*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Thank you Seth McFkface, creator of the unfunny "Cleveland Show", a weekly insult to Blacks.

This mosque-with-alibi-attached is an affront to Americans murdered by islam. The dolts who shrug that off should at the very least recognize poor taste.

The imam behind it is a POS radical (big surprise) "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic." That's the vermin's quote.

The quran states it is acceptable to lie to and deceive non-believers.

muslims build mosques to memorialize their conquests.

islam is a gutter 'religion' founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord. The faithful muslim has three choices when meeting a non-believer: convert them, enslave them or kill them.

There are a few handfuls of "moderate" muslims. BFD. They are 'wise' cowards who don't speak out against the radicals, therefore they get what they deserve.

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.

Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.
Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.


1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Also replace Mosque with "Community Center funded by a major share holder of Fox News."

Sorry QM, you missed the boat on that one.

There are SO many bigger questions here about tolerance, education, the value of religion, etc.

Fundamentally though there is a problem here with religion and education. As Americans, we seem to be embracing ignorance in the name of the bullshit "blue collar" movement which always seems to say things like "this is America, learn English," and things like that. This issue is one of logic and education just the same.

If you look at the problem logically, then yes, a mosque at ground zero IS the "right" thing to do. The problem is that on both sides there is little logic involved. Regardless of what the non-extremest Muslims in America think, this WILL be seen as a "victory" by the extremists and that IS a consideration in thinking about what the REAL effect of this mosque will be.

In the perfect, happy, gumdrop world, I'd be 100% pro this idea. The problem is that the majority of the world seems to be heading towards the same stupid mob mentality we see on this issue.

So the basic question you need to ask is: is this a good idea all-around. The answer is really no. Despite the moral, philosophical, tolerant whatever arguments you want to make, this is going to piss people off plain and simple. It is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Seriously, as much as I'd like to say build it, I just think it is going to be nothing but problems and is NOT going to foster any sense of community, tolerance or any other thing like that.

Frankly, I think we should stop building anything that is related to religions, regardless of where they are practiced. Mosque, Church, Scientology center... they all brainwash people into believing fairy tales used to spread hate, ignorance and control those who don't have access to good educations.

@Yogi in fairness, american history is about 35 years old...

Well maybe they could just build some gay strip clubs all around that mosque.

The more we rail against any particular ideology, the more power we give it. See it for the foolishness that it is and leave it be. Radical's of any religion including christianity revel in divisiveness, hatred, and negative attention. It stregnthens their ideology and the bonds between the true believers. Religion thrives on division. To dis-empower it is to give it no regard.

>> ^criticalthud:

The more we rail against any particular ideology, the more power we give it. See it for the foolishness that it is and leave it be.


Everyone nodded in agreement that criticalthud's idea was indeed the best one. Just then, Hitler invaded the rest of the world. The end.

Right... let evil fester and march forward unhindered. Brilliant.

I say fight fire with napalm.

It is the curious observation of religion that destroys it, not hatred, division and violence.

Let me be clearer... fear propels religion. it feasts on it. it was BASED on it.
The way to be rid of religion is simply by observation into what it is, how it came about, and the psychology behind it. logic; not fear-based idiocy. Make the world more logical, not more inane.
Islam is as fucking dumb as any other religion. Keep proving that point and you'll make the world a better place. See it for what it is: DUMB.

That was a very underwhelming interview. Seth didn't seem very articulate and stuttered his way through the whole thing.

1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

"WAS." A lot has happened since the 7th century. The islamic savage of today would be at home in the past...same honor killings, same tribal warfare.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

The smirking atheist benefits every day from living in a civil society based on religious values. S/he has nothing to compare it against, for there are no functional atheist societies.

Christianity evolved, islam has not. When muslims take over an area, they demand sharia law. Creeping sharia.

It takes a liberal to oppose Christians while supporting islamofascists ready to cut off his head with a scimitar.

Wait, you say "most" muslims aren't violent? A non-violent Muslim is disobeying his holy book and is to be killed by "faithful" muslims.


============================================================================
QM you missed the boat on that one.

There are SO many bigger questions here about tolerance, education, the value of religion, etc.....

The "New Atheism" cannot be taken seriously when it ignores all the positive contributions of religion. If the Atheist cannot see any notable difference between modern Christianity and islam then one hopes this is willful ignorance and not already hardened prejudice.

Additionally, the mantra of "EDUCATION!" as a panacea and substitute for religion rings false, for knowledge is utilized by hero and villain alike. The asshole traitor MUSLIM who shot up Fort Hood was a well-educated doctor.

Without a common tongue how is a nation supposed to communicate? Without common borders, language and culture there is no nation.

You claim the mosque will cause problems. Congratulations, you've taken the first step to understanding the destructiveness of a primitive barbaric excuse of a 'religion' encroaching on an advanced society.

thereligionofpeace.com <---go here to get a glimpse of what islam brings.

I still can't believe this is a topic of discussion. Read:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing more to discuss here folks, move on.

"Christianity evolved"

Hah! I think they excommunicate you for even suggesting that.

Not all muslims are islamists, but Islam is a political religion of conquer, and as constitutionally "right" as this CC is, I can understand the underlying unease of many: it absolutely will be seen as another shining foothold of Islam in Satan's western underbelly.
It speaks miles that the american muslim community, most probably 99.9% progressive and moderate, have not spoken up against planning such an ostentatious tattoo right next to the yet-unhealed scar the doctrine it praises caused.



On a side note, gay stripper clubs should be obligatorily adjacent to every house of (monotheistic) worship, as well as family planning centers and abortion clinics.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The imam behind it is a POS radical

Takes one to know one, huh?

Seth is too far left here for me.

Building the Center is completely legal, and the right to build it there must absolutely be defended.

Building the Center there is at the same time, not merely a terrible idea, but a destructive one as well. Building a Muslim center adjacent to the ruins of what is claimed by Islamic extremists as a mighty triumph and blow to the infidels is an added gain for them. In the areas the extremists are recruiting it WILL be viewed as an extended victory and proof of the effectiveness of their brand of jihad.

Seth, like many others, espouses how our unassailable tolerance will be universally seen as the strength that it is. It will not. The jihadists see that tolerance as a weakness, not a strength. They will see constructing a Muslim center beside ground zero as proof of the strength and effectiveness of their methods, as will the communities they are recruiting from.

I'm not going to debate the topic. However, I think the title for this video is way off. He "slams" the ADL? I think that's a bit exaggerated. He tactfully disagreed with their position and gave an example.

*long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by xxovercastxx.

"I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I don't see, see, what the, the the, the, problem, what the problem, is. I, I, I, I, I, er, it's, er, uh, uh, uh, I, I don't see what the, the, the, problem is."

So wait a minute, I still don't know the answer to the most important question posed in this interview....

Is Stewie gay or not?

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

"I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I don't see, see, what the, the the, the, problem, what the problem, is. I, I, I, I, I, er, it's, er, uh, uh, uh, I, I don't see what the, the, the, problem is."


I had a bit of difficulty watching this myself what with all the stuttering.

Why does anybody care what Seth MacFarlane thinks about this?






(PS - Family Guy sucks!)

BritainthoughtShariawouldneverstaintheirshores, either. But hey, who am I to argue with a doctor?

A case of overimportance (sic)? Who else but the expert in over-importance, doctor Yogi, could make that diagnosis? Umm, this is a "comments" section for a video about the NYC mosque. It's where people post their thoughts/reactions/perceptions/jokes/gripes/etc about said video. Just because QM's opinion isn't exactly held in the highest regard by many here doesn't mean he can't post whatever the hell he wants (iaw the FAQ, of course). You may have thought attacking someone with widely unpopular opinions here would grant you some VS juice, but I don't see anybody jumping on your little wagon. So please, feel free to take your own advice, and shut up.

>> ^Yogi:
2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Yes, please read, more carefully this time.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

>> ^Truckchase:

I still can't believe this is a topic of discussion. Read:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing more to discuss here folks, move on.

>> ^Fletch:

Yes, please read, more carefully this time.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Since you're being sarcastic, the premise of this post is based on the assumption that your grievance with me is that you support this destruction of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (as I would put it; you feel however you want) and you recognize that I don't.

If you're attempting to imply in a passive-aggressive fashion that I'm somehow encroaching on your first amendment rights to discuss breaking our first amendment rights, I'm not. I recognize your right to continue debating how you can go about (in this case literally) dismantling the first amendment, but you're still placing higher priority to the freedoms that you want than the freedoms of others.

I find it especially telling how you've used bold emphasis to illustrate the portion you have deemed important because you think it represents your viewpoint while you completely ignore the standard typeface portion. Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed.

.. and in the post before this you told someone to shut up. Need I even point out the hypocrisy?

Why would you think I have a grievence with you? Your assumption may be a convenient premise for your rant, but it's not true. I think you read way too much into it.

As I saw it, you were telling people to drop it, that the discussion was over. I found it ironic that you posted the first Amendment in support of that opinion, yet the first Amendment contains more than just the Establishment Clause.

JFC, it was bold-faced simply so you would understand what I was referring to, the part I felt you either hadn't gotten far enough to read, didn't understand, or chose to ignore. Your reaction, as well as your assumptions about me, speak volumes, though.

"Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed."

Strange that you chose it.

The post prior... try reading the whole thing, and the post it was replying to. I was being critical of his telling others to shut up. Basically, a similar reason to why I replied to your post. People being able to discuss and say whatever they wish without being pricks to each other (guilty, on occasion) is why this isn't YouTube. But hey, you live in the world you want to live in and view it through whatever color glasses you choose. I don't care.

And accusing peeps of P-A is just so... choggish. If I truly had a "grievence", I'd have just spit it out.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^Fletch:
Yes, please read, more carefully this time.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you're being sarcastic, the premise of this post is based on the assumption that your grievance with me is that you support this destruction of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (as I would put it; you feel however you want) and you recognize that I don't.
If you're attempting to imply in a passive-aggressive fashion that I'm somehow encroaching on your first amendment rights to discuss breaking our first amendment rights, I'm not. I recognize your right to continue debating how you can go about (in this case literally) dismantling the first amendment, but you're still placing higher priority to the freedoms that you want than the freedoms of others.
I find it especially telling how you've used bold emphasis to illustrate the portion you have deemed important because you think it represents your viewpoint while you completely ignore the standard typeface portion. Context shift is the war tool of the self-obsessed.
.. and in the post before this you told someone to shut up. Need I even point out the hypocrisy?

>> ^Fletch:

Why would you think I have a grievence with you?

Perhaps I invited your response by not providing my explicit context in the first place.
...
I see grievance because you re-quoted my post without in a seemingly sarcastic fashion without providing context, hence the first sentence in my retort explaining the premise I was basing my assertions on. If it's a shift I'm being transparent in doing so, which is the best we can do when conversing via text only. My purpose in initially quoting the First Amendment with little description or opinion was to underscore my belief that it is written in a straightforward enough fashion that further discussion on the topic is unwarranted. It is well within our rights to continue to do so, but I stand by my statement that regardless of the discussion our rights as prescribed by A1 (acronym, not sauce ) should remain unchanged.
>> ^Fletch:
And accusing peeps of P-A is just so... choggish.

I said "if" for a reason; passive aggressive stuff is hard to spot without being able to read body language. That clown only wears one emotion on his sleeve. On to a finer point though, I propose "Choggish" as a new official adjective. I was only lurking when he was on the prowl, but from the little I've seen I'm sure he'd wear it as a badge of honor.

Har fucking har, Campy.

What do YOU know about it? To "Progressives" the Founding Fathers are Right-Wing extremists.

When libs finally decide to have a moral compass they use a muslim scimitar for the needle. OUTSTANDING!

>> ^quantumushroom:

islam is a gutter 'religion' founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It takes a liberal to oppose Christians while supporting islamofascists ready to cut off his head with a scimitar.


These are the views of a radial extremist if I've ever seen one. Now I just hope you don't walk the walk...

This one made me laugh tho:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Christianity evolved, islam has not.


Man you can't be that naive. Who managed to inject you with so much fear of Islam anyways? Two collapsing towers and you shit your pants as if Muslims (in general according to you) were a serious threat to the world. American warmongering and dumb fuck foreign policies (funding Bin Laden, hello) are far more dangerous than a couple of terrorists will ever be.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.