Or, if I ought not to be calling people names (which I ought not), the, “Sarah Palin says more doltish things than average.”
*sigh*
Current doltitude: chiding President Obama for daring, daring to stand up for (gasp) The Constitution. Oh, the humanity! He just “doesn’t get it!” The Doltish Right American People aren’t interested in the Constitution unless it has to do with guns! The rest of the time, it’s used by liberals to let illegals in and gays marry and uppity blacks get into the White House. Really! Somebody on the Internet said so!
Sarah Palin Monday night chided President Barack Obama for his support of the right to build the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York, saying the president “doesn’t get it.”
Yeah! Doesn’t he know that MUSLIMS ARE EEVIL? And the First Amendment is really about protecting Christians? He just doesn’t get it!
“It sounds cliched to say that the president is disconnected from the American people on this issue, …
It sounds cliched because the Right has been attacking Obama for being “disconnected” (and “aloof” and “snooty” and “Spock-like” and “un-American” and “Islamic” and a raving liberal and a traitor and a Kenyan and … well, and “disconnected”) since, oh, about 30 seconds after it looked like he was going to tie up the Democratic nomination.
“… but how else do you describe it,” the former Alaska GOP governor said on Fox News.
Um … he swore to uphold and and protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and, by protecting the rights of some folks to build a house of worship (and swimming pool and library and meeting rooms) on property that’s properly zoned and owned by them, he’s doing just what he was hired for? That’s how I’d describe it.
“He just doesn’t get it, that this is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location….
Insensitive to the xenophobes and Islamiphobes on the Right, and the folks they can rile up by painting an image of a huge, leering, domed temple arching over Holy Ground Zero, perhaps.
… It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11.”
Really. A stab to the heart.
When, pray-tell, will it be okay for an Islamic cultural center to be built a few blocks away from Ground Zero? Next month? In a few years? Decades? After the last surviving family member has passed away? Alternately, where would be far enough away for Americans of the Muslim faith to build in order to not be all heart-stabby? Another block? Several more blocks? Off of Manhattan? Outside of the Eastern Seaboard? Anywhere on US soil?
Do the Americans who still have that “lingering pain” know what else is still in business, or has been built, in that area of New York City? Do they lie awake at night, feeling all stabbed, because there might be something or someone disrespectful of Holy Ground Zero somewhere in the neighborhood?
“Nobody argues that that freedom of religion that the Muslims have to build that mosque somewhere,” Palin told Greta Van Susteren.
I notice that folks who start sentences with “I fully support someone’s freedom to do something …” often end them with “… but they shouldn’t do it because I think it’s a bad idea.” Especially when it’s Sarah Palin.
I mean, actually, there are folks out there arguing that (if I can parse Sarah’s sentence into actual English) our constitutional right to freedom of religion actually doesn’t apply to Muslims. Really. They’re on the Internet and putting out press releases, right alongside their screeds about gays recruiting children and fluoride polluting our precious bodily fluids.
For the mosque to be “so adamant about this exact location just a block or two away from 9/11, again, is that knife, it feels like.
Again with the knife! Lucky she didn’t decide to say, “If feels like a gunshot to the gut” or “a bomb to the roadside” or something. That might have been really inflammatory.
And it’s not like the folks planning this center just had their choice of any location they wanted. Good and suitable property in lower Manhattan doesn’t grow on trees. “So adamant” in this case means they actually managed to buy the property and, in a flagrant abuse of our, y’know, system of private property and property-holders rights, and all those other things Sarah’s usually in favor of when it’s not EEEEVILLL MUSLIMS!!!! involved, decided that that’s where they were going to build their project.
Imagine, the nerve of buying property, filling out all the paperwork, having plans, and then daring, daring to actually build what you planned on building! The nerve!
“If the purpose of this mosque, as we are lead to believe, is to create this tolerant environment, to avoid anything like a 9/11 ever repeating, you have to ask why didn’t one of those 100 [existing] mosques already accomplish such a thing,” Palin said.
Gee, Sarah, let me think. If Christians really all are about spreading the message of love and peace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ, why have we had centuries of a Christian-dominated West with gazillions of Christian churches and with ostensibly Christian nations fighting each other, sometimes even using Christianity as their justification?
“So I don’t buy into that reason, that that’s the purpose of this location being chosen.”
Right. There must be some SECRET, ULTERIOR MOTIVE. Like they’re going to build the place, then they’re going to send a secret radio beacon back through Time in their basement that will help the 9/11 hijackers figure out where New York City is so they can carry out 9/11. The fiends!!
I am obliged to note (esp. as Les commented on it) that the pic of Sarah above is, notoriously, a photoshopped fake. But it seemed to fit the spirit of Ms Palin’s statements, in so many ways.
you guys are a bunch of idiots.
Thank you for that insightful reply, Bernie. Anything specific in that indictment, or is it just a reflex reaction?
Not a reflex reaction. I am just sick and tired of people’s reaction to someone who stands up for the American people for a change. Everyone except the extreme left (George Soros group) knows that the Obama administration is trying to destroy this country. Look at that clown that he has as the Attorney General. If everyone sat down long enough and look at the progression of this country from FDR, you can see a steady progression of giving this country away, catering to foreign powers, not looking at our exceptionalism, etc. Thanks for the response.
I don’t agree that Ms Palin is “standing up for the American people.” I think she is standing up for her own self-interest and that a subset of the American people find her ill-informed jingoism and and “truthiness” attractive.
I disagree that the Obama Adminstration is trying to destroy this country. Some specific examples would be welcome (other than ad hominem attacks on AG Holder or waving around George Soros name like Medusa’s head).
On the contrary, I would argue that the nativist intolerance and fact-free rabble-rousing of Ms Palin and her ilk are doing more to destroy this country than any action take by the current Adminstration.
I don’t see how we have “given this country away” since FDR, nor what you would consider “catering to foreign powers.” And while I think there are “exceptional” aspects to this country that I am proud of, I don’t think we have a corner on perfection, virtue, or God’s blessing.
Yes…
Such evil progress such as the 40 hour work week, pensions, paid medical and the host of other things that conservatives take for granted because they have them now so they have always existed.
But hey, you have your Glenn Beck crazy hour of lies and fantasy, wingnut radio of more of the same followed up by the Michelle Malkin, Free Republic and Andrew Brietbart crayon scribble blogs to rad to back op your very unique view points.
“stands up for the American people for a change” . . . ?
Only if they’re employed and have health insurance. Otherwise, “phuck ’em!”
“Everyone knows . . . ” a lot but not one of them can explain what or how. You Bernie Boy are no exception.
Only the conspiratorial paranoiac “can see a steady progression of giving this country away, catering to foreign powers, not looking at our exceptionalism, etc.” You assert but show nothing. Trite.
So why would you put that photo on your website? A lot of people don’t know that it is a fake.
You are correct. I have, as I ought have originally, noted that it is not, in fact, Sarah Palin. At least not in body.
I think America needs several million more people like Sarah Palin, and A few million less people like you, Whoever you are you sound very much like an IDIOT
Thanks for commenting, Jim. Is there something in particular that you think Ms Palin brings to America (particularly on the context of this post) that you think is valuable?
Well, duh. It is not calling someone names to state the truth. Sarah Palin is a small-minded, two-bit politician who has never understood that there are tricky little things like facts.
You moron, you wouldn’t know a fact if you heard one.
Any specific facts you want to address, Bernie?
Poor Bernie…
And that about sums up the general level of Palin’s supporters’ ability to make intelligent conversation. Unable to refute something? Go directly to ad hominem attacks.
Eight will get you five his next post is a “Yo’ mama…” insult.
You mean as compared to your insightful remarks. Sometimes there is only one name for people who just spout off like you did about Palin.
I said nothing about Palin. Your argument is invalid, as it addresses a situation that does not exist.
As far as “insightful remarks” go, you did set the standard with “you guys are a bunch of idiots.” Dave has tried to get you to address specific facts, and you persist in refusing to do so, choosing instead to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric.
I am always surprised what people say about Palin. Many times I have ask people why they say the things they do about her. 99.9% of all the negative things said about her is false. Such as theother day a guy told me that he HATED her because she left her husband and filed fordivorce. That is not true. I guess what I am trying to find out is what is it about her that evokes such anger. Is it because she calls out Obama policies and by now most people who voted for him really sees him for what he is. No one can give me difinitive answers as to why they hate her so.
So, besides some random guy that seems to be just as misinformed as you, what are the rest of these “lies” that are incorrect? I mean, if 99.9% of everything about Palin is a lie, then it should be fairly easy for you to “refudiate” them, right?
1. She was grotesquely unqualified to be Vice President, let alone President.
2. Her behavior as Alaska governor — up to and including quitting mid-term — shows her tempermentally unsuited to any sort of political leadership position.
3. Her statements, such as the above, are either woefully ignorant or disingenously provocative. She throws red meat to her base to stir up anger, fear, and jingoism, then plays the victim when people call her on it.
4. A substantial number of people don’t seem to recognize the above, even when facts are presented to demonstrate it, and instead, wrapping themselves in the flag, declare her the second coming and a faboo candidate for president in 2012 (God help us).
I would say that’s what drives most people nuts about her.
She may “call out Obama policies,” but not in any way that I would consider truthful or helpful.
I do not, btw, hate her. I try not to hate anyone. But her words and actions, and the teeny-bopper-squealing support they seem to draw, makes me really angry and frustrated.
I still don’t understand the anger. The only thing that angers me about Obama is what he has set out to do to this country and has been very successful with it. I truly believe that he hates this country and wants to change it to the extent that we are no longer a superpower. There is obviously a disagreement bwtween you and I about these two people. I am very conservative and you are very liberal and we will probably never agree on anything. It has however been pleasant connecting with you. Thanks.
I don’t think it’s quite fair to suggest “we’ll never agree on anything” because while the rhetoric here has been a bit heated, ultimately I’ve at least provided some analysis (in the post) of why I think Ms Palin’s statements are either irrational or designed to provoke irrationality, and all you’ve done is waved your hands about how “Obama hates this country” (examples?) and wants us to be “no longer a superpower” (examples?).
There’s no way we can agree if we can’t discuss the facts. Which is one of the problems I have with Ms Palin.
Bernie shot me a quick note by email indicating he would provide me, probably in the next few days, an outline of why he is afraid of the Obama Administration. As seems appropriate, I will share it (and/or my response) once it comes in.
~awaits the deluge of links from the Free Republic and Glenn Beck with worm on tongue~
Maybe. But even those can be fact-checked (or noted as being fact-free).
I can’t quite figure out from where via Google Analytics, but HUGE jump in page views, Wednesday and even more into Thursday.
It looks like it was via people searching on the string “sarah palin”. I do seem to rank high (with a recent cached imaged) in the Google search string “sarah palin dolt.”
If I got mentioned somewhere, let me know. I’m curious.
Well, you are ranked third in Google searches for “sarah palin dolt .” 🙂
Wow!!! No one had one word to say when Mr. Bush was lying to and raping the country. Now that Obama is in office and trying to fix things, NOW you have a problem????……smh. When Sara Palin opens her mouth, nothing but pure ignorance oozes out. She’s had her 15 minutes and then borrowed 15 more minutes of fame. GO SIT DOWN, SARA!!!!
By the way, have those “weapons of mass destruction” been found yet???
Ok just throwing this out there concerning the mosque , first off this is not a comment to support palin , im very neutral this is just an unbias oppinon which is allowed by constitutional law . Lets say for sake of argument a radical group of americans bombed an islamic land mark , regaurdless of the realationship of these Americans to any other part of America do you think the Islams would allow us to build a church of denomination any where near that site or any where at all ? Would we even have the nerve to ask to build it ? And not to offend but rather to point out fact , if you are such an expert on our country and the Constitution you should know this country was founded by christians , we are a christian nation wether any one including myself likes it or not . We were founded and established by a colony of christians who fled from persecution . I think we have been more than hospitable to the islamic community and every other ethinticty for that matter , we have bent over backwards as a country to please every nation. With open arms we have accepted everyone into our country , even changed our own laws to benifit those who have came here but where does it stop, where is the line drawn in the sand. we have given to others ,things no other nations would give , freedom to worship as you please , even though we are a christian nation we allow freedom of religion , tell me do they allow that in thier country ? And wether you are a christian or not that is not what im getting at , dont mistake me for a “holy roller ” im just stating the facts , if you doubt it just grab a coin from your pocket and read where it says , ” In God We Trust” . Now with all that said i have no dislike for any fellow man no matter his race ,nationality , or belief but last time i checked there weren’t any Japanese having a buddhist or shintoist or any other japanese religous meetings at pearl harbor. As a concerned citizen i say there is a time to say no , you love your children but you know that sometimes you must say no, “Give an inch take a mile” , thats what will happen. If we say yes to this whats next ?
@common sense:
Actually, Constitutional Law allows biased opinions, too. On the other hand, this is my blog, which means opinions are allowed here by my sufferance, not the Constitution.
That said, I welcome pretty much all opinions here.
Are we talking here about arson and bombings of mosques in the US?
Or military strikes in Muslim countries that have destroyed landmarks?
Or (I presume) a hypothetical of some American Christianists infiltrating, say, Saudi Arabia and bombing a major commercial or civil building.
(Neither the WTC nor the Pentagon were “Christian” buildings.)
I think the Muslims (the correct term) in that country would probably prevent it. But, then, several Muslim countries prohibit building of any Christian churches, and many more forbid proselytization and conversion.
The question you should be asking is, would they be right in doing so?
You also seem to be conflating religion with nationality, framing it in terms of “Americans” as a counter-example to “Muslims” — as opposed to Americans vs Saudis (most of the 9-11 bombers were Saudi) or Christians vs Muslims. The two are not necessarily the same.
I actually have little doubt that there are Christians who would have “the nerve” to ask to build such a church. Some would do so in order to draw attention to themselves and/or their ministry. Others might do so as a “peace offering.”
Folks in that country might say, “Well, clearly it’s meant to be a defiant act of triumphal conquest, cementing with such a building the gains from the attack on our land.” In the vast majority of cases of Christian missionaries, I’d think they were jumping to a false conclusion, wouldn’t you?
Many of the folks who “founded” this country (are we talking about original colonists, or the “Founders”) were Christian. But the colonial settlement of the east coast of this country was only partially driven by religious persecution (financial gain, land, exile of prisoners, etc. were also big drivers). And even where religious persecution was a part, the groups who came here were often just as intolerant of each other, and of dissent from within, as they’d been subject to in the Mother Country.
As far as the political founding of this country, we were very clearly not founded as a Christian nation, as the lack of any mention of same in the Constitution, or of God, makes clear, alongside prohibitions against religious tests for government office and prohibitions against establishment of national religion or interference in free practice of any religion.
As far as the Founders went, though some certainly were Christian, others were quite distinctly not, or practiced a form of (what most consider today) Christianity that was considered un-Christian at the time (Catholics, Quakers, Unitarians, etc.).
Islam is not an ethnicity. It is a religion. Some Muslims are Arab, others are Persian, others are African, others are West Asian, others are East Asian, and you can find Muslims of pretty much every color, language, and ethnicity. Just as you can find Christians.
In aggregate, yes, especially compared to many other countries. Though we’ve often tried to limit, by quota (or sometimes outright) immigration from certain areas of the world or certain ethnicities and races and religions. Irish. Italians. Chinese. Jews. Non-Europeans. Etc.
In what way have we changed our own laws to benefit those who came here?
Why does a line have to be drawn in the sand? What do you think should stop?
We’ve been fairly exemplary there, yes, though most Western countries today (at least) are just as free, religiously. But, then, I think that’s a good thing, part of what makes our country great. Don’t you?
On the other hand, we have had institutionalized prejudice against some religions. While Jews were treated better here, on the whole, than in most of Europe, we still had “No Jews Allowed” memberships on social clubs and the like. Catholics were similarly stigmatized (look at how Dewey was treated, and Kennedy after him), as are Mormons even today. And sometimes that social stigmatization extended into physical violence.
One might argue that the same is true for Muslims in this country.
We are not a Christian Nation. We are a nation, the majority of which are Christian. there’s a difference.
That said, yes, many (most?) officially Muslim countries do not allow freedom of religion. I think that speaks well of us, and poorly of them. So?
That only became the official national motto in the 1950s (though it appeared on some coins a century earlier), and was motivated more by anti-Communism than piety. Indeed, the Supreme Court has only allowed it to remain because (in its opinion) it is not a description of religious affiliation, but is of a patriotic or ceremonial character.
Actually, there are Shinto shrines (and Buddhist temples) not far from Pearl Harbor. There are also Christian churches and cathedrals in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and were before the bombs were dropped).
But, then, the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” is blocks away from the site of the WTC. How far away do you think it needs to be before it’s no longer “too close”? Three blocks? Five? Ten? Twenty? Off Manhattan altogether?
What’s the actual threat you see here, CS? Why is this a “time to say no”? What do you fear might be next? What “mile” is going to be lost by giving this “inch”?
And, for that matter, given our Constitution, what makes you think that you have the option of saying “No” in the first place?
i want to beat the shit out of you dave
Really? Any particular reason?
I would guess that his reason is that you are a thoughtful, intelligent person with whom he is unable to successfully argue. “Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.”
Maybe he got confused about the low flow toilets and stuff.
There is a fallacy called argumentam ad baculum. In English, it’s the “appeal to force” fallacy. I like to think of it as the argument the bully uses to get other kids to give up their lunch money: “give me your lunch money because if you don’t, I’ll beat you up”. Perhaps johng is trying to make an argument of this kind and failing to present it very clearly.
It really is too bad that Dave’s site can’t automatically track the logical fallacies employed in the comments. I’d like to see which one predominates.
Well, I have to say, that’s the first argumentum ad baculum I’ve encountered in quite some time (probably since junior high).
Interestingly, apparently there are non-fallacious examples of this, but this case doesn’t seem to be one of them.
Well, we could debate the proper application of the phrase argumentum ad baculum, but in the interest of brevity I’ll just say that I think the author of the Wikipedia page to which you refer is applying the phrase too broadly.
What? You question Wikipedia? For shame! [needs citation]
Dave, I think the proper wikipedian response to my claim is that it is original research. I’m making the claim based on any experience researching and teaching about fallacies, not based on any particular citation. But since you ask, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Volume 5 page 64) characterizes this kind of argument in terms of “the threat of force” while the wikipedia page characterizes it in terms of the consequences of believing a claim. Since I think application of force is just one kind of consequence, I think the wikipedia characterization is too broad. I’ll go further and say that arguing on the basis of the consequences of a belief is a fallacy too, so I think the wikipedia article’s reasoning about why there are non-fallacious versions of the argument is bad. After all, a fallacious argument can sometimes lead to a true conclusion even though the reasoning is bad. But now I’m getting into the discussion I was trying to avoid by being brief …
Actually, I was joking, Dave. 🙂
I knew that, but I couldn’t think of a humorous response, and I got sucked into making a serious one from lack of self-control.
~new headline for the Coloradoan~
Philoshophy Prof. suffers from “serious lack of self-control”
~snort~ 🙂
Ah, uncontrollable pedantry. I know it all too well (“I’m also a member!”).
Thanks for adding more trash to the internet. It wasn’t quite hateful, or annoying, or ignorant enough before you came along.
Anything particular “hateful” or “ignorant” you want to point out, Jer? There’s not a lot I can do about being “annoying.”
Ah, hypocrisy. Jer has it.
Do people like Jer go looking for things they hate on the Internet just to complain about them? Wouldn’t they be happier if they didn’t search for stuff they don’t like?
That concerns me less than the complaint being little more than form without substance.