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

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

Wow, ok then. I guess we see your limits. Perhaps you need a more reputable source before you can bother? What will be a good enough medium for you to start putting meat on your argument?

Prove your point about religion being the source of war. And then we will talk about limits. History is alwas more than the limits we place on it or the place we currently have within it. A study of the history on all levels will lead you to a different conclusion regarding war and religion. If it doesn't you haven't opened your mind.

An example is ...you only know what happened today based on what a/the media outlet you encountered. Does that mean that was all that happened today? Logic should tell you no,....more happened .

[SteamWake]

Oh my gawd I'm having a life crisis... I agree with Harry Reid

Originally Posted by AP wire

In a statement, Reid said the first amendment protects freedom of religion and he respects that, but the mosque should be built somewhere else.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...ea41AD9HKOTM04

Oh I forgot its an election year...

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Oh my gawd I'm having a life crisis... I agree with Harry Reid



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...ea41AD9HKOTM04

Oh I forgot its an election year...

Suddenly Reid is smarter than Obama?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Suddenly Reid is smarter than Obama?

No he is the same old hard core progressive, its just that his is an election year for him so...

Someone should ask Pelosi too

[Moeceefus]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

An example is ...you only know what happened today based on what a/the media outlet you encountered. Does that mean that was all that happened today? Logic should tell you no,....more happened .

So how does one know everything about everything? With this logic, wouldn't all sources be wrong or self serving? What information could be reliable? Did history even happen? Are we all living a lie? Does one need to know every single event that happened on any given day in order to claim one of those events accurate?

[Moeceefus]

I wonder how much easier a time the extremists would have recruiting if we were intolerant of Islam. I bet most extremists are upset over us allowing this.

[Ducimus]

I'm split.

On one hand:
AARRRRHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!


On the other hand:
Integrity is important and should be preserved.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'm split.

On one hand:
AARRRRHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!


On the other hand:
Integrity is important and should be preserved.

I'm right there with you. The people I trust the least, on either side, are the ones who are not split.

[Aramike]

So if you feel like taking away my freedom to go outside on Tuesdays, you can? The Tenth keeps the Feds from interfering with the powers that properly belong to the States and to the People, which is exactly what some here seem to be advocating.

Your going outside on Tuesdays is quite different from a building being erected as an inciteful landmark of sorts. One impacts only you, the other impacts many others.

Except where the Constitution guarantees equal rights and protections under the law for everyone. You would deny someone the right to build something where he wants to. Is that not about the Constitution?

Excuse me, but please show me the Amendment protecting everyone's rights to build whatever they want wherever they want...

By your definition zoning itself is a violation of the 10th, yet SCOTUS has already said it is not.

I didn't accuse you of "Obama-hating". My response was aimed directly at yours, which seemed to me equally vapid.

Except that my comment had a basis in reality (someone Bush-hating with little grasp of the actual issue). Yours made no sense.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Your going outside on Tuesdays is quite different from a building being erected as an inciteful landmark of sorts. One impacts only you, the other impacts many others.

But the question was about the Tenth Amendment and its impact on this particular freedom. The Muslims paid the fees, and got the permit. Now you show me where the Constitution gives you the right to stop it.

Excuse me, but please show me the Amendment protecting everyone's rights to build whatever they want wherever they want...

Ninth Amendment. James Madison specifically wanted that one to protect any right that he forgot to list in the first Ten. People have a right to do anything they want, as long as they don't break the law or harm other people's right to do the same. If McDonalds can build a building there then so can the Muslims. Equal protection under the law, it's called.

By your definition zoning itself is a violation of the 10th, yet SCOTUS has already said it is not. Except that my comment had a basis in reality (someone Bush-hating with little grasp of the actual issue). Yours made no sense.

My definition? When did I give a definition?

Actually Safe-Keeper's original statement slamming Bush had some validity, since he only accused Bush of not upholding the Constitution where it didn't suit him. Argue that all you like, but your reply had nothing to do with it. You instead upheld a time-honored tradition of accusing someone of holding his opinion due to preconcieved beliefs, whether you have evidence of that or not. My comment asked if you weren't doing the same? Wrong I may be, because I don't know you any more than you know Safe-Keeper, but within the context my retort to you made every bit as much sense as yours to him.

[Aramike]

But the question was about the Tenth Amendment and its impact on this particular freedom. The Muslims paid the fees, and got the permit. Now you show me where the Constitution gives you the right to stop it.

The Constitution doesn't allow for the charging of permit fees in the first place (although that's not unConstitutional). Neither does it mention anything about refunding said fees and revoking said permit.

As I have been saying, the question is not Constitutional.

Ninth Amendment. James Madison specifically wanted that one to protect any right that he forgot to list in the first Ten. People have a right to do anything they want, as long as they don't break the law or harm other people's right to do the same. If McDonalds can build a building there then so can the Muslims. Equal protection under the law, it's called.

That's not correct. Euclidean zoning and emminent domain has been ruled Constitutional time and time again.