How Much Contempt Will Americans Suffer?

Posted on | August 13, 2010 | 51 Comments

by Smitty

BHO, ‘unexpectedly’, does about the worst possible thing he could do on a given topic, in this case endorsing the Ground Zero Mosque.

If there is any interest in expressing remorse for the 9/11 fallen, I’d suggest building two inter-faith community centers, with styling similar to the destroyed structures. One in Mecca, the other in Medina.

Nothing says ‘equality’ like treating places equally, no?

What’s the book on how low the approval index will go? Does he break -30%, one wonders? This bit of idiocy may make it happen.

Update: For posterity, the Drudge masthead.

Obviously, Bernanke was talking about a Federal Reserve policy, not the GZM

Category: Barack Obama

Comments

51 Responses to “How Much Contempt Will Americans Suffer?”

Obama “Forcefully Endorses” Ground Zero Mosque « Nice Deb
August 13th, 2010 @ 11:48 pm

[…] The Other McCain: How Much Contempt Will Americans Suffer? […]
Estragon
August 14th, 2010 @ 1:48 am

We have to begin to ask the question, “Just how stupid is Barack Obama, really?”

The guy can read a great speech, and weasel his way through a friendly interview, but he doesn’t react well to direct challenges. We know he couldn’t have gotten into Harvard Law by grades, because even Columbia grads would need to graduate cum laude, and those honors are published and Obama did not qualify.

He was elected editor of the law review not because of leadership, scholarship, or other merit, but because in the long and combative process including over 50 ballots, he was the last one around who hadn’t ticked off a majority against him, because he did not participate in the discussions in any substantial way.

The difference in style between his two autobiographies betray a ghost writer on the second, which is far better written.

He was a part-time “Law Professor” for 14 years at Chicago. Even as a lecturer, which is what his function exclusively involved, has anyone EVER been employed at a major university law school without publishing a single article in the scholarly journals? Those with established reputations might slide by with one publication every two years, but they would have to be impressive with rare exceptions.

As Illinois State Senator, he voted “present” a record number of times. Senate President Emil Jones bragged that he added Obama’s name to most major legislation, even though Obama hadn’t been a sponsor or involved at all, to build his resume to get the U.S. Senate seat.

As U.S. Senator, Obama failed to make half the roll call votes in his four years of service, and skipped nearly all committee meetings.

As President, he has been a complete dud. And now he says something which can only hurt him politically. Stupid. If he favors the mosque, he should still have said, “This is an issue for the people of New York City to decide, and there is no reason for the federal government to interfere with their process.”

So again I wonder, “Just how stupid is Barack Obama, really?”
Estragon
August 14th, 2010 @ 5:48 am

We have to begin to ask the question, “Just how stupid is Barack Obama, really?”

The guy can read a great speech, and weasel his way through a friendly interview, but he doesn’t react well to direct challenges. We know he couldn’t have gotten into Harvard Law by grades, because even Columbia grads would need to graduate cum laude, and those honors are published and Obama did not qualify.

He was elected editor of the law review not because of leadership, scholarship, or other merit, but because in the long and combative process including over 50 ballots, he was the last one around who hadn’t ticked off a majority against him, because he did not participate in the discussions in any substantial way.

The difference in style between his two autobiographies betray a ghost writer on the second, which is far better written.

He was a part-time “Law Professor” for 14 years at Chicago. Even as a lecturer, which is what his function exclusively involved, has anyone EVER been employed at a major university law school without publishing a single article in the scholarly journals? Those with established reputations might slide by with one publication every two years, but they would have to be impressive with rare exceptions.

As Illinois State Senator, he voted “present” a record number of times. Senate President Emil Jones bragged that he added Obama’s name to most major legislation, even though Obama hadn’t been a sponsor or involved at all, to build his resume to get the U.S. Senate seat.

As U.S. Senator, Obama failed to make half the roll call votes in his four years of service, and skipped nearly all committee meetings.

As President, he has been a complete dud. And now he says something which can only hurt him politically. Stupid. If he favors the mosque, he should still have said, “This is an issue for the people of New York City to decide, and there is no reason for the federal government to interfere with their process.”

