• 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

Bloomberg's full remarks can be found here:

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Ground Zero Mosque Vote - WSJ.com

...We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.


"On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.

...The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

"The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said 'no' to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

"Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies' hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that. "
 
58% can't hear

keep trying
 
ok, it is what it is

it's how obama got elected

we all just gotta live with these things, i guess

Even the Presidency isn't a strict popular vote. It's an electoral vote. It is possible to win Presidency through electoral votes and not capture the majority of the popular vote.
 
Even the Presidency isn't a strict popular vote. It's an electoral vote. It is possible to win Presidency through electoral votes and not capture the majority of the popular vote.

a lesson befitting an 8th grade civics teacher

cordoba may get its mosque

actually the heat is getting so white hot, the mosque may have to be dropped, just like ksm's trial in manhattan

just like gitmo

we'll see

either way, the politics are poison, and they're coast to coast

it is what it is

congrats!
 
a lesson befitting an 8th grade civics teacher

Well then it seems that maybe some here do not have an 8th grade education.

cordoba may get its mosque

actually the heat is getting so white hot, the mosque may have to be dropped, just like ksm's trial in manhattan

just like gitmo

we'll see

That we shall, but GITMO and trials are part of government and the decision may be political. This case, however, is with private citizens and thus different. If they are allowed to build the mosque, I would imagine they'd do just that. And it's their right to do so.

either way, the politics are poison, and they're coast to coast

it is what it is

congrats!

The only poison is this thinking that is going around that it's ok to use government force against the individual and the exercise of their rights when they have not infringed upon the rights of others and merely along the point that some people do not like the building.
 
The only poison is this thinking that is going around that it's ok to use government force against the individual and the exercise of their rights when they have not infringed upon the rights of others and merely along the point that some people do not like the building.

the majority of NEW YORKERS disagree

one can only imagine what hoosiers and tarheels are feeling

but what do they know, they're all full of crap

ONWARD!

party on, progressives, proudly display your superiority

maybe you should buy a VOLT!

a steal at $41,000
 
the majority of NEW YORKERS disagree

one can only imagine what hoosiers and tarheels are feeling

but what do they know, they're all full of crap

ONWARD!

party on, progressives, proudly display your superiority

maybe you should buy a VOLT!

a steal at $41,000

Again, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks. The majority cannot at their discretion violate the rights of the minority. We are not a pure Democracy. I don't know how often that has to be said before it sinks in. The majority can sit around not liking it till the cows come home; but they have no just or legal means by which they can stop it.
 
I suppose I should be used to it, but the level of racism on display by opponents of the mosque continues to astound me. Are people really advocating that peaceful and law abiding Muslims (read: the vast majority of all Muslims, all people for that matter, are peaceful and law abiding) should just give up their legal rights because it may offend some people? Since when is offending ignorant bigots even worth consideration? As I recall, there were a lot of people who were "offended" when they desegregated public schools, and that is precisely the side of the argument that the people who oppose this mosque are falling on right now. I mean, this is just naked racism we're talking about! What on earth is wrong with you people?!

Will you please just stop. Calling this mosque a numch of assholes. Who have an imam who is for shiara law, blames the us for 911 at least partially and refuses to ca hezzbolah terrorist is not racist.

Only the retarded would make such a claim. Please stop.
 
I suppose I should be used to it, but the level of racism on display by opponents of the mosque continues to astound me. Are people really advocating that peaceful and law abiding Muslims (read: the vast majority of all Muslims, all people for that matter, are peaceful and law abiding) should just give up their legal rights because it may offend some people? Since when is offending ignorant bigots even worth consideration? As I recall, there were a lot of people who were "offended" when they desegregated public schools, and that is precisely the side of the argument that the people who oppose this mosque are falling on right now. I mean, this is just naked racism we're talking about! What on earth is wrong with you people?!

Nothing's wrong with us, seeing as no one here is racist, or posting racist commentary.

IF you could highlight some of this "racism" for us, that might help us understand what you are on about.
 
Again, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks. The majority cannot at their discretion violate the rights of the minority. We are not a pure Democracy. I don't know how often that has to be said before it sinks in. The majority can sit around not liking it till the cows come home; but they have no just or legal means by which they can stop it.

again, the price will be paid at the polls

go for it!
 
again, the price will be paid at the polls

go for it!

And again, it's not going to matter because we're held to only two parties. So even if one is kicked out now because of it A) The party which takes over will not be able to overturn the court's decision B) The party which loses will eventually come back into power.

Enjoy the one party system.
 
even if one is kicked out now because of it A) The party which takes over will not be able to overturn the court's decision B) The party which loses will eventually come back into power.

eventually...

LOL!

somehow i don't think ms pelosi shares your equanimous vision
 
eventually...

LOL!

somehow i don't think ms pelosi shares your equanimous vision

I don't see why Pelosi matters. This is an issue for the State and city of New York. It should have no bearing on the elections in other states.
 
I don't see why Pelosi matters. This is an issue for the State and city of New York. It should have no bearing on the elections in other states.

oh, brother

i don't know whether or not it SHOULD

but it certainly WILL

unbelievable
 
eventually...

LOL!

somehow i don't think ms pelosi shares your equanimous vision

In terms of "punishments" it doesn't matter about specific individuals. Policies and platforms are promoted on the party level. People may be pissed off at say the Democrats and their policies because they voted or supported something the majority didn't like. And the individual politicians may pay the price by getting kicked out of office. But the Republicans won't be able to reverse the chance in policy. And within a few election cycles, the Republicans would have done something to piss people off and get voted out. Which returns the control to the Democrats and their policies and platforms which were originally "punished". Then within a few election cycles, they'll do something to piss the people off and get voted out. Which will then again return control to the Republicans.

Teeter Totter negates "punishment" via voting.
 
oh, brother

i don't know whether or not it SHOULD

but it certainly WILL

unbelievable

I don't understand why it will though. This is something for the state of New York. Any other state shouldn't vote for a person because simply because of this.
 
I don't understand why it will though. This is something for the state of New York. Any other state shouldn't vote for a person because simply because of this.

Its been brought up in the Governor's race, three out of the seven candidates took a stand on the issue.

Warren Redlich: “Carl Paladino and the Mosque” | Independent Political Report

Oh and Lew Rockwell has put out a few thoughts as well

Of course, some are opposed to forgetting the hostilities of the past and seeking mutual understanding, such as Republican neocons Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, Ayn Randian Leonard Peikoff, the ADL, and Libertarian official Wayne Allyn Root.

They’re all warmongers, as is everyone hyperventilating about the “mosque,” and warmongers believe in hate. After all, it’s one of the building blocks of war. Ron Paul has always held that social tolerance is necessary to a free society, and events as well as religion show him to be right. To read the bloodthirsty Peikoff or Root, for example, is to see the spirit of totalitarianism.

Justin Raimondo points out that it is not a mosque after all, but rather sort of an Islamic YMCA (not that there would be anything wrong with a mosque), and it is four huge New York blocks away from the murder site. The destruction of the World Trade Towers was an horrific act if war. But how many office buildings full of civilians has the US government incinerated from the air, in a hundred cities? Oh, but you say, that is the government, and so it is not mass murder but public policy. No, for the moral law applies to people in government just as surely as it does to their subjects.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/62598.html
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why it will though. This is something for the state of New York. Any other state shouldn't vote for a person because simply because of this.

thank you, 9-11 was an extremely national event

just look how all the folks in this forum, the floridans and californians, are reacting
 
In terms of "punishments" it doesn't matter about specific individuals. Policies and platforms are promoted on the party level. People may be pissed off at say the Democrats and their policies because they voted or supported something the majority didn't like. And the individual politicians may pay the price by getting kicked out of office. But the Republicans won't be able to reverse the chance in policy. And within a few election cycles, the Republicans would have done something to piss people off and get voted out. Which returns the control to the Democrats and their policies and platforms which were originally "punished". Then within a few election cycles, they'll do something to piss the people off and get voted out. Which will then again return control to the Republicans.

Teeter Totter negates "punishment" via voting.

with all due respect, tell it to creigh deeds, martha coakley, john corzine...
 
Back
Top Bottom