Dean blew it. Imagine acknowledging to blacks in the Civil Rights era

[coti]

that yes, they had a constitutional right to sit at the lunch counter, or pick their own seat on the bus, but that, out of courtesy and for the sake of everyone getting along, maybe they should go ahead and move anyway.

Dean's thinking seems to be that this issue is like the old First Amendment concept that, yes, you do have the "right" to call someone a bad word in public, but that doesn't mean you should do it- it's still rude.

That's not the case here. There's nothing discourteous or inconsiderate about building a Muslim community center two blocks from where the WTC was when there are already a hundred or more in the City of New York- except in the minds of those who are so ignorant as to believe that all Muslims are terrorists or hate Americans. That's not true, and their "request" for "courtesy" on that basis is just bigoted.

As in the case of those who fought against civil rights, these people need to be confronted with their prejudice. They need to be told that they're wrong. I don't believe those building this community center have anything sinister or evil in their hearts, and, not only do they have the constitutional right to do so, they ought to be left in peace while doing it. They certainly don't need to be asked to step aside because of the crocodile tears of assholes.

That's what Dean doesn't seem to understand, and he needs to rethink his position.

[bluestateguy]

1. There are only 3 black people in Vermont

So no, I would not expect him to understand.

[Bluebear]

2. You're calling Vermont racist? Do you ever think before you blurt these things out?

[Rhiannon12866]

13. It really is true that Vermont has few black residents,

Compared to other states, Vermont and Oregon. We received World Almanacs where I worked, since the company published them, and my colleague liked to read factoids from his aloud... :shrug:

[FreeState]

24. .89% of 621,760 people = 5,534

Rounded ;) According to wikipeadia (using 2005 percentage and 2009 estimate of total population) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont?wasRedirected=true


51.0% female
49.0% male
Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Vermont ranks:

2nd highest proportion of Whites
2nd oldest median age<40>
41st highest proportion of Asians
49th highest proportion of Hispanics
48th highest proportion of Blacks
29th highest proportion of Native Americans
39th highest proportion of people of mixed race
28th highest proportion of males
24th highest proportion of females

[Rhiannon12866]

42. Thanks for the stats.

I don't think this gives Governor Dean an excuse, however. He has spent time in most of the 50 states, after all. :shrug:

[FreeState]

43. I agree it's no excuse

But it was interesting. Lack of exposure does not make one racist or uninformed.

[Rhiannon12866]

45. Governor Dean is a national leader.

He certainly should have known better. And Vermont is, despite its lack of diversity, a pretty liberal state. Just look at Vermont's senators... :)

[defendandprotect]

58. ...and, Dean certainly should be aware of Civil Rights era and struggles...

[niceypoo]

37. So, Vermont is racist because not a lot of blacks live there...

Going by that same logic the deep south is non racist because 1/3 of the population is black.

FAIL

[Rhiannon12866]

39. I did not say that Vermont was racist.

In fact, Vermont is actually more liberal than many states. A fellow DUer moved there because of that. I was just quoting a statistic that was thrown at me once, in response to a post. I disagree with Governor Dean's statement and see no excuse for it... :(

on edit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8974027&mesg_id=8974234

[niceypoo]

46. I was refering to post #1

[Rhiannon12866]

47. Well, I agree with you.

:)

[SargeUNN]

40. maybe you should follow your own words

the person was pointing out that Dean wouldn't be able to appreciate the struggles as well as one from an area like Mississippi. It doesn't imply racism due to it and for you to reach that conclusion shows you are ambushing and not being fair.

[Bluebear]

78. Aw , now Sargey.

"Ambushing", how dramatic!

Dean fully well "appreciates" the struggles of people, he chaired our party. For example, he doesn't live in the Castro district of San Francisco but he's a damn sight more of a leader on gay issues than some other politicians.

[vanbean]

52. Speaking of thinking before blurting. Pot meet Kettle.

[Binka]

67. Looking In A Mirror? n/t

[Bluebear]

79. The horseshit here anymore, eh lovebug?

[Binka]

98. I don't think you were replying to me PT on purpose

Good to see you my friend.:hi:

[Bluebear]

108. I was ...to clarify...

Can you believe the horseshit we are seeing posted on here these days? :)

:hug:

[Bluebear]

76. haha good one.

/ignore

[rainlillie]

71. There are certain parts of Vermont that are really, really racist

I have a friend who was dating a African American guy and the way the people in this one particular town treated them was shameful. I think Dean is wrong, I have no idea what his motivation is, I don't think he's a racist either.

[AllTooEasy]

104. Folks from Vermont aren't racist, they just don't like anyone

...they love for you to visit and spend your tourism dollars, but they don't want you to stay. I love all the "Take Back Vermont" signs.

Great place to visit though, check it out!

[AllTooEasy]

105. Hopefully the Team Dean Obama Haters will finally get a clue

...but I doubt it.

[CTLawGuy]

112. I doubt it also

but, regardless, there goes Dean's status as a "progressive hero." And I like the guy.

[CreekDog]

54. he's from New York City

and while he's a smart guy, he sure is sounding like the average dumbass here.

[CreekDog]

56. He had an African American roommate at Harvard, (something he requested)

maybe i mistook what he intended with that request. :o

[Confusious]

64. Boy, one guy from Vermont says something

And you throw the entire state under the bus. Won't take you long to go through all 50 will it?

[krispos42]

129. Must be why there's only one hate group in Vermont.

They get together once a month and plot how intimate all the blacks in Vermont. Both of them.

[EFerrari]

3. People in that congregation lost friends and loved ones on 9/11.

At that level, Dr. Dean is out of touch.

[Bluebear]

5. I am extremely surprised by Dr Dean's stance on this

[EFerrari]

6. Me, too. I haven't run it down yet

but the little I have read seems to be heavy on making him look bad, too, like they always do with him. Sam Stein's piece has a headline that says Dean attacks the left but that's not what I get when I read what he actually said. I'm so tired of yo-yo reporting.

[sabrina 1]

9. Sad to say, and hard as it is to believe, no one had to make him

look bad. I read the transcript of what he said and it was hard to believe these were the words of Howard Dean. Glenn Greenwald has the original video, the first was put up by Breitbart so many people were hoping it was another of his edited hit jobs. But, the radio station where he gave the interview verified that the tape was real. And Dean's spokesperson confirmed that this was his postition.

He claims that people are 'sensitive' about the mosque being so close to Ground Zero. He ignores the fact that this is pure bigotry and is not confined to that particular mosque. Other mosques around the city and the country have also been targeted by rightwing bigots. And the only people who are 'sensitive' about it are the tea-baggers and Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. So he is not in very good company.

So, I guess he wants the controversy to go away before the election and rather than taking a standd, as he once said is what we always need to do, he is willing to cater to the right and their bigotry and toss out the Constitution for expediency.

Here is a link to Glenn Greenwald's post and there is video of Dean speaking for himself

Howard Dean: 'Mosque Should Move'

Edited to remove words attributed to Dean which were wrong.

[EFerrari]

10. Thanks for the link. I'll go watch it. n/t

[EFerrari]

11. I'm sorry to bother you but, where does Dean say "hysterical bloggers"?

[sabrina 1]

14. You are right, he did not say 'hysterical bloggers'

I have edited that out of my post. I cannot find his comment about those who support the mosque but when I do I will post it. Sorry I confused him with someone else and should have checked that before posting. Not that we are not accustomed to being called 'hysterical' lol!

Btw, thank you for the information on the Chavez Coup Documentary. I was never able to find it in a video store.

[EFerrari]

16. You're welcome. It's a great film.

I've watched it many times and always find something that I've missed.

It may be that my bias in Dean's favor is insurmountable, lol, and obvious even to me. But I'd still like to see or hear or read all of his comments. This habit developing in our culture of always caving to hatefulness is a problem. Even with the best intentions, giving up the rights of others for a "good" reason or to be "reasonable" is just ceding ground to bullies and bigots and not ours to give away in the first place.

[sabrina 1]

21. Yes, it is a great film. I was on a blog when the coup

happened and we followed it in real time. It was obvious over the few days when Chavez was gone that the U.S. was involved. Condie, airc, gave it away when she was asked for her opinion of what was happening. We were thrilled when the people forced the reinstatement of their president. I did not know that the events were being covered at the time, so it was really a thrill to see the film and to learn what was happening minute by minute practically.

Re Dean, I know what you mean. I did not want to believe it either. I don't think he understands the situation at all. For example, the Imam who is from the Sufi sect could not be more removed from Al Queda as far as ideology goes, in fact his sect has always been a target of Al Queda.

Dean probably didn't know either that the Imam was a Bush ally and worked on Bush's Middle East Peace team. Certainly Newt Gingrich who accused the Imam of plotting to hurt the U.S. (because they're all the same ... color?) probably didn't know that he worked for Bush and that his sect is as similar to Al Queda, as someone said, as 'a Quaker to an Anti-Abortion Christian Bomb Thrower'.

I think Dean will be embarrassed by his position when learns more about this center. It really was something good that has been used for evil purposes by the rabid right and I am really sad to see people like Dean get on board with them, when what is needed is a united front standing firm against these people.

Ted Olsen eg, sounded positively liberal in his statement which was truly remarkable coming from a Republican. Of course he may have had more information than either Gingrich or Dean and knew who the Imam was.

I really hope Dean gives this some more thought and learns a little more about the reality of the situation. We always seem to be reacting to the rabid right instead of pre-empting them. It is wearying at times.

[EFerrari]

38. The propagandists on the right can always find a "story" like this.

It's purposeful distraction and it is exhausting.

[defendandprotect]

60. Doesn't speak well for the advice/advisors I presume he has .....??

[defendandprotect]

59. Sadly, I think he may be surrounded by people who think as he does...

and no opportunity for correction in his thinking?

Seems completely "insenstive" to me re the Dean group -- and presume there is one???

Advisers, etal?

[sabrina 1]

63. I think he might not have been prepared for the question and

may not have known anything about the story, the people involved etc. After all if it wasn't for this rightwing professional whiners group, the only people involved would be those who live in the area.

His own group has actually broken with him on this I read today. I am hoping he will learn more about the Imam and what kind of person he is and worry more about the sensitivities of the wronged, than of the far right political opertives.

If you are not familiar with the Imam and his work, I posted an OP with some info on him earlier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8977599

[defendandprotect]

84. Hope as you do . . . but Dean was on with Olberman tonight and I think he was

still expressing the same thoughts? I had it on - but distractions kept me from actually

hearing what he was saying.

But, glad to hear his group disagrees with him --

I retain confidence in Dean, however, thus far because I think he does get messages late --

and think he is basically honest. That's my opinion to this moment ...

Didn't know abou tthe Imam and his work --

will try to look at it tomorrow --

Thanks!

[sabrina 1]

110. Yes, I still like him and do believe he is honest, he is just

wrong on this and everyone is allowed to be wrong sometimes.

Regarding the Imam, I posted an OP earlier that has some information on the people behind the center.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8977599

[defendandprotect]

123. Re the Imam ... I have read a bit about him . . ..

I don't think it's harmful at all for them to try to be part of this community --

may be helpful to fuller understanding between people/religions --

Will try to read more later --

[LostinVA]

25. Me too

[MajorChode]

33. It doesn't surprise me much

He sees which way the political winds are blowing on this and he's just following them. Notice how long it took him to say something.

[Uzybone]

4. Its a pathetic position, from one who should know better

cowardly and weak.

[leftstreet]

7. K&R

Nicely said

[Scurrilous]

8. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Caliman73]

12. Well said.

The question that I would ask Dr. Dean is simply, "Why? Why is the Community Center an affront to those people who lost people on 9/11?"

As you said Coti, it is the very premise of the statement that is bigoted. There are posters on DU that continue to repeat this method of protest as well. "We have to be sensitive to those who are grieving?" My question as I stated and as you eloquently pointed out is, "Why would the actions of a group that is in no way affiliated with the terrorist attacks be perceived as being insensitive by building a community center in proximity to the WTC?"

I think that this is one of those things that some people may not understand unless they have truly been discriminated against, not because of any action or behavior, but simply because of what or who they are. See, if you are a White, male, Christian, the things you do tend to reflect on you as an individual. You are not a representative of your entire culture group. If you are a member of a group that has been the historical target of discrimination, say, women, Black people, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, Jews, etc... (basically non-Whites) then your actions tend to be judged as a reflection of the tendencies of your entire culture group. Jews will be frugal and possibly sneaky because that is how they are. Women will get all emotional and weepy cause they are after all, women. Muslims are just foreign and scary cause they might be terrorists or at least they probably know some. Those are all stereotypes and bad ones at that, but unfortunately those are standards by which members of the mentioned groups are judged. If you do not fit into the stereotype then you are considered an outlier, not just a unique individual like all other unique individuals. You must have something different in you to not be acting like everyone else in your race, or gender, or religious group acts.

Dean's comments reflect the fundamental flaw, that privilege of not having to represent your entire minority, or in the case of women, oppressed majority, group. That is what makes it a bigoted statement.

[Karenina]

32. It's kinda like hearing the n-word coming from a white friend's mouth.

Harry Reid didn't surprise me. I'm STUNNED by Dr. Dean.

[Rhiannon12866]

15. Excellent analogy

Though those who have gotten all lathered up about this issue, which has received way too much media attention, won't get it. But Dr. Dean certainly should. I wasn't a Dean supporter in 2004, supported Dennis Kucinich since 2003, but since I began paying attention to him as brilliant DNC chair, I haven't disagreed with a thing he's said. Until now. :(

[Alameda]

17. Yes, that's an excellent analogy. I'm disappointed with Dean.

[depakid]

18. Like the rest of the Democratic leadership, Dean couldn't resist opening his mouth

about a local planning matter, rather than letting it play out (and learning from the other idiots who've turned it into a shiny wedge issue).

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. it does seem that we've been here before:

http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html

[coti]

20. I'd never read that letter before.

Definitely a keeper.

[Smarmie Doofus]

30. never seems to get old. unfortunately. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Thank you for that. Can't be repeated often enough. nt

[philly_bob]

22. Disappointed. Changed my avatar from image of Dean. (nt)

[anAustralianobserver]

23. I hope he reconsiders this and makes a statement about it; it could be influential with some people

who feel genuinely confused and frightened about it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. kick and recommend!!

[Lesleymo]

27. Excellent analogy

Dean blew it on this one.

[Senator]

28. K&+R

[xchrom]

29. i adore dean but he is just wrong about this. nt

[coti]

49. My thoughts too. He does this kind of thing every once in awhile,

feeling the need to be "reasonable," but has difficulty timing it for the right issues.

[ibegurpard]

50. yup

[glitch]

31. Agreed. Most of the time I agree with Dean but not this time.

Still love him, just disagree on this. You are correct, he needs to think his position through.

[disillusioned73]

34. Disappointing..

to say the least - I've railed against Harry (Mr. spineless) Reid.... so I gotta be consistent, Mr. Dean - have you no shame?!?!

:banghead:

[political_Dem]

35. No matter how many good intentions a person may have,

there are a lot of benevolent people who are very clueless about race. And some are at that age where they are unwilling to learn about racial issues not only in America, but the rest of the world.

I like Dr. Dean. But am I surprised at his words? No, not in the least.

Race is the great unspoken national dialogue in this country for a reason. It is easier for the dominant culture to sweep it under the rug and deny that racism exists.

That even comes out in their language.

Is that right? Hell no it isn't. But who will be the first to start a national dialogue in this country without the fear of upsetting the sensibilities of the dominant culture?

[DonCoquixote]

36. Sigh

You know, I was not surprised when the President spoke strong, then wiffled a bit, that is his pattern, and one that has cost us a lot. However, it seems that Dean, for all his halo, decided to be AFFIRMATIVELY foolish. Then again, this is the same guy that said he wanted to be liked by "confederate flag" type people, the Yee-Hawed his way into losing.

[Arkana]

44. How did the President "wiffle"?

He supported the Cordoba Initiative's right to build on the site. That's all he said. He made no other comments on whether he thought it was right or not. All he did was state what should be Constitutionally obvious.

[ProSense]

41. Dean wrote an op-ed

defending his position

[coti]

48. Yeah, it looks like his basic position is as described above.

Plus wanting to start a dialogue, which has already been started.

[robertpaulsen]

51. You don't "accomodate" bigotry. Ever.

Shame on you, Dr. Dean. Your prescription is bad medicine.

[JerseygirlCT]

53. I completely agree with you

and he continues to talk about understanding and compromise. Except the compromise has been entirely one-sided. And he's asking for more, and asking for nothing from those informed by prejudice.

He's wrong. And bowing to the discomfort of the ignorant is also wrong, as it hurts innocent people.

[coti]

70. "...bowing to the discomfort of the ignorant"

as hurting the innocent is a good way of putting it.

[defendandprotect]

57. Yep ... Dean somehow got off on the wrong foot on this one ... Just watching him

with Olberman -- oops! it's over -- so I don't know if he's changed

his position at all!

How many Americans know that 9% of the victims on 9/11 were Muslims?

And they are only 6% of our population?

[PavePusher]

61. Interestingly, the same argument is used against open carry of firearms.

Irony, it's what's for breakfast.

[coti]

72. Not following you.

Can you expand on that?

[PavePusher]

80. A large portion of the fuss about open carry of firearms distills down to...

"It's rude/disturbing/scary/Idon'tlikeit, so even though it is/may be a "right", you really shouldn't do it."

To be more clear, baseless hysteria of the ignorant does not over-ride Civil Rights.

[coti]

81. Of course, the difference is that it is perfectly reasonable to be somewhat alarmed

when seeing someone you don't know, and who isn't a police officer, casually brandishing a firearm in public.

[defendandprotect]

88. Especially at a right wing political demonstration -- !!!

Amazing that most political demonstrtors -- if they're liberal causes they're

supporting -- are simply "netted up" and tossed into jail --

but the right wing can prance around with rifles on their shoulders!

[PavePusher]

117. ""netted up" and tossed into jail --"

Where/when? What event(s) are you talking about?

[defendandprotect]

121. You've never heard of the "netting" during the anti-war demonstrations ...

Where have you been?

[PavePusher]

131. Never got to one of them...

because I've actually been in the wars. Sorry, can't manage to be everywhere at one time.

The big difference, as far as I can see, is that the armed protesters were demonstrating peacefully, not blocking public thouroughfares, not creating civic disruptions.

If you engage in vandalism, interfere with people attempting to go about their legal business, chain yourself in places to block traffic or other actual disruptive behaviors, you might get arrested. So be it.

Got a beef? Consider a change of methods.

[PavePusher]

116. A holstered firearm is not "brandishing".

I'm not here to hijack this thread, I'm simply trying to point out that legal exercise of Civil Rights is the same across the spectrum of Rights. There should be no double-standards.

[defendandprotect]

122. Having a rifle slung over your shoulder at a political demonstration certainly

is "BRANDISHING" . . . !!

Btw, how often do you complain that we have no Equal Rights Amendment?

Across the board? Until the GOP/NRA moved the nation so far to the right, no

Supreme Court backed these fictional gun rights. This is the W legacy --

[Bold Lib]

124. Sorry, No matter how many times, or how loudly, you say it. A slung rifle is not brandishing.

Nor is a holstered handgun brandishing. Also, there is nothing fictional about the Second Amendment. It really is there.

[defendandprotect]

125. Of course -- we're all used to seeing people at political rallies with rifles over their shoulders!!

The Supreme Court has always held the "everyone has a right to a gun" as fiction --

never entertaining any such opportunistic lawsuits to it --

And, of course, government will confiscate your guns if they become inconvenient

for them -- remember Katrina?

The 2nd amendment is there -- and so is the opening clause . . . .

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

[Bold Lib]

127. Glad you understand that a slung rifle is not brandishing.

Don't know where that "everyone has a right to a gun" quote came from. Could you please link that?

Yes the police did take guns from law abiding citizens in New Orleans post Katrina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Yes the opening clause is well established as meaning that the militia should be well regulated - as in having the same type of equipment as the regular military. I know you knew that as you have been informed of it many times - yet keep repeating it as if well regulated means something other than what the authors of the 2A intended. There is a word for that but it escapes me.

[defendandprotect]

128. Anyone displaying a gun or rifle in public is "brandishing" it -- obviously....

Try the GOP/NRA and the rw gang of 5 on the Supreme Court for references to . . .

"everyone has a right to a gun" --

And YES -- your guns will be confiscated by government when inconvenient for them --


The opening clause clearly states the premise for "bearing arms" -- being to serve in a milita.

And, I'm sure you know that because you're probably familiar with the various versions

which included NOT forcing someone to "bear arms" if they held religious beliefs which

precluded serving in a militia.

Additionally, "well-regulated" means exactly what it says . . . under the supervision of

government to insure its regulation.

I put posters on ignore when they become disingenuous --

Ignore this as well --

[PavePusher]

130. Scritch... scritch... scritch... scritch... scritch... scritch... n/t

[defendandprotect]

134. Who could compete with debate that powerful . . .. !!???

[Bold Lib]

135. Sorry but you are just plain wrong on the facts.

Brandishing has a specific definition. A slung rifle or a holstered pistol does not meet that definition.

Well regulated with regard to the Second Amendment means very clearly, to have the same equipment and arms. The more modern word used today is "standardized". If you would like to peruse the Federalist Papers the intent of the Second Amendment is very clear. It is also well footnoted in the Heller decision.

I find it very interesting that you put people on ignore when your "facts" are not born out in reality, it's almost laughable if it were not so sad.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated

regu·late (reg′yə lāt′)

transitive verb regulated -·lat′ed, regulating -·lat′·ing

1. to control, direct, or govern according to a rule, principle, or system
2. to adjust to a particular standard, rate, degree, amount, etc.: regulate the heat
3. to adjust (a clock, etc.) so as to make operate accurately
4. to make uniform, methodical, orderly, etc.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/regulated

Main Entry: reg·u·late
Pronunciation: \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): reg·u·lat·ed; reg·u·lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
Date: 15th century

1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulated


I suppose next you'll say that "arms" does not really mean arms.

[Bold Lib]

136. bran·dish

bran·dish (brndsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.
n.
A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brandish


1bran·dish
\ˈbran-dish\ transitive verb
Definition of BRANDISH
1
: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2
: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
Examples of BRANDISH

1. She brandished a stick at the dog.
2. I could see that he was brandishing a knife.

Origin of BRANDISH
Middle English braundisshen, from Anglo-French brandiss-, stem of brandir, from brant, braund sword, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English brand
First Known Use: 14th century
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish


bran·dish audio (brndsh) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es

1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.

NOUN:

A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/brandish

[Hoopla Phil]

139. For a little education on what "well regulated" means in the 2A see this D.U. post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x330141#330320

[defendandprotect]

87. Not true at all .... there is certainly a right "to keep the peace" and for government

to regulate and control firearms -- despite what the right wing Supremes may

be saying at the moment --

In fact, I see only sane and logical reasoning in wanting a gun-free society and

a gun-wound-free society -- Who would want a "Wild West America" except for the

GOP/NRA and gun industry?

And, what we more frequently see is the GOP/NRA creating "hysteria" -- as they are

now over the community center/Mosque.

We now have more guns in America than we have people -- most of us find that a dangerous

concept.

We need to end the Drug War -- and the right wing paranoia --

and the Class warfare by elites --

[mzmolly]

62. I just listened to Dean on Olbermann.

He's not opposed to the mosque, he's in favor of having a dialog about it.

[rainlillie]

75. There's nothing to talk about IMO. The people purchased property...

And they should be able to build their center there. End of story.

[mzmolly]

85. Dean said they have every right to do so.

He simply feels there should be a dialog about the matter given the controversy.

[rainlillie]

99. What's there to talk about ? Bigots and the uninformed are against the Islamic center being built.

How can anyone in their right mind think it's fair to punish a whole group based on the actions of a few. The people who would like to build the center weren't responsible for the attacks on 9-11.

[mzmolly]

120. I didn't take Dean's words as a suggestion that anyone be punished.

Or, that we entertain the thoughts of those who want to punish anyone. Dean suggested this issue is an opportunity for dialog vs. political posturing.

[JenniferJuniper]

65. Of course he knows better. Notice he kept babbling about the polls.

He's wrong and he knows it. It's all politics.

I thought Keith was soft on him. I would have asked him when we went to war with Islam.

If they'd all been anti-abortion or Tim McVeigh style "Christian" terrorists, would churches be banned in lower Manhattan? Don't think so.

[highplainsdem]

66. K&R

[pleah]

68. K&R

[wial]

69. he always was

kind of an economic elite idiot. we can do much much better.

[Kurovski]

92. Rahm...is that you?

Just kidding. :)

[Kurovski]

73. Dean's chat on Olbermann

was an embarrassing hash of wrong-headed yip-yap. Like a demented, yet vaguely kind Miss Manners.

Bizarre.

[AtomicKitten]

89. I think he wanted to clarify his position, but it made me uncomfortable to watch.

He lost sight of the fact that Constitutional Rights are not negotiable. There was nothing to negotiate because these rights are not subject to a referendum (as correctly framed by the recent judicial ruling on Prop 8).

[Kurovski]

91. You got it.

I wonder what he might say in the next 24 hours.

[rainlillie]

74. Dean's argument is flawed, he's saying that some of the 9-11 families

May be upset if this Islamic Center is built. When Keith Interviewed him tonight, Keith should have asked why? Why would these families be upset? Are the terrorist who killed 3000 people on 9-11 behind the construction of this this center? If not, I can't understand how any reasonable person can be upset. Why should other Americans who purchased private property compromise with people who have irrational fears?

[coti]

77. Exactly.

Just exactly.

[Kurovski]

82. The terrorists hate our freedom.

So why not accommodate them every chance we get?

[mzmolly]

86. Dean would likely have suggested that Keith pose such a question

to the families involved.

[rainlillie]

83. When will this madness end?

Next people will complain they don't want "those" people moving next door to them. Or the kids of "those" people going to school with their kids. If the polling is correct, 70 percent of people in this country have their heads up their a$$es. People like Dean piss me off, he acts as if the owners should beg to build their center. Why in the hell should they talk to anyone and try to calm their fears? It's just unbelievable that this is even being debated. The Muslims who didn't commit terrorist acts against our country , don't owe us a damn thing. I'm certainly not going to apologize for being from the same gender as Sarah Palin.

[xxqqqzme]

90. Calm down. I would follow Howard Dean to the gates

of hell. I am only disappointed that Howard felt compelled to comment on this manufactured 'outrage'. Howard understands framing better than any politician I know. How he got sucked into this, I'll never know but I do know he is better and smarter than this.

[whirlygigspin]

93. Howard Dean is right

There are still many people with tender feelings about that
day (9-11) 

He is also right in calling for a dialog and I would add that
he should call for a 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission'

--to find out why this happened, exactly. Is it really a clash
of cultures? or perhaps a 'Clash of Vultures'

between the Bush and Bin Laden factions vying for oil pipeline
rights?


--The truth will set us free

Howard is on the right path

[Art_from_Ark]

109. "Manufactured outrage" is right

I can't remember the last time I saw such a tempest in a teapot.

[liberation]

94. Just because Dean's argument may be flawed on this case, it does not make your false analogy correct

In fact I have heard the same argument word for word by other people during the past 24 hr.

This mosque nonsense, besides it being a non issue, becomes a bit of a stretch when trying to compare it with the civil rights movement. I know some people were looking for a slip of the tongue to throw Dean under the bus for good... but good grief.

[coti]

96. ....

1) How is it a false analogy? It seems incredibly apt, to me, mostly because...

2) This is nothing BUT a civil rights issue. How is telling someone they can't build in a certain place because they're Muslim any different than telling blacks can't move into the neighborhood because of their skin color?


I don't think you're taking the controversy we're confronted with seriously enough. Try doing some real thinking about its significance.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rainlillie]

101. When did the Muslims who are trying to build this center blow something up?

.

[coti]

106. Prejudice gets embedded in the human psyche DEEP.

Really, really deep.

There are folks around here exposed to pro-civil-rights ideas daily, yet the flaw in thinking that Muslims are all the same goes right over their head, even as it's coming out of their mouths.

This is starting to truly amaze me.

I mean, seriously- we already went over this (many, many times) before the invasion of Iraq.

[rainlillie]

107. Enjoyed your common sense and your wisdom..

It seems we need more of that around here. I was sort of surprised by the attitudes of some.

[coti]

103. You're very helpful in getting to the heart of the issue.

This is exactly why we need to have this conversation.

It's almost as if you think "the Muslims in question" had something to do with flying planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. They didn't.

Really, they had nothing to do with it.

I know! It's crazy, but it's true. Different people can call themselves "Muslim" (there are hundreds of millions of such people across the world, after all), yet still hold totally OPPOSING views on the moral soundness of flying planes into buildings! In fact, I'd guess that the vast, vast majority of Muslims in the world aren't that supportive of such ideas, as, generally, human beings just tend not to be.

As a country, we discussed this important point during the "debate" over the Iraq War, too, but it's always good to have a refresher.

In fact, even the Iraq invasion wasn't the first time we've had to discuss the "not lumping everyone together for some bullshit reason" concept. You also mentioned the blacks fighting for their civil rights- amazingly, people made the very same types of arguments you're making RIGHT NOW in order to justify continuing the blacks' oppression. They're violent! They're uncouth! They're not good people- even, they were animals. All of them.

Of course they're all the same- right?

Fucking WRONG.

Just wrong, wrong, wrong.

And that's what you are. Just as wrong as them.

[Uzybone]

126. Pure bigotry.Not ALL Muslims were responsible for 9/11

did they fly a mosque into the towers?

[rainlillie]

100. Amen!

.

[rainlillie]

102. What part of just because they are Muslim, don't you understand?

If folks were trying to build a church there, would there be a problem.. I think not.

[Karenina]

113. Maybe most of the reason you think it's a stretch

is because you've simply never looked at it from the point of view of someone on the receiving end of bigotry.

It IS INDEED a civil rights issue.

[amborin]

95. knr

[LatteLibertine]

111. I actually like Dean and I'm going to have to refudiate his position on this issue

[Scruffy1]

114. Is anyone surprised that Dems are cowards?

They seem to be always reaching for the "middle" which is defined by somewhere between sanity and Fux News. Oh how they love the phony teabaggers because it moves the imaginary center over to something they can live with without offending any of their conservative cohorts. Politeness is everything because they all have to go to the same clubs afterward. By my count there are only a handful of Democrats in the Congress or in National leadership rolls?

[lunatica]

115. I like Howard Dean, but on this issue he's dead wrong

And the likes of Sarah Palin should never call the shots. It's getting really bad when all she has to do is tweet her idiocy and the entire country goes into a tailspin. As far as I remember she was the one who started this shit. And shit it is.

[Odin2005]

118. Ditto.

[DCBob]

119. I agree. The biggest problem is that many still blame Islam for 9-11.

Those terrorists were crazed radical fundamentalists who hijacked Islam. Islam is no more to blame for 9-11 than Cristianity is for the abortion doctor killings.

[PavePusher]

132. There are many here who do ascribe to your latter statement. n/t

[RainDog]

133. It was really disaapointing to see Dean take that position.

I'm glad Al Franken spoke out about this silliness from the Palinites.

[deaniac21]

137. Worst analogy today.

[deaniac21]

138. Worst analogy today.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.