Far more are ideologs (many aren't radicals...just gullible) who believe only what they are told to believe, usually by people who have an agenda and are less than truthful . You just described Fox News and its followers!

Maybe the intent wasn't bashing...but it did certainly come across that way.
Your comments did too.

The people who understand that sometimes it's easier to go on lunch, or on your break from work. The same people that know sometimes there ISN'T enough people in a residential area who need a YMCA--but PLENTY of people will stop on their way home from work.

I think you're forgetting that people WORK in this area--and many people (like me) won't go back out to work out, or get involved, or whatever, if we go home first. Once I'm home, I'm home--but stopping to work out on the way home (and psst--my YWCA is in a business district) is MORE than feasible, it's desirable. If my lunch were a little longer, I'd go on my lunch every day instead of on the way home.

It doesn't need to be in a residential area to be used. Just ask the members of the many churches ALREADY in the vicinity of Ground Zero.
You know without having even visited those Churches... they are most certainly NOT all the same church... as in NOT all Catholic, not all the same demomination of protestant, and an FYI for those NOT protestant... there are BIG differences between the various Protestant denominations, IE Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, etc...

Catholics all follow a common issued guidline for their Mass ( I know because Wife is catholic and I was married in her catholic Church and THAT required me getting permission from the Bishop as I wasn't catholic)... not protestant churches. They don't hold Mass they have services.. and that Pastor determines the topic, not the Archbishop.


Besides... how many of these churches you mention did not exist before 9/11.

We are not discussing the preexisting Mosque two blocks away from the proposed Mohammed Attah Memorial.

More Jefferson quotes --

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. ~Thomas Jefferson

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. ~Thomas Jefferson

If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. ~Thomas Jefferson (Oooops.)

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. ~Thomas Jefferson

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. ~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

there are BIG differences between the various Protestant denominations, IE Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, etc...
The differences are minor. All believe in the Trinity, in Jesus Christ as Savior, heaven and hell, angels, good and evil, the Ten Commandments, God as Creator, Holy Spirit as Sanctifier, good works as evidence of faith. Differences are in rituals and practices. A Protestant could visit any Protestant church and feel comfortable with doctrine.

You just described Fox News and its followers!Really.. ever notice that the Drive by media... (ALL the lefty Media) ALL use the same wording and talking points issued by the DNC, with the complexity, and sheer number of words in the english language its Impossible that all simutaneously pick the same phrases and topics day after day, week after week, month after month.

THe LEFT DEFINES the term Puppet.

Really.. are you aware of how badly CBS, ABC, NPR, NBC and CNN twist the stories?

I bet you believe what they report is exactly what happened all the time?

How many news stories have you seen first hand without ANY input of any news service to compare what you see on TV to what really happened? I have... a LOT. And a person how thinks the New York Times doesn't spin stories so hard it affects the orbit of the earth is an idiot.

Do you have any Clue how skewed CNN reporting is... Do you Believe Dan Rather didn't fabricate the so called evidence in his fabricated story about Bush he got fired by CBS over only AFTER it was made public through other sources?

I never get surprised by the level of gullibility of the left... actually I am surprised so few of them ever catch on to how they are played for suckers by the media and the DNC. They never question what they are told by any of them.

Really..are you aware of how badly CBS, ABC and CNN twist the stories
Does Fox twist stories?

The differences are minor. All believe in the Trinity, in Jesus Christ as Savior, heaven and hell, angels, good and evil, the Ten Commandments, God as Creator, Holy Spirit as Sanctifier, good works as evidence of faith. Differences are in rituals and practices. A Protestant could visit any Protestant church and feel comfortable with doctrine.

I partially disagree with that speaking as a Protestant, while you are correct in the basics that are actually shared with Catholics as well, except the concept of Saints, being we are all christians... There are VAST differences in rituals and practices between the Mennonites and say the Lutherines and Baptists. The Amish for example are Protestants. I for one was never comfortible in either an Episcopal or a Baptist church... as I was raised a Methodist for example. I'll accept SOME people might not feel that way however.

Does Fox twist stories?not nearly as much as all the rest do, and certainly not as much as the left claims... there isn't a news service anyplace in the world that doesn't put their spin on a story... the question is how much spin.

That is based on events I saw numerous times over the years first hand in the course of my work... and later saw reported including the first Gulf War. I can't go into details so please don't ask.

Many dream up facts and present them as proof, Dan Rather got thrown under the bus when CBS got caught doing it, and he kept arguing his Bush Bashing story was factual when he KNEW it was fabricated lies... and CBS was caught doing what they have done a long time, He wasn't alone doing it... but he took all the blame.

And You know the stories about Reporters fabricating page one stories in the New York Times and the Washington post...

Easy to Google them up.

Don't get me started on the fiction the BBC likes to toss around these days...

Six that I could find.

Plus a Baptist? church. Not sure of the denomination on the last one I found.

Where did you get 6 from? All I had seen was 2 at most and the other buildings that are associated with the church like a rectory etc.

I partially disagree with that speaking as a Protestant, while you are correct in the basics that are actually shared with Catholics as well, except the concept of Saints, being we are all christians....There are VAST differences in rituals and practices between the Memonites and say the Lutherines and Baptists. I for one was never comfortible in either an Episcopal or a Baptist church...as I was raised a Methodist for example. I'll accept SOME people might not feel that way however.

Smoothy, as you can find vast differences between Christian sects, do you not find that there are vast differences between the sects of Islam?
Wouldn't you not want people of your sect or entire religion to be collectively associated with wrongdoings of another just because it was classified under the same religion? You see the ground zero mosque as a symbol of Muslim terrorist victory when you should know that the people who would be part of the mosque most likely don't even associate and have vast differences from the fundamentalist Muslims who attacked the trade center.

I partially disagree with that speaking as a Protestant, while you are correct in the basics that are actually shared with Catholics as well, except the concept of Saints
There are more differences than just saints. Catholics revere Mary in ways Protestants don't, i.e. the rosary; Catholics believe in Purgatory, and Protestants don't; Catholics have the Pope, and Protestants don't have a central ecclesiastical figure; Catholics observe private confession with a priest giving absolution; the Catholic Church supports monasteries and convents.

Smoothy, as you can find vast differences between Christian sects, do you not find that there are vast differences between the sects of Islam?
Wouldn't you not want people of your sect or entire religion to be collectively associated with wrongdoings of another just because it was classified under the same religion? You see the ground zero mosque as a symbol of Muslim terrorist victory when you should know that the people who would be part of the mosque most likely don't even associate and have vast differences from the fundamentalist Muslims who attacked the trade center.There are three sects in Islam... and yeah, I believe there are big differences between them, no I don't know what they are precisely, but I know they exist.

Many of these fundementalists did not attend radical Mosqes, they attended main stream mosques where nobody said anything because they are taught its wrong to side against a fellow Muslim at any cost. Any other religion I know of does not do that. Individuals yes... not leaders and not as a doctrine.

1,300 years of Islamic History prove that Mosque IS intended to be and will be a victory symbol and honor the Terrorists.

There is an old and very true saying by philosopher George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Besides when was the last Jew, Christian, Budist... or what have you strap on a bomb to blow ip innocent people, or brainwash their children to do it. I'm referring mainly to Hamas there, but also to whack jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Arriving late to this thread, I haven't read every post, so may duplicate someone's.

Whether a Mosque next to Ground Zero is good or bad is likely a moot question.

Bill O'Reilly and at least one union shop steward have said the same thing, that no union workers will touch the job.

That is probably likely.

There are more differences than just saints. Catholics revere Mary in ways Protestants don't, i.e., the rosary; Catholics believe in Purgatory, and Protestants don't; Catholics have the Pope, and Protestants don't have a central ecclesiastical figure; Catholics observe private confession with a priest giving absolution; the Catholic Church supports monasteries and convents.Protestants actually do have a central Figure... The Archbishop of Canterbery, though he really doesn't function in the same manner as the Pope does in the Catholic Chruch, Certain denominations have a communion at easter others don't, while Catholics do it weekly, assuming they have been to confession..

I have a running joke with my wife... my wife would say I need ot go to confession when I did something bad...

I tell her no priest can let you off the hook for what you do... you answer to the man for everything you did before you get in the pearly gates.

More Jefferson quotes --

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. ~Thomas Jefferson

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. ~Thomas Jefferson

If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. ~Thomas Jefferson (Oooops.)

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. ~Thomas Jefferson



Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. ~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782



Since we are quoting Jefferson.

Ref:

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad (http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm)

There are three sects in Islam...and yeah, I believe there are big differences between them, no I don't know what they are precisely, but I know they exist.

Many of these fundementalists did not attend radical Mosqes, they attended main stream mosques where nobody said anything because they are taught its wrong to side against a fellow Muslim at any cost. Any other religion I know of does not do that. Individuals yes...not leaders and not as a doctrine.

1,300 years of Islamic History prove that Mosque IS intended to be and will be a victory symbol and honor the Terrorists.

There is an old and very true saying by philosopher George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Besides when was the last Jew, Christian, Budist....or what have you strap on a bomb to blow ip innocent people, or brainwash their children to do it. I'm reffering mainly to Hamas there, but also to whack jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq.


There aren't only 3 sects in Islam; there are 72- which is a lot. There are two main braches: Sunni and Shiite.
No one can assume that just because some terrorists came from non-radical mosques means that all mosques right here in our country contain terrorists and have bad intensions for their own country or home. Petaining to one of the last times a non-muslim blew up innocent people was in WWII when Americans blew up innocent civilians in Hiroshima. Of course it was an act of revenge and a time of war, but is it civil and did it make our country the "bigger nation?" No one said it was a terrorist attack, but it can still be classified as one. You make it seem is if all terrorists are muslims when in fact, it is not true. Also, not ALL Mosques are intended to be marked as places of victory as you say.
As for your quote, it is very true in any way you look at it. Some people don't really remember or care about anytime a group has been discriminated against and the consequenes of it.

There aren't only 3 sects in Islam; there are 72- which is a lot. There are two main braches: Sunni and Shiite.
No one can asume that just because some terrorists came from non-radical mosques means that all mosques right here in our country contain terrorists and have bad intensions for their own country or home. Petaining to one of the last times a non-muslim blew up innocent people was in WWII when Americans blew up innocent civilians in Hiroshima. Of course it was an act of revenge and a time of war, but is it civil and did it make our country the "bigger nation?" No one said it was a terrorist attack, but it can still be classified as one. You make it seem is if all terrorists are muslims when in fact, it is not true. Also, not ALL Mosques are intended to be marked as places of victory as you say.
As for your quote, it is very true in any way you look at it. Some people don't really remember or care about anytime a group has been discriminated against and the consequenes of it.

Dropping the bomb wasn't for revenge not a terrorist attatck. At the time that happened the countries were at war. The men were in uniform. And the Japanese had declared war on the U.S. How do you equate that to a terrorist attatck ?

There aren't only 3 sects in Islam; there are 72- which is a lot. There are two main braches: Sunni and Shiite.
No one can asume that just because some terrorists came from non-radical mosques means that all mosques right here in our country contain terrorists and have bad intensions for their own country or home. Petaining to one of the last times a non-muslim blew up innocent people was in WWII when Americans blew up innocent civilians in Hiroshima. Of course it was an act of revenge and a time of war, but is it civil and did it make our country the "bigger nation?" No one said it was a terrorist attack, but it can still be classified as one. You make it seem is if all terrorists are muslims when in fact, it is not true. Also, not ALL Mosques are intended to be marked as places of victory as you say.
As for your quote, it is very true in any way you look at it. Some people don't really remember or care about anytime a group has been discriminated against and the consequenes of it.

Hiroshima was a legitimate military target... and targeting cities at that time was an accepted and standard wartime practice. THe Japanese did it all over Asia... the Germans did it... the Russians did it... the USA had every right and in fact was correct in drioppuing not one but both Bombs on Japan.

Like I said... the History of Islam has example after example for 1,300 yearsa of building mosques as a victory memorial. THey even have a name for the Practice but I can't remember what it is.

I've seen NOTHING that indicates Islamic leaders have shifted their motivations... in fact they have demonstrated a 7th century mindset time and time again... maybe not all members may think that ( and that IS entirely possible)... but it's the leaders most blindly follow in whatever they are told to do.

Dropping the bomb wasnt for revenge not a terrorist attatck. At the time that happened the countries were at war. The men were in uniform. And the Japanese had declared war on the U.S. How do you equate that to a terrorist attatck ?

I see it equivalent to a terriost attack because of the fact that it targeted civilians, not mainly othe Japanese soldiers. If Iraqis came here in uniform and bombed us, it would most likely be considered a terrorist attack.

I see it equivalent to a terriost attack because of the fact that it targetted civilians, not mainly othe Japanese soldiers. If Iraqis came here in uniform and bombed us, it would most likely be considered a terrorist attack.

