Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

This post is an example of right wing idiocy regarding this subject. Muslim mosques do not = 9/11 attackers. What part of that are you having trouble with? Nobody's building a monument to Atta or any of the rest of those idiots. Its a mosque, which is far different.

if you want to get into name calling fine. but that's the sign of a man who has no argument based in facts or empirical evidence.

a. I don't think I've seen anyone anywhere say a mosque is the equivalent to a terrrorist hideout/den, or drawing an equivalence to 9/11 EXCEPT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WHERE THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE

calling it Cordoba (see my post of earlier or just google Cordoba and read the history), wanting the groundbreaking to begin 9-11-11. yeah, that's got nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of people. that has nothing to do with the worldwide caliphate Bin Laden refers to when he refers to Cordoba. the whole thing is a big f u america and I'm not down with that.

I just don't think you get it. If you had a family member in one of those buildings I'd hope you'd be signing a different tune.


and to be clear on the emotional argument/is it abhorrent to build this where it is being proposed vs. the legal question.

to me the legal question is moot as the government has no right to tell us what to do with our land. in this case however, there is a dispute as to who owns 50% of that property, so we'll see how that plays out.

the emotional argument cannot be overlooked as just that. otherwise you'd have scores of people building monuments all over the place that are ill-advised, and much worse. I mean seriously, if people in Hawaii wanted to build a monument to TOJO or Yamamoto and place it in the water next to the Arizona you'd just cast off our arguments against that as merely emotional and non-sensical?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

I mean seriously, if people in Hawaii wanted to build a monument to TOJO or Yamamoto and place it in the water next to the Arizona you'd just cast off our arguments against that as merely emotional and non-sensical?

He's saying it isn't a monument, its a mosque. You think and possibly rightfully so that its a monument. If indeed they want to break ground or dedicate it on 9-11-11 I might agree. I wonder if that's fact or urban legend?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Among the ironies here is the fact that many of our liberal posters who are now posing as diehard defenders of the First Amendment, have no problem telling the University of North Dakota what it can and cannot use as the name for its sports teams.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

He's saying it isn't a monument, its a mosque. You think and possibly rightfully so that its a monument. If indeed they want to break ground or dedicate it on 9-11-11 I might agree. I wonder if that's fact or urban legend?

got it. and I agree that myself and others are talking about this as a monument vs. mosque. I see the disconnect, and I guess I wasn't seeing that earlier, now THAT is definitely the emotional side of the argument.

My reasoning in alluding to/referring to this project as more a monument than mosque absolutely is due to the initial name: Cordoba, the planned 9-11-11 start date, and that is the icing on the foundation which would be built 2 blocks from GZ. If a mosque were built in Rochester, NY and called Cordoba I say, "yeah, so?" but this current confluence of ideas and the fact it would be on GZ is too much for me.

in regard to the groundbreaking date: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26172

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Among the ironies here is the fact that many of our liberal posters who are now posing as diehard defenders of the First Amendment, have no problem telling, say, the University of North Dakota what it can and cannot use as the name for its sports teams.

somewhere a kid in the parking lot just caught this home run

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama
According to that article, it is just two blocks away - which is awfully close.

Blockski - I am not asserting that government - whether it is state, local, or federal - should intervene on this one to block construction as that would set a dangerous precedent. I just want the political leaders to push for a solution amenable to everybody involved rather than mindlessly defending freedom of religion and/or stating the obvious about people owning land having the right to build a house of worship on it.

As I asked Red Cloud - what distance is amenable to you? 2 blocks? 4 blocks? 3/4 a mile? And for what reason?

From Nate Silver's blog post I quoted earlier:

As for political leaders finding an 'amenable solution' - what leverage would they have in their negotiations? If they are steadfast in both the right to a) build a house of worship and b) develop their land in accordance with the local land use laws, what else do they have?

For many people, the belief in free exercise, as well as in private property rights, trumps the benefits of trying to sweet talk these guys into building elsewhere. That's certainly the case for Bloomberg.

the emotional argument cannot be overlooked as just that. otherwise you'd have scores of people building monuments all over the place that are ill-advised, and much worse. I mean seriously, if people in Hawaii wanted to build a monument to TOJO or Yamamoto and place it in the water next to the Arizona you'd just cast off our arguments against that as merely emotional and non-sensical?

Why do you keep bringing up this? A mosque is not a memorial to an individual person. You're equating a house of worship for an entire religion to a memorial to a single military leader?

If you wanted to make an accurate comparison, you'd be talking about building a Shinto Temple in Hawaii, not a memorial to a single individual. Would that be objectionable? Maybe, but it is indisputably a much different question than the one you posit.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

As I asked Red Cloud - what distance is amenable to you? 2 blocks? 4 blocks? 3/4 a mile? And for what reason?

From Nate Silver's blog post I quoted earlier:

As for political leaders finding an 'amenable solution' - what leverage would they have in their negotiations? If they are steadfast in both the right to a) build a house of worship and b) develop their land in accordance with the local land use laws, what else do they have?

For many people, the belief in free exercise, as well as in private property rights, trumps the benefits of trying to sweet talk these guys into building elsewhere. That's certainly the case for Bloomberg.



Why do you keep bringing up this? A mosque is not a memorial to an individual person. You're equating a house of worship for an entire religion to a memorial to a single military leader?

If you wanted to make an accurate comparison, you'd be talking about building a Shinto Temple in Hawaii, not a memorial to a single individual. Would that be objectionable? Maybe, but it is indisputably a much different question than the one you posit.

see the dialogue below. I don't feel this is a mosque per se but a monument. that's why Ground Zero, why 9-11-11, Cordoba, etc. I just don't see how this can be viewed as anything but f u america considering that information.

also you're caught up in religion here. I'm not. I could care less about that. that's why I refer to TOJO and Yamamoto. Shintoism didn't drive the Japanese to bomb pearl harbor and start a war with us.

I'm talking about symbolism, and it IS symbolic to build this (what I refer to as a monument) AT GZ, with the name Cordoba (hence retracted due to political pressure), and groundbreaking on 9-11-11. a Church, a Mosque, a Synagogue are not supposed to be monuments to death or terrorism. but when you build one in the fashion this is shaping toward, then you can't help but draw that conclusion for this particular project. sorry. and again, since NYC is so enormous...why there?

and PS - that link below to 9-11-11 was the first or second one I could find. in reading through it now I have to say the author is a bit out there IMO

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Mosque? Monument? Tastes great/less filling.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

As I asked Red Cloud - what distance is amenable to you? 2 blocks? 4 blocks? 3/4 a mile? And for what reason?

From Nate Silver's blog post I quoted earlier:

As for political leaders finding an 'amenable solution' - what leverage would they have in their negotiations? If they are steadfast in both the right to a) build a house of worship and b) develop their land in accordance with the local land use laws, what else do they have?

For many people, the belief in free exercise, as well as in private property rights, trumps the benefits of trying to sweet talk these guys into building elsewhere. That's certainly the case for Bloomberg.



Why do you keep bringing up this? A mosque is not a memorial to an individual person. You're equating a house of worship for an entire religion to a memorial to a single military leader?

If you wanted to make an accurate comparison, you'd be talking about building a Shinto Temple in Hawaii, not a memorial to a single individual. Would that be objectionable? Maybe, but it is indisputably a much different question than the one you posit.

also as an aside - a house of worship is not a house of worship for an ENTIRE religion. it could never be. an individual church, mosque, or synagogue only speaks to the people inside of it, and from the person running it. otherwise people could project ALL SORTS of nutso stuff from individual southern baptist churches, or individual mosques in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and blanket the religion and it's people right?

one church, one mosque, one synagogue. just can't speak to or for the rest of them.

so this one mosque which IMO is more of a monument to a victory from 9-11-01 over the U.S. (given the symbolism they choose to give us) does not speak to or of an entire religion. but it does speak to either idiocy and/or myopism, or to a group of nutters.

so that's my .02

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

As I asked Red Cloud - what distance is amenable to you? 2 blocks? 4 blocks? 3/4 a mile?

Didn't debris fall on this building from the attack?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

As I asked Red Cloud - what distance is amenable to you? 2 blocks? 4 blocks? 3/4 a mile? And for what reason?

I'd say ask the families of the victims what is amenable to them. Two blocks is awfully close to the WTC site and almost certainly was hit with debris from the explosion / ensuing collapse of the towers. As I said previously, if they build this a mile away or thereabouts, nobody cares.

As for political leaders finding an 'amenable solution' - what leverage would they have in their negotiations? If they are steadfast in both the right to a) build a house of worship and b) develop their land in accordance with the local land use laws, what else do they have?

If a and b are true, the politicians are unlikely to have any real leverage. However, I believe they should make it clear to the group looking to build the mosque that there is widespread opposition to the site and to reconsider its placement. From a practical standpoint, what purpose is served by building a mosque that creates widespread discontent and becomes a lightning rod of controversy?

For many people, the belief in free exercise, as well as in private property rights, trumps the benefits of trying to sweet talk these guys into building elsewhere. That's certainly the case for Bloomberg.

Well, if they proceed to build it there, you'll have somewhere on the order of 2/3 of the population ****ed off about it. That means there's a potential for organized protests among other things given the widespread nature and intensity of the opposition. How many people want to go to a house of worship that is being protested?

If the group wishing to build this mosque cannot see how easily they can avoid these problems by moving the site a few blocks, they are truly tone deaf.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Among the ironies here is the fact that many of our liberal posters who are now posing as diehard defenders of the First Amendment, have no problem telling the University of North Dakota what it can and cannot use as the name for its sports teams.

Conservatives actually are more frequently trying to reign in the First Amendment than Liberals. All the blanket attempts to block content in music, on TV and on the Internet are driven by the right. Its always about protecting something...the family, marriage, religion.

UND's situation is not a First Amendment nor a comparable freedom issue. You have the right to bear arms...but you may not be allowed to enter a bank. The Supreme Court has yet to find airlines nor the US Capitol in violation of the Second Amendment because they restrict weapons.

Likewise, you have the right to have a mascot that offends some folks...but the NCAA may not allow it in its organization. And the school can leave with its mascot any time it wants. One can make the point that the NCAA should not have the power it has over intercollegate sports...but you cannot make the statement that it can't enforce its own rules on its members. In the end, this stance against 'offensive' mascots isn't even driven by the NCAA anyways...but the universities. So youre a ways off base.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Conservatives actually are more frequently trying to reign in the First Amendment than Liberals. All the blanket attempts to block content in music, on TV and on the Internet are driven by the right. Its always about protecting something...the family, marriage, religion.

UND's situation is not a First Amendment nor a comparable freedom issue. You have the right to bear arms...but you may not be allowed to enter a bank. The Supreme Court has yet to find airlines nor the US Capitol in violation of the Second Amendment because they restrict weapons.

Likewise, you have the right to have a mascot that offends some folks...but the NCAA may not allow it in its organization. And the school can leave with its mascot any time it wants. One can make the point that the NCAA should not have the power it has over intercollegate sports...but you cannot make the statement that it can't enforce its own rules on its members. In the end, this stance against 'offensive' mascots isn't even driven by the NCAA anyways...but the universities. So youre a ways off base.

Intellectually dishonest (or delusional), kamikaze liberal putz. Rationalize and justify 'til your **** fall off: you don't like "Fighting Sioux" and you don't care what methods anyone uses to put a stop to it. And THIS makes you better than right wingers how, exactly? Niggling legalism can't change the reality here: you and the rest of the mob favor the First Amendment when it suits you and aren't so concerned about it when it doesn't. And suggestions that "others do way worse than us" is hardly a defense, except for you, except for here. BTW, idiot, you're so suffused with the justifications for the NC$$ you don't even realize UND doesnt have a mascot, but why should reality creep into your Baghdad Bob world?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Conservatives actually are more frequently trying to reign in the First Amendment than Liberals.

Remember a few years ago when the Democrats threatened ABC's broadcast license over what they saw as a slight to the Clintons?

I bet you don't.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

The hijackers killed thousands of Americans in the name of their religion, which just happens to be the same one represented by a mosque. You can't find a problem with building one at the site of a tragedy perpetrated by militant representatives of that religion or understand why the families of the victims of the attack might have a problem with it?

Here's the thing... they believe that Islam is irrelevant. They believe that their (liberal) ideology is the right path and therefore cannot lose. Islam is one of those things that make their opponents go squirrelly in the head... and they hate it when they do that because they fear the consequences of when the anti-racial/anti-other-cultures elements within conservative act up.

Bottom line... they don't see this as a war, they don't see this as an ideology war. They don't believe that this is a sub-rosa symbol and only believe its those in the hearts and minds of the nutters.

They haven't spent ANY time listening to what Muslims say... they haven't listened to what they advocate. And they won't until (I said, "until"... not "if") there's ethnic battles arising in Western Europe... and they'll only pay attention to know how the "conservative nutters" in the US will react.

Once you see this you'll see why 1) certain elements within Islam think they are winning... 2) liberals see this as part of the fabric of a tolerant multicultural society.

If liberals saw islam as an ACTUAL threat to the level they see conservatives they would act against them.... as it is, they see them as the victim of conservatives and must defend them and they see them as the opponents of conservatives in general so they ally with them. If liberals thought they were under more harm from Islam than conservatives they would be against Islam.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

As I asked Red Cloud - what distance is amenable to you? 2 blocks? 4 blocks? 3/4 a mile? And for what reason?

AND I TOLD YOU.

You know, I really hate repeating myself. But let me break this down for you, since you apparently don't understand the geography of Manhattan (if this were not the Internet, I'd be speaking very slowly right now, just for you).

Manhattan is a borough of New York City. There are five of them. Ground Zero and the Cordoba House site are both in Manhattan.

Lower Manhattan is a region of Manhattan. There are four main regions in Manhattan. Ground Zero and the Cordoba House site are both in Lower Manhattan.

The Financial District is a neighborhood in Lower Manhattan. There are 19 separate neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan, some of which overlap each other, but are nonetheless found in the relatively small space. Ground Zero and the Cordoba House site are both in the Financial District.

How far away is far enough? Like I said - out of the neighborhood would be plenty far enough. It doesn't even have to terribly far for that to be true - but its proximity is incredibly insensitive to the concerns of many of the residents and tenants of the Financial District, especially the ones who had a very personal connection to the attacks on 9/11.

Do you have any questions? Is this getting through yet or do I need some kind of stupid map (YAY, PICTURS!) to illustrate it further?

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

The parts of your post that I didn't address aren't possible for me to refute - they are emotional arguments, and they are not the basis for governance.

I listed facts in the parts of my post you didn't address. You have this strange obsession with the government's involvement in this, which is rightly non-existent. What we have repeatedly said, and what you repeatedly dodge, is that it is blatantly insensitive of people who are trying to demand that others be tolerant of their wishes to put something like this where they are trying to put it.

I repeat myself again in the fading hope that you will grasp the concept. I don't have a problem with a mega-mosque being built in New York City. I don't have a problem with a mega-mosque being built in Lower Manhattan. I don't have a problem with Muslims having a place to worship within the Financial District - they had one there even before 9/11, as I mentioned, Masjid Manhattan.

I do have a problem with a mega-mosque being built within the Financial District, a minute's walk from the site where nearly 3,000 people were murdered in cold blood by agents acting in the name of Islam. If these imams are serious about building dialogue, their actions (go back and read that list of facts you couldn't refute) say otherwise. If they will not be tolerant, one wonders why I am supposed to be tolerant.

You have taken this stance and decided that I thusly desire the government to do something to stop the mosque from being built there. In the words of your messiah, let me be clear: I. DO. NOT. I desire that the project's planners do the right thing and seek a different location for their project. The Governor of New York has offered to help them find a new place but he is not ordering them to find a new space - AND THAT'S RIGHT OF HIM.

I'm wasting my time with this guy, aren't I?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

I'm wasting my time with this guy, aren't I?

Depends... are you going to tell him that are a bigot and repent? If so, I'm sure he'll be responsive... if not, then yeah, its like trying to knock down a brick wall using the air through a straw.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

I listed facts in the parts of my post you didn't address. You have this strange obsession with the government's involvement in this, which is rightly non-existent. What we have repeatedly said, and what you repeatedly dodge, is that it is blatantly insensitive of people who are trying to demand that others be tolerant of their wishes to put something like this where they are trying to put it.

I repeat myself again in the fading hope that you will grasp the concept. I don't have a problem with a mega-mosque being built in New York City. I don't have a problem with a mega-mosque being built in Lower Manhattan. I don't have a problem with Muslims having a place to worship within the Financial District - they had one there even before 9/11, as I mentioned, Masjid Manhattan.

I do have a problem with a mega-mosque being built within the Financial District, a minute's walk from the site where nearly 3,000 people were murdered in cold blood by agents acting in the name of Islam. If these imams are serious about building dialogue, their actions (go back and read that list of facts you couldn't refute) say otherwise. If they will not be tolerant, one wonders why I am supposed to be tolerant.

You have taken this stance and decided that I thusly desire the government to do something to stop the mosque from being built there. In the words of your messiah, let me be clear: I. DO. NOT. I desire that the project's planners do the right thing and seek a different location for their project. The Governor of New York has offered to help them find a new place but he is not ordering them to find a new space - AND THAT'S RIGHT OF HIM.

I'm wasting my time with this guy, aren't I?

Yes. My experience tells me liberals don't generally favor proscribing people's rights to use whatever tools our society gives them to express their opposition to. . .anything. Whether it's Rosa Parks or Ms. Brown in Topeka or a bus boycott in Birmingham, liberals want to take these matters to the wall (as they should). But here it's poor form. With dark (totally untrue) allegations that the opponants of this Islamist Victory Arch are somehow condoning government acton to "stop" the Cordoba project. No one on this thread, in fact no serious person anywhere is suggesting that. Unlike some of our Muslim brothers, who prefer to convince opponants by cutting their heads off. But trying to find a legal way to delay, foreclose or move this affront to all Americans is the way the game is played. Liberals ought to know, they've been playing it for decades, using the federal judiciary as a super legislature.

This "proximity" argument is the most frustrating. Proximity is the whole raison d'etre for this enterprise. And if they could have acquired property across the street from GZ, that's there they'd be planning to build Jihad World. And if, somehow, they were unable to build on the property they've chosen, I'd give even odds they'd dump the project.

So while Muslims (even shady lying Muslims like "Imam" Rauf) have a right to build a mosque and worship as they please, I and the rest of us who oppose this kick in the b***s, have a right to voice our opinions, both on this project and on their religion and the people who want to kill and subjugate us in the name of that religion. If the First Amendment protects Fred Phelps, it also should protect opponants of this "mosque."

Bulletin: in a major step toward modernity, Iran has announced it won't stone that cheating woman to death. They're going to hang her instead. Whew, what a relief.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

If liberals saw islam as an ACTUAL threat to the level they see conservatives they would act against them.... as it is, they see them as the victim of conservatives and must defend them and they see them as the opponents of conservatives in general so they ally with them. If liberals thought they were under more harm from Islam than conservatives they would be against Islam.

Interesting point. Probably some validity.

Here's the rub. OK...so for many Islam attacked us on 9/11. I and many liberals don't quite see it that way...we believe we were attacked by extremists. Liberals I think largely believe that Islam is not a 'bad' religion...if it was there'd be terrorist attacks on US soil every week due to the hundreds of thousands of Muslims on US soil. Rather many of us believe that its extremists that are the problem. That includes maybe 20% of Muslims...but 20% of many other groups also. And the way you disarm and isolate the 20% is by being the good guy...not dumb...but the good guy. Although I think many are wary of Muslims...they approach the solution differently.

Conservatives is another point. You have to remember that pundits like Coulter just hurl personal shots all day long. Is it isolated? Not really...cause outlets like Fox, conservative talk radio, etc do the same. And they receive a large audience. Right, wrong or indifferent...liberals don't see as much verbal negativity coming from their own side towards the right. Sure you may have groups like Move on or the ACLU...but they don't make personal insults but appear to play a defensive role when they perceive injustice frequently caused by a change in the status quo. 99.9% of the time Muslims are not on the offense...but rather self contained. Not saying its right or wrong...just trying to address your point as I can. And the whole 'culture wars' thing is a whole other topic which is rooted in perception.