• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

Agent Ferris said:
Ya this Mosque is a clear fist, they have every right to build it, but ask yourself one thing, why are they having the ground breaking ceremony on 9-11 of all days? Give me a ****ing break, these people need to be protested day in and day out until they decide to build their little temple to oppression somewhere the **** else.
Click to expand...

It could be because Muslims have also suffered from terrorist attacks, and not only on 9/11. Mainstream Muslims, whom Al Qaeda considers un-Islamic, are the primary target of Muslim extremists throughout the world. They're considered a worse enemy than Americans.
 
ric27 said:
The Muslims are simply exploiting an available weakness. That is why they are a risk, Islam calls for the subjugation and conversion of the world, by all means, including lying, murder and terror.
Click to expand...

The Americans are simply exploiting an available weakness. That is why they are a risk. Their idealism calls for the subjugation and democratization of the world, by all means, including lying, murder and terror.

ric27 said:
Islam is the poster child of religious intolerance. When they have the power, they prohibit or forbid the practice of Christianity or Judaism, and still execute people of "pagan" religions. If you were a Muslim and and choose not to be Muslim any longer, Islamic law still calls for your execution.
Click to expand...

That sounds a whole lot like any political powerful religious movement or institution since the dawn of man; the more power it has, the more oppressive it becomes. Christianity had a stage where it looked exactly like this.

It's not so much that Christians suddenly had an awakening and became more humane and accepting. It's that its elders and institutions steadily lost political power, until they had to learn to live with the world around them.

Some people call it a reformation. I call it realizing you don't have the clout to torture, kill or imprison your enemies anymore.

ric27 said:
So as much as we may wish to be PC tolerant, every Muslim is a potential terrorist.
Click to expand...

This sounds like "every black is a potential criminal," or "every priest is a potential molestor," or "every man is a potential rapist," and so on.

I'll correct your statement: Every human is a potential terrorist.



Muslims -- the new niggers!
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Gay marriage. You have never once supported going through the amendment process which would be the proper format. Instead you favor using the court system trying to bypass the Constitution

Thank you for playing and you can apologize at any time :)
Click to expand...

Yet again, laws are struck down that do not require a constitutional amendment. Epic fail on your part and your post only shows at evidence your complete dishonesty and lack of integrity on your part.

Legalizing gay marriage does NOT require a constitutional amendment to do. Nice try, you fail again.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Yet again, laws are struck down that do not require a constitutional amendment. Epic fail on your part and your post only shows at evidence your complete dishonesty and lack of integrity on your part.

Legalizing gay marriage does NOT require a constitutional amendment to do. Nice try, you fail again.
Click to expand...

Actually it does if you want it passed everywhere which you do.

Way to duck the fact you support letting judges making the law instead of the people on this issue.

Enjoy your fail once again.
 
I am honestly shocked and disgusted that people are trying to violate the religious rights of others and the right to their property. Sure, building the mosque is bad taste and they can expect vandalism and protests. But it's even worse to violate the religious freedoms of others and have the government illegally breach a groups right to their property. I would say opposing the mosque and forcing it to not be build is very unconstitutional.
 
texmaster said:
Actually it does if you want it passed everywhere which you do.

Way to duck the fact you support letting judges making the law instead of the people on this issue.

Enjoy your fail once again.
Click to expand...

Judges make decisions that people don't like everyday. That doesn't mean they aren't constitutional. That is why we have three branches of the government. Just because a decision isn't popular, doesn't make it any less constitutional.

Continue to fail on your part.

It's really sad that Un-American comments such as yours and rics against Muslims happen even today. Maybe you two should leave America since you hate it soo much.
 
TheNextEra said:
Judges make decisions that people don't like everyday. That doesn't mean they aren't constitutional.
That is why we have three branches of the government. Just because a decision isn't popular, doesn't make it any less constitutional.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point. You don't want to follow the Constutiion.

How about you show us all where it says in the Constutition that judges can make law?

Go ahead.

Continue to fail on your part.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it.

It's really sad that Un-American comments such as yours and rics against Muslims happen even today. Maybe you two should leave America since you hate it soo much.
Click to expand...

I don't hate America at all. American haters like yourself don't understand basic facts about this case. For example, you ducked the fact this Imam is on record as saying that America shares responsibilty for 9.11.

And you ducked the fact we have no idea where the money is coming from.

You are just so wrapped up in your desire to overlook any terrorist connection you are ready to excuse anything.
 
texmaster said:
For example, you ducked the fact this Imam is on record as saying that America shares responsibilty for 9.11.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say it does. We've given the militants plenty of ammunition for their propaganda.

texmaster said:
And you ducked the fact we have no idea where the money is coming from.
Click to expand...

I thought it was coming from the Ford foundation, but seriously, who cares? Are we going to ask where the money came from every time a group of Muslims wants to do something we don't like, even if it isn't illegal?

texmaster said:
You are just so wrapped up in your desire to overlook any terrorist connection you are ready to excuse anything.
Click to expand...

You are just so wrapped up in your desire to see a terrorist connection in anything Muslim that you are ready to jump at shadows.
 
texmaster said:
Thank you for proving my point. You don't want to follow the Constutiion.

How about you show us all where it says in the Constutition that judges can make law?

Go ahead.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and show me where I said that judges make laws. I said judges make DECISIONS. Nowhere did I say make laws now did I?

When a judge states that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, they are not making a law, they are making a decision.

You fail yet again.

texmaster said:
I don't hate America at all. American haters like yourself don't understand basic facts about this case. For example, you ducked the fact this Imam is on record as saying that America shares responsibility
for 9.11.
Click to expand...

I don't hate America at all, unlike you and Ric who are soo Anti-Muslim it is sickening. America's foreign policy could very well be PART of why we were attacked. To deny that is to deny reality.

texmaster said:
And you ducked the fact we have no idea where the money is coming from.
Click to expand...

In America we have this thing called innocent until proven guilty, I know you hate that one.

Shall we demand where funding comes from with Muslims only and not anyone else? Show us where this group has a history of violence against the U.S. and where it is justified.

texmaster said:
You are just so wrapped up in your desire to overlook any terrorist connection you are ready to excuse anything.
Click to expand...

Not true at all, but you are so wrapped up in your desires to see a terrorist connection you are ready to accuse anyone that is Muslim of terrorist activities.
 
texmaster said:
I don't hate America at all. American haters like yourself don't understand basic facts about this case. For example, you ducked the fact this Imam is on record as saying that America shares responsibilty for 9.11.
Click to expand...

As if that should be controversial? You don't have to hate America to see that.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Yes it is their right, but it is our right to protest these POS's and their violent and oppressive ideology. They decided to hold the groundbreaking on 9-11 with the clear intent to incite, those who defend their right to the Mosque I have no problem with, those who move beyond that and start defending the group or mainstream Islamic dogma which is completely antithetical to a liberal free society can GFTS's.
Click to expand...

Come back when you have something other then viral hatred based upon nothing but your own inherent fears.
 
texmaster said:
I understand its hard for you to fully grasp this but the property rights are not the only concern.
Click to expand...

In the context of their legal right to do what they want with the land they privately own, it is the only concern. Your problem is you're a fake conservative and you're having a problem being consistent.

The source of the funds and the statements from the imam also come into play.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that every Islamic entity is funded by terrorists? Wow. I didn't know the deep end of the pool was that deep.

Being a conservative does not mean you are a walking zombie. Its clear you have no grasp of the obvious which is itself ironic.
Click to expand...

Read your own post. All I see is a bunch of fake conservatives who have no respect for private property laws when it comes to entities they don't like.
 
ric27 said:
BULL****!
Laws are written by men, men can change them.
Click to expand...

Indeed we can.

So you're saying that we should bar specific groups from engaging in other wise perfectly legal activities within their legal rights purely because we don't like
them?

So we should bar YOU from owning property purely because we don't like you?

Think for a change. It will do you good. Like milk!
 
digsbe said:
I am honestly shocked and disgusted that people are trying to violate the religious rights of others and the right to their property. Sure, building the mosque is bad taste and they can expect vandalism and protests. But it's even worse to violate the religious freedoms of others and have the government illegally breach a groups right to their property. I would say opposing the mosque and forcing it to not be build is very unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Congradulations Disgbe. You are the first real conservative in this thread. The rest are fakes who only believe in private personal property rights when it fits their beliefs.
 
obvious Child said:
Congradulations Disgbe. You are the first real conservative in this thread. The rest are fakes who only believe in private personal property rights when it fits their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

I'll say another thing, I find the argument that "Well they wouldn't let us build a church in mecca" argument to be ridiculous.

First of all... New York is not Mecca, or a religious centre of any kind for any religion.

Second the argument that "Well they wouldn't" I don't think stands for this reason: You feel you're are culturally superior... and so you're then gonna stoop to their level within your own argument?

I love the way that suddenly there's a democrat in the White House and everyone and their dog is suddenly a constitutional scholar. Hell some are calling for the impeachment of Obama... ok? *Confused* But hey, **** the constitution when it's something you don't agree with, **** freedom of religion, **** private property rights.

Perhaps its slightly distasteful or something. But fear and ignorance are what will lead to a deeper rift and hatred between your two peoples.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Pretty much.

I'll say another thing, I find the argument that "Well they wouldn't let us build a church in mecca" argument to be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Especially since it's grade school. "He hit me first!" Furthermore, effectively that argument means we should act like them. That we aren't any better then the theocratic fascists in Riyadh, the capital of a country where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from. That I find offensive. I like to think that America is more advanced then the towel heads in Saudi Arabia and more tolerant. I guess some people here think we shouldn't be. Let's be like the Saudis! Oh wait.

First of all... New York is not Mecca, or a religious centre of any kind for any religion.
Click to expand...

That is frankly irrelevant. Even in religious centers, to ban other religion's places of worship is a sign of how weak your religion really is. I don't care much for Islam, but we are better then this. Well, some of us at least.

Second the argument that "Well they wouldn't" I don't think stands for this reason: You feel you're are culturally superior... and so you're then gonna stoop to their level within your own argument?
Click to expand...

Correct! You've won a million (fake) dollars!
 
obvious Child said:
Indeed we can.

So you're saying that we should bar specific groups from engaging in other wise perfectly legal activities within their legal rights purely because we don't like
them?

So we should bar YOU from owning property purely because we don't like you?
Click to expand...
No, I'm talking about eminent domain

Paladino vows 'eminent domain' for ground zero-area mosque - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino is upping the ante in the debate over the planned ground zero-area mosque, saying in a new statewide radio ad that he would use the governmental power of eminent domain to prevent the project from happening.
Click to expand...
 
It would have been wonderful if we, as a nation, were better than this. If we could come together and recognize that the criminals responsible for the September 11th attacks do not represent the entire Islamic faith or even a significant segment of it. We should be better than this. Freedom of religion is what this country is built on. But it seems that fear of "the other" is overwhelming these values of inclusiveness that always remain just out of reach. We're just beginning to put the shame of Jim Crow apartheid behind us, only to replace it with a new institutionalized bigotry against the Islamic religion. The most bitter irony is that Paladino and his ilk, by fomenting divisiveness, are playing right into the hands of the very criminals who perpetrated the September 11th attacks.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The most bitter irony is that Paladino and his ilk, by fomenting divisiveness, are playing right into the hands of the very criminals who perpetrated the September 11th attacks.
Click to expand...