So again I wonder, “Just how stupid is Barack Obama, really?”
bear1909
August 14th, 2010 @ 11:55 am

to gg: i knew Ivan Illich personally and was a neighbor of one of his closest proteges, Lee Hoinacki, for over a decade. both of these men were two of the most intellectually accomplished gentleman i’ve ever known. yet, (for all the clarity in their published works, and i emphasize “their” because without Hoinacki, Illich would have languished in befuddlement as Hoinacki was crucial to the refinement of his thinking and writing), they were devoid of any practical insight as to how to live life without benefactors to support their existences. Hoinacki lived haplessly alone on rural acreages with some of the earliest “amenities” one could consider “sustainable” (composting toilets that continuously wafted their contents around his compound)after his wife left him for not being able to provide even a basic subsistence level of domestic life. Illich was dependent on the support of various people to provide him with food and shelter. In short, the comments about the car and what it takes to sustain one economically is presented from the vantage point of a human being who was completely alienated from any means of producing wealth. Ivan Illich and his “ilch” are paragons of Marxist thought and sophistry who never produced one “thing” of value…and I am a true believer that thoughts are things. While men of these stripes advantage themselves with the largesse of academic institutions and tuition paying serfs, they make careers out of “deconstructing” the “illusion” of these wealth creating factories all the while degrading them as the anti-thesis of what they claim to be. For me, academic institutions gave me tools to create things of value that improved lives. Ivan Illich never improved anybody’s life with his books. He died a slow and painful death from a tumor that grew in his head to be larger than his head itself: all because of this “medical nemesis” he claimed was killing far more people than it healed. He was insane— as are your pointless ramblings about history and George Bush. Are you a fan of the other George who is creating history, the self-hating Jew with a phony last name, like Obama?
bear1909
August 14th, 2010 @ 7:55 am

to gg: i knew Ivan Illich personally and was a neighbor of one of his closest proteges, Lee Hoinacki, for over a decade. both of these men were two of the most intellectually accomplished gentleman i’ve ever known. yet, (for all the clarity in their published works, and i emphasize “their” because without Hoinacki, Illich would have languished in befuddlement as Hoinacki was crucial to the refinement of his thinking and writing), they were devoid of any practical insight as to how to live life without benefactors to support their existences. Hoinacki lived haplessly alone on rural acreages with some of the earliest “amenities” one could consider “sustainable” (composting toilets that continuously wafted their contents around his compound)after his wife left him for not being able to provide even a basic subsistence level of domestic life. Illich was dependent on the support of various people to provide him with food and shelter. In short, the comments about the car and what it takes to sustain one economically is presented from the vantage point of a human being who was completely alienated from any means of producing wealth. Ivan Illich and his “ilch” are paragons of Marxist thought and sophistry who never produced one “thing” of value…and I am a true believer that thoughts are things. While men of these stripes advantage themselves with the largesse of academic institutions and tuition paying serfs, they make careers out of “deconstructing” the “illusion” of these wealth creating factories all the while degrading them as the anti-thesis of what they claim to be. For me, academic institutions gave me tools to create things of value that improved lives. Ivan Illich never improved anybody’s life with his books. He died a slow and painful death from a tumor that grew in his head to be larger than his head itself: all because of this “medical nemesis” he claimed was killing far more people than it healed. He was insane— as are your pointless ramblings about history and George Bush. Are you a fan of the other George who is creating history, the self-hating Jew with a phony last name, like Obama?
jfxgillis
August 14th, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

smitty:

I love droppin’ by the ol’ udder McCain blog when I know you righties are just in a howlin’ tantrum.

To answer your title question, there’s more where that came from, although perhaps instead of having apoloplexy about the as-yet-unrealized possibility of Saudi money contributing to a mosque in New York to the to tune of $50 million in chump change, how about a Crusade to stop the wascally Wahabists here:

US plans $60b arms sale to Saudis
jfxgillis
August 14th, 2010 @ 10:22 am

smitty:

I love droppin’ by the ol’ udder McCain blog when I know you righties are just in a howlin’ tantrum.

To answer your title question, there’s more where that came from, although perhaps instead of having apoloplexy about the as-yet-unrealized possibility of Saudi money contributing to a mosque in New York to the to tune of $50 million in chump change, how about a Crusade to stop the wascally Wahabists here:

US plans $60b arms sale to Saudis
jfxgillis
August 14th, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

gg:

One must never meddle with the primal forces of nature.
jfxgillis
August 14th, 2010 @ 10:56 am

gg:

One must never meddle with the primal forces of nature.
FenelonSpoke
August 14th, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

I love skipping over any post that has gg as its author.
FenelonSpoke
August 14th, 2010 @ 11:17 am

I love skipping over any post that has gg as its author.
Thomas L. Knapp
August 14th, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

1) It’s not a mosque, it’s a cultural center.

