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

[Tchocky]

Radical?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Radical?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...utes-interview

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...HAVdRZEKgx29AK

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute....803163553.aspx

[Aramike]

But you seem to be arguing that that decision should be made to go away by other than legal means. That you haven't said something directly is a good fallback when someone contests, it, but now you're saying you didn't mean what everyone assumes you meant. Blame me for that if you like, but at the very least you weren't very clear on where you were going with your argument.

No, I've said, very clearly several times that the board should reconsider its decision, and my argument was the it was not unConstitutional for that reconsidering to occur.

On the other hand, failing the board doing that, my argument is verysimple: their decision was wrong.

And now you misunderstand what I've been trying to say. Earlier you thanked me for agreeing that the state and local laws supercede the Constitution, but failed to see that I pointed out that the Constitution makes that so.

This is a local matter, yes, but you seem to feel that the Federal courts should order it to change, which is where the Constitutional arguments come in.

Apparently neither of us are understanding one another completely and are perhaps framing our arguments through the lens of that misunderstanding, because in some way we're saying the same thing.

Do I believe the Federal courts should order this to change? I wish they could, but I see no legal grounds for doing so.

In any case, I stand by that this is not a Constitutional issue - by your definition, ultimately every municiple issue would ultimately be considered that, and for practical purposes while the extension is certainly valid, it is pointless.

Fair enough, and I don't disagree on that. But if they don't reconsider it someone else has to do it for them, and that involves the Feds, and that involves the Constitution. And if you're going to cite "caselaw", please show some of the cases involved.

I'll cite cases later when I have some more time. If you wish to find some quickly, Google "US Euclidean Zoning court challenges". Emminent domain would also be relevant.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...utes-interview

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...HAVdRZEKgx29AK

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute....803163553.aspx

He supported a humanitarian aid mission to bring food and medicine to Palestine? Well heck, I guess that makes him a regular Mullah Omar.

[yubba]

beatin off the illegals and dealling with a drug war that is spilling into the US and the government doesn't want to do a thing about it. Sure haven't heard nothing about improving our economy or new jobs , let them build the damn thing might put some people too work then we can blow it up.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No, I've said, very clearly several times that the board should reconsider its decision, and my argument was the it was not unConstitutional for that reconsidering to occur.

No, it's not in the least.

In any case, I stand by that this is not a Constitutional issue - by your definition, ultimately every municiple issue would ultimately be considered that, and for practical purposes while the extension is certainly valid, it is pointless.

And I agree that the decision itself has nothing to do with the Constitution. My argument was that if the decision were to be overturned by a court, and challenged, it would ultimately lead back there, since the higher you go the closer you get.

Actually I don't like this thing very much myself, but it seems to me that a lot of the opposition is of the "we won't stand for it, no matter what" variety, and that scares me as much as anything. So we all need to phrase ourselves very carefully to avoid that connection - "Tarring with the same brush" and all that.

Sorry to bump back , but someone told me today that your daily show over there showed that the evil terrorist financiers of the ground zero mosque that isn't at ground zero as exposed by Faux new are really the Republican linked financiers who are partners of Fox news?

Please tell me that the GOPs and Foxs friend isn't really the source of the money when Fox and politicians are shouting "where is the money coming from"
Though it would validate Skys conspiracy theory, the Wahibi who are the true representatives of all Islam and have always been and always will be really run the US govt (until they lost the election) and control the mainstream media as part of a conspiracy to make white people only have poor babies

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sorry to bump back , but someone told me today that your daily show over there showed that the evil terrorist financiers of the ground zero mosque that isn't at ground zero as exposed by Faux new are really the Republican linked financiers who are partners of Fox news?

Mmm, not quite. I'f you're in Galway you probably won't be able to see this, but here's the link to the segment - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...meland-edition

The FOX clip was mostly a guest on the show holding a card with RAUF at the top, followed by a list of unfriendly organisations with question marks drawn beside them. The guy with the card basically went throught the list, saying "we know there are questions regarding his association with X, remember X are the people who did Y" etc.

My favourite line "he's not a good guy...he has questionable ties....whether he has ties with Perdana or not". Bloody hell, guy, how about a fact or two. Also, "Iran...where are they in all of this?". Between Iraq and Afghanistan, dude.

JS then applies the same treatment to Rupert Murdoch, more specifically the Saudi prince who owns 7% of News Corp.

Good segment, I thought. Stuck together a screencap of what happened.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sorry to bump back , but someone told me today that your daily show over there showed that the evil terrorist financiers of the ground zero mosque that isn't at ground zero as exposed by Faux new are really the Republican linked financiers who are partners of Fox news?

Please tell me that the GOPs and Foxs friend isn't really the source of the money when Fox and politicians are shouting "where is the money coming from"

Please tell me CNN(Clinton News Network) and MSNBC is not the money for the Dems? Certainly free advertizing as we all get shivers down are leg just hearing him talk.

Mmm, not quite. I'f you're in Galway you probably won't be able to see this,

Yep, the middle of the west don't get access on that link.

Please tell me CNN(Clinton News Network) and MSNBC is not the money for the Dems?

Errrrrr....the alledged link made was to the wahibi fundamentalist Islamic overthrow of the western world by building a victory mosque at ground zero to spit in the face of all families of the victims of sept 11...... not to the alledged "liberal" media bias towards the democratic party.
Can you see a very subtle difference?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

that isn't at ground zero as exposed by Faux new

The fact that the existing building was condemmed due to the fact that a section of the planes landing gear tore through the roof seems to escape alot of pepole.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yep, the middle of the west don't get access on that link.




Errrrrr....the alledged link made was to the wahibi fundamentalist Islamic overthrow of the western world by building a victory mosque at ground zero to spit in the face of all families of the victims of sept 11...... not to the alledged "liberal" media bias towards the democratic party.
Can you see a very subtle difference?

Nope.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The fact that the existing building was condemmed due to the fact that a section of the planes landing gear tore through the roof seems to escape alot of pepole.

Ever talk to a wall?

The fact that the existing building was condemmed due to the fact that a section of the planes landing gear tore through the roof seems to escape alot of pepole.

Is it at ground zero?
If it was condemned then how in hell have they been using it for prayer meetings since they bought the lease?
What the hell is that bar doing remaining open in a condemned building just so the financiers can ogle a bit of tit after work?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

but it seems to me that a lot of the opposition is of the "we won't stand for it, no matter what" variety, and that scares me as much as anything.

I can imagine things in the world where it is even more scary to imply that whether to accept them or not is a question of negotiating them. Not everything must and should be open to negotiation, and tolerance. Some things are unacceptable by the rule of our cultural values per se.

But there you are again in that dead end of your thinking on "total freedom, else it is no freedom", and time and again you seem to not care for your head crashing into that wall at that road's end. I have a very hard time to even imagine reasons why somebody could think like this. That tolerating what does not tolerate you means your tolerance being destroyed, and freedom for those abusing it to destroy freedom, necessarily lead to you seeing your freedom getting destroyed - that is so simple to see and understand, that even the 8-year old daughter of a good girlfriend of mine has already understood that (I learned in a recent report of her on a dispute she had at school with some girls).

Some things - speaking generally - must be confronted and never are acceptable and thus can never be considered negotiable. That might be a small limitation of that desired unlimited, borderless, total, absolute freedom - but if that helps to secure freedom in general, to still very large ammounts, for the community and the overwhelming majority of it's people - than I'm for it. Because 95% of existing freedom is more than 100% of a freedom non-existing.

Must yor really experience the loss of freedom first, before you understand this...? That would be too bad, because then it would be too late.

Some people seem to take pride in referring to that popular quote saying something like "I may not agree with you but I will always fight for your right to not agree with me". I would subscribe to that only if there is an amendement made, saying something like "I defend your right to disagree with me only if that disagreement does not lead you to the claim that I must be destroyed for not agreeing with you". When the other does not tolerate me, I must not tolerate him. When the other claims the freedom to take freedom away from me, I support all effort that freedom is taken away from him first (else would voluntary to hand myself over in slavery). When the other concludes that because I do not agree with him, I must be overthrown, then I do not owe to him (or to me or to any ideal) that I even must defend him when he does so. No, certain peoples' freedom I will not defend, and certain peoples' right to disagree with me I therefore do not stand up for and would not defend.

Maybe you think, to come back to your quote, that that makes me scary. I say you better should be scared by those people that I refuse to defend for the reasons explained above. I do not deny my support to them for no reason.