Q'uran Burning By Gainesville Nutcase.

[RainDoggie]

I really hate it when people in positions of power attempt to silence speech (even the speech of idiots) by saying that it puts our troops in danger.  It always bothered me when republicans did it and it bothers me now too.  It's a false statement and a cheap ploy.

Our troops are already in danger and one dope threatening to burn a Koran isn't going to make Afghanistan MORE dangerous than it already is. 

[JC]

Yelling fire in a theater? Please.

Launching a nuke! C'mon, dood!

If you burn my copy of The Goblet of Fire in spite of my warning that I would kill Harry Potter if you did, you have ash to clean up and I have a wizard corpse on my hands.

It is so telling how so many who rush to defend the right of Muslims to build their community center/mosque (capable of holding services for 1000 worshipers, BTW) in an area so sensitive in the eyes of many New Yorkers, yet because the reverend is a hick Christian who threatened to burn a Koran, you fall over yourselves to hold him responsible for the violence perpetrated by muslims across the ocean.

BTW, it is the right thing to do in standing for freedom of religion. Allowing the fact that someone is offended to affect public policy and essentially discriminate against one religion would be unconstitutional.

I get it. You are for freedom of speech, for those of which you approve.

You are correct there are some inconsistencies but please remember that no one here is attempting to silence Terry, we just disapprove of his action or threatened action.  You do see the difference dont you? 

The problem with the community center is that it has been politicized so badly that no one knows which way is up anymore.  Some argue that Obama is in "favor" of building the "mosque."  I have not heard anything that says he is in "favor" of building the thing, simply that he is in favor of equal application of the law.  Just because we favor free speech and Terry Jones wants to be hateful, and is allowed to be because of said free speech does not mean we "favor" Terry and his actions, it means that most of us who find his activities distasteful are willing to be offended so everyone can say what they chose. 

I really hate it when people in positions of power attempt to silence speech (even the speech of idiots) by saying that it puts our troops in danger.  It always bothered me when republicans did it and it bothers me now too.  It's a false statement and a cheap ploy.

Our troops are already in danger and one dope threatening to burn a Koran isn't going to make Afghanistan MORE dangerous than it already is. 

Really? 

[buckethead]

Yelling fire in a theater? Please.

Launching a nuke! C'mon, dood!

If you burn my copy of The Goblet of Fire in spite of my warning that I would kill Harry Potter if you did, you have ash to clean up and I have a wizard corpse on my hands.

It is so telling how so many who rush to defend the right of Muslims to build their community center/mosque (capable of holding services for 1000 worshipers, BTW) in an area so sensitive in the eyes of many New Yorkers, yet because the reverend is a hick Christian who threatened to burn a Koran, you fall over yourselves to hold him responsible for the violence perpetrated by muslims across the ocean.

BTW, it is the right thing to do in standing for freedom of religion. Allowing the fact that someone is offended to affect public policy and essentially discriminate against one religion would be unconstitutional.

I get it. You are for freedom of speech, for those of which you approve.

You are correct there are some inconsistencies but please remember that no one here is attempting to silence Terry, we just disapprove of his action or threatened action.  You do see the difference dont you? 

The problem with the community center is that it has been politicized so badly that no one knows which way is up anymore.  Some argue that Obama is in "favor" of building the "mosque."  I have not heard anything that says he is in "favor" of building the thing, simply that he is in favor of equal application of the law.  Just because we favor free speech and Terry Jones wants to be hateful, and is allowed to be because of said free speech does not mean we "favor" Terry and his actions, it means that most of us who find his activities distasteful are willing to be offended so everyone can say what they chose. 

I agree with every word. Good post.

For the record, I believe Obama took the proper stance concerning the "mosque". He could have stayed away, which would have been more expedient domestically.

I absolutely agree with your statement about equal application of the law.

[JC]

I agree with every word. Good post.

For the record, I believe Obama took the proper stance concerning the "mosque". He could have stayed away, which would have been more expedient domestically.

I absolutely agree with your statement about equal application of the law.

Awww, group hug! 

I think he should have stayed away and I find it interesting that he is willing to go to the mat on such polarizing social incidents yet chooses to be the great compromisor on larger issues like health care and infrastructure repair. 

[NotNow]

He hardly "went to the mat".  He said one thing to a Muslim group and another to the media the next day after seeing the reaction.   On an issue that the government has no part.

