Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

[Bubblehead1980]

Obama supports the Ground Zero Mosque, BIG SUPRISE

What scum.

[Safe-Keeper]

President of the United States supports the upholding of the Constitution of the United States, news at 10.

Oh, wait, I forgot you've had eight years of Bush.

[U777]

Bush was better than Obama I can tell you this much.



Yes we do.

[Oberon]

[krashkart]

[Takeda Shingen]

How many of those do you have, Oberon?

[Platapus]

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?

This is a private piece of property, properly zoned. A private group is intending to use their own money to build something that is legal on this private property. And some people are actually wanting the government to "do something" about this?

FYI: The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".

Jus trying to understand this position.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by U777

Bush was better than Obama I can tell you this much.



Yes we do.

That's like asking me if I miss having cancer because I now have a cold.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

President of the United States supports the upholding of the Constitution of the United States, news at 10.

Oh, wait, I forgot you've had eight years of Bush.

Seriously? There's not smilie that can make me laugh hard enough, but this is a start:



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.

Which is it?

This isn't a Constitutional issue. Those on either side don't even bother pretending it is. Why are you? (Along with throwing the Bush insult out there? Perhaps is it that your politics are based upon nothing more than Bush-hating?)

[Skybird]

Why the hairsplitting over who said what when where.

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). 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).

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.

Freedom that accepts freedom to the other to destroy freedom, is stupidity. It is suicidal, obviously. The same is true for tolerance and protecting religion. There mjst be limits, set out where these freedoms start to be abused for detsroying that community that declares these freedoms, tolerance and right of free religion.

that building the mosque on the graves of the victims of 9/11 is pure mockery, has been said before.

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.

Itis in the higher imnterest of the community that this mosque does not get build, not in that place and not near to it. Alloowing it is like pissing on graves. And Obama - he made clear in his Cairo speech where he has put his money. His weak foreign policy reflects this bet's aiming. That one cannot expect a critical perception of islam and islamic nations from Obama, should be clear by now. Many poltiicians in the West are willing to sell all and everything away just to avoid conflict and cofnrotnation with islam. They even will to sell the freedom of our children'S children, to escape the need of admitting that if freedom should be safe in the bfuture, this fight must be picked up, and the challenge of confronting islam over destroying freedom must be accepted, not evaded. And many people like Obama - already have started to run away - that way leaving their freedom behind. to me it is high treason, and betrayal of their own people ( the values of their culture that defines these precious freedoms anyway).

And I think they never deserved that freedom anyway, then. Pity is that they are damaging the future for all others as well by their treachery and cowardice. If they would only effect themselves, I would say: okay, let the idiots leave, if they are gone we are a society with less idiots than before. But since they damage our society for all of us and seal the fate of all our children and children'S children, I instead say this: stop them, at all costs, before time has run out completely.

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

Thats true if you are from planet loon.

that building the mosque on the graves of the victims of 9/11 is pure mockery

It would indeed be a mockery, but as it isn't true that is an irrelevant fabrication by hatemongers.

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

So what?

This isn't a Constitutional issue.

In the absence of any legal basis for blocking construction any other attempt to block it would be unconstitutional as it infringes on freedom of religion.
So any attempt to ban mosques from lower manhatten would fail under the constitution as it would not be deemed generally applicable unless it banned all places of worship from existing near there.

[Platapus]

Well, I can only give one data point. I can only speak for myself.

I am an American and I was horrified, angered, fearfull, (add almost any other "bad" emotion) about the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon. I was saddened at the crash in PA. Since 911, I have, in my professional capacity, supported my country in its response and security against future terrorist attacks. I knew some of the dead in the Pentagon. I have known some of the dead in the AF and IZ conflicts. I find the concept of terrorism abhorrent and will continue fighting, in my modest way, terrorism.

But I don't have any problem with a community center being built, with private funds, on private property almost three blocks from the WTC site. I do not feel insulted in any way. Building this community center will in no way diminish my love for my country nor my professional dedication to its missions. I do not consider it a sign of "victory" from the terrorists as it is not related to the terrorists.

A sign of victory for the terrorists is that we still have a big hole where the WTC is after almost 10 years. THAT'S a sign of victory.

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.

A sign of victory for the terrorists is that we are lowering ourselves to their abhorrent level and declaring hostility to an entire religion.

A sign of victory for the terrorists is that we, in this nation, have changed because of the terrorist attacks. This is what UBL wanted.

Perhaps we have already lost the war on terrorism, but we just don't realize it.

Just an old guy's opinion.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why the hairsplitting over who said what when where.

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

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.

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.

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.

Freedom that accepts freedom to the other to destroy freedom, is stupidity.

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Let's test his love for the Constitution

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

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.

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

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.

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.

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?

http://cdn.ihatethemedia.com/wp-cont...iss-me-yet.jpg

No, I don't.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.