Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 10, 2010 -> 10:14 AM) http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5552505 The hits keep coming for Tennessee. Looks like Kiffins antics brought a lot of heat on the program, and everyone is under a microscope now. Karma's a b**** Pearl.

engaged.....1 month till the wedding.

28

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 10, 2010 -> 07:43 AM) You know for me it always kind of goes back to my original thoughts on this whole thing, which was that 2 blocks is pretty far in a city. Entire neighborhoods can change in two blocks, it can go from good to bad in two blocks, nothing is related in 2 blocks. My friend just visited new york and went to go see where this was built and basically said the same thing. He walked 20 minutes to get there but he's hefty. It is, but I dunno how people can just ignore that the attack caused havoc, chaos and destruction beyond the plot lines of the WTC (and if I remember right from my time there, the WTC site itself is bigger than 2 blocks). It was tens of blocks, not one. So while I agree typically 2 blocks is a long distance, in this scenario, it's really not.

Anyone else watching Rubicon? The fiance and I downloaded and watched the first 5 episodes. So far so good, though it's a slow burn. It's getting more and more interesting, however.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) No, I don't see how it would be viewed as disrespectful unless you're a bigot who views all billion+ adherents of a religion in the light of the extremists. Muslims died in the WTC, too. Also, glad to see you backpedalling from your "on the very spot" claim and avoiding, like everyone else, the "how far is far enough?" question. Because you've been harping on this stupid f***ing point for weeks. It does not matter. Just like saying how many drink is too much? You f***ing know. Is that art or is that porn? You just f***ing know. 2 blocks from the worst attack on Americal soil is enough for me. I dunno what the border is, but I know this isn't it.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) You do realize that Christians have killed in the name of their "God" before too, does that mean we should restrict their ability to worship freely for what a few crazy people did (and really, religion was an outclause for them, just like how some Christians who were murderers in the past did, they used "God" as their excuse for their f***ed up actions). And whose to say that the mosque is built to be a common place for free religion and understanding, much like a monument would be there to honor those who had fallen due to the horror of the past, but iis marking the progress (yes I know, that dreaded word) of the people and how we have remembered and learned from the situation. That's all well and good but i'm arguing against this idea that people who don't like it are automatically racist (er, bigoted, right SS?) I'm not denying that they have the right to build the church, or that if people were welcoming of the idea that it would show "progress," but that's not reality. Enough people were pissed off about it. It wasn't welcome with open arms, there was clear opposition to it, and IMO that opposition is justified. It's still an open wound for a lot of people. And I can see it as being a slight to New Yorkers to want to open the mosque there (and to make a big stink of it as they have).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) Your argument lacks sense and factual basis. They want to build a place to practice their religion, among other things. Some extremists carried out an attack 9 years ago nearby, not "on the very spot", in the name of their particular extremist interpretation of that religion. How is that at all like placing a monument to a weapon? What is not "common sense" about building a religious community center a few blocks from the WTC? Why does it lack "social tact" to want to build this? How far away would it have to be to have common sense and social tact (TN not far enough for some!)? How long does this "no muslims" exclusion zone last? Seriously, am I the only one that sees why the people of New York wouldn't want this? Building a mosque (not a community center. It's a community center as much as a catholic church is a community center. Do you really think catholics or jews or athiests will be welcome with open arms?) near ground zero (which as I stated above, is not some 10 foot square plot of land, but encompassed practically all of lower manhattan) isn't slightly disrespectful to the worst attack on american soil? Just a little? Really?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) What? This is a private owner putting up a religious and community center. The bomb is, you know, a weapon. And this isn't the government of Afghanistan putting it up anyway. That comparison is atrocious. You are basically equating Islam with a weapon of mass destruction - and if that comparison is true, then the Catholic Church is the neutron bomb. It's not the greatest of comparisons, but it makes sense to me. These guys, purposefully or not, want to build a center to worship their religion, which was the basis for the attacks, on the very spot where the attacks occurred. Just like wanting to place a monument to celebrate the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. It lacks all common sense and social tact, and IMO the people who don't like the idea are completely justified in thinking that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) And what gall you have in continuing to B.S. about the location. I still don't understand why people have an issue with this. 2 blocks was well within the zone of damage/destruction caused by 9/11. You state this as though the site is some tiny 10 foot by 10 foot plot of land. (and my position has always been it's f***ing stupid for these guys to not use common sense with this. Should the government step in and stop them? No. Is it purely anti-Muslim, racist outcries? No. It's akin to the US putting up a monument to the creator of the atom bomb in Hiroshima 10 years after ww2. I think the reactions are justified)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) I think this commentary also applies excellently to Kap's continual "How dare you insinuate that the tea party is racist!" gag line. Yep, disagreeing with building a mosque next to ground zero is EXACTLY the same kind of act as literally burning the Koran. Totally indistinguishable. What gaul these folks have drawing a distinction between the two. And seriously, look at this issue with a little more context. I have no problem with the response this idiot is getting for this. He deserves it. It's a stupid act, and the US is probably going to look bad for it. But that's precisely why we have this freedom of speech thing. It's why Obama should not have stuck his nose into this. It'd be no different than Nixon telling anti-Vietnam protestors that they can't burn the American flag or be unpatriotic because it would disrupt our missions overseas. It's not his place to tell the country what speech is ok and not ok. Also, I find it pretty funny the response this guy is getting from the rest of the world, as if one nutcase burning a book is worse for American-Muslim relations than, oh, I dunno, extremist Muslims killing westerners on a constant basis. Again, burning a book, versus slicing peoples heads off. Totally tit for tat there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) Put in the context of the political discussion in this country, it most certainly is meant as an insult. Wow.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:38 AM) i forgot, name calling is especially important within the tea party. (socialist, obamacare, etc) Like little children. QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) i didnt see uneducated, white people on that list? Yep.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:45 AM) No, you get to ignore the very specific post I made addressing that issue. It was a joke.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:16 AM) Dick Armey and Freedomworks (and by extension the Kock brothers), among others, have been involved from pretty much the start. I get to be Balta and make a completely unreasonable connection: "So, you're saying all people with money and power are evil?"

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) OK, but the Patriot Act wasn't about military funding anyway. It was the expansion of federal power to intrude on people's lives, and that's something I'd expect any libertarian to scream and yell about. Right, but military funding equates to wasteful spending to most folks, especially 10 years later. And since 9/11 was widely the result of a failure of intelligence, I think the expansion of intelligence powers provided by the Patriot Act was a reasonable move, just like despite the enlargement of government, I was ok with Bush creating the Department of Homeland security. Clearly what we had wasn't working, so he tried to fix it. I don't think many libertarians are upset about expansion of government relating to defense/foreign policy issues. That's not something the private sector can handle on its own.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) Wait, so military spending doesn't count? I'm saying that in context, considering the timing of it all, I understand why some people (like me) were willing to be ok with expanded government for defense and intelligence purposes, so that might explain why there wasn't the same type of backlash for it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) If it's funded by powerful, wealthy people, it's not grass-roots by definition. That's all. Then by definition grass-roots efforts are incredibly rare if not non-existent since they start as small groups and later get aid from the powerful and wealthy to spread the message. Either way you want to define it, it's still a "movement" that's getting a lot of participants becoming more vocal and active about their government.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) They have to have these protests and what not when a Republican is president too. They can't protest when a Democrat is in office and than disappear when a Republican takes office. If your gonna have protests for smaller government you have to do it all the time. Like when the Patriot Act is passed. That's a fair criticism, but I think there's a difference between expanding intelligence powers and increased military funding right after being attacked, and spending trillions bailing out companies/people and subjecting the country to Obamacare and the like.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) The problem is that, at the top level, it isn't grass roots. It's funded by powerful and wealthy people. So? Our country's revolution was funded by powerful, wealthy people. Edit: GrammEr fail.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) Just curious when we'll see Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Rudy Guiliani and the other Burlington Coat Factory mosque panic pushers talk about how insensitive and inappropriate "International Burn a Koran Day" is. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 10:04 PM) "The worst thing in American Politics" isn't on that list. But it's that. That's rich. Did Jon Stewart teach you that? I honestly don't know how any "democrat" could view the tea party as the "worst thing" in politics. It's precisely the type of grass roots movement that IS American politics. You might not agree with the message, but the idea that people can get together, voice their opposition to their government, and create change is fundamentally American.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 01:38 PM) Even the things the Dems wanted, haven't done what they were supposed to. The irony is that if tax cuts don't work, why is Obama on TV asking for them? Because he's a patriot of this country, and he realizes that unless he becomes the "better man" in this situation, the economy will never recover. He will, therefore, against his better judgement, appease the Republicans, and give in to their demands, for the good of the whole. I love me that Obama.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 11:15 AM) Are these the first political rallies you've been to? What made you want to go? No, I've been to many before. Republican, democrat, green party, whatever. I normally go just to see what it's about. In this case, I liked what I heard. Contrary to the bulls*** spread around on this site (and the media), it's not a bunch of redneck hicks talking about lynching blacks and gays. It's about people being upset at Washington (both liberals and conservatives, but the brunt of it being the Dems since they hold the powerful offices) for shifting national values, wasteful spending, needless public intervention into the private arena (the requirement of health care, with a government subsidy for those that choose not to purchase it, was a big topic), the wars in afghanistan and iraq, etc. It's basically a libertarian message, which I'm a huge proponent of. There was ZERO discussion about race or sexuality. There was ZERO discussion about Obama being a Muslim or not an American. Shocking, I know.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 8, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) Does anyone on here consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement? Define "part of." I've been to a couple of rallies and agree with a lot if the things they discuss. I guess that makes me part of the movement, though I'm not sure I'm a part of the "party."