rbpls

Let's see... we are discussing whether (even though it is a local issue (to NY,NY) and an already decided matter) if is ok for Muslim american citizens to build a new mosque (since they were denied permits to expand the one that was already built before 9/11) near to where some a--hole scumbag Hitler youth mass-murders who sought to fool less than discerning people into believing they were Muslim. They were of Muslim descent. Hitler was of Judeo-christian descent. It is pointless fascination with a seriously non-issue shiny object. There are radical evil people who claim to be christian. D

Irrational transference of blame between actually unconnected entities is paramount to this discussion. It makes just as much sense to hate all christian peoples as it does to hate or mistrust Muslims. Their is equal "evidence" for both. Either is "many bricks shy of a load."

And let's not forget the priests molesting young boys and girls. So by the solid reasoning that makes all muslims evil, then all christians or at least all catholics must be bad people... Of course it does not make any sense... not that that matters when looking at shiny objects.

I guess small scale terrorist acts should count so individual lynchings of blacks (death count much higher than 9/11) by the Klan and it symphathizers should count. Of course that was Christians against other Christians. And the great Christian terrorist Hitler was a big contributor to the Klan as he expected them to help his armies if they ever made any progress on american soil. The "Christian" leader of a christian nation caused the deaths of millions in WW2. American casuslties alone (and we got off light compared to those nations that bordered Germany) were many orders of magnitude higher

It seems that some anti-american folks don't like freedom of religion. They probably would have condemned John Adams when he was legal counsel for some British soldiers. Freedom of religion is one of the most important and best things about this country. It is worth occasional discomfort. Hating Muslims because of the scumbag terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is like hating christians because Hitler led a christian nation. It is irrational and anti-american. What is wrong and gets confused in all religions is zealots who contaminate their religion. They are not true followers. Some c

Yep. Calling the 9/11 terrorist-scumbag-murderers good Muslims is like calling Adolf Hitler a good Christian. The media always ignore Muslims speaking out against violence from murderers calling themselves Muslim. Most americans don't even know that Muslim leaders condemn such violence. It goes unreported.

Why should anyone have to disprove a negative? About the only "issue" mentioned was really a fake issue. (missing a meaningless grandstanding vote on repealing "Obamacare") The rest of it was about something that happened when Stout was 19 years old. Last century? It was a personal non-issues based insulting-to-any-discerning-voter attack ad. This flyer must have rubbed against some dog mess cause it sure does STINK.

It is better to discuss issues. I know sometimes that sort of nasty mud slinging is successful, but it actually insults voters. It's not the best brand of politics. I saw the flier. It is pretty hardcore and devoid of Steve Golden's differences in views on any issues from Daniel Stout. Very disappointing.

Doggone good useful info.

I never said you or anyone else are "extremist posse fascist teabaggers." I'm not sure what that means exactly but I at least detest the fascist part of it. I do not "think" I am a republican. I don't even think that many of the people who call themselves that today are republican. When I think of great republicans, I think of Lincoln (radical progressive,) Teddy Roosevelt (mixed progressive and conservationist which today is bad bad bad librul,) and Eisenhower (mostly conservative.) And being cognizant of what is going on (nationally at least) in the republican party these days, it is pa

You are correct about the banking industry and insurance industry, insurance companies sellings stocks,etc being a bad idea. It was probably legal when Jefferson was president though. It was made illegal during the Great Depression with Glass-Stegall and was illegal until sometime in the 90s. (could look up the date but I do remember it was after the Republican takeover; didn't matter though, both parties blew it on this vote.) If Thomas Jefferson had been president in the 1990s, he would have faced the same problem William Jefferson Clinton did: a bulletproof veto proof vote to dismantle

I always liked that movie he did called "The Great Impostor" based on the Michael Crichton book of the same title. It was about the real great impostor Frank Demara. It was the inspiration for "The Pretender" tv show. Demara actually impersonated a surgeon and did succesful surgeries after speed reading surgical texts and then walking into the operating room just before he did the surgeries! I'm sure the movie overemphasized the success of his many faked professions. Tony Curtis did a great job in the movie.

Here is a not so well known one: "The day will come when the immaculate conception of Christ will be regarded in the same vein as Minerva springing from the forehead of Zeus." Jefferson actually edited a version of the Bible that removed all the miracles of Jesus. He thought Paul made up all the stories of the miracles and called the accounts the "Ravings of a mad man." In short, he believed Jesus was a very important figure in religious history but was not the son of God. Judaism holds that belief as well. That edition of the Bible is called "The Jefferson Bible." I believe many y

Amen on that brother. We may know each other. But the Kool-Aid is off my diet. I'm slightly diabetic, don't use artificial sweeteners and can't stand the indoctrination. It stands in the way of being able to think. So, I'm off to fight against the crime of misinformation and for the American way (and wait for my "re-distributed wealth.")

Well News Junky And Reagan Republican, if you must know, I am a registered Republican. I have contributed way more money to Republican candidates than I have to Democrat Party candidates and have actively campaigned for more Republican candidates. There is no shame in voting for the best qualified candidate from either party. That doesn't mean I am not embarassed by some of the absolutely idiotic things that come from higher-ups in the national republican organization or from anybody who is a lockstep supporter of anything as long as it is Republican. I am pretty sure that it is prima faci

Well said. I agree with everything you said with one minor quibble. I see major ideological difference in statements from both parties but in practice do not see much difference. Except with the more extreme members of both parties, there isn't that much difference. What is bad about both parties is how much they are run by their corporate sponsors. That is why we are in such a terrible fix. We have the top 10 people in big pharma making on average $9,500 PER HOUR and the middle class being thoroughly duped into believing that undeserving lazy poor people are the drain on our economy. Or t

There are some bad ones. I am really thankful for the good ones though.

Thank you for a cogent statement. The damage to our country is already terrible from people who in some bizarro world imagine that a democrat can't be fiscally better than a republican sometimes. Or that a Republican is always a troglodyte on personal freedoms. There are good people in both parties. And there are really good people who are rightfully disgusted with the rigid lockstep crap that many republicans embarass other republicans with.

Sock puppet? Will has my support but only because he is the best candidate from either party. This country has been and is being harmed by the doofs who vote party line every time. (He's a democrat so he's baddd... very lame) You got nuttin' ... So you say something silly like that. Substance please.

It just seems that sometimes people labeled conservative are anything but. The converse is true (sometimes at least) when the liberal label is used. And knowing Will, I have very good reason to believe he would be more fiscally reaponsible than some who are thought of as conservative. Not just smarter or more conscientious but also likely more fiscally responsible and competent than many who beat their chest and assert "my conservatism is bigger than your conservatism."

Another thing that puzzles me re: political pigeonholing these days is exactly what is conservative? What is liberal? Do the two sometimes overlap? For instance, after WW2, Churchill initially opposed the National Health Service. Later on, he noticed the inescapable truth: that the people of Great Britain loved it, it worked (and still does) very well and that it saved tons of money. He came to favor it so much that he actually tried to get in on claiming that he was for it all along. Now Churchill, as the number one rated conservative of all time by american conservatives, considered savi

Here is one source: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/mar/08/fbi-state-hotbed-for-mortgage-fraud-cases/ There are many more. The point is that most media outlets are just lazy. Most news consumers scan headlines and never see thoughtful analysis. The myth that Barney Frank et al caused the meltdown is just myth accepted and repeated. The real causes started with the Reagan years (wasn't it more than 1800 bank failures during Reagan and H.W Bush years during that mini-meltdown?) with the long term sustained dismantling of the financial safeguards the US put in place after the de

That's impressive. It reminds me of a book I have called Growing Old is Not For Sissies. It has photos and stories of people who work out, are old, but look really good. Most of the ones who really looked good seemed to have weightlifting in common though cardio has to be in there too. I admire people with that much grit. Sadly, the older we get the more we need to work out and the harder it is.

Again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The FBI report made it very clear that no matter how popular those myths are, they are still myths. Why the irrational obssession that someone is fiscally irresponsible because they are Democrat? A Democrat was the last president to balance the budget or have a surplus. And, it was done with a very fair tax structure. That doesn't mean that a candidate is the right one just because they are a Democrat. Damn, that would be just as stupid as voting for someone just because they are republican. Or voting against a goo

You ignore the facts and history of the cause of the huge deficit we have now and where they actually came from. And the subtle reality that this point in time is the first time in a long time that large deficits are warranted. As the saying goes, there is a time and place for everything. And the failed fake conservatism from either party is winning the day with way too many otherwise smart people.