Mosque coming to Ground Zero

[LeviF]

I think you have that last part backwards.

 

 

How do you mean?

I think he meant it should be like this:

 

I never actually blamed him for lying about trying to get some on the side any more than I blamed Nixon for not snitching on his friends. What I found interesting was how persistently and effectively the issue was reframed to be one of adultery rather than perjury, just the way the issue of the mosque is being reframed as a question of good v bad intentions rather than the right to build a mosque (islamic center).

[Rob's House]

I think he meant it should be like this:

That's what I thought, but it was so incredibly stupid I wanted to give him a chance to clarify. If there's anyone who is claiming there is Federal authority with the legitimate power to prevent this, I haven't heard him. Maybe one person. I have, however, heard a bunch of people question the intentions of the islamic center's founders which have been countered with the claim that they have the right to build, a right which was not questioned in the first place.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Rob's House

[1billsfan]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ground-mosque-imam-project-ahead-interest-national-security/story?id=11589316

 

Looks like another bigoted anti-Muslim racist has chimed in on the stupid notion of "the small minority."

 

Oh...thats "sarcasm" there, Darin you dick.

 

 

"Rauf said he intends to go ahead with the "multifaith" center near the site where Islamic terrorists killed nearly 2,800 people because not doing so would unleash fury abroad."

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

 

terrorism

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

 

 

 

"If we move from that location, the story will be that THE RADICALS have taken over the discourse,"

 

This scumbag has the balls to call the 65-70% of Americans who oppose the building of the ground zero mosque radicals?

[Alaska Darin]

This scumbag has the balls to call the 65-70% of Americans who oppose the building of the ground zero mosque radicals?

He should have just called them what they are: idiots.

[RkFast]

I wonder what you "small minority" nimrods have a defense for the fact that some two-bit clown in FL doing some publicity stunt got:

 

The head of the DOJ

The mayor of NYC

The Secretary of State

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

and about hundreds of other politcos, religious figures and othersto respond and implore him NOT to carry it out, for "fear" of what would happen if he does.

 

Who knew such a "small minority" could carry so much POWER!

 

That last statement was sarcasm, Darin....just so you know.

[Gene Frenkle]

That's what I thought, but it was so incredibly stupid I wanted to give him a chance to clarify. If there's anyone who is claiming there is Federal authority with the legitimate power to prevent this, I haven't heard him. Maybe one person. I have, however, heard a bunch of people question the intentions of the islamic center's founders which have been countered with the claim that they have the right to build, a right which was not questioned in the first place.

Nice...that is what I meant - think what you will.

 

But...you're wrong...

 

Clinton's adultery (subjective right vs. wrong) is to Clinton's perjury (the law)

as

The good vs. bad intentions associated with building the mosque/islamic center (subjective right vs. wrong) are to the right to build a mosque/islamic center (the Constitution)

[Heels20X6]

I wonder what you "small minority" nimrods have a defense for the fact that some two-bit clown in FL doing some publicity stunt got:

 

The head of the DOJ

The mayor of NYC

The Secretary of State

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

and about hundreds of other politcos, religious figures and othersto respond and implore him NOT to carry it out, for "fear" of what would happen if he does.

 

Who knew such a "small minority" could carry so much POWER!

 

That last statement was sarcasm, Darin....just so you know.

 

You're so f####ing daft that it's impossible that this would get through your thick skull but here goes: What they're worried about is an act like this can be used by extremists as a form of propaganda to turn people to their side of whackjobness. Giving something for the hundreds of thousands of extremists out there (which is still a SMALL PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD) to rally around is dangerous.

 

How was Hitler able to turn normal, common people towards hating Jews? Propaganda. And these nutcases can use something like this. Why give them that ammunition?

[OCinBuffalo]

You're so f####ing daft that it's impossible that this would get through your thick skull but here goes: What they're worried about is an act like this can be used by extremists as a form of propaganda to turn people to their side of whackjobness. Giving something for the hundreds of thousands of extremists out there (which is still a SMALL PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD) to rally around is dangerous.

 

How was Hitler able to turn normal, common people towards hating Jews? Propaganda. And these nutcases can use something like this. Why give them that ammunition?

So, are we to believe that:

 

The bad propaganda for us due to Koran burning is bad....

but,

The good propaganda for them if they can use the Mosque as "trophy" is good?

 

I am not saying that they will. But, what if they do?

 

Mostly I am saying, regarding your propaganda argument in general: keep in mind it's a double edged sword. Sure we don't want to do stupid things that make us look bad. But, the other side of the sword is: we also need to deny the enemy things that make him look good.

[Heels20X6]

So, are we to believe that:

 

The bad propaganda for us due to Koran burning is bad....

but,

The good propaganda for them if they can use the Mosque as "trophy" is good?

 

I am not saying that they will. But, what if they do?

 

Mostly I am saying, regarding your propaganda argument in general: keep in mind it's a double edged sword. Sure we don't want to do stupid things that make us look bad. But, the other side of the sword is: we also need to deny the enemy things that make him look good.

 

Aye, but there's the rub. The "enemy" here is EXTREMISTS not Muslims. By denying decent peace-loving AMERICAN Muslims this prayer facility, you're actually punishing them for the sins of EXTREMISTS. American Muslims are as disconnected from extremists as much as they possibly can.

[Rob's House]

Nice...that is what I meant - think what you will.

 

But...you're wrong...

 

Clinton's adultery (subjective right vs. wrong) is to Clinton's perjury (the law)

as

The good vs. bad intentions associated with building the mosque/islamic center (subjective right vs. wrong) are to the right to build a mosque/islamic center (the Constitution)

That's why I wanted clarification. I see your connection with one being subjective v one being law and they were reversed in this scenario. In the Clinton situation the real issue at hand was legal but diverted to an ethical [non] issue; in the case of the Islamic center the real issue being discussed is one of ethics, but is being diverted to a legal [non] issue.

 

The commonality is that in both cases the two opposing sides seem to be arguing completely different issues.

[OCinBuffalo]

Aye, but there's the rub. The "enemy" here is EXTREMISTS not Muslims. By denying decent peace-loving AMERICAN Muslims this prayer facility, you're actually punishing them for the sins of EXTREMISTS. American Muslims are as disconnected from extremists as much as they possibly can.

How do we know this?

 

Also, as I have said elsewhere: Islam is the only religion I am aware of whose participants, who have no direct link to terror, indirectly support it by laughing it up and dancing every time one of these losers kills somebody. You don't see Christians dancing and singing the praises of the murderer of an abortion doctor.

 

We only see that type of activity in one religion. Islam. You can't tell me that it's only about extremists when we see that kind of stuff going on. You can't tell me it's only about extremists when we have supposedly American White House journalists denying Israel's right to exist. You can't tell me it's only about extremists when you have literally 100ks of Muslims, all over the world, carrying signs denying Israel's right to exist, and saying much worse things.

 

I am sick of being told something that I know is BS, and being told that somehow the clear evidence that it is BS doesn't exist...because the teller says so.

 

Right now, what I put in bold above seems awfully like something I am being told, that seems awfully like BS, and you damn well better be able to give me something more than because you say so.

[RkFast]

Now Interpol.....INTERPOL!!!!!!!......is weighing in on the Koran burning.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39079573/ns/world_news/

 

But hey......."SMALL MINORITY!!!!"

Edited September 9, 2010 by RkFast

[Gene Frenkle]

That's why I wanted clarification. I see your connection with one being subjective v one being law and they were reversed in this scenario. In the Clinton situation the real issue at hand was legal but diverted to an ethical [non] issue; in the case of the Islamic center the real issue being discussed is one of ethics, but is being diverted to a legal [non] issue.

 

The commonality is that in both cases the two opposing sides seem to be arguing completely different issues.

I guess it depends on which Constitutional rights you think it's ok to take away from Americans based on the opinions of other Americans, be it a majority or otherwise.

 

IMO, the answer is 'none', which makes me view this as a Constitutional issue which is being clouded by irrelevant opinions.

[OCinBuffalo]

I guess it depends on which Constitutional rights you think it's ok to take away from Americans based on the opinions of other Americans, be it a majority or otherwise.

 

IMO, the answer is 'none', which makes me view this as a Constitutional issue which is being clouded by irrelevant opinions.

