I wonder if she thinks before she speaks. My guess is no. What a maroon.

;)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...icials-forgot/

Yet knows its completely unrelated yet tries to link it at every oppertunity

I don't think it helps at all that the area is still being called "ground zero". Talk about raising emotions that aren't helping.
It's hard to shake the idea that it's not a smoking pile of rubble when I hear about ground zero this and ground zero that.

Think I'm somewhere in the middle here, I don't like the idea of doing it, but the US would be doing itself a disservice by using extraordinary measures to stop it. If this means you're under siege, then so be it. Pass the ration basket, Ma.

But its that element that makes the hysteria which makes it an issue.
Possibly the reason many people in Manhatten are not joining with the media fueled outrage is that they have known for months that the "ground zero mosque" isn't at ground zero.

If the atom bomb was off by three blocks when dropped on Hiroshima would it have made a difference? :hmmm:

A mosque is not a nuclear demolition device:doh:

I never said it was. It was an analogy.

It is a cultural demolition device.

Yep. Let's ignore history, and relativise the horror of the past. that way lessons must not belearned, but wishful imaginations can be taken for real. Pearl Harbour is a pearl amongst Japanese harbours, and Ground Zero is the starting line for peace and freedom coming by the new multicultural world order of Islam. :up:

In the end, terror and mass murder is just an invitation for bilateral communication. :yeah:

Isn't that what they do in Germany? :O:

Yes. In 80 years we had two totalitarian dictatorships, first the Nazis, then the Soviets. Nevertheless many are eager two embrace totalitarian tyrannies No. 3 and 4: the EU, and Islam.

There is nothing new under the sun - just things that got forgotten.

If someone was building in Yamagushi and called it Hiroshima for sensationalist effect would it be clearer to you?


And Sky wants a third, his own personal dreamland:rotfl2:
Like magic non existant legislation that really exists if you make up the words yourself.:doh:

At least you can admit to having a feeling about it rather than hiding behind some Constutionality which doesn't exist, or rhetoric implying that only a bunch of flag-waving hicks are against this construction. The courts have ruled again and again that zoning and restricting building for the public's interest is completely Constitutional.

Here's one: should NAMBLA be allowed to build a headquarters across from a boy's school? What if they were issued permits?

By the way, the fact that you think this is nothing more than a bunch of political hacks attempting to push an agenda doesn't jive. Polls have shown an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers do not want this built. Considering that the politics of New Yorkers are anything but a right wing, anti-Islam agenda, calling it political makes little sense.

This is about decency.

My friend, it boils down to this: you don't like it, and I don't like it. But we can't take the easy way out. You either believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech or you don't. It's easy to support those when they agree with your beliefs. Its hard to support them when they don't. But that's what makes us strong in our convictions - supporting our constitutional ideals even when they're at odds with our personal beliefs. Our Constitution and our nation are indeed strong enough to survive extending those freedoms to all. The founding fathers would not have ensured those freedoms if they believed it wouldn't. This is what ultimately makes us great.

And New Yorkers agree with that:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/0...titutionality/