2) It’s not at Ground Zero, it is two blocks/three streets (four blocks if you drive because of one-way streets) from the edge of the World Trade Center complex and separated from that complex visually by two buildings taller than it will be.

2a) Every time you use the phrase “Ground Zero Mosque” without scare quotes You. Are. Lying. To. Your. Readers. You might want to cut back on that.

3) I’m not sure that there’s any reason for POTUS to comment on something that should be a simple matter of New York City officials telling the mob “no, your hatred of Islam does not trump Muslims’ property rights.” But if POTUS had to comment, he said exactly the right thing and took the only position consistent with freedom, America, apple pie, etc.
Thomas L. Knapp
August 14th, 2010 @ 12:50 pm

1) It’s not a mosque, it’s a cultural center.

2) It’s not at Ground Zero, it is two blocks/three streets (four blocks if you drive because of one-way streets) from the edge of the World Trade Center complex and separated from that complex visually by two buildings taller than it will be.

2a) Every time you use the phrase “Ground Zero Mosque” without scare quotes You. Are. Lying. To. Your. Readers. You might want to cut back on that.

3) I’m not sure that there’s any reason for POTUS to comment on something that should be a simple matter of New York City officials telling the mob “no, your hatred of Islam does not trump Muslims’ property rights.” But if POTUS had to comment, he said exactly the right thing and took the only position consistent with freedom, America, apple pie, etc.
Bunni
August 14th, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

Obama has clearly sunk to a NEW LOW.
He doesn’t care about how the American people feel on this subject, just like everything else he does and endorses.

He is the worst prez ever, and this should be the nail
in the coffin of how contemptible he can be.
He wants to appease his muslim handlers, and that’s the bottom line. Every day it’s more spitting in our faces.
I can’t wait until November.
Bunni
August 14th, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

Obama has clearly sunk to a NEW LOW.
He doesn’t care about how the American people feel on this subject, just like everything else he does and endorses.

He is the worst prez ever, and this should be the nail
in the coffin of how contemptible he can be.
He wants to appease his muslim handlers, and that’s the bottom line. Every day it’s more spitting in our faces.
I can’t wait until November.
SDN
August 14th, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

The building on the site was close enough to Ground Zero to be damaged by parts of the plane, Copperhead. Close enough for government work, as they say.
SDN
August 14th, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

The building on the site was close enough to Ground Zero to be damaged by parts of the plane, Copperhead. Close enough for government work, as they say.
FenelonSpoke
August 14th, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

Since one of the wheels of a plane went into the building that would be taken down in order to build the culural Center and Mosque, I’d say that’s darn close to the World Trade Center.

Sorry but calling people “bigots” who oppose the location of the mosque doesn’t work except for liberals to feel the warmth of self righteous superiority. Some Moderate Muslims are opposed to the site too. Are they also bigots? It’s simply a red herring to call all people opposed to this Center Bigots. With one exception I have seen nobody say it shouldn’t be built. They are just saying not at this site.

Have spent more than two years being called a racist simply because I oppose the policies of Barack Obama, the term is now like water off a ducks back to me. It may soon get to the point with the term “bigot” since I know I’m not that either.
FenelonSpoke
August 14th, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

Since one of the wheels of a plane went into the building that would be taken down in order to build the culural Center and Mosque, I’d say that’s darn close to the World Trade Center.

Sorry but calling people “bigots” who oppose the location of the mosque doesn’t work except for liberals to feel the warmth of self righteous superiority. Some Moderate Muslims are opposed to the site too. Are they also bigots? It’s simply a red herring to call all people opposed to this Center Bigots. With one exception I have seen nobody say it shouldn’t be built. They are just saying not at this site.

Have spent more than two years being called a racist simply because I oppose the policies of Barack Obama, the term is now like water off a ducks back to me. It may soon get to the point with the term “bigot” since I know I’m not that either.
young4eyes
August 14th, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

Haha!
Oh brother, aren’t you guys just bending over backwards to make this a political football. What’s the matter? Is your party platform so rickety that you need all the red herring you can get your hands on?
This reminds me of the time when the Bush campaign put the “same sex marriage” issue on the ballot in 2004, only to backtrack on it right after he won. That made many of you homo-hating X-stians very angry, didn’t it…
Once again, BO is right and you are so pitifully wrong. If you cowards could only get a hold of your emotions you’d realize that the Constitution mean something. I’d figure that you so-called “Constitutionalists” would get it by now. But we get it: you’re all hypocrites.
” Some Moderate Muslims are opposed to the site too. Are they also bigots? ”
Some 9-11 survivors are for the cultural center, are they terrorist appeasers?
You may not be a bigot, but you sure are dumb.
“He doesn’t care about how the American people feel on this subject”
Aww Bunni, because that’s the POTUS’ job, to make sure your feeling aren’t hurt. Sign of leadership: doing the right thing even when you whiners bitch and moan about it. Get over yourselves…
young4eyes
August 14th, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

Haha!
Oh brother, aren’t you guys just bending over backwards to make this a political football. What’s the matter? Is your party platform so rickety that you need all the red herring you can get your hands on?
This reminds me of the time when the Bush campaign put the “same sex marriage” issue on the ballot in 2004, only to backtrack on it right after he won. That made many of you homo-hating X-stians very angry, didn’t it…
Once again, BO is right and you are so pitifully wrong. If you cowards could only get a hold of your emotions you’d realize that the Constitution mean something. I’d figure that you so-called “Constitutionalists” would get it by now. But we get it: you’re all hypocrites.
” Some Moderate Muslims are opposed to the site too. Are they also bigots? ”
Some 9-11 survivors are for the cultural center, are they terrorist appeasers?
You may not be a bigot, but you sure are dumb.
“He doesn’t care about how the American people feel on this subject”
Aww Bunni, because that’s the POTUS’ job, to make sure your feeling aren’t hurt. Sign of leadership: doing the right thing even when you whiners bitch and moan about it. Get over yourselves…
Adobe Walls
August 14th, 2010 @ 11:27 pm

@ Thomas L. Knapp
1) It’s not a mosque, it’s a cultural center.

While I can admire the deftness required to split that hair, the center as planned will contain a mosque at any rate many who oppose the proposed building don’t give a damn what the savages call it. Many believe that it’s main and therefor only purpose is to create a monument to their 9/11 tactical victory.
The fact that the Muslims have every legal right to build the “center” where ever they want within the usual zoning etc. restrictions is for most opponents beside the point. There are many who would be satisfied if the center were moved to some other part of New York city, hopefully this compromise will not be possible.
At the risk jumping to a conclusion I take it that you classify the followers of Islam as another group of people suffering from bigotry who are only opposed because of religious and/or racial intolerance. In my opinion they represent as big a threat to civilization as the left.
The Cross of St George of the Crescent Moon.
Adobe Walls
August 14th, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

@ Thomas L. Knapp
1) It’s not a mosque, it’s a cultural center.

While I can admire the deftness required to split that hair, the center as planned will contain a mosque at any rate many who oppose the proposed building don’t give a damn what the savages call it. Many believe that it’s main and therefor only purpose is to create a monument to their 9/11 tactical victory.
The fact that the Muslims have every legal right to build the “center” where ever they want within the usual zoning etc. restrictions is for most opponents beside the point. There are many who would be satisfied if the center were moved to some other part of New York city, hopefully this compromise will not be possible.
At the risk jumping to a conclusion I take it that you classify the followers of Islam as another group of people suffering from bigotry who are only opposed because of religious and/or racial intolerance. In my opinion they represent as big a threat to civilization as the left.
The Cross of St George of the Crescent Moon.
Adobe Walls
August 14th, 2010 @ 11:48 pm

As for the main subject of this post I’m having difficulty discerning who Obama’s pandering to here. When asked earlier, Gibbs’ stated that the White House felt that this was and should remain a “local” issue. This response demonstrated uncommon common sense for this WH. Since we can safely assume that there was no sudden attack of scruples we may conclude that Obama is pandering to his masters the Saudis or feels that somehow this is helpful in kowtowing to the Iranians.
Adobe Walls
August 14th, 2010 @ 7:48 pm

As for the main subject of this post I’m having difficulty discerning who Obama’s pandering to here. When asked earlier, Gibbs’ stated that the White House felt that this was and should remain a “local” issue. This response demonstrated uncommon common sense for this WH. Since we can safely assume that there was no sudden attack of scruples we may conclude that Obama is pandering to his masters the Saudis or feels that somehow this is helpful in kowtowing to the Iranians.
Randy Rager
August 15th, 2010 @ 1:41 am

If Obama wasn’t wrong, why did he spend all day backpedaling?

Is he just a big fat pussy that cuts and runs at the first sign of principled opposition, or was he wrong?

I don’t see why he isn’t both, myself, but I’ll let you Leftards try to figure out why he’s just one or the other.

At this point, it’s all you’ve got left.
Randy Rager
August 14th, 2010 @ 9:41 pm

If Obama wasn’t wrong, why did he spend all day backpedaling?

Is he just a big fat pussy that cuts and runs at the first sign of principled opposition, or was he wrong?

I don’t see why he isn’t both, myself, but I’ll let you Leftards try to figure out why he’s just one or the other.

At this point, it’s all you’ve got left.
young4eyes
August 15th, 2010 @ 2:44 am

Oh Randy, the only pussy around here is folks like you. He didn’t backpedal, he elaborated his position.Not that you mental midgets could in good conscience make that difference.
Hey pussy, the jig is up. The kitchen sink tactics are boring. Go back to the drawing board.
“I’m having difficulty discerning who Obama’s pandering to here”
Adobe, he’s “pandering” to the Constitution.Nice try though. I bet that line works with the morons you deal with, but it ain’t flying in the real world.
“Many believe that it’s main and therefor only purpose is to create a monument to their 9/11 tactical victory.”
Many believed that Saddam was behind 9-11. Hate to break it to you, but just because you idiots “believe” in something doesn’t make it so. I know, I know…this prospect really stings.Culturally speaking, Conservatives are so enamored with their opinions that they now confuse their beliefs with reality.
“In my opinion they represent as big a threat to civilization as the left.”
Hahaha! Exactly! In your “opinion”. Therefore it must be true…NOT!
Sad sacks…
First they’ll go after the mosques, then after the synagogues, then Catholic churches…
young4eyes
August 14th, 2010 @ 10:44 pm

Oh Randy, the only pussy around here is folks like you. He didn’t backpedal, he elaborated his position.Not that you mental midgets could in good conscience make that difference.
Hey pussy, the jig is up. The kitchen sink tactics are boring. Go back to the drawing board.
“I’m having difficulty discerning who Obama’s pandering to here”
Adobe, he’s “pandering” to the Constitution.Nice try though. I bet that line works with the morons you deal with, but it ain’t flying in the real world.
“Many believe that it’s main and therefor only purpose is to create a monument to their 9/11 tactical victory.”
Many believed that Saddam was behind 9-11. Hate to break it to you, but just because you idiots “believe” in something doesn’t make it so. I know, I know…this prospect really stings.Culturally speaking, Conservatives are so enamored with their opinions that they now confuse their beliefs with reality.
“In my opinion they represent as big a threat to civilization as the left.”
Hahaha! Exactly! In your “opinion”. Therefore it must be true…NOT!
Sad sacks…
First they’ll go after the mosques, then after the synagogues, then Catholic churches…
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 3:53 am

Young4eyes the warrior of the wounding words you insults sting us so, um you need to get back on your meds seriously. I can only stand to read about a quarter of what Gigi writes and yet he makes more sense than you do.
Obama doesn’t care a fig for the constitution.
Adobe Walls
August 14th, 2010 @ 11:53 pm

Young4eyes the warrior of the wounding words you insults sting us so, um you need to get back on your meds seriously. I can only stand to read about a quarter of what Gigi writes and yet he makes more sense than you do.
Obama doesn’t care a fig for the constitution.
young4eyes
August 15th, 2010 @ 4:04 am

Uh huh.And you do.
What’s next, buddy?
What other Constitutional right are you ready to throw to the wayside? What other scheme can you concoct in your juvenile attempts to have your cake and eat it too?
I don’t care a fig what or how much your feeble intellect is able to digest.
Keep confusing your opinions with facts. It’s working so well for you guys…
young4eyes
August 15th, 2010 @ 12:04 am

Uh huh.And you do.
What’s next, buddy?
What other Constitutional right are you ready to throw to the wayside? What other scheme can you concoct in your juvenile attempts to have your cake and eat it too?
I don’t care a fig what or how much your feeble intellect is able to digest.
Keep confusing your opinions with facts. It’s working so well for you guys…
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 4:05 am

Young4eyes when are you and Gigi going to get it straight. The morons hang over at Ace’s.
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 12:05 am

Young4eyes when are you and Gigi going to get it straight. The morons hang over at Ace’s.
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 4:08 am

Do your keepers know how you spend your Internet time? Is this supposed to be some sort of therapy?
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 12:08 am

Do your keepers know how you spend your Internet time? Is this supposed to be some sort of therapy?
Thomas L. Knapp
August 15th, 2010 @ 4:12 am

You either support property rights and religious freedom or you oppose them.