That's fine, you hold the constitution as not up for debate. Great. But that means you don't get to argue for any kind of gun control. And, you don't get to argue for the current abuses of eminent domain. You don't get to argue for the current income tax system. You don't get to argue for illegal immigration. You don't get to argue against defense spending, and on and on, because all of these, and many more, are clearly defined/provided for in the Constitution. All of them are "Constitutional Issues".

 

That is, if we don't want the Constitution to be clouded by any irrelevant opinions.

[Rob's House]

I guess it depends on which Constitutional rights you think it's ok to take away from Americans based on the opinions of other Americans, be it a majority or otherwise.

 

IMO, the answer is 'none', which makes me view this as a Constitutional issue which is being clouded by irrelevant opinions.

You're one of the people clouding the issue. With the exception of maybe 1 or 2 people, everyone has clearly stated that they have the right to build their center and the Feds have not authority to do anything about it.

 

Then anyone says they have reservations about their intentions and you act as if they just proposed cirumventing the constitution. I really want to like you but you really make it hard to have a logical discussion. It follows more like this:

 

Reasonable individual: Perjury is a serious crime

 

Gene Frenkle: Why is it your business if someone commits adultury

 

Reasonable person: Although they have every right to build their Islamic center, I do not approve of their decision

 

Gene Frenkle: So you think it's ok to take away their constitutional rights

Edited September 9, 2010 by Rob's House

[RkFast]

By burning the Koran or stopping this mosque from being build, we might anger the Islamic world into comitting acts of violence.

 

Really??????? What could they POSSIBLY do?

 

Fly fuel-laden jetliners into building, Strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents and Decapitate people while their "small minority" of followers cheer from the sidelines?

 

I mean....lets get real here!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Da.....more "sarcasm" for ya!

Edited September 9, 2010 by RkFast

[Gene Frenkle]

You're one of the one's clouding the issue. With the exception of maybe 1 or 2 people, everyone has clearly stated that they have the right to build their center and the Feds have not authority to do anything about it.

 

Then anyone says they have reservations about their intentions and you act as if they just proposed cirumventing the constitution. I really want to like you but you really make it hard to have a logical discussion. It follows more like this:

 

Reasonable individual: Perjury is a serious crime

 

Gene Frenkle: Why is it your business if someone commits adultury

 

Reasonable person: Although they have every right to build their Islamic center, I do not approve of their decision

 

Gene Frenkle: So you think it's ok to take away their constitutional rights

With the Clinton thing - I agree that perjury is a serious crime. It's a shame the issue was clouded with the adultery crap, because he was almost certainly guilty of perjury.

 

With the Mosque thing - what are we debating? People have a right to protest and say just about anything they like because, of course, that's a Constitutional right as well (the same one, actually). To me - and this is simply my opinion - It just reeks of bigotry and ignorance, so I don't really care what these people think and of course, legally speaking, it doesn't really matter what they think. I've said it before - they'd be better off building a strip club than a Mosque or whatever, but not for the reasons these fools are debating and protesting.

[1billsfan]

He should have just called them what they are: idiots.

 

Really? I think it's time for the "moderate" muslims to find a new PR person. This "Islam is religion of peace" campaign in America kind of takes a beating when you're threatening violence against Americans.

[Adam]

By burning the Koran or stopping this mosque from being build, we might anger the Islamic world into comitting acts of violence.

 

Really??????? What could they POSSIBLY do?

 

Fly fuel-laden jetliners into building, Strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents and Decapitate people while their "small minority" of followers cheer from the sidelines?

 

I mean....lets get real here!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Da.....more "sarcasm" for ya!

The "islamic terrorists" you refer to are just terrorists. They are a tiny part of the muslim world, just as the 50 nutjobs in Florida are a miniscule part of the Christian religion.

 

There is no religion of peace- we all just have to try to be the best people we can, religion be damned.

 

As far as Clinton- perjury is a very serious crime. He should have told the truth and deserved to pay for lying. The fact remains that he shouldn't have been asked the question. Both sides were wrong....

[Rob's House]

As far as Clinton- perjury is a very serious crime. He should have told the truth and deserved to pay for lying. The fact remains that he shouldn't have been asked the question. Both sides were wrong....

The point I was making with that was lost long ago.