If war were to have been declared and they want to try to come here then no its not a terrorist plot. The act may strike terror. But the fact that it occurred under decleration of war changes the way it is viewed. So far there has been no army in this war on terror. If they wish to put a uniform on and declare themselves then it would end in a few weeks. Big difference.

What is the opinion of the muslim community as far as decrying the extremists for who they are and helping to turn them in ? Im asking because you mentioned you were muslim and Im assuming you practice your faith. So you might have an idea of what is really going on in your own words and opinion.

If war were to have been declared and they want to try to come here then no its not a terrorist plot. The act may strike terror. But the fact that it occured under decleration of war changes the way it is viewed.
What do we call our attack on Iraq in 2003?

Protestants actually do have a central Figure...The Archbishop of Canterbery
Um, he's the head of the Church of England (Anglican). As I said, Protestants do not have a central figure like a Pope.

Certain denominations have a communion at easter
Yeah, Protestants call those "members" fair-weather Christians who commune only once a year on Easter and maybe at Christmas. Protestant churches offer communion as often as weekly, and even more often during Lent and Advent.

Does Fox twist stories?

not nearly as much as all the rest do
In other words, yes, they do. Thank you.

I see it equivalent to a terriost attack because of the fact that it targetted civilians, not mainly othe Japanese soldiers. If Iraqis came here in uniform and bombed us, it would most likely be considered a terrorist attack.Whoever educated you clearly fed you propaganda. Plain and simple.

Terrorism in WW2 was the Rape of Nanking by Japan... bet they didn't teach that.

Terrorism is what the Japanese did to the Philippines... War Crimes is what the Japanese did to POW's in Burma and the Corrigador Death March (which incidentally I had a relative die on).

What twisted logic considers Hiroshima or Nagasaki terrorism is beyond comprehension. Japan was the aggressor in that war, they brought it upon themselves.

Did they also fail to teach you the Japanese had plenty of advance warning what was going to happen each time if they didn't surrendor... Did they fail to teach you that those deaths were the fault of the Japanese Emporer for failing to act?

In other words, yes, they do. Thank you.

Its all about Degrees... and they do twist it far less than the others do.

Yeah, Protestants call those "members" fair-weather Christians who commune only once a year on Easter and maybe at Christmas. Protestant churches offer communion as often as weekly, and even more often during Lent and Advent.

Which denominations do that? None of the several different ones I have attended services do it weekly.

All Lutheran synods offer weekly communion.

Um, he's the head of the Church of England (Anglican). As I said, Protestants do not have a central figure like a Pope.He's also a sort of defacto head of the rest too, But the structure is nothing like the Catholic Church. It essentually functions autonomously, not under his direction.

All Lutheran synods offer weekly communion.

OK, that's one of those I've never attended.

He's also a sort of defacto head of the rest too
No, he's not! If you said that to any Lutheran, Baptist, United Methodist, Nazarene, Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Presbyterian, or Bible Church members, they would add your name to their prayer circle.

No, he's not! If you said that to any Lutheran, Baptist, United Methodist, Nazarene, Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Presbyterian, or Bible Church members, they would add your name to their prayer circle.

Don't get me started on the Jehovahs Witnesses... I'd like to excommunicate THOSE pepole from the Christian faith if I could. Lets just say I have my personal reasons...

Don't get me started on the Jehovahs Witnesses.....I'd like to excommunicate THOSE pepole from the Christian faith if I could. Lets just say I have my personal reasons.....
Your enemy list is getting longer.

Your enemy list is getting longer.

Well my issue with them involves several people I know with severe brain Damage (both were Children) or permanent Death (a single unit of blood would have saved that one) as a result of their bizarre teachings. All of which were completely unessesary.

Both Children were refused medical treatment as very young children, high fever cause the damage...

THe Death was a third party that refused to allow the blood to the patient based on HIS beliefs... the person that needed it was not able to speak for themselves to refuse it.

Adults are responsible for their own Stupidity... but when young children are made to pay for it, I find a huge problem with that. Both kids were brother and sister and didn't happen at the same time but years apart.

Unbelievable and surreal are the two words that come to my mind concerning the building of a mosque so close to ground zero.

I think they should build one smack dab where United Airlines flight 93 went down in Shanksville too.

Come ON! This isn't about the "right" to do it. This is about using a little wisdom and common sense. I have NEVER heard of such BAD TASTE.

. I have NEVER heard of such BAD TASTE.

From a Canadian perspective, I have to agree, especially as we have had our own problems with terror cells here in Ontario. Still not settled after four years; these guys are still in and out of court.

I couldn't believe that is what they had agreed to do. So is it really a done deal?
I am appalled.

Tick

from a Canadian perspective, I have to agree, especially as we have had our own problems with terror cells here in Ontario. Still not settled after four years; these guys are still in and out of court.

I couldnt believe that is what they had agreed to do. So is it really a done deal?
I am appalled.

tickNew York City is a big Union Stronghold...

It isn't going to be build without Union Labor... and most of these Union People are salt of the earth type of people had friends and family Killed In the Name of Allah by those terrorists they want to honor. I have a lot of Teamster friends up there, most of them would beat the hell out of anyone that even tried to build on that site. I'd likely take vacation time to join them on the line too.

I think the odds of any Union allowing it to be built are very, very slim. And trying to bring in non-union labor will bring strikes that would shut the city down.

Come ON! This isn't about the "right" to do it. This is about using a little wisdom and common sense. I have NEVER heard of such BAD TASTE.
Yes, they have the right to do it. Whether it's in bad taste is beside the point. (Wanna meet there in a couple of years for a nice game of racket ball and then hit the juice bar afterwards?)

Yes, they have the right to do it. Whether or not it's in bad taste is beside the point. (Wanna meet there in a couple of years for a nice game of racket ball and then hit the juice bar afterwards?)

Again... Exactly WHERE is this RIGHT enumerated... there is a big difference between a RIGHT and priveledge. THere is no RIGHT for foreign entities to build anything... in fact there is no RIGHT for Americans to build anything.


After all if they have a RIGHT to build a Terrorist Memorial, we have a RIGHT to Burn it down as an act of free speech.

If it was a RIGHT, Zoning laws would be unconstitutional.

I didn't sleep through Civics and in fact I did really well in it... we had to memorize the bill of rights and while I don't remember them all specifically 35 years later, I certainly knew there was none giving a right to biuld anything anywhere.

Again....Exactly WHERE is this RIGHT enumerated....there is a big difference between a RIGHT and priveledge. THere is no RIGHT for foreign entities to build anything....in fact there is no RIGHT for Americans to build anything.


After all if they have a RIGHT to build a Terrorist Memorial, we have a RIGHT to Burn it down as an act of free speech.

If it was a RIGHT, Zoning laws would be unconstitutional.
The zoning laws are not an issue. The builders are American. Once you figure out how to spell "priveledge" correctly, we will discuss the difference between that and a right.

The zoning laws are not an issue. The builders are American. Once you figure out how to spell "priveledge" correctly, we will discuss the difference between that and a right.

You called it a right... the lefties call it a Right... however Christians have no RIGHT to Publicly and collectively practive their religion.


If it's a right... it will be specifically called out and would have a ratification date. I'm still waiting for those who claim Iran, The Taliban or Saudi Arabia who is paying for this structure is who will own it... and is being kept secret... HAVE no rights... They aren't even US citizens.

Zoning laws can't prempt a constitutional right... if it was subject to being given and taken away so casually, then its not a right.

You called it a right...the lefties call it a Right....however Christians have no RIGHT to Publically and collectively practive their religion.
Christians publicly and collectively practice their religion all the time. Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

If I lived closer to you, I'd drive over and meet you at a local restaurant so we could pow-wow in person. I think we would get a lot more accomplished than we are here. I'd even treat you to a meal and a few beers.

I think this is a local zoning issue. If it's zoned for a community center and someone wants to buy the property and build a community center, why not? Hard to imagine all this hubub if it was a YWCA or Jewish Community Center. Sheesh. Anyway, it's up to New York. Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?

Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?
Now you've got me thinking about all the subdivisions butting up against national forest lands and even state and national parks. I drive to see the Tetons or the Colorado Front Range, and end up looking at split levels and McMansions. Don't let me get started on Las Vegas.

It's private property, and the builders have rights.

This is not a question of a First Amendment right - no one denies they have that right. It is a question of doing the "right" thing.

The developers have stated that the center/mosque would be a place for all faiths to meet and encourage tolerance and understanding among different faiths (in addition to being a "prayer space" for Muslims).

As worthy as that motivation may be, by now it should be apparent to the developers that this original idea has backfired to such a degree that the great majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to the building, causing not tolerance but a deeper mistrust of Islam.

The developer, Sharif el-Gamal, has hardened his position so that understanding and tolerance have taken a back seat, and now it's all about his right to build.

When the Carmelite nuns established a convent in front of Auschwitz to pray for all the victims, the Jewish community world-wide saw it as co-opting a space that was sacred to the memory of the Shoah.

Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to move their convent up the road a piece, which they did. Common sense prevailed.

The developers have a marvelous chance to strike a blow for understanding by doing what the nuns did. Move it "up the road a piece".

And I don't think Western civilization will collapse if the developers do not stand on their First Amendment rights - in fact, they will have exhibited an understanding that will go far for tolerance.

This is not a question of a First Amendment right - no one denies they have that right. It is a question of doing the "right" thing.....in fact, they will have exhibited an understanding that will go far for tolerance.Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away?? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

Move it "up the road a piece".
And how far is that?

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away??? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you don't feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

Now you've got me thinking about all the subdivisions butting up against national forest lands and even state and national parks. I drive to see the Tetons or the Colorado Front Range, and end up looking at split levels and McMansions. Don't let me get started on Las Vegas.

It's private property, and the builders have rights.

So did the Branch Davidians... we all know what happened there.

August 12, 2010 --

A Marist poll found that 53% of the residents of Manhattan -- that island in elitist, unreal America where the thing will actually be built -- are solidly in support of the "Ground Zero Mosque," with 31% opposed and 16% undecided.

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you dont feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

How about the flip side of that... Walmart wants to open a store... they have a vacant commercially zoned lot available, but the local politicians fight to prevent them from building the store... where are Walmarts rights to build at? And that Happens MANY places.

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away??? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

I think the analogy is weak.

How about the flip side of that....Walmart wants to open a store...they have a vacant commercially zoned lot availible, but the local politicians fight to prevent them from building the store....where are Walmarts rights to build at? And that Happens MANY places.

New York is one of them that doesn't allow Walmart to build any stores because they are non union.

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you dont feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?
There is no argument about ownership. The NYC property has been purchased. Eminent domain is not even being discussed. Why are you tossing in a red herring?

(Residents have successfully fought eminent domain.)

There is no argument about ownership. The NYC property has been purchased. Eminent domain is not even being discussed. Why are you tossing in a red herring?

(Residents have successfully fought eminent domain.)

It was tied to the post made by Exy. Hes always drawing from the 2nd amendment well. Lol

And how far is that?

The literal distance is not at issue - the symbolism is the crux of the matter.

Even one or two blocks further uptown would de-fuse the issue.

I think this is a local zoning issue. If it's zoned for a community center and someone wants to buy the property and build a community center, why not? Hard to imagine all this hubub if it was a YWCA or Jewish Community Center. Sheesh. Anyway, it's up to New York. Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?


Really? Well neither of those groups killed 3,000 innocent Americans in one day in the name of their "god" whileST many with the same religious views and/OR name danced and "hubub" around the world.

Ex,


I don't know much about the TEA party... because I'm not very political... BUT>>.

This isn't about "Rights"... this is about "Respect".

Have we become so concerned about our "rights" that we have lost sight of good common sense? It baffles me...

No ONE is saying a muslim can't worship their god or build a mosque in this country. Seriously?? WHO CARES?. but REALLLY?? Really? It needs to be this close to ground zero??

It is a shame the innocent victims ( atheists, christians AND muslims) on 9/11 can't voice their opinions on this matter.

I PERSONALLY think it is time to STOP thinking about "our rights"( boo hooo hooo) and think of their lost lives!

Respect... I think I hear Aretha...

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.Hello again, dad:

You make my point for me. There IS an assault on our rights. Government from the top to the bottom doesn't like 'em one bit, and would like to get rid of 'em. I was just asking Athos how he FELT about it. Yes, I picked a right I think HE might enjoy. I wondered if he could empathize with another citizen who's rights were under assault.

Of course, the POINT I was making, IS we shouldn't be helping the government DO that. Instead, we should help our fellow citizens KEEP their rights - even the ones WE don't particularly like. We would DO that, so that the ones we DO like are protected too. That's all.

excon

Hello again, dad:

You make my point for me. There IS an assault on our rights. Government from the top to the bottom doesn't like 'em one bit, and would like to get rid of 'em. I was just asking Athos how he FELT about it. Yes, I picked a right I think HE might enjoy. I wondered if he could empathize with another citizen who's rights were under assault.

Of course, the POINT I was making, IS we shouldn't be helping the government DO that. Instead, we should help our fellow citizens KEEP their rights - even the ones WE don't particularly like. We would DO that, so that the ones we DO like are protected too. That's all.

excon


I understand. Its just somebody has to give you grief every once in awhile ;)

August 12, 2010 --

A Marist poll found that 53% of the residents of Manhattan -- that island in elitist, unreal America where the thing will actually be built -- are solidly in support of the "Ground Zero Mosque," with 31% opposed and 16% undecided.

"Elitist, unreal America"??

Ergo, real, non-elitist America is the poll we should go by?

I admit to a little confusion re your comment.

I think the analogy is weak.Hello again, Athos:

I tried to pick a right you had a stake in. I guess not. Are there NONE you'd fight for? That's sad.

excon

Plus side to al lof this IS the New York Unions... any that will be allowed ot work in Manhattan WILL be in solidarity with the Firefighters, and Police that died on 9/11.

I can't believe ANY union would allow that to be built on that site.

New York Union members are real hardasses. THey take Unions VERY seriously. Like I mentioned... I personally know a Lot of Teamsters in Manhattan. If the terrorist lovers try to bring in outsiders its going to get violent and ugly real fast... and the other Unions will shut down Manhattan if the Mob doesn't "make them an offer they can't refuse".

I will host a Bar-B-Que party in honor of any person that takes down any Mosque that's built on that site IF any is built.

I'm entitled to do that, freedom of speech and all. And its NOT a solicitation of a crime ( I have and want no contact with any principles or agents involved before or after it happens) its purely a celebration of an event I feel strongly in favor of,. and it is doing the USA a favor if they do it.

What do we call our attack on Iraq in 2003?

This was an enforcemnt issue for the Un sanctions that were in place and the threats that were being made at the time.

Hello again, Athos:

I tried to pick a right you had a stake in. I guess not. Are there NONE you'd fight for? That's sad.

excon

I can see that common sense is not your strong point - neither is reading comprehension.

I SUPPORT their right to build. I made that very clear.

Until you can tone down your hysteria, I won't engage in this discussion with you.

I will host a Bar-B-Que party in honor of any person that takes down any Mosque thats built on that site IF any is built.

I'm entitled to do that, freedom of speech and all. And its NOT a solicitation of a crime ( I have and want no contact with any principles or agents involved before or after it happens) its purely a celebration of an event I feel strongly in favor of, ....and it is doing the USA a favor if they do it.

Smoothy - be careful. You ARE soliciting a crime. Your disclaimer means nothing.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. Word to the wise.

Until you can tone down your hysteria, I won't engage in this discussion with you.Hello again, Athos:

Hysteria?? Dude!

excon

This was an enforcemnt issue for the Un sanctions that were in place and the threats that were being made at the time.

Also... the people that keep harping on that refuse to understand what a Cease Fire is... and what happens when its terms are violated.

All it is, is a time out in a war... th ewar does not end... it is just on hold by mutual agreement. If one party fails to abide by the conditions hostilites continue...


And Agruement two theterminally dense keep dredging up... "but it was 10 years earlier".

One word answers that... KOREA.


The Korean war never ended... its in a long term cease fire.

Smoothy - be careful. You ARE soliciting a crime. Your disclaimer means nothing.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. Word to the wise.

I'm entitled to celibrate any act committed by someone else.

I in no way am ASKING someone to do that act, I am not financing it, I am not rounding anyone to do it, I am not organising it in any way, in fact there is NO participation at all. I'm not that sort of person. Unless they tried it on MY property then the gloves come off.

I am allowed to celibrate it IF it happens. I am just rounding up party goers. 73% of the population would have to be rounded up if that's the case. Because most of them will be doing the same.

I'm doing the same if Isreal takes out Irans Nuclear bomb program... or takes out Adolf the Iranian idiot that is in office over there via massive voter fraud Obama didn't stand up against.

But trust me I do understand the point you are making, its not lost on me.. there IS a line that one should not cross and its NOT in the END Zone..

I can see that common sense is not your strong point - neither is reading comprehension.

I SUPPORT their right to build. I made that very clear.

Until you can tone down your hysteria, I won't engage in this discussion with you.Hello again, A:

It's FINE with me if you choose not to respond, but that's not going to stop me from making mince meat out of you..

You state that you support their right to build, as though I somehow missed the rest of your post where you indicated that you absolutely do NOT support their right to build. I didn't miss it. Being twofaced about the issue, while not clear to you, is clear to everybody else.

Given that you DON'T support it, and you refuse to argue the point, I'm left to believe, like MOST right wingers, that you believe in freedom for YOU, but not for others. That's pretty UN-American, doncha think?

excon

I will host a Bar-B-Que party in honor of any person that takes down any Mosque thats built on that site IF any is built.

I'm entitled to celibrate any act commited by someone else..Hello, again, smoothy:

Sure you are. But, that's not what you did. What you DID, was offer money or services, in exchange for somebody "taking down" the mosque. That's a crime.

You have trouble with facts, and you're filled with hate. I don't have to point that out to anybody. If they haven't noticed it by now, you just did yourself in.

Hopefully, the NSA won't pick up your threat. I'm certainly not going to tell 'em. By the way, why aren't you pissed off at Bush for taking away your rights to privacy? That way, the LARGE government that YOU support wouldn't BE snooping on us now...

But, you didn't, and they are... Bummer for you, huh?

excon

Hello, again, smoothy:

Sure you are. But, that's not what you did. What you DID, was offer money or services, in exchange for somebody "taking down" the mosque. That's a crime.

You have trouble with facts, and you're filled with hate. I don't have to point that out to anybody. If they haven't noticed it by now, you just did yourself in.

Hopefully, the NSA won't pick up your threat. I'm certainly not going to tell 'em. By the way, why aren't you pissed off at Bush for taking away your rights to privacy? That way, the LARGE government that YOU support wouldn't BE snooping on us now...

But, you didn't, and they are... Bummer for you, huh?

excon

Seriously... exactly WHERE is that written without you actually editing a quote.

I can throw a party in honor of Charles Manson... and that's my right, that doesn't mean Charels Manson earned a single dime or he was even invited to it. Only YOU could read that into it... Did Obama claim parties thrown in honor for his inauguration he never attended or was invited to on his income tax returns... after all that's an offer of money or services to him, Even with those he DID attend.

I Bet the costs of not a single one of those were on his tax returns and according to the IRS, the receipt of money or services is considered taxible income, so the great MEssiah is a tax cheat and should be prosecuted by your standards IF that is in fact a legal definition.


Bush didn't take away any of my Privacy, Obama HAS and the left is fine with that, they will give everything to their messiah... including their right to live.

Seriously...exactly WHERE is that written without you actualy editing a quote.Hello again, smoothy:

I don't need to cheat to make you look bad.

So, did I miss something, or is this NOT what you said?
I will host a Bar-B-Que party in honor of any person that takes down any Mosque thats built on that site IF any is built.I don't know how you missed it, either.

excon

Bush didn't take away any of my Privacy, Obama HAS and the left is fine with that, they will give everything to their messiah....including their right to live.

Umm. Just as a preface to what I am about to write, I am not a leftist and I am not happy with the direction this country is currently taking. Although I know some people here don't feel it is a problem, The Patriot Act has taken away our right to privacy. Even though it received it's initial start under the Clinton Admin after the OK bombing, it really got it's legs under the Bush Admin after 9/11. The Senate and House pushed it through without reading it.

Loss of US Civil Liberties: Patriot Act (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?civilliberties_patriot_act=civilliber ties_patriot_act&timeline=civilliberties)

:confused: I am not sure how Obama has topped Bush in that department as you suggest.

018.021 And in like manner We disclosed them (to the people of the city) that they might know that the promise of Allah is true, and that, as for the Hour, there is no doubt concerning it. When (the people of the city) disputed of their case among themselves, they said: Build over them a building; their Lord knoweth best concerning them. Those who won their point said: We verily shall build a place of worship over them.
18) ÓõæÑóÉ ÇáßóåÝ     http://transliteration.org (http://transliteration.org/Quran/WebSite_CD/MixPicthall/018.asp)

Hello again, tom:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (unless, of course, we don't like what they say)

excon

Hello again, tom:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (unless, of course, we don't like what they say)

excon

Have you ever thought, Ex, the operative word might be congress meaning that others, perhaps states might be able to make such laws and congress because of the prohibition might be unable to prevent them

The debate is not the simplistic one being framed here 'if they have the right to build the Mosque' .It is 'SHOULD they build the Mosque where it is proposed '?

It is an academic given that they have the right to build it .However ,it will not be built in a bubble . It will be built in an area of local and national interest .

Therefore it is equally our right to state our case for opposing the siting of the Mosque where it is proposed ,in an effort to persuade them to change their mind. We are not being faithless to the Constitution for opposing it despite all attempts to frame it otherwise.

Clete ,there are other provisions in the Constitution that reinforce Excon's point .

Clete ,there are other provisions in the Constitution that reinforce excon's point .

I don't doubt there are enough provisions to keep this in the courts for years, that might be why there is consideration of building it some place else. -- yah think?

Hello Clete and tom:

What good would it do if the feds said that you can't be searched without a warrant, but the states didn't agree? That's not freedom. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights incumbent on the states.

Tom, I've heard you say that this ISN'T about the First Amendment, and I've heard you say they simply SHOULDN'T build it...

In fact, if it EVER could have been successfully moved, those days are passed. If we move it, 1.5 BILLION Muslims will believe that we are at war with them. And, if you listen to the rabble, you'd believe it, too.

So, it's no longer about lower Manhattan. Tom is right. It's now about the world.

excon

I don't doubt there are enough provisions to keep this in the courts for years, that might be why there is consideration of building it some place else. -- yah think?

Not really . excon is correct in saying "rights" are on their side ;especially since local officials have green lighted the project. The solution to the bypass is to persuade them to move it to another site. That is why I will continue to say that Governor Patterson is the only person showing leadership on this issue.

The Fourteenth Amendment makes the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights incumbent on the states.


Interesting they needed an amendment to make it so, perhaps it wasn't the original intent

Interesting they needed an amendment to make it so, perhaps it wasn't the original intent

Clete ;yes and no .
Founding the nation was politics the art of the possible.
There was plenty of compromise that went into the document . The 14th represented ,for the most part ,needed corrections after the Civil War.

Interesting they needed an amendment to make it so, perhaps it wasn't the original intent

Clete,

The 14th Amendment is the basis of a LOT of laws that you probably like currently. For instance, it gave the former slaves citizenship in this country. It also makes due process something that the states have to follow as well as the federal government. It ALSO makes sure that every person is given equal protection under the law--which led to de-segregation, inter-racial marriage, and will probably be the basis of legal gay marriage in the United States.

Essentially, what the 14th Amendment does is protect minorities. This can be a minority in race, gender, religion, sexual orientation--take your pick of any of the normally cited areas of discrimination. The reason these people are protected is because the majority isn't always right. If we always gave the majority of voters what they wanted, women wouldn't be voting, blacks would still be slaves, and really---the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male would still control every aspect of this country without a thought being given to the fact that he might be wrong.

Hello again,

Let me ask THIS question. I've alluded to it before when I mentioned the Muslim soldier fighting alongside our own boys and girls.

HOW is General Petraeus going to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in Afghanistan, when we're calling them every name in the book in NY?

excon

Hello again,

Lemme ask THIS question. I've alluded to it before when I mentioned the Muslim soldier fighting alongside our own boys and girls.

HOW is General Petraeus going to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in Afghanistan, when we're calling them every name in the book in NY?

excon


I don't know what you saw in the demostrations yesterday. What I saw is 2 opposing sides peacefully demonstrating in the pouring rain for their cause. I saw nocalling them every name in the book.The most potentially offensive sign was ones that said that we don't want Sharia law in the US. There was no violence ,no flag burings ,no one using over the top rhetoric designed to whip up a frenzy.
In other words... what the Muslim world saw was an example of the freedoms that we claim we want to demonstrate to them.

I don't know what you saw in the demostrations yesterdayHello again, tom:

Nahh. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, and probable presidential candidate, calling Muslims Nazi's.

Ok, maybe he wasn't in NY.

excon

the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male would still control every aspect of this country without a thought being given to the fact that he might be wrong.

That is a very racist comment it was those same WASP's who fought against slavery, what did the black man do to free himself? It was a WASP, Abe Lincoln who pushed for emmancipation, It was Wilberforce in England who fought slavery long before the idea took hold in America. Who sold the people into slavery, white men or their own people? Don't tell me that freedom isn't a Christian white man's idea and so is suffrage. No Muslim will give you the opportunity that we stupid white men will

Newt was not at the rally.He cut and ran.

If one wants to distort what Gingrich said then one can conclude that he was calling Muslims Nazis .

But all he really did was compare the placing of the Mosque at the WTC the same as if the Nazis were to place a Nazi sign next to the holocost museum in DC IF it was indeed being built as a symbol of victory or supremacy .

Newt made the statement and did not hang around to defend them. If he runs he will not get my vote .He should be answering his critics who are using Alinsky tactics to make him appear to be the radical. But his statement as a comparison is valid. It goes back to the central debate... if the Mosque should be built where it is planned.

Hello again, clete:

Yeah, we should praise those stupid white guys for freeing the slaves... Shame on you, Syn, for bringing up who enslaved them in the first place.

excon

You misunderstand me.

The white male had been in charge in Europe for centuries. I am not blaming him for slavery, nor am I saying that everythign every WASP did was wrong. In fact, there are good and bad among those so designated just as there are in any other group.

But that doesn't mean there weren't people who DEPENDED on slavery for their livelihood. A good portion of the South, as a matter of fact. If it were left to the states (as it was at the time) to decide, do you REALLY think that slavery would have been overturned in the south? REALLY? Remember, ONLY the white male had a vote at the time.

I'm not arguing that white men are evil or that any other race is superior. I'm arguing that the 14th Amendment was a great thing that WASPs (like Lincoln) did to ensure that a minority was given the same rights as others--even though that minority was outvoted (by default, since they couldn't vote).

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I was simply explaining WHY the majority of Americans should NOT get their way in shutting down a mosque that isn't even open yet. That "minority" religion has the right to do so, because our freedoms from the Bill of Rights are granted to EVERY citizen of this country--not just the majority.

This is, in fact, a case where the majority should NOT win. Especially in a court system where precedence rules.

This is akin to a neighborhood (where according to Smoothy, churches should be) objecting to a temple to a religion they don't like (like paganism), even though the religion doesn't hurt them, and the temple isn't an eyesore.

If one wants to distort what Gingrich said then one can conclude that he was calling Muslims Nazis .

But all he really did was compare the placing of the Mosque at the WTC the same as if the Nazis were to place a a Nazi sign next to the holocost museum in DC. Hello again, tom:

I didn't distort squat. He said, what YOU said he said. In the simplest words I can come up with, we WERE at war with the Nazi's. We AREN'T at war with the Muslims. If you can't SEE the equivalency, you're blinder than usual.

excon

Who is calling Muslims every name in the book? I'm not, I don't know anyone who is.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahh, you're cool, and I don't think you know Newt.

excon

If anything it's people like Bloomberg calling opponents biggots who are using inflamatory rhetoric. There is nothing wrong with the Gingrich comparison .
A holocost memorial is not a commemoration of Americans killed . Allowing a Nazi sign to be hung there would be an insensitive gesture. And no one ,including Newt is saying that we are at war with all of Islam. He used the words “radical Islamists” in his comment .

If anything it's people like Bloomberg calling opponents biggots who are using inflamatory rhetoric.Hello again, tom:

I don't know what thread you've been reading... But, if you don't think smoothy is a bigot for wanting to celebrate the destruction of the mosque, probably WITH children inside, then you and I have different definitions of bigotry.

For pointing that out, I guess you could say that I'm being "inflammatory". But, you'd be WRONG.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I dunno what thread you've been reading... But, if you don't think smoothy is a bigot for wanting to celebrate the destruction of the mosque, probably WITH children inside, then you and I have different definitions of bigotry.

For pointing that out, I guess you could say that I'm being "inflammatory". But, you'd be WRONG.

excon

Really... typical lefty tactics... when you are losing the argument... stoop to name calling.

The only Biggots are the Muslims insisting on building the Mohammed Attah memorial Mosque and bath house.

The Imam is on record of being anti Sematic... and Anti-american publicly stating the USA was at fault for 9/11. But no... thiose aren't the biggots the Conservatives that exercize their 1st amendment rights are the Biggots.

You misunderstand me.

The white male had been in charge in Europe for centuries. I am not blaming him for slavery, nor am I saying that everythign every WASP did was wrong. In fact, there are good and bad among those so designated just as there are in any other group.

But that doesn't mean there weren't people who DEPENDED on slavery for their livelihood. A good portion of the South, as a matter of fact. If it were left to the states (as it was at the time) to decide, do you REALLY think that slavery would have been overturned in the south? REALLY? Remember, ONLY the white male had a vote at the time.

I'm not arguing that white men are evil or that any other race is superior. I'm arguing that the 14th Amendment was a great thing that WASPs (like Lincoln) did to ensure that a minority was given the same rights as others--even though that minority was outvoted (by default, since they couldn't vote).

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I was simply explaining WHY the majority of Americans should NOT get their way in shutting down a mosque that isn't even open yet. That "minority" religion has the right to do so, because our freedoms from the Bill of Rights are granted to EVERY citizen of this country--not just the majority.

This is, in fact, a case where the majority should NOT win. Especially in a court system where precedence rules.

This is akin to a neighborhood (where according to Smoothy, churches should be) objecting to a temple to a religion they don't like (like paganism), even though the religion doesn't hurt them, and the temple isn't an eyesore.Blacks themselves share at least as much of the Blame as white southerners did for Slavery.

After all, it was their fellow Africans that captured them, enslaved them and sold them AS SLAVE to people that did use them as slaves. Lots of blame to go around, and its NOT all one sided like they want to make it.

Besides... that ended over 150 years ago... there nobody alive that was a slave here nor were the parents of anyone alive a slave. Time they just get over it... the time of legitimate gripes existed died with the last slave.

They can ram it up their a55 as far as I'm concerned because I didn't even have ancestors here in the USA for several generations after it ended. My Granparents were getting royally screwed by the British in Ireland in THIS century. But you know... that was a long time ago and I don't dwell over it.

That's like blaming Crank head users for the Methampetamine problem... but letting the dealers and those that cook it up off the hook. They all share a part of the blame.

Plenty of Aetheists use their faith (faith being a strong belief in whatever) in they being the supreme being to object to all things religious... plenty of court cases that can be called up to support THAT as well.

Odd how the left is as quick to embrace the 1st amendment when THEY have a gripe as they are to abandon it when someone else has a legitimate gripe to express.

THe Minority religion does not have the right to dictate to the MAJORTIY religion. When was the last time someone was killed for refusing to go to church in the USA... or the wrong church... or even any church at all.

That is a standard practice where Muslims are the dominant group. Unlike the rest of the non-communist world. Exception being Communist countries that still practice this to various degrees against all religions.


Islam is not a MINORITY religion... Islam is not a religon of peace. Islam is responsible for almost if not more misery and death as Communism has.

Really...typical lefty tactics...when you are losing the argument...stoop to name calling.Smells like hypocrisy. LOL!

Plenty of Aetheists use their faith in they being the supreme being to object to all things religious....plenty of court cases that can be called up to support THAT as well.
What does that even mean?? Maybe citing a few of those court cases will help us understand.

Smells like hypocrisy. LOL!

Hey... I wasn't the one stating the Muslims have the right to do anything they want free of any objections or repercussions.

But not just the muslims... the unknow secret Foreign entities who HAVE no rights that are the reall people building this. After all, has this Imam proven HE has the money or where this money actually comes from? After all, money laundering laws are pretty specific in this country.

Income derived from the Afgan Poppy fields (Global Heroin and Opium trade for those not aware) isn't money that can be legally used to build a Terrorist Memorial on USA soil.

What does that even mean??? Maybe citing a few of those court cases will help us understand.

Really... just Google anything about Lawsuits, Aetheists and christmas even toss in the ACLU... in the query, take your pick. Otherwise I would be accused of cherry picking cases...

The ACLU makes Mob lawyers look virtuous in comparison. And worse wasting tax dollars doing it.

Hey.....I wasn't the one stating the Muslims have the right ...No you were the one chastising someone for name calling when it's a common theme for you. Man did that ever fly over your head.

Your posts are fun, I can almost picture the sputum of rage flying from your mouth as you write your poorly spelled posts.

THe Minority religion does not have the right to dictate to the MAJORTIY religion. When was the last time someone was killed for refusing to go to church in the USA...or the wrong church...or even any church at all.

That is a standard practice where Muslims are the dominant group. Unlike the rest of the non-communist world. Exception being Communist countries that still practice this to various degrees against all religions.


Islam is not a MINORITY religion.....Islam is not a religon of peace. Islam is responsible for almost if not more misery and death as Communism has.

There was a reason "minority" was in quotations on my post, Smoothy.

The minority religion is NOT dictating to the majority religion. What is happening is that a non-Christian religion is trying to build a place of worship and community, and because the MAJORITY of Americans are sheep being fed on fear, they (the sheep) feel it is okay to protest a "church" being built where there is no reason why a "church" can't be built--except that people are feeding on fear and letting it escalate.

Christianity is guilty of as much misery and death as any other religion--more, probably, because it's been a religion of power in more of the world for a longer amount of time. Christianity, therefore (using your "Islam is not a religion of peace" argument) is NOT a religion of love and forgiveness.

PS--never said Muslims could do whatever they wanted. But they LEGALLY got a permit to build there. They followed the LAW---like anyone else had to.

And it's amazing how annoyed you get about Christians not being able to flaunt their faith in public (state) buildings and other public areas---how do you think we non-Christians feel about Christians objecting to OUR places of worship?

And this is a BUILDING! It's not like they're putting a Muslim display in a state building and not letting any OTHER religion display their trappings--which is, I think, the case you are referring to.

PLEASE take a step back and realize those things that you are angry about the change on (no Christmas pageants in public schools, or whatever) is EXACTLY the way the rest of us feel whenever Christianity forces us to accept their "majority" opinion on something.

No you were the one chastising someone for name calling when it's a common theme for you. Man did that ever fly over your head.

Your posts are fun, I can almost picture the sputum of rage flying from your mouth as you write your poorly spelled posts.Really, The left does nothing but name call and make up falsehoods...

Look at nearly any coverage on Sarah Palin...

They got their panties in a knot about a dress that was loaned to her... yet totally ignore Obamas suits and Michele's attire completely as to what THAT came from and who paid for it...

And like I've told others... people who worry about misspellings are people that really don't have more important things to do.
And rarely are capable of viewing their own bias on a point of argument... even when its obvious they think the rules and law back only their own viewpoint.

English majors may be good at writing and spelling but they aren't the smartest people on the planet just because they can do THAT better than many.

Point of note being the 1st amendment... as well as the second. They won't even read it but think THEY are the only ones that know what it says... even though its written in plain english... not legalese. You remember... Bill Clinton thinking he could say anything he wanted... that whoever he wanted to twist a words meaning had to be followed or accepted by everyone else... otherwise they were being political, heaven forbid they grasp that they repeat the same quotes, the same talking points and even the same PHRASES so often it looks like a Guinness book of world records attempt for the largest simultaneous ventriloquist act in history

smoothy,
It's amazing the amount of hatred you have for 50% of your fellow americans. Good luck with that.

smoothy,
It's amazing the amount of hatred you have for 50% of your fellow americans. Good luck with that.

#1 Liberals are NOT 50% of the US population...

#2 Muslims are not 50% of the us population even if I DID hate 100% of them which I don't... just those who can not grasp or respect the sensitivites of others THEY have tried to kill.

#3, Women ARE 50% of the population... give or take a few points... and trust me there... I don't hate women.

Careful now . There is an administrator at AMHD with a quick trigger finger when it comes to ending posts.

Why. What would prompt that?

Got me . What prompted the end of the Obama's religion question ?

I guess the 'going around in circles' reason is as good as any.

I guess the 'going around in circles' reason is as good as any.

No, that's a lame reason. I wouldn't want to literally be the judge of when all has been said... as soon as that call is made someone will come up with something else to offer.

No, that's a lame reason. I wouldn't want to literally be the judge of when all has been said...as soon as that call is made someone will come up with something else to offer.Nah, it's always variations on the same theme.

Nah, it's always variations on the same theme.

Even if it is so what? What's the problem in letting us talk it out if there's no foul?

Even if it is so what? What's the problem in letting us talk it out if there's no foul?
Tomder was worried that there would be a "foul" big enough to shut down this thread. We will all play nice, so there's no thread closing. If it does get closed, I will work my charms on whoever closes the thread to get it reopened. It's too important of a thread to shut down right now.

Hello again,

Here's what Ron Paul has to say. Statements like THIS is why I supported him for pres.
-------------------------

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn't come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives' aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there's no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

------------------

You GO, Ron Paul.

excon

Doesn't surprise me at all that he takes this line. He thinks the US was responsible for the 9-11 attacks.He confirms that sentiment when he writes "If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible."
I wonder why Paul isn't objecting to a taxpayer funded tour by Rauf to promote and solicit finances for his Victory Mosque ?
As I recall ;his answer to the jihadist threat was to call for the President to issues letters of Marque. His sense of foreign policy and the nature of the threats to the nation in the 21st century is in the 18th century. He should stick to ragging about the Fed.

Wow... And I thought Ron Paul said it all.

In a way, the U.S. is responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Even if we ignore our arrogance in determining who needs our help and how we decide to help (regardless if whether that help is wanted or not) in this world--take a look at our economic policies toward other countries for the last 40 years.

And when the people who decide that we SHOULD have a military action are the people who PROFIT from a military action (Haliburton, anyone? ), I have to question their motives as well.

I've been against the war in the Middle East from the beginning. As a matter of fact, one of the first things I said when I saw the news on 9/11 is "Someone is going to use this as an excuse to go to war." IRAQ didn't attack us. Terrorists (mostly from Saudi Arabia) attacked us.

And I've been incredibly annoyed for the past 9 years at how much the government uses fear and hate to get Americans to give up their rights in the name of "safety".

And frankly--I don't think we've had a president since FDR that had a true grasp on foreign policy. Oh, most of them have known how to deal with long time allies, but almost none of them have known how to gain MORE allies, and NONE of them have stopped American economic aggression in other countries.

Either way--this whole issue IS about property rights and freedom of religion.

And I bet that those against the Mosque could give me ONE good reason that is not based in fear and hate for the mosque NOT to be built. Give me a reason that has NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the "64%" who are against it because of the religion of the builders.

If a Synagogue were to be built there, would you be protesting? What about if pagans wanted to build a temple? If your ONLY objection is that it is a MUSLIM place of worship, then you ARE basing it on bigotry, and on religious discrimination.

THAT is what "Freedom of Religion" is PROTECTING against. 64% of Americans (the majority) are NOT greater than the Constitution.

Hello again, S:

**greenie**

excon

Yup and the 9-11 families who's family members and friends were incinerated and who's ashes spread throughout the neighborhood are also bigotted and intolerant .

yup and the 9-11 families who's family members and friends were incinerated and who's ashes spread throughout the neighborhood are also bigotted and intolerant .Hello again, tom:

What's YOUR excuse? You PRETEND to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution. You RAIL over original intent. You STAND for the First Amendment. You SUPPORT an individuals right to DO with his property as he chooses...

Unless it's a Muslim...

So, you are either full of sh*t about your support for the Constitution, or you're a bigot. Those are the only two conclusions you've left me with.

excon

Conclude what you will .

I already answered all your points in this OP.

To be brief... I can be completely in opposition to placing the Mosque where it is planned ;and still be a staunch supporter of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution. As I have noted frequently ;being opposed to building a Mosque there is not the same as saying they don't have a right to do so.

If they blame ALL Muslims for the attack--yes, they are.

If they blame ALL Muslims for the attack--yes, they are.

No one, except for maybe a few idiots, has ever blamed ALL Muslims for 9/11. Beginning with Bush himself who went out of his way to specifically blame only radical elements, to today, we have been careful to make the distinction. All this concern of blaming ALL Muslims is for the most part without merit.

All this concern of blaming ALL Muslims is for the most part without merit.
Your addition of the interrupter, "for the most part," says it all.

I can be completely in opposition to placing the Mosque where it is planned ;and still be a staunch supporter of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution.Hello again, tom:

You HAVE said that. And, I've said you can't have it both ways... You cannot support the Constitution, and at the same time oppose a citizen who is seeking HIS rights UNDER that very Constitution. They are INCOMPATIBLE beliefs. They are OPPOSED to each other. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

You SAY these belief's are not absolute, but if you're an American, and you understand where we came from, and WHY this country was founded in the first place, you'd believe it, ABSOLUTELY, HOOK, LINE and SINKER. This is AMERICA - the greatest country in the world.

Call me a sentimental American patriot. I can live with it.

excon

Your addition of the interrupter, "for the most part," says it all.

Bullsh*t. Show me on this site or anywhere else all of these people blaming all Muslims. I was clear and consistent that "except for maybe a few idiots" the concerns were "for the most part" without merit.

Good grief Wondergirl, that's acknowledging there is SOME concern, but the vast majority of us do not blame ALL of Islam so cut the crap and stop portraying that as being the case. That's what makes Muslims wonder how we could ever work together, the unwarranted accusation, not the facts.

So if my neighbor has the right to do something to his property; I should not have a voice in opposition ;or I should automatically and submissively approve the neighbor's plans regardless of how it affects me or my property ?
Nonsense !

No one, except for maybe a few idiots, has ever blamed ALL Muslims for 9/11. Beginning with Bush himself who went out of his way to specifically blame only radical elements, to today, we have been careful to make the distinction. All this concern of blaming ALL Muslims is for the most part without merit.

So... if we (and I use "we" loosely, here) are not blaming ALL Muslims for 9/11, why is there a problem with American Muslims building a Mosque on American soil?

And I notice that no one TOUCHED the question of "if it were any OTHER place of worship, would this even be a problem?"

And really--there had to have been practicing Muslims working in the WTC buildings that died. I'm betting they were AMERICAN Muslims, too.

Is their loss any less tragic than any other religion's loss? Wouldn't it really be MORE tragic, because they were killed by hate-mongers of their own religion?

So...if we (and I use "we" loosely, here) are not blaming ALL Muslims for 9/11, why is there a problem with American Muslims building a Mosque on American soil?

Actually, I think that question has been answered ad nauseum, and again it's being framed wrong. We're not arguing that American Muslims can't build a mosque on American soil.

Like most everyone else INCLUDING those who oppose it, I've been clear that they have the right to build. I also have the right to oppose it at THAT particular location as it is inarguable that the attack was made in the name of Islam, not Christianity, and not exotic dancers. That doesn't make me wrong, intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical or anything else but an American exercising his right of free speech.

No one, except for maybe a few idiots, has ever blamed ALL Muslims for 9/11. Beginning with Bush himself who went out of his way to specifically blame only radical elements, to today, we have been careful to make the distinction. All this concern of blaming ALL Muslims is for the most part without merit.

Exactly... and the point is ALL MUSLIMS conversely are NOT innocent of even harboring sympathetic feelings for the Radicals. Given the numbers of Islamic people infesting the planet... these percentages are numerically quite large.

[Pew Poll on] How Muslims Think :: Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/3706/pew-poll-on-how-muslims-think)

And far from the "rare Handfull" claimed by those on the left.


With 1.5 BILLION followers...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Every percent is 15 million people. Do the math for the Pew poll numbers.

That's not anyone's idea of "a handfull".

Given the numbers of Islamic people infesting the planet
Huh?

Huh?

Pretty clear to anyone living under the oppression of Islam who are not followers of the moon god in any Islamic nation on the planet.

Okay, so...

Given the number of CHRISTIANS "infesting" the planet, at least SOME of them are guilty of "harboring sympathetic feelings" for the child molesting priests, too, right? I mean, given the percentages, there HAS to be!

Or better yet--considering the number of Christians out there, and the strange sects that come out and do horrible things---there were at least SOME "harboring sympathetic feelings" for the Texas polygamist compound raided in 2008, right?

Or--let's get more brutal here.

Christians are the greatest portion of the anti-abortion movement. How many deaths, bombings, assaults, fire, etc, have been perpetuated by CHRISTIANS against other humans in the name of their religion? And really--the list is pretty long going only back to 1990. Are you telling me that MOST Christians don't "harbor sympathetic feelings" that the anti-abortionists are doing the "right" thing and following their religion?

Okay, so...

Given the number of CHRISTIANS "infesting" the planet, at least SOME of them are guilty of "harboring sympathetic feelings" for the child molesting priests, too, right? I mean, given the percentages, there HAS to be!

Or better yet--considering the number of Christians out there, and the strange sects that come out and do horrible things---there were at least SOME "harboring sympathetic feelings" for the Texas polygamist compound raided in 2008, right?

Or--let's get more brutal here.

Christians are the greatest portion of the anti-abortion movement. How many deaths, bombings, assaults, fire, etc, have been perpetuated by CHRISTIANS against other humans in the name of their religion? And really--the list is pretty long going only back to 1990. Are you telling me that MOST Christians don't "harbor sympathetic feelings" that the anti-abortionists are doing the "right" thing and following their religion?

The anti-abortion movement kills far fewer human lives than the Pro-abortion movement does by a LARGE percentage and any given year or cumulatively.

Got any statistics to back that up?

After all, this discussion is about Muslims that are pro-terrorism.

And statistically far more Muslims are pro terrorist than inhabit many countries.

You can't produce statistics that show numbers of recognised polls that show Pro-child Molesters (much less the smaller number limited to Priests alone) to be anything similar in number.

Unlike Muslims who accept the radical ellement among them since they are taught to never betray a fellow muslim to a non-muslim (and it IS codified in their religion), there is no such parallel among christians.

Incidentally... when were the Salem Witch trials... what year is this now... WHen was the Spanish Inquisition... what year is it now.

And before anyone Brings up the Crusades... THAT was in Direct response to Islam taking historically CHristian lands, and killing or converting ALL of its inhabitants.

The anti-abortion movement kills far fewer human lives than the Pro-abortion movement does by a LARGE percentage.


Indeed .We are talking Uncle Joe numbers here. And if my neighbor had a right to build a Planned Parenthood clinic next door .I would do everything I could legally to prevent it despite the fact that they had a right to do it.

I actually don't know of any deaths, bombings, assaults, fire, etc, literally in the name of Christ in this country since 1990.

Incidentally... being Wicca... the Salem Witch trials I assume you are most pointed in commenting on. Being there has not been an ongoing rash of burnings at the stake during the interim period.

That was 1692 (Before the USA was the USA) that towns population was 550 people TOTAL then.

Salem Witch Trials (http://www.isisinvestigations.com/Article_Salem_Witch_Trials.html)

Hardly signifficant numbers.

More Islamic Terrorists have been killed in the last several months alone than the entire population of that town at the time... and of course... that 550 people includes children of all ages. Not sure how many of those Salem residents were infants or toddlers. Or if those stats are even known to my knowledge.

More Islamic Terrorists have been killed in the last several months
How many innocent Muslim men, women, and children have we killed since 9/11?

How many innocent Muslim men, women, and children have we killed since 9/11?

Far less than were killed here on 9/11. Far fewer than the number of innocent Jews that have be killed by Muslims since then... and far fewer than the numbers of Innocent people of any faith that have been killed by Musims in terrorist attacks overseas since then.

And incidentally... the number of "Innocent Muslims" targeted to be killed by us is Zero.

The number of innocent victims targeted by Muslim Terrorists as been and remains 100% of the deaths cause.

Of course... those who grasp the Concept that the Terrorists use civilians as Human shields every day... can see how collateral damage occurs.

And incidently.....the number of "Innocent Muslims" targeted to be killed by us is Zero.
Who were all those people we killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq?

Who were all those people we killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq?

Silly Wondergirl. Smoothy thinks that ALL of those people were terrorists that were behind the 9/11 attacks! They DESERVE to die, because they're not even from the country where Al Qaida is, and because they aren't of the faction of Islam that perpetuated the attacks. NOT because they're Muslim and have oil that the US wants to control. And absolutely, definitely, in no way-shape-or-form is it because the people in power made a whole CRAPLOAD of money by going to war.

"Al Qaida attacked us! Let's attack Iraq, because we can't get to Al Qaida!"

And hey--using lack of knowledge and pointing out that someone is different has been good enough to make war for centuries. Why change now just because we're the most enlightened (ha!) nation in the world?

PS--whatever happened to loving your neighbor as yourself and turning the other cheek? And most of all, what happened to forgiveness?

Smoothy,
I understand the concept of targeted vs collateral.
That's two of us so far, that do.

So... Abortion clinics are targeted, and molested boys are collateral?

Who were all those people we killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq?

Since they won't tell you this on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or NBC.

#1, we didn't INVADE Iraq in 2003.

Ever hear of Cease Fire agreements? Try and Google it up. Read it, its informative for those who don't understand what that is.

#2, They fought back... that made them fair targets... they had plenty of time to beat feet and leave. Civilians were warned to leave the area in advance.

So...Abortion clinics are targeted, and molested boys are collateral?Your words... not mine.

But take a step back and look at the circumstances... if Priests were blowing up Alter boys... rather than just blowing them... there really is a world of difference.

Doesn't make either right... but it does make them different.

Silly Wondergirl. Smoothy thinks that ALL of those people were terrorists that were behind the 9/11 attacks! They DESERVE to die, because they're not even from the country where Al Qaida is, and because they aren't of the faction of Islam that perpetuated the attacks. NOT because they're Muslim and have oil that the US wants to control. And absolutely, definitely, in no way-shape-or-form is it because the people in power made a whole CRAPLOAD of money by going to war.

"Al Qaida attacked us! Let's attack Iraq, because we can't get to Al Qaida!"

And hey--using lack of knowledge and pointing out that someone is different has been good enough to make war for centuries. Why change now just because we're the most enlightened (ha!) nation in the world?

PS--whatever happened to loving your neighbor as yourself and turning the other cheek? And most of all, what happened to forgiveness?

Synnen... Look up cease fire agreement. Read up on it. You are a lot younger than me so I'm sure the PC public schools decided to leave out a lot of stuff they didn't want kids to learn since they started some years earlier at the beginning of the Politically correct erea, I learned a LOT of stuff AFTER College by coincidental first hand experience with a long chain of unrelated events (that ended up on the news) over the last 25 years and continues from time to time that taught me the sheer volume of misinformation that gets spread around pretending to be news... not just here but other countries as well.

Saddam begged for a cease fire agreement to save his sorry butt 10 years earlier... then he failed to honor it time and time again. He got what he had coming.

And before you repeat the same thing I've heard regurgitated time and time again... they don't have an expiration date. Want an example.

Do you think the Korean war ended in the 1950's?

If you said yes... you are wrong. It never ended, it stopped under a cease fire agreement that exists to this very day. Cease Fire agreements ARE recognised by the United Nations. The Republicans didn't dream it up.


THe Left however pretends it was about something else, the 9/11 crap was the straw that broke the camels back... and it was time to call the debts due. Previous actions by that Stalin wannabe justified it many times over the previous 10 years.

I'm not THAT young, Smoothy :)

I'm going back to college--not my first time through. And I gave birth to a child old enough to start college this week herself.

I know what a cease fire is. I just find it HIGHLY amusing that we decided to go after Iraq for breaking theirs AFTER 9/11, even though Iraq wasn't behind the attacks.

And please--there's no way that even YOU can't see how much economics influenced that war. Even I know that the Chicago school of economics is wrong and evil and bad, and led us to our current economic issues--and every one of the businessmen behind going to war in the Middle East FIRMLY follow the Chicago school.

I ALSO know that we're in an extended cease fire with Korea--I have cousins who have served both in Iraq and in Korea that say Korea is MUCH scarier.

Alter boys
How did transgenders get into this thread?

I'm not THAT young, Smoothy :)

I'm going back to college--not my first time through. And I gave birth to a child old enough to start college this week herself.

I know what a cease fire is. I just find it HIGHLY amusing that we decided to go after Iraq for breaking theirs AFTER 9/11, even though Iraq wasn't behind the attacks.

And please--there's no way that even YOU can't see how much economics influenced that war. Even I know that the Chicago school of economics is wrong and evil and bad, and led us to our current economic issues--and every one of the businessmen behind going to war in the Middle East FIRMLY follow the Chicago school.

I ALSO know that we're in an extended cease fire with Korea--I have cousins who have served both in Iraq and in Korea that say Korea is MUCH scarier.

I've got a good ten years on you give or take a few... and the PC stuff started when I was in high school. I seem to remember about 1976 give or take a year or two, at least where I lived. And I did not grow up in leftyland by anyone's description around there. But a very conservative pocket in a very entitlement mentality minded part of a left leaning state.

Economics has nothing to do with Iraq. The claims we are taking their oil fields is total BS. Who runs them, who gets the proceeds... certainly isn't us. It hasn't even been made into or declaired a US territory which if what you said were true would have been done.

As far as their breaking cease fire agreements... you ARE aware of the frequency and seriousness of their repeated violations? And there were far more than you would have seen on CNN.

How did transgenders get into this thread?

Who where? Seriously, do you not know what alter boys are? And what they do... technically girls share in that part in many Churches, not exclusively boys these days.

I'm not even Catholic and I know most of what they do. THey hold the banner, the Bible the other stuff for communion and help the priest at the Alter. Yeah they do more... but I'm not Catholic so the details elude me.

Who where? Seriously, do you not know what alter boys are? and what they do...technically girls share in that part in many Churches, not exclusively boys these days.
"Alter" means change.

*putting on my thinking cap*

Do you perhaps mean "altar"?

I'm not THAT young, Smoothy :)


I ALSO know that we're in an extended cease fire with Korea--I have cousins who have served both in Iraq and in Korea that say Korea is MUCH scarier.Strangely enough, with all the Military members I know and am related to... I don't think any of them were stationed on the DMZ in Korea ever... Afghanistan, Iraq... Panama, and many other places... elsewhere in Korea, but none on the DMZ. I do have Uncles that Fought in Korea only one is still alive (age and health problems got them not many years ago, not the North Koreans).

But I can believe that they (the Brain Washed North Koreans) are considered scarier. Most of that country is force fed BS and propaganda from birth... and have been for several generations. TV's and radios highly restricted forget internet, they are lucky to have food. That equals a bunch of people without a clue what they are backing up, they have no reference or real concept of the outside world.

Too long to get into right now--believe me, their explanations were pretty reasonable as to why it's scarier in Korea.

And I wasn't even thinking about the oil fields for the economic side of it. Again--look at companies like Haliburton. Look at other major US companies that are making money by being the SOLE providers to the military in Iraq. Look at how American companies get contracts over local companies. American companies are driving out local companies that cannot compete--then driving up prices. Name ONE aspect of the War in Iraq where a US company is NOT getting the business and therefore the money. And what makes it worse is that the TAXPAYERS are paying these companies to economically take over the Middle East.

It's not about the oil--yet. It's about taking over the REST of the Middle Eastern economy. And the taxpayer isn't benefitting from this. Private companies and stockholders in corporations are getting the money.

Too long to get into right now--believe me, their explanations were pretty reasonable as to why it's scarier in Korea.

And I wasn't even thinking about the oil fields for the economic side of it. Again--look at companies like Haliburton. Look at other major US companies that are making money by being the SOLE providers to the military in Iraq. Look at how American companies get contracts over local companies. American companies are driving out local companies that cannot compete--then driving up prices. Name ONE aspect of the War in Iraq where a US company is NOT getting the business and therefore the money. And what makes it worse is that the TAXPAYERS are paying these companies to economically take over the Middle East.

It's not about the oil--yet. It's about taking over the REST of the Middle Eastern economy. And the taxpayer isn't benefitting from this. Private companies and stockholders in corporations are getting the money.

No need to go into detail for rthe Korea examples... I know enough about that to believe what they felt about it.

Haliburton again... You ever consider the WallStreet bailout went to major Obama contributors and the ONE firm that contributed most to the republicans was the ONE firm that was refused bailout money...

Seem like coincidnece that 1.5 TRILLION dollars went to Democrat party supporters... and none of it went to actually helping the taxpayers.

They could have given every taxpayer an entire year without paying taxes and still not have spent what they did. THAT would have done wonders to help the economy rather than lining the pockets of Obama worshippers.

Also... Name one other American Firm large enough to do what Haliburton did? There isn't any. And Bechtel doesn't specialize in those type of projects. Or would you have recommended paying all of that money to foreign firms hiring all foreign workers totally exempt from US laws or influence.

And if someone is going to bring up **** Cheneys one time involvement with them... Just one of Many exaples... Nancy Pelosis Husband... research it a bit... don't just take my word on it.

Charles Rangal, finally after HOW many years of his corrupt behaviour is something Finally being done if only for a show.. and Maxine Waters? All democrats that DID have conflicts of Interest... How about Obamas own previous stock holdings if the Cheney example is being used for a goal post?

So if my neighbor has the right to do something to his property; I should not have a voice in opposition ;or I should automatically and submissively approve the neighbor's plans regardless of how it affects me or my property ?
Nonsense !Hello again, tom:

I've thought a lot about your question... I think the adage, your Constitutional rights END at my nose, is appropriate here. In your property example, we have to go back to local zoning laws. IF, whatever your neighbor is doing on his property, that you think negatively effects you, meets your local code, then your problem is not with HIM. It's with your local government.

So, YES, you SHOULD automatically and PROUDLY support your neighbor for seeking his RIGHTS.

excon

I have a long running dispute with my neighbor. His Constitutional legal rights to do things to his property negatively impacts my property value.

I also had to defend my property ,neighborhood ,and township from the legal constitutional right of a developer to use existing zoning regulations to fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood and town. He wanted to build condensed housing units ;and he was able to convince the town board to change the zoning for his property to allow it. It would've almost overnight doubled the population of the town with the residents footing the bill for the required services ,infrastructure... as well as dealing with the loss in property values the devlopment would've brought.

I exercised my legal Constitutional right to persuade,protest ,negotiate and ultimately get involved in the local politics to vote out almost the entire town board;the mayor ,and replace them with folks who saw things my way.
Had they been more open to compromise ,there would today be a reasonable housing development there ,and the incumbents would still be representing the town. Now ,there is no development ,and the owner was persuaded to sell his property to the town for open space.

In the cases I just cited ;all sides were exercising legitimate constitutional rights .
There is nothing different in this case except that we who do not think a Mosque should be built where it is proposed are being vilified for daring to oppose it.

we who do not think a Mosque should be built where it is proposed are being vilified for daring to oppose it.
I haven't vilified you. I agree you have the right to protest. I've done that myself. I'm against those who said the community center shouldn't be built because it will be done by Muslims.

I agree. I have no problem with people protesting something being built for valid reasons.

Not liking the owner isn't a valid reason, imo.

I think you mean that there will be a community center in the mosque.

I agree. I have no problem with people protesting something being built for valid reasons.

Not liking the owner isn't a valid reason, imo.

Well I'm glad that at least is clarified .However ,those of us who do oppose the placing of the mosque there have been vilified not only for being anti-Muslim but also for being against Constitutional principles.
I can't speak for others motivations . But I dispute the charges directed against me.

So now you're the victim? LOL!

I think you mean that there will be a community center in the mosque.
I thought there is to be a large prayer room in the 13-story community center that will contain a swimming pool, a 500-seat auditorium, childcare area, bookstore, culinary area, food court, theater, meeting rooms, locker rooms, arts center, basketball court, etc. I'm guessing the baklava will be awesome!

I thought there is to be a large prayer room in the 13-story community center that will contain a swimming pool, a 500-seat auditorium, childcare area, bookstore, culinary area, food court, theater, meeting rooms, locker rooms, arts center, basketball court, etc. I'm guessing the baklava will be awesome!^^
This is the correct answer. It also has "a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all".

The Pentagon contains a mosque. Does that make the Pentagon a mosque?

The Pentagon contains a mosque. Does that make the Pentagon a mosque?
I was told that the real estate company and developer Soho Properties call it a mosque. I wonder why. Or did things get twisted along the way?

I haven't seen that, I've seen "community center".

It probably has to do with zoning and tax exemption, WG.

I have not even heard Daisy Kahn dispute the description of it being a mosque.
Mayor Bloomberg at a Ramadan celebration called it a mosque . EVERY news report from every source I've read has called it a mosque. I don't understand why this is even in dispute . The proponents ,political leadership ,and project leaders all call it a mosque.

Then why don't they call the pentagon a mosque? Same setup: small prayer room within a large building.

They don't because it isn't . In the Pentagon they set aside a room for anyone to pray. There is no mosque in the Pentagon.

Im currently in Iraq serving as a Military Police Soldier. As a soldier I have to say that I am fighting for all the people in the united states to have equal rights which includes the building of a mosque. I don't think it's a question about the rights that they have I think its about how innappropriate it is to build a place of muslum worship near a place where the people responsible for the attack were doing it on behalf of there muslum belifs it is simply inhuman to place that mosque in New York near ground Zero. I believe in equal rights and I am proud to protect people of all religions and race but I think this is a much more complicated subject.

Yet they have churches near playgrounds! Inappropriate and inhuman.

The Ground Zero whatever you call it DOES contain plans for a mosque, and it is a mosque because they call it a mosque. I've been wondering for weeks why so many people are saying there is no mosque when the owners say there is (http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm). Why is that?

The question becomes this:

If we prevent them from building a mosque near Ground Zero--how does that make us the better country? How does that make us better people?

Preventing or protesting the mosque near Ground Zero simply shows the world that we ARE the arrogant, hypocritcal people that they say we are.

Yet they have churches near playgrounds! Inappropriate and inhuman.

Our church HAS a playground, so what?

Our church HAS a playground, so what?People should protest against the church. I'll alert Fox News. We must protect the children.

Steve NK's non sequitur was meant to be a cheap smear of Catholics.

The question becomes this:

If we prevent them from building a mosque near Ground Zero--how does that make us the better country? How does that make us better people?

Preventing or protesting the mosque near Ground Zero simply shows the world that we ARE the arrogant, hypocritcal people that they say we are.

Synnen, no one is PREVENTING them from doing anything. They already have the green light to go forward. Pressure is another thing altogether. Pressuring and protesting is as American as apple pie, just ask Code Pink next time they decide to protest a military recruitment center or environmental groups the next time someone tries to build anything in the countryside.

It's not a smear when it's true. Also you do the same to muslims but it's OK when YOU do it.

Steve NK's non sequitur was meant to be a cheap smear of Catholics.

I know, it's the go-to smear along with the crusades, the inquisition and witch trials.

Your statement would be true if I were doing the same to muslims . But I am not .

I know, it's the go-to smear along with the crusades, the inquisition and witch trials.This one is more recent as victims keep showing up.

It's not a smear when it's true. Also you do the same to muslims but it's ok when YOU do it.

That's a flat-out lie, NK. We've been abundantly clear in making the distinction between radical Islamists and the rest. It's you who lumps all Christians together with your attacks.

This one is more recent as victims keep showing up.

And my point in noting we have a playground is, as it is with the majority of churches you have zero instances of clergy abuse in my church to point to.

We've been abundantly clear in making the distinction between radical Islamists and the rest. Then what's the problem, it isn't radical islamists that will be in this building, right?

I know, it's the go-to smear along with the crusades, the inquisition and witch trials.

Witch trials - At least 30,000 men, women and children (yes, children) tortured and burned for being anti-church. Please remember that we're NOT just talking about Salem and New England when we talk about the Witch Trials. We're talking about a several HUNDRED year campaign to wipe out any trace of matriarchal societies and worship of the Goddess. ANYONE who did not follow church dogma was burned--not just a few women who some bored teenage girls pointed fingers at.

Inquisition - An estimated 20,000 people tortured and killed. A mostly economic war perpetuated by the Catholic church on anyone who had anything they wanted. I would like to point out that the Inquisition perfected several truly heinous forms of torture that they would use on children as young as 2 years old. Anyone declared a heretic would have their property confiscated, and any heirs would ALSO be accused of at least beign an accessory to witchcraft. Any child that did not denounce their parents as witches ran the risk of torture themselves and of being left penniless even without the torture. The church could ALSO declare people already dead to be witches and heretics, and would exhume the bodies and burn the bones--and then confiscate the "witch's" property from the heirs. This would sometimes happen up to 50-70 years AFTER a person died.

Crusades -- record keeping seems to have been abominable, but the numbers seem to tally up to over a million people killed on both sides--but one battle alone for Jerusalem left some 40,000 Muslims dead. Another battle left 8,000 Jews dead. And before someone gets high-handed about the Christians taking back Christian sites from the Muslims who had taken them a few centuries before---please remember that these are sites sacred to the MUSLIMS too, and to the Jews. The Old Testament sites are sacred to all THREE religions.

So... extreme torture and slaughter over centuries for political and economic reasons, and we should just accept the apology of Christians? Isn't that kind of like the Germans becoming a world power and apologizing for Hitler and expecting the world to forget it and move on?

The ninth crusade ended in 1272 - 738 years ago. The last of the Salem witch trials was in 1693 - 317 years ago. The last of the inquisitions was in 1860 - 150 years ago. I wasn't around for any of that Synnen, I have nothing to apologize for.

Witch trials - At least 30,000 men, women and children (yes, children) tortured and burned for being anti-church. Please remember that we're NOT just talking about Salem and New England when we talk about the Witch Trials. We're talking about a several HUNDRED year campaign to wipe out any trace of matriarchal societies and worship of the Goddess. ANYONE who did not follow church dogma was burned--not just a few women who some bored teenage girls pointed fingers at.

Inquisition - An estimated 20,000 people tortured and killed. A mostly economic war perpetuated by the Catholic church on anyone who had anything they wanted. I would like to point out that the Inquisition perfected several truly heinous forms of torture that they would use on children as young as 2 years old. Anyone declared a heretic would have their property confiscated, and any heirs would ALSO be accused of at least beign an accessory to witchcraft. Any child that did not denounce their parents as witches ran the risk of torture themselves and of being left penniless even without the torture. The church could ALSO declare people already dead to be witches and heretics, and would exhume the bodies and burn the bones--and then confiscate the "witch's" property from the heirs. This would sometimes happen up to 50-70 years AFTER a person died.

Crusades -- record keeping seems to have been abominable, but the numbers seem to tally up to over a million people killed on both sides--but one battle alone for Jerusalem left some 40,000 Muslims dead. Another battle left 8,000 Jews dead. And before someone gets high-handed about the Christians taking back Christian sites from the Muslims who had taken them a few centuries before---please remember that these are sites sacred to the MUSLIMS too, and to the Jews. The Old Testament sites are sacred to all THREE religions.
So...extreme torture and slaughter over centuries for political and economic reasons, and we should just accept the apology of Christians? Isn't that kind of like the Germans becoming a world power and apologizing for Hitler and expecting the world to forget it and move on?

Um... that is incorrect. Islam did not exist at the time of nor is it mentioned in the Old testiment... it came about 700 years AFTER the advent of Christianity, which also is not mentioned in the Old Testiment, while the Old Testiment is shared by Jews and Christians alike, the NEW TESTIMENT was written POST Jesus Christ who incidentally was born a Jew himself.

Just because you steal something from someone under armed force... doesn't make it YOURS. If that was true, Japan, and Europe would be US Territories if not part of the USA. Since we took back Europe from the Nazi's who took it from someone else in the first place. That didn't make it morally or rightfully ours any more or less than Islam was entitled to lands they took by force.


Incidentally where are you coming up with those numbers of witches burned. THere wasn't 30,000 non-native indians (basicly European Settlers) living in what became the USA at that time.

Old Testament sites are sacred to all THREE religions.
Synnen correctly said OT SITES are sacred to all three religions. Two of those sites are Jerusalem and the Mount Sinai area.

Why has no one objected during the past year to the Muslim use of the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building at 41 Park Place as a mosque?

Why has no one objected during the past year to the Muslim use of the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building at 41 Park Place as a mosque?Because Its not Two blocks from a terrorist attack site. Distance has everything to do with the significane of a memorial from the stire it memorializes.

There also is an existing Mosque that predates 9/11 a block and a half further away... besides... this is all about WHAT someone is building and WHERE they intend to build it.

Funny that the people arguing the Muslims shoudfl get a fast track and government assistance to build a Mohammed Attah terrorist Memorial are the very same people that fought against a Cross being erected where people might or might not actually see it.

What happened to the lefts insistence of separation of Church and state when it comes to anything Christian. But insist on government HELP for Muslims.

Hello again:

Given that you acknowledge they have a RIGHT to build, your protest is NOTHING more than stating your opinion, which you have the RIGHT to do...

But, are there not SOME of you who think government should DO something?? You, tom, mentioned some local politician who was going to take away the mosque under eminent domain. THAT government intrusion didn't seem to upset you. In fact, I think you LIKED it.

If they DID pass a zoning law to STOP it, would you come to the aid of the victim of religious repression, or would you cheer? Do you see my confusion when you say you support the Constitution?? Nahhh. Probably not.

excon

Synnen correctly said OT SITES are sacred to all three religions. Two of those sites are Jerusalem and the Mount Sinai area.

So the Jews who had it first... somehow don't merit precidence... not the Christians who were there too long before the Muslims. And those sites are only Sacred to muslims because they tried and failed to commit Genocide of anyone who did not worship their Pedophile Messiah.


And tangentally... should not parts of Poland and France be returned to Germany since that was taken from them and was historically theirs. Why does Islam merit special rights with the left. Is that where the majority of their campauin contributions are actually coming from? Unnamed Overseas sources?

Good point, less than two weeks after SCOTUS ruled a memorial cross in the Mojave desert could stay, someone stole it (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20004719-504083.html). Is that the kind of example we should follow in this case?

Hello again,

So, how far from ground zero SHOULD the Muslim free zone be? You say two blocks is too close, but you won't say how far is cool. Come on, don't you know? Should it extend all the way to Murfreesboro, Ky? Some Kentuckians think so.

excon

Hello again:

Given that you acknowledge they have a RIGHT to build, your protest is NOTHING more than stating your opinion, which you have the RIGHT to do...

But, are there not SOME of you who think government should DO something???? You, tom, mentioned some local politician who was going to take away the mosque under eminent domain. THAT government intrusion didn't seem to upset you. In fact, I think you LIKED it.

If they DID pass a zoning law to STOP it, would you come to the aid of the victim of religious repression, or would you cheer? Do you see my confusion when you say you support the Constitution??? Nahhh. Probably not.

excon

Who is paying for that... any American Citizens... OH right... thats all a great secret.

Because we know its NOT Americans doing it... and NOBODY has pointed out where forign entities can waltz right in, take what they want and do what they want in defiance of American Citizens...

THe Terrorist loving Baby molestor Imam who wants to do this Doesn't have the money... and refuses to disclose who's paying for it.

Maybe because his buddies in the Opium Trade are really the ones buying it with Drug Money.


Nobody just "finds" 100 million dollars laying around.

ANd incidentally, justify Muslims RIGHT to build a memorial to the 9/11 terrorits a stiones throw from ground zero... yet AMERICAN school children are not allowed to express their religion in a voluntary prayer or a school function because Chirstians has fewer rights then Muslims to the left? That is abundently apparent in the lefties arguments and previous hatred and anti christian actions the previous 40 years.

Hello again,

So, how far from ground zero SHOULD the Muslim free zone be? You say two blocks is too close, but you won't say how far is cool. Come, don't you know? Should it extend all the way to Murfreesboro, Ky? Some Kentuckians think so.

excon

I think that's fair...

Until ISLAMIC nuts allow a Christian Church to be constructed in BOTH Medina and Mecca, I think a reciprical moritorium on ALL Miosque Construction should be put into place.

After all if MOST muslims are such a reasonible and friendly bunch like the left argues, that shouldn't be a problem. I'm sure most churches could gather enough money to fund the construction there. Fair is fair.

After All it's the left that argues Islam is a religion of peace, and Tollerance. Something I have yet to see examples of anyplace in the world you get more than 100 muslims together. Particularly when they are the Majority, which they always gain usually through killings and intimidation.

Individually many probibly are nice.(many I know are)... but get enough together then a mindset to dominate and destroy anyone who opposes their beliefs takes over.

The total lack of respect and sensitivity they (Muslims) express towards Americans proves it in their insistence to do this regardless what non-muslims think of it.

Maybe we should burn Martin Luther King effigies on Lee Jackson day...

Or would that not be considered offensive and disrespectful to blacks? You know like the Mohammed Attah Memorial wouldn't be disrespectful and offensive to most Americans?

Who is paying for that.....any American Citizens....OH right.....thats all a great secret. So if we find that an institution is funded by people with ties to terrorism should that institution be shut down?

Hello again,

Uh, oh. I think NK is about to expose the terrorist who is the second largest stockholder of FOX NEWS.

excon

Damn you! :)

So if we find that an institution is funded by people with ties to terrorism should that institution be shut down?

Ah ha... Glad YOU mentioned that...

The answer is Yes... and there are multiple examples where that HAS happened.

There is in fact a law on the books to that effect. There have been many places effectively laundering money from Terrorists as well as Drug trade sources in the Middle east. Some were pretending to be Islamic Charities.

THere were examples of that within miles of where I live.

There was also a Islamic Center that was busted in Merrifield VA for teaching Jihad was a proper and acceptable action. So much for claims of the mythical peaceful and tollerant Muslim. They were Funded by the Saudis Primarily in that case.

So what do we do with this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2498238-post701.html)?

Because Its not Two blocks from a terrorist attack site.
Yes, it is. It's the building that will be razed (and has been determined not to be a historical landmark after all) to allow for the building of the community center.

(I go away for a half hour, and youse guys fill up three pages while I'm gone!)

Damn you! :)Hello again, NK:

Didn't mean to steal your thunder. Explain it to our friend, smoothy. Maybe you can even link us to Jon Stuart who catched 'em.

excon

I'll wait for his reply. I'm a little busy with a task at work now.

So the Jews who had it first
It has nothing to do with who "had" it, but has everything to do with how those sites are valued. For instance, Muslims believe the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is the first Qibla (direction of prayer). An area near Mount Sinai is considered holy ground, not because of a battle but because it's mentioned in the Quran (sort of like Bethel in the Jacob's Ladder story).

Why has no one objected during the past year to the Muslim use of the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building at 41 Park Place as a mosque?

Because no one knew about it ?
A couple misconceptions
It is not an abandoned building. The owner attempted to sell it after the attack made it unoccupiable (I wonder how they were able to hold services for 450 people in a building not approved for occupancy ? ). The building was sold to Soho Properties real estate developer Sharif El-Gamal at bargain basement prices because the building was damaged in the attack... who stated the plan was to build condos .It was after the purchase that the
Suddenly the plan changed to convert the site to a Victory Mosque.

The current building is a relatively small 4-5 story othewise undescript building 600 feet from the WTC . The plan is to make it a towering 13 story structure that will be easily visible by people who visit the eventual 9-11 memorial .

To answer the question of how far away is appropriate ;there is already mosques that are not called Cordoba (to conjur images of the Ummah's conquest in the West ) 4 blocks away. There never have ,nor will there ever be objections to those mosques.

yet AMERICAN school children are not allowed to express their religion in a voluntary prayer or a school function because Chirstians has fewer rights then Muslims
If the Muslim-American schoolchildren pray Christian prayers along with the Christian-American schoolchildren, will the Christian-American pray Muslim prayers along with the Muslim-American schoolchildren?

It is not an abandoned building.
Burlington Coat Factory is still in there? According to a number of Internet sites, "Until its 2009 purchase the building lay abandoned."

the plan changed to convert the site to a Victory Mosque.
Where did the word "victory" come from?

Incidently where are you coming up with those numbers of witches burned. THere wasn't 30,000 non-native indians (basicly European Settlers) living in what became the USA at that time.


Islam is based on the first-born son of Abraham--Ishmael. The SAME places that are important to Christians and Jews are important to Muslims.

If we want to talk about taking it doesn't mean it's yours---does that mean you're ready to hand any of YOUR property back to the native Americans?

And witch burnings happened ALL across Europe over a several hundred year time.

Where did the word "victory" come from?Right-wing talking points.

Hello again,

Uh, oh. I think NK is about to expose the terrorist who is the second largest stockholder of FOX NEWS.

excon

Well, being I'm far from weathy enough to be the majority stockholder in a single local donut shop... it can't be me.

Islam is based on the first-born son of Abraham--Ishmael. The SAME places that are important to Christians and Jews are important to Muslims.

If we want to talk about taking it doesn't mean it's yours---does that mean you're ready to hand any of YOUR property back to the native Americans?

And witch burnings happened ALL across Europe over a several hundred year time period.

Islam isn't based on Ishmael... they Worship Mohammed as their Messiah. Mohammed wasn't born until the 7th centuay AD.

That's the same as Saying Christianity wasn't based on Jesus Christ.


As far as ownership...

Existing legal precident holds in that case... example - They are STILL finding and returning artwork that was stolen from Jews under the Nazi's. Usually to heirs of the victims.

Doesn't matter who paid for it or how much,. stolen is stolen.

Explain it to the cops if the deal you got on Craigs list was too good to pass up. Cops come after it... guess who gets to keep it... (Hint, it won't be you).

It is not an abandoned building. The owner attempted to sell it after the attack made it unoccupiable (I wonder how they were able to hold services for 450 people in a building not approved for occupancy ? ).
So, it was not abandoned, just unoccupied. But it must have been condemned so that no one was allowed to use it, i.e. "not approved for occupancy."

It was unoccupied until it was purchased by Soho Properties in June 2009. Did they rehab to make it habitable again?

Well, being I'm far from weathy enough to be the majority stockholder in a single local donut shop......it can't be me.But if it was a terrorist sympathizer should Fox be banned from broadcasting in the US?

Right-wing talking points.

From the Latin, victoria. Or was it Joe Biden when he declared Obama had won the war in Iraq?

Islam isn't based on Ishmael
Islam considers Ishmael as the ancestor of Arab people.

they Worship Mohammed as their Messiah.
Since when?

From the Latin, victoria. or was it Joe Biden when he declared Obama had won the war in Iraq?
Naw. I think President Bush had said something about a mission accomplished. He was on a boat or something when he said it.

This speaks volumes...

YouTube - SALT IN THE WOUND written by Rita W. Jones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-dPSh--CHU&feature=player_embedded)

But if it was a terrorist sympathizer should Fox be banned from broadcasting in the US?

Didn't stop Obama... look at the list of Terrorist Buddies he had, you do remember the Weather Underground.

Or the tax Cheats he appopinted to positions in the government. Even though Tax evasion is a Fellony.

Well so much for answering a simple question. :rolleyes:

Islam considers Ishmael as the ancestor of Arab people.

Since when?

SInce always... you do remember the Dutch person assassinated by Muslim terrorists for drawing a cartoon about Mohammed.

You do remember the tjhreats against a Child who did a drawing of Mohammed. You do remember Salamon Rushdi? He's still in hiding, and there is still death threats against him.


Proof of what a Peaceful religion Islam is when they put out assassination orders for anyone who draws mohammed or writes a book critical of their actions.

If the Muslim-American schoolchildren pray Christian prayers along with the Christian-American schoolchildren, will the Christian-American pray Muslim prayers along with the Muslim-American schoolchildren?

And will they ALL pray along with the Pagan-American schoolchildren and Jewish schoolchildren and atheist schoolchildren and Pastafarian schoolchildren and Buddhist schoolchildren and Taoist schoolchildren and Hindu Schoolchildren and Chinese traditionalist schoolchildren and African traditional schoolchildren and Scientologist schoolchildren---just to name a few?

I've always said I had NO problem with prayer in school--as long as they offer a prayer to EVERY religion out there. That means that if they're going to clump all pagan sects together and all Muslim sects together, they have to clump all Christian sects together. Which means that the Jehovah's Witnesses have as much a chance on the day for Christians as the Catholics and Lutherans do.

I think I figured it out one time. If you take the top 20 world ranked religions only (which will cause discord of its own, and you know it), the Christians would get to pray to THEIR god once a month in school, and to someone else's god 19 times.

You okay with that, Smoothy? Prayer in school means ALL prayer in school--not just "majority" prayer in school.

Naw. I think President Bush had said something about a mission accomplished. He was on a boat or something when he said it.

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/vice-president-biden-iraq-could-be-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration.html)."

Of course that's because of the surge and the course Bush took against Biden and Obama's judgment.

Well so much for answering a simple question. :rolleyes:

Obama was supported with Funds from the middle east funneled through people without the ability to give that much... Will he step down?

After all, he's bankrupting the USA to make good on his promises to his overseas Muslim contributors, like he did to the Wall Street companies that gave him millions... except for Merril Lynch who gave more to republicans than him, and we all know which one was refused a bailout (heres a hint... it Was Merril Lynch ALONE that was refused assistance).

Islam isn't based on Ishmael....they Worship Mohammed as their Messiah. Mohammed wasn't born until the 7th centuay AD.

Thats the same as Saying Christianity wasn't based on Jesus Christ.


As far as ownership...

existing legal precident holds in that case...... example - They are STILL finding and returning artwork that was stolen from Jews under the Nazi's. Usually to heirs of the victims.

Doesn't matter who paid for it or how much,....stolen is stolen.

Explain it to the cops if the deal you got on Craigs list was too good to pass up. Cops come after it....guess who gets to keep it....(Hint, it won't be you).


So... you hate a religion you don't really understand. Check!

Well, since your home was on land that is KNOWN to have been stolen from native Americans--you're going to give it back, right? Do the right thing, and all that?

You totally dodged my question by trying to re-direct it to the government getting to confiscate anything ill-gotten. Well, what if it's a government that got it in an immoral way? Does that mean we ALL go back to being Roman?

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/vice-president-biden-iraq-could-be-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration.html)."Because his very next line is: "You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. "
I think you missed his meaning there.

Because his very next line is: "You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. "
I think you missed his meaning there.

Uh, no, I didn't, the quote in context doesn't change the fact that he's taking credit the administration doesn't deserve, and that in fact the success would be in spite of his plans to divide the country and Obama's opposition to the effort.


I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Burlington Coat Factory is still in there? According to a number of Internet sites, "Until its 2009 purchase the building lay abandoned."

Where did the word "victory" come from?

WG you are good with the semantics games.It was unoccupied... not abandoned . Abandoned implies abandoned by the ownership. That never happened . The owner attempted to sell it until 2009 when the owner ;forced to drastically reduce the price due to the damage from the attack, ended up selling it to someone the owner thought was going to turn the building into a condo complex.

Ironic that a building damaged in a terrorist attack will be turned into a Victory mosque by someone who praises the Iranian terrorist regime; and the principle of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of sharia jurisprudent as practiced by the regime of clerics in the Council of Guardians.

Didn't stop Obama... look at the list of Terrorist Buddies he had, you do remember the Weather Underground.He knows Ayers as well as I do.

Or the tax Cheats he appopinted to positions in the government.
Name three.

Well here's my take: if Fox News, being the terrorist sympathizers that they are, are allowed to broadcast in the US AND have an office near Ground Zero then anyone else who fits that bill should have a free pass as well.

WG you are good with the semantics games.
You too, Tommy, by sticking "victory" into the sentence. Those little semantic tidbits really help the cause, don't they.

Well here's my take: if Fox News, being the terrorist sympathizers that they are, are allowed to broadcast in the US AND have an office near Ground Zero then anyone else who fits that bill should have a free pass as well.

Tell you what... being its no secret Obama was great friends with a Convicted Terrorist... William Ayers of the Terrorist group The Weather Underground... lets see the Democrat party show a good faith effort and Immediately Remove him from office. Not next week, now.

You really need to look up the word sympathizer... you clearly can not grasp what it means. Because YOU are one... CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, Mayor Bloomberg, The New York Times and the Washington Post are as Well as most leading Democrats. ALL are Terrorist Sympathizers... and guilty of aiding and abeting crimes... THey even fall under the RICO act because they as a group consipre to commit crimes every day. ANd just one of those crimes is aiding and abetting immigration fraud.

When Democrats answer to THAT, then they might actually have a little credibility, as it stands the entire party is full of blow hards.

Well here's my take: if Fox News, being the terrorist sympathizers that they are, are allowed to broadcast in the US AND have an office near Ground Zero then anyone else who fits that bill should have a free pass as well.

What a total and complete crock of sh1t.

You really need to look up the word sympathizer...you clearly can not grasp what it means. Because YOU are one
You're funny... in a sad kind of way.

Fox News, being the terrorist sympathizers that they are

By what standard do you reach that conclusion?

They believe anything Obama tells them to believe..

Does Obama have a clue as to the difference between truth and falsification?



Now Barack's father served in WW II

It must be true as Barack said it in a speech!

Is he a compulsive liar? Were there no reporters who double checked these statements and called the party on this?

They did for everyone else. Why not him?

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father)

Born 4/4/36

Died 11/24/82 at the age of 46

He was 5 years old when WW 2 started, and less than 9.5 years old when it ended.

Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father)

Born 1935

Died 3/2/87 at the age of 52

He was 6 years old when WW 2 started, and 10 years old when it ended.

One of these guys must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.



Watch the video. YouTube - Obama says his father served in World War II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw)



And the media doesn't say anything.


And the left STILL believes anything that comes out of Obamas mouth.

You're funny...in a sad kind of way.

CBS news knows where Osama Bin Laden is hiding... Obama told them, they are sympathizers too.

By what standard do you reach that conclusion?Hello again, Steve:

By THIS standard (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-august-23-2010-rod-blagojevich). The connection is clear. FOX is partly owned by a Muslim Terrorist. You know that because it was reported on FOX NEWS. Watch it, if you dare.

excon

CBS news knows where Osama Bin Laden is hiding.....Obama told them, they are sympathizers too.
Well you certainly are representative of the conservatives in your country.

Hello again, Steve:

By THIS standard (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-august-23-2010-rod-blagojevich). The connection is clear. FOX is partly owned by a Muslim Terrorist. You know that because it was reported on FOX NEWS. Watch it, if you dare.

excon

Really... so are All of the Lefty Media outlets... gonna shut those down too? How about wall street... terrorists own stock in much of that too.

Obama is funneling money from the Poppy Fields through liberal action funds... after all, there never was a complete accounting of all the money he got.


THere is one HELL of a lot of difference between someone owning stock in something... and a business violating currency transfer laws to launder money.


Also unlike Obama (William Ayers)... Terrorists weren't visiting at FOX's house repeatedly.

Hello again, Steve:

By THIS standard (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-august-23-2010-rod-blagojevich). The connection is clear. FOX is partly owned by a Muslim Terrorist. You know that because it was reported on FOX NEWS. Watch it, if you dare.

Thanks ex, I had read the article on Huffpo prior to your post so I've already dared. Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner) is where the story broke. Quite ironic I'd say and I'll be waiting for Fox and/or Murdoch to respond before adding anything else.

Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner) is where the story broke.Actually Stewart broke the story, they reference it in the Yahoo article.

It must be true as Barack said it in a speech!
Anybody with a brain and the rudiments of basic math would realize he meant his grandfather. I'm old enough that President Obama could be my son, and some of my high school classmates served in Vietnam. My uncle, who was 25 years older than I, served in WWII.

If we're going with what presidents say is true, and worth more than what they mean then Kennedy was a jelly donut.

Please.

Actually Stewart broke the story, they reference it in the Yahoo article.

Excuse me, I was going by what Politico said (http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0810/Fox_the_prince_and_the_mosque.html): "Yahoo!’s John Cook had turned up the funding tie last week."

You always have to assume that Obama misspoke. He seems to have a problem but only with facts.
"My muslim faith"
"all 57 states"
" in paying tribute to 'fallen heroes' on this past Memorial Day [2008], he stated that he saw several of them sitting in the audience. Apparently his handlers didn't tell him "fallen heroes" means dead."
I know about Bush's "fool me once" and "gynecologists' etc but Bush just wanted to give control of American ports to Dubai and the mosque idea is just as good and will have the same success.

I understand that Rudy turned down some funding Alwaleed bin Talal offered because of comments he made after 9-11. Can anyone provide any other evidence that he is a terrorist or is a supporter of terrorism ?

From everything I've read he is pretty much a Westernized Saudi pampered rich playboy.