American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten]
Ground Zero is a place of American identity and national unity. I think for many people going to Ground Zero, a mosque in view nearby is just going to be a small but definate interference to the reflection they came there for. I don't think there should be any religious reminders there, but in this instance a mosque would be particularly inappropriate in my opinion.[/QUOTE]You guys realize they aren't "building" a mosque, right? They are installing an "islamic culture center" in a site formerly occupied by a Burlington Coat Factory. It's two blocks away from the WTC site. There is currently another "islamic culture center" another two blocks away that predates the WTC. Should that be torn down also?

I agree with El Alamo about the detrimental aspects of all religions. And I agree about sensitivity regarding Ground Zero. But give me a fucking break. Are you all so sensitive that installing a mosque two blocks away is so threatening?

If it's two blocks away out of sight I'm OK with it. I tried searching articles to find out the exact location but couldn't find the info, a lot of articles are discussing this without mentioning this detail.

Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.

It will take a sweep I think but I believe that it could end up 51-49 at the end of the day. Please advise if I am not correct. My early posts related to breaking the 60-40 advantage the dems had and thus no more of this ability to force bullshit legislation down our throats (like healthcare) My bet with Esten was made purely for sport without much research. I hope that there exists at least a theoretical chance of a senate majority or I made a stupid bet. If the best that can happen is 50-50 maybe I can get my opponent to conceed the ties to me since Esten currently has the majority in both House and Senate. If Esten is a sportsman he will conceed me the ties in the case of a 50-50 split in the senate. Please advise as to what the best possible outcome would be based on the seats up for re-election please. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann]It will take a sweep I think but I believe that it could end up 51-49 at the end of the day. Please advise if I am not correct. My early posts related to breaking the 60-40 advantage the dems had and thus no more of this ability to force bullshit legislation down our throats (like healthcare) My bet with Esten was made purely for sport without much research. I hope that there exists at least a theoretical chance of a senate majority or I made a stupid bet. If the best that can happen is 50-50 maybe I can get my opponent to conceed the ties to me since Esten currently has the majority in both House and Senate. If Esten is a sportsman he will conceed me the ties in the case of a 50-50 split in the senate. Please advise as to what the best possible outcome would be based on the seats up for re-election please. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]They need to pick up all of the eight seats that are currently considered "toss ups." However, there are five other seats considered to be Dem shoo-ins that could also come into play. I could see Boxer losing and I think that with the recent immigration, gay marriage (not the issue but the judge going against 7 million Californians) and a host of other issues she is likely to lose (in my opinion) If Obama shows up to campaign for any of those five, the GOP's chances improve, measurably.

The latest polls I looked at did not show enough Democratic Senate candidates in the toss-up category, but it is a long time until the election. Even a 51-49 Rep Senate, would not guarantee control. The two Rep Senators from Maine often vote with the Dems. 55-45 Dem-Rep is a very possible scenario and that should definitely be enough Rep votes to stop the evasion of Senate rules. But does it really matter what happens in the Senate? Even if the Reps take control of the Senate, they would not have enough support to override a Presidential veto.

For me, a large changeover in the House and a solid Rep majority could lead to stalemate. I am very comfortable with that outcome, especially if the new House members are Tea Party people with a Libertarian philosophy. I would expect they will give Dems a lot of hell and Reps some hell too. Then in 2012, Americans can decide in which direction they want the country to go.

There are currently 37 seats in the Senate up for reelection in the 2010 cycle and of those 13 seats are considered to be in "battleground states". Recent polling by Public Opinion Strategies in the 13 battleground states, not generic polling do you prefer Dem or Repub but polling with the Dem and Repub candidate's names, show a 47% to 39% preference for the Repub candidate. Among independents the numbers really start to spread with Repub candidates holding a 47% to 25% lead over the Dem candidate.

More telling is in one or two states with primaries this week, the LOSING Repub candidate received more votes than the WINNING Dem candidate. As I recall and I could be wrong but in most or all of the primary races the Repub turnout was significantly greater than the Dem turnout. As stated earlier mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs. If these trends continue the Dems are going to be in a peck of trouble with low turnout of their base and the disaffection of the independent voting bloc. The Repub base by contrast is highly motivated.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]There is already another mosque / islamic cultural center two blocks away that has been there for 40 years. Should that one be torn down?[/QUOTE]Schmoj,

That's not a valid comparison, and you know it.

The answer is "No", because the existing mosque was built [u]BEFORE[/u] 9/11.

The new proposed mosque will be built [u]AFTER[/u] 9/11, and thus it will be built in CELEBRATION OF the most successful Islamic-motivated attack against the American people in US history.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Toymann]It will take a sweep I think but I believe that it could end up 51-49 at the end of the day. Please advise if I am not correct. My early posts related to breaking the 60-40 advantage the dems had and thus no more of this ability to force bullshit legislation down our throats (like healthcare) My bet with Esten was made purely for sport without much research. I hope that there exists at least a theoretical chance of a senate majority or I made a stupid bet. If the best that can happen is 50-50 maybe I can get my opponent to conceed the ties to me since Esten currently has the majority in both House and Senate. If Esten is a sportsman he will conceed me the ties in the case of a 50-50 split in the senate. Please advise as to what the best possible outcome would be based on the seats up for re-election please. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Here is a pretty thorough article discussing how Republicans could re-take the Senate, including each of the races that are up for grabs. [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875004575375122374132154.html?KEYWORDS=republicans++eye++toss-up++51-49++senate[/url]

The article is three weeks old, which is ancient where politics are concerned, but that should also give you some idea of how much things could change before the election. Two months ago, about half the "in play" Democrat seats were considered "safe," but they no longer are.

The print edition of the WSJ also had a discussion of the 4 seats currently held by Republicans that could be up for grabs. To re-take the Senate, Republicans would have to hold onto all of their own "in-play" seats and take all but one of the Democrat seats that are considered "in play."

In terms of your bet, Republicans taking control of the Senate is easily the longest shot. It's theoretically possible, but not likely. When Esten was trying to get you to agree that a split would result in a loss for you, he was just baiting you. Or, he doesn't know much about it, either. Anyone who's been following it knows that retaking the Senate is a very long shot and, therefore, it would be a longshot to bet on a Republican sweep of both houses.

That said, it's also unlikely (but not a longshot) that Democrats will retain control of both houses. Esten got the better of the bet, but you've got the trend in your favor. As I said, however, there is a long, long time before this election. If the economy worsens, your odds improve; if it gets better, your odds decline. If Obama and Dems propose more of their cockamamie legislation before the election, you will win hands down. But, there's slim chance of that. Dems have been outright idiotic up to this point in managing their control of both houses and the executive branch, but they're not insane. Then again, I was more confident in that last statement two months ago than I am now. Should be interesting.

[QUOTE=Jackson]

That's not a valid comparison, and you know it.

The answer is "No", because the existing mosque was built [u]BEFORE[/u] 9/11.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't necessarily comparing, just curious what you thought.

[QUOTE=Jackson]
The new proposed mosque will be built [u]AFTER[/u] 9/11, and thus it will be built in CELEBRATION OF the most successful Islamic-motivated attack against the American people in US history.[/QUOTE]That's how YOU may choose to interpret it, but what are you basing that conclusion on? My guess is not much other than the hysteria surrounding it.

[QUOTE=Jackson]

Get it?[/QUOTE]Oh, I get it. But, the it I get is probably not what you intend.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]That said, it's also unlikely (but not a longshot) that Democrats will retain control of both houses. Esten got the better of the bet, but you've got the trend in your favor. As I said, however, there is a long, long time before this election. If the economy worsens, your odds improve; if it gets better, your odds decline. If Obama and Dems propose more of their cockamamie legislation before the election, you will win hands down. But, there's slim chance of that. Dems have been outright idiotic up to this point in managing their control of both houses and the executive branch, but they're not insane. Then again, I was more confident in that last statement two months ago than I am now. Should be interesting.[/QUOTE]Stan, you are the Man!

Very informative information from you and the preceeding posts. I thought that it was possible if the GOP swept the close races. I also am counting on more crazy legistlation from the democrats as THEY JUST can't HELP THEMSELVES! Obomanation will continue to inflict his crazy social agenda on america without even the slightest concern for the real issues that are on americans minds these days (economy, immigration, etc. His newest brainchild, the great arizona lawsuit, should keep the heat up quite nicely with 80% of americans that solidly believe this is just a crazy frivolous lawsuit designed by the new dictator forcing his minions to see things HIS way. For whatever reason Obomination continues his hell-bent rush to eclipse Carter as Americas WORST President. Sadly, from my perspective, gridlock can't come soon enough so we can halt the socializing of america. I still am holding out optomistic hope that Esten will be funding a little Toymann madahos pussy in 2011. The democrats these days are overachieving at historic levels and thats what I am counting on to carry Toymann to a huge upset pussy victory in November. Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

There is a little too much noise flying around on this one.

The funny thing is to hear the left crying "freedom of religion" on behalf of the people that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 while at the same time they are tearing down Nativity Scenes, erected on public property, trying to get "In God We Trust" removed from our currency and eliminating all mentions of God from US History.

If you want to say that we are not at war with Islam and that it is a "fringe element" that has "hijacked" (such irony in that choice of words) the religion then you are saying that we must either: pre-judge muslims and their organizations and separate them into good and bad lots (maybe we could use the golden egg machines from Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory) or wait for the bad ones to attack us in order to classify them as bad (although you also want to set the bad ones in Camp-Gitmo free (anywhere but your hometown)

The facts are clear for those willing to look for them. We have been in a war with radical islamacists for more than 30 years, although we have only "engaged" intermittently. These attacks are by in large supported by Islamic nationalities and do not represent a "lunatic fringe."

1979: US Embassy in Tehran

1982: hostages in Lebanon

1983: US Embassy in Beirut (63 dead, 17 Americans (several CIA) military barracks (241 Marines KIA) US Embassy Kuwait City.

1984: East Beirut US Embassy Annex (24 dead, 2 Marines)

1985: Madrid resto, Beirut TWA Flight 847, Med Sea Achille Lauro, Rome airport bombins, Vienna airport bombing.

1986: Athens TWA flight 840, West Berlin disco bombing.

1988: Lockerbie: Pan-Am 103 (270 dead)

1993: WTC attack #1 (6 dead, 1,040 injured)

1995: Riyadh US Military HQ (5 dead)

1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Kobar Towers bombing (19 American servicemen dead, hundreds of wounded)

1998: US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

2000: Yemen Cole bombing (17 USN dead)

2001: NYC, Arlington, VA, Shanksville, PA (2,992 dead)

2002: Karachi Pakistan American Consulate bombing (12 dead)

2003: Riyadh housing compound bombing.

2004: Kohbar, Saudi Arabia oil company attack; Riyadh Paul Johnson Jr execution; Jeddah US consulate.

2005: Amman, Jordan hotel attacks.

2006: Damascus, Syria American Embassy attack (foiled)

2007: Athens embassy attack,.

There are at least a dozen other examples but I got tired of listing them.

When Muslims defeat an enemy, they build a Mosque at one of the key sites of the vanquished society or the site of an epic battle. Feisal's Cordoba House is intended to be just such a symbol of victory over the infidels. Allowing this project to go forward is not an act of religious tolerance, it is an act of political weakness. The Catholic church has tried to curry favor and tolerance with Islam for 250 years (mosque in Rome) but has seen no benefit for its efforts. Why should we expect a different result?

Feisal is an anti-American demagogue who has the right to say what he wants (he and his ilk get more latitude on this than we do) however, that does not mean that we should roll over on every issue that gets cloaked in religious cloth. Zoning is a local issue. I am sure that if a Catholic group wanted to build a cathedral on that site, it would be blocked by the left. If Wal-mart wanted to locate a store there, the left would stop that too. Why is this American-hating Imam getting special treatment?

There is an interesting wrinkle may have arisen regarding the ownership of one half of the site. It seems that while the group behind Cordoba House owns one of the two buildings, it only leases (very long-term lease) the other from Con Ed (local power company) While the group is trying to exercise its purchase option on that part of the property (Con Ed has to value the property and Soho Properties has to agree to pay the amount) any deal will have to go through the Public Service Commission. While Con Ed must abide by its contract, it doesn't have to make things any easier for Soho Properties. I would expect that the pressure on both Con Ed and the PSC will be quite extreme. I am not sure if the decision by the PSC will come before the Nov. Elections (doubt it) The PSC is controlled by the Gov of NY.

A further thought, while Ground Zero is often described as the WTC, the entire area was engulfed in the battle and the aftermath. Go watch the videos of people running up the avenues while the South Tower was collapsing. Do you really think that two blocks makes it OK? Would two blocks from ground zero in Hiroshima be a good location for a US Air and Space museum? Why not give Feisal a prime location 2 blocks from the power station in Chernobyl? He can have it rent free and we (US taxpayers) can foot the bill to fly in all of his Islamascist buddies.

Hate to say it but this thread has improved since Papa Sidney retired. I couldn't agree more with your post WW. Anyone who doesn't understand what the world-wide muslim agenda is JUST DOESN'T GET IT! I really never understand why we can't just go ahead and say these things out loud in america. The mormon church supposedly does not support polygomy but toleration isn't any different than quiet support. Just read the recent book "Under the banner of God" and you'll get the idea.

Wise words WW. Keep up the good work.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Mongers,

Before this thread morphs completely into an anti-Muslim hate group, how about we examine this interesting list that WW posted here. The 1979 Tehran Embassy incident? The Iranians were more or less justified in this action as a result of US support for the Shah and his repressive and tortuous actions (remember the CIA ousted a somewhat democratic government in the 50's in favor of the Shah because the Shah was anti-communist) The other incidents are almost all directly associated with the unconditional US support of Israel against the Palestinians. Some of the latter incidents could also be associated with the US sanctions against Iraq in the 90's (which helped starve about 2 million children to death) The Muslims have legitimate gripes in terms of their feelings toward US Foreign Policy. If the US finally put its foot down and ordered Israel to give the Palestinians a workable state or risk getting cut off, and pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be willing to bet that alot of the fuel that fires the Muslim hate / distrust toward the US would be extinguished. As I stated in an earlier post, I have no respect for the Muslim religion and I think those people live like animals in general, but the fact is unless you are going to slaughter them all (not an option) the US needs to accept the fact that they can't change or control these nation / states and stop wasting its money and resources on these unwinnable wars. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is ever going to be a real, governable country.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

HR we did not go into either Afghanistan or Iraqi until AFTER 9/11, by the way they killed more people on 9/11 than died 1n the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and all of the 9/11 victims were civilians not military combatants. The war between the Muslim religion and Christians has been going on for a lot longer than the dates listed by WW.

After Obama's grand Muslim apology tour under your premise they should have gone WOW and ceased all hostilities. You seem to think that if we just make nice they will leave us to go our own way, study history right up to today my friend that is not the way they work. They have not changed in centuries – they are still stuck in the 5th Century while the rest of the world has moved on. Hell they are killing more fellow Muslims in the name of Allah than Christians but they are equal opportunity murders and will get around to us in the end.

As far as giving the poor Palestinians a homeland, again check history. When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1949 the Jews and the Palestinians had separate self governed homelands from what was originally Palestine (Note Jordan and Lebanon got sizeable chunks of what was Palestine under British rule per the partition agreement) The Arabs wanted none of that, they wanted it all and to destroy Israel in the bargain. What they got after the 1949 war was less than what they started with under the partition agreement.

In every war since when the Arabs try to destroy Israel they only lose more land with each military defeat. While you are reading you might come across the little fact Arafat walked away from a peace deal which established a self ruled Palestinian homeland because he didn't want half he wanted it all including Israel. Don't you remember the "land for peace" deals – the Israelis gave up the land but they didn't get the promised peace.

Get a grip Big Guy - it's still the jungle out there under the thin veneer of "civilization"