• 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

Conservatives really should get their talking points straight. Not doing so makes the ideology look chaotic and unorganized. It also lends credence to the "Party of no" accusations.

get their talking points straight...

LOL!

and half the party in power needs be drug tested
 
Conservatives really should get their talking points straight. Not doing so makes the ideology look chaotic and unorganized. It also lends credence to the "Party of no" accusations.


Only among liberals doing their level best to cover for this inept joke of a President.


j-mac
 
Hey! Build whatever you want, Support what ever you want. I Never, NOT ONCE said that a Mosque shouldn't be built in America at all. Just not at Ground Zero. Don't you get it? If you think that for one moment that my argument is based in destroying rights, then I have a far different view than that which you subscribe to me.

First, there's a different between saying they SHOULDN'T build it there and that they should be PROHIBITED by the government from building there. It seems to me you're suggesting the latter. If I'm incorrect and you're suggesting the first, then my apologizes.

Second, if your argument IS the latter then yes, your argument IS about destroying rights. You're suggesting the government limit a private citizen from engaging in a private business transaction due to their religious beliefs.

It is odd to me why no one is bothering to answer a question I posed earlier in this thread which is, why is it so damned important to rush this building through the process, without concrete answers, and demonization of opposition to it, while St. Nicholas Church, a Greek Orthodox church, that already existed, and was damaged by the events of 9/11 is being stonewalled on its own rebuilding?

What concrete answers? What rushing? Perhaps I missed it, and if i did please point me to the post numbers showing it, but I've seen nothing suggesting this has been "rushed" forward. I do not think that a private busines or individual should be stiffled from their lawful purchase and building of land because of conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations of possible potential ties that might possible mean that they could possibly be supportive of something and that going forward as normal rather than worrying about those things is not "rushing" it, it is simply following NORMAL procedures.

Something else being WRONG doesn't necessarily make this wrong or right. Two situations are not directly tied to each other. One can absolutely think its wrong that St. Nicholas is being stonewalled while ALSO feeling its wrong to try and legally deny these people. However I've honestly not seen much about St. Nicholas to form an opinion and again, if I missed it, let me know the post number and I'll happily go read.

However the issue with St. Nicholas, assuming you're correct in how you present it, being wrong does not necessarily mean THIS is incorrect. People doing wrong in two cases and situations is possible.
 
Only among liberals doing their level best to cover for this inept joke of a President.


j-mac

except half of em aren't

y'know, the journo-listers, the net-roots folks

as gibbs calls em, the "professional left"

congressman nadler, the results of your drug test are IN...

and you have NOT been smoking crack!

nadler (have you seen him, the most obese man in dc, my belle has a lot of work to do with him) jumps up and down madly on the stage, all 3 chins bouncing, pumping that cubby fist in triumphant exultation!

LOL!
 
Last edited:
member 1---hey, build whatever you want

member 2---there's a difference between saying it SHOULDN'T be built and saying it's PROHIBITED, it seems to me you're arguing the latter...

unbelievable

member 2, from another thread---you have repeatedly beaten up one gigantic strawman because you do not possess the ability to actually debate my arguments as you continually misrepresent my argument not in a slight way but in an obviously glaring way (p129 of thread on CA gay marriage ruling)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-gay-marriage-ban-overturned-report-129.html
 
member 1---hey, build whatever you want

member 2---there's a difference between saying it SHOULDN'T be built and saying it's PROHIBITED, it seems to me you're arguing the latter...

unbelievable

Awww, its cute AND unbelievable...by that I am of course referencing your utter dishonesty by clipping what you actually quoted from "member 1". Now boys and girls, lets look at the whole sentence to illustrate Prof's pathetic dishonset spin, shall we?

'Member One' said:
Hey! Build whatever you want, Support what ever you want. I Never, NOT ONCE said that a Mosque shouldn't be built in America at all. Just not at Ground Zero. Don't you get it? If you think that for one moment that my argument is based in destroying rights, then I have a far different view than that which you subscribe to me.

Wow, so now that we actually post his WHOLE statement we see Prof's utter and blatant dishonesty, as we see that member 1 says to build whatever you want EXECPT AT GROUND ZERO. Thus my asking for clarification, since at one point he's saying "build whatever you want" while at the same time he's saying "Don't build at ground zero".

Notice as well, rather than continually just ASSUME I know what J-Mac's talking about (and furthermore completely stating something that he's specifically and repeatedly stated clearly that he's NOt saying) and commenting on it as if my view of what he said is fact I'm actually asking for clarification to better address what he's saying. Again, you show you're dishonesty in editing down what I said to give it a different meaning. The full statement:

'Member Two' said:
There's a difference between saying it SHOULDN'T be built and saying it's PROHIBITED, it seems to me you're arguing the latter. If I'm incorrect and you're suggesting the first, then my apologizes.

Second, if your argument IS the latter then yes, your argument IS about destroying rights.

Seriously prof, you're attempts at dishonesty are so pathetically weak that they're almost cute in their laughability.
 
Last edited:
If Islamists do these things, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Didn't you know? Rape is now permissable for Muslims according to a judge in New Jersey, whereas, non-Muslims can be successfully sued for refusing to cater at same sex weddings based on their own assinine religious beliefs.
 
member one:

Hey! Build whatever you want, Support what ever you want. I Never, NOT ONCE said that a Mosque shouldn't be built in America at all. Just not at Ground Zero. Don't you get it? If you think that for one moment that my argument is based in destroying rights, then I have a far different view than that which you subscribe to me.
 
Didn't you know? Rape is now permissable for Muslims according to a judge in New Jersey, whereas, non-Muslims can be successfully sued for refusing to cater at same sex weddings based on their own assinine religious beliefs.

Do you have evidence of these claims?
 
And how does this mosque comes into conflict with the law?

I never claimed that it did but the second there is evidence that anyone from that Mosque attempts to recruit for violent purposes and/or preach violence we will then have raison d'etre to shut it down by force and if the government doesn't fullfill its roll in protecting the citizenry then action will have to be taken but in the meantime I am advocating peaceful protest 24/7 in front of the mosque until they decide to switch locations.
 
why do 50% of DEMS oppose this mosque?

why doesn't the imam care?

i thought he wanted to improve relations with his community
 
Didn't you know? Rape is now permissable for Muslims according to a judge in New Jersey, whereas, non-Muslims can be successfully sued for refusing to cater at same sex weddings based on their own assinine religious beliefs.

And is it not possible that those things are wrong AND trying to legislatively stop someone from building a mosque near ground zero is ALSO wrong?
 
No, I mean the definition of the word in question...

Nice troll attempt though.

Well considering that they didn't "emigrate to Europe" before the foundation of the U.S. but rather conquered and arabized through cultural genocide and the sword then no your wrong. Nice attempt at revisionist history though.
 
And is it not possible that those things are wrong AND trying to legislatively stop someone from building a mosque near ground zero is ALSO wrong?

Islam is wrong. Period, end of statement.

They have the right to build their little shrine to oppression and we have the right to protest their shrine to oppression.
 
Islam is wrong. Period, end of statement.

They have the right to build their little shrine to oppression and we have the right to protest their shrine to oppression.

It is your right to think those things...

It is your right to protest these things...

The law however, is the law.
 
Islam is wrong. Period, end of statement.

They have the right to build their little shrine to oppression and we have the right to protest their shrine to oppression.

Using legislation to stop somebody from exercising the first amendment on their land when nobody is being harmed seems in direct opposition to the Constitution. Doesn't matter how 'wrong' it is. It's unconstitutional.
 
Islam is wrong. Period, end of statement.

They have the right to build their little shrine to oppression and we have the right to protest their shrine to oppression.

And other people have the right to call those protesters "retards".
 
Wait for what he does bring up:

Opinion articles
NYPOST
Jihadwatch

Try direct ****ing quotes pal to which you have no reply whatsoever. I already bashed your ass with the ****ing direct quotes from the Islamist POS sponsoring this monstrosity. I posted the direct transcript from 60 minutes, but then you refused to accept the Hamas quote from the longest circulating newspaper in the country so I posted the ****ing video and audio of the man saying it.

This is you:

Deny, ad-hom, deny, ad-hom, deny, ad-hom (oops primary source material can't deny or ad-hom) run away. Now run away.
 
Last edited:
Try direct ****ing quotes pal to which you have no reply whatsoever. I already bashed your ass with the ****ing direct quotes from the Islamist POS sponsoring this monstrosity? I posted the direct transcript from 60 minutes, but then you refused to accept the Hamas quote from the longest circulating newspaper in the country so I posted the ****ing video and audio of the man saying it.

This is you:

Deny, ad-hom, deny, ad-hom, deny, ad-hom (oops primary source material can't deny or ad-hom) run away. Now run away.

I accepted the Hamas quote you hack. That has nothing to do with it.

The longest circulating newspaper in the country is a meaningless thing to say, says nothing about content.

You failed to prove that the groundbreaking ceremony was on 9/11 2011. Your sources were:

NYPOST (Tabloid)
Opinion Article By Rabbi
Opinion article by a Republican running for governor of New York State

Bias some?
 
And other people have the right to call those protesters "retards".

And yet say nothing about an Islamist POS who says that the U.S. was a co-conspirator in 9-11, and that OBL was made in America 16 days after 9-11, and refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. Shows them for what they are, they can care less about the 1st amendment if it's not being used to promote an Islamist and/or anti-Western agenda.
 

Money quote: Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

IN other words, this was a bad ruling, and a higher court overturned it. :roll:


This story has no relationship to muslims, and I suspect the ruling will be overturned, as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom