Second, if your argument IS the latter then yes, your argument IS about destroying rights. You're suggesting the government limit a private citizen from engaging in a private business transaction due to their religious beliefs.
What concrete answers? What rushing? Perhaps I missed it, and if i did please point me to the post numbers showing it, but I've seen nothing suggesting this has been "rushed" forward. I do not think that a private busines or individual should be stiffled from their lawful purchase and building of land because of conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations of possible potential ties that might possible mean that they could possibly be supportive of something and that going forward as normal rather than worrying about those things is not "rushing" it, it is simply following NORMAL procedures.It is odd to me why no one is bothering to answer a question I posed earlier in this thread which is, why is it so damned important to rush this building through the process, without concrete answers, and demonization of opposition to it, while St. Nicholas Church, a Greek Orthodox church, that already existed, and was damaged by the events of 9/11 is being stonewalled on its own rebuilding?
Something else being WRONG doesn't necessarily make this wrong or right. Two situations are not directly tied to each other. One can absolutely think its wrong that St. Nicholas is being stonewalled while ALSO feeling its wrong to try and legally deny these people. However I've honestly not seen much about St. Nicholas to form an opinion and again, if I missed it, let me know the post number and I'll happily go read.
However the issue with St. Nicholas, assuming you're correct in how you present it, being wrong does not necessarily mean THIS is incorrect. People doing wrong in two cases and situations is possible.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
y'know, the journo-listers, the net-roots folks
as gibbs calls em, the "professional left"
congressman nadler, the results of your drug test are IN...
and you have NOT been smoking crack!
nadler (have you seen him, the most obese man in dc, my belle has a lot of work to do with him) jumps up and down madly on the stage, all 3 chins bouncing, pumping that cubby fist in triumphant exultation!
Last edited by The Prof; 08-10-10 at 01:22 PM.
member 1---hey, build whatever you want
member 2---there's a difference between saying it SHOULDN'T be built and saying it's PROHIBITED, it seems to me you're arguing the latter...
member 2, from another thread---you have repeatedly beaten up one gigantic strawman because you do not possess the ability to actually debate my arguments as you continually misrepresent my argument not in a slight way but in an obviously glaring way (p129 of thread on CA gay marriage ruling)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...eport-129.html (California gay marriage ban overturned: report)