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
1505 Views
She has a point. Bush had the guts to weather the storm on DPW.
- 20/08/2010 12:42:21 AM
904 Views
DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
- 20/08/2010 12:50:14 AM
768 Views
Re: DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
- 20/08/2010 12:56:44 AM
1034 Views
Once again, listen to the Economist and don't use abbreviations that aren't obvious.
- 20/08/2010 06:38:08 PM
787 Views
That abbreviation was obvious and all over the place at the time the incident happened.
- 20/08/2010 07:59:08 PM
822 Views
I certainly don't remember seeing it anywhere. The abbreviation was unnecessary in any event.
- 20/08/2010 10:43:05 PM
749 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
490 Views
well since Christie is actually a republican he makes a better example than Bloomberg
- 20/08/2010 01:53:44 PM
844 Views
Gingrich thinks he is a deep thinker?
- 20/08/2010 09:42:15 AM
708 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
863 Views
As he was a history professor and writes histories and alternate histories, this is not surprising
- 20/08/2010 05:33:48 PM
1010 Views
I'm aware of that
- 20/08/2010 11:47:32 PM
735 Views
Re: I'm aware of that
- 21/08/2010 12:40:29 AM
1018 Views
Conservatives love Rome. I don't know why.
- 21/08/2010 01:20:27 AM
816 Views
Rome was more often than not governed by aristocrats and did, after all, invent the republic.
- 21/08/2010 04:50:53 PM
1147 Views
Except there doesn't seem to be any conflict between either position.
- 20/08/2010 10:06:20 AM
957 Views
He has to learn he needs to be crystal clear on sensitive issues
- 20/08/2010 02:03:43 PM
1018 Views
In Washington, one must always present the APPEARANCE of integrity...
- 20/08/2010 02:40:24 PM
902 Views
Clinton lied about the BJ but what is your airtight proof that Bush lied?
- 20/08/2010 07:44:53 PM
972 Views
This is a bit along the lines of what I have been thinking.
- 20/08/2010 07:49:15 PM
990 Views
I didn't see the problem either. He was simply stating the obvious.
- 21/08/2010 01:39:44 AM
727 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
996 Views
Yes, his backtracking was quite pussy-ish. *NM*
- 21/08/2010 04:00:31 AM
364 Views
How did he "backtrack" exactly?
- 21/08/2010 04:35:33 PM
1047 Views
c'mon Joel. are you being intentionally thick?
- 21/08/2010 05:02:27 PM
1056 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
1008 Views
did you take into your consideration
- 22/08/2010 03:50:59 PM
750 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
945 Views
I agree he is not backtracking
- 22/08/2010 06:49:36 PM
853 Views
While we're picking sides, I'm with Mook and Roland.
- 22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM
780 Views
- 22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM
780 Views
I like how he's got rhetorical talents when it works
- 22/08/2010 08:32:15 PM
805 Views
nope just human
*NM*
- 22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM
427 Views
*NM*
- 22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM
427 Views
that's not what Paul just said.
- 22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM
869 Views
- 22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM
869 Views
He couldn't stay out, no.
- 22/08/2010 08:56:47 PM
916 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
924 Views
- 22/08/2010 09:03:54 PM
924 Views
key word: seem
- 22/08/2010 09:06:40 PM
844 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
740 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
504 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
489 Views
Joel
- 22/08/2010 05:37:45 AM
1058 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
976 Views
nonsense
- 22/08/2010 03:39:30 PM
918 Views
I still don't see how it can be misinterpreted except by intent by the listener.
- 22/08/2010 04:08:52 PM
893 Views
so we have reached the point of no return...
- 22/08/2010 04:18:46 PM
904 Views
In your case it would have to be number 2.
- 22/08/2010 07:38:20 PM
879 Views
ah, but I have no agenda here...
- 22/08/2010 07:41:59 PM
710 Views
lol.<3
- 22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM
888 Views
- 22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM
888 Views
that it is...
- 22/08/2010 08:57:05 PM
887 Views
hee. Well, I still don't agree with you, but at least you're snuggly.^_^ *NM*
- 22/08/2010 09:09:22 PM
666 Views
Tash you are very much a fair person in this world
- 22/08/2010 08:34:38 PM
982 Views
Or there is another option: 3) He was using tact.
- 22/08/2010 09:01:49 PM
912 Views
I really have to disagree with your interpretation of that first speech.
- 22/08/2010 09:22:32 PM
1177 Views
Lies, prevarication and deceit again, eh?
- 22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM
1369 Views
- 22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM
1369 Views
that was a decent explanation....
- 22/08/2010 05:18:18 PM
820 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
1114 Views