Obamacare and stimulus were rammed through on essentially party line voting, I don't see any compromise there.

[JC]

He hardly "went to the mat".  He said one thing to a Muslim group and another to the media the next day after seeing the reaction.   On an issue that the government has no part.

Obamacare and stimulus were rammed through on essentially party line voting, I don't see any compromise there.

Correct, I should have said, 'took a firm uncompromising stance'

[NotNow]

What "ridiculous" demands do you mean? Accurate spending analysis? Reading the bill? IT looks to me like the Reps were right. The spending forecasts are way beyond what the Dems told us the bill would cost. Our current medical insurance, which we were promised would not rise in price, is rising astronomically.  

No Dem running now is running on Obamacare. IT was bad legislation from the start.

[NotNow]

He hardly "went to the mat".  He said one thing to a Muslim group and another to the media the next day after seeing the reaction.   On an issue that the government has no part.

Obamacare and stimulus were rammed through on essentially party line voting, I don't see any compromise there.

Correct, I should have said, 'took a firm uncompromising stance'

Um, Ok.  Do you watch the news at all?

[ChriswUfGator]

What "ridiculous" demands do you mean? Accurate spending analysis? Reading the bill? IT looks to me like the Reps were right. The spending forecasts are way beyond what the Dems told us the bill would cost. Our current medical insurance, which we were promised would not rise in price, is rising astronomically.  

No Dem running now is running on Obamacare. IT was bad legislation from the start.

Mainly, they killed the public option, at the corrupt behest of the healthcare lobby...

[NotNow]

Well then "ridiculous" is in the eye of the beholder.  Conservatives oppose a public option because they don't believe the Federal government should be in the medical insurance business.  I agree and believe that it is unconstitutional for the Fed to do so.

I know that you and others here disagree.  That's OK.  But it is a political difference, my opinion is not "ridiculous".

And of course, the Reps didn't "kill" anything.  The Dems have the votes to install any legislation they want.  The truth is that they couldn't sell all of their own on the public option.  But of course, you know that.

[buckethead]

If we want to talk ridiculous, we can go health INSURANCE reform bill, but we've pretty much beaten that poor horses corpse sufficiently. I would have enjoyed JCs input on that topic as I do on most.

[Cricket]

I know this wouldn't work but it would be interesting if anyone entering the debate on HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM would first address these simple questions ...

1. Do you currently have adequate health insurance?
2. Do you care about people who don't have it and can't afford it?
3. Are you okay with the status quo of our health insurance system being among the worst of developed countries?
4. Have you ever been denied health insurance?
5. Have you or anyone in your family suffered a serious ailment which would have been bankrupting without health insurance?

I think honest answers would pretty much show where we stand on one side or the other.  

[NotNow]

Sooo, you want the Federal government to ensure that "people" have what they need even if they can't afford it and should prevent financial hazard to those who fail to protect themselves?  I know some people who need "adequate" housing.  Should the USG (US taxpayer) provide that as well?  I have an acquaintance who built a home in a place that I think is subject to flooding (Porpoise Point).  I mean, there are sea shells on the ground there!  Should the USG insure his property against loss?  The truth is that the USG can not solve every "person's" problems.  The truth is that it is not and has never been a mission of the US Federal government to do so. 

I would propose that it is more efficient to encourage competition among insurers and medical providers.  Experience has shown us over and over again that the central government can not provide the service as well as the private sector.  I won't mention the fact that the US Constitution does not authorize such an effort (witness the verbal gymnastics of the current administration).  But different "people" require different versions of medical insurance.  Or none at all.  It's a choice that I don't want to give up. 

[Cricket]

Just to be clear, the questions that I posited have nothing to do with my personal position on the subject. It just shows that our own personal life circumstances tend to shape how we come down on things like health insurance reform. Try to answer them honestly and you will see what I mean. Other countries to which we feel superior have seemingly solved this problem of providing decent health insurance at a manageable cost while we Americans continue pissing on a rock.

[NotNow]

Duh.  So those that have not protected themselves with health insurance, and those that have suffered tragic medical disasters, and those who have for what ever reason wound up in circumstances that they think they cannot afford medical insurance think that the USG should provide the insurance to them at little or no cost (except to the taxpayers).  Wow, that's news. 

Just out of curiosity Cricket, what "other countries" are you referring to?