• 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

Seriously, I'll be the first to admit and acknowledge and apologize or own up to instances where my hypocrisy is legitimately displayed and someone can show it as such. However when people go for backassward attempts that are obviously bogus in attempts to smear me and do so in such a juvenile and amateurish way its delightfully fun to show them how pathetic their attempt was and how easy it is to poke holes in their dishonest arguments.

J-mac is sending mixed messages, saying he has no problems with legally allowing people to build...and then saying it'd be different with regards to near 9/11. I simply want to know what his actual stance is in regards to whether or not the government should be holding it up or prohibiting it.

I thank him for the post to moderate muslims and they for the most part are mirroring my sentiments towards the thing. That said I do find it ironic he's siting the words of the very people he wants essentially barred from the U.S. by making Islam Illegal.

Let me ask you this....

If there is a "peaceful" interpretation, how do we make it not just the majority opinion, but have it enforced internally by Muslim nations? We have pushed democratically structured governments across the world as the system of government that gives the most freedom and protects the rights of the individual. But that creates a problem in the ME. The people are tribal. Power and control is concentrated in the heads of the families and the tribes. Since these positions are not voted on and arrived at democratically, voting for a candidate or a law undermines the traditional power structure. We found that out. Unless you destroy the culture and the tribal structure, you can't turn them into working democracies.
 
Zyphlin is no conservative that much is painfully clear. libertarian possibly.
.

Yeah, its true. Very hard to diagnose at the beginning and you probably will not hear too much about this unless you dig really hard. Just like, there are alot of diseases that will mask their true symptoms until it to late and the damage has been done.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's discuss the topic and not the members.
 
Thanks, so can any of you socially conservative folks tell me why you don't object to my previous post?
 
I dunno, nobody cares about the strip club or porno stores around Ground Zero I guess they probably wouldn't mind a gay bar?

New York Dolls - Google Maps

Btw it's good to know that conservative pundits are high fiving in their circle jerk over that too.

Thats because the busy body bible thumpers and the feminist left have pretty much lost the porn fight back in the 90s. Fighting the porn industry doesnt get people riled up as it used to.
 
Last edited:
You can read my response elsewhere so this thread is not diverted by your ad hominems, Tex.
 
Last edited:
I used to think of Zyphlin as a remarkably level-headed poster. Not sure if he's having an off week or if I was simply mistaken.

He gets pissed off by short-sighted fascists who want to trample on the bill of rights because of their own irrational phobias.

I have to admit, so do I.

I hadn't pegged him as the type who got "pissed off" - I guess I just haven't been reading the "more excitable" threads.

Catz is half right. I get more aggressive in my posting style when I'm "pissed". However, she's incorrect in what gets me in such a stance.

I dislike people wanting to trample on the bill of rights, but it doesn't "piss me off". People disagree on political issues. This is the very nature and essence of politics. I have no issues with people holding a different view then me; though I will tend to meet them with tactics similar to those they decide to employ first as long as they're within the rules. (strangely enough, this is my similar stance when it comes to war and methods in which to conduct it)

For example, looking at the vast majority of my posts in the recent gay marriage thread with Hicup. Hicup is standing on the exact opposite side of me but we have probably a good 10 to 20 posts back and forth that were civil and respectful while also heated with us both acknowledging the legitimacy in the others feelings on the matter even if we didn't agree with the legitimacy of their actual argument.

No, what "pisses me off" is blatant, repeated, gross dishonesty cached as "debate" that has no point other to enflame or deflect, attempting to spin an debate into an emotional battle rather than an actual discussion. Take for example instead, since he's chosen to peek his head in and comment about me in this thread, Texmaster and mine interaction in the gay marriage thread. Unlike this thread with J-Mac and I, Tex and I were DIRECTLY responding to each other for numerous pages and numerous posts. Additionally, even when not directly responding to me, Tex was active in the thread while I was active which again is unlike much of the time with me and J-Mac in this thread. Despite that Texmaster repeatedly and continually blatantly ignored my argument or purposefully twisted it to be the opposite of what I specifically stated. To the point that I specifically, in clear plain english, stated my position being about gender and not sexuality...and in the very next post he dedicated his entire post responding to me on the basis that I was speaking about "sexuality". That kind of blatant dishonesty definitely does get me going in a more aggressive style of posting.

Similarly, Prof's hatchet job attempt at me in this thread does similar. He specifically took both J-Mac's words and my words, chopped them up, and presented them out of context. He dishonestly then attempted to take a snippet from a singular post that was one of dozens in a particular thread and against proceeded to present THAT out of context. He did all this to imply a scenario where the two situations correlated despite the fact that I was not directly involved with J-Mac for half a dozen posts, was not active in the thread through dozens and dozens of posts of him stating his position, he did not clearly and simply state forth his position without any confusion, and unlike tex in the thread Prof was referencing I flat out from the very start illustrated that I may be wrong in my understanding of what he was stating, stated if I was wrong to tell me and I'd apologize, and stated my argument solely in the frame that IF my understanding is correct then this was my thoughts.

People actually having a debate does not piss me off or cause me to hold onto a more aggressive posting style. People refusing to actually debate, refusing to actually read posts, dishonestly misrepresenting posts, dishonestly making accusations and attacks, those things do.

J-Mac made suggestions regarding ignoring constitutional protections by suggesting the constitution "isn't a suicide pact" implying he possibly thought it was okay to violate the constitution at times such as in this case. J-Mac is the one that made his post about "building it wherever you want" and then caused confusion by including "But not on ground zero". He is the one that made comments about how it should not go forward without clarifying if he meant literally in a legal stance or simply in his opinion hypothetically. J-Mac is the one that suggested islam isn't a religion implying it has no constitutional protection under the 1st amendment.

Now with that said, let me show in this post (and in the next to come) the sincere difference between me and others and why Prof's statements are hollow and dishonest.

I made a mistake in the midst of posts and confused J-Mac and Ric's positions, suggesting that J-Mac wished for Islam to be outlawed when in reality Ric held that belief. Although J-Mac specifically thanked said post, that post included a number of arguments, which is why I asked J-Mac for clarification. He has since given it and I see that he is suggesting that Islam should not be banned and that his stance on this is generally seeming to not be one that suggests the GOVERNMENT from stopping it. As such, as I said in my first post concerning his opinion on whether or not it should be forcefully not allowed, my apologizes for misunderstanding his point based on his comments regarding the constitution and it not being a suicide pact.
 
Yep, it's a riddle....I'll try and be as clear as I can here so that from this point on there should be NO ambiguity about where I stand.

Thanks, its always helpful.

On the Mosque site, I think that is is a direct affront to those victims families, and everyone in America to not only build a shrine there, but to name it as they originally wanted to, Cordoba House. Those who know their history will immediately see why.

I agree.

Do I have a distrust of Muslims? Yes, I don't think it is possible to have witnessed the past 10 years, and further, and not. Call it bias, call it what ever you want. it is what it is.

While I question just how far your distrust goes into the unreasonable realm, I don't necessarily think distrust in and of itself is unreasonable.

Do I want to "outlaw" Islam in America? No. I don't think that would do any good, and would only feed into increased isolationism.

Good, I'm glad that's not the part of ric's post which you thanked that you agreed with.

Do I think that Islam is a force to be taken at face value when moderates speak? No. It is a proven fact that dishonesty in the furtherance of this cause to convert all the world is a tenant of the religion.

Disagree here in your universal application of this, but in a general sense I do think there's merit in what you're saying.

I think we must be awfully careful in how we approach this conflict of Islam v. Western Culture, it is dangerous, and will thrive of pitting us against each other. If the majority of Muslims are a peaceful group wishing only to worship as they will, and denounce terror around the world vocally and unhesitatingly then more power to them, but we shouldn't have to prompt that from them if they are truly for peace.

I honestly think that the majority of Muslims are like the majority of Americans, they don't give a **** about something until its affecting them. Point in case, all the attoricies that so many Republicans point to now were pretty much ignored by them 15 years ago and barely spoken about. It wasn't until it became a clear and present threat to this country that they gave a damn. I'm sorry if I don't hold the muslim community to some greatly higher standard than I hold the American public. People, all people, by nature are generally self interested.

Now J-mac, despite your claims of wanting to clear up ambiguity you failed to address one singular point and speak definitively on it. So I shall ask again, straight up, for an answer so there is no confusion.

Do you think the federal, state, or city government should impose its power on these people and deny them the ability to build their building on the land that they purchased? Yes or no?
 
Your ultra conservatism taints your perceptions on these issues. After all, you consider ZYPHLIN a liberal, as well.

