Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EWSoccer64]

  There is big debate about the "Ground Zero Mosque" going on right now.  Some view it as a freedom of religion issue.  Others see it as an insult to America and the families of those who died on 9/11.

A little history - Muslims have had a long history of converting the Holy (or significant) sites of others into their own when they conquer.   Jerusalem, St Sophia's in Byzantium, the Church in Cordoba, etc.   And yes, Christianity in its militant expansionist period did similar things.     One might call it a facet of an immature religion.

Right now, unbeknownst to many in the West, there is a quiet fight within Sunni Islam over the direction the religion should pursue.  Call it between the moderate progressives (who think that women should be allowed to drive) and the conservative regressives (the world has gone downhill since 13 hundred AD and women are property).


An intersting note - The group backing the "Ground Zero Mosque" is officially the Cordoba something or other.  Cordoba was the capital of the portion of Europe that the Muslims had conquered in their jihads, their crusades to bring to bring the world under their rule.   Many of the conservative/regressives believe that this area, and all lands that were once Muslim by right of conquest, still belong to the Islamics because it say so in the Koran (their interpretation, not mine.)

The group supporting the Ground Zero Mosque is not releasing where it got it's $100,000,000 in financing from.   
This Cordoba Group was apparently the first people to term the mosque the Ground Zero Mosque.   Some fo the Arab press are calling it the Victory Mosque.

It is clear that having a mosque at Ground Zero will look (to the "Muslim Street") like a sign of weakness by America, a sign of surrender, a sign of recognition of the Triumph of the Hard Core Islam.   This will embolden and empower the Conservative/Regressive Militant Muslims, and shift many of the undecided towards supporting them.  (Success breeds support).  There will be more American military casualties if the mosque is placed at or near Ground Zero.  There will be more terrorist attacks against American and Western civillians.   It would be interesting to see if the people who favor it being allowed to be placed there have ever served in the military or have kids who are doing so. 

As a side note, it is interesting how little real journalism has gone into investigating this situation.   Much of the public information is obviously fallacious, much of it is specious, and hard info is difficult to come by.  If anyone has seen a really solid article on this mosque, please let us know.

[El Matarife]

I is clear that having a mosque at Ground Zero will look (to the "Muslim Street") like a sign of weakness by America, a sign of surrender, a sign of recognition of the Triumph of the Hard Core Islam.   This will embolden and empower the Conservative/Regressive Militant Muslims, and shift many of the undecided towards supporting them.  (Success breeds support).  There will be more American military casualties if the mosque is placed at or near Ground Zero.  There will be more terrorist attacks against American and Western civillians.   It would be interesting to see if the people who favor it being allowed to be placed there have ever served in the military or have kids who are doing so. 

Zero of that is supported by any amount of evidence.  This is pure conjecture on your part.  And, I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few American families out there who have been part of a war effort that would see this as a freedom of speech/religion issue, something they were supposedly fighting for.

[EWSoccer64]

I is clear that having a mosque at Ground Zero will look (to the "Muslim Street") like a sign of weakness by America, a sign of surrender, a sign of recognition of the Triumph of the Hard Core Islam.   This will embolden and empower the Conservative/Regressive Militant Muslims, and shift many of the undecided towards supporting them.  (Success breeds support).  There will be more American military casualties if the mosque is placed at or near Ground Zero.  There will be more terrorist attacks against American and Western civillians.   It would be interesting to see if the people who favor it being allowed to be placed there have ever served in the military or have kids who are doing so. 

Zero of that is supported by any amount of evidence.  This is pure conjecture on your part.  And, I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few American families out there who have been part of a war effort that would see this as a freedom of speech/religion issue, something they were supposedly fighting for.

I find more unsupported conjecture on in your statement, El Matarife.  As far as my statements  being unsupported, I find the support of the co-founder of Hamas for the Ground Zero Mosque to be instructive.

[windy90]

I is clear that having a mosque at Ground Zero will look (to the "Muslim Street") like a sign of weakness by America, a sign of surrender, a sign of recognition of the Triumph of the Hard Core Islam.   This will embolden and empower the Conservative/Regressive Militant Muslims, and shift many of the undecided towards supporting them.  (Success breeds support).  There will be more American military casualties if the mosque is placed at or near Ground Zero.  There will be more terrorist attacks against American and Western civillians.   It would be interesting to see if the people who favor it being allowed to be placed there have ever served in the military or have kids who are doing so.  

Zero of that is supported by any amount of evidence.  This is pure conjecture on your part.  And, I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few American families out there who have been part of a war effort that would see this as a freedom of speech/religion issue, something they were supposedly fighting for.

I find more unsupported conjecture on in your statement, El Matarife.  As far as my statements  being unsupported, I find the support of the co-founder of Hamas for the Ground Zero Mosque to be instructive.

Remember 9/11; Hamas celebrated the slaughter of 3000+ New Yorkers.....

See video of Hamas Supporters praising "allah akbar" attacks of 9/11.



Hamas and Taliban follow almost identical ideology.

[Big Youth]

  There is big debate about the "Ground Zero Mosque" going on right now.  Some view it as a freedom of religion issue.  Others see it as an insult to America and the families of those who died on 9/11.

A little history - Muslims have had a long history of converting the Holy (or significant) sites of others into their own when they conquer.   Jerusalem, St Sophia's in Byzantium, the Church in Cordoba, etc.   And yes, Christianity in its militant expansionist period did similar things.     One might call it a facet of an immature religion.

Right now, unbeknownst to many in the West, there is a quiet fight within Sunni Islam over the direction the religion should pursue.  Call it between the moderate progressives (who think that women should be allowed to drive) and the conservative regressives (the world has gone downhill since 13 hundred AD and women are property).


An intersting note - The group backing the "Ground Zero Mosque" is officially the Cordoba something or other.  Cordoba was the capital of the portion of Europe that the Muslims had conquered in their jihads, their crusades to bring to bring the world under their rule.   Many of the conservative/regressives believe that this area, and all lands that were once Muslim by right of conquest, still belong to the Islamics because it say so in the Koran (their interpretation, not mine.)

The group supporting the Ground Zero Mosque is not releasing where it got it's $100,000,000 in financing from.   
This Cordoba Group was apparently the first people to term the mosque the Ground Zero Mosque.   Some fo the Arab press are calling it the Victory Mosque.

It is clear that having a mosque at Ground Zero will look (to the "Muslim Street") like a sign of weakness by America, a sign of surrender, a sign of recognition of the Triumph of the Hard Core Islam.   This will embolden and empower the Conservative/Regressive Militant Muslims, and shift many of the undecided towards supporting them.  (Success breeds support).  There will be more American military casualties if the mosque is placed at or near Ground Zero.  There will be more terrorist attacks against American and Western civillians.   It would be interesting to see if the people who favor it being allowed to be placed there have ever served in the military or have kids who are doing so. 

As a side note, it is interesting how little real journalism has gone into investigating this situation.   Much of the public information is obviously fallacious, much of it is specious, and hard info is difficult to come by.  If anyone has seen a really solid article on this mosque, please let us know.

A couple of comments:
1.  The First Amendment issue is simple--the Constitution protects the building of the project at that site, whatever one thinks of the propriety of doing so.
2.  The project will not be built at Ground Zero, at the edge of Ground Zero, or within the sight of Ground Zero.  It is two blocks away from the northeast edge, surrounded by other buildings.
3.  New York and New Yorkers haven't treated the area around Ground Zero as "hallowed ground" up to this point.  There are one or more strip clubs and t-shirt vendors closer to the site.
4.  The area has boarded up buildings, so the project actually would help the area economically.
5.  The project technically isn't a Mosque, but it does have a prayer center so that distinction probably isn't meaningful.
6.  The area has included a Mosque since before the WTCs were built, so this isn't really the Muslim community moving in to declare victory.
7.  The asserted symbolism of the project has not been well received by Muslims.  Those involved in the project are not required to take this into consideration, but they may want to do so.
8.  The project sponsors own one building needed for the project, and have the right to acquire the other.  In that economically depressed section of Manhattan, they probably couldn't sell their rights for sufficient cash to build a project a few blocks further away that would serve the Muslim community already resident in the area.  What to the opponents of the project think they should do about that?

[EWSoccer64]

A couple of comments:
1.  The First Amendment issue is simple--the Constitution protects the building of the project at that site, whatever one thinks of the propriety of doing so.
The first amendment does not address the location of places of worship.
2.  The project will not be built at Ground Zero, at the edge of Ground Zero, or within the sight of Ground Zero.  It is two blocks away from the northeast edge, surrounded by other buildings.
Part of the landing gear of one of the planes that struck the towers, debris from the towers, and almost definitely parts of human remains struck the exact site of the mosque/Islamic Religious center to be.   To try to call it other than Ground Zero is like saying "it was not Pearl harbor, it was Ford Island."
3.  New York and New Yorkers haven't treated the area around Ground Zero as "hallowed ground" up to this point.  There are one or more strip clubs and t-shirt vendors closer to the site.  So?  It is New York City.  That's their taste in things.
4.  The area has boarded up buildings, so the project actually would help the area economically.   Do these boarded up buildings predate 9/11 or where they boarded up afterwards.
5.  The project technically isn't a Mosque, but it does have a prayer center so that distinction probably isn't meaningful.  One could argue that if there was a differentiation, then it would be meaningful.  Unless the place was zoned for educational organizations.   Still, it contains a mosque, and will be used as a mosque.
6.  The area has included a Mosque since before the WTCs were built, so this isn't really the Muslim community moving in to declare victory.
When they get a $100 million Cordoba Islamic Center (and Mosque) while the Orthodox Church gets the bum's trush, you don't think that there will be Muslims that do not think of this as a victory?  Even if the Greeks were allowed to rebuild, even if other faiths were to set up Cathedrals in the same zone, this will still be seen as a sign of Islamic Triumph by many of the extremists, and be disheartening to the moderate Muslims.
7.  The asserted symbolism of the project has not been well received by Muslims.  Those involved in the project are not required to take this into consideration, but they may want to do so. Right, back to the onging conflict between moderate and radical Muslims.
8.  The project sponsors own one building needed for the project, and have the right to acquire the other.  In that economically depressed section of Manhattan, they probably couldn't sell their rights for sufficient cash to build a project a few blocks further away that would serve the Muslim community already resident in the area.  What to the opponents of the project think they should do about that?  Crap.   They have gotten $100 million from "private sources".   They have enough cash to move the victory mosque elsewhere.
Oh, and if they do build it, they should be prepared for the city to exercise "eminent domain" once Bllomberg is voted out of office.

[Left Foot]

Yes, let us all worry about this "made for right wing TV issue." In the meantime, Exxon and the gang will continue making your foreign policy and your energy policy. Which, incidentally, results in our armed forces being used as Exxon and the gang's private military force. Campaign finance reform folks!

And by the way, refusing to allow the building of a structure based upon the religious views of the folks proposing the building would, in fact, run contrary to the first amendment. Just man up and say "Screw the first amendment, these are frickin' Muslims!" Rush would wouldn't he?

[cheese]

While I do not agree with building a Mosque at ground zero (to me it's like someone got hurt robbing your house and you get stuck paying their medical bill), I do think they have the right by the Constitution to practice their religion Where, When and How they want as long as it does not injure others.

Many men and women died for the freedom to uphold the Constitution in this Country.  Some of the rights people died for stab us in the back but that is part of the freedom.
I also disagree with burning the American Flag but that too is also a freedom we have fought to protect.

[Left Foot]

And as someone has pointed it out, it isn't Ground Zero. You have to shoehorn in some claptrap to call it that. So, dust flew all over the city, is anywhere it landed Ground Zero? Great bit of yellow journalism though. I guess if you have a molehill, just add a little "Muslim hatin' topping and voila! You have a controversy that you can ride for a few weeks to bring in the eyeballs.

Screw the Constitution! Them's MUSLIMS you idjit!

[Big Youth]

A couple of comments:
1.  The First Amendment issue is simple--the Constitution protects the building of the project at that site, whatever one thinks of the propriety of doing so.
The first amendment does not address the location of places of worship.
2.  The project will not be built at Ground Zero, at the edge of Ground Zero, or within the sight of Ground Zero.  It is two blocks away from the northeast edge, surrounded by other buildings.
Part of the landing gear of one of the planes that struck the towers, debris from the towers, and almost definitely parts of human remains struck the exact site of the mosque/Islamic Religious center to be.   To try to call it other than Ground Zero is like saying "it was not Pearl harbor, it was Ford Island."
3.  New York and New Yorkers haven't treated the area around Ground Zero as "hallowed ground" up to this point.  There are one or more strip clubs and t-shirt vendors closer to the site.  So?  It is New York City.  That's their taste in things.
4.  The area has boarded up buildings, so the project actually would help the area economically.   Do these boarded up buildings predate 9/11 or where they boarded up afterwards.
5.  The project technically isn't a Mosque, but it does have a prayer center so that distinction probably isn't meaningful.  One could argue that if there was a differentiation, then it would be meaningful.  Unless the place was zoned for educational organizations.   Still, it contains a mosque, and will be used as a mosque.
6.  The area has included a Mosque since before the WTCs were built, so this isn't really the Muslim community moving in to declare victory.
When they get a $100 million Cordoba Islamic Center (and Mosque) while the Orthodox Church gets the bum's trush, you don't think that there will be Muslims that do not think of this as a victory?  Even if the Greeks were allowed to rebuild, even if other faiths were to set up Cathedrals in the same zone, this will still be seen as a sign of Islamic Triumph by many of the extremists, and be disheartening to the moderate Muslims.
7.  The asserted symbolism of the project has not been well received by Muslims.  Those involved in the project are not required to take this into consideration, but they may want to do so. Right, back to the onging conflict between moderate and radical Muslims.
8.  The project sponsors own one building needed for the project, and have the right to acquire the other.  In that economically depressed section of Manhattan, they probably couldn't sell their rights for sufficient cash to build a project a few blocks further away that would serve the Muslim community already resident in the area.  What to the opponents of the project think they should do about that?  Crap.   They have gotten $100 million from "private sources".   They have enough cash to move the victory mosque elsewhere.
Oh, and if they do build it, they should be prepared for the city to exercise "eminent domain" once Bllomberg is voted out of office.

I don't have time to address most of the points again EW, but with respect to the First Amendment point, your "location" retort is irrelevant.  NYC probably could have a rationally drafted zoning policy forbidding places of worship in a designated area, but there are already several churches in the area and an Islamic prayer facility has been at the location for years.  So there is a first amendment right to worship, and build to worship, because no rational zoning law forbids it.

And as for the "hallowed ground" comment, the taste of NYC residents as displayed there is exactly the point.  The opponents of the Mosque really have three choices for an attack: (1) Demand that the area around GZ should become an "Islam Free" zone, which likely won't survive constitutional challenge; (2) Declare that the area be treated as "hallowed ground", which requires some consistency in taste beyond "no Mosques"; or (3) actually do the hard work of thinking through a rational argument why an Islamic cultural and prayer center dishoners the memory of the incident more than the Pussycat Dolls club near GZ without getting into First Amendment territory.

Whether the boarded up building predate 9/11 or not is irrelevant.   The point is whether it is worthwhile to revitalize the area.  The Burlington Coat factory isn't going to resume operations.

[cheese]

And as someone has pointed it out, it isn't Ground Zero. You have to shoehorn in some claptrap to call it that. So, dust flew all over the city, is anywhere it landed Ground Zero? Great bit of yellow journalism though. I guess if you have a molehill, just add a little "Muslim hatin' topping and voila! You have a controversy that you can ride for a few weeks to bring in the eyeballs.

Screw the Constitution! Them's MUSLIMS you idjit!

Sure......Lets "Screw the Constitution! Them's MUSLIMS you idjit!"
Now it's their turn.....Screw the Constitution! Them's CHRISTIAN you idjit!  Now we can ban all Christian places of worship. 

They are American's too.  My Constitution is also their Constitution.  It does not have exceptions in it saying "Freedom of Religion except for Muslims"

Hitler didn't care for other that were different too.  That didn't turn out good either.  Where will it end?

Diversity

[Left Foot]

And as someone has pointed it out, it isn't Ground Zero. You have to shoehorn in some claptrap to call it that. So, dust flew all over the city, is anywhere it landed Ground Zero? Great bit of yellow journalism though. I guess if you have a molehill, just add a little "Muslim hatin' topping and voila! You have a controversy that you can ride for a few weeks to bring in the eyeballs.

Screw the Constitution! Them's MUSLIMS you idjit!

Sure......Lets "Screw the Constitution! Them's MUSLIMS you idjit!"
Now it's their turn.....Screw the Constitution! Them's CHRISTIAN you idjit!  Now we can ban all Christian places of worship. 

They are American's too.  My Constitution is also their Constitution.  It does not have exceptions in it saying "Freedom of Religion except for Muslims"

Hitler didn't care for other that were different too.  That didn't turn out good either.  Where will it end?

Diversity

I hope you know that I was being sarcastic.And, as far as I can tell, you are right on the money with your point about the importance of the first amendment.

[Big Youth]

I think it worth noting that Ted Olson, GOP stalwart, former Solicitor General under GW Bush, and widower of one of the 9/11 victims, stated today that he thought Obama was right about the constitutional issue.  He also said that the Center should be built where the sponsors of the project what to build it if zoning allows it to be built there, and that we shouldn't use an act of hate against us to justify an act of religious intolerance by us.

[EWSoccer64]

I don't have time to address most of the points again EW, but with respect to the First Amendment point, your "location" retort is irrelevant.  NYC probably could have a rationally drafted zoning policy forbidding places of worship in a designated area, but there are already several churches in the area and an Islamic prayer facility has been at the location for years.  So there is a first amendment right to worship, and build to worship, because no rational zoning law forbids it.Zoning can be changed, eminent domain has been ruled constitutional for less reason$, and there is always the ability to apply rational standards.

And as for the "hallowed ground" comment, the taste of NYC residents as displayed there is exactly the point.  The opponents of the Mosque really have three choices for an attack: (1) Demand that the area around GZ should become an "Islam Free" zone, which likely won't survive constitutional challenge;Not if it is done that way.   Having the City put up monument right in front stating "3,000 Innocent People were killed by 19 Muslim Islamic Terrorists on this site on 9/11.   Millions of Muslims around the World applauded this act of Mass Murder by Muslims. etc. etc.  That would be part of one approach (2) Declare that the area be treated as "hallowed ground", which requires some consistency in taste beyond "no Mosques"  Why?; or (3) actually do the hard work of thinking through a rational argument why an Islamic cultural and prayer center dishoners the memory of the incident more than the Pussycat Dolls club near GZ without getting into First Amendment territory.  More people who worked in the Twin Towers appreciated the Pussycats Dolls club than any mosque.

Whether the boarded up building predate 9/11 or not is irrelevant.    it is very relevent, or at least you thought so when you brought up the issue.   I simply pointed out another red herring issue that you tried to float. The point is whether it is worthwhile to revitalize the area.  The Burlington Coat factory isn't going to resume operations.  The area will be revitalized with or without the victory mosque.

The Ground Zero Mosque is the wrong thing, funded by the wrong people, being built for the wrong reasons, and being run by the wrong people.   The hamas loving leader of the Mosque is the guy who wrote the book about spreading Islam from the rubble of the World Trade Center.    Who was it that said that the constitution was not a suicide pact?   Come on, lefty, you should remember that one.
   All that being said, I do find the constitutional aspect to be troubling, and the issue of picking on a single religion is fraught with danger.  However, this country has a long history of doing exactly that.  (ask any Mormon).    It would be nice if someone just went in and smeared Pig's blood all over the place and rendered it unfit for Muslim usage.  The city could rezone - no new religious construction - or sieze the place to use as a the new city dog pound.  Or the feds could find terrorist money being used to finnance the place and then sieze it all.

[Left Foot]

EW -- All that being said, I do find the constitutional aspect to be troubling, and the issue of picking on a single religion is fraught with danger. --

Excellent, you found your brain lying around under a cushion did you? All the rest of this is just gibberish designed to excite passions and sell ads.

Remember all the hullabaloo over burning the flag? Another bunch of bullsh(*&* designed to make political hay. Our sons and daughters die to defend the Constitution. It would be nice if the hate media gave it a little respect.

[Big Youth]

I don't have time to address most of the points again EW, but with respect to the First Amendment point, your "location" retort is irrelevant.  NYC probably could have a rationally drafted zoning policy forbidding places of worship in a designated area, but there are already several churches in the area and an Islamic prayer facility has been at the location for years.  So there is a first amendment right to worship, and build to worship, because no rational zoning law forbids it.Zoning can be changed, eminent domain has been ruled constitutional for less reason$, and there is always the ability to apply rational standards.

And as for the "hallowed ground" comment, the taste of NYC residents as displayed there is exactly the point.  The opponents of the Mosque really have three choices for an attack: (1) Demand that the area around GZ should become an "Islam Free" zone, which likely won't survive constitutional challenge;Not if it is done that way.   Having the City put up monument right in front stating "3,000 Innocent People were killed by 19 Muslim Islamic Terrorists on this site on 9/11.   Millions of Muslims around the World applauded this act of Mass Murder by Muslims. etc. etc.  That would be part of one approach (2) Declare that the area be treated as "hallowed ground", which requires some consistency in taste beyond "no Mosques"  Why?; or (3) actually do the hard work of thinking through a rational argument why an Islamic cultural and prayer center dishoners the memory of the incident more than the Pussycat Dolls club near GZ without getting into First Amendment territory.  More people who worked in the Twin Towers appreciated the Pussycats Dolls club than any mosque.

Whether the boarded up building predate 9/11 or not is irrelevant.    it is very relevent, or at least you thought so when you brought up the issue.   I simply pointed out another red herring issue that you tried to float. The point is whether it is worthwhile to revitalize the area.  The Burlington Coat factory isn't going to resume operations.  The area will be revitalized with or without the victory mosque.

The Ground Zero Mosque is the wrong thing, funded by the wrong people, being built for the wrong reasons, and being run by the wrong people.   The hamas loving leader of the Mosque is the guy who wrote the book about spreading Islam from the rubble of the World Trade Center.    Who was it that said that the constitution was not a suicide pact?   Come on, lefty, you should remember that one.
   All that being said, I do find the constitutional aspect to be troubling, and the issue of picking on a single religion is fraught with danger.  However, this country has a long history of doing exactly that.  (ask any Mormon).    It would be nice if someone just went in and smeared Pig's blood all over the place and rendered it unfit for Muslim usage.  The city could rezone - no new religious construction - or sieze the place to use as a the new city dog pound.  Or the feds could find terrorist money being used to finnance the place and then sieze it all.

I don't know whether some of your comments are even meant to be serious, but on the assumption that they are, here goes.
(1) Of course zoning can be changed, but this project has already been approved by the NYC's relevant board.  The City currently doesn't have a reason for eminent domain.  Could they come up with one? Maybe.  Would it stand legal challenge? Neither of us can say because we don't even know the reason.  The only relevant point is that right now, it is zoned and approved for this use, and the City has no eminent domain action planned.  Those of you Commies that don't like private decisions about the use of private property can cry about that, but right now there is no legal impediment to the project.

(2)  The monument you mention doesn't change the argument. First, the City hasn't constructed a monument and has approved the projected use of the buildings, so it isn't likely.  But even if they did it it wouldn't do much for the "hallowed ground" argument.  The notion of "hallowed ground" implies a zone of reverence and respect, and legally it would have to be rational and uniformly applied.  That goes beyond just precluding an Islamic culture center, especially if you want to survive a constitutional challenge.  Your final comment in that paragraph doesn't advance the argument.  Neither of us know what percentage of WTC employees appreciated Pullycat Dolls at all, but whether they did or didn't when they were alive and there was no argument of "hallowed ground" is irrelevant when they are dead and people started spouting off about "hallowed ground".

(3) Your comment is nonsensical.  I brought up the boarded buildings because they are relevant to whether the Islamic Center will add to, detract from, or be a net zero for micro economic growth.  That doesn't mean I thought it relevant whether they were boarded up before 9/11.  To suggest that bringing it up is a red herring suggests unfamiliarity with the term red herring.  My friends in the area say that the area hasn't been revitalized, and shows little sign of revitalization.  Even those who aren't sure they like the project think it will be a net gain for revitalzing the area.  They could be wrong about a positive impact, but they aren't wrong about whether there has been a revitalization in that specific area.

(4) You wrote that you're trouble by the constitutional issue, but your comments show that you aren't really troubled.  As long as the constitutional issue doesn't his your rights, you can rationalize it I guess.  And bringing up past questionble actions towards other religions as a justification is like using slavery to justify racial or ethnic discrimination.  And to be clear, I'm not calling you a racist; I'm saying that your justification is completely inadequate.

And I'm not a fan of building the Islamic Center in that location.  But I believe in private use of private property, proper and fair application of legal procedures, and the rule of law.  Ted Olson has it right here.  And if the Islamic center is stopped on improper grounds and they backers  hire GOP warhorse Ted Olson to take the case, you should remember that he's never lost a case at the Supreme Court level.

[EWSoccer64]

EW -- All that being said, I do find the constitutional aspect to be troubling, and the issue of picking on a single religion is fraught with danger. --

Excellent, you found your brain lying around under a cushion did you? All the rest of this is just gibberish designed to excite passions and sell ads.

Remember all the hullabaloo over burning the flag? Another bunch of bullsh(*&* designed to make political hay. Our sons and daughters die to defend the Constitution. It would be nice if the hate media gave it a little respect.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that burning the flag is allowed.  Only left wing lunatics think that this is "freedom of SPEECH".

I suppose that you also think that allowing a Nazi Party Headquarters to be built in or next to Auschitz should be allowed under "Freedom of Speech and Assembley"

[Left Foot]

EW -- All that being said, I do find the constitutional aspect to be troubling, and the issue of picking on a single religion is fraught with danger. --

Excellent, you found your brain lying around under a cushion did you? All the rest of this is just gibberish designed to excite passions and sell ads.

Remember all the hullabaloo over burning the flag? Another bunch of bullsh(*&* designed to make political hay. Our sons and daughters die to defend the Constitution. It would be nice if the hate media gave it a little respect.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that burning the flag is allowed.  Only left wing lunatics think that this is "freedom of SPEECH".

I suppose that you also think that allowing a Nazi Party Headquarters to be built in or next to Auschitz should be allowed under "Freedom of Speech and Assembley"

Just glad we don't live in your America dude. Burning the flag is speech.

[NKSoccerFan]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that burning the flag is allowed.  Only left wing lunatics think that this is "freedom of SPEECH".

Which is why there is a ninth amendment to the Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As I understand it, that means that just because the Constituion doesn't specify a certain right, doesn't mean that you don't have that right.

Maybe this is a liberal point of view, but the Bill of Rights is designed to limit the role of Government, not the people.

Although I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I've been out of school a long time now.



Hey lookie! 100th post!

[Brat Jr]

Hey lookie! 100th post!

and new ranking too! WPS Select Poster 

[NKSoccerFan]

Hey lookie! 100th post!

and new ranking too! WPS Select Poster 

I feel special, maybe I should take the rest of the day off 

Pales in comparison to 15000+ posts, but it's a start!

[yote19]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that burning the flag is allowed.  Only left wing lunatics think that this is "freedom of SPEECH".

Which is why there is a ninth amendment to the Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As I understand it, that means that just because the Constituion doesn't specify a certain right, doesn't mean that you don't have that right.

Maybe this is a liberal point of view, but the Bill of Rights is designed to limit the role of Government, not the people.
Although I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I've been out of school a long time now.

liberal point of view --designed to limit the role of government--now this is funny.

[NKSoccerFan]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that burning the flag is allowed.  Only left wing lunatics think that this is "freedom of SPEECH".

Which is why there is a ninth amendment to the Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As I understand it, that means that just because the Constituion doesn't specify a certain right, doesn't mean that you don't have that right.

Maybe this is a liberal point of view, but the Bill of Rights is designed to limit the role of Government, not the people.
Although I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I've been out of school a long time now.

liberal point of view --designed to limit the role of government--now this is funny.

Well, individual rights certainly haven't been the interest of the conservatives lately.
Perhaps, Libertarian would be closer.

[yote19]

Personally, in the state of Washington, I am just tired of the amount of government we have.  But what do I know.  Cheers

[EWSoccer64]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that burning the flag is allowed.  Only left wing lunatics think that this is "freedom of SPEECH".

Which is why there is a ninth amendment to the Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As I understand it, that means that just because the Constituion doesn't specify a certain right, doesn't mean that you don't have that right.

Maybe this is a liberal point of view, but the Bill of Rights is designed to limit the role of Government, not the people.

Although I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I've been out of school a long time now.



Hey lookie! 100th post!

Let's see -
"Conservatives" are against Flag Burning, Abortion, Special Rights for sub-groups, Gay marriage, unregulated immigration,  large, intrusive governments, narcotics, the UN and what else?
Liberals are against rights for unborn babies (Chinese Position), the use of force in international affairs, free trade, national boundaries, enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, property rights, the right to own firearms, freedom of speech (fairness doctrine), restrictions on drugs, personal responsibility, capitalism, the US military, American Exceptionalism, people taking personal responsibility, restrictions on felons voting, and what else?

Situtationally, various subgroups of each are against various religious sects (Muslims, David Koresh/Waco, etc).   Wire tapping and Computer survelleince of telecommunications (Echelon, Militias, al qaeda, etc.), terrorism (foreign vs domestic).  Also right to die (Religious non-treatment of maladays , self euthanesia), Israel and internationalism.  and what else?

[NKSoccerFan]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that burning the flag is allowed.  Only left wing lunatics think that this is "freedom of SPEECH".

Which is why there is a ninth amendment to the Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

As I understand it, that means that just because the Constituion doesn't specify a certain right, doesn't mean that you don't have that right.

Maybe this is a liberal point of view, but the Bill of Rights is designed to limit the role of Government, not the people.

Although I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I've been out of school a long time now.



Hey lookie! 100th post!

Let's see -
"Conservatives" are against Flag Burning, Abortion, Special Rights for sub-groups, Gay marriage, unregulated immigration,  large, intrusive governments, narcotics, the UN and what else?
Liberals are against rights for unborn babies (Chinese Position), the use of force in international affairs, free trade, national boundaries, enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, property rights, the right to own firearms, freedom of speech (fairness doctrine), restrictions on drugs, personal responsibility, capitalism, the US military, American Exceptionalism, people taking personal responsibility, restrictions on felons voting, and what else?

Situtationally, various subgroups of each are against various religious sects (Muslims, David Koresh/Waco, etc).   Wire tapping and Computer survelleince of telecommunications (Echelon, Militias, al qaeda, etc.), terrorism (foreign vs domestic).  Also right to die (Religious non-treatment of maladays , self euthanesia), Israel and internationalism.  and what else?

To sum up, conservatives are against anything the liberals are for, and the liberals are against anything the conservatives are for.  Topic doesn't matter.
Kind of like some of the posters here.   

The increasing polarization between the parties is what will ultimately destroy our country, not any one issue.  Hopefully, we can find some common ground before it's too late.  A start would be banning Justin Bieber.  I think everyone could agree on that.   

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>A start would be banning Justin Bieber.  I think everyone could agree on that.<<<

Unconstitutional to ban him, against the Geneva Convention to make captured terrorists listen to him.   But wait, there is another issue that the conservatives and liberals disagree on.   Conservatives recognize that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists, while the Liberals want to apply it anyway.   Goes back to the whole issue of who is entitled to what "rights".

Anyone else hear about the liberal judge in NY that threw out the piracy charges against the six Somali pirates that attacked the US Navy support ship and were captured?   The law was "vague" and "overreaching".    Next time, let's do it old school.   Convene a courts martial right away and hang them!

[SaraBellum]

Success breeds support

Read this and my brain said "crossfire". 

[EWSoccer64]

Success breeds support

Read this and my brain said "crossfire". 

A very good example of the principle in action, SaraBellum.

[SaraBellum]

I always cheer for the underdog though.