I'm not even taking the time to comment on something so obvious as what he did. *NM*
everynametaken Send a noteboard - 22/08/2010 02:53:10 AM
I know that's Dowds position, too, I just have no idea how she got there, but since you seem to maybe you can help me understand. What particulars of his first statement did he reverse in his second? Here's the most widely quoted part of the first:
"Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
"But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure. "
Here's the second again:
"I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about. "
Please show me the conflicting portion(s) of those two statements, because I can't find them. I know much of the right dearly wanted to read the first as an endorsement of the mosque just as the much of the left wanted to read the second as a repudiation of it--I'm just not sure what basis either had for their respective interpretations of quite explicit terms. I mean, I think I remember this scene from one of my favorite films:
Prince Humperdinck: Surrender.
Westley: You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept.
Irksome as it sometimes is, in the real world we have to content ourselves with what people actually said rather than what we wish or think they said.
"Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
"But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure. "
Here's the second again:
"I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about. "
Please show me the conflicting portion(s) of those two statements, because I can't find them. I know much of the right dearly wanted to read the first as an endorsement of the mosque just as the much of the left wanted to read the second as a repudiation of it--I'm just not sure what basis either had for their respective interpretations of quite explicit terms. I mean, I think I remember this scene from one of my favorite films:
Prince Humperdinck: Surrender.
Westley: You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept.
Irksome as it sometimes is, in the real world we have to content ourselves with what people actually said rather than what we wish or think they said.
But wine was the great assassin of both tradition and propriety...
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
An amusing column on the NYC mosque by Maureen Dowd....
20/08/2010 12:33:27 AM
- 1483 Views
She has a point. Bush had the guts to weather the storm on DPW.
20/08/2010 12:42:21 AM
- 893 Views
DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
20/08/2010 12:50:14 AM
- 756 Views
Re: DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
20/08/2010 12:56:44 AM
- 1023 Views
Once again, listen to the Economist and don't use abbreviations that aren't obvious.
20/08/2010 06:38:08 PM
- 775 Views
That abbreviation was obvious and all over the place at the time the incident happened.
20/08/2010 07:59:08 PM
- 811 Views
I certainly don't remember seeing it anywhere. The abbreviation was unnecessary in any event.
20/08/2010 10:43:05 PM
- 737 Views
Sure, I could've done that, if I had realized it would puzzle people. I did not. *NM*
20/08/2010 10:59:42 PM
- 484 Views
well since Christie is actually a republican he makes a better example than Bloomberg
20/08/2010 01:53:44 PM
- 833 Views
Gingrich thinks he is a deep thinker?
20/08/2010 09:42:15 AM
- 697 Views
He makes historical references as often as possible, or at least in pretty much everything I've seen
20/08/2010 12:37:02 PM
- 827 Views
As he was a history professor and writes histories and alternate histories, this is not surprising
20/08/2010 05:33:48 PM
- 999 Views
I'm aware of that
20/08/2010 11:47:32 PM
- 723 Views
Re: I'm aware of that
21/08/2010 12:40:29 AM
- 1008 Views
Conservatives love Rome. I don't know why.
21/08/2010 01:20:27 AM
- 805 Views
Rome was more often than not governed by aristocrats and did, after all, invent the republic.
21/08/2010 04:50:53 PM
- 1133 Views
Except there doesn't seem to be any conflict between either position.
20/08/2010 10:06:20 AM
- 946 Views
He has to learn he needs to be crystal clear on sensitive issues
20/08/2010 02:03:43 PM
- 1003 Views
In Washington, one must always present the APPEARANCE of integrity...
20/08/2010 02:40:24 PM
- 891 Views
Clinton lied about the BJ but what is your airtight proof that Bush lied?
20/08/2010 07:44:53 PM
- 959 Views
This is a bit along the lines of what I have been thinking.
20/08/2010 07:49:15 PM
- 979 Views
I didn't see the problem either. He was simply stating the obvious.
21/08/2010 01:39:44 AM
- 715 Views
Then restating it for those who refused to hear it, so that someone else could refuse to hear it.
21/08/2010 04:22:30 PM
- 985 Views
Yes, his backtracking was quite pussy-ish. *NM*
21/08/2010 04:00:31 AM
- 354 Views
How did he "backtrack" exactly?
21/08/2010 04:35:33 PM
- 1024 Views
c'mon Joel. are you being intentionally thick?
21/08/2010 05:02:27 PM
- 1042 Views
Having read those quotes I don't think he was backtracking on anything. (With link to speech)
22/08/2010 06:27:06 AM
- 997 Views
did you take into your consideration
22/08/2010 03:50:59 PM
- 738 Views
I can't imagine why they would express concern over it. It wasn't controversial. That is on them
22/08/2010 03:58:32 PM
- 934 Views
I agree he is not backtracking
22/08/2010 06:49:36 PM
- 843 Views
While we're picking sides, I'm with Mook and Roland.
22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM
- 770 Views

I like how he's got rhetorical talents when it works
22/08/2010 08:32:15 PM
- 793 Views
nope just human
*NM*
22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM
- 422 Views

that's not what Paul just said.
22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM
- 856 Views

He couldn't stay out, no.
22/08/2010 08:56:47 PM
- 893 Views
I don't want to argue with you on a Sunday, my religion says I have to relax.
22/08/2010 09:03:54 PM
- 910 Views

key word: seem
22/08/2010 09:06:40 PM
- 832 Views
I was only using that term for you guys. I don't feel like beating you with a rolling pin until you
22/08/2010 09:14:39 PM
- 730 Views
Seems I interpret his speech on the iftar differently from you and Tash - see my reply to Tash. *NM*
22/08/2010 09:25:13 PM
- 498 Views
I'm not even taking the time to comment on something so obvious as what he did. *NM*
22/08/2010 02:53:10 AM
- 478 Views
Joel
22/08/2010 05:37:45 AM
- 1046 Views
His phrasing in the first speech implied that it was a bad idea. But legally they have the right.
22/08/2010 06:32:59 AM
- 962 Views
nonsense
22/08/2010 03:39:30 PM
- 908 Views
I still don't see how it can be misinterpreted except by intent by the listener.
22/08/2010 04:08:52 PM
- 882 Views
so we have reached the point of no return...
22/08/2010 04:18:46 PM
- 891 Views
In your case it would have to be number 2.
22/08/2010 07:38:20 PM
- 866 Views
ah, but I have no agenda here...
22/08/2010 07:41:59 PM
- 697 Views
lol.<3
22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM
- 873 Views

that it is...
22/08/2010 08:57:05 PM
- 870 Views
hee. Well, I still don't agree with you, but at least you're snuggly.^_^ *NM*
22/08/2010 09:09:22 PM
- 661 Views
Tash you are very much a fair person in this world
22/08/2010 08:34:38 PM
- 970 Views
Or there is another option: 3) He was using tact.
22/08/2010 09:01:49 PM
- 901 Views
I really have to disagree with your interpretation of that first speech.
22/08/2010 09:22:32 PM
- 1166 Views
Lies, prevarication and deceit again, eh?
22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM
- 1357 Views

that was a decent explanation....
22/08/2010 05:18:18 PM
- 810 Views
In the interests of fairness ( this does not support or detract from my position), here is the full
22/08/2010 09:22:50 PM
- 1086 Views