I tell ya what... I, being the magnanimous person I am....We let them build it then claim eminent domain. We demolish, the **** outta it and, we build a museum of fine arts in its place

I think its a good plan
 
ric27 said:
I tell ya what... I, being the magnanimous person I am....We let them build it then claim eminent domain. We demolish, the **** outta it and, we build a museum of fine arts in its place

I think its a good plan
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy of course is that if your idea was used against a Christian church you would be foaming out the mouth and claiming how Un-American it would be.

Your un-American ideas will of course be shot down which is a good thing.
 
TheNextEra said:
The hypocrisy of course is that if your idea was used against a Christian church you would be foaming out the mouth and claiming how Un-American it would be.

Your un-American ideas will of course be shot down which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

You and others attacked me because my ideas were "unconstitutional". Now, eminent domain which is clearly legal (Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) is being discussed and you're, the one thats foaming out of the mouth...lol

Now, who is the hypocrite?
 
ric27 said:
No, I'm talking about eminent domain
Click to expand...

Which in itself is wrong. You do realize you are calling for something extremely unconstitutional no?

Using eminent domain to single out a single religion to deny them use of private land they own purely on the grounds of dislike of that religion is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.

Go live in Saudi Arabia. You hold nothing that resembles American Ideals.

You and others attacked me because my ideas were "unconstitutional". Now, eminent domain which is clearly legal (Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) is being discussed and you're, the one thats foaming out of the mouth...lol

Now, who is the hypocrite?
Click to expand...

You.

Read the first amendment. And then without lying through your teeth tell me how using ED to take land away from a religious group purely because we don't like them does not violate the bill of rights.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Come back when you have something other then viral hatred based upon nothing but your own inherent fears.
Click to expand...

Call me when you can explain the reasoning behind holding the ground breaking ceremony on the day of 9-11.

Call me when you can name any of the five major schools of Islamic Fiqh which does not call for capital and/or corporal punishment for adultery, sodomy, premarital sex, and/or apostasy.

FYI you won't be able to because all mainstream Islamic sects call for capital and/or corporal punishments for those respective non-crimes. Now you might say "not all Muslims are violent" bla bla bla, but I never said all Muslims were violent to begin with, all Muslims not being violent says absolutely nothing about mainstream Islam itself which is inherently violent and oppressive, the argument of you people is like bringing up a pro-choice Catholic to try to say that the Catholic Church doesn't prohibit abortion.

Now like the ACLU did for Nazi's I will support this groups inalienable rights, however, what I will not do (and what you have done making you the enemy of liberty and not its defender) is to defend the group and the ideology itself. Now run along I'm sure you have a stoning of a rape victim to defend somewhere.
 
Winston Smith said:
It could be because Muslims have also suffered from terrorist attacks, and not only on 9/11. Mainstream Muslims, whom Al Qaeda considers un-Islamic, are the primary target of Muslim extremists throughout the world. They're considered a worse enemy than Americans.
Click to expand...

A) Mainstream Islam = capital and/or corporal punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and pre-marital sex.

B) If you honestly believe that then I feel sorry for you. The main proponent of this plan says that the U.S. brought 9-11 upon itself. The intent is clear it is incitement plain and simple. Do they have the right to have this Mosque? Yes. Do they have a right to hold the ground breaking on 9-11 in a clear intention to incite? Again yes. But I have every right in the world to say **** YOU, **** your celestial dicator, **** your oppressive political ideology masquerading as a religion, and **** anybody who supports you and your group.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Call me when you can explain the reasoning behind holding the ground breaking ceremony on the day of 9-11
Click to expand...

All of which is irrelevant to their legal rights as property owners who have passed zoning law.

You don't like Islam. That's pretty obvious, but unlike other places, namely Islamic ones, we have a thing called the Constitution.

Your whole argument is nothing more then emotional reasons why you don't like Islam. But in the context of legal property laws, your argument means absolutely nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom