• 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!

Ground zero mosque wins key vote

Seems to me that there are three typical positions here


1 -- I have researched the group involved, and do not think they should be allowed to build.

2 - -I haven't taken any time to research the group involved, and think they should be allowed build.

3 -- I have taken the time to research the group involved, do not support them, but support their right to build.

Those in group #2 are routinely ridiculing all other viewpoints, and seem incapable of distinguishing between group 1 and group 3. What I would ask them is whether they have taken any time whatsoever attempting to understand what the building represents to those building it, whether they have looked into their politics, or the funding of it? Have they made any attempt to understand much of anything at all, or are they just reacting?

You've forgotten the 4th group:

4) I haven't researched, I don't really understand the constitution, and I'm having a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that these people are Muslims. As a result, my fear of muslims is so great that I'm willing to rip apart constitutional protections in order to feel "safe."

Such people deserve to be mocked, thoroughly. As do categories 1 and 2.
 
Well, at least you've put it right out there that you support terrorists over those who oppose them too strenuously.

"Yes, ma'am, please put me in the cage with the saber toothed tiger because the tom cat on the corner is too loud"

Oh no, people can oppose terrorists in a rational and competent manner. Fair enough. It's when it becomes irrational and incompetent that I start to have disagreements. Anything else you wanna try to throw out there. You know, work on your smarmy a little bit? Cause you ain't good at it, but maybe if you keep it up it'll turn around for you.
 
Well, at least you've put it right out there that you support terrorists over those who oppose them too strenuously.

"Yes, ma'am, please put me in the cage with the saber toothed tiger because the tom cat on the corner is too loud"

I think most rational people understood that Ikari was suggesting that he'd use his 2nd amendment rights to protect his 1st amendment right FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

But don't let me get in the way of the "muslims are evil" support group meeting.
 
This is the danger of relying on government for everything. I remember when someone used to say they're conservative and it meant they understood the necessity of rugged individualism, they knew they had to rely on themselves, they knew that big government was bad government. They don't know that anymore. "Conservative" isn't the small, constrained, reasonable government platform anymore. If you look at all those calling themselves conservative and the expansion of government they call for, especially against our rights and liberties you begin to wonder "what the hell happened to the party of Reagan?". Gone. Like those Olestra chips. Now all we hear is about terrorist this and terrorist that and why it has to be used to excuse more and more war, bigger and bigger government, deeper and deeper debt, etc. Conservatives....hardly anything conservative left in them. The Republocrats are all the same now.


And ignoring the threat got us what last time around? I am sure that the families of those killed in the WTC would love hearing you dismiss their deaths so casually.

j-mac
 
You've forgotten the 4th group:

4) I haven't researched, I don't really understand the constitution, and I'm having a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that these people are Muslims. As a result, my fear of muslims is so great that I'm willing to rip apart constitutional protections in order to feel "safe."

Such people deserve to be mocked, thoroughly. As do categories 1 and 2.

Well, then a bit in excess of 500 posts in this thread deserve to be mocked, then, don't ya think?
 
And ignoring the threat got us what last time around? I am sure that the families of those killed in the WTC would love hearing you dismiss their deaths so casually.

j-mac
False dichotomy and appeal to emotion.
 
And ignoring the threat got us what last time around? I am sure that the families of those killed in the WTC would love hearing you dismiss their deaths so casually.

j-mac

Freedom is never without cost. Having said that, it beats the **** out of the other choices.
 
What I wanna know is this?

If there are SOOOOO many terrorists out there, and they're all conspiring to attack us every single day of the week.

Then where the **** are they? Surely if the situation was SOOOO Dire, and there were SOOOOO Many of them, we'd be getting attacked at least once every few months?

I mean, they're not all coming through the airports...
 
I think most rational people understood that Ikari was suggesting that he'd use his 2nd amendment rights to protect his 1st amendment right FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

But don't let me get in the way of the "muslims are evil" support group meeting.

Actually, I think most rational people would be quick to recognize that Ikari has not spent even a nanosecond researching Islamist politics, nor the terrorism it spawns.
 
Actually, I think most rational people would be quick to recognize that Ikari has not spent even a nanosecond researching Islamist politics, nor the terrorism it spawns.

I think it's a question of what you're willing to sacrifice for safety. Ikari and others, including me, are unwilling to sacrifice essential liberties for the illusion of safety. Not only is disallowing the mosque unconstitutional, it would represent an unacceptable government intrusion into personal property rights and religious expression. That's completely unacceptable.

I recognize that some of these folks mean us harm. Nonetheless, that's the risk we take to live in a free and open society where government doesn't get to designate which beliefs are unacceptable and interfere in private property based upon the ideology of the group.

I don't, for a minute, believe that Ikari is some kind of uninformed Islamic apologist. DO YOU?

He's a constitutional apologist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, no matter how many times you attempt to muddy the water with ridiculous fallacies and ad hominems.
 
Last edited:
I think what most would like to hear from ya is silence. We got it, we understand. You believe Islam is horrible and shouldn't be permitted and blah blah blah. Written down, got it right here. I don't care how bad you think Islam is, it's not worth giving up freedom for your bias and opinions. You can tell us the sky is falling in every post. How the big bad terrorists are going to come get us, how evil Islam is or whatever the hell else you want. But it doesn't matter because in the end I will not abdicate freedom and liberty for your fear mongering. That's all there is to it. Life is hard, and it ain't secure, and death can come from a multitude of angles every single day. Yet I still get up and get out of bed and face it. And that's just the way of the world. But I'll be damned if some lot fearing some terrorist foe comes to restrict our freedoms and liberties because they are having a hard time getting out of bed in the morning to face the world.

Ask several hundred Muslims if they consider themselves Muslims or US citizens first?....Muslims before US citizens. Then ask them where they get their guidance.

Get back to me
 
Ask several hundred Muslims if they consider themselves Muslims or US citizens first?....Muslims before US citizens. Then ask them where they get their guidance.

Get back to me

So? It's completely irrelevant. Our constitution should not be altered because you're scared of the bogeyman.
 
What I wanna know is this?

If there are SOOOOO many terrorists out there, and they're all conspiring to attack us every single day of the week.

Then where the **** are they? Surely if the situation was SOOOO Dire, and there were SOOOOO Many of them, we'd be getting attacked at least once every few months?

I mean, they're not all coming through the airports...


This is not a US only problem. This is a war on Western Civilization started, and perpetrated by Islam.

From a Guardian article in 2005


And those were just the major ones 6 years ago. Today, there are upwards of 16,000 terror incidents worldwide, and continuing to count.

so yeah, terrorism is so yesterday......


j-mac
 
And ignoring the threat got us what last time around? I am sure that the families of those killed in the WTC would love hearing you dismiss their deaths so casually.

j-mac

Ignoring it? So you want to present this false dichotomy eh? Is that really all you have to fall back on? No one said ignore it. People are saying "don't over react to it". If you start going after our freedoms, you're over reacting. Take a step back and a deep breath. There is plenty we can do to watch and prepare and to be ready from these threats, no one says we can't do anything. But at the same accord, we need to understand that terrorists will exist so long as there are pissed off people with no power in the world. And that's most likely going to be true so long as there are advanced human cultures on this planet. So terrorists happen. We've suffered their attacks before. We will suffer their attacks again too. Given enough time, it will happen. Sorry, but it's never going to be zero. And if we strive for it to be zero, we'll be left as slaves.

You see, freedom is inherently dangerous. When you aggregate it over a large enough population, you get abuses and crime and other undesirable effects. But this is a consequence of freedom. In a free state we will never be 100% safe, we take the risk as necessary and worth the cost of our freedom. When people start acting against that freedom, that's when we have true problems. Terrorists? No, they can't change our laws. They can't take our freedom. They have no chance in hell of ever beating us. The best they can do is ram a plane into a building. That's their ace in the hole. They did it, they got lucky and it worked beyond their wildest dream. That ace is done burnt up now though. And the most successful terrorist attack on our State soil proper didn't even kill more people than cars do in a year. And that was what, 10 years ago? Terrorists ain't got ****. If they were smart they would have synchronously blown up the TSA lines in the biggest US airports by now. But they ain't even smart enough to think that one up.

So in the end, the true threat ain't the terrorists. Live free or die I say. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. If they kill a small number of us, they kill a small number of us. Die free. But they ain't ever going to change us. They don't have the power. The real threat is the threat that actually works against our rights and against our liberty. The thing that has control over that, the thing that can effect that; and that's the government itself. And now we see the dangers of the Chicken Littles crying that the sky is falling. You're helping the true threat. Supporting that which can actually take our freedom, circumvent our rights, and empowering it to do so.

Live free or die, death is not the greatest of sins.
 
It's muddying the water to attempt to represent the view that civil liberties trump individual biases and fears? Wow. How confusing this thread must be for you.

The muddying of the waters lies in all the characterization of views that reject the Islamists while supporting their right to build as being fearful of all Muslims.
 
This is not a US only problem. This is a war on Western Civilization started, and perpetrated by Islam.

From a Guardian article in 2005

And those were just the major ones 6 years ago. Today, there are upwards of 16,000 terror incidents worldwide, and continuing to count.

so yeah, terrorism is so yesterday......

How many thousands of law enforcement folks are involved in addressing terrorism in one form or another daily?

IF this group is linked to ANY criminal activity, whatsoever, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and expelled from the U.S. when they've served their sentences.

However, until that happens, their civil liberties should not be trampled upon by people whose sheeplike fear of the unknown causes them to want to dismantle the ****ing constitution.
 
The muddying of the waters lies in all the characterization of views that reject the Islamists while supporting their right to build as being fearful of all Muslims.

I am a member of group 3 myself, and have expressed my disdain for Islam several times on this thread. It's a shame you didn't really pay attention.
 
Ignoring it? So you want to present this false dichotomy eh? Is that really all you have to fall back on? No one said ignore it. People are saying "don't over react to it". If you start going after our freedoms, you're over reacting. Take a step back and a deep breath. There is plenty we can do to watch and prepare and to be ready from these threats, no one says we can't do anything. But at the same accord, we need to understand that terrorists will exist so long as there are pissed off people with no power in the world. And that's most likely going to be true so long as there are advanced human cultures on this planet. So terrorists happen. We've suffered their attacks before. We will suffer their attacks again too. Given enough time, it will happen. Sorry, but it's never going to be zero. And if we strive for it to be zero, we'll be left as slaves.

You see, freedom is inherently dangerous. When you aggregate it over a large enough population, you get abuses and crime and other undesirable effects. But this is a consequence of freedom. In a free state we will never be 100% safe, we take the risk as necessary and worth the cost of our freedom. When people start acting against that freedom, that's when we have true problems. Terrorists? No, they can't change our laws. They can't take our freedom. They have no chance in hell of ever beating us. The best they can do is ram a plane into a building. That's their ace in the hole. They did it, they got lucky and it worked beyond their wildest dream. That ace is done burnt up now though. And the most successful terrorist attack on our State soil proper didn't even kill more people than cars do in a year. And that was what, 10 years ago? Terrorists ain't got ****. If they were smart they would have synchronously blown up the TSA lines in the biggest US airports by now. But they ain't even smart enough to think that one up.

So in the end, the true threat ain't the terrorists. Live free or die I say. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. If they kill a small number of us, they kill a small number of us. Die free. But they ain't ever going to change us. They don't have the power. The real threat is the threat that actually works against our rights and against our liberty. The thing that has control over that, the thing that can effect that; and that's the government itself. And now we see the dangers of the Chicken Littles crying that the sky is falling. You're helping the true threat. Supporting that which can actually take our freedom, circumvent our rights, and empowering it to do so.

Live free or die, death is not the greatest of sins.

America. **** yeah!
 
Ignoring it? So you want to present this false dichotomy eh?

You advance the view that you would rather support Islamist terrorists than those who oppose them to the point they would be overly restrictive of their activities, and then claim it is somebody ELSE indulging in false dichotomies.

Oh, my, that's rich.
 
Actually, I think most rational people would be quick to recognize that Ikari has not spent even a nanosecond researching Islamist politics, nor the terrorism it spawns.

So you're Madam Cleo now?

How about this one. I think most rational people would be quick to recognize that Gardener has not spent even a nanosecond researching history, the course of government, and the political ideologies behind the varying founders as they constructed this country and its emphasis on our rights and liberties is espouses.
 
I am a member of group 3 myself, and have expressed my disdain for Islam several times on this thread. It's a shame you didn't really pay attention.

I also paid attention to all the times you tried to equate position 3 with position 1.
 
You advance the view that you would rather support Islamist terrorists than those who oppose them to the point they would be overly restrictive of their activities, and then claim it is somebody ELSE indulging in false dichotomies.

Oh, my, that's rich.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. No, I said I'd take terrorists over Big Brother folk any day of the week. That doesn't mean I would support the terrorists. It's just that I can fight them easier than I can the government. At some point you may have to stop misrepresenting my posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom