View Full Version : Figured I'd aggravate you guys a bit more
Scanker19
08-13-2010, 22:37
I'm sorry if this pushes some over the edge, just remember i'm a friend.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama
I wonder if his buddy Reverend Wright will attend the grand opening. Maybe that's the "interfaith" part.
theGinsue
08-13-2010, 22:54
I've been hearing about this throughout the day and keep seeing the headlines for it across the web.
I just love how it's put that he "forcefully endorses" the mosque @ Ground Zero.
"Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us — and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today," he said.
Yes, that attitude is orecisely what the followers of Islam are counting on. Much as they counted on it in Italy, Germany, Holland, Isreal, .......
Byte Stryke
08-13-2010, 22:55
Bury a Pig Carcass on the site.
Let them be tolerant
I think he answered it the best way that he could have. He basically can do nothing about the manner as the President and member of the government. I would have at least liked him to say, "I don't like it at all, but they have the right to do it. This is America, and the only way that I could prevent this, is by stepping in and taking away the rights or our citizens. I'm unwilling to do that."
See, I'd get into trouble if I were the president because I'd say something like, "I don't like it, but as the President operating within the government, I can't prevent it without spoiling some of the freedoms that we all enjoy. Now, if a group of people, who were completely unaffiliated with the government, burned the temple down once a year, they'd have to suffer the consequences of their actions."
Byte Stryke
08-13-2010, 23:13
Now, if a group of people, who were completely unaffiliated with the government, burned the temple down once a year, they'd have to suffer the consequences of their actions."
So you will bring me Cigarettes on Sundays?
KIDDING!
theGinsue
08-14-2010, 01:10
Bury a Pig Carcass on the site.
Let them be tolerant
I've been saying that since I first heard about this. That and putting in a BBQ restaurant (with LOTS of pork; of course) next door and have a couple of hot dog carts on the sidewalk right in front of the place. It would be just too bad if pork juice kept getting spilled on the sidewalk and door handles in front of the mosque.
Muslims built a mosque on the site of Solomans Temple, Isreals most holy site. They then put some sort of cemetary around the route into the mosque that (supposedly) prevents Jews from crossing for religious reasons. So, what if the same sort of thing were done to the gorund surrounding the proposed site of the mosque? Would not the Muslims have to abandon their plans? Something to think about.
I would have at least liked him to say, "I don't like it at all, but they have the right to do it. This is America, and the only way that I could prevent this, is by stepping in and taking away the rights or our citizens. I'm unwilling to do that."
Agreed.
theGinsue
08-14-2010, 01:11
So you will bring me Cigarettes on Sundays?
KIDDING!
Menthol or Full flavored?
(I kid back)
ChunkyMonkey
08-14-2010, 12:20
Bury a Pig Carcass on the site.
Let them be tolerant
I'd open Pork BBQ (think smoke and smell) next door whichever upwind, and Dog rescue on the other side. What else? Strip club ?[ROFL1] Sorry to sound so hateful... but shit, everytime I watch the 9/11 clip, it pisses me off. What an insult for them to build a mosque there.
Do you see churches in Mecca? Medina? At least then President PUTIN got the backbone to confront the plan to build a mega mosque in the Red Square. He told the kingdom of Saudi that if he is allowed to build an orthodox church in Mecca, he will fund the mosque in the red square. He never gotten responded and the plan was dropped.
ChunkyMonkey
08-14-2010, 12:21
nevermind... Ginsue beat me to it! Good Ginsue! Good Ginsue! [Beer]
I know what the muslims have against pork and strippers, but what is it about dogs they don't like?
Scanker19
08-14-2010, 14:13
They have more personality than they do.
I think its because they are "unclean" as well.
ChunkyMonkey
08-14-2010, 16:27
I know what the muslims have against pork and strippers, but what is it about dogs they don't like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_animals
Muslims generally cast dogs in a negative light because of their ritual impurity. The story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the Qur'an (and also the role of the dog in early Christianity) is one of the striking exceptions.[27] Muhammad didn't like dogs according to Sunni tradition, and most practicing Muslims do not have dogs as pets.[14] It is said that angels do not enter a house which contains a dog. Though dogs are not allowed for pets, they are allowed to be kept if used for work, such as guarding the house or farm, or when used for hunting purposes.
theGinsue
08-14-2010, 18:19
nevermind... Ginsue beat me to it! Good Ginsue! Good Ginsue! [Beer]
Just shows that (in some cases anyway) we think alike.
As much as I despise to say it, he is right. Our important piece of paper says the government will make no law favoring or obstructing any one religion.
So government saying they cannot build a mosque on that site would be going against our Constitution...
Bailey Guns
08-14-2010, 20:05
As much as I despise to say it, he is right. Our important piece of paper says the government will make no law favoring or obstructing any one religion.
So government saying they cannot build a mosque on that site would be going against our Constitution...
So now, coincidentally, Obama's all about the Constitution? How convenient.
Scanker19
08-14-2010, 21:43
oh believe me, i'm all for them building it, because of the constitution. I'm even for funeral protesters, and flag burners, because of the constitution.
However comma
There is a place for everything and common sense ,however uncommon it is,needs to be applied to all of the above.
Chris Rock once said, "you can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that don't make it a good fucking idea"
Pistol Packing Preacher
08-15-2010, 07:19
So now, coincidentally, Obama's all about the Constitution? How convenient.
+1
I don't see the big deal, so our Muslim president want's to make sure his people get to build their temple where ever they wish. Perhaps he'll supply them with tunnel access to the buildings that he would like to see taken down too.
Bailey Guns
08-15-2010, 08:10
My how things change when the heat gets turned up a little bit.
Obama's original statement:
"Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
New poll results (not to mention all the flak he's taking) show Americans think he's a dumbass:
From FoxNews: While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.
Now he's saying:
Obama: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said in response to a reporter's question after he spoke about efforts to aid the Gulf Coast region. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."
White House Spokesman: "Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque."
This guy is a KING-SIZED dumbass and totally inept at relating to the majority of Americans. I can't imagine what a pain in the ass it must be for his staff to keep up with him.
I can't imagine what a pain in the ass it must be for his staff to keep up with him.
It's the way democrats work, take a stand without knowing much about it then change your view as poll numbers show you are losing ground because of it - then blame Bush for the whole episode. It's just another day in the life, I doubt they are phased at all!
It's Ramadon right now. We could end this whole rag-head problem quickly. One large, well placed air strike on Mecca. End of story...
GreenScoutII
08-15-2010, 10:06
Is it just me, or does anybody else think building a mosque there is just in extremely poor taste?
I understand they have the right, but what a slap in the face. If there really is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, one would think building that mosque in that place will not help their cause. If anything it will just cause them more problems in terms of being accepted as anything other than terrorists.
As others mentioned, I hope someone else exercises his rights and opens a BBQ joint right next door. In fact, I hope everyone in that neighborhood does whatever is in their power to make them uncomfortable. No violence of course, but I hope every Christian church sends missionaries to hang out around the front entrance trolling for converts, I hope the Jewish community builds a Synagogue across the street, I hope a dog park opens in close proximity, etc.
The way I see it, building this mosque in that location is akin to the KKK marching in front of the late Dr. Martin Luther King's home. Sure they have the right under the Constitution, but what a bunch of assholes.
Troublco
08-15-2010, 10:26
I'd open Pork BBQ (think smoke and smell) next door whichever upwind, and Dog rescue on the other side. What else? Strip club ?[ROFL1]
I vote for a Famous Dave's. I'm torn between the dog rescue and the strip club. I think the dog rescue would be better because it would be easier to get approved. But what do you want to bet that suddenly the NYC Building commission would shoot them both down as being "insensitive"?
But what about a billboard within sight of their mosque advertising for a strip joint?[Coffee]
My how things change when the heat gets turned up a little bit.
Obama's original statement:
"Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."New poll results (not to mention all the flak he's taking) show Americans think he's a dumbass:
From FoxNews: While his pronouncement concerning the mosque might find favor in the Muslim world, Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved. A number of Democratic politicians have shied away from the controversy.Now he's saying:
Obama: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said in response to a reporter's question after he spoke about efforts to aid the Gulf Coast region. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."
White House Spokesman: "Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque."This guy is a KING-SIZED dumbass and totally inept at relating to the majority of Americans. I can't imagine what a pain in the ass it must be for his staff to keep up with him.
Well, when the majority of Americans can't tell the difference between what's a right and what's wise, it is hard to relate to them. He said two different things there. They absolutely have the right to build their community center two blocks closer to Ground Zero than the oversubscribed mosque that's been there for decades. Is it wise? Of course not.
Terrorist should have no rights. Muslims are a threat to this country and because of that they are terrorists. Our president is a RETARD.
Hitman 6
08-15-2010, 13:15
Terrorist should have no rights. Muslims are a threat to this country and because of that they are terrorists. Our president is a RETARD.
What are you talking about, Islam is such a peaceful religion.....[Tooth]
Byte Stryke
08-15-2010, 16:12
When was the lat time you heard of a Pagan Suicide Bomber?
or a Buddhist terror plot
How about a Hindi extremist?
Here ya go... Atheistic holy war!
:D
I Say let the Christians and Muslims kill each other and we will pick up whats left :)
Funny thing is trying to explain to a Muslim that you are neither Muslim nor are you Christian. Most Muslims are taught One or the other... there is no third, fourth or fifth choice. I actually had an Imam ask me about all of that. He was a Younger guy for Imam, so I sort of understood.
I can't express my feelings toward this insane amount of bullshit.
Now would be the time to find an endangered species on that property....
Bailey Guns
08-16-2010, 09:54
Now would be the time to find an endangered species on that property....
Like an...American?
Like an...American?
That would be a white, straight, conservative American male :).
Well, when the majority of Americans can't tell the difference between what's a right and what's wise, it is hard to relate to them. He said two different things there. They absolutely have the right to build their community center two blocks closer to Ground Zero than the oversubscribed mosque that's been there for decades. Is it wise? Of course not.
Jake continues his streak of pointing out the obvious.
H.
Bailey Guns
08-16-2010, 10:45
I wish I could've put it in these words. But this is why it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed. As a matter of fact, we (generic) shouldn't even be having this debate:
by Charles Krauthammer:
"A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz). When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated. ... Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the [near-Ground Zero] mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists? An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed. ... America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all. These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero. Build it anywhere but there."
Well, when the majority of Americans can't tell the difference between what's a right and what's wise, it is hard to relate to them.
In a sense, I'll have to agree with you...which is rare (but that's OK). After all, the majority did elect Obama. And I curse them every day.
Bailey Guns
08-16-2010, 10:46
That would be a white, straight, conservative American male :).
Or even female in this day and age.
I wish I could've put it in these words. But this is why it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed. As a matter of fact, we (generic) shouldn't even be having this debate:
by Charles Krauthammer:
"A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz). When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated. ... Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the [near-Ground Zero] mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists? An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed. ... America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all. These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero. Build it anywhere but there."
In a sense, I'll have to agree with you...which is rare (but that's OK). After all, the majority did elect Obama. And I curse them every day.
No. This isn't about building a mosque on ground zero. It's in the neighborhood. There are other mosques in the neighborhood. There are strip joints and lingere stores in that neighborhood too. Those wouldn't be built on Gettysburg either. Steps were taking to prevent the mosque from being built, such as trying to classify the building as historic. I don't know what Zoning regulations would prevent a house of worship from being built.
Krauthammers argument is that some zoning law should be enacted to prevent ... what, exactly? A mosque from being built in a neighborhood? Would it be worded as such, to single out an entire religion, or would we ban all churches/synagogues/mosques/etc from that area?
Saying that all Muslims are the same as terrorists is the same as saying all Christians are members of Westboro Baptist. Stop making broad generalizations, they are not accurate and counter productive to a peaceful world.
If you want to be pissed off about something, how about the fact that almost 10 years later, ground zero is still a pile of dirt.
H.
Quote:
1. Because Islam treats Muhammad as the "perfect man" and makes it normative for every muslim to emulate and copy Muhammad in every regard, this means that now forcible conversion by placing a sword at the neck becomes part of Islamic law! This is now cast in stone, and becomes an act of great piety for every muslim, because he is, after all, following his beloved Prophet!
2. Muhammad - a man whom every Meccan knew since childhood, in 10 years of preaching in Mecca, could get only about 100 followers. After 10 years of trying and failing to convince people of his claims to Prophethood, he left for Medina, and returned later to Mecca with the sword in hand. Once he offered the "convert or die" choice to the pagans of Mecca, his ranks quickly swelled to almost 35,000 followers by the time he died a few years later. This is the way Islam spread. Not by peace, but ENTIRELY by the sword. The numbers tell the whole story. His first 10 years of peaceful preaching got Muhammad 100 followers. His last 2 years of using the sword brought him 35,000. Islam had discovered the magic formula for fast expansion - put the sword on the neck and say "Convert or die!"
All muslims are taught to hate us. They are terrorists. Nobody will convince me different. One practice of the Muslim religion is Jihad. How are they not terrorists? So let's let them practice NEAR ground zero? Call me ignorant i guess, but we cant let that happen.
Bailey Guns
08-16-2010, 11:47
"Who is to say that the [near-Ground Zero] mosque..."
"...perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed."
No. This isn't about building a mosque on ground zero. It's in the neighborhood. There are other mosques in the neighborhood. There are strip joints and lingere stores in that neighborhood too. Those wouldn't be built on Gettysburg either. Steps were taking to prevent the mosque from being built, such as trying to classify the building as historic. I don't know what Zoning regulations would prevent a house of worship from being built.
Krauthammers argument is that some zoning law should be enacted to prevent ... what, exactly? A mosque from being built in a neighborhood? Would it be worded as such, to single out an entire religion, or would we ban all churches/synagogues/mosques/etc from that area?
Saying that all Muslims are the same as terrorists is the same as saying all Christians are members of Westboro Baptist. Stop making broad generalizations, they are not accurate and counter productive to a peaceful world.
If you want to be pissed off about something, how about the fact that almost 10 years later, ground zero is still a pile of dirt.
H.
Comprehend what you read much?
I think it's obvious you didn't read - or didn't read well, or didn't understand, or chose not to agree - with Krauthammer simply to be argumentative.
Krauthammer clearly stated the mosque would be "near ground zero". I think everyone knows, Captain Obvious, they aren't going to build the mosque right on top of the spot where the former WTC towers stood.
Furthermore, Krauthammer was clear in his description of the perpetrators of the attacks as belonging to "a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed." Now, that may be a broad generalization to you, but I don't share your left-of-center and politically correct sensibilities, so it's pretty clear to me he's writing of the extremists within the religion.
And as far as what is or isn't at "ground zero", I'd rather it remain the way it is. A "pile of dirt" as you put it. I'd describe it as exactly the opposite...a whole in the ground. I, too, believe it's a sacred location.
And by the way. I don't give a rats ass about what you consider "counter productive to a peaceful world". Especially in the sense that it might offend someone of the Muslim faith. Or you. If they all were to disappear tomorrow, I doubt I'd shed too many tears.
So, with all due respect, how about you let me decide what makes me angry?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100815/pl_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacks_20100815184754
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100815/pl_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacks_20100815184754
Someone should tell the Republican Party that the Michelle Duggar can't have enough kids to keep up with all the Muslim- and Hispanic-Americans they're going to piss off with their rhetoric :D
Bailey Guns
08-16-2010, 12:23
The republicans need to worry more about pissing off non-hyphenated Americans.
theGinsue
08-16-2010, 12:30
Saying that all Muslims are the same as terrorists is the same as saying all Christians are members of Westboro Baptist. Stop making broad generalizations, they are not accurate and counterproductive to a peaceful world.
Within reason I agree with your first comment, but regarding the statement of making “broad generalizations”, I think such action is valid in this case.
My comments below aren’t directed to any one person but to all who aren’t sickened by the project to build this mosque at this location.
Those Muslims who are pursuing the building of a mosque @/on/near Ground Zero say that they don’t want to be painted with the same brush as those extremist Muslims who perpetrated the attacked on the twin towers of the WTC (and the Pentagon, and…). They are quick to proclaim for all to hear just how “moderate” they are. They and their supporters claim racism and intolerance, specifically religious intolerance. True intolerance is the primary jurisdiction of Muslim Sharia Law. If they won’t practice true tolerance, why should I be expected to?
Those who are so vehemently pushing this project forward are clearly indifferent to our sensitivities regarding the use of this site. This is hardly the attitude one would expect of “moderates” who only seek peace and understanding. Nay, this attitude and these actions seems more accurately aligned with a more extreme agenda. If they want understanding, perhaps it should start with them. By pursuing the construction of a mosque on this site with 70% of the polled American public adamantly opposed to it they are clearly making a statement. I don’t think that the statement could be any clearer if I could feel their spit on my face while they uttered the words. You may fail to see this, but many of us do not.
You speak of a “peaceful world”. Such a thing hasn’t existed in my lifetime and I, for one, won’t accept peace at the cost of sacrificing MY beliefs to accommodate those of someone else. You may ask about compromise. It’s interesting that those who scream loudest for “compromise” are the ones who compromise the least. Building a mosque on this site will only bring long term conflict, not peace.
Others have said this before, but I feel it bears repeating: Certainly, in this nation, they have the RIGHT to build on this site, but that doesn’t make it the RIGHT thing to do.
If you want to be pissed off about something, how about the fact that almost 10 years later, ground zero is still a pile of dirt. H.
Personally, I'd prefer it if the site remained a crater in the Manhatten landscape as an eternal reminder of the effects of terrrorism on our soil.
all who aren’t sickened by the project to build this mosque at this location
There's a difference between being sickened by something, and defending their right to say unpopular things. Voltaire said it best, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."
True intolerance is the primary jurisdiction of Muslim Sharia Law. If they won’t practice true tolerance, why should I be expected to?
They cannot enforce Sharia law on unwilling people in the United States. You are expected to follow US law, beyond that you are free to do as you choose. It's a wonderful concept.
Those who are so vehemently pushing this project forward are clearly indifferent to our sensitivities regarding the use of this site. This is hardly the attitude one would expect of “moderates” who only seek peace and understanding. Nay, this attitude and these actions seems more accurately aligned with a more extreme agenda. If they want understanding, perhaps it should start with them. By pursuing the construction of a mosque on this site with 70% of the polled American public adamantly opposed to it they are clearly making a statement. I don’t think that the statement could be any clearer if I could feel their spit on my face while they uttered the words. You may fail to see this, but many of us do not.
You can't regulate or legislate sensitivities, thank god. If you could, then we could all be offended by Sharia law, and it'd be banned, win. Except someone else would be offended by the Catholics and their touching kids, so lets ban them. And those silly gays, always trying to get rights. Banned! You see how this works pretty quickly there aren't many freedoms left.
I don't like it, but this is America and they have the right to purchase the land and build what they wish, as long as it complies with the law.
You speak of a “peaceful world”. Such a thing hasn’t existed in my lifetime and I, for one, won’t accept peace at the cost of sacrificing MY beliefs to accommodate those of someone else. You may ask about compromise.
Your beliefs, my beliefs, anyones beliefs are not sacrosanct. A hardline Wahabi may believe that Sharia law is valid; but that doesn't mean they will be accomodated. A skinhead might believe that interracial couples are horrible, but he won't get to impose his belief on others. We rule by law, not belief.
Others have said this before, but I feel it bears repeating: Certainly, in this nation, they have the RIGHT to build on this site, but that doesn’t make it the RIGHT thing to do.
Exactly correct.
Personally, I'd prefer it if the site remained a crater in the Manhatten landscape as an eternal reminder of the effects of terrrorism on our soil.
Hell no! We should have built two more towers each taller than the last. And put f'n Phalanx cannons on them.
H.
theGinsue
08-16-2010, 16:43
There's a difference between being sickened by something, and defending their right to say unpopular things. Voltaire said it best, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."
Agreed, but I will continue to exercise my right to verbally slap anyone who supports this obvious affrront to the American people.
I have NEVER contested an individuals right to say something; nor have a claimed that these "moderate" Muslims have a right to build what they want within the law on this site in Manhatten - once again, having a right, and doing right are not one in the same thing.
If you think I'm saying anything against their RIGHTS, then you didn't actually read what I wrote.
They cannot enforce Sharia law on unwilling people in the United States. You are expected to follow US law, beyond that you are free to do as you choose. It's a wonderful concept.
That may be true today, but for how long. Within small communities and within certain places of employment they are already pushing to change that very situation. It's even happening right her in CO. Will they be successful in th short term, no. But eventually they have a chance of succeeding, at least to some degree. We won't be the first nation to see it occur either. Once they become a majority (very long term), they can change the rules to anything they want. Think a Muslim majority is far fetched? Look at the demographics for Isreal over the last 20 years and what it's projected to look like within the next 10 years. Much like the concept of Socialist take-overs, you can win a war without ever having to fire a shot.
You can't regulate or legislate sensitivities, thank god. If you could, then we could all be offended by Sharia law, and it'd be banned, win. Except someone else would be offended by the Catholics and their touching kids, so lets ban them. And those silly gays, always trying to get rights. Banned! You see how this works pretty quickly there aren't many freedoms left.
Again, you assume I'm seeking LEGISLATION or legal REGULATION. I have advocated neither. Barring their willingness to show compassion and decency, I strongly advocate the use of public pressure - WITHIN THE LAW - to make their choice painfully uncomfortable. Such public pressure has been used many times within our own nation with great success. Perhaps we wouldn't be successful this time, but we can remain an ever present thorn in their side.
I don't like it, but this is America and they have the right to purchase the land and build what they wish, as long as it complies with the law.
Again, you are confusing rights versus right. We may rule by law now, but that may not always be the case. We wouldn't be the first nation to come under Muslim control/law, just the largest. While we teach tolerence, they preach patience. Guess who's going to come out ahead in the end?
Your beliefs, my beliefs, anyones beliefs are not sacrosanct. A hardline Wahabi may believe that Sharia law is valid; but that doesn't mean they will be accomodated. A skinhead might believe that interracial couples are horrible, but he won't get to impose his belief on others. We rule by law, not belief.
Why would this be an exception. All you have to do is belong to a mainstream religious organization and have someone who disagrees with your beliefs and how you personally practice them to scream loud enough to get your right to practice your faith curtailed. It's happened to devout Christians in public schools when their silent prayer offended atheists so don't try to say it can't/won't happen.
Perhaps I need to don a tin-foil hat for the vision I have of what is to come, but I've gotta tell you, I haven't been far from the mark so far.
Bailey Guns
08-16-2010, 17:03
70% of the people in this country agree they have the right to build on the proposed sight. The same 70% agree it's not the right and proper thing to do.
And, yes, we have religious freedoms and freedoms of speech in this country. But there's no free ride. Sure, one may have the freedom to say something and/or do something, but sometimes there's a price to be paid.
The president and the people supporting this mosque on this site are paying the price in the form of outrage and protest from the aforementioned 70%. Those 70% have the same freedoms everyone else does. But that seems to have been forgotten in this discussion by some.
theGinsue
08-16-2010, 17:08
THanks Bailey - that's what I've been trying to communicate.
Agreed, but I will continue to exercise my right to verbally slap anyone who supports this obvious affrront to the American people.
More power to you
If you think I'm saying anything against their RIGHTS, then you didn't actually read what I wrote.
Then I must have misunderstood why this was an issue. I thought people were saying they should be disallowed from building there, due to it's proximity to WTC. People do stupid, insensitive, offensive stuff all day long, what's special about this? Was it just a slow news day to pick this up?
That may be true today, but for how long.
For as long as free men wish to stay that way. The goal should be to change their culture to be more enlightened. It use to a very effective policy for the U.S., countries would see our prosperity and adapt aspects of our culture to bring those advances to theirs. The culture war isn't between the West and Islam, it's between moderate and extremist Islam. And that's why events like this, and two poorly waged wars in the middle east, are harmful to our long term goals.
We also seem to have an awfully hard time pointing to our enemies on the map... Iraq is a couple hundred kilometers north of the people who really hate us.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wahhabi
H.
The president and the people supporting this mosque on this site are paying the price in the form of outrage and protest from the aforementioned 70%. Those 70% have the same freedoms everyone else does. But that seems to have been forgotten in this discussion by some.
Are you talking about this discussion we are having here, or the wider discussion? Because I haven't seen anyone in this particular thread expressing support for this project. I haven't heard the President express his support for the mosque either. Admittedly I've been working in the garage and running for the past couple of hours and this board was my first port of call after my shower so I haven't checked the news yet, but last I heard his view was still the same as he expressed on Friday.
ChunkyMonkey
08-16-2010, 18:11
I haven't heard the President express his support for the mosque either.
"I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," said Obama.
He did specify location and support it! Can he say the same if someone open a pork bbq join next to mosque? It's completely legal and anyone's right too - Just extremely offensive to the muslims. Well this mosque offends many many folks. I would have been ok if he would have simply said it is their right to build it anywhere in the country w/o putting weight on that location directly.
To me its a clear cut whether you against something or support it.
He didn't support it at all. Of course he was being specific about the location, it's already set and is the whole issue.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see one word of support for what they're doing in that quote, merely his support of their right to do it.
To MB888, obviously. I wouldn't agree with Stuart on anything, even on disagreeing :D
It really does come down to 'right' and 'Right'. Of course they have the 'Right' to build it, but that doesn't make it the 'right' thing to do. I have the Right to burn a flag but it's not the right thing to do. Perhaps that sums up my feelings about his mosque, I have similar feelings about IT as I do flag burning - on one hand I completely support the fact that as Americans we have the Right to do this, but on the other I abhor anyone who does.
Sometimes I have to kick myself in the head (yea, try THAT one you zombie killing ninja's) and suck it up because this is a free country and even though I don't like something I accept it. I accept Obama because the process defined by the country I love is what got him elected - it doesn't mean I like him or agree with him, but like it or lump it he is the President.
I don't think he should stick his nose in this issue, it's a state issue and one that he has muddied his already tarnished image over. Perhaps for that I'm very glad that it's another big load of crap on this worthless post turtle, but this is up to the state of New York and the city of Manhattan. We can argue that it's up to the citizens of the US because it has to do with something so close to all of us, but in reality it's their call.
Personally, if I were wanting to build something NEAR (it's not ON the site, mind you) such hollowed ground and 70% of the city didn't approve and 70% of America didn't approve, it would be wise of me to change my plans. I suspect that there will be ongoing vandalism at this mosque if they move forward.
retracted, not in the mood to argue this one
Bailey Guns
08-16-2010, 18:31
Are you talking about this discussion we are having here, or the wider discussion?
The wider (national level) discussion.
So what is everyone's minimum distance away a mosque can be built when you don't get all pissy? Five bolcks? a mile? nowhere?
That's a very fair question and made me think! The answer is: "I do not know sir but I will find out, hooah".
I think that this question is broadly interpreted differently by everyone. I believe that a couple of square blocks is fair because in that area there was carnage, death and destruction. Perhaps the outer limits would be anywhere where a building was impacted by debris of the fall (i.e., broken glass, buried in ash, whatever).
I was at the site about a week after the incident and saw damage blocks away. I've been there many times since and the businesses that have the most heartfelt memorials tend to all be within a few blocks.
That is MY LIMIT, nobody else's, so don't chastise me for my opinion :).
Bailey Guns
08-17-2010, 07:00
I read an interesting perspective on this HERE (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/what_if_it_were_the_klan_mr_ma.html).
What if it were the White Christian Church wanting to build their worship center? Would the "they have a right to build it crowd" still stick to that view?
Somehow I don't see Obama and Bloomberg and all the others crying out for tolerance and diversity of viewpoints and religious freedom.
I doubt it'd even make the news.
Bailey Guns
08-17-2010, 08:24
I doubt it'd even make the news.
Seriously? You don't think the religious arm of the KKK announcing plans to build a worship center in Manhattan (on the scale of the proposed mosque) would make the news?
Oh, I didn't realize that "White Christian Church" was something specific. I feel like Obama would say the same thing.
Does anyone know anything about this proposed mosque, other than that it is a mosque? It doesn't seem fair to compare it to Christian Fundamentalists, unless we know something specific about the owners that points in that direction.
I heard an interview on Hannity with the guy in charge of it, he's a terrorism denier and says that HAMAS is NOT a terror organization and never has done anything of the like. So, if that tells you anything about who the "owner" is....
I don't know anything about the church. That interview sounds interesting and disheartening.
Here's an interesting read, it's a summary of what's being printed about this issue in prominent muslim countries.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/08/arab_reactions_cordoba_mosque?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/whatthearabpaperssay
H.
big bomb.. placed in the middle of Mecca. No more problems for a long time.
If your definition of 'a long time' is about twenty minutes.
rockhound
08-24-2010, 16:22
i like the pig idea,
we wouldn't have to sacrifice a live pig on the site or anything, but we could pull in with truck load of bacon.
anyone have a friend in new york? i would donate money to have someone in the area throw 1000lbs of pork on the site.
Can't believe people are still talking about this.
Watch these two videos, and tell me if you still think we should drop pig carcasses on them:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fareed-zakaria-ground-zero-mosques-version-of-islam-is-osama-bin-ladens-nightmare/
http://current.com/news/92627222_ron-paul-on-ground-zero-mosque-demagogy.htm
Just had to google for these videos since I didn't bookmark them when I saw them originally. The reason I posted the poll about where people get their news, is that I am so tired of shit like this story being "news" while things like the massive floods in Pakistan, which have affected millions, gets little to no play on US networks.
H.
ChunkyMonkey
08-24-2010, 17:26
If it is such a non event, why not back off already? Build it somewhere else! Why do they fight so hard to build it there the first place?
Don't worry we are going to save Pakistan so we can bomb them next.
If your definition of 'a long time' is about twenty minutes.
Wish we could find out. The catholics did a pretty good number on them, just didnt finish the job. I'm sure the good ol USA could pull the slack.
Bailey Guns
08-24-2010, 19:03
Ron Paul is full of shit on this issue. He also sounds like more of a "truther" apologist than a US Representative to me. And Current TV? Two words. Al Gore.
Ron Paul, on Current TV blaming the outrage over the mosque on "neo-cons"? That's all I need to know in order to form my above opinion.
This is the kind of bullshit that keeps RP out of the white house. How can you take the guy seriously?
The other article, in my opinion, is a clever way to have people rationalize why having the mosque there would be a clever idea. "Osama bin Laden's" nightmare? I doubt that. More like OBL's wet dream.
I think that Fareed brought up a good point in the fact that just because you are a victim, doesn't mean you get to be racist. He lost credibility with me when he licked Bloomberg's sac though.
I'm still in the middle of the first video though, and don't really have a comment at this time.
Ron Paul is full of shit on this issue. He also sounds like more of a "truther" apologist than a US Representative to me. And Current TV? Two words. Al Gore.
Ron Paul, on Current TV blaming the outrage over the mosque on "neo-cons"? That's all I need to know in order to form my above opinion.
This is hilarious. Like I said, I google searched the videos and linked the first ones I found that had it. The video on current is embded from Youtube, but as is obvious from the video, it was Ron Paul speaking with Fox News. So all you needed to know was wrong.
H.
Bailey Guns
08-24-2010, 21:38
It doesn't matter where he says it. Fox or Current. It's still bullshit. What part of 70% doesn't he understand?
What I can't understand is the fuk'n idiots that say "This is America we are becoming nazi's they can build it cause this is America, their not all terrorists",, blah blah.
FUCK OFF AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICA.
What I can't understand is the fuk'n idiots that say "This is America we are becoming nazi's they can build it cause this is America, their not all terrorists",, blah blah.
FUCK OFF AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICA.
Not only do you get your news from The Onion, I do believe you're in it!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.