"Ground Zero" mosque approved, Obama supports

[Dyakovo]

Apparently you are/were unaware of the fact that your words don't just magically disappear after you type them...

It's funny how others are seemingly conceding that he DID mean natives. And the fucking fact that I said native as a separate term in a sentence that included Arab further undermines this weird notion you have that I apparently think Arab is synonymous with Iraq native.

Or this weird failing you have where you can't tell a question from a statement...

[Hyde2]

... if they're not natives, then no one in the US is native... given even the Native Americans came from a land bridge to the Americas. Once you naturalize, you are an American, regardless of if you came here a day ago or were born here. Your decision that you only count as native if you're born here is false and irrelevant.

So the word native literally has no meaning now? Great, that further makes his comparison no different from mine.

[Xsyne]

They're American citizens, providing services for American citizens. They're native

I didn't say the Americans in Baghdad didn't have citizenship there.

If they had citizenship there they'd be Iraqis.

[Maurepas]

... if they're not natives, then no one in the US is native... given even the Native Americans came from a land bridge to the Americas. Once you naturalize, you are an American, regardless of if you came here a day ago or were born here. Your decision that you only count as native if you're born here is false and irrelevant.

So the word native literally has no meaning now? Great, that further makes his comparison no different from mine.

It could specifically refer to a location in Africa...but, I'm not sure that would have all that many uses,

[Hyde2]

Really? Show me where I said it was a question of nativity? From the start, I said it was about immigration.

I didn't once see you mention immigration status, but very well. The Imam is an immigrant, so what's your point?

[Maurepas]

They're American citizens, providing services for American citizens. They're native

I didn't say the Americans in Baghdad didn't have citizenship there.

If they had citizenship there they'd be Iraqis.

I think the proper term is American-Iraqi.

[Hyde2]

They're American citizens, providing services for American citizens. They're native

I didn't say the Americans in Baghdad didn't have citizenship there.

If they had citizenship there they'd be Iraqis.

The word American does not have to refer to only a specific nation you currently have citizenship in. I know plenty of Americans with British citizenships, they still refer to themselves as Americans.

[Enadail]

... if they're not natives, then no one in the US is native... given even the Native Americans came from a land bridge to the Americas. Once you naturalize, you are an American, regardless of if you came here a day ago or were born here. Your decision that you only count as native if you're born here is false and irrelevant.

So the word native literally has no meaning now? Great, that further makes his comparison no different from mine.

Are you dense or simply like to force everyone else's argument into yours?

I said no such thing. Your claiming it is so makes no sense. But its fine, I'll concede and give up, because your logical acrobatics are actually making my head hurt.

Really? Show me where I said it was a question of nativity? From the start, I said it was about immigration.

I didn't once see you mention immigration status, but very well. The Imam is an immigrant, so what's your point?

My point was it makes no difference if hes an immigrant or not.

[Enadail]

They're American citizens, providing services for American citizens. They're native

I didn't say the Americans in Baghdad didn't have citizenship there.

If they had citizenship there they'd be Iraqis.

The word American does not have to refer to only a specific nation you currently have citizenship in. I know plenty of Americans with British citizenships, they still refer to themselves as Americans.

Wait, does that mean the word American has no meaning? By your logic, I think it does...

[Hyde2]

I said no such thing.

I didn't say you said that, your ambiguity merely showed it.

[Maurepas]

actual opposition grounded in anything other than universal anti-clericalism is bullshit

What if you oppose it because you think there are much better buildings could be built in that area, despite not being anticlerical?
What if you oppose it because you think that it actually *shock horror* does offend people and does harm relations between the west and Islam, whether you like the fact that people are offended or not (as if 90% of the time when people are offended by anything, it's not grounded in non-rational emotional or symbolic things)?

I have a feeling that if this was about Americans insisting on building a Church in the middle of Baghdad, near a site where a huge amount of Muslims were killed by Americans, despite large opposition in the area, everyone would think the Americans are total wankers - whilst at the same time acknowledging that the opposition from Muslims is not necessarily logical or rational (i.e. these particular American Christians had nothing to do with the deaths, they have a right to property there). It's possible to hold both positions at the same time you know.

I actually think you are probably right about that, if it was being built in Baghdad of course. The fact is though, the United States prides itself on being above that sort of thing.

If you moved this situation to Iraq it's a whole new kettle of fish, cause you're dealing with a different group of people.

[Katganistan]

Have you ever been there?

No, it's just that I can't believe there are worse things up there (strip club, though I prefer naked women over gambling any day) that they AREN'T protesting.

You believe that the city and state run betting office, a barbecue restaurant, and a strip joint to be terrible things?

Mind, two out of three of those don't interest me, but I don't see how they are "bad" and in need of protest.

[Hyde2]

My point was it makes no difference if hes an immigrant or not.

By this logic, it makes no difference if they are Iraqis or not, so once again, Tek's attempt to undermine my comparison is now further flawed.

[Maurepas]

Have you ever been there?

No, it's just that I can't believe there are worse things up there (strip club, though I prefer naked women over gambling any day) that they AREN'T protesting.

You believe that the city and state run betting office, a barbecue restaurant, and a strip joint to be terrible things?

Mind, two out of three of those don't interest me, but I don't see how they are "bad" and in need of protest.

/me feels a protest coming his way soon,

[Caninope]

actual opposition grounded in anything other than universal anti-clericalism is bullshit

What if you oppose it because you think there are much better buildings could be built in that area, despite not being anticlerical?
What if you oppose it because you think that it actually *shock horror* does offend people and does harm relations between the west and Islam, whether you like the fact that people are offended or not (as if 90% of the time when people are offended by anything, it's not grounded in non-rational emotional or symbolic things)?

I have a feeling that if this was about Americans insisting on building a Church in the middle of Baghdad, near a site where a huge amount of Muslims were killed by Americans, despite large opposition in the area, everyone would think the Americans are total wankers - whilst at the same time acknowledging that the opposition from Muslims is not necessarily logical or rational (i.e. these particular American Christians had nothing to do with the deaths, they have a right to property there). It's possible to hold both positions at the same time you know.

I actually think you are probably right about that, if it was being built in Baghdad of course. The fact is though, the United States prides itself on being above that sort of thing.

If you moved this situation to Iraq it's a whole new kettle of fish, cause you're dealing with a different group of people.

Maybe so, but I am *GASP* gonna agree with Obama here.

They have the right to build it there, but it isn't necessarily the best or most wise location.

[Hyde2]

They have the right to build it there, but it isn't necessarily the best or most wise location.

Yes, this is my position too.

[Tungookska]

Have you ever been there?

No, it's just that I can't believe there are worse things up there (strip club, though I prefer naked women over gambling any day) that they AREN'T protesting.

You believe that the city and state run betting office, a barbecue restaurant, and a strip joint to be terrible things?

Mind, two out of three of those don't interest me, but I don't see how they are "bad" and in need of protest.

you dont like betting and barbecue?

[The Norwegian Blue]

Have you ever been there?

No, it's just that I can't believe there are worse things up there (strip club, though I prefer naked women over gambling any day) that they AREN'T protesting.

You believe that the city and state run betting office, a barbecue restaurant, and a strip joint to be terrible things?

Mind, two out of three of those don't interest me, but I don't see how they are "bad" and in need of protest.

I don't know - I'm okay with the idea of protesting the sort of "barbecue" I've been able to find in the northeast. [/Kansas City bias]

[Dyakovo]

Maybe so, but I am *GASP* gonna agree with Obama here.

They have the right to build it there, but it isn't necessarily the best or most wise location.

The land they actually own isn't a good location? Why would it be better if they built on someone else's land?

[Maurepas]

actual opposition grounded in anything other than universal anti-clericalism is bullshit

What if you oppose it because you think there are much better buildings could be built in that area, despite not being anticlerical?
What if you oppose it because you think that it actually *shock horror* does offend people and does harm relations between the west and Islam, whether you like the fact that people are offended or not (as if 90% of the time when people are offended by anything, it's not grounded in non-rational emotional or symbolic things)?

I have a feeling that if this was about Americans insisting on building a Church in the middle of Baghdad, near a site where a huge amount of Muslims were killed by Americans, despite large opposition in the area, everyone would think the Americans are total wankers - whilst at the same time acknowledging that the opposition from Muslims is not necessarily logical or rational (i.e. these particular American Christians had nothing to do with the deaths, they have a right to property there). It's possible to hold both positions at the same time you know.

I actually think you are probably right about that, if it was being built in Baghdad of course. The fact is though, the United States prides itself on being above that sort of thing.

If you moved this situation to Iraq it's a whole new kettle of fish, cause you're dealing with a different group of people.

Maybe so, but I am *GASP* gonna agree with Obama here.

They have the right to build it there, but it isn't necessarily the best or most wise location.

My point exactly.

And, actually, from Obama and the country's standpoint I think it is a very wise and best location, afterall, a primary recruitment tool for radical islam is to say "The west is out to destroy us! They hate us and our way of life!" etc., now, we can look at them and go, "but, what about that mosque right next to ground zero?"

I think it's actually a good tactical move for us, tbqh.

[Farnhamia]

Maybe so, but I am *GASP* gonna agree with Obama here.

They have the right to build it there, but it isn't necessarily the best or most wise location.

The land they actually own isn't a good location? Why would it be better if they built on someone else's land?

Perhaps a nice closet somewhere?

[Tekania]

This is a bad comparison. An accurate comparison would be a situation where a group of Baghdad Christian Arabs wanted to build a Church near where Americans killed people.

No, that's not an accurate comparison, because in order for that to be true, then Feisal Abdul Rauf would have to be a white non-immigrant American, which is completely false.

Faisal Abdul Rauf is not the entirety of the Cordoba Initiative... While Rauf may be originally from Kuwait, John S. Bennett, Courtney Erwin and Josh Martin are all native born Americans.. and that's merely just dragging out the upper executive staff of the Cordoba Initiative... so yes, my comparison does in fact stand. Now go back to your cave, troll.

[Katganistan]

Have you ever been there?

No, it's just that I can't believe there are worse things up there (strip club, though I prefer naked women over gambling any day) that they AREN'T protesting.

You believe that the city and state run betting office, a barbecue restaurant, and a strip joint to be terrible things?

Mind, two out of three of those don't interest me, but I don't see how they are "bad" and in need of protest.

you dont like betting and barbecue?

Despite my name ending in -stan, I's a woman. And I am not much interested in dancing or watching other women dance.

And what, in the name of all that's holy, is wrong with barbecue?!

[Katganistan]

Maybe so, but I am *GASP* gonna agree with Obama here.

They have the right to build it there, but it isn't necessarily the best or most wise location.

The land they actually own isn't a good location? Why would it be better if they built on someone else's land?

Perhaps a nice closet somewhere?

What, isn't that where you're supposed to stuff gays?

[Caninope]

Maybe so, but I am *GASP* gonna agree with Obama here.

They have the right to build it there, but it isn't necessarily the best or most wise location.

The land they actually own isn't a good location? Why would it be better if they built on someone else's land?

Point took.

Although they could buy somewhere else. It isn't the most wise place, but like Maurepas said, it is a good place for the melting pot to start up again.