Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 227

Thread: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

  1. #61
    Professor

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

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    What a crock of ****, we are supporting the right of individuals to exercise their own property rights IE their right of self ownership to refuse to enter into voluntary contracts to build this Mosque. We support property rights apparently you do not. The only cure to negative uses of the freedom of speech is more speech, and in this case the negative use of property rights will likewise be handled through more not less individual liberty, no state intervention necessary only individual citizens invoking their right of self ownership.



    lol ya and the Evangelical Mega-Churches are really community centers too I suppose.



    Really? It's a community center? When exactly will they be offering religious services to non-Muslim members of the community? Ya it's a Mosque.




    This is a victory Mosque proposed by an overt Islamist. And a) if such a Mosque exists then it was built before 9-11, b) the actual distance of the existing Mosque is 12 blocks away, and c) if there's already such a Mosque then why the hell do they need another one?



    No this is simply a case of an overt Sharia supporting Islamist building a victory Mosque being called out for being exactly what he is.



    No what's un-American is labeling those who disagree with building a victory Mosque at Ground Zero bigots especially when they have not painted all Muslims in any way, they have said look at this Imam, look what he has said, and look at what he is doing.

    This man claimed that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after 9-11, has called for a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular law does not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths, has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and now wants to build a Mega-Mosque at ground zero.

    I guess we must be bigots for pointing out the facts huh?
    None of what you post are facts. They're your opinions. Were those your opinions of Rauf when he worked for the Bush administration?

    Here are facts: they legally bought the property. It is their property. They have obtained all legally required codes to procede with their building.

    It's not your f'ing right to tell them what they can do on their property. Unless you want to give up that right yourself, then I recommend that you shut up and take it.

    Americans DO NOT try to take others property and tell them what to do with it if the building follows legal code.

    While protest is legal, the goal of the protest is to supercede the rights of freedome of association, religion, private property, and eminent domain.

    If I disagree with you (and I do), would you like for me to try to get your church taken down and moved further away from me? Is that my right? Can I protest your house because I disagree with you? What if I found out you wanted to live in my neighborhood and I said we needed to investigate you because you've said things I disagree with and I think you could be criminal. Just maybe. Not saying you are, just that you should be checked out. And what if my neighbors believed my propaganda and started protesting you building your home and - even though you'd abtained all legal rights to do so - they continued so loudly that they drove you and your family out?

    Woud you say that I and my neighbors were right to do so?

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    But you are supporting an angry mob who would like to over-rule the freedom of religion and private property rights of American citizens.
    No one is overriding freedom of religion or property rights. This is nothing but a straw-man argument that democrats have begun. They absolutely have the freedom to build at that location. Some people believe that it's not wise to build a mosque at that location and have chosen to make their reasoning known.

    This type of thing has happened many times in the past. The NRA was told it would not be wise to have their convention near columbine. The KKK was told it would not be wise for them to march through Skokie Illinois (predominantly Jewish Chicago suburb). Beck has been told it would not be wise to give his speech at the Lincoln Memorial on MLK day. Democrats were in favor of all of these protests. Republicans finally have one and it's the worst thing in the entire world.


    It's a Community Center with, perhaps, a mosque in it; but it doesn't make the entire building a mosque.
    What do you mean perhaps? Is there a mosque in it or not? If there is a mosque, will they not be building a mosque at that location? Will there not be a mosque at that location after they are done, contrary to your original asertion?

    This is nothing but unadulterated bigotry. It's shameful and un-American.
    Huh? I thought exercising ones rights to protest was the highest form of patriotism. Now, when it's something democrats disagree with, not so much?

  3. #63
    Professor

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

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    No one is overriding freedom of religion or property rights. This is nothing but a straw-man argument that democrats have begun. They absolutely have the freedom to build at that location. Some people believe that it's not wise to build a mosque at that location and have chosen to make their reasoning known.

    This type of thing has happened many times in the past. The NRA was told it would not be wise to have their convention near columbine. The KKK was told it would not be wise for them to march through Skokie Illinois (predominantly Jewish Chicago suburb). Beck has been told it would not be wise to give his speech at the Lincoln Memorial on MLK day. Democrats were in favor of all of these protests. Republicans finally have one and it's the worst thing in the entire world.




