• 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

Winston Smith said:
Between what? Pro-American and anti-American genocide?
Click to expand...

Between America and some genocidal regime.

Yes, it is. If you're pointing out that America changed over time and that the democratic United States were different from the theocratic colonies that existed a few generations before, congratulations. You're starting to get it.
Click to expand...

Congragulations you pointed to an article referencing an era before the United States was even a country to show that prove some act or another committed by the United States. :roll:

No, if you read the link you'll see that it has nothing to do with that. It's about death penalty laws in the early 1700s that applied only to blacks.
Click to expand...

In the early 1700s before the formation of the United States. And exactly why are you using actions from 300 years ago in an attempt to justify the actions of today?

The name of the case isn't given. What difference does it make?
Click to expand...

The name of the case isn't given probably because no such case ever took place.

Lawrence v. Texas doesn't necessarily apply to adultery, and even if it does, it's only seven years old.
Click to expand...

Lawrence V. Texas found a right to privacy in consensual sexual relations so it sure as hell would. Tell me sir when is the last time anyone was ever put in jail for adultery in the U.S., oh and do name the case rather than cite an named case listed by an advertisement for a law firm so we can ascertain the veracity of the claim being made.

Maybe.
Click to expand...

But we will never know for sure because she has gone missing and I presume dead.

That's your opinion.
Click to expand...

No that's a fact.

But many Muslims choose to work and struggle for free societies despite our efforts to deny them.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention Muslims I said Islam, and mainstream Islam only accepts the death penalty and/or corporal punishment for adultery, apostasy, sodomy, and premarital sex.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The Bible commands Jews and Christians to do all sorts of nasty things, but we don't condemn them for the contents of their holy book.

Well, I don't anyway.


TED,
Choses to judge others based on what they do, not on their bathroom reading material.
Click to expand...

Islam has never gone through a renaissance or a reformation. Why?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
How you just phrased it will do nicely, thanks.



So what? The only way he could even come close would be via contract law. The First Amendment, which I can't imagine would ever be repealed or modified to his tastes, outlaws virtually any other approach.
Click to expand...


We have people in lawmaking positions right now that don't consider the Constitution any obstruction to their will.


So what?
Click to expand...


So what? Do you denounce Hamas as a terror org? Or do you support them?

Nobody's business.
Click to expand...


I would think it is if it is coming from a terror group, or Iran at a time of war.

I think, unless sufficient evidence is uncovered that the law is being broken or there's a conspiracy to break it, we have no grounds whatsoever for knowing who is behind it.
Click to expand...


Plenty of cases where the over burdensome hand of government steps in to push, or stop something that you have no problem with as long as it is effecting Americans, now that it is a Muslim Imam jabbing a finger in America's eye with this travesty, you're ok with it....And you libs wonder why it is that we on the right claim that liberals side with America's enemies.


j-mac
 
Winston Smith said:
The Barbary Wars were a minor incident and were soon forgotten. They were nothing like the ongoing problems we've had throughout the second half of the last century and can expect to have for the foreseeable future. The difference has everything to do with how we handle things.
Click to expand...

The Barbary wars were started by the acts of unjustified aggression perpetrated by followers of Islam who used Islam to justify their actions, that is exactly the same as the current situation in which the U.S. was hit in an unprovoked act of war perpetrated by Islamic supremacists who used Islam to justify their actions.

About as much as the Barbary pirates.
Click to expand...

The Barbary Pirates were the AQ of their time, you asserted that we have never had a problem with Islam, that it is we who have provoked them, this is a lie not only because we did nothing to bring this on ourselves but because they have been unjustifiably attacking the U.S. nearly since our founding.

You're right...Muslims in general are about as imperialistic as Christians. I'm glad we agree on that. This means they can be peaceful or violent, depending on the circumstances. In the case of radical Islam as we know it today, the West has fostered the tendency to violence.
Click to expand...

Islam has been violent and expansionist since Mohammad perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Jewish Banu tribes of the Arabian penninsula. Are you saying that after Mohammad that Islam suddenly became peaceful? When exactly did this peaceful Islam exist only for the evil west to bring the violence out of them? Why exactly do you blame the victim for the actions of the attacker?

Iran in 1953, for example.
Click to expand...

Ya you are a historical newbie here aren't you? No matter how many times I have to smash down you revisionist historians it never gets old. Mossadeq was not elected, he was appointed by the Shah, upon being appointed by the Shah and ratified by the Majiles he proceeded to dissolve the Iranian Parliament through a fraudulent referendum and extend his emergency powers indefinately, it wasn't a coup against Mossadeq it was a counter coup by the Iranian Constitutional Monarchy.

Probably also Turkey in 1980.
Click to expand...

Proof or GTFO.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
I think you're due for one. You're hateful arguments are sure getting old buddy.
Click to expand...

The real intolerance here is in not wishing to allow opposing points of view.....Remember while you point, there are three fingers pointing back at you.....:)


j-mac
 
I don't give a goddamn what you haters think. You've made up your mind...

Sure as hell ain't gonna convince me that 1/6th of our planet who are Muslim all prescribe to radical islam and are inherently evil and want to convert me or kill me.

I live between 2 muslim families and they are the nicest people on Earth, very religious but generous, and very open, i wonder if those amazing cakes they send us have Islam converting butter in them...
 
Jetboogieman said:
I don't give a goddamn what you haters think. You've made up your mind...

Sure as hell ain't gonna convince me that 1/6th of our planet who are Muslim all prescribe to radical islam and are inherently evil and want to convert me or kill me.

I live between 2 muslim families and they are the nicest people on Earth, very religious but generous, and very open, i wonder if those amazing cakes they send us have Islam converting butter in them...
Click to expand...

Enough of your rant. Let tac answer the Q.

If you don't have the intellectual capacity to answer then stay off the thread, dude
 
ric27 said:
Enough of your rant. Let tac answer the Q.

If you don't have the intellectual capacity to answer then stay off the thread, dude
Click to expand...

Your question is irrelevant and so is the last 43 pages of absolute bull**** you spew. This isn't about radical islam or how christianity is better or how big Angelinas tits are. You've spent 100s of pages on this forum posting post after post of hateful crap.

This thread is about the legality of building this mosque. If you can't talk about the topic at hand. Then i suggest you go lock yourself in a bunker with 1000 cans of tuna, with plenty of guns and ammo. And I'll go live my life free of fear and prejudice.

People are free or they're not. And it is not your right to deny them that freedom when it suit you.
 
ric27 said:
Islam has never gone through a renaissance or a reformation. Why?
Click to expand...

1) Theocracy -- which is why a separation of church and state is good, despite how much that concept makes many conservatives here whine and moan.

2) Decentralization -- There is no equivalent in Islam for the Holy See or Vatican City or the Pope. The closest is the fact that the Saudi's own Islam's holiest locale, but even then that doesn't give them any kind of authority to do anything but deny pilgrims passage.

3) Isolation

Those are just a few good reasons.
 
j-mac said:
We have people in lawmaking positions right now that don't consider the Constitution any obstruction to their will.
Click to expand...

Okay, well, if you're going to just throw up your hands and say that the highest law in the land doesn't matter or can't be enforced, then let's just shoot all the people we disagree with so that they don't get what they want, even if it's unConstitutional.

j-mac said:
So what? Do you denounce Hamas as a terror org? Or do you support them?
Click to expand...

How is that any of your business whatsoever?

j-mac said:
I would think it is if it is coming from a terror group, or Iran at a time of war.
Click to expand...

If you can prove it, it's our business. If you can't, it's nobody's business. Innocent until proven guilty.

j-mac said:
Plenty of cases where the over burdensome hand of government steps in to push, or stop something that you have no problem with as long as it is effecting Americans, now that it is a Muslim Imam jabbing a finger in America's eye with this travesty, you're ok with it....And you libs wonder why it is that we on the right claim that liberals side with America's enemies.
Click to expand...

Are you basing this on anything I've actually said, or are you just labeling me as "liberal" and dismissing me accordingly?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Again, I did not in any way exclude the radicals in my estimation of Islam. What I did was to look at Muslims in whole, and say to myself, "What's the general norm? Are the majority of Muslims peaceful, or not?" Since I don't see any evidence that suggests that the vast majority of Muslims are anything but peaceful, it stands to reason that the violent Muslims are very much in the minority and therefore "radical."
Click to expand...
Yes, you are trying to exclude radicals, because you are saying that we should only look at the more numerous Muslims and should classify the radicals as a minority. Every religion has a "majority" of peaceful members, and only a minority of non-peaceful members, this is nothing significant. Islam has a large global following of radicals that is more than other religions and many of them have turned from being mainstream to becoming radical, that is the point you are not acknowledging.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Wait -- so you're saying it doesn't matter if the vast minority of Muslims are violent? The peaceful majority is to be held accountable for the actions of the nujobs?
Click to expand...
I didn't say the majority is accountable for the actions of the others, I said there is a correlation between terrorism and Islam and when you look at Islam as a whole, you have to include everyone.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Um, by that description, they were peaceful protests. Peaceful doesn't mean "not angry" or "not symbolically burning things."
Click to expand...
Burning something with the intent to destroy is violent.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Then I guess DP is just packed full of radicals, huh? :lol:
Click to expand...
Right, do DP members go out and burn effigies and flags of the other members whenever they are criticized?

I think I'm done responding to your posts, there is just endless misunderstanding.
 
Opteron said:
Yes, you are trying to exclude radicals, because you are saying that we should only look at the more numerous Muslims and should classify the radicals as a minority. Every religion has a "majority" of peaceful members, and only a minority of non-peaceful members, this is nothing significant. Islam has a large global following of radicals that is more than other religions and many of them have turned from being mainstream to becoming radical, that is the point you are not acknowledging.
Click to expand...

Look, repeating yourself over and over doesn't make it so -- I didn't exclude radicals from my estimation. The original intent, to begin with, was to define them as radicals by WordNet's definition of the word, and you somehow took that to be that I was excluding them somehow.

Opteron said:
Burning something with the intent to destroy is violent.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Destroying your own property, for any reason much less in protest, is not violent.

Opteron said:
Right, do DP members go out and burn effigies and flags of the other members whenever they are criticized?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know, I suppose we should have the FBI investigate that -- just to be safe! :lol:

Opteron said:
I think I'm done responding to your posts, there is just endless misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

More like deliberate obtuseness on your part.

Anyway, have fun!
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
More like deliberate obtuseness on your part.

Anyway, have fun!
Click to expand...
Right, says the guy who can't properly respond to arguments, nor form them. You can say whatever you want to say, you're wrong anyways.
 
Last edited:
Opteron said:
Right, says the guy who can't properly respond to arguments, nor form them. You can say whatever you want to say, you're wrong anyways.
Click to expand...

Right, says the guy whose response to arguments he can't reasonably refute is to say "I'm done responding." :lol:

Didn't you say you were done responding?

I could've sworn you were done responding.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Your question is irrelevant and so is the last 43 pages of absolute bull**** you spew. This isn't about radical islam or how christianity is better or how big Angelinas tits are. You've spent 100s of pages on this forum posting post after post of hateful crap.

This thread is about the legality of building this mosque. If you can't talk about the topic at hand. Then i suggest you go lock yourself in a bunker with 1000 cans of tuna, with plenty of guns and ammo. And I'll go live my life free of fear and prejudice.

People are free or they're not. And it is not your right to deny them that freedom when it suit you.
Click to expand...

You gotta calm down, dude....

I would have no problem living peacefully with Islam if they would handle their nut jobs. But they won't. They leave them to us and make it our problem.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
1) Theocracy -- which is why a separation of church and state is good, despite how much that concept makes many conservatives here whine and moan.

2) Decentralization -- There is no equivalent in Islam for the Holy See or Vatican City or the Pope. The closest is the fact that the Saudi's own Islam's holiest locale, but even then that doesn't give them any kind of authority to do anything but deny pilgrims passage.

3) Isolation

Those are just a few good reasons.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....if you go back a couple of pages (if not this thread) you'll know, I am against a theocratic government, whatever the religion. Including Christianity.
 
I'm not advocating a war of extermination in any way. What I am advocating is defense of our interests. If we fail to defend our culture, beliefs, and society aginst this predatory and aggressive medieval cult, then we don't deserve to exist as free men. Anything that you cannot (or will not) protect, isn't going to remain yours for long.
 
ric27 said:
I'm not advocating a war of extermination in any way. What I am advocating is defense of our interests. If we fail to defend our culture, beliefs, and society aginst this predatory and aggressive medieval cult, then we don't deserve to exist as free men. Anything that you cannot (or will not) protect, isn't going to remain yours for long.
Click to expand...

and you probably won't rest until all brown people are gone from this Earth. You sir are a bigot, sounds like you aren't ashamed either which is shameful.
 
BCR said:
and you probably won't rest until all brown people are gone from this Earth. You sir are a bigot, sounds like you aren't ashamed either which is shameful.
Click to expand...

I'm going to repeat a point I made in another post. The Bill of Rights has not been interpreted by the Court to be without some reasonable restrictions. Freedom of speech stops at libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), etc. A logical limitation on the 2nd Amendment would be the exclusion of criminals and the mentally insane from the right to keep and bear arms....All reasonable

For the same reason, I believe there can be a reasonable restriction on freedom of religion. If you worship Quetzelcoatl, you aren't going to be allowed to cut out someone's heart for a sacrifice. A Kali worshipper can't strangle a sacrifical victim and the druids can't burn a man in a basket at Samhain.

For the same reason, I think that sooner or later, we must prohibit Islam in this country. The Koran and Hadith commands Muslims to convert the world to Islam by peaceful means if possible, by deception and violence if necessary. The options are to pay a dhimmi tax if you are a Jew or Christian, convert to Islam or die. Atheists don't get to keep the option of not believing. If their numbers were small, or they were otherwise incapable of making good on their commandment, then it wouldn't be much of an issue. But their numbers continue to grow both in this country and in others and their means of waging war now constitute a clear and present danger to the US.

Whether their beliefs are true and Allah is the one and only God or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether they are a threat or not.
 
The massive majority of them are not a threat. Just like the massive majority of Fundamentalist Christians are not a threat but still a select few will shoot up abortion clinics. We don't lump all Christians in with those nuts so why do it with Muslims?
 
BCR said:
The massive majority of them are not a threat. Just like the massive majority of Fundamentalist Christians are not a threat but still a select few will shoot up abortion clinics. We don't lump all Christians in with those nuts so why do it with Muslims?
Click to expand...

Which mainstream Christian sect still calls for the death penalty and/or corporal punishment for apostasy, adultery, sodomy, and/or premarital sex? FYI those are the only accepted views within mainstream Islam today, there is not one of the five main schools of Islamic fiqh in which the Ulama has not ruled through Ijma as such.

Now are there Muslims who don't believe that? Yes. But that says about as much as a pro-choice Catholic about the Catholic view on abortion.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I don't give a goddamn what you haters think. You've made up your mind...

Sure as hell ain't gonna convince me that 1/6th of our planet who are Muslim all prescribe to radical islam and are inherently evil and want to convert me or kill me.

I live between 2 muslim families and they are the nicest people on Earth, very religious but generous, and very open, i wonder if those amazing cakes they send us have Islam converting butter in them...
Click to expand...
I'm not a Muslim hater, and you are right, there are many, many nice Muslims who are not terrorists and are friendly. But there are also a lot of Muslims who are anti-west, and pro-Bin Laden. It is these people who are not good.

BCR said:
The massive majority of them are not a threat. Just like the massive majority of Fundamentalist Christians are not a threat but still a select few will shoot up abortion clinics. We don't lump all Christians in with those nuts so why do it with Muslims?
Click to expand...
I applaud your stance of trying to be fair to everyone BCR, but I think in this case its somewhat different.

One thing we don't see much, at least I don't see it, is the speaking out against terrorism by other Muslims. If you don't believe in terrorism, you should condemn it, especially if the people are using the same religion in your name to conduct terrorism. Muslims should be protesting against Bin Laden and Al Queda, instead we see protests against the Danish cartoons and protests against US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I would hope would be Imams issuing Fatwahs against terrorism and Bin Laden, but I haven't seen it on a wide scale so far.

About the Christian terrorists, if there's few groups that pop up every now and then that can be understood, but when there's numerous terrorist organizations that are transformed into a global movement, something has to be up and there's something strange going on.

And also, the whole India/Pakistan problem. Both were part of the same state, but after they were partitioned, one became a source of terror, while the other became a more peaceful and tolerant nation. Both differ primarily due to religion.

I hope you guys don't hate on me for trying to respond to your posts, I'm just trying to explain a different position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom