miditek wrote:Author and former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat translates Imam Rauf's seditious and conspiratorial activities from Arabic during Rauf's U.S. taxpayer sponsored tour of the Middle East.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="
http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
NeonVomit wrote:A video from Fox News is not evidence. You'd have the same reaction if anyone posted anything from Al-Jazeera, wouldn't you?
Try again.
So essentially what you're saying is that you conveniently choose to ignore a former PLO terrorist that is a native Arabic speaker that is translating what Rauf is saying in his speeches overseas. If Shoebat was still associated with Fatah and calling for the destruction of Israel and America, I'm quite sure that you'd be cheering him on- but now that he is a Christian, has renounced terrorism and Islam, and is currently explaining the differences in what the imam's messages are in English to American venues and Arabic in Middle Eastern venues, then what he is saying now must be propaganda. Fox News is certainly not the only media institution that Shoebat has granted interviews to.
miditek wrote:Rather than being on the government payroll, he should now be under investigation- and due to his public and verbal suppport for Hamas and Hezbollah, then that is sufficent for probable and reasonable cause to be established for an indictment under the following:
USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381
§ 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
NeonVomit wrote:No, he is not committing treason. You think everyone who disagrees with US policy (pre-Obama, of course) is committing treason.
Try again.
Giving aid, comfort, or support in any form and at any venue whatsoever to the enemy
is treason- particularly given the fact that he
is on the government's payroll. Re-read USC 18-2381, with particular emphasis on "giving them aid and comfort within the United States
or elsewhere"
miditek wrote:Nor does freedom of religion allow these imams to set up a madrassa in their mosque to indoctrinate their children in Jihad 101 courses, and to create the next generation of suicide bombers.
NeonVomit wrote:Agreed. I somehow don't think that's going to be happening in this mosque however. Not with the amount of scrutiny it would be under from now on.
miditek wrote:But that is based solely on assumptions, and not on fact. As I mentioned, I think that sufficient probable cause has already been well established via the Imam's words and actions, and not to mention the nearly 3,000 people that were killed only two blocks away.
NeonVomit wrote:You do not know what 'probable cause' means. Look it up.
Try again.
I believe that the definitions of probable cause and reasonable suspicion are
quite clear, and do not require a
juris doctorate for clear interpretation. Perhaps you choose to conveniently ignore how many mosques have been raided here in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. Moreover, in the METO (Middle Eastern Theater of Operations) mosques have been used time and again to hide fugitives and weapons, and as strongholds or fortress types of structures from which coalition troops have been fired upon.
Once evidence has been established, either via confidential informants and/or other forms of surveillance- that a mosque is being used for seditious activities, the planning of criminal/treasonous activity, inspiring or inciting violence, and/or harboring fugitives, illegal aliens, or hiding illegal weapons- it ceases to become a house of worship, and as such, is subject to search, seizure, and if necessary and the insurgents do not surrender(in a battlefield environment) the destruction thereof by force.
NeonVomit wrote:They'll probably content themselves with telling five year old kids that they'll go to hell for not believing in Mohammed. Or that having sex before marriage will send you to hell. Or that Mohammed came up with the Koran after a chat with the archangel Gabriel, but conveniently forget to mention that he didn't actually write any of it down, ever.
miditek wrote:That is, of course, a plausible assumption, but the only way to guarantee that jihiadist training and indoctrination does not occur (or if it does, as I strongly suspect it will, is not permitted to continue) is for a Federal judge to sign the necessary warrants to keep such a place under surveillance by the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, including wiretaps and audio/video bugs, in addition to the infiltration of the proposed facility by informants.
[/quote]
NeonVomit wrote:So by that reasoning, they should bug and infiltrate every single mosque in the country. Right?
It should be quite obvious that we don't have the time nor the resources to bug and infiltrate every single mosque in America- and there are many more being built every year.
However, the vast majority of the congregations in these mosques are not American citizens, but more likely are resident aliens, and as such, are potentially enemy aliens and of course should be subjected to far greater scrutiny- given Islam's penchant for violence, and their established history of using houses of worship as a cover for illegal and terroristic activities.
Moreover, why the influx of so many of them to a society that that proclaim hatred for and have vowed to destroy? If Islam is so superior, why the invasion of tens of millions of them to Europe and millions more to America? Given the fact that we
are at war with radical Islam, any and all of them are, at the very least, subject to be suspected of being enemy aliens.
miditek wrote:But the Saudis' Islamic jurisprudence does not in any way provide an excuse or legal precedent for Rauf's misguided and ill-intentioned project here.
NeonVomit wrote:I wasn't saying it did, I was just pointing out your example is flawed. The US is different from Saudi Arabia in basically every way conceivable, so comparing them is pointless. Such a thing would never be allowed there.
NeonVomit wrote:I said it was a pretty fucked up thing to do, and fucked up things are allowed to happen in a free society. It's part of the price we pay.
Freedom of religion is one thing- one that I am sure that we can both agree, but using mosques as a facade to set up a fifth column of subversion is not the same thing as freedom of religion.
NeonVomit wrote:The US on the other hand is a modern, enlightened (for the most part) democratic society where freedom for all is (usually) protected by law. More often than not, people get fair trials and have their rights protected. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but by god do you hear about it and do people get angry when things mess up.
And there are limits to freedom- for instance, they are not free to build bombs, hide heavy weapons, or indoctrinate jihadist theory into young impressionable minds here. Once they cross that line, all bets are off. Many already have as evidenced from numerous raids on existing mosques, in addition to a significant number of arrests by the FBI. With as many problems as the U.S. and other countries have had with them, reasonable suspicion has already been well established.
Miditek wrote:Yes, the U.S. is, with the exception of Israel, indeed a significantly more open and free society than the majority of other nations in the Middle East. However, that does not mean that Rauf and his associates should be allowed to game the system and use the United States freedom of religion as the basis to circumvent that law behind the veil of religion.
NeonVomit wrote:Uh, trust me, the US is way more open and free than Israel and indeed most European countries. I've been to Israel a few times, it's a nice place, almost identical to Cyprus, but believe me it's no paradise because some ancient myths were set there.
No country on Earth is a "paradise", but Israel itself is significantly more advanced in finance, agriculture, information technology, medical technology, military technology, and about a gazillion other things than her neighbors. Why do you think that Microsoft, Intel, Google, and other Silicon Valley giants have a major presence there as opposed to, let's say Syria?
NeonVomit wrote:And hey, Fred Phelps and co. have a national platform to spew hate speech, but I never see you saying anything against that bunch. Do you agree with them?
Phelps is, in my own opinion, a royal and first class asshole that is in no way associated with the nation's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which ranks second only to the Roman Catholic Church, in terms of membership numbers. As far as we are concerned, Phelps is definitely considered a heretic. He would never be welcome to speak at our church. His flock's presence would certainly not be welcome at the National Cemetery over on Bailey Avenue here in my city- where I have family and friends buried, and Westboro congregants might find themselves to be at great risk at the hands of several known motorcycle gangs, such, as the Outlaws, who have chapters here in the city- and "brothers" buried at National.
I find his anti-Semitism to be completely abominable, in addition to the picketing the funerals of our fallen servicemen and servicewomen. I was also highly annoyed when the picketed Dio's funeral as well. This guy is a rabble-rouser that is best to be ignored, since it should be obvious that he and his flock are little more than attention whores. The only thing that I have ever heard him say that made sense was that anti-hate speech laws in Canada and Sweden that subject pastors to jail sentences for speaking out against the sin of homosexuality is wrong, and is a violation of free speech- but that is where our agreement ends.
If he were truly a minister of Christ, he would indeed say that homosexuality is wrong and that God's judgement is certainly coming for practitioners of that (and a great many other)sins)- but rather than picketing funerals and adding hurt to the already devastated survivors of our fallen warriors, he would lead his congregation to pray for people that are gay, and that God would lead them away from such a lifestyle. It is also very likely that this pastor conveniently forgets that he is a sinner as well, and is in every bit as much of need of Christ's forgiveness and salvation as anyone else in the world.
NeonVomit wrote:BUT... having said that, it is privately owned land, and the building and administration of the mosque is in line with all local laws and ordinances. It's not actually, well, illegal or unlawful in any way. Therefore the only reason this is being made an issue, and the only reason it would possibly be blocked, is on the grounds of it being a Muslim building in Lower Manhattan.
Miditek wrote:That, we may have to disagree with. As far as I am concerned, there is a legal basis that can be used to stop this mosque at the proposed site- as what Rauf is proposing basically amounts to inciting a riot, and it will lead to far worse events than mere riots themselves. The city and the state have offered to work with Rauf to find an alternate site, but these attempts for compromise have, of course, been rejected outright.
NeonVomit wrote:Storm in a teacup. Nobody will actually riot over this. It will piss people off, sure, and right wingers will fan the flames because it gets them ratings.
It's far more than that- Imam Rauf is playing with fire and knows exactly what he's doing. When you see union building contractors (
none of which are right-wing by any stretch of the imagination) and IBEW members indicating that they will refuse to build the mosque (and good luck getting non-union scabs to cross the picket line in NYC without a fight), then you can bet the rent money that this is certainly not isolated to the right-wing.
NeonVomit wrote:He wanted to build there and did. Once again, it's a stupid, cold-hearted thing to do, but not illegal.
Not illegal to build, but certainly not legal for the purpose of jihadist indoctrination and training or to use the mosque as a base of operations. If the Imam was so concerned about bridge building (rather than burning them) as he claims that he is, he would at least sit down with NY Governor David Patterson to explore options for another location- which he has utterly refused to do. This proves that Rauf has no interest in defusing any situations- and will use the fallout that will inevitably result for his own cynical political gains.
New York is definitely not a "right-wing" city, but if you piss these people off- then look out, because they certainly have a history of inflicting extremely unpleasant actions upon people that instigate trouble there.
NeonVomit wrote:And that is religious discrimination, which is unlawful.
Miditek wrote:That is arguable at best, and as I said, what Rauf is trying to do is to incite violence for the sake of propaganda purposes, and to inspire future waves of suicide attacks against innocent civilians in the NYC area, under a mere facade of religion. He clearly has anticipated what the eventual results would be if the mosque is built in such close proximity to the WTC site- and instigating trouble is his ultimate goal- not, as he publicly preaches, to use the center for the purpose of reconciliation and healing.
NeonVomit wrote:No, it's not 'arguable at best', after all you've said, religious discrimination is still illegal. It's in the law, it cannot be challenged.
It is indeed arguable. Do you want to see lower Manhattan turn into a war zone? Rauf has refused to consider another location that is not in such close proximity to ground zero. And what the hell is he doing on the government's payroll to begin with? Even Gov. Patterson offering to provide state land is offensive, but certainly less so than building at the proposed site. If anything, I can see both the Fed and the State of New York crossing all sorts of lines with the separation of church and state.
NeonVomit wrote:It doesn't matter if he insisted he wanted to build it there - that makes him a bastard trying to incite hatred, but no more than Fred Phelps and co.
I disagree, Phelps and Company, and their fringe cult that call themselves Baptists had nothing to do with Islam, and nothing to do with the WTC, do not support Hamas, and do not support Hezbollah. To the best of my knowledge, while the Westboro congregation have made complete asses out of themselves on a number of occasions, they have not committed any acts of treason, sabotage, or terrorism against the homeland. He has a handful of idiotic followers, while Rauf has financing from the Saudis and others, and hundreds of millions of people on his side. That is a major difference.
NeonVomit wrote:It is not illegal to build, and therefore blocking the construction because of the fact that it is a Muslim building and no other is religious discrimination. Which is, again, prevented by the constitution.
But treason and sedition are against the law, and that is exactly what they are planning to do inside of that building- and to use the GZM for propaganda purposes, as opposed to being a house of worship. Do you think that the Greek Orthodox priests at the St. Nicholas church (which was destroyed in that same vicinity) were teaching jihad from the pulpit in their church?
NeonVomit wrote:If the State or City of New York said "No mosques, period.", then that, in my opinion, would certainly constitute religious discrimination.
NeonVomit wrote:And saying 'you can't build here because it's a mosque' without any other good reasons is also religious discrimination. It's exactly the same thing.
Unless you haven't heard, the NY City Council, including Mayor Bloomberg has
approved , as well as the building inspectors have approved that the mosque can indeed be built. But there are a great deal of residents in the city that oppose it, in addition to 70% of the rest of the country- and as I previously stated- Rauf has
refused to consider any alternative sites.
NeonVomit wrote:If it was a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple we wouldn't even be hearing about it. But like it or not, freedom of religion is protected in America, and fortunately or unfortunately, that's part of living in an open society. While I agree with Obama on his reasoning behind his opinion, I still think he should have just kept quiet about it and left it as a local issue. Brave of him to do and very idealistic, but not politically wise.
But the fact remains, it is not a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple. It was not Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, nor Hindus that hijacked commercial jet planes and used them as human guided missiles to destroy the WTC. Furthermore, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not vowing to destroy the U.S. and Israel, and Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not being arrested in NYC for plots to bomb Jewish synagogues either. Many Muslims like to play both jihadist and victim at the same time, but instigators, plotters, subversives, and killers cannot simultaneously be victims. Their actions warrant, indeed demand, far greater scrutiny.[/quote][/quote]
NeonVomit wrote:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
   /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ –noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
As you put it, it is religious discrimination. That is a textbook example of it, and you seem to firmly believe it is OK. You're saying an entire section of the population, based on their faith, should be observed and monitored because of what a bunch of extremists did.
Please explain how is that not religious discrimination.
There are a great number of people nationwide that have asked Rauf to move the mosque elsewhere- and that is not discrimination.
NeonVomit wrote:By that thinking, why not ban all Roman Catholic priests because of the numerous documented cases of child abuse? Why not sterilise all black people because their kids are more likely to commit crimes?
The (Catholic) church has done a poor job of policing itself in regards to pedophiliac clergy- and it is certainly not limited to the Catholic church either. Such offenders should be prosecuted and then imprisoned. Pedos have rather short life spans in American prisons. Personally, I'd like to see convicted pedophiles shot by firing squad- particularly if their DNA is found to be present in the victim's body- but that topic has already been discussed here.
Regarding the sterilization of black people, that of course is ridiculous particularly if based on the assumption that they are more likely to commit crimes- although I do think that "Welfare Queens" of all races should be sterilized by the complete removal of their ovaries (and at their own expense) after the first child is born if they expect someone else (read: taxpayers) to be responsible for paying for their offspring's upbringing.
NeonVomit wrote:I don't think it's about political correctness however (which pisses me off no end). Despite me being about as atheist as they come, I do believe freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and as outlined above, there's just no legal reason for this mosque not to be built.
Again, I believe that there are strong legal arguments regarding the existence of the mosque itself- but the current outrage is not over the existence of the mosque itself, but its location, and the Imam's outright refusal to consider an alternate location, as proposed by the governor of the State of New York.[/quote]
NeonVomit wrote:Yeah, but he's not actually breaking any laws apart from pissing people off. Again, I think it's cruel, cold and calculated but it's not illegal. Trust me, the law is probably the one thing I actually, like, know about. Don't go down that path.
Again, if the purpose of the mosque (as it has been in countless other parts of the world, including America) is to be used as a base of operations for terrorist and/or seditious activities, then the 1st Amendment offers no protection as it is no longer a house of worship, but a "safe house" for those that engage in criminal activity.
Once you get your
juris doctorate and pass your bar exams, then by all means, please feel free to lecture me as often as you wish on the law- particularly if you pass the bar exam in any one of the fifty United States, and especially if you become an expert on U.S. Constitutional law, as well as actually having
read the Patriot Act itself to begin with. While I am certainly no attorney, as an engineer I deal with complex legal and security related issues on a daily basis with my work- and can research and interpret legal documentation for myself.
miditek wrote:This entire thing is being planned to provoke the people nationwide, and could serve as a "Reichstag Fire" type of pretext for Obungler's Sturmabteilung to launch a crackdown on us. That's the game in a nutshell.
NeonVomit wrote:The first bit of this sentence is true and I agree fully with it, the second part shows you have no idea about or understanding of Nazi Germany and how it has no conceivable resemblance with the current (or, might I add, previous) US administration.
miditek wrote:Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. We may agree on the first part of the sentence, but as for your assessment of the second part- it is your opinion, and as such, you are welcome to it.
miditek wrote:With that being the case, I would also like to point out that I've studied the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, and Imperial Japan ever since I could read from the age of six years old onward (having first started with my father's copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in addition to various World Book encyclopedias at that age), in addition to every other book and documentary I've watched in the thirty seven years since I began- which is longer than you have been alive. At the end of the day, if one (or a group) are killed by jihadists, Nazis, or Communists, then what difference does it make? The victims are still just as dead. So it's safe to assume that I have a bit more than average knowledge of the subject of tyranny that the typical person does.
NeonVomit wrote:The people killed by US bombs are, however, not dead at all. Vietnamese people aren't still getting fucked up genetic mutations from Agent Orange. Right?
Completely irrelevant and off-topic. Do you know what ridiculous slogans were painted on the side of the tanks of DeGaulle's 2nd Armored Div. during the battle to liberate Paris? I'll give you a hint- "Today Paris, Tomorrow Saigon!" So in essence, the stupid frogs had not even had liberated their capital city liberated yet, despite a four year occupation by the Krauts (with whom they certainly collaborated with and also fired on US troops landing in North Africa)- and yet they could not wait to reoccupy their former colonies in Indochina.
As I have told you before (in order to refresh your selective memory) Uncle Ho begged Eisenhower for political assistance in getting the frogs out of Indochina once and for all- but Ike, out of some sort of ridiclous fear of offending French "sensibilities" refused to do so. Why anyone would be afraid of offending a vanquished ally like France that required US and UK help to be liberated is completely beyond me.
But in the end, Uncle Ho went to China (an ancient and implacable enemy) as well as the Soviet Union for help with expelling the French from their country. Uncle Mao and Uncles Malenkov, Beria, Molotov, and Khrushchev, who were more than happy to assist Uncle Ho with killing the French, for assistance.
After the frogs'
glorious humiliation at Dien Bien Phu, that was when US involvement began- and after Eisenhower, Kennedy began sending more advisors, and then Johnson began a full scale escalation of the war. Nixon nearly won the war during Operation Rolling Thunder in 1972 (as the North Vietnamese were at the Paris Peace Conference and almost ready to sign that year, but the democrats (
who started the fucking war to begin with) and the peaceniks and the hippies began protesting, and eventually it was Ford that pulled the remaining troops out.
So if you want to look at who originally instigated the entire conflict, look no further than Paris and its desire to continue with its colonial ambitions- and then had their heads handed to them by Ho and the Viet Minh. It was democratic presidents that got us in with full force, and republicans that eventually pulled our troops out. So you can't blame Ronnie Ray-gun or Boosch for this adventure, as much as it's apparent that you would love to pin the tail on that donkey. Personally, I would have told the French to go fuck themselves and to get the hell out of Indochina, and the entire thing could have been avoided.
miditek wrote:In private conversations that I've had over the years with a number of Russian, Ukranian, and Armenian friends that live right here in the States, they have expressed grave concern over the direction that the country is heading in, and would it not be safe to assume that, as former citizens of the USSR, that these folks have a good idea of the dangers and warning signs of tyranny when they see it? When the explain that they did not leave Eastern Europe and travel thousands of miles to America to live in another nascent dictatorship? Would you entertain the idea that you somehow know something more about tyranny than they do or accuse them of being "Islamophobic"?
NeonVomit wrote:So tyranny - like bugging and infiltrating religious organisations as you mentioned above? Monitoring and scrutinising a whole religion because of what extremists did? Sounds like you sort of want tyranny.
No, why don't we let them import Sharia law here and give it full and official recognition as is the case now in the United Khaliphate? Since you know so much about the law, please provide evidence that Sharia courts are not operating in Britain now.
The best way to ensure freedom here will be to protect our fellow Americans from those that have vowed to topple us and our way of life. This mass immigration of Muslims here into the US serves no legitimate purpose, other than to allow our own enemy to live amongst us. Immigration of Muslims should be severely restricted- if not completely eliminated. Doctors, dentists, engineers, etc. I can see and understand letting them come in, but jihadists? Not a chance in hell.
NeonVomit wrote:The US is more free than any country in Europe could ever hope to be, and will be for a long time. Please don't wish for it to change. Chill out and be thankful for what you have.
Americans are thankful for what they have, but we will jealously guard our freedom from those that would wish to subjugate us- freedom is not free, and Europeans of all people should know that.
NeonVomit wrote: Look, Obama is either a Communist, or a Nazi, make up your mind. If you're going to be wilfully ignorant about the different meanings of political affiliations at least be consistent with it.
miditek wrote:Churchill himself was on record as saying that Nazism was virtually indinguishable from the worst excesses of Bolshevism, so did that make him a buffoon as well? Again, you're welcome to your own opinions, but they do not by any means "prove" anything about my beliefs, overall level of intelligence, morals, habits, or anything else.
NeonVomit wrote:You prove that yourself, I don't have to do anything. And no, I don't really have much love for Churchill, there's a reason he was voted out of office before WWII was even over.
I can only imagine your dislike of Churchill- and you probably thought that Chamberlain's and Daladier's political skills were far superior, which as far as being snookered by Hitler's lies- you would be absolutely correct!
Churchill was voted out just after V-E Day, but not V-J day. I cannot think of any other PM in the entire history of the UK that would have been a better wartime leader- and in the postwar years as the leader of the opposition, he still wielded considerable international influence. He was also voted back into office as PM in 1951- which also speaks volumes of the man.
NeonVomit wrote:Just understand that Obama is neither a Nazi nor a Boshelvist because you happen to disagree with him. I think GWB was the worst US president in history, but he wasn't any Nazi - he just had terrible policy ideas.
It is impossible for a mulatto to be a Nazi- but certainly not impossible for him to be a Socialist, which is essentially "Communist-lite"- as he has nationalized wide swaths of the American private sectors of business during his short time in power- healthcare, elements of the automotive industry, investment banks, and other institutions.
Carcass wrote:I completely agree with you. I was trying to say that miditek's Nazi argument was retarded. As if 1000 Finnish SS volunteers makes you a Nazi. You had nothing to do with it. But this is nothing new, miditek repeatedly chooses to see broad categories of people defined by what happened in 1939-45.
What I said was that Babylonian was an idiot Finn functioning as the pot calling the kettle black due to his suggestions that Wilders was a Nazi. Have you seen Fitna for yourself? Did Wilders hire Arabic speaking actors to simply play roles in this film, and did he somehow re-write the Koran and then quote from it to somehow express his own political views?
And besides, there were a lot more than just 1,000 Finns serving in the SS foreign legions that fought alongside the Germans in WWII. The Finnish I, II, and IV Corps (under Mannerheim), which comprised a total of seven infantry divisions were attached to Army Group North under the overall command of German Field Marshall Ritter von Leeb, and the Finn forces did participate in the seige of Leningrad.
Moreover, it was estimated that 19,000 Soviet POWs died of starvation and disease (with an additional 1,000 executed) in Finnish POW camps. Also, it was estimated that some 4,000 Russian civilians from East Karelia that died in Finnish concentration camps during the war.
So before Babylonian calls Wilders a Kraut, he should understand that Wilders and his party are not committing atrocities, they are defending the Dutch way of life, will not capitulate to yet another facist foreign invader, and the Finns by no means have a spotless history themselves. In other words, people that live in glass houses need not throw rocks at their neighbors.
NeonVomit wrote:Didn't Glenn Beck air the idea of opening a gay bar next door called 'Suspicious Packages'? That's possibly the only thing he's ever said that I agree with. I think it would be fantastic.
You're close, but it was actually Greg Gutfeld, the host of Fox News' "Redeye Report" that comes on late at night that suggested this solution while he was a guest on Beck's show. Beck, for his part, of course found the notion to be amusing, and even went as far as questioning Gutfeld if he were actually serious- and Gutfeld claimed that he had financial backers that had indicated that there was indeed an interest in opening an alcohol-free gay bar that catered exclusively to gay Muslim men- right next door to the mosque.
Here's the clip, but you'll want to draw your own conclusions as to whether or not Gutfeld was actually serious- it sounded like more of a gag (if you'll pardon the pun) or a joke to me.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="
http://www.youtube.com/v/Son_1YeL4K8?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
http://www.youtube.com/v/Son_1YeL4K8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>