• 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

Catz Part Deux said:
Clearly, because all of the real conservatives (tm) believe that the protections in the bill of rights should be overruled because Islam is EEEVIILLLLL.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights do not extend to those who are not citizens of the US. These Islamic combatants who are making war on the US and who manage to be lucky enough to get captured, rather than shot do not have the same rights as American citizens. I don't care what the Supreme Court says. The Constitution was written for American citizens.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why do you want to turn America into another Muslim country?
 
texmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

She thinks she's playing "Let's Make a Deal."
 
bicycleman said:
The Bill of Rights do not extend to those who are not citizens of the US. These Islamic combatants who are making war on the US and who manage to be lucky enough to get captured, rather than shot do not have the same rights as American citizens. I don't care what the Supreme Court says. The Constitution was written for American citizens.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a mosque built on American soil, by American citizens and legal residents. Those people fall under the protection of the constitution and bill of rights.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
We're talking about a mosque built on American soil, by American citizens and legal residents. Those people fall under the protection of the constitution and bill of rights.
Click to expand...

They may fall under that category, but should they be building a mosque near such sacred ground?
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...


No. But I do think that a close eye has to be kept on the activities there, and what is happening with the money that flows in.

That said I am going to post more tomorrow on Imam Rauf and his ties, and what other Muslims around the world have weighed in on this subject. Hint, moderate Muslims see this as a threat to them.

Til tomorrow....night all.


j-mac
 
Catz Part Deux said:
That makes it very little different than Christianity.
Click to expand...

You have stated....what...16 years of teaching Christianity?

You don't know the Bible, you don't know the Koran, in fact, you don't know any religious texts, nor do you know history. You try to pick points apart and twist words. ****, I'm not even religious but I'm not going to give you the graduate course you obviously need. This isn't the place for it.

Apologists like yourself bring up Christianity's past and purport to call them equal with Islam...lol

Some very crucial differences from Islam. Differences which are crucial for today -

Christianity had a period of somewhat violent expansion in Europe, as well as internal sectarian violence but here's the crucial part. For the tremendous majority of that time, most of the population were illiterate and incapable of reading the Bible themselves. They had to depend on priests, and later ministers, to read and interpret the Bible for them. However, as literacy spread, it became impossible to tell people the "word of God", when it contradicted what they could read for themselves. Christianity returned to its core.

Christianity, at its roots, is non-violent. A Christian is commanded to look at Jesus as the best example. A Muslim on the other hand, has Mohammed as his ideal. Quite the opposite. Moderating Islam requires that you induce Muslims to essentially backslide and become less devout.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I was translating for you. Your posts, generally speaking, are rather poorly written. You can send the check via my PM box.
Click to expand...

So you admit you have no quotes backing up the lies you said about me. Got it Catz.


Thanks for staying predictable.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fiction is fun isn't it Zyphlin especially when you write your own. You ran every time I explained how you could not use gender as a defense for obtaining state sanctioned marriage and exclude others and every time I asked how you could exclude other alternative lifestyles since every single one involves gender, you ran. I didn't twist anything. You simply never took into account how others can use your own argument to their own advantage. But you didn't want to talk about that. Instead you dishonestly called it "twisting" your argument. You can't simply kick and scream "gender" then pretend only one group of people can use that argument to obtain state sanctioned marriage. Its a pity you didn't bother to think about that.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
I was just in an elevator with some muslims!!!

I was soooo scared...

so glad they didn't cut my head off or blow up the elevator!!!!

I'm so brave for my fear!
Click to expand...

On the one hand you claim to be a defender of civil liberties and on the other you defend an oppressive ideology and not just the right to practice and spread that oppressive ideology. So which is it? Do you support liberty or tyranny? Show some consistency. I support the right of this group to practice and spread their oppressive ideology and their right to build their shrine to oppression but I never lose sight for a second of what this ideology entails. Even Jewish ACLU lawyers defend the Nazi's freedom of assembly but they don't defend the ****ing Nazi's themselves.
 
Zyphlin said:
Okay, now I disagree with these court decisions but your presentation of this is disgustingly dishonest.

Based on your own link the court did not find that "Rape", in a general sense as YOU present it by omitting additional information to imply generality, is permissable for Muslims. What the judge found was that the required intent to criminally assult was not present and as such could not be classified as rape and as such denied a singular restraining order.
Click to expand...

Because rape is not rape when committed by Muslims because it was part of his belief structure.

Now I disagree strongly with this ruling, but you it is completley misleading to suggest it rules that "Rape", in a generals sense as you present it, is permissible for muslims.
Click to expand...

It ruled that rape was not sufficient grounds for a restraining order.
 
Ikari said:
Well if not him directly, then his lot for sure. And through that training enabled his own. The bigger point there is that we have really ****ed around with all sorts of other people for a long time. We shouldn't be surprised when there's blowback. In fact, if we can keep that in mind, we could make better decisions in the present. Regardless, it's not justification of 9/11 but rather just a simple fact of reality.
Click to expand...

Actually the only evidence for U.S. direct support was for the indiginious mujahadeen not the foreign jihadists that became AQ.

More to the point, I don't think you're going to prevent people from using the mosque because you have a piggie shirt on.
Click to expand...

Oh but the violent backlash will be more than enough for a lawsuit which will bankrupt these people.

It'll get built, it'll get used. There's a large enough Muslim population in NY. The only thing you do by continually protesting for no valid or logical reason whatsoever is just to keep this guy and his mosque in the news. You play into his hands. But hey, if you wanna help support this mosque in your own way, I ain't gonna stop ya.
Click to expand...

Ya let's just ignore a problem and it'll go away. :roll: No capitulation, no surrender, not an inch backwards. They need to know that this isn't a nation of Dhimmi's here to cater to the wants and needs of dar al-Islam for the sake of political correctness bull****, this isn't Europe, this is a country founded on resistance to tyranny and knocking the **** out of anyone who ****s with us. This will work itself out the way stupid ****s who get out of line always get worked out one way or another. This is NYC we're talking about and these guys have definately overplayed their hand. Good luck getting union workers on this job site, good luck passing inspections, good luck getting the building materials out of the docks, good luck with the sabotage. The money these people are going to lose on sick days alone is going to bankrupt them, if they weren't such pricks I'd almost feel bad for them, they have no idea what they're getting into, if this is a year project it's going to take 3 at the minimum. Infact you know what, good luck funding this ****ing monstrosity, they better make sure that every ****ing penny that goes into this thing is crystal clean which I seriously doubt, if just one charity with ties to Hamas funds this thing then that could bring down their entire little group and expose them for who and what they really are just like the un-indicted terrorist co-conspirators in CAIR.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm....

The NYPD lost, I believe 23 