Islam

Mosque On the Hudson: Will the Next Beer at the White House Be Alcohol-Free?

|

All the misery, fatigue, buried anxiety and deluded hope of American family life is etched into this infinitely sad post-vacation photo.

The all-stupefying hand of the Near Ground Zero Mosque dustup was destined to reach the highest office in the land at some point, and President Obama is now charged with being disdainful of the American people and insensitive to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. He's also accused of flipflopping on this vexed issue.

In comments at a Ramadan event Friday, Obama voiced his view that the Islamic center going up on the former Burlington Coat Factory site should be allowed on First Amendment grounds. Over the weekend he clarified that, which may or may not have looked like backpedaling. AP reports:

Speaking to a gathering at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said that he believes "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country."

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Asked Saturday about the issue during his trip to Florida, Obama said: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding."

Obama said that "my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion."

With the caveat that Barack Obama is history's greatest monster, I don't see any contradiction in the president's position. You may think building the Islamic center is provocative, disrespectful to the dead and likely to cause joy in the hearts of Islamic radicals everywhere (I think it is all of those things), but that has no bearing on whether the developer has a right to build it.

It might have been wiser to say in the first place: "The president does not make land-use policy for the Boroughs of New York, and so my opinion on this issue is of no interest to anybody." But presidents never say that, even though they should. So while it serves Obama right for seeking cheap political points at the Friday event, his position is consistent.

NEXT: L.A. Times: We Did the Math, and Some Teachers Are Better Than Others. Union: Boycott!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Excellent alt-text.

      1. That oily swim made them all sick.

    1. Yes – with the line, “With the caveat that Barack Obama is history’s greatest monster…” as a delicious Cavanaugh bitch-slap cherry on top.

      Oh, and Tim’s spot on with the analysis as always, for the perfecta.

      The man’s good…

      1. Poor Jimmy Carter — second again.

        1. [Makes a “L” on forehead with fingers] Looooser.

          1. Backward L because he is power-mad!

    2. St. Theresa had it right. Payers answered cause more tears than those that go unanswered. I bet the motherfucker is ruing the day he won the election.

  2. “You may think building the Islamic center is provocative, disrespectful to the dead and likely to cause joy in the hearts of Islamic radicals everywhere (I think it is all of those things)”

    But I thought everyone who thought that was a racist Tim?

    1. The actual accusation was religious bigotry, not racism. But it is possible Tim is just deluded, which wouldn’t be a new thing, seeing as how he voted for, and proudly explained his reasoning for voting for, history’s greatest monster.

    2. “You may think building the Islamic center is provocative, disrespectful to the dead and likely to cause joy in the hearts of Islamic radicals everywhere (I think it is all of those things), but that has no bearing on whether the developer has a right to build it.”

      I agree. I’d say it was like neo-Godwin marching through the streets of Skokie, but those guys were trying to be antagonistic.

      However, if the people behind this mosque don’t offer anything in compromise despite the opposition? It’ll be really hard to pretend they’re not being willfully insensitive.

      1. Take that up with Mo, Neu Mexican, and MNG, all of whom claim this Imam is a pillar of tolerance and only bigots think this is a bad idea.

        1. I make more compromises with the locals putting up a warehouse in the middle of an industrial park than these guys are making.

          1. Seriously…

            There’s a registry at the BIA you can check to see if you’re building on land that’s been flagged as possibly containing Indian burial grounds.

            It’s become pretty standard procedure though–even if you’re building on land that’s never been classified as though it might contain Indian burial sites…

            The local bands typically request that you pay a representative from the tribe to observe excavation of the job site during digging and re-compaction.

            And why in the world would we say no? Any development involves making some compromises with the rest of the community.

            You wouldn’t believe the contortions we go through to make sure our projects are free of microscopic endangered species–like fairy shrimp–all to assuage the concerns of other people in the community.

            In California, it typically takes 18 months and costs millions of dollars to do all the studies for an Environmental Impact Report… We sometimes have to phase projects because of things like noise pollution. Traffic studies are done.

            We often hold information sessions with the public to get their feedback and input before it goes to Planning Commission, before it goes in front of the City Council–we try to assuage their concerns. Some of those concerns are sometimes ridiculous–what difference does that make? Some people don’t want us to build because they enjoy playing with their dog on our property–they get up and say that in front of the City Council! You think I’m gonna let my project get held up (and investors lose money) ’cause I was too stubborn to make a contribution so the city could build a dog park?

            I’ve studied development and planning back in Roman times. Development has always been amount making compromises. Compromising with the community you’re building in is being a part of the community.

            If I told the environmentalists and the Native Americans and the lady who wants to walk her dog on my property to all go fuck themselves–because I don’t give a shit about any of them or their stupid concerns…?

            Then I couldn’t turn around and tell everybody I just wanted to be part of the community. You don’t have to give a crap about the community–that’s your right.

            Just don’t be surprised if people laugh at your rhetoric about wanting to be a bridge to the rest of the community. If you’re not willing to compromise with the rest of the community, then you don’t want to be part of the community.

            I’m not asking them to have a few beers and bite into a bacon burger. Just show some sign of sensitivity.

            And if they don’t? The worst I’m gonna do is call them insensitive. …which is exactly what they’ll be.

            1. Damn tags!

              Sorry ’bout that.

        2. “Take that up with Mo, Neu Mexican, and MNG, all of whom claim this Imam is a pillar of tolerance and only bigots think this is a bad idea.”

          With some people, I think it becomes like an identity politics issue, like so many Red State people were back during the Bush Administration… Team Blue isn’t immune to that either.

          It would be interesting to see if they’d tolerate the same thing from fundamentalist Christians. …defend their right to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and denounce anyone who criticizes the leadership of Christian fundamentalists as bigots?

          I’d understand denouncing someone who wanted the government to discriminate as bigots, but if they can’t even tolerate other people criticizing the insensitivity of a leader’s decisions without calling someone names?

          …then they’re the ones who are being intolerant.

          1. Exactly. Fluffy, Neu Mexican and MNG are total red state culturalists. But then they claim to hate the culture war.

            1. All we are saying is that we should give peace a chance, and everybody should learn to tolerate each other.

              …unless you disagree with me. Then you’re a stupid, NASCAR watching, drooling, uneducated worthless Bush fanboy, and your children shouldn’t be allowed to go to college.

            2. Ummm, it ain’t just the Team Blue people here saying it. I don’t have a problem with Muslims using their private property to build a mosque / community center / Islamic version of a YMCA two blocks from Ground Zero, in a spot that can’t be seen at ground level at GZ.

              I mean, how far out would you draw this zone where private property rights don’t really apply? Four blocks? Ten? Anywhere on Manhatten?

              Let them build their mosque — and let other people build or park next to it gay bars, bacon-wrapped hot dog stands, hooker hotels, liquor stores, you name it, see how tolerant of private property they really are.

              1. Let them build their mosque — and let other people build or park next to it gay bars, bacon-wrapped hot dog stands, hooker hotels, liquor stores, you name it, see how tolerant of private property they really are.

                I’m not sure that they could if it were really a mosque, which is why it may be a community center. (Haven’t followed all the details because I don’t really care.) NYC zoning I don’t believe allows bars within a certain distance of places of worship.

                Me, I don’t believe in zoning, but definitely most conservatives and liberals would defend it.

              2. I don’t care about this issue much at all, and it’s pathetic that it’s being used as a political football. I do think the president and his handlers came across as somewhat wishy-washy, but I don’t object at all to their overall position (clearly outside the bounds of government to block; don’t think it’s the greatest move).

                I’m curious: Has any major politician or political commentator actually suggested that the federal government should somehow intervene?

                1. Harry Reid.

                  http://voices.washingtonpost.c…..y-mos.html

                  1. Well, I don’t think he said the gov should intervene, but he did say they should build it elswhere.

                    He’s in a virtual dead-heat right now, you know.

              3. I mean, how far out would you draw this zone where private property rights don’t really apply? Four blocks? Ten? Anywhere on Manhatten?

                How about far enough away that it didn’t actually get wrecked by plane debris on 9/11? Is that too far away?

                And if you think “property rights” is some sort of magic talisman, apparently you’ve never owned property.

            3. Actually, I dislike Muslims being painted with the brush of being in cahoots with terrorists and the like because my fucking parents are Muslims. But you’re right, I love KULTUR WAR.

              1. One other thing. Unlike John and Ken, I actually live in Manhattan and go downtown quite a bit. To me this is a local issue.

                1. Pat Tillman died because of what happened around the way there…

                  This is a local issue for a lot of people in Arizona.

                  Actually, thousands of Americans from all over the country have died as a result of what happened at the World Trade Center, so the World Trade Center is a local issue just about everywhere.

                  That’s part of what I’m talking about when I talk about insensitivity.

                  1. There are a lot of innocent Afghans and Iraqis that died as a result of what happened there. Do the people of Baghdad and Kabul get a say too? Some of the Americans that volunteered and that died in the WTC were Muslims, what about them? There’s a 40 year old mosque a mere 4 blocks from the WTC, should they move because their presence is insensitive?

                    Where are the protests about the mosque in the Pentagon. Unlike the Burlington Coat Factory, one of the planes on 9-11 actually targeted and hit that building.

                    1. The Burlington Coat Factory got hit. That’s why it’s not a Burlington Coat Factory anymore.

                    2. Congratulations, you read half of the sentence.

                    3. Whose money built the mosque in the Pentagon?

                      I assume it was the taxpayers?

                      …and was not paid for with the proceeds of some vicious dictator and his various family ties, who use their country’s oil revenue to spread their Wahhabi belief system all over the world and fund various terrorist activities?

                      Indeed, the very same kind of network that paid to indoctrinate and train the hijackers?

                      Nah, if it’s in the Pentagon, it was probably paid for by the taxpayers.

                      The proposed mosque around the way from the Ground Zero however? I don’t know who’s paying for that. Chances are I wouldn’t feel any better about it if those details became public, but if those details would assuage a lot of public anxiety?

                      Then by all means, they should come out with them.

                    4. Where are the protests about the mosque in the Pentagon.

                      I’m sorry, how does this possibly support your position? Doesn’t this give evidence that the people not liking this community center apparently distinguish the two?

          2. It would be interesting to see if they’d tolerate the same thing from fundamentalist Christians. …defend their right to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and denounce anyone who criticizes the leadership of Christian fundamentalists as bigots?

            Wow Ken, that’s really insightful. It’s not like that same question wasn’t asked 10 times in all the various threads on the topic by you and your fellow mosque opponents. I know for a fact that Fluffy, prolefeed, and I all said we would have the same position if it were a fundamentalist Christian church to be built. And I assure you that none of us are “blue staters”, so burn your strawman elsewhere.

            1. I mean, “Team Blue”, not “blue staters”. Unfortunately, prolefeed and I both live in deep blue states, not sure about Fluffy.

            2. “It’s not like that same question wasn’t asked 10 times in all the various threads on the topic by you and your fellow mosque opponents.”

              Nice dodge…maybe it was more like a bait and switch?

              …but the question wasn’t about whether you’d support a fundamentalist Christian building a church in any of these threads; it was about whether you’d denounce people criticizing Christian fundamentalists for being insensitive as bigots.

              I can call Christian fundamentalist leaders “jackholes” for being insensitive, especially if they’re acting like jackholes. …and stay perfectly consistent with everything I’ve said about this the whole time…

              Can you? Is there anything Muslim Christian fundamentalist leaders shouldn’t do because it’s insensitive? …or is criticizing that always essentially bigoted?

              1. By the way, there should be an off Broadway production about this already…

                Mosque!: the Musical

    3. The majority of the people protesting against it are protesting because “Islam is evil” and caused 9/11 and Mosques are the first step to Sharia law. But I would agree with Tim, if a poll asks me if I favor the construction, I’d say no, but if they ask me if I support it I’d say hell yes.

      1. The majority of the people protesting against it are protesting because “Islam is evil” and caused 9/11 and Mosques are the first step to Sharia law.

        This is the same kind of awesome logic that explains why it’s okay when Obama and other Democrats have exactly the same opinion on the mosque (or, hell, gay marriage) because they’re doing it for all the right reasons.

        I tend to think that part of reason and not putting morality into politics is not taking a stance on a position because of the presumed motives of other people.

        But hey, the New Republic (“Republican ideas, just not from icky Republicans!”) exists for a reason I suppose.

  3. What was that about beer?

    1. Referring to another “Beer Summit”, like the one with the cop and the professor, after Obama stepped in shit, shot his foot, then put his foot in his mouth. Then washed it down with crappy beer with a shit-eating grin photo-op beer summit with the aggrieved parties.

      1. Look, it’s 3:30pm and I’m sober. If Cavanaugh’s gonna drop a hard B, he better come with more than just a vague reference to that lame-ass beer summit that everybody else has already forgotten about.

        Now where’s my bottle opener?

        1. It’s hardly a stretch of a reference. It’s the first thing I thought of when Obama made his remarks on the mosque.

          He does have a knack for interjecting his unwanted opinions on matters he should keep quiet on, and doing so in the dumbest possible way. He and his handlers do seem like idiots.

          1. Dude, you’re thinking WAY too hard about this. I’m just using the heading as an excuse to be the surly-sober-person-stuck-at-work-when-he’d-rather-be-drinking-a-beer that I am. I got the headline from the beginning and I don’t have anything against Cavanaugh. I just want a beer (or, if that’s not possible, I want to talk about beer).

            1. You, sir, are worse than Hitler.

        2. The Skip Gates beer summit was the first thing I thought of.

      1. Huh – I thought I had that under Irresponsible Hater’s “Infidelicious”.

        Guess I’d better put down the Jager and get back to work…

  4. Alcohol-free Crescent Moon Ale.

    Infidelicious!

  5. “Rue the day? Who talks like that?”

    Obama (and/or his handlers) are really bad at politics. He could’ve taken the position that the whole business was a local issue and shouldn’t be used by anyone for political grandstanding, or he could’ve come out saying that he personally thought the move was a mistake, but that our tradition of freedom of religion and freedom of expression gave them the right to build a mosque wherever they wanted.

    Instead, he kinda sorta did all of the above, but all in the wrong order. His administration is truly inept.

    1. +10 for the Real Genius reference.

    2. I talk like that. I really do.

      And yeah, contrast how Obama played this with how Reagan, Bush or Clinton would have played it. Bush would have gone whole hog for his base and bashed the thing. He would have at least pleased someone. Reagan would have stayed out of it or made some funny remark. Clinton would grandstanded against it and used it as a “Sister Soulja moment” to get the country to ignore all of the liberal stuff he was doing.

      But none of them would have come out and stuck their finger in the eye of the majority of the country on this. Only Obama is that stupid.

      1. I’m all for slightly archaic speech. I just wanted to throw in a Real Genius quote.

      2. Fuck you too.

        1. Not my fault you voted for a stupid President.

          1. I’m stealing that.

          2. I think we got a president way better than we probably deserve. I pity folks like you who live in a state of constant irrational hatred of the president. It’s somewhat comparable to what I and my fellow liberals had to go through the previous 8 years, minus the irrational part.

            1. I think we got a president way better than we probably deserve.

              Yeah, we could have gotten Kodos, instead.

            2. From where I’m sitting, this is Bush II but with even more economic intervention. So yes, that means that I think this president is worse than his crappy predecessor.

              1. Then you lack all perspective.

                1. Do you not behold the glory of his five year plan?

              2. You’re a dumbass, Pro L. This president is sort of black and doesn’t talk about god, except for when he does. Totally different, moron.

                1. Wake me when he starts a petro war based on a big fat lie and institutes an official pro-torture policy.

                  1. As opposed to continuing said wars, refusing to prosecute those who broke laws against torture, and telling his own big fat lies. Plus supporting indefinite detention without trial, prosecuting whistleblowers, etc…

                  2. Authorizing the murder of American citizens without trial doesn’t count as a subset of “pro-torture policy” now, Tony?

                    I suppose we’re just splitting hairs, here.

      3. Judging by what Bush actually did and said in his presidency and the things his advisors have been saying, Bush probably would have come out and said that he supports their right to build it and we’re not at war with Islam. Remember, he did call Islam a religion of peace.

        I have a long list of beefs with President Bush, but one thing I admire him for is separating the crazies we’re at war with from the vast majority of Muslims.

        Other former Bush aides backed President Obama’s defense of the mosque. Former Bush consultant Mark McKinnon called Obama’s Friday remarks an example of “bold and decisive leadership.”

        “An enormously complex and emotional issue ? but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen,” said former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson. “Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone.”

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41076

        1. Additionally, didn’t Bush essentially tap THIS VERY GUY (Rauf) to be the administration’s quasi-liason to the Muslim world?

    3. You’re seriously criticizing him for taking a principled stand on religious liberty regardless of the politics of the situation? Fuck you. I understood it. There is no contradiction. There is no backpeddling. He said exactly what he should have said and paid no attention to the mindless xenophobic demagoguery coming from all the “real Americans” who hate the constitution except that bit about guns. Again, fuck you.

      1. but tony, you hate the constitution except that part on… um…ahh… oh yeah.

      2. Well, I didn’t attack his position. I attacked how he was handling the whole matter.

        No sane person thinks this administration is particularly good at talking to the public.

        1. Obama is not good at demagoguery and xenophobe baiting, no.

          When all else fails, you idiots resort to bashing his communication skills. You’re one short step away from whining about teleprompters.

          1. OK, if you won’t bash his communication skills, then I suppose you have to bash all those reporters and editors who got the headlines wrong on Friday before it walked back.

            I’m sure that the New York Times heard what they wanted to hear. It’s a political skill; being able to do that doesn’t mean that the President has bad communication skills. It’s not knowing when to be clear or to say nothing at all that’s his problem. Governing isn’t like a campaign; people won’t let you remain above the fray and pour their hopes and dreams into the gossamer wings of your rhetoric forever.

            1. It would have been weird for him not to comment on the controversy at a Ramadan dinner happening at the same time. He took the correct, principled stand any libertarian should applaud. He then clarified with the correct, principled stand that it’s not his business to comment on the propriety of the project one way or the other. He’s on the side of the constitution, and I’m not exactly what you people are on about.

              1. . He took the correct, principled stand any libertarian should applaud. He then clarified with the correct, principled stand that it’s not his business to comment on the propriety of the project one way or the other.

                I’m not disagreeing in the slightest with his eventual position. I agree with it for all the reasons you said.

                However, he should have been clearer at the start. He used the airy campaign rhetoric that allowed his listeners to infuse it with their own ideas of what he was saying.

                That type of rhetoric was an asset in the campaign, and it’s sometimes an asset in politics, but it can really backfire when people suddenly really want to know exactly what you meant.

              2. I find myself in the weird position of agreeing with Tony.

          2. Reading comprehension isn’t one of your skill sets, is it?

            To reiterate my position on Obama and the current Congress, I find them unprincipled, uninterested in Constitutional limits, hopelessly inept in economics and foreign policy, tone-deaf politically, etc.

            Pretty bad government. Definitely the worst Congress in my lifetime, and possible the worst president, though there’s still time to decide that.

            As far as I know, no major political figure or commentator is suggesting that the government prohibit the mosque from being built. Which means that there is no “side” on the constitutional issue.

            1. Yeah the demagogues were impressively quick to realize that bashing the mosque was running dangerously close to afoul of the first amendment. Enter the weasel words about sensitivity and propriety. Forget religious liberty, something libertarians don’t often bother with. What the fuck happened to the sacrosanctness of private property? What right do you have to hold an opinion on this at all?

              The last administration was definitely up there with regard to not caring about the constitution. But go on with your partisan nonsense about how healthcare reform in a country with decades of single-payer for the poor and the elderly somehow is unconstitutional.

              1. But the fact is that objecting loudly and insultingly is also protected. By the very same amendment.

                Personally, I don’t care where the mosque is built.

                As for my partisanship, do you ever read what I write or most everyone else writes here? How many Bush fans do you think there are in this libertarian enclave?

                I’ll tell you one thing–I don’t ignore the Constitution or limits on government just because I agree with an end. The whole point of the Constitution is that it defines what government is and what it can do. Once you erode those definitions and limits, government can do anything it fucking wants to do. People like you are supporting a short walk towards tyranny. And don’t cry to us when it turns out the tyrant you’re helping to create doesn’t give a shit about your pet issues.

                1. Pro from my perspective your view of the constitution is laughably warped. And there are plenty of Bushies here. Plenty of people who call themselves libertarian but the moment some nonwhite nonchristian nonheterosexual person or group wants the same liberties you avail yourselves of, it’s all of a sudden time for “nuance.” Not accusing you of this, btw.

                  1. Well, of course, I think you’re the one with the warped view of the Constitution, but be that as it may.

                    As I’ve said several times in this thread, I’ve got no problem with the mosque being built wherever they want to build it. All other issues aside, it wasn’t Islam itself that attacked us on 9/11. It was some Islamic nutcases. Yes, they have more than their fair share of lunatics, but that’s not a basis for treating a mosque as an automatic provocation.

                    I do wonder at the motivations of those behind this, since they probably were aware that this would provoke at least some response, but that’s just vague curiosity and not a position on anything.

                    1. “I do wonder at the motivations of those behind this, since they probably were aware that this would provoke at least some response”

                      Think, The Flying Imams. It’s all a PR scam.

                    2. Is it to point to the objections as evidence that America is, in fact, the enemy of all Islam?

                    3. In a strange way, they would be right.

                      I think an openly secular, free country is the enemy of all organized religions.

              2. But go on with your partisan nonsense about how healthcare reform in a country with decades of single-payer for the poor and the elderly somehow is unconstitutional.

                So Tony, you’re saying that anything that’s gone on for decades isn’t unconstitutional? Interesting argument there. I for one wouldn’t defend the Sedition Act and the Smith Act as constitutional, but hey, I guess you would.

                Also, I suppose in an earlier era you would be right there defending Jim Crow. “But go on with your partisan nonsense about how separate but equal in a country with decades of segregation somehow is unconstitutional.”

                1. John,

                  All the best to you in your gallant legal challenge to HCR. I suppose in your argument you’ll use the constitutional clause that says how insurance industry profits are sacrosanct?

                  1. Eek, those ghastly

                    1. Eek, those ghastly less than 3% insurance company profits! The government should tax them until they lose 10% a year and force them to stay in business. That’ll teach those jerks!

                  2. In an ideal world, we would be using the Federalist Papers #42 (read it) and a general reading of the 10th Amendment to argue our case. Of course, ideally, you wouldn’t be a statist-fellating fucktwit.

          3. I hope you never said a damn thing about Bush then.

          4. When all else fails, you idiots resort to bashing his communication skills.

            Oh, all else is thriving, not failing. Sometimes we like to branch out though.

      3. He said exactly what he should have said and paid no attention to the mindless xenophobic demagoguery coming from all the “real Americans” who hate the constitution except that bit about gun. Again, fuck you.

        If there’s no contradiction, then his position is only very slightly distinguishable from Tim or Palin’s. (Tim and Sarah Palin appear to have exactly the same position here.)

        Most of the “xenophobic demogogues” (though not all) have said exactly the same carefully calibrated arguments about “of course they have the right to build it, but I have concerns and don’t think it’s a good idea.”

        Of course, since you know in your heart of heart that Obama and Harry Reid really mean the good parts and none of the bad parts, whereas evil Republicans only mean the bad parts and are lying about the good parts, you feel free to be superior.

        Rube.

        1. I don’t think any person who’s taken an oath to uphold the constitution has any business commenting on the rightness or wrongness of a religious building on private property. Granted, Ms. Palin isn’t bound by that oath at the moment.

          1. I certainly agree with that. But what he said wasn’t “brave.” He either attacked a strawman, or he started to be brave and pulled it back.

            Palin (or Angle, or anybody else) can respond back with “Yes, we already agree that it’s Constitutional and an important right, but we question the wisdom.”)

            All he did was make it a national issue, but he made no effective argument whatsoever, and his apparent walk-back probably hurt the cause more than if he had either remained silent or been clearer to start with.

            So, if I’m to have a high opinion of his communication skills, I must think that the President secretly wants the mosque project to be stalled.

      4. Good. He can have fun with his 40% approval rating. Are you making preparations for the wilderness Tony?

        1. If by the 3rd world wasteland that will result should Republicans regain control of this country, I suppose I should be making preparations.

          But it’s good to know that you think presidents should ignore the constitution if it means taking a political hit. I’ll remind you of that the next time you try to make a point on principle about anything.

          1. Yeah, Tony because saying something shouldn’t be done is the same as saying the person has no legal right to do it.

            Your grasping.

            1. So now you’re dictating to the president what his opinion on the mosque’s building should be, and bitching that he didn’t take your position?

              He said it would be improper for him to comment on the wisdom of building it. What’s wrong with that? It wouldn’t necessarily be completely ripping the constitution to shreds for him to express such an opinion, but it would be unseemly.

              1. Not a damn thing wrong with it, but it’s hardly “brave.”

                You seem to have your two sets of talking points mixed together. The “brave” talking points went away when he decided to clarify where people had misunderstood him as being brave.

                1. Brave would have been calling the Muslims in the audience to consider extending the same freedom of religion to non-Muslims in Muslim nations.

                  1. Yes

                  2. creech, that would not have been brave, that would have been ignorant beyond belief.

                    You do know these are American Muslims we’re talking about, don’t you? As in, they are citizens just the same as you? You do get that, right? Why should they have to answer for what other countries do, and why should we measure our standards on religious liberty against Saudi Arabia’s?

          2. If by the 3rd world wasteland that will result should Republicans regain control of this country

            Heh.

      5. Tony, why do you come here if you want to argue with the libertarians in your head?

  6. I don’t think yellas should live in Pearl Harbor.

  7. It might have been wiser to say in the first place: “The president does not make land-use policy for the Boroughs of New York, and so my opinion on this issue is of no interest to anybody.”

    I think he actually did initially say something like: “this is an issue concerning local NYC zoning policies over which the president has no say.” I would have to do some googling to find the exact quote.

    1. If the president only spoke about matters he has legitimate authority over, he’d hardly speak at all.

      1. There’s a reason “Silent Cal” was such a good President.

  8. I think if I read one more post about the ‘WTC Mosque’, I may convert to (Ghengis) Khanism.

    1. Why not Khaaanism?

      1. I think a rack like that could get me to consider a lot of religions.

        1. How funny. I’ve linked to that site before (the Kirk-yelling-“Khaaan” site for you non-clickers) and never noticed the woman at the bottom.

          1. I didn’t even notice the sounds. Guess that shows where my mind is.

          2. There are some shockingly cute nerd girls out there. That is one thing that the current generation has improved on. There never were any cute nerd girls back in the day. But there seem to be lots now.

          3. The girl was the first thing I noticed. The hell with the cake! Take the girl, you qoH!

      2. I’d prefer to ride through the streets of Bagdad Brooklyn hacking the heads off people I didn’t like with a single stroke of my sabre.

        1. Whoever said that Khan Noonien Singh didn’t do exactly that? Or won’t do. Whatever the temporally correct verb is. Was.

          1. Will have been.

            1. Didn’t he rise and fall in the 90s? You know, during that whole eugenics craze during World War III?

              1. When Congress amended DST in the 1980s (not the last change, but the one before), they also slipped a few extra years into the calendar.

                1. Tricksey.

      3. I’m at work. Fuck you, asshole.

        1. Oh, sorry. I thought the joke was obvious without explanation.

          1. Which is why I didn’t open it.

            Given the conincidence of “Khan” and Pro Libertate in a response to a comment from a known Canadian, it was pretty obvious which direction any link would go.

            1. Because, as we all know, 30,000 years from now, all that anyone will remember about Canada is that the Shat sprang from there.

              All anyone will remember about the United States is (1) Neil Armstrong and (2) the Bongstitution.

    2. I was thinking Scientology.

  9. I already made this crappy joke!!

    The alt text is awesome.

    This administration did bring hope. At one point I used to say, “Whatever, nothing they do will surprise me anymore.” Well I was wrong, there is hope for me being surprised, it is almost weekly surprise at this point.

  10. Off topic:

    AL candidate says he won’t take pay until jobs return. Campaign stunt or accountable public servant? And he’s not uber rich, so there might actually be some validity and merit to his proposal. Or he just really wants to be Governor of Alabama.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/us/politics/13salary.html

  11. “So while it serves Obama right for seeking cheap political points at the Friday event, his position is consistent.

    Actually, if Obama had had the nerve to stand behind the obvious import of his initial remarks, he wouldn’t have been trying to score cheap political points. But since he’s now decided that there’s a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise that right, he’s not cheap, he’s cowardly.

    1. Actually, if Obama had had the nerve to stand behind the obvious import of his initial remarks

      See, the problem is that his initial remarks were very carefully phrased, and everybody read what they wanted to from them. People do that when they’re pre-disposed to like you, and/or when you’re a talented politician.

      This was super-awesome for Obama during the campaign, as he could say nothing in a bunch of words and get everything to believe that he secretly agreed with them and all the other blather was just for the rubes.

      Unfortunately, as President you have to actually make decisions, and actually coming down somewhere pisses people off and loses you popularity, since you can’t do that straddle any more.

      At least, you have to decide some things. Wading into this matter was a war of choice on the President’s part.

      I don’t really consider the mosque, or House, or whatever, any of my damn business. Nor would I consider a gay bar or anything else. I don’t like zoning, for that matter.

      OTOH, if you support zoning, then you tend to end up having to take a side, I guess.

  12. God damn libertarians have a hard time sticking to their principles when they’re being applied to brown people.

    1. Hi Tony. How’s the day going? Well I hope.

      1. Shitty. Ambien hangover. Sorry if I come across a little angry.

        1. It’s the internets. No need for apologies and all the angry you want!

    2. God damn Tony has a hard time reading.

      And apparently God damn Obama has a hard time sticking to his principles when they might cost him polling points. Well, principles other than expanding government.

      1. Wasn’t the discussion about how he took a politically unpopular stand in defense of the constitution?

        Just keep throwing shit at the wall. No matter what Obama does, it is by definition the wrong thing. I get it.

        1. If his comments and clarification were a stand, then I’m going to have a hard time calling him a leader. I’ve seen more conviction in the decision on what color car to buy than he demonstrated with respect to this whole mosque situation.

        2. Just keep throwing shit at the wall.

          Hey fuck you too!

          That’s one of the oldest and most revered libertarian debate tactics.

        3. No, the discussion was about how he seemingly took a politically unpopular stand in favor of not just the Constitution, but the wisdom of building it

          Even the vast majority of the demagogues– to which we’ll have to add Harry Reid, as I’m sure you heard– say that they support the Constitutional right to build the mosque, they just think it’s a bad idea.

          Defending the Constitutional right wasn’t particularly brave… indeed, people like Sargent over at the Post were talking about how cowardly it would have been if that had been all that the Prez had done… and then had to eat his words when he either walked it back or else corrected all the newspapers’ interpretations.

          1. I don’t care who interpreted it how, he said exactly the correct thing on both occasions.

            1. Did I mention how dreamy he was when he said it?

            2. My God, did you see the bulge along his left thigh? I would become a Christian snake handler for a chance at that!

        4. He “bravely” took the same stand on the Constitution right as Palin, except he said that he wouldn’t comment “on the wisdom” of building it.

          Some bravery.

          1. To you and others, I haven’t once used the word “brave” on this thread.

  13. The president does not make land-use policy for the Boroughs of New York, and so my opinion on this issue is of no interest to anybody.

    Of course, it is inconceivable to him that his opinion on any topic isn’t merely of great interest, it is utterly dispositive.

    I expect it also rarely crosses his mind that doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) make policy on every single issue that interests him.

    So, yeah, we’ll never hear the President utter those words.

    1. So you’re criticizing him for saying exactly what you thought he should say.

      Fuck it. Obama sucks. He brushes his teeth in a way I disapprove! He should get out of my life whilst I simultaneously nitpick every fucking thing he does. And his wife for that matter! Ahh, feels so nice to fit in.

  14. It’s none of my business?

  15. I like it when Tony shows up! He’s a hoot.

  16. I’ll huff

    and I’ll puff

    and I’ll blooooooooooooooow yer house down!

    1. Shouldn’t that read:

      “I’ll huff

      and I’ll puff

      and I’ll blooooooooooooooow Obama’s cock!”
      ?

  17. So the takeaway is that issuing a very carefully phrased non-supportive support quote for a controversial religious center during a feast for said religion hosted at the White House is probably too subtle by half for American politics.

  18. If there’s one good thing to come out of this politically correct mosque shit, and this Arizona Joe-Arpaio-dick-sucking shit, it’s the timely reminder to us libertarians that conservatives are not our friends and never will be, no matter how loudly they squeal about “big government” and “Teh Constitution.” Up until Arizona, I thought they could do now wrong. Thank god they let me know how they really feel before November. These fuckers could care less for limited government when it comes to the rights and equal protections of brown-skinned people with foreign accents. Libertarians should be loudly decrying these assholes so they a.) stop taking us for granted and b.) are shown for the pro-torture nativist terror pussies they really are.

    “Terror Pussies” would be a good band name.

    1. Fuck you asshole

      1. Ooh, did I touch a nerve there?

    2. oh noes, teh brown peeple…

    3. us liberaltarians

      FIFY

      1. No, I stand by my original statement. If you choose not to understand libertarianism by pretending, incorrectly, that it’s a subset of conservatism, that’s not my problem.

  19. “The president does not make land-use policy for the Boroughs of New York, and so my opinion on this issue is of no interest to anybody.”

    The president(‘s branch of government) can, however, intervene if the land-use policy for the Boroughs of New York violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, and so (particularly in a case tied to religion to tightly) it’s not beyond the pale that he would have the authority to intervene if the city succumbed to pressure and tried to crush the project.

    So, why not remind everyone that people have rights, and those rights, if violated, would give him a legitimate pretext for intervention?

    1. The Big BO couldn’t win this one politically. It was a fool’s errand to get involved. The only way he could support the mosque and not get called a secret Muslim Satan was to invoke property rights, and we all know that he’s never going to do that.

  20. A mosque at Ground Zero is like flag burning.

    The responses from libertarians, phony American liberals, and conservatives are pretty much identical.

  21. C’mon, Obama. You know you’re thinking about me.

  22. “With the caveat that Barack Obama is history’s greatest monster […]”

    Yeah, that’s not at all a bad way to start a sentence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.