The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I know a few guys in sneakers that it didn't work out so good for.

That was Hail Bop.(Actually, I have no idea how that comet is spelled. I have always pronounced it as the above and assumed it's spelled similarly. Most likely, in reality, it's a single word, like Haelbop. Meh).

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I have, like, seven instances of fail on this page.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I have, like, seven instances of fail on this page.

Fail-Bopp?

[Balloon guy 158]

You mean they had the wrong comet all along?Man that's funny. I mean for us..not for them.

[Balloon guy 158]

Balloon guy's not afraid to just go for it though.

Often, it's just a numbers game

[Balloon guy 158]

That was Hail Bop.(Actually, I have no idea how that comet is spelled. I have always pronounced it as the above and assumed it's spelled similarly. Most likely, in reality, it's a single word, like Haelbop. Meh).

Is that hail like in: "Hail fellow well met"?or"Oh Hail" ( spoken in the south )?or"The hail is falling through Sal's roof"?

[ShakeZuma 585]

"The hail is falling through Sal's roof"?

hmm... barack obama didn't fix this.-1

[Balloon guy 158]

hmm... barack obama didn't fix this.-1

Hail is white.Obama is kind of a chocolate goodness with hints of wildflowerYou want him to fix your roof, because that's all those people are good for? politicians??Maybe next he can do your taxes?Or maybe derail a train carrying cleaning supplies to suspected terrorists in Germany?Because of the Hitler thing?Veiled racism is still racism.Look it up bucko

[vbnautilus 48]

Actually Alan Hale, who co-discovered the Hale-Bopp comet, was black.( as far as you know )

[ShakeZuma 585]

haha, had me there for a second. a black astronomer. right.veils are for mooslums.two in one post!

[Balloon guy 158]

Actually Alan Hale, who co-discovered the Hale-Bopp comet, was black.( as far as you know )

Wrong again. IDIOT

[CaneBrain 95]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/oba...T1&iref=BN1Obama decides to strongly support the Constitution. I anticipate all the strict Constitutionalist Tea Partiers will line up behind him.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/oba...T1&iref=BN1Obama decides to strongly support the Constitution. I anticipate all the strict Constitutionalist Tea Partiers will line up behind him.

Of course he supports it, he used to be a muslim

[SweetDee 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/oba...T1&iref=BN1Obama decides to strongly support the Constitution. I anticipate all the strict Constitutionalist Tea Partiers will line up behind him.

I anticipate he will throw his support behind "Christian" KKK groups in Arizona any day now.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/oba...T1&iref=BN1Obama decides to strongly support the Constitution. I anticipate all the strict Constitutionalist Tea Partiers will line up behind him.

Good speech. Sometimes I'm actually proud to be an American

I anticipate he will throw his support behind "Christian" KKK groups in Arizona any day now.

Of couse he will support their ability to worship, so long as it's in accordance to unbiased local laws. That's pretty much the point of America, right.In all honestly, is there anyone here who actually believes that the law should prevent those Muslims from building the community center in Manhattan. Because, if someone honestly believes that, have the courage to step up and admit it. I will then have a few choice words for you.

[vbnautilus 48]

In all honestly, is there anyone here who actually believes that the law should prevent those Muslims from building the community center in Manhattan. Because, if someone honestly believes that, have the courage to step up and admit it. I will then have a few choice words for you.

I think we should be working to eradicate Islam, although not by making it illegal. It's important that people have the right to have bad ideas, but also that we do everything we can to persuade them away from such ideas. In Bloomberg's speech he said: By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam.I think he's wrong about both counts. The only way Islam will bring people together is if it succeeds in converting them all. As for 9/11, beyond being consistent with that ideology, it was probably an inevitable consequence of it.

[Balloon guy 158]

You're just cranky cause I caught you on the Skipper's race.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I think we should be working to eradicate Islam, although not by making it illegal. It's important that people have the right to have bad ideas, but also that we do everything we can to persuade them away from such ideas. In Bloomberg's speech he said: By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam.I think he's wrong about both counts. The only way Islam will bring people together is if it succeeds in converting them all. As for 9/11, beyond being consistent with that ideology, it was probably an inevitable consequence of it.

I would argue that this is a separate issue all together. Bloomberg's goal is for all people to be tolerant and respectful of each other. He's not saying that we should all think that Islam is a good idea or that we should all believe in it. I'm on your side, I think in general religion is detrimental to progress, liberty, and rational thought (on a large scale). But that doesn't mean that all religion is equally so, or even that all forms of Islam are equally so. Most of it is harmless to beneficial , same with Christianity, Judaism, etc. One can not argue that the 911 attacks were consistent with Islam or not because "Islam," like all religions, differs from person to person and is subject to interpretation. Obviously the people who committed those crimes believe it was consistent with Islam. I think that the vast majority of Muslims don't believe it is consistent. Anyway, my original point is that this Mosque is a wholly improper battleground for both a battle against Islam itself or in your battle against religious backwardness. It's a cut and dry separation of church and state issue.

[vbnautilus 48]

I would argue that this is a separate issue all together. Bloomberg's goal is for all people to be tolerant and respectful of each other.

But we should not be tolerant and respectful of everyone's ideas. For instance, if the KKK wanted to open a center in the same spot, they should meet with the same resistance. An idea that is harmful to us is not worthy of our respect. The reason its not a separate issue is that in striving to guarantee the freedom of speech and religion, we often forget this fact. We must not confuse equal rights with equal value.

He's not saying that we should all think that Islam is a good idea or that we should all believe in it. I'm on your side, I think in general religion is detrimental to progress, liberty, and rational thought (on a large scale). But that doesn't mean that all religion is equally so, or even that all forms of Islam are equally so. Most of it is harmless to beneficial , same with Christianity, Judaism, etc. One can not argue that the 911 attacks were consistent with Islam or not because "Islam," like all religions, differs from person to person and is subject to interpretation. Obviously the people who committed those crimes believe it was consistent with Islam. I think that the vast majority of Muslims don't believe it is consistent.

I agree that not all religions are equally detrimental (this one happens to be particularly bad). But I disagree that most of it is harmless to beneficial. And while there are always a range of interpretations, there is a canon, and even those that don't embody that ideal must support those who do. The politically correct notion that always shows up in these speeches -- the idea that there are a few extremists who distort the true message of the religion -- is total nonsense. There are several ideas core to the ideology that are ultimately incompatible with our way of life. Polls have shown, for example, that the majority of muslims support suicide bombing in palestine.

Anyway, my original point is that this Mosque is a wholly improper battleground for both a battle against Islam itself or in your battle against religious backwardness. It's a cut and dry separation of church and state issue.

Legally, there is no issue. Culturally, there is an issue.

[vbnautilus 48]

You're just cranky cause I caught you on the Skipper's race.

Ah man I forgot to respond to that one. I meant to photoshop him into a black guy, and it slipped my mind.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Legally, there is no issue. Culturally, there is an issue.

If this is the stance, then that's okay, but I disagree that one should feel so strongly about THIS Mosque in particular. There is a line between being intolerant of religions and being intolerant of religious people. If you are against the ideas of Islam, you should be sure that you are fighting the former and not the latter.

[vbnautilus 48]

If this is the stance, then that's okay, but I disagree that one should feel so strongly about THIS Mosque in particular. There is a line between being intolerant of religions and being intolerant of religious people. If you are against the ideas of Islam, you should be sure that you are fighting the former and not the latter.

The reason this particular mosque raises the issues I'm now harping on is because of its location, obviously. It carries symbolic meaning. It confronts us with the fact that we have been the victims of it yet are still generally unwilling to openly oppose it. It's pretty much required for any politician to claim that we have no problem with Islam (the religion of peace!) whenever there is an opportunity to do so. But, according to the hole in the ground next to this building, we do indeed have a problem with Islam. It just seems like we are so enamored with our tolerance that we can't let ourselves see this.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The reason this particular mosque raises the issues I'm now harping on is because of its location, obviously. It carries symbolic meaning. It confronts us with the fact that we have been the victims of it yet are still generally unwilling to openly oppose it.

But these people had nothing to do with the attacks. Do you feel it's a better strategy to reject everybody who is Islamic, or those who are Islamic AND vehemently anti-America. Islam didn't attack us, people who happened to be Islamic attacked us. Taking anger out on these New Yorkers trying to build a place of worship is like taking anger out on a kid playing Moral Kombat after Columbine or taking ager out against an unrelated person who drinks wine after hearing about a drunken driver accident. These people were in no way responsible, have condemned it, and just want to live their lives peacefully.What is "it" in your last sentence. Islam? Fanatical Islam? Or something deeper and more perverse in humanity that causes a very small percentage of people to commit horrible acts?Also, I disagree with your claim that the majority of Muslims support suicide attacks in Israel, and ask that you either provide supporting evidence or take back your remark.

[hblask 1]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/oba...T1&iref=BN1Obama decides to strongly support the Constitution. I anticipate all the strict Constitutionalist Tea Partiers will line up behind him.

FTA:"The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure." Obama is absolutely correct here.It would almost be inspiring if he didn't spend the other 99% of his time pissing on the ideals of America's founding and explaining why he knows better why the Constitution should be ignored.But hey, maybe he's turning over a new leaf.

[CaneBrain 95]

FTA:"The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure." Obama is absolutely correct here.It would almost be inspiring if he didn't spend the other 99% of his time pissing on the ideals of America's founding and explaining why he knows better why the Constitution should be ignored.But hey, maybe he's turning over a new leaf.

As far as I can tell, Obama's only problem is the 10th amendment whereas the Tea Party seems to struggle with the First and 14th. So, Obama wins 2-1 in Constitutionalness.