It IS a fight. It is a fight for the direction the country will go, and it means life or death for our economy and our very way of life, among other things. He has seen the decay and destruction liberal stupidity has brought to this country and, he is committed to the core to stop it at every turn. He will oppose it at every opportunity. Maybe you don't think it's a fight, but he sure as hell does as well as many others on these boards....
 
At its root, its source documents, tradition, literature, commands, scriptures, Islam is an evangelistic religion. Meaning, it has a command to expand with the eventual goal that everyone is Muslim. If this was confined to peaceful preaching and conversion only by the willing, with tolerance for everyone else, there wouldn't be a ****ing problem. But virtually all of its expansion has been by violent conquest and eradication or repression of all other beliefs.

That makes it very little different than Christianity.
 
Let me ask you this....

If there is a "peaceful" interpretation, how do we make it not just the majority opinion, but have it enforced internally by Muslim nations?

There's no real way WE can make it happen. The portion of the world where the majority of the religion is found is years and years behind other portions of the world in advancement and while modern technology is pushing that advancement ahead faster its still going to take time. Christianity, for all the good it does now, unquestionably had a time where it had numerous black eyes as well. Western society through enlightened thinkers, good economies, and various world events has had a chance to grow.

For example, look at the difference between the majority of 2nd or greater generation muslims in America and compare them to Muslims in say Syria. There is not a person on this board that can tell me with a straight face that when you take a random 100 people from both those areas that they're views on the Muslims faith, their feelings towards America and the West, their views on human rights and womens rights, and other such things are going to be similar between the majority of both groups. Even the "crazy" muslims that pop up in America seem to be people who are not 2nd or greater generation western muslims or fresh converts who likely are converting for questionable reasons. This generally tells me that this is much less to do with the religion itself and much more to do with the society and culture that said religion is primarily being bred in with regards to the middle east and the pockets of various countries where 1st generation immigrants form a significantly large centralized and rather isolated community.

Time is going to be needed, further encroachment of western values and ideals into the middle east is needed (look at the Muslim youth in Iran for instance), more and more 2nd/3rd/4th generation muslims coming into the fold and rising into important positions within the faith...these things will help to continue to push the moderation.

However, there's little we can do to force or "make" these changes happen other than refrain from ostracizing those that actually ARE moderate and ARE pushing for a modernization and moderation of the religion by decrying all within their faith as evil, wrong, and worthy of illegalization.

We have pushed democratically structured governments across the world as the system of government that gives the most freedom and protects the rights of the individual. But that creates a problem in the ME. The people are tribal. Power and control is concentrated in the heads of the families and the tribes. Since these positions are not voted on and arrived at democratically, voting for a candidate or a law undermines the traditional power structure. We found that out. Unless you destroy the culture and the tribal structure, you can't turn them into working democracies.

They are hardly the first people to have a structure set up where families rule and individuals rule and the people serve. The west had this as well. In general however when you GIVE people democracy rather than aid the people actually actively working towards freedom then you're not going to have the same success because such freedom is not earned nor struggled for and thus is immediately taken for a granted.

This is much like a kid in college. In general those that work, taking summer and night jobs, applying for scholarships, saving money while bypassing luxuries are going to be more likely to actually concentrate in class and strive to do well in college even if their normal nature would push them to want to party and good off. Its this way because they actually exerted their own effort to get what they wanted and as such really appreciate what they're getting and are even more vested in not screwing it up. Meanwhile, those that simply have all their college paid for are far more likely to skip classes, goof off, and not do as well if not get kicked out.

Is this the case for every person every time? Absolutely not, there's exceptions...perhaps many exceptions...to both those. But in a general sense, the first group of people are more likely to do better in the long run with regards to their effort put into college then the second group.

Its that first group too that can benefit at times that, as they get close but aren't quite there, can be given a small boost...like a few thousand dollar gift...as acknowledgement at the end of their hard work and HELPING them get what THEY worked for rather than GIVING them what you feel like they should simply have.

This is one of my issues with the Obama administration and as you ask me what we can do, I think one of the things we COULD'VE done was give more vocal, diplomatic, and underground support to the Green movement in Iran recently. There you had youths, much more westernized youths, that in general were more into equal human rights then their previous generation (even if they weren't perfect with it, they were an improvement) that were actively making that struggle, working at it themselves. They were that kid that was working summer and night jobs, putting in for tuition, and in the end was still a few thousand short. They were the kind that just needed that little extra boost, and who knows what heights they could've reached........

Instead they were left to flounder. Now hopefully, like the college analogy, they take the time to work a bit more, save up a bit more, and then the next year when its time to apply they go at it again. But their chance could also have passed by already, and that's a huge failure on the part of the west.

Ultimately, there's nothing we can do to FORCE or MAKE Islam become more modernized and more moderated...but we can help by not ostracizing those that are seeking to do that and dealing with the religion realistically and addressing the culture and societal issues that allow people to USE the religion for ill purposes...as Christianity was USED to murder "witches" and "heritics" and destroy scientific evidence before...rather than simply focusing all the hatred on the "wrongness" of the religion in and of itself.
 
Zyphlin is no conservative that much is painfully clear.

Clearly, because all of the real conservatives (tm) believe that the protections in the bill of rights should be overruled because Islam is EEEVIILLLLL.
 
Last edited:
This is one of my issues with the Obama administration and as you ask me what we can do, I think one of the things we COULD'VE done was give more vocal, diplomatic, and underground support to the Green movement in Iran recently. There you had youths, much more westernized youths, that in general were more into equal human rights then their previous generation (even if they weren't perfect with it, they were an improvement) that were actively making that struggle, working at it themselves. They were that kid that was working summer and night jobs, putting in for tuition, and in the end was still a few thousand short. They were the kind that just needed that little extra boost, and who knows what heights they could've reached........

Instead they were left to flounder.

Ultimately, there's nothing we can do to FORCE or MAKE Islam become more modernized and more moderated...but we can help by not ostracizing those that are seeking to do that and dealing with the religion realistically and addressing the culture and societal issues that allow people to USE the religion for ill purposes...as Christianity was USED to murder "witches" and "heritics" and destroy scientific evidence before...rather than simply focusing all the hatred on the "wrongness" of the religion in and of itself.

Excellent post.
 
Clearly, because all of the real conservatives (tm) believe that the protections in the bill of rights should be overruled because Islam is EEEVIILLLLL.

tell it to 50% of the dems in new york
 
Anyways, since most of you decided to ignore my point about porno and/or brush it off as unimportant, I would just like to comment that Zyphlin and ric both represent the great divide you're seeing in conservative politics, that divide being "thinkers" and "crazies".
 
Gov. Paterson Offers Help Moving Ground Zero Mosque « CBS New York- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of NY

Paterson, a Democrat, said that he doesn’t oppose the project as planned but indicated that he understands where opponents are coming from. He said he was willing to intervene to seek other suitable state property if the developers agreed.

“I think it’s rather clear that building a center there meets all the requirements, but it does seem to ignite an immense amount of anxiety among the citizens of New York and people everywhere, and I think not without cause,” Paterson said in a news conference in Manhattan.

“I am very sensitive to the desire of those who are adamant against it to see something else worked out,” Paterson said.

finally, a message of maturity and moderation

well, it is just a matter of time

you don't mess with the majority of manhattan
 
Last edited:
Maybe he would like to move it to....New Jersey!
 
Clearly, because all of the real conservatives (tm) believe that the protections in the bill of rights should be overruled because Islam is EEEVIILLLLL.

Still making up quotes huh Catz?

Where did I say Islam is evil? Produce that quote of mine.

You fabricate quotes from other people because you cannot debate and every time you do it the more ridiculous and dishonest you become.
 
Still making up quotes huh Catz?

Where did I say Islam is evil? Produce that quote of mine.

You fabricate quotes from other people because you cannot debate and every time you do it the more ridiculous and dishonest you become.

You believe were in a war against Islam, and I'm guessing you're not going to be calling America evil so it's not that hard to connect the dots.
 
You believe were in a war against Islam,

Another lie. Looks like it comes in pairs.

I challenge you to find ANY quote of mine that said we are at war with Islam.

and I'm guessing you're not going to be calling America evil so it's not that hard to connect the dots.

More trolling garbage. Please stop bold face lying about what I have said. You only make yourself look bad.


I believe we were asked to stop getting personal on this thread. You and Catz need to take that under advisement and stop lying about quotes I never made.
 
Last edited:
You believe were in a war against Islam, and I'm guessing you're not going to be calling America evil so it's not that hard to connect the dots.

Do you believe Islam is in a war against Christianity?
 
Do you believe Islam is in a war against Christianity?

Yes. And if they scare us into undermining our civil liberties and constitution, they win.

Why do you want to turn my country into a nation of scared little girls who hide in their closets from the eeevvvillll muslims?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom