On trusting Bloomberg more than the evidence

 

Lawrence in response to Blogblather’s note below:

I don't say trust me, Billy. I say trust the evidence.  I did some investigation, referenced the evidence and produced some arguments.  In response you invoke. . a person. There, you say, take that! Bloomberg!

You are saying Bloomberg is to be trusted above any evidence I have produced. A quick search of Google disclosed a few who wouldn't agree with our adulation.  I won’t reference them all, but here are two:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/08/mayor-michael-bloomberg-a-dhimmigogue-presiding-over-a-city-of-bigots/ "NYC’s Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, scolds his constituents for their opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. In the Mayor’s eyes, they are bigots. Bloomberg appears to be a hypocritical DhimmiGogue surrounded by a sea of bigotry. Another Tale of the Ruling Elite." It goes on.

In the following article Bloomberg is called a bigot: http://article.nationalreview.com/439015/the-ground-zero-mosque-not-the-place/rich-lowry

We in this article "Feisal Abdul Rauf, the project’s imam, wrote a book called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America. But as former prosecutor Andy McCarthy points out, it was published in Malaysia under the more pungent title A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11 (dawa is Islamic proselytism). A noncommercial edition was published by two organizations that have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and promote Hamas."

Interesting, don't you think, mike.  I didn’t make this up.  Others are finding that Rauf wrote this book. You trust Bloomberg and Bloomberg trust's Rauf. You can't say Bloomberg doesn't trust him. Rauf is the big-Islamic-gun behind the Cordova Mosque project.

 

From  Billy Blogblather:

Previous LAWRENCE: "Here's the problem with this argument: it doesn't reckon with the question of whether it's legitimate to see the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero as an inherently provocative act. Either it's legit to see the building of the center as provocative, or it isn't." More nonsense, Sargent. There are a lot more problems with your strawman argument than this one. Who cares whether it is "inherently provocative" or not?

Blogblather:  I would say it's an inherently constructive act -- you're the only one who seems to see it as "provocative"  And when did being "provocative" become illegal?  This is not China, Lawrence, although you seem to wish we had restraints on freedoms such as the Chinese government has on it's citizenry, we don't.  Get used to it, fella. 

Previous Lawrence: "Rauf calls it furthering the spread of Islam, in "the World Trade enter Rubble." Now that is provocative." 

Blogblather:  No, it's not.  Christians such as the Westboro Baptists picketing the funerals of gays, chanting insults, etc. -- that's provocative, but still it's legal in this country and should remain so.

 
Previous LAWRENCE: "The guy Mayor Bloomberg thinks is wonderful, Rauf, the guy behind the Cordoban Mosque doesn't think the mosque is going to be a great bridge between America and Islam, as some have said."
 

Blogblather:  And you know this how?  Sorry, Lawrence, but I trust Bloomberg over you   Way over you.  I hope you get over your paranoia soon.  At first it was amusing but now It's getting boring.