    What do you mean perhaps? Is there a mosque in it or not? If there is a mosque, will they not be building a mosque at that location? Will there not be a mosque at that location after they are done, contrary to your original asertion?



    Huh? I thought exercising ones rights to protest was the highest form of patriotism. Now, when it's something democrats disagree with, not so much?
    None of your examples are about religion, private property use, free association, or eminent domain.

    The crux of everyone's arguments are this: they have the RIGHT to do it, but we don't want them to!

    So what. I would have said the same thing to the NRA, the KKK, and Glenn Beck. Just because something is tasteless doesn't mean you should gather angry mobs to eliminate it. I wouldn't care about the protests, but people seem to think that they're perceived offense should trump someone else's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

    What is the desired outcome of the protest? To get them to not build there, right? Meaning, they're attempting to strong-arm a group away from practicing their rights - some of the very rights that Conservatives seem to hold SOOOO precious. They just, apparently, don't like sharing them with others.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    None of what you post are facts. They're your opinions.
    No those are the facts sport.

    Here's a link to the full 60 minutes transcript along with the relevant portion:

    Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

    Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

    Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?

    Faisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

    Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam
    Here's him refusing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization:


    According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."

    Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.

    "The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.

    "There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."

    Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.

    "I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

    Rauf also would not answer a question about Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

    "I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood," he said, disputing a rumor.

    Muslim Imam leading push to build a mosque near Ground Zero wavers on questions about Hamas as a terror group - NYPOST.com
    Here's the link to the Podcast of the interview which starts about 13 minutes in:

    News Talk Radio 77 WABC New York

    And here is his own article calling for Sharia in the U.S.:

    At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

    On Faith Panelists Blog: How Islamic Law Can Work - Feisal Abdul Rauf
    Were those your opinions of Rauf when he worked for the Bush administration?
    They are not opinions they are facts therefor they were facts both during and after this supposed tenure with the Bush Administration.

    Here are facts: they legally bought the property. It is their property. They have obtained all legally required codes to procede with their building.
    Agreed.

    It's not your f'ing right to tell them what they can do on their property. Unless you want to give up that right yourself, then I recommend that you shut up and take it.
    No it's our right to protest what they intend to do with that property, it's called freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, it is likewise the right of the workers to refuse to enter into contractual agreements to build the Mosque, that is called the right to self ownership.

    Americans DO NOT try to take others property and tell them what to do with it if the building follows legal code.
    Nobody is trying to take their property, we are exercising our own rights to try and prevent the Mosque from being built. We are not asking for state intervention and I personally oppose state intervention, this will be handled without anyones property rights being violated. They have the right to own property and practice their religion, we have the right to protest them and to refuse to do the construction work necessary to build their victory Mosque.

    While protest is legal, the goal of the protest is to supercede the rights of freedome of association, religion, private property, and eminent domain.
    You don't have the right to force people to build something they don't want to build and you don't have the right to tell me not to protest something. We are not violating their rights to freedom of association, religion, or private property, (wtf does eminent domain have to do with this?), they are still free to associate, to practice their religion, and to continue to own this property, what they do not have the right to and never had the right to ever was to force people to enter into involuntary contracts to build their Mosque, what they never had the right to was to silence the opposition. Property rights are a two way street, they have the right to own that property and individuals retain the right of self ownership and refusal to enter into contracts to sell the labour produced by their own body. You simply can't have this both ways, either you support the first amendment or you don't, either you support property rights or you don't, you can not say you support the property rights and religious freedom of the Mosque proponents while trying to deny the right of assembly, speech, and self ownership to the opponents. Your argument is inconsistent and you are a hypocrite, you couldn't give a damn about property rights or the first amendment because as is now made clear the second someone uses them for an agenda which you oppose you suggest that they should be stopped I assume through the coercive force of the state. Hypocrite.

    If I disagree with you (and I do), would you like for me to try to get your church taken down and moved further away from me?
    Nope you don't have the right to infringe upon my property rights.

    Is that my right?
    Clearly not.

    Can I protest your house because I disagree with you?
    So long as you stay on public property and abide by the state and local codes pertaining to freedom of assembly and speech. Protesting my house would be quite difficult considering that I live in a privately owned residential community; wherein, organized protests are banned under the home owners agreement signed by each member of the community and this would include the privately owned sidewalks and streets within the community.

    What if I found out you wanted to live in my neighborhood and I said we needed to investigate you because you've said things I disagree with and I think you could be criminal. Just maybe. Not saying you are, just that you should be checked out. And what if my neighbors believed my propaganda and started protesting you building your home and - even though you'd abtained all legal rights to do so - they continued so loudly that they drove you and your family out?

    Woud you say that I and my neighbors were right to do so?
    They have the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech so long as they keep on public property, don't step foot on my property, and abide by the various state and local codes for freedom of speech and of assembly; such as, public noise regulations, not to mention they would have to conduct this protest more than 5 blocks away out of site and hearing range as they would not be allowed to conduct such a protest within the private community in which I live; furthermore, if the accusations were not true I would sue you for libel, defamation, and/or slander. Are you suggesting that convicted child predators should not be singled out by the community in which they live?
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-21-10 at 11:40 PM.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    None of your examples are about religion, private property use, free association, or eminent domain.

    The crux of everyone's arguments are this: they have the RIGHT to do it, but we don't want them to!

    So what. I would have said the same thing to the NRA, the KKK, and Glenn Beck. Just because something is tasteless doesn't mean you should gather angry mobs to eliminate it. I wouldn't care about the protests, but people seem to think that they're perceived offense should trump someone else's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

    What is the desired outcome of the protest? To get them to not build there, right? Meaning, they're attempting to strong-arm a group away from practicing their rights - some of the very rights that Conservatives seem to hold SOOOO precious. They just, apparently, don't like sharing them with others.
    lmfao I guess Ghandi didn't have the right to "strong arm" the British out of India through non-violent protest. Sorry sport, you don't have the right to tell me not to exercise my own rights.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    None of your examples are about religion, private property use, free association, or eminent domain.

    The crux of everyone's arguments are this: they have the RIGHT to do it, but we don't want them to!

    So what. I would have said the same thing to the NRA, the KKK, and Glenn Beck. Just because something is tasteless doesn't mean you should gather angry mobs to eliminate it. I wouldn't care about the protests, but people seem to think that they're perceived offense should trump someone else's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

    What is the desired outcome of the protest? To get them to not build there, right? Meaning, they're attempting to strong-arm a group away from practicing their rights - some of the very rights that Conservatives seem to hold SOOOO precious. They just, apparently, don't like sharing them with others.
    All of those examples were of people protesting the exercise of first ammendment rights. Beck has the right to give a speech at the Lincoln Memorial and the NAACP has the right to protest him. Just as Rauf has the right to build the mosque at that location and a majority of everyone else has a right to protest him. You are so quick to take away the rights of others, some of the very rights that you claim to hold SOOOO precious. You just, apparently, don't like sharing them with others.

  7. #67
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,502

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    This is really a case of all muslims being blamed
    All white Southerners are blamed for slavery. So, what the hell?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #68
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Of course -- because as we all learned in elementary school, two wrongs make a right.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #69
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,502

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    None of your examples are about religion, private property use, free association, or eminent domain.

    The crux of everyone's arguments are this: they have the RIGHT to do it, but we don't want them to!

    So what. I would have said the same thing to the NRA, the KKK, and Glenn Beck. Just because something is tasteless doesn't mean you should gather angry mobs to eliminate it. I wouldn't care about the protests, but people seem to think that they're perceived offense should trump someone else's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

    What is the desired outcome of the protest? To get them to not build there, right? Meaning, they're attempting to strong-arm a group away from practicing their rights - some of the very rights that Conservatives seem to hold SOOOO precious. They just, apparently, don't like sharing them with others.
    Would you have said that to Martin Luther King?

    What about people who counter protest KKK and Nazi rallies?

    Liberals blow my mind!
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #70
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,502

    Re: The 911 Hard Hat Pledge

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Of course -- because as we all learned in elementary school, two wrongs make a right.
    I was only highlighting the hypocrisy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •