"Elitist, unreal America"??Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Ergo, real, non-elitist America is the poll we should go by?
I admit to a little confusion re your comment.
|
"Elitist, unreal America"??Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Ergo, real, non-elitist America is the poll we should go by?
I admit to a little confusion re your comment.
Hello again, Athos:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
This was an enforcemnt issue for the Un sanctions that were in place and the threats that were being made at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I can see that common sense is not your strong point - neither is reading comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Smoothy - be careful. You ARE soliciting a crime. Your disclaimer means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Word to the wise.
Hello again, Athos:Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Hysteria?? Dude!
excon
Also... the people that keep harping on that refuse to understand what a Cease Fire is... and what happens when its terms are violated.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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.
I'm entitled to celibrate any act committed by someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
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..
Hello again, A:Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Hello, again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 don't know how you missed it, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
excon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Loss of US Civil Liberties: Patriot Act
: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
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 themQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
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 .
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Interesting they needed an amendment to make it so, perhaps it wasn't the original intentQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Clete ;yes and no .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
Clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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 willQuote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Really... typical lefty tactics... when you are losing the argument... stoop to name calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Blacks themselves share at least as much of the Blame as white southerners did for Slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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.
Smells like hypocrisy. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM. |