an example of why we should do it. And if Israel does it without us, we still would have given them the green light. FOX trying to bring in Iran out of nowhere..as usual. Never mind the fact that Iran is one of the few nations--both Western and Middle Eastern--that commemorated 9/11 and had candle light vigils.

That almost starts to border on oversimplification. Yes, it is the foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass, but that isn't nearly the only reason, nor does it absolve guilt from any other party involved. Of course it's an "oversimplification." No, it does not absolve the guilt of those involved. Aggressive violence involving the death of mass-innocents isn't the answer. However, it more or less is the only reason. I mean, I will add extreme poverty and illiteracy into those reasons, but largely, the reason it's so easy to rouse up those people is because they see their families and friends being bombed endlessly. Most people like to put fingers in their ears and not listen, though. It was our blockade of Iraq which was the main cause, both directly and indirectly, of the al-Qaeda attacks against us. Bin-Laden pointed to Iraq in all three of his justifications for his ruling that "to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." Our forces in Saudi Arabia irritated al-Qaeda, but they were only stationed there to enforce the embargo and no-flight zone in the south of Iraq. Those two reasons, both of which overlap one another, are the reasons why. It is much easier to have a clash of civilizations aimed at destroying Islam than to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders.

Does it make you a sympathizer of terrorism to point out that America's foreign policy is coming back to bite them in the ass? If so, count me as a terrorist sympathizer, too. As a matter of fact, you might as well count Britain's intelligence agency and the Pentagon terrorist sympathizers, too. It's people who refuse to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders who are too proud and ignorant who want to start a war of cultures, and you're falling right into al Qaeda's hands.

~Vandalism at Madera mosque called hate crime ~Permit Denied For Mosque In West Rogers Park ~Mayfield rejects planned mosque Not contained to NY, oh, and look, there's that anti-religion ACLU again.

Cab Driver Stabbed By Passenger Who Asked "Are You Muslim?"

Uh, that's because using public property to promote your religion is a violation of the first amendment. So, actually, they're defending the first amendment. Do you think public schools should allow teachers to lead children in prayer? If not, why not? It's the same principle. Sorry that you don't like that, but that's what defending freedom is all about, no matter how unpopular the position is. The ACLU is one of the last organizations standing between a lot of government tyranny and discrimination, and I'll be damned to see them smeared like that. If you want to post your nativity scenes in front of a public school, that's illegal; go put it on your church's lawn two miles down the road. Urban Legend: ACLU and their "War on Christmas" Is it OK to say "Merry Christmas"? Endless examples of the ACLU defending religious freedom I understand not having prayer in public schools or not having religious objects on PUBLIC property, and I'm fine with that. However, if you're merely offended by seeing an object (excluding "inappropriate" objects), then shut yourself inside and don't leave your home. I'm sure your "non-biased" sources are 100% accurate considering an agnostic neighbor of ours was supposedly offended by a (rather large) nativity scene on PRIVATE PROPERTY next door to us. They contacted the home owners association of our neighborhood and they did nothing. Guess who our neighbor called after that? Guess who threatened a lawsuit if the nativity scene on PRIVATE property was not removed? I hate that organization and everything about it. Not to mention that despite reporting it to the Detroit News (wow a liberal newspaper, who would have guessed), it was "pushed back by more prominent articles" such as the article on some new toys for the season. The sad part is that they have a website where they could have easily posted it. Proof or it didn't happen. They don't have endless resources, guy, they would not waste them on private property. I call shenanigans. Ok, so that's some random member, not the ACLU's lawyers. I can find plenty of [wagon] who belong to any organization, friend. Hey, isn't it a little ironic that you picked one member out and chose to lambaste the entire organization over it in this very thread? A little too ironic. These are all nice little anecdotes, but the one where they threatened a lawsuit against private property--which they wouldn't do because they don't have infinite resources and would not go after a case they know would be found to be frivolous--is thus far lacking in any evidence or circumstances of said case, and the latter is some [wagon] member with no legal action provided. Moreover, saying Merry Christmas isn't even a problem for the actual organization, nor even for me, who is an atheist who's quite hostile to religion. Christmas is actually quite secular nowadays, and has been accepted as a secular holiday. However, the religious connotations still present a problem--things like nativity scenes. Trees, wreaths, ribbons, etc do not. This is why even if something can be seen as religious, the ACLU will not go after it per se because it can also be seen as historical. See the Supreme Court cases of County of Allegheny v. ACLU and Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette to examine this stark difference that the SCOTUS and ACLU have recognized. Lol, I guess you didn't see the endless examples of them standing up for religion that were from this decade alone, then? Lol, more equating the two "extremes," I see. Once again, I have evidence, you don't. Your little anecdotes are more or less [cabbage] compared with my concrete linking. If you want to come into a debate with me, as some people on here know, you damn better be well-sourced, because I don't come empty-handed. If you have a problem with those endless examples, which I will cite once more, then go through each case and tell me why it's biased or factually untrue. They're all documented on the government's websites or any major law school such as Cornell. If you'd like to say that "well they have defended religion, but they go after it more so obviously they're anti-religion," they may or may not do that, I don't have the numbers of cases in front of me. However, if it were true, it would be obvious why: religious people constantly want their cake and they want to eat it, too. Thus their opposition to gay marriage, which is so clearly unconstitutional. Also, the Salvation Army is a piece of [cabbage] organization full of bigots and xenophobes while receiving tax-dollars despite their active discrimination. (1, 2, 3). Faith-based initiatives must end, they are unconstitutional. Going back to the general topic at hand, I want opponents to watch this video and tell me with a straight face that this is anything but hatred of Muslims, and racism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4 And read GG's post on it: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/23/park51/index.html edit: and going back with one of OldJoe's comments to me, just so this doesn't get misconstrued, read this line of GG's article: