View Full Version : Well, now we know....
Where the Pres. stands on the mosque proposed to be built in NYC near ground zero. I can't say his decision comes as a surprise. :rolleyes:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/obama-backs-mosque-near-ground-zero/
*Do not quote an entire article, posting a link is enough.*
There are those of us who have no problem with them rebuilding the Mosque there. But damn I hate having him agree with me on anything. :fie:
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country
I'm in total agreement there. They have every right in the world to built that mosque there. It may be totally inappropriate, but it is perfectly legal, and perfectly wrong. As much of a kick in the nuts this is, we have to be the better man and allow it, and just swallow our pride. Anything else and we'd be going against ourselves.
ok - so you have no problem building a mosque there...the fact they are so fast and desire to build a mosque in a place that does offend so many is more than cavalier. IT IS IN OUR FACE. It is with meaning and sending a message, and this message is not of the peace of islam or creating bridge of peace. This is an outright affront and infiltration, step by step just as what has happened to europe. Our ability to become careless here, even accepting of a group so willing to push themselves onto us - that should be of the greatest concern. Wait till the left insist on Muslim laws, after all, our founder would have accepted this...NOT!
What is our president - radical anti-American Christianity(church of 20+ years with the Rev Wright) or his roots as a Muslim? Agree with him? Like our founders? I think not! I am offended and our Muslim brothers who want this dont give a **** and have big time funding to make this happen.
It seems like Obama is actively trying to alienate the vast majority of Americans. It's like he really wants to hand over Congress to the Republicans and then the Presidency in two more years.
Even Clinton could tell which way the wind was blowing (no pun intended) and adjust course according to the polls (again, no pun intended).
You can't pick an choose what parts of the constitution you like, or else you become a commie bastard. :p
Well since there is already a Mosque there and they are just building a new one to replace the old one I really have no issue with it. People get wrapped up in the emotion of it and ignore the facts. And the fact is that there is a Mosque that has been there for years.
No suprise at all. The Zero bends over to kiss the ass of a violent death cult. It all fits.
I just hope their property insurance package covers perils.
thopkins22
08-13-10, 22:40
rebuilding the Mosque there.
The rebuilding part is what most seem to forget. People are acting as though they've only recently made a move into the city and said, "You know where we'll build to really piss off some Americans?"
It seems like Obama is actively trying to alienate the vast majority of Americans.
Yeah, I don't get it. I thought he would be more sneaky about his agenda.
Or maybe his ego is so large that he thinks he can just give a speech and everyone will automatically agree with him.
I shudder to think what the trade unions who build the thing are going to do to it as it gets constructed. Just that fact should scare the planners into going somewhere else.
Belmont31R
08-13-10, 23:48
I fail to see how freedom of religion = I can build a worship site any damn where I please.
SCOTUS has agreed every right has restrictions, and no one is barring them from praying. Guns are a FUNDAMENTAL right, and I can't carry or shoot them anywhere I want. I can't say anything I want anywhere I want. I can't get a group of people gathered together anywhere I want whenever I want.
Given the scope of what happened just down the street I don't think you would be violating anyone's rights by saying no. No one is telling this group of worshipers they cannot pray to allah or be Muslims or that they have to become Christians. I can't build a church anywhere I want in any manner I want. There are plenty of restrictions on what you can do with your property. Just because its "your land" doesn't mean you are free to do absolutely 100% what you want with it. I couldn't build a rifle range in my backyard, I couldn't build a church there either, and I couldn't operate a newspaper company out of my home. I can come up with dozens of perfectly legal restrictions on what I can do with my property (religious examples, too).
We have a bunch of people running around bleating about bigotry and acceptance when this is nothing more than a terrorist sympathizer and supporter building a monument next to Ground Zero just to spit in the face of America. If it was really a about a place to worship and practice their religion they would have chosen a less controversial site. They know exactly what they are doing, and put America in a pretty bad spot. We deny them the mosque, and then all the jihads can run around talking about how America hates islam. We let them build it, and they run around in victory to the monument got erected on the site of a muslim attack that killed 3k American citizens.
There are those of us who have no problem with them rebuilding the Mosque there. But damn I hate having him agree with me on anything. :fie:
Rebuilding?
Did you mistype?
The rebuilding part is what most seem to forget. People are acting as though they've only recently made a move into the city and said, "You know where we'll build to really piss off some Americans?"
I don't think this is correct.
The building was most recently a Burlington Coat factory store. It was never a mosque.
Rebuilding?
Did you mistype?
Nope. The mosque is already there. They are replacing the old one that is a bit run down.
Nope. The mosque is already there. They are replacing the old one that is a bit run down.
Got a cite for that?
I've just read about a dozen news stories about it, and none say what you are.
The commissioners voted unanimously against landmark status for 45-47 Park Place. It and an adjoining building already connected on the inside, 49-51 Park Place, are owned by real estate developer Soho Properties, which intends to build the Islamic center two blocks north of the former site of the World Trade Center.
In a statement on a new website devoted to the project now called Park51, the project's planners said, "Until the resolution of the landmarks issue this morning, we were unable to emerge from stage one, as we could not be clear on the impact of a designation on the architecture and design of the building or its program spaces, activities or programming. We are eager to begin working with our partners, supporters, neighbors and communities, to build a community center for everyone."
"It had been a whirlwind in the past four months, one in which we have worked tirelessly to realize an American dream which so many other share," Sharif El-Gamal, the chief executive officer of Soho Properties, said. "The outpouring support has exceeded our expectations. We are Americans; Muslim Americans. We are businessmen, businesswomen, lawyers, doctors, restaurant workers, cab drivers, and professionals of every walk of life represented by the demographic and tapestry of Manhattan," El-Gamal said.
Landmark status resolved, NYC group moves forward on Islamic center (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/03/new.york.ground.zero.mosque/index.html)
Reading this doesn't make it seem like a mosque was already on the site.
This thread is the first time I've heard the term "rebuilding" used in reference to the mosque.
LOL, they dnn't even own the entire building they plan to demolish.
There was never a mosque there.
49-51 Park Place, owned by Con Edison, is being appraised for a possible sale to Soho Properties, the developer behind the controversial mosque. Sharif El-Gamal, the principal of Soho Properties, paid $700,000 to take over the 99-year lease in 2009.
Soho Properties spent $4.8 million to buy 45-47 Park Place in 2009. The building, which used to house a Burlington Coat Factory, had been on the market for years with a sale price that once reached $18 million.
49-51 Park Place, owned by Con Edison, is being appraised for a possible sale to Soho Properties (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/49-51-park-place-owned-by-con-edison-is-being-appraised-for-a-possible-sale-to-soho-properties-th/blog-398181/)
Business_Casual
08-14-10, 07:08
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060.html
Not a surprise, I guess.
B_C
montanadave
08-14-10, 07:16
Funny, nobody seems to want to print "Obama Supports First Amendment."
The Constitution is the Constitution, and the sun don't shine on the same dog's ass every day.
Business_Casual
08-14-10, 07:40
Then why does he bow to the Saudi King, whose capital is devoid of churches and in whose country possession of a bible is a crime?
Tolerance is kind of funny that way, Dave.
B_C
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060.html
Not a surprise, I guess.
B_C
...and the remarks were made during a dinner celebrating ramadan. Way to go, Mr. President. :rolleyes:
I hate to say it but he's right; I support their freedom of religion. I think it's in bad taste and I think they are doing it to stick it to us but it's their right.
I only hope Obama supports other religions like he's doing in this case when the time comes. No double standards.
But I am disappointed by what Gibbs said; it's not a local or community issue, moron, the attacks on 9/11 might have happened in NY but they were an attack on this country and therefore the citizens of this country should have an opinion. What a tool.
I hate to say it but he's right; I support their freedom of religion. I think it's in bad taste and I think they are doing it to stick it to us but it's their right.
Agreed. Welcome to America where, "Because I want to." is a valid reason to do most things.
While I support freedom of religion, this particular location was obviously chosen for a mosque site in order to inflame tensions.
Does anyone really think that the KKK could get a permit to build their HQ next door to the NAACP HQ? There is NO WAY that would happen. The KKK would be accused of all sorts of evil intentions. But our press is afraid to report on the intentions behind the selection of this particular site for a mosque.
arizonaranchman
08-14-10, 09:46
All the idiocy of this nation will eventually come to an end once the people have had enough. They'll take care of business.
All the idiocy of this nation will eventually come to an end once the people have had enough. They'll take care of business.
Not an accusation but a question that I think needs to be answered honestly: By idiocy are you referring to the 1st amendment?
arizonaranchman
08-14-10, 09:58
Not an accusation but a question that I think needs to be answered honestly: By idiocy are you referring to the 1st amendment?
No of course not, I mean the complete and utter lack of common sense and decency of the populace and the bend over backwards spinelessness to accomodate any tiny little bit of the populace who just might get the panties in a bunch.
I hate to say it but he's right; I support their freedom of religion. I think it's in bad taste and I think they are doing it to stick it to us but it's their right.
I only hope Obama supports other religions like he's doing in this case when the time comes. No double standards.
But I am disappointed by what Gibbs said; it's not a local or community issue, moron, the attacks on 9/11 might have happened in NY but they were an attack on this country and therefore the citizens of this country should have an opinion. What a tool.
Sadly it appears that he does not... Research a little on all of the Christian events that he either cancelled or simply blew off.
IIR he was the first President not to attend a couple event in a very long time....
Regardless, I just think its poor form and only emboldens those who hate us already
I got Freedom of Speech..... but I can't scream FIRE in a crowded theater. Tolerance swings both ways. No one is questioning the right to build a mosque..... they are questioning the Location.
No of course not, I mean the complete and utter lack of common sense...
The magic words have been spoken.
My problem with this also is that I would be willing to bet that if a Christian group wanted to build a church there, the proposal would probably get shot down.
I'm not talking about the Muslims 1A rights either. The argument is about the location.
If Islam, at least the form of Islam practiced by a significant percentage of Muslims around the world, were just a spiritual enterprise, the 1A argument would be more compelling.
But Islam is not just a religion for a large portion of it adherents; it is a total cultural structure that has its own particular political and legal institutions. In large part it denies the sovereignty of the individual annd controls every aspect of it adherents' lives.
That is probably one reason why collectivists don't seem to have the same problem with Islam as they do with Christianity.
I think they admire the tyrrany and envy the control, even if they may quibble on some specifics.
Certainly many Muslims just want to worship in peace and have no desire to implement Sharia. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be the ones with the money, the bombs or the oil.
Islam, at least the version of it envisioned by the more motivated Muslims, is incompatible with American culture.
They know exactly what they are doing, and put America in a pretty bad spot. We deny them the mosque, and then all the jihads can run around talking about how America hates islam. We let them build it, and they run around in victory to the monument got erected on the site of a muslim attack that killed 3k American citizens.
Seems like the best way to handle this is the union labor (who would have thunk it? Unions being useful). Hopefully they will refuse to work on it or come in at so high a price that they back down. Or just go wicked wicked slow in the building of it.
arizonaranchman
08-14-10, 11:42
If Islam, at least the form of Islam practiced by a significant percentage of Muslims around the world, were just a spiritual enterprise, the 1A argument would be more compelling.
But Islam is not just a religion for a large portion of it adherents; it is a total cultural structure that has its own particular political and legal institutions. In large part it denies the sovereignty of the individual annd controls every aspect of it adherents' lives.
That is probably one reason why collectivists don't seem to have the same problem with Islam as they do with Christianity.
I think they admire the tyrrany and envy the control, even if they may quibble on some specifics.
Certainly many Muslims just want to worship in peace and have no desire to implement Sharia. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be the ones with the money, the bombs or the oil.
Islam, at least the version of it envisioned by the more motivated Muslims, is incompatible with American culture.
Well said. Sharia is utterly incompatible with American culture and values. If the majority of muslims are peaceful and tranquil people why have I literally heard NOT ONE OF THEM speak against the radicals who seem to dominate the religion and the outrages they have committed? Dead silence is what you hear... It seems like no denunciation of the radicals is to be found.
Funny, nobody seems to want to print "Obama Supports First Amendment."
And that is all that needs to be said in this thread.
[/I][/B]
Well said. Sharia is utterly incompatible with American culture and values. If the majority of muslims are peaceful and tranquil people why have I literally heard NOT ONE OF THEM speak against the radicals who seem to dominate the religion and the outrages they have committed? Dead silence is what you hear... It seems like no denunciation of the radicals is to be found.
And where are the moderates saying that building a mosque on that spot might not be helpful in "building the bridges" the Imam says he hopes for (while preaching, in Arabic, for Sharia in the US)?
I find the lack of publicly voiced hesitation or doubt on the part of any Muslims more telling than any other part of this drama.
arizonaranchman
08-14-10, 12:03
It seems like Obama is actively trying to alienate the vast majority of Americans. It's like he really wants to hand over Congress to the Republicans and then the Presidency in two more years.
Even Clinton could tell which way the wind was blowing (no pun intended) and adjust course according to the polls (again, no pun intended).
Obama is a hostile anti-American - a radical muslim extremist is what he is. He's an outright enemy of what made this nation great. He and those who backed/funded him to get into office are flaming revolutionaries/communists of long standing. Those people are now in positions of power as his advisors or even hold appointed offices. (None of these idiots - including Obama could ever pass a Security Clearance I can assure you). He literally despises this nation and knows he and his followers are most likely one-termers. So they're in a kamikazee (sp?) mode to implement as much of their outrageous agenda as possible before the people rebel and throw them out of office. He'll do as much damage as he can and with a little luck, or bad luck for us as a nation, he'll somehow be re-elected by a lazy/apathetic/dumbed down populace (can you say welfare/illegals/amnesty?)and possibly inflict so much damage we may not be able to recover in our lifetimes.
By all definitions this nation is bankrupt. If it was a private sector entity it would most certainly have been taken over and it's management arrested and prosecuted. Instead we've got people in power who arrogantly continue drive us over the brink into destruction. The debt of this nation is so incomprehensible that nothing can be done except print money to pay it off - the Weimar republic is what awaits us.
Got a cite for that?
I've just read about a dozen news stories about it, and none say what you are.
Well of course they don't How can the News drum up hysteria and sell more airtime and print copies if they actually tell the truth.
Look up
20 Warren Street, New York, NY
I believe that is the Mosque in question. I was a couple news stories back in the start of all this that gave the full details but digging though the BS that is flying around right now to find them is difficult.
Well of course they don't How can the News drum up hysteria and sell more airtime and print copies if they actually tell the truth.
Look up
20 Warren Street, New York, NY
I believe that is the Mosque in question. I was a couple news stories back in the start of all this that gave the full details but digging though the BS that is flying around right now to find them is difficult.
LOL, I searched your address and found this on the website of Masjid Manhattan:
Please be advised that we are by no means affiliated with any other organization trying to build anything new in the area of downtown Manhattan.
There was no mosque at the location proposed.
You are the only person I've heard commenting on this story who has used the word "rebuild," and, no, it's not because of some news blackout conspiracy.
So, unless you can provide some proof, I'm just going to conclude you're in error.
he supports it only when it fits his agenda !!
thats the issue I have with him
MarshallDodge
08-14-10, 13:21
I hate to say it but he's right; I support their freedom of religion. I think it's in bad taste and I think they are doing it to stick it to us but it's their right.
I completely agree.
Belmont31R
08-14-10, 13:33
I posted in the other thread about this but freedom of religion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
And I do not think this is entirely about religion. They know what they are doing, and that is building a mosque ran by terrorist symanthizers close to Ground Zero just to throw it in our faces. If all they wanted to do was have a place to pray they would not have chosen such a controversial site. Or are we to believe they are so innocent this site wasn't chosen for its proximity to Ground Zero? These are people who have voiced support for terrorist organizations. Not just your run of the mill muslims who are just looking for a place to pray to allah, and be left alone.
So no this is not just about their freedom to religion. No one is saying they cannot pray at all or they have to denounce their faith and become Christians. Saying you cannot a build a mosque at XYZ is not denying them their religion. I cannot convert my house to a church or run a newspaper business out of it, either. Just because you own the land doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want with it or on it. I couldn't open up a shooting range here, and the 2nd Amendment is now an incorporated fundamental right as per the Supreme Court. In fact its illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits unless its on a pre-approved range in a properly zoned area or in self defense. Every right, even fundamental rights, can be restricted.
IMO telling someone they cannot build a mosque, church, synogogue, etc wherever they want is not denying someone their religion. Forcing them to pray to a certain religion/god is denying them that right.
he supports it only when it fits his agenda !!
thats the issue I have with him
Please give me examples of this. Oh, and Glen Beck is not a valid source.
Funny, nobody seems to want to print "Obama Supports First Amendment."
There is more to it than that.
Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you can exercise that right without being a douchebag. Putting a mosque right next to ground zero for 9/11 is right up there with the WBC douches that protest at soldier's funerals. They both have a legal right to do it and are morally wrong in so doing.
Obama did not say they have a 1st Amendment right to build the mosque but a moral and intellectual obligation NOT TO DO SO if the goal of the "Cordoba Initiative" is truly to "cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding." Had he done so I wouldn't have a problem with what he said, instead he placed a false onus on us (the victims) to accept the building of something that will serve as a monument celebrating 9/11 by our attackers by pretending this is a 1st Amendment issue. It is not.
Nobody should accept the claim of good faith from a group that is deliberately antagonizing people in this fashion. At least when the Westboro Baptist Church douchebags show up at a funeral to spit on the graves of our fallen vets they wear their hatred on their sleeves for everyone to see. They don't pretend to be peacemakers working towards mutual respect and understanding. The Cordoba Initiative is insidious and their actions do not match their words.
GermanSynergy
08-14-10, 17:13
Would the president have so readily rendered an opinion on this matter had the house of worship in question been say........... a Jewish Synagogue or a Greek Orthodox Church?
Please give me examples of this. Oh, and Glen Beck is not a valid source.
How about the Health Care bill. Constitutionality didn't seem to bother him then.
Would the president have so readily rendered an opinion on this matter had the house of worship in question been say........... a Jewish Synagogue or a Greek Orthodox Church?
Well they never blew anyone up. So how about a Christian Identity Church. And let's put it in Chicago, say next door to the NAACP building.
It's all about freedom of religion doncha know.
arizonaranchman
08-14-10, 17:39
Well they never blew anyone up. So how about a Christian Identity Church. And let's put it in Chicago, say next door to the NAACP building.
It's all about freedom of religion doncha know.
LOL yeah no kidding!
How about the Health Care bill. Constitutionality didn't seem to bother him then.
Source? Curious how he violated the Constitution. You can have opinions about his motif, his intentions, or his politics, but how exactly did he violate the Constitution of the United States with his Health Care Bill?
The whole point is how we are supposed to be sympathetic to every tom dick and harry for whatever their cause or belief, yet the shoe doesn't fit on the other foot.
I posted in the other thread about this but freedom of religion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
And I do not think this is entirely about religion. They know what they are doing, and that is building a mosque ran by terrorist symanthizers close to Ground Zero just to throw it in our faces. If all they wanted to do was have a place to pray they would not have chosen such a controversial site. Or are we to believe they are so innocent this site wasn't chosen for its proximity to Ground Zero? These are people who have voiced support for terrorist organizations. Not just your run of the mill muslims who are just looking for a place to pray to allah, and be left alone.
So no this is not just about their freedom to religion. No one is saying they cannot pray at all or they have to denounce their faith and become Christians. Saying you cannot a build a mosque at XYZ is not denying them their religion. I cannot convert my house to a church or run a newspaper business out of it, either. Just because you own the land doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want with it or on it. I couldn't open up a shooting range here, and the 2nd Amendment is now an incorporated fundamental right as per the Supreme Court. In fact its illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits unless its on a pre-approved range in a properly zoned area or in self defense. Every right, even fundamental rights, can be restricted.
IMO telling someone they cannot build a mosque, church, synogogue, etc wherever they want is not denying someone their religion. Forcing them to pray to a certain religion/god is denying them that right.
good post...i'm betting there is a VERY interesting money trail on all the politicians who want to see this thing go up so badly. LOTS & LOTS of foreign coin is being pumped into this thing from areas that really hate us.
I'm just wondering what sort of revenue a mosque of this size brings to the city of NY compared to another structure that could literally employ hundreds to thousands of people & better NYC's troubled tax base?? You think all the donations will stay in the u.s. or be tithed to area to help the less fortunate / good will?? My bet is this is a building to shuffle funny money...to be suspect of their intentions is wise.
Source? Curious how he violated the Constitution. You can have opinions about his motif, his intentions, or his politics, but how exactly did he violate the Constitution of the United States with his Health Care Bill?
There is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives the government the power to REQUIRE citizens to purchase something.
good post...i'm betting there is a VERY interesting money trail on all the politicians who want to see this thing go up so badly. LOTS & LOTS of foreign coin is being pumped into this thing from areas that really hate us.
I'm just wondering what sort of revenue a mosque of this size brings to the city of NY compared to another structure that could literally employ hundreds to thousands of people & better NYC's troubled tax base?? You think all the donations will stay in the u.s. or be tithed to area to help the less fortunate / good will?? My bet is this is a building to shuffle funny money...to be suspect of their intentions is wise.
Bingo.
Belmont31R
08-14-10, 22:35
Source? Curious how he violated the Constitution. You can have opinions about his motif, his intentions, or his politics, but how exactly did he violate the Constitution of the United States with his Health Care Bill?
Because there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to confiscate your wealth for the purpose of proving health insurance to other people.
The Constitution was actually written in plain language. In Section 1-8, the powers of Congress, nowhere does it say anything about regulating the health care or health care insurance of citizens.
For the most part health insurance was regulated by each state. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted to Congress are the rights of the States. Insurance is a state controlled item, and has been for a very long time. The Federal government getting into this, and actually telling people they have to BUY something (insurance) for face a fine/tax is a completely different thing. At no point in our history has the Federal government required you to buy anything just for being a living breathing human being, and nowhere in section 1-8 does it say Congress has the authority to require citizens to purchase things.
If you are going to claim the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Welfare Clause I recommend you go back, and read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to see what the Founders actually say they mean. Welfare, at the time the Constitution was written, has NOTHING to do with modern day progressive welfare of tax money redistribution, food stamps, ect. It meant the state of society as a whole. Congress could do things that advance our society...that doesn't mean hand out welfare checks and foodstamps. It means things like advancing science, math, the arts, etc. Things that are of benefit to everyone rich or poor. Taking money from one group, and giving it to another hurts one sector of society, and only benefits the people you are giving to.
The Interstate Commerce Clause was to allow the Federal government to regulate commerce between the states so that free trade flowed smoothy. They didn't want one state, say, setting up a tariff on flour so people in that state would only buy flour from their own state. They wanted the Federal government to be able to regulate this area of society so that states would not have trade wars between themselves. It was NEVER meant to give the Federal government the power to tell people they had to buy something, to regulate trade WITHIN a state (hence the wording BETWEEN not WITHIN).
There is actually very little our government does anymore that is actually within the original confines the Founders intended. In the 30's FDR had what was called the War on the Supreme Court, and he threatened the Supreme Court with expanding the number of justices if they did not rubber stamp his plans. The Supreme Court bowed down, and started approving FDR's highly socialist policies left and right. In the 30's a case came about that completely flipped the Commerce Clause on its head. Instead of being able to regulate commerce BETWEEN the states the Supreme Court gave the other 2/3rds of the government the authority to regulate commerce WITHIN the states. However that doesn't mean they can exactly force you to partake in commerce which is what the "insurance mandate" does. No court has or wording in our Constitution has given Congress or the president the authority to force you to buy a product.
I would also add in that one thing our Founders realized is that eventually all governments become corrupt, and trample their citizens rights. If you asked them if they thought the US would still be around in 2010 most of them would have said no. Very few thought it would last even 50 years. Hence the Benjamin Franklin reply..."A republic...if you can keep it." They believed all government is inherently bad but that you need a certain small amount of it as a society without SOME government was worse. Even though we do have an excellent system of government nothing human created is perfect. An amendment could be passed that opened slavery back up, and it would be "Constitutional". Our Founders did not give us a system that means everything is good because it happened within the system. They gave us a system that would last a lot longer as a free society than any other, and knew it would eventually need to be replaced as the government got older, and more tyrannical.
dookie1481
08-14-10, 23:45
You're a sharp dude, Belmont. I don't agree with everything you say, but I always enjoy reading it.
Jay
There is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives the government the power to REQUIRE citizens to purchase something.
Don't worry, John Conyers said it was completely legit under the "good and welfare" clause, among others. He's chairman of the judiciary committee after all, even though he doesn't like to read much.
It would be surprising if Obama said the Imam was acting stupidly. That would have been really shocking.
If it was up to me, I'd hit hospitals and other healthcare providers under anti-trust laws and make them charge everybody a similar price for the same service. Knock everybody back down to fee-for-service. If you want health insurance, it's going to look more like car insurance.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives the government the power to REQUIRE citizens to purchase something.
There is ALSO something in the Constitution REQUIRING that ONLY Congress can declare war (only one example). So do we want to get into a theoretical argument about how pretty much EVERY president in the last 70 years has violated both the spirit, and the letter of our Constitution? If we do, then my question to you is why have you waited until Obama to actually be upset? Your right there is nothing in the Constitution saying he can do what you accuse him of, but there is also nothing in it that states he can't.
(caps added to counter your use of caps)
So do we want to get into a theoretical argument about how pretty much EVERY president in the last 70 years has violated both the spirit, and the letter of our Constitution?
That is ok with you? Why even have a Constitution then?
Because there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to confiscate your wealth for the purpose of proving health insurance to other people.
There are also several cases against monopolies on the books that need to be looked at.
Your insurance company is doing the exact thing that you are all pissed off about regarding your government. They are confiscating your wealth in order to provide benefits to other people, and they are doing it at an insane profit, in a cornered market.
When you need an "Active MRI" or someone you love does, and you find yourself begging your FOR PROFIT insurance company to pay for a bill that you have invested in for the last 20 years of your life, come back and have a conversation with me about "fair", and "just".
I can tolerate a lot, but spitting on someone that is down and out, and turning your back on them is the lowest form of human behavior. Hiding behind a for profit mechanism that charges you $100 dollars for a band-aid so that you can pretend that you earned your health care is ignorant. Enjoy getting raped out of money you contributed to a system that literally doesn't even give two shits about you.
As for the original topic. I think I have to dig up an article from the NY Post (owned by Fox News) that was written about three months ago (by a NYC resident by the way) that talked about how he supported this Masque too. It was based on the founding principles of our nation, and how diversity is what has made America and NYC strong.
How many of the people in this thread that are bitching have actually been to NYC? How many of you have seen the millions of people of all colors and creeds working together to make a life? Palestinians selling food to Jewish people, who then walk down the street to their store where a Black Baptist Christian buys a product? The Chinese selling roasted chickens next to Italians selling pastries? How many of you have seen the church that survived the towers collapsing, and seen that there is actually already a masque within walking distance of where the towers fell? There is also a synagogue.
Get over yourselves!
That is ok with you? Why even have a Constitution then?
No it's not, but it's kind of hard to have sympathy for people that just happened to wake up in the last year. Bush shit on the Constitution then fed it to his dog who then shit it out on the lawn of the White House.
Am I O.K. with that? NO. But I can tell you one thing, someone saying that people should be able to go to the doctor is not really on the list of my priorities regarding things to be pissed off about. I'm more upset about the 8 years that came before.
No it's not...
Then stop saying it is OK when your guy violates the Constitution because other people did it first. What a stupid point to raise.
But I can tell you one thing, someone saying that people should be able to go to the doctor is not really on the list of my priorities regarding things to be pissed off about.
Yeah I am so relieved that Obama finally made it legal for people to go to the doctor. You bring this kind of intellectual dishonesty to many threads?
:rolleyes:
There is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives the government the power to REQUIRE citizens to purchase something.
That's why it's a tax ;)
Don't like the whole health care bs, because it's going to hurt medicare (another tax ;) ) that people have paid into after working their entire lives, only to have that money taken by the government and given to other people.
Bottom line, the government has zero cause to prevent the building of any religious building, hell they don't have a right to stop some one from putting a swingers club next to ground zero. If people want to protest it, that's their right to do so as protected by that same document that protects the people who wish to build a center of worship the protesters are protesting. Freedoms a bitch when you can't dictate your values on others. We aren't a theocracy, but a republic with a constitution that recognizes no religion... Thank God.
John_Wayne777
08-15-10, 09:56
There is ALSO something in the Constitution REQUIRING that ONLY Congress can declare war (only one example).
...and every president from Eisenhower through Obama has had to get Congressional approval to commit troops.
Bottom line, the government has zero cause to prevent the building of any religious building, hell they don't have a right to stop some one from putting a swingers club next to ground zero.
In this case, the city government of NYC could have stopped it quite easily and 'legally' by allowing the building that stood on that ground previously to be counted as a 'historic' building. So yes, they could have stopped it.
And yes, they can stop swinger's clubs, etc...have you not heard of zoning laws?
And yes, they can stop swinger's clubs, etc...have you not heard of zoning laws?
I think we can assume it fell within the zoning requirements, otherwise we wouldn't be in this position. Heard nothing of a variance being either granted nor requested.
In this case, the city government of NYC could have stopped it quite easily and 'legally' by allowing the building that stood on that ground previously to be counted as a 'historic' building. So yes, they could have stopped it.
And yes, they can stop swinger's clubs, etc...have you not heard of zoning laws?
I may be getting too cynical, but I can totally envision the landmark commission's response if someone wanted to tear down that building to erect, say, a Mormon cathedral.
A big-ass white monstrosity with a gold trumpeting angel on top.
And the worst thing is, I know I'd be right. They'd never allow it.
And I know the public outcry from Manhattanites would be about 1000 times more intense.
Then stop saying it is OK when your guy violates the Constitution because other people did it first. What a stupid point to raise.
Yeah I am so relieved that Obama finally made it legal for people to go to the doctor. You bring this kind of intellectual dishonesty to many threads?
:rolleyes:
Actually intellectual dishonesty is the only reason that I speak up. Try to twist my words all you want, and of course don't forget to fall back on the "accuse him of being a liberal, and Obama supporter" tactic in an attempt to divert the argument away from rationality.
So why did I bring up the argument? Because it seems people like yourselves just had some recent revelation about your government. Like you all woke up recently and said "wait, this Obama guy is the Anti-Christ because Glen Beck told me he is, and he's the worst person EVER."
The only reason I defend the guy is because what he definitely is is the biggest LOOSE LOOSE president in the history of this country. It's like he invented every wrong in the world or something. I'm amazed there hasn't been a thread on this forum about how he killed Jesus Christ. Or one about how he was school mates with Hitler and beat him at basketball, causing WWII.
When you guys actually start confronting the history of this Nation in segments longer then your two month attention span I may actually stop calling you out on your hypocrisy.
So why did I bring up the argument? Because it seems people like yourselves just had some recent revelation about your government. Like you all woke up recently and said "wait, this Obama guy is the Anti-Christ because Glen Beck told me he is, and he's the worst person EVER."
We have dozens of legit reasons to despise his performance as president, none having anything to go with Glen Beck.
Holy crudzolla do you sound like the typical lefty today.
Actually intellectual dishonesty is the only reason that I speak up. Try to twist my words all you want, and of course don't forget to fall back on the "accuse him of being a liberal, and Obama supporter" tactic in an attempt to divert the argument away from rationality.
So why did I bring up the argument? Because it seems people like yourselves just had some recent revelation about your government. Like you all woke up recently and said "wait, this Obama guy is the Anti-Christ because Glen Beck told me he is, and he's the worst person EVER."
The only reason I defend the guy is because what he definitely is is the biggest LOOSE LOOSE president in the history of this country. It's like he invented every wrong in the world or something. I'm amazed there hasn't been a thread on this forum about how he killed Jesus Christ. Or one about how he was school mates with Hitler and beat him at basketball, causing WWII.
When you guys actually start confronting the history of this Nation in segments longer then your two month attention span I may actually stop calling you out on your hypocrisy.
Thanks for speaking with such candor.
It's both refreshing and helpful.
Belmont31R
08-15-10, 12:07
There are also several cases against monopolies on the books that need to be looked at.
Your insurance company is doing the exact thing that you are all pissed off about regarding your government. They are confiscating your wealth in order to provide benefits to other people, and they are doing it at an insane profit, in a cornered market.
When you need an "Active MRI" or someone you love does, and you find yourself begging your FOR PROFIT insurance company to pay for a bill that you have invested in for the last 20 years of your life, come back and have a conversation with me about "fair", and "just".
I can tolerate a lot, but spitting on someone that is down and out, and turning your back on them is the lowest form of human behavior. Hiding behind a for profit mechanism that charges you $100 dollars for a band-aid so that you can pretend that you earned your health care is ignorant. Enjoy getting raped out of money you contributed to a system that literally doesn't even give two shits about you.
As for the original topic. I think I have to dig up an article from the NY Post (owned by Fox News) that was written about three months ago (by a NYC resident by the way) that talked about how he supported this Masque too. It was based on the founding principles of our nation, and how diversity is what has made America and NYC strong.
How many of the people in this thread that are bitching have actually been to NYC? How many of you have seen the millions of people of all colors and creeds working together to make a life? Palestinians selling food to Jewish people, who then walk down the street to their store where a Black Baptist Christian buys a product? The Chinese selling roasted chickens next to Italians selling pastries? How many of you have seen the church that survived the towers collapsing, and seen that there is actually already a masque within walking distance of where the towers fell? There is also a synagogue.
Get over yourselves!
Im not a huge fan of insurance companies but guess what...I don't have to do business with them if I don't want to. I can, and do pay out of pocket for most of our medical expenses. Aside from catostrophic expenses its usually cheaper to only have insurance for the big ticket items. You just have to find a doctor/practice that is willing to give good CASH prices. But again, no one (so far) is forcing me to buy insurance. If I don't like how they do business then I can find another company or go without.
Also if you look at the numbers Medicaid has more claims denied than private insurance, and with private insurance there are legal channels you can take. You can go to your state insurance controller, and tell them your insurance company is refusing to honor its contract by denying payment for services they agreed to pay to. Most of the cases Ive read about used as examples where someone was denied treatment was not in the contract anyways. There was a case being pimped out by the left to demonize private insurance, and it turns out they were refusing to pay for a experimental treatment. Most insurance doesn't cover experimental treatment because they are not in the business of paying for medical research.
Id enjoy seeing a copy of a medical bill that lists a single band aid for $100. Do you happen to have a copy of a medical bill that shows this?
Sure diversity can be a good thing but do you think the people of the late 1700's would have put up with a British monument to the Revolutionairy War sitting in Boston? No...the people would have gotten off their asses, grabbed some torches, and burned the mother****er to the ground "rights" be damned.
If you knew much about history you'd also know there were tons of "diversity" issues in the 1800's. This is why in places like NYC you have different sections of the city for people with different ancestory. The people coming over here flocked together, and created their own communities. You have Italian areas, China Town, Irish, Polish, etc. There are "Germantowns" in the mid west. You ever seen the movie "Gangs of New York"? Yeah its a movie but loosely based on reality of the time. Even into the 1900's there were a lot of issues. In the 30's, and even early 40's we used to turn away boats full of refugee Jews because our quota for the amount of Jews was full for that year. At least one case I know about a boat had to go back to France, and they were met at the dock by the Nazis. Canada turned them down, the US turned them down, Britain turned them down and they had to go back. Im not sure why people think all these immigrants came over here, and sang songs together around a camp fire while roasting marshmallows. But I guess the left is actively trying to distort our history, and use our past as an exuse to let anyone in here....their intentions be damned. Just like with all the illegals. That shit would have never flew even 50 years ago. My grandparents on my dads side had to shorten our last name so it didn't sound so European, and people think allowing all this is the same thing as our immigrant past? Not even close.
And the previous 8 years where Bush was blamed for everything, was that any different? The media and the left started this, and took it to an irrational level. Blaming Bush for natural disasters because he didn't do anything about "global warming", I mean "global climate change" or whatever they call it now.
They used this tactic demonize all Republicans, get Obama elected with majorities in both houses, and now we have to live with the consequences.
I agree with the 1st amendment stance that Mosque should be allowed to be built. But as others have said, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. This will set back Islamic relations and cause a lot of resentment and push back from ordinary Americans. It will not lead to greater understanding. Showing respect for the nearly 3,000 Americans lost to islamic extremism would be a good first step.
Now, the real issue is allowing those who support terrorism to operate with impunity. The Imam in question will not renounce Hamas as a terrorist group. That means he's a sympathizer, and highly suspect of providing material aid to them, or even using illegal money to build his mosque. If he stood up like a man and denounced violence and terrorism in the name of Islam, and built his mosque as a testament to non-violence and peace, then I think we would accept it. But he won't, and that very fact raises a huge red flag.
And for the other person who asked if any of us had even been to NYC:
My parents were born there, went to college there, and lived there until just before I was born when they moved across the river to the Jersey suburbs. We left the area when I was young, but I spent a lot of time going back to see family. My uncles still live there, I went through the WTC less than two years before the attacks, visited Ground Zero in 2004, and yes, I understand the melting pot of NYC and value it greatly.
Belmont31R
08-15-10, 12:13
There is ALSO something in the Constitution REQUIRING that ONLY Congress can declare war (only one example). So do we want to get into a theoretical argument about how pretty much EVERY president in the last 70 years has violated both the spirit, and the letter of our Constitution? If we do, then my question to you is why have you waited until Obama to actually be upset? Your right there is nothing in the Constitution saying he can do what you accuse him of, but there is also nothing in it that states he can't.
(caps added to counter your use of caps)
When did GWB formally declare war on anyone?
He was authorized to use force against Iraq in the Iraq War Resolution which a lot of democrats voted for. A lot of the citations in the Iraq War Resolution come from the 1998 Congressional Report on Iraq.
You can also read the War Powers Act which only authorizes the president to use troops for 3 months without Congressional approval. Congress controls the purse strings, and if they did not want Bush to use force they would not have kept paying for it, and they would not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Even when the Democrats took control of Congress after the elections in 2006 they kept paying for it which is authorizing Bush to keep troops there. Obama is following the Status of Forces Agreement Bush signed with Iraq in 2008 which outlines our withdrawal. Obama has not withdrawn any troops himself that I am aware of. The SOFA agreement set the time line, and Obama is following that agreement while at the same time taking credit for what Bush did.
Holy crudzolla do you sound like the typical lefty today.
I just found out my mother in law has brain cancer, and we're in limbo cause of the awesome U.S. private insurance system. I'm a little cranky, and I'm sick of this government/system as much as you all are, in fact I'm pissed Safety, ****ing pissed.
And what makes me even madder is we're all so damn caught up in picking sides, and mud slinging back and forth, we're just letting them take take take from us. All of them. Left and Right.
Go be a righty, I'll be a lefty, and one day we'll all wake up without anything while these rich ****s are laughing on the way to the bank...
jklaughrey
08-15-10, 14:37
People and the media demonize the right and conservative, but I say after reading some posts from members who clearly support the left. You and your thoughts and POV's scare the hell out of me. No need to call out your names you know who you are. Just be aware keep spouting lies and twisted truths, you are losing support and giving it to our side. Just look at the so called Dems who are jumping ship in favor of common sense we the conservative right are offering. Common sense should be the order of the day from here on out, not abstract pipe dreams and Obama Hope!
Belmont31R
08-15-10, 17:16
I just found out my mother in law has brain cancer, and we're in limbo cause of the awesome U.S. private insurance system. I'm a little cranky, and I'm sick of this government/system as much as you all are, in fact I'm pissed Safety, ****ing pissed.
And what makes me even madder is we're all so damn caught up in picking sides, and mud slinging back and forth, we're just letting them take take take from us. All of them. Left and Right.
Go be a righty, I'll be a lefty, and one day we'll all wake up without anything while these rich ****s are laughing on the way to the bank...
No you can thank the US Federal government, and some of the state governments for the huge cost of insurance.
Obamacare is directly responsible for the recent huge rises in private insurance costs. People need a serious lesson in economics if they think more government "intervention" is going to somehow make things more affordable. People like Obama can spout off about all this great new coverage, and people don't think that is going to cost money?
Our health care system is seriously ****ed up, and that is mostly due to government regulations, and government health programs. The more you force insurance companies to pay the more expensive it is going to be. You cannot force more coverage, and then expect rates to go down. The whole idea behind this was setup to make private insurance so expensive it would make a better argument for a single payer system. That has been the agenda the whole time. Why do you think Obama gave up the government plan up so easily? All they have to do now is sit back and wait until basic health insurance in 1k a month, and then poeple will be crying for the government to do something.
Then you have these government plans like Medicaid which underpay doctors/hospitals, and to make up for the cost they have to charge people like you and me extra. The government sets mandatory payment amounts for each procedure not the hospitals and doctors if you are on a government plan. Usually its far cheaper for them than it is for us. It only makes sense they have to charge us more to make up for it. Next time you are at a doctors office ask him what "plan" pays him the least. They have different rates depending on how you are paying.
Then you have the nice little law that says hospitals have to treat everyone who walks through the door no matter if they can pay or not. So we have 15-20 million illegals we are paying emergency room pricing for because they are forced to treat them. Who pays for that. Not the government because they set their own rates remember. Its on us. You mentioned a hundred dollar band aide. Prices are so high because you are paying for 5 other band aids from people who walk in, and never even have the intention of paying a dime for their services. You are paying for the 5 nurses who are making 25/hr constantly watching over you, and you are paying for the 5 nurses of for the 5 other people in there who arent going to pay.
Then because the government says we can't buy insurance across the state lines many states have very little competition. Last I read there were around 1700 private insurance companies in the US, and we only usually have access to a handful in each state. I cant even buy insurance from the top 10 rated insurance companies because they don't have offices in TX. If you really wanted some better service, and better prices Id rather have 1700 companies wanting my business than say 15.
You also need to look up the profit margin most of these companies are working on. Its usually less than 10% which isn't that much. Costs have gone up because they are getting charged more. The government plan pay rates don't go up every year. In fact they have gone down because it saves them money. So when doctors and hospitals negotiate with the insurance companies they have to charge us more. Its really quite simple, and Im not sure why its so hard for people to understand. If the government were not up in the middle of the insurance companies asses, and we didn't have government plans short changing our doctors private insurance would be a lot better, and a lot cheaper. There are hospitals that go out of business because they are forced to treat so many people who never pay them they just can't make it. Go to some of the hospitals down here, and some of them are full of illegals getting free care. The ones down the border birth ton of babies from Mexican women who come across just to pop out a kid as an American citizen. Whats the average cost of a birth? 10k for a normal delivery? 30k for a C-section? Add up the cost of 100k births a year that never gets paid. But if the hospital refused to deliver all these babies they'd get sued by the government, face fines, etc.
So yes you can go continue to be a left, and continue contributing to why this country is so ****ed up, and why the average middle class person is struggling these days. The middle class is paying more in taxes than they just about ever have, and its about to get a lot worse come Jan 1st when all the taxes go back up, and ones that were done away with come back online.
And you may not like the "rich" but they are the ones give most of us our jobs, and paying the majority of the tax burden. Those evil rich bastards are hundreds of billions a year in taxes that they will never see any benefit from any more than anyone else. They are the ones who risk their own money starting business for people like me to go work at, and make a living. Even if you took ALL their money away, and distributed it evenly to all Americans within 6 months we'd have rich people and poor people again. Most people become rich because they have the business sense to make money, and most people are poor because they make poor spending choices. Instead of investing their money, and trying to use that money to make more they go out and spend it on stupid shit like huge TV's, 24" rims for their car, beer, and other stupid shit they will never get back. The smart ones will be the ones selling the dumb ones things, and getting money from them. Just the way the world works, and you can't throw money at people to improve their situation. You can't throw money at people to suddenly make them start making smart decisions. What makes this country unique is not our ability to throw money at people but the opportunity we have here to do what we want in life, and make ourselves into anything. If you want to be rich then go be rich, and make the right decisions. If you want to be poor go sit on your ass, work as McDonalds, and complain about how the rich are gouging you.
Lastly...if you think your insurance is not paying something it should then go to whoever is the insurance regulator in your state, and complain to them. Thats what they are there for, and they have the power to hold insurance companies accountable if they are violating the contract. You can also contact media outlets, and let them know XYZ company is refusing to pay for they said they would. Tell them you'd love to get in front of a camera, and talk about how they are letting your mom waste away from cancer. I just want to say just like people you cant throw money at illness, and suddenly make it better. I lost my mom last year...she had great insurance, and could go see whatever doctors she wanted. It didn't stop her from dying at 61 years old.
Good post about medical costs. But let's not forget that many medical providers are not managed very efficiently and could probably learn to become way more cost effective if they were forced to - like if the periodic Medicare reimbursement cuts ever actually went through.
Most everyone has heard the statistic that 90% of new businesses fail within the first 5 years. But somehow, this standard doesn't apply to medical providers. Largely, they go into business and they succeed to a much greater extent than almost any other type of business. Why?
Part of the answer is lack of transparency in pricing, lack of competition, and what appears to be rampant price fixing between providers. If medical providers had to compete for real, we'd be seeing prices posted and advertised, like we see for Lasik and cosmetic surgery. Prices would come down due to the competition. This dynamic works for most all medical services that aren't covered by insurance. Those that are covered invariably see continuously escalating costs.
Then there's the perpetual shortage of doctors caused by limited enrollment in US medical schools, which reduces the labor supply and drives costs up. In most other industries labor shortages are relieved by increased enrollment in educational programs that provide the necessary skills. Not so in the US - the reason given is to maintain "quality standards". So rather than increase enrollment, we simply import doctors foreign countries whose educational quality we have zero control over. If they pass the boards, they get licenses.
The whole system is screwed up and needs a top to bottom overhaul. No one wants to give up their piece, so we end up with the kind of crap legislation we now have to deal with.
Actually intellectual dishonesty is the only reason that I speak up.
Yet you are the one telling flat out lies in this thread, on everything from pretending it is OK to trash the Constitution right now based on perceived trashing in the past to the nature of the health care bill rammed through Congress.
So why did I bring up the argument? Because it seems people like yourselves just had some recent revelation about your government. Like you all woke up recently and said "wait, this Obama guy is the Anti-Christ because Glen Beck told me he is, and he's the worst person EVER."
Once again total bullshit. Many people have been opposed to the big government course of the Democrats since the New Deal and only voted Republican as a lesser of two evils and continue doing so to this day. It is only because of how truly bankrupt and free spending Obama's policies are that this idea has gained traction with a large enough segment of the population that YOU "woke up recently" and noticed how many people are catching on.
I can't be the only one who finds it ironic that in the same breath you accuse people of being asleep at the wheel and then attribute leadership of the opposition to Obama, the philosophical roots of said opposition being decades olds, to a guy who has only had very recent great success (cable TV having much greater exposure than AM radio) due to being on Fox news for less than 2 years. More evidence that you are the one not paying attention.
Go be a righty, I'll be a lefty, and one day we'll all wake up without anything while these rich ****s are laughing on the way to the bank...
It is the left with their looter philosophy that says it is ok to take from one person and give to another who are responsible for people with more influence gaming the system and stealing from people.
Business_Casual
08-15-10, 20:29
No offense, but personal tragedy is not a basis for public policy. Like it or not, the rest of us aren't responsible for insuring you suffer no harm or failing that, mitigating it.
I'm not really sure what any of that insurance crap has to do with the enemy planting a victory flag on our soil with the help of our President and the Mayor of NYC.
B_C
thopkins22
08-15-10, 20:53
No offense, but personal tragedy is not a basis for public policy. Like it or not, the rest of us aren't responsible for insuring you suffer no harm or failing that, mitigating it.Absolutely.
I'm not really sure what any of that insurance crap has to do with the enemy planting a victory flag on our soil with the help of our President and the Mayor of NYC.
B_C
I'm just not convinced that moving a Mosque one block apparently in the wrong direction is planting a victory flag. We've killed close to one hundred thousand of them...is allowing the same freedoms to extend to Muslims really raising the white flag?
Indeed I believe that denying this Mosque would bolster their morale and recruitment far more than allowing it.
Absolutely.
Indeed I believe that denying this Mosque would bolster their morale and recruitment far more than allowing it.
They had enough morale and recruitment to launch two attacks on the WTC (1993 and 2001) in the first place. That was before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, before Abu Grahib, before Guantanamo, etc.
Do you think whether or not a mosque is built in NYC is going to make one bit of difference in how much they hate us?
In this case, the city government of NYC could have stopped it quite easily and 'legally' by allowing the building that stood on that ground previously to be counted as a 'historic' building. So yes, they could have stopped it.
And yes, they can stop swinger's clubs, etc...have you not heard of zoning laws?
No shit, there's zoning laws, I can't open up a strip club in front of a school in most places... Doesn't make it right however, people bitch about healthcare because there's nothing in the constitution about it, where the **** does it say you can limit the building of a religious center of worship?
And why the hell should the state have stepped in to prevent Christians from seeing this as a spit in the face. You do know innocent Muslims died that day as well... I know they're all guilty heathens who deserve eternity in hell for their witch craft, the moon worshiping bastards.
If it was a church this controversy wouldn't exist. If it was the building of a church and protested by the Muslim community than the other side would be using the same defense about church and state. But **** it, let's be one sided assholes, and use the constitution only when it benefits our side. Because freedom of worship is only available to the Christians, and just maybe the Jews (Don't forget they killed Jesus, it wasn't Mohamed )
Why didn't all you guys put up such a piss fit with the WTC cross, how was that right? Not everyone who died at the WTC was of Christian faith. I guess at Arlington the only gravestones should come in one flavor, Christian. If they're anything else to bad.
99.9% of this forum will cry foul with gun control and cite the constitution, but when it comes to another faith that isn't their own they throw the whole thing out the window because it isn't a view they share. That's some narcissistic bullshit.
Indeed I believe that denying this Mosque would bolster their morale and recruitment far more than allowing it.
Oh boy. :rolleyes:
No offense, but personal tragedy is not a basis for public policy.
B_C
Bull shit. Mitigation of tragedy through collective work is the reason for society. If you can't see that your ignorant of 20,000 years of human history, and it's pretty obvious that this is the case.
I'm done with this thread, and the collective ignorance that is found there in.
Bull shit. Mitigation of tragedy through collective work is the reason for society. If you can't see that your ignorant of 20,000 years of human history, and it's pretty obvious that this is the case.
uh, not really.
I'm done with this thread, and the collective ignorance that is found there in.
jklaughrey
08-16-10, 00:12
Well....Bye!
Belmont31R
08-16-10, 00:29
Bull shit. Mitigation of tragedy through collective work is the reason for society. If you can't see that your ignorant of 20,000 years of human history, and it's pretty obvious that this is the case.
I'm done with this thread, and the collective ignorance that is found there in.
So instead of debating the facts/issues you just name call, and say you are leaving? Figures....:rolleyes: Every lefty I ever talk to does this same shit. They say some typical argument, and you present facts. They get pissy, name call, and take their ball home.
And speaking of collectivism. It works for some things when its voluntary. When you have the government forcing it by way of pointing guns at people, seizing their property if they dont comply, and taking away things from the individual it always fails. Collectivism can work as long as individuals are allowed to flourish within the group so that they can bring different strengths to the table to help other people. In years way back you had a town black smith, town doctor, town general store, you had farmers on the outskirts who grew crops, cattle ranchers, a stable, etc. Each person had something to offer. Collectivism is doomed to fail if your view of collectivism is that half the town sits on their ass wasting the money you give them, and you are relying on the other productive 50% to support the entire 100% put together. If everyone doesn't pull their own weight it doesnt work. If the farmer needed to see the doctor he paid with chickens, eggs, milk, etc. You didn't have town bums going to the doctor, and saying well the general store owner has to pay for me because I want to sit around drinking all day. In those days you either put in your share or died of starvation. Todays society rewards people for doing nothing with their lives, and its bringing the rest of us down with them. Never in human history have you had so many people living off the work of others. Do you think 10k years ago the nomads would have put up with someone who refused to do their fair share of the work, hunting, gathering? **** no. They would have tossed the bum out of camp, and the bum would either get with the program or sit down and die. The only difference now is we have a "middle man" who forces the rest of the group by way of force to provide for that bum no matter how lazy he is. Entitlement society goes completely against the laws of nature, and mother nature always make sure those who fail her rules suffer. We keep up on this BS of spending 2-3 trillion a year on the bums of society, and we'll just revert back a couple hundred years when we go bankrupt, and a lot of people will die before things normalize again. Never in human history has an entitlement society lasted. What does last, and what has brought us to this point is everyone putting in their fair share or they get kicked the **** out.
variablebinary
08-16-10, 00:51
Redistribution is not collectivism.
Collectivism in my mind means we all have a mutual interest so we contribute to the cause so that we may all be uplifted in some way.
Good Example: we all have an interest in having a military protect us from invasion or attack. We pay taxes which fund the military.
Bad Example: I have no interest in being taxed for anchor babies being born here and their illegal parents going on WIC, Welfare, Section8, Medicaid etc etc. There is no mutually shared burden that benefits me and them. It's just taking from me and giving to them.
As for the Mosque, I hope it burns down, which it probably will if there another terrorist attack on NYC.
If you want to live in a socialist country, you can move, plenty to choose from. A few of them even speak English. If I thought my country sucked ass, I'd move to a better one. I'd tear off with a one way ticket and the clothes on my back if another country offered a constitutional American lifestyle. I'd do it even if I had to learn some dingbat pidgin language.
John_Wayne777
08-16-10, 06:52
Enough already.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.