If you oppose them then you’re the enemy.

Yes, it really is that fucking simple.
Thomas L. Knapp
August 15th, 2010 @ 12:12 am

You either support property rights and religious freedom or you oppose them.

If you oppose them then you’re the enemy.

Yes, it really is that fucking simple.
young4eyes
August 15th, 2010 @ 4:37 am

Goddam right it’s that simple!
Mr.Knapp GETS IT!
And he, not unlike myself, may not like it. But that isn’t the point. The Constitution wasn’t meant to cater to our prejudices.
Live it, love it, or get the hell out.
Adobe, cowboy up.
Either that or have your diaper changed.
young4eyes
August 15th, 2010 @ 12:37 am

Goddam right it’s that simple!
Mr.Knapp GETS IT!
And he, not unlike myself, may not like it. But that isn’t the point. The Constitution wasn’t meant to cater to our prejudices.
Live it, love it, or get the hell out.
Adobe, cowboy up.
Either that or have your diaper changed.
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 5:35 am

You both would have been a real drag at a good old fashioned tar and feathering.
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 1:35 am

You both would have been a real drag at a good old fashioned tar and feathering.
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 5:53 am

Whose enemy yours or theirs or both. I make no distinction between the Islamists throughout the World in general and the ones who want to build in Manhattan in paticular and if the Totenkopf had suddenly appeared in 1944 America demanding a “Cultural Center” in Manhattan.
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 1:53 am

Whose enemy yours or theirs or both. I make no distinction between the Islamists throughout the World in general and the ones who want to build in Manhattan in paticular and if the Totenkopf had suddenly appeared in 1944 America demanding a “Cultural Center” in Manhattan.
Thomas L. Knapp
August 15th, 2010 @ 8:15 am

Adobe Walls,

You write:

“Whose enemy yours or theirs or both.”

Not whose enemy, what’s enemy.

Freedom’s enemy. America’s enemy. Humankind’s enemy.

“I make no distinction between the Islamists throughout the World in general and the ones who want to build in Manhattan in paticular”

Nor should you. You should, however make the very important distinction between “Islamists” and “Muslims.” The two are not the same thing.
Thomas L. Knapp
August 15th, 2010 @ 4:15 am

Adobe Walls,

You write:

“Whose enemy yours or theirs or both.”

Not whose enemy, what’s enemy.

Freedom’s enemy. America’s enemy. Humankind’s enemy.

“I make no distinction between the Islamists throughout the World in general and the ones who want to build in Manhattan in paticular”

Nor should you. You should, however make the very important distinction between “Islamists” and “Muslims.” The two are not the same thing.
Randy Rager
August 15th, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

Anyone who DOESN’T call it the Ground Zero Mosque is a fucking liar, and here’s a link to a visual aid for the morons on the left.

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16201&posts=1#M42254

gigi and young4eyes will no doubt have some light loafered whinging about how this doesn’t prove anything, but I’ll never know, since I don’t read their drivel.
Randy Rager
August 15th, 2010 @ 10:23 am

Anyone who DOESN’T call it the Ground Zero Mosque is a fucking liar, and here’s a link to a visual aid for the morons on the left.

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16201&posts=1#M42254

gigi and young4eyes will no doubt have some light loafered whinging about how this doesn’t prove anything, but I’ll never know, since I don’t read their drivel.
Adobe Walls
August 15th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

Once again a distinction without a difference. Perhaps the Totenkopf reference didn’t ring a bell. You may accept the theory of Moderate or peaceful Moslem’s I do not. The difference between the Taliban and the Wahhabists/Al Qaeda is that the Taliban had much more local ambitions. The differences between the Moslem/Islamists and the Nazis is that the Moslems have a more patient and more effective plan for world domination.