SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does) (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=173688)

Sailor Steve 08-16-10 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 1468946)
This is not about the constitution.This is about stopping a mosque which will be led by a radical Imam from being built close to Ground Zero.

No, this is about you being willing to throw out what America stands for because someone's religion offends you. You can't accuse Liberals of ignoring the Constitution and then whine when they uphold it.

Quote:

This is about stopping a gigantic "**** YOU" from being built near "Ground Zero" Liberals so obessessed with "tolerance" of an intolerant religion are just ignorant of what this mosque actually is.Pretty much what is going on here.
1. You need to read the rules of the forum concerning swearing and 'fake swearing'.

2. I agree about the "tolerance" problem. Problem is, the law is the law, and unless it applies equally to everyone we are no longer Americans. You can't destroy the village in order to save it.

Quote:

Muslims know they can't win be traditional methods, they are using our "tolerance" against us and it is just disgusting.
I agree, but you want to become them, and that's even worse.

Quote:

I promise you our founding fathers would have found this unacceptable.Funny Obama pushes an unconstitutional health care law yet invokes the constitution in the video.Scum, nothing more.:damn:
And yet again you pretend to know what the Founders would think. Can you supply anything they wrote that would back up your claim?

And yet again you use the term "scum" to describe someone who believes differently than you. I asked you before to give actual evidence as opposed to childish diatribe, and you haven't yet. You seem to be the one who would destroy what America stands for in order to save it. That doesn't work.

Skybird 08-16-10 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1469042)
A sign of victory for the terrorists is that we we are so fearful of Islam that we are afraid to allow a Islamic Community center to be built because we think it will encourage terrorists.

Always needing to give it a twist, hm?

I have not said that myself nor do I remember right now anybody here did say something like that. I for myself mentioned cltural claims made by an ideology, and i mentioned the historically established, culturally embedded symbolic message and meaning of certain buildings, like mosques, but I also mentioned the claim for power and control, superiority and dominance that estabolishing high towers in the history of both the occident and the orient symbolises.

I also mentioned the fundamantalistic background of the organisation financing the mosque building, I hinted at it's ultra-radical agenda, and that it is massive assalt on the feelings of all those who have lost friends and family members there.

And you just summarise all this as a vague - may I say you even seem to imply: irrational - fear of Islamic terrorism?

I'Ve said that before, and I say thatb again: Islamic terrorism in the West, as long as it does not go nuclear or biological, is the last thing I am afraid of in context with Islam. Not becasue it does not exist, it exists for sure and is solidly founded in Muhammad's orders to his followers. But becasue we can adapt to that. We can learn tom live with it. It cannot really destroy us.

What can destroy us as a functioning culture, are demographics, cultural erosion, self-denial of our identity and self-censorship of our historically acchieved values that define what we understand as "freedom", "justice" and and "human rights".

In one thing you are right, though. If there is a table with players around, and just one guy decides to not follow the rules of the game being played, he caqn spoil the round for all others the very moment he does not stick to the rules anymore. I see only two solutions: to give up the game and now play what he wants to play, or to kick him out, if needed by force.

I'm for the latter. For three reasons: I like our game muuuuch better, and I do not like getting bullied and giving ground to a bully, and I even do not like his game and rules for themselves. Not one damn bit.

Sailor Steve 08-16-10 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1468977)
No where in the Constitution does it allow anyone to build/improve anything anywhere. Your assertion that it does either demontrates gross ignorance or gross misrepresentation.

Tenth Amendment. State and local laws are guaranteed precedence and protection against interference by the Federal Government. Hate them or not, these people have exactly the same right to build where they want that you or I do, as long as they don't break any law.

Quote:

Perhaps is it that your politics are based upon nothing more than Bush-hating?)
Are your politics based upon nothing more than Obama-hating?

Sailor Steve 08-16-10 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1468987)
Why the hairsplitting over who said what when where.

Because the original post is about exactly that, and nothing more.

Quote:

It is clear, if the original adress by Obama was listened to, that Obama supported by his general statement the idea of a mosque beeing build on the graves of those who got killed in the name of right that ideology that any mosques represents and stands for (it is not like just any other buildng, it has a symbolic function that better should not be ignored).
So we should ignore what makes us "us" in the first place? Throw out the baby with the bathwater? Once again, I see you as being no different from them.

Quote:

It is also clear that here good will of some people who think they can appease said ideology, or who think it is different than what it claims to be in its teachings, collides with the desire of the many (a majoirty) and that the constitutional claim that religion should be protected no matter what collides head-on with an ideology that pushes politics and cultural influence under the label of "free relgion" (becasue the state order of the US bases on the separation of relgion and poltics, while Islam refuses such a separation).
In our country the law is designed to protect the minority from abuses by the majority. You seem to be saying that we should remove our protections because they don't have the same values? We punish criminals for what they do, not what they claim to believe. You seem to think otherwise.

Quote:

I have repeatedly pointed out that the names and the organisations behind financing and pushing this mosque project are extremely hotile to the West, that they are what the West calls radical fundamentalists who indeed think in terms of dawa and djihad as an external effort of conquest, and that these people build the mosque itnentionall at that place becasue they do intend indeed to raise this controversy and make the public once again falling back ihn the face of being challenged. not a singole guy here so far thought he mist adress this nature of these people, instead oyu all chose to ignore it completely, that way makoijng your ignorrance of the jihad nature of this project your declared reality you want to dela with, while leaving out what puts your thinking in doubt.
And I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out that things like Jihad need to be opposed, but unless the words are put into action then they are still protected speech. Just because you don't like what someone might do is not sufficient cause to change the laws. You want to stop people from destroying us by destroying what we are yourself. That makes you just as bad as they are.

Quote:

Freedom that accepts freedom to the other to destroy freedom, is stupidity.
And stopping them by destroying freedom yourself is better how, exactly?

Quote:

that building the mosque on the graves of the victims of 9/11 is pure mockery, has been said before.
Yes it is. But feelings and opinions do not supercede the law. Change the law if you like, but you will need to show how this can be justified. Otherwise it is indeed a Constitutional issue.

Quote:

In the past two weeks, I read in random news reports always the same number: that roughly two thirds of Americans are against this mosque, and that not even one fifth is for it. Such numbers I randomly read both in German and British papers, over the past two weeks.
Totally irrelevant. The law applies equally to everyone. That you don't like it is why it's there in the first place.

In my country hate speech is protected - even yours.

Safe-Keeper 08-16-10 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee (Post 1468921)
Let's test his love for the Constitution:hmmm:

Oh, please, no more of that. Had enough from 2000-2008:nope:.

Quote:

Time to build a large synagouge, and large Christian Church (pick your denomination) all next to each other. We can celabrate all faiths.
You do realize churches and synagogoes (not to mention chuches and mosques) are built next to each others all the time without incident, right? Why and how? Because they're better people than you.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archive...e%20Beirut.jpg
Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1468878)
So lemme see if I understand this.

The "big government should stay out of small businesses" people are now wanting the government to butt into a small business?

Yes, the "Big Government is ruining America" people are seriously saying that the Muslims shouldn't be allowed to set up a business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 1468946)
This is not about the constitution.

Funny, that's what you guys said during the torture debacle, too, and still say during the gay debate. Let's uphold America's Constitution, except when the pesky thing doesn't say what we want it to say, then it's "not about the Constitution". How very convenient.

Quote:

This is about stopping a mosque which will be led by a radical Imam from being built close to Ground Zero.This is about stopping a gigantic "**** YOU" from being built near "Ground Zero" Liberals so obessessed with "tolerance" of an intolerant religion are just ignorant of what this mosque actually is.Pretty much what is going on here.Muslims know they can't win be traditional methods, they are using our "tolerance" against us and it is just disgusting.I promise you our founding fathers would have found this unacceptable.Funny Obama pushes an unconstitutional health care law yet invokes the constitution in the video.Scum, nothing more.:damn:
Here's a punching bag and a pair of boxing gloves. That's probably a better way to vent your anger.

Seriously, though, I don't see the problem with Muslims building a community centre to advance moderate Islam near a site where fundamentalist Islamists killed 3000 people. I honestly don't see how it's different from, say, the US military erecting a memorial near ground zero on Hiroshima.

Quote:

Again I'm not shocked given Obama's muslim heritage.No I do not believe he is a practicing muslim but his backround certainly skews his view of whats right for the US.Of course he thinks there is something wrong with America anyway(other than the massive debt he continues to run up).
First you say Islam is a violent religion opposed to freedom, then you turn around 180 degrees and state it's Obama's Islamic heritage that's causing him to defend these peoples' freedom of religion? Moo?

No, I don't.

SteamWake 08-16-10 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper (Post 1469114)
You do realize churches and synagogoes (not to mention chuches and
mosques) are built next to each others all the time without incident, right? Why and how? Because they're better people than you.

How many of those churches had an extreme faction kill thousands of pepole (in the name of their religion) then erect a 'victorty flag' just so pepole wont forget their triumph.

Bilge_Rat 08-16-10 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 1468946)

Say what you want about GW Bush but he loved America and would not support this crap as President.

Quote:


President's Greeting for Ramadan - November 5, 2002



I send greetings to Muslims in the United States and around the world as you observe the holy month of Ramadan.

Islam is a peace-loving faith that is practiced by more than one billion people, including millions of American Muslims. These proud citizens contribute to the diversity that makes our country strong, and the United States is grateful for the friendship and support of many Muslim Nations that are vital partners in the global coalition to fight against terrorism.

The Qur'an teaches that Ramadan is a time for fasting, prayer, worship, and contemplation. Muslims observe this month by renewing their dedication to caring for those in need, doing good deeds, and strengthening family and community ties. These actions reflect many of the values that Muslims share with people of other faiths across our Nation and around the world, including courage, compassion, and service.

America remains committed to freedom, justice, and opportunity for all people. During this season of reverence and examination, we continue to work together for a future of peace, tolerance, and understanding.

Laura joins me in sending our best wishes for a blessed time. May you be well during Ramadan and throughout the coming year.


GEORGE W. BUSH



...whatever...:03:

Skybird 08-16-10 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1469110)
Because the original post is about exactly that, and nothing more.


So we should ignore what makes us "us" in the first place? Throw out the baby with the bathwater? Once again, I see you as being no different from them.


In our country the law is designed to protect the minority from abuses by the majority. You seem to be saying that we should remove our protections because they don't have the same values? We punish criminals for what they do, not what they claim to believe. You seem to think otherwise.


And I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out that things like Jihad need to be opposed, but unless the words are put into action then they are still protected speech. Just because you don't like what someone might do is not sufficient cause to change the laws. You want to stop people from destroying us by destroying what we are yourself. That makes you just as bad as they are.


And stopping them by destroying freedom yourself is better how, exactly?


Yes it is. But feelings and opinions do not supercede the law. Change the law if you like, but you will need to show how this can be justified. Otherwise it is indeed a Constitutional issue.


Totally irrelevant. The law applies equally to everyone. That you don't like it is why it's there in the first place.

In my country hate speech is protected - even yours.

I refer to our recent collision over the question of whether or not freedom must include the freedom for the other to destroy freedom (your position), or that freedom has the right to limit the freedom given to others at that threashold criterion where freedom gets abused to destroy freedom (my posiiton).

You can turn it any way you want - you are giving shelter and protection and safe harbour to an ideology that has sworn to destroy you for what you offer it, and that uses the freedom you give it to secure power and ultimate dominance for itself, by that destroying all those precious things you want to see being defended and protected, and installing pretty muczh the antithesis to your values and freedom instead. To allow that going on, is nothing but insane and self-destructive.

SteamWake 08-16-10 09:59 AM

Hamas weighs in.

Looks like some of you have 'pleasent' comany.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...a8sNZMTDz0VVPI

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Post

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.

"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.
"In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer," he said on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC.


Tribesman 08-16-10 10:14 AM

Quote:

Looks like some of you have 'pleasent' comany.
So that means if Christian Identity opppose the mosque you are in company with murdering racist scum who seek the to destroy the United States.:hmmm:
Well done Steamwake, your palling around with terrorists blows up in your face:rotfl2:

SteamWake 08-16-10 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1469167)
So that means if Christian Identity opppose the mosque you are in company with murdering racist scum who seek the to destroy the United States.:hmmm:
Well done Steamwake, your palling around with terrorists blows up in your face:rotfl2:

I'm not following you here. Christian racist scum whom seek to destroy the US? WTF where does that come from?

antikristuseke 08-16-10 10:24 AM

A question to those who want to stop this building being built, what legal grounds do you have?

As far as I can tell you have none, hell, freedom of religion is even protected by your constitution.

Tribesman 08-16-10 10:36 AM

Quote:

I'm not following you here. Christian racist scum whom seek to destroy the US? WTF where does that come from?
Are you unfamiliar with some of the lunatic movements within the US?
Tough luck, if you support the same standpoint on an issue as some bunch of backwoods conspiracy nuts then in your own words you are keeping their pleasant company.

Unless of course you can now understand that what you wrote was pure rubbish that blew straight up in your face.

Quote:

A question to those who want to stop this building being built, what legal grounds do you have?
None, which is why there was the lame attempt to seek historic preservation on the existing building.
Which wouldn't have stopped the building being used as a mosque anyway but would have added costs for the developer.

Skybird 08-16-10 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake (Post 1469155)
Hamas weighs in.

Looks like some of you have 'pleasent' comany.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...a8sNZMTDz0VVPI

Yes. Compare to this (again, 5th time I think I link this now):

Quote:

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam behind the “Cordoba Initiative” that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11. He is also the author of a book called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.But the book hasn’t always been called that. It was called quite something else for non-English-speaking audiences. In Malaysia, it was published as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.

Now it emerges that a “special, non-commercial edition” of this book was later produced, with Feisal’s cooperation, by two American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The book’s copyright page tells the tale.

Both ISNA and IIIT have been up to their necks in the promotion of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch, which is pledged by charter to the destruction of Israel. In fact, both ISNA and IIIT were cited by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.

Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. As explained in my recent book, The Grand Jihad, dawa is proselytism, but not involving only spiritual elements — for Islam is not merely a religion, and spiritual elements are just a small part of its doctrine. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life.

This framework rejects core tenets of American constitutional republicanism: for example, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, equality of men and women, equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and economic liberty, including the uses of private property (in Islam, owners hold property only as a custodians for the umma, the universal Muslim nation, and are beholden to the Islamic state regarding its use). Sharia prohibits the preaching of creeds other than Islam, the renunciation of Islam, any actions that divide the umma, and homosexuality. Its penalties are draconian, including savagely executed death sentences for apostates, homosexuals, and adulterers.

The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia. Scholar Robert Spencer incisively refers to dawa practices as “stealth jihad,” the advancement of the sharia agenda through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists. These include extortion, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of our legal system and tradition of religious liberty, infiltration of our political system, and fundraising. This is why Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, boldly promises that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through dawa.

In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred to him in 2001 as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” And indeed he is: a prominent, Qatar-based scholar whose weekly Al Jazeera program on the subject of sharia is viewed by millions and whose cyber-venture, Islam Online, is accessed by millions more, including Muslims in the United States. Not surprisingly, his rabble-rousing was a prime cause of the deadly global rioting by Muslims when an obscure Danish newspaper published cartoon depictions of Mohammed.

Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” In 2004, he issued a fatwa (an edict based on sharia) calling for Muslims to kill Americans in Iraq. A leading champion of Hamas, he has issued similar approvals of suicide bombings in Israel. Moreover, as recounted in Matthew Levitt’s history of Hamas, Qaradawi has decreed that Muslims must donate money to “support Palestinians fighting occupation. . . . If we can’t carry out acts of jihad ourselves, we at least should support and prop up the mujahideen [i.e., Islamic raiders or warriors] financially and morally.”

Qaradawi’s support for Hamas is only natural. Since that organization’s 1987 founding, it has been the top Muslim Brotherhood priority to underwrite Hamas’s jihadist onslaught against the Jewish state. Toward that end, the Muslim Brotherhood mobilized the Islamist infrastructure in the United States.

The original building block of that infrastructure was the Muslim Students Association (MSA), established in the early Sixties to groom young Muslims in the Brotherhood’s ideology — promoting sharia, Islamic supremacism, and a worldwide caliphate. As Andrew Bostom elaborated in a New York Post op-ed on Friday, Imam Rauf, too, is steeped in this ideology.

In 1981, after two decades of churning out activists from its North American chapters (which now number over 600), the Brotherhood merged the MSA into ISNA. In its own words, ISNA was conceived as an umbrella organization “to advance the cause of Islam and service Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.” That same year, the Brotherhood created IIIT as a Washington-area Islamic think tank dedicated to what it describes as “the Islamicization of knowledge.”

After Hamas was created, the top Brotherhood operative in the United States, Mousa Abu Marzook — who actually ran Hamas from his Virginia home for several years in the early Nineties — founded the Islamic Association for Palestine to boost Hamas’s support. One of his co-founders was Sami al-Arian, then a student and Muslim Brotherhood member, later a top U.S. operative of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which he helped guide from his perch as a professor at the University of South Florida. In 2006, al-Arian was convicted on terrorism charges.

Marzook and other Brotherhood figures established the Occupied Land Fund, eventually renamed the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), to be Hamas’s American fundraising arm. The HLF was headquartered in ISNA’s Indiana office. As the Justice Department explained in a memorandum submitted in the HLF case:
During the early years of HLF’s operation, HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA. . . . Indeed, HLF (under its former name, OLF) operated from within ISNA, in Plainfield, Illinois. . . . ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/[North American Islamic Trust] account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahideen,” the original name for the Hamas military wing. . . . From the ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook . . . and a number of other individuals associated with Hamas.
Ultimately, the HLF raised over $36 million for Hamas. At the height of the intifada, this was not about the social-welfare activities Hamas touts to camouflage its barbarism. As the journalist Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism has observed, “Ordinary Americans should be shocked and outraged to learn that Hamas was running its terror campaign from a sanctuary in the U.S.” In addition, prosecutors showed that ISNA was central to a 1993 meeting of top Brotherhood operatives, who were wiretapped “discussing using ISNA as an official cover for their activities.

Meantime, in 1992, the IIIT contributed $50,000 to underwrite an al-Arian venture, the World & Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a front for Palestinian Islamic Jihad that ostensibly employed several members of the PIJ governing board. IIIT has been under federal investigation since 2002 — and after his terrorism conviction, al-Arian went into contempt of court rather than honor a grand-jury subpoena in the probe.

In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood’s American leadership prepared an internal memorandum for the organization’s global leadership in Egypt. It was written principally by Mohamed Akram, a close associate of Sheikh Qaradawi. As Akram put it, the Brotherhood
must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.


The memorandum included a list described by Akram as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” working together to implement this sabotage strategy. Prominently included in that list were ISNA and IIIT.

The Ground Zero project to erect a monument to sharia overlooking the crater where the World Trade Center once stood, and where thousands were slaughtered, is not a test of America’s commitment to religious liberty. America already has thousands of mosques and Islamic centers, including scores in the New York area though Islam does not allow non-Muslims even to enter its crown-jewel cities of Mecca and Medina, much less to build churches or synagogues.

The Ground Zero project is a test of America’s resolve to face down a civilizational jihad that aims, in the words of its leaders, to destroy us from within.
You guys are still sure you want to give this breed the freedom to unfold its activities unopposed, and errect symbols of its supremacist thinking at GZ?
Fostering a malicious evil like this is not what the founding fathers defined the term "freedom" for, I think.

antikristuseke 08-16-10 10:39 AM

Skybird, in essence, what you are saying is that every muslim in the world is bat**** insane like the fundamentalists. Do you apply the same to every religion?

Aramike 08-16-10 10:42 AM

Quote:

Tenth Amendment. State and local laws are guaranteed precedence and protection against interference by the Federal Government. Hate them or not, these people have exactly the same right to build where they want that you or I do, as long as they don't break any law.
The Tenth Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with any guaranteed right to construction whatsoever. Furthermore then Tenth Amendment isn't there to simply be applied to every single case where one "feels" there should be a freedom. Case law simply doesn't support that.

In any case, in your post you said that state and local laws carry precedence. Exactly. Thank you for agreeing specifically with my point that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.

Quote:

Are your politics based upon nothing more than Obama-hating?
Vapid comebacks out of thin air don't work with me. I responded to someone Bush-hating for no reason. Please give me an example of my "Obama-hating". (I'm actually pretty independant, so I'm really looking forward to the example of my argument based upon nothing other than me not liking Obama.)

Aramike 08-16-10 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke (Post 1469174)
A question to those who want to stop this building being built, what legal grounds do you have?

As far as I can tell you have none, hell, freedom of religion is even protected by your constitution.

What legal grounds to municipalities have to stop Walmart from building in their communities?

Answer that question and you'll figure it out.

(Hint: it's perfectly legal to withhold building permits in the interest of benefiting the peace of the public)

Tribesman 08-16-10 10:52 AM

Quote:

This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Constitution.
It does and that has been addressed, but as you are in the land of ignore you don't realise it so you are just demostrating your ignorance on the issue.:rotfl2:


Quote:

(again, 5th time I think I link this now):
Perhaps your pet hate has diminished the credibility of the links you provide and the claims you make.
Still at least it wasn't a link about blacks and muslims ruining soccer:rotfl2:

mookiemookie 08-16-10 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1469197)
What legal grounds to municipalities have to stop Walmart from building in their communities?

Hint: None.

Quote:

As for the Wal-Mart issue, Mayor Parker again emphasized that the city doesn't have jurisdiction on what a private land owner can build on the property.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=7604107

Méo 08-16-10 11:19 AM

@ Skybird

I'd like to see you having a debate with Malek Chebel http://www.africansuccess.org/visuFi...id=561&lang=en

(Unfortunately there is some language barrier here)

----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1469098)
Are your politics based upon nothing more than Obama-hating?

Jeez, I had the impression that at least half of this forum was based upon this.

----
Quote:

Muslims know they can't win be traditional methods, they are using our "tolerance" against us and it is just disgusting.
Try to replace the word ''Muslims'' with the word ''Jews'' in this ...just for the fun...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.