[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[Synnen]

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

I don't know what you saw in the demostrations yesterday

Hello 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

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[Synnen]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

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

excon

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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

[smoothy]

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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

Smells like hypocrisy. LOL!