Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 102

Thread: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

  1. #71
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    It doesn't matter. It's not their right to stop it being built. If they succeed, I will challenge EVERY Christian church everywhere who disagrees with my politics or if I simply think the architecture is offensive.

    If you are trying to prevent this from being built, you are not for freedom of religion. Their freedom of religion trumps yours, Newt's, or anyone else's right not to be offended.
    Pretty shallow argument.... I'm not questioning their right to build the Mosque there, I am stating that it is a foolish move no their part and is tantamount to waving a red flag in a bull's face while tied to a tree 500 yards from the fence line.

    It's Kinda like demanding that you had the right of way in a head on collision with an 18 wheeler while driving a Prius.... you might have had the right of way, but you are still going to be calling out, "will somebody prius out of here"?... Or you might be dead right.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  2. #72
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    I bet not one word was said about the Greek Orthadox chuch that was destroyred in 911 and is still trying to get permission to rebuild. That shows it is not about church and state and the right to build.
    And thanks to you, I just read about it. It appears to have everything to do with money. Port Authority states that if they'd like to build on their original land, they can start right now. They want more money from PA than they are willing to offer for reconstruction costs.

    In other words, it has next-to-nothing to do with the Islamic Center.

  3. #73
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,601

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The mosque in question is in fact an expression and the argument is restricting it's place because of the perception that this particular imam may be doing so for improper reasons which is exactly a TPM argument.
    You will never, ever succeed with the argument that building the mosque is expression. Ever. And if someone, somewhere bought into it, it's still trumped by the fact that it's absolutlely exercise of religion.


    Yelling fire in a crowded theater is always illegal, if someone is injured then charges are legitimate. Sorry that is correct.
    Not if there's no ordinance or law against it. And also not if the specific facts of the case don't satisfy the elements of whatever ordinance or law might exist. There are thousands of permutations which could come into play. Not the least of which being that a case where no one was harmed at all.

    The Supreme Court never, ever, declared that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was illegal. Ever.



    I get
    that. The point is that the mosque is under scrutiny at the moment and there is a movement to restrict.
    DUDE. The MOSQUE is NEVER under scrutiny. The LAW RESTRICTING THE MOSQUE would be. (Except that it wouldn't be, because the mosque isn't expression.)


    Which is all I'm saying.
    You were saying it always does.



    No problem, which is why I narrowed the definition to specifically those who the offense may pertain to.
    That's not a time restriction. And if it were claimed as one -- "until the last one of those people is dead" -- it would never hold up.


    I meant the place argument as pertaining to the proximity argument. Something about the place argument not always being relevant.
    It's not always relevant because there's not always a restriction on location. But for this, there is. Though I will say, if there were any part of a proposed restriction which would have any chance of succeeding, it's place. But probably not, considering there are buildings in between GZ and the mosque. (And, of course, that it doesn't apply to exercise of religion.)




    Actually I could argue that it does. Saying the same things in different tones and with different intentions do fit the manner argument. It's all about the context.
    Restrictions on intentions are not content-neutral and would fail as time/place/manner restrictions.


    Well, she was negligent in that she specifically took actions which led to her injury.
    There were some mitigating circumstances. However, McDonald's was also fully aware that it makes its coffee very, very, very hot, much hotter than most other places, that it was dangerously hot, and internal memoranda confirmed that they decided to keep it that hot anyway because they thought it enhanced the flavor. No one else's coffee would have caused the injuries the woman suffered (which also involved melting some of the nylon in her garments and having it stick to her skin; the coffee was just hot enough to that), and certainly not to the degree they were suffered.

    However, because of mitigating circumstances, the judgment was lowered, but McDonald's was still liable and rightly so.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #74
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    Pretty shallow argument.... I'm not questioning their right to build the Mosque there, I am stating that it is a foolish move no their part and is tantamount to waving a red flag in a bull's face while tied to a tree 500 yards from the fence line.

    It's Kinda like demanding that you had the right of way in a head on collision with an 18 wheeler while driving a Prius.... you might have had the right of way, but you are still going to be calling out, "will somebody prius out of here"?... Or you might be dead right.
    Oh, I hate Fred Phelps and his ilk, but I'll still fight for his right to be obnoxious and believe anything he'd like.

    I will also call him a jerk. I don't think this is the best idea on the part of this Imam, but freedom of religion is more important to me than the arguments about people being offended.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    This is not accurate. We discussed this in another thread. The story is they where negotiating with the Port Authority for a location to build a larger church, and the discussion broke down on money. If the church wanted to rebuild at it's former location, it could have already started.
    Ground Zero Islamic Mosque Moves Forward, Christian Church in Limbo - HUMAN EVENTS

    The Port Authority agreed to give the church a parcel of land at Liberty and Greenwich Streets, and contribute $20 million toward construction of a new sanctuary. The Port Authority also agreed to build an explosion-proof platform and foundation for the new church building, which would sit on top of a screening area for cars and trucks entering the underground garages at the new World Trade Center.

    Trouble emerged after St. Nicholas announced its plans to build a traditional Greek Orthodox church building, 24,000 square feet in size, topped with a grand dome. Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial. The deal fell apart for goodin March 2009, when the Port Authority abruptly ended the talks after refusing to allow church officials to review plans for the garage and screening area underneath. Sixteen months later, the two sides have still not met to resume negotiations.

  6. #76
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Ground Zero Islamic Mosque Moves Forward, Christian Church in Limbo - HUMAN EVENTS

    The Port Authority agreed to give the church a parcel of land at Liberty and Greenwich Streets, and contribute $20 million toward construction of a new sanctuary. The Port Authority also agreed to build an explosion-proof platform and foundation for the new church building, which would sit on top of a screening area for cars and trucks entering the underground garages at the new World Trade Center.

    Trouble emerged after St. Nicholas announced its plans to build a traditional Greek Orthodox church building, 24,000 square feet in size, topped with a grand dome. Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial. The deal fell apart for goodin March 2009, when the Port Authority abruptly ended the talks after refusing to allow church officials to review plans for the garage and screening area underneath. Sixteen months later, the two sides have still not met to resume negotiations.
    Here, let's look at an actual, honest to god news story, not some blog. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/ny...urch.html?_r=1

    The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.

    “We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” said Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “They have now given us no choice but to move on to ensure the site is not delayed. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Here, let's look at an actual, honest to god news story, not some blog. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/ny...urch.html?_r=1
    NYT is honest?


    Your article says the same thing my did. From your link

    Last July, the Port Authority and the Greek Orthodox Church announced a tentative plan to rebuild the church just east of its original site, at Liberty and Greenwich Streets. The authority agreed to provide the church with land for a 24,000-square-foot house of worship, far larger than the original, and $20 million. Since the church would be built in a park over the bomb-screening center, the authority also agreed to pay up to $40 million for a blast-proof platform and foundation.

    In recent negotiations, the authority cut the size of the church slightly and told church officials that its dome could not rise higher than the trade center memorial. The church, in turn, wanted the right to review plans for both the garage with the bomb-screening center and the park, something the authority was unwilling to provide. More important, authority officials said, the church wanted the $20 million up front, rather than in stages. Officials said they feared that the church, which has raised about $2 million for its new building, would come back to the authority for more.

  8. #78
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    This is not accurate. We discussed this in another thread. The story is they where negotiating with the Port Authority for a location to build a larger church, and the discussion broke down on money. If the church wanted to rebuild at it's former location, it could have already started.
    You may have discussed it but the issues is far from settled and there are two different story's from each side. I happened to see the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese speaker say this morning on Fox that the Port Authority lawyer has not responded to the Archdiocese in over a year. As well, the following is on FoxNews's website.

    Quote Originally Posted by FoxNews
    August 17, 2010
    ...
    Father Alex Karloutsos, assistant to the archbishop, told FoxNews.com. He said "religious freedom" would allow a place of worship for any denomination to be built, but accused officials with the Port Authority of making no effort to help move the congregation's project along.

    "Unfortunately, they have just been silent -- dead silent, actually," said Karloutsos, whose father was ordained at St. Nicholas. "They just simply forgot about the church."

    The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild it in a new location -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

    Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended. Port Authority officials told Fox News that the deal is dead.

    The archdiocese and Port Authority offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has previously claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

    "The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building," a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

    But Karloutsos called the Port Authority's claims "propaganda" and said the church has complied with all conditions. He said the government should honor agreements that date back to 2004, under former New York Gov. George Pataki.

    Pataki, speaking with Fox News on Tuesday, agreed that the church should be rebuilt.

    "I don't understand it," Pataki said. "Why the Port Authority now has so far put roadblocks in the way of its reconstruction is beyond me. It's not the right thing to do."
    FOXNews.com - What About the Ground Zero Church? Archdiocese Says Officials Abandoned Project

    So I am not seeing your claim of inaccuracy as being correct. It sounds like there's more to this than just a money issue.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #79
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    You will never, ever succeed with the argument that building the mosque is expression. Ever. And if someone, somewhere bought into it, it's still trumped by the fact that it's absolutlely exercise of religion.
    Expression v. Excercise is not all that different. For example, if there were religions in the U.S. requiring virgin sacrifice they would not stand up to a legal challenge against murder statutes, the same could be said to a lesser degree about the particular placement of this mosque according to building codes or community standards. First, it is proposed on commercial property so dependent on NYC civil code the law may well be on the side of the board of alderman *if* they wanted to vote nay on the particular location, as well if the residents have the right of veto then that also could be a factor.




    Not if there's no ordinance or law against it. And also not if the specific facts of the case don't satisfy the elements of whatever ordinance or law might exist. There are thousands of permutations which could come into play. Not the least of which being that a case where no one was harmed at all.

    The Supreme Court never, ever, declared that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was illegal. Ever.
    Point one, every place I know has at least a statute against reckless endagerment, second, the Supreme court held that speech which creates a clear and present danger is in fact not protected because of that example.




    DUDE. The MOSQUE is NEVER under scrutiny. The LAW RESTRICTING THE MOSQUE would be. (Except that it wouldn't be, because the mosque isn't expression.)
    That is not accurate. The legal maneuver to allow for the mosque was in fact under scrutiny because of the proximity to ground zero, to state otherwise would mean that this thread would never have existed.



    You were saying it always does.
    In a way it always does. Whether or not the argument is out in the open such as a clear cut challenge or whether it is simply a secondary factor Time/Place/Manner always dictate our speech.





    That's not a time restriction. And if it were claimed as one -- "until the last one of those people is dead" -- it would never hold up.
    It involves time. The last person will be dead within 130 years, whether or not that is overbroad is debateable but the fact is that there is a time factor.



    It's not always relevant because there's not always a restriction on location. But for this, there is. Though I will say, if there were any part of a proposed restriction which would have any chance of succeeding, it's place. But probably not, considering there are buildings in between GZ and the mosque. (And, of course, that it doesn't apply to exercise of religion.)
    Place I think is the best argument, and I will grant that 2 blocks is pretty distant comparitively, however much damage from debris was experienced there.



    Restrictions on intentions are not content-neutral and would fail as time/place/manner restrictions.
    Usually I would agree. In this case if the intent is to do harm either physically or mentally then a case could be made about manner. I think both sides could make a decent case towards their ends.




    There were some mitigating circumstances. However, McDonald's was also fully aware that it makes its coffee very, very, very hot, much hotter than most other places, that it was dangerously hot, and internal memoranda confirmed that they decided to keep it that hot anyway because they thought it enhanced the flavor. No one else's coffee would have caused the injuries the woman suffered (which also involved melting some of the nylon in her garments and having it stick to her skin; the coffee was just hot enough to that), and certainly not to the degree they were suffered.
    I dunno, there's responsibility and then there is civil law. This one seemed like it started from a postition of plaintiff's negligence and should have ended there.

    However, because of mitigating circumstances, the judgment was lowered, but McDonald's was still liable and rightly so.
    I disagree. But then again I wasn't on that jury so it doesn't really matter.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #80
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,601

    Re: Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Expression v. Excercise is not all that different.
    It doesn't matter, because TPM restrictions are only permissible for expression.

    For example, if there were religions in the U.S. requiring virgin sacrifice they would not stand up to a legal challenge against murder statutes
    That is a full-on proscription against murder. It isn't a time/place/manner restriction on religion.


    the same could be said to a lesser degree about the particular placement of this mosque according to building codes or community standards. First, it is proposed on commercial property so dependent on NYC civil code the law may well be on the side of the board of alderman *if* they wanted to vote nay on the particular location, as well if the residents have the right of veto then that also could be a factor.
    Then that's a zoning issue; it's not a time/place/manner restriction on an exercise of a right.





    Point one, every place I know has at least a statute against reckless endagerment
    Maybe, but that doesn't mean every place does, and it also doesn't mean the specifics of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater will satisfy the elements of those which are there.


    second, the Supreme court held that speech which creates a clear and present danger is in fact not protected because of that example.
    No, they didn't. A lot of people think they did, but they didn't -- which is why I call it one of the most misquoted and misapplied legal canards this side of "finders keepers."

    And that case has been overruled, anyway.




    That is not accurate. The legal maneuver to allow for the mosque was in fact under scrutiny because of the proximity to ground zero, to state otherwise would mean that this thread would never have existed.
    You do not apply "scrutiny" to anything but restrictions of rights.



    In a way it always does. Whether or not the argument is out in the open such as a clear cut challenge or whether it is simply a secondary factor Time/Place/Manner always dictate our speech.
    Are you arguing for "always" or not? I'm really not even sure what you're saying on this anymore.




    It involves time. The last person will be dead within 130 years, whether or not that is overbroad is debateable but the fact is that there is a time factor.
    Well, I suppose you could put down some kind of concrete time, but no, it'll never hold up.



    Usually I would agree. In this case if the intent is to do harm either physically or mentally then a case could be made about manner. I think both sides could make a decent case towards their ends.
    No. Intent and manner are separate issues.




    I dunno, there's responsibility and then there is civil law. This one seemed like it started from a postition of plaintiff's negligence and should have ended there.

    I disagree. But then again I wasn't on that jury so it doesn't really matter.
    No one else's coffee (at least not of the big chains; who knows what mom & pops do) would have done the damage theirs did, because no one else's coffee is that hot. They knew it was dangerous; they took the risk; they lost. Look, their coffee is kept at about 180-185 degrees, whereas most others are around 140. 180-185 is about the internal temperature of well-done meat. Imagine what it can do to your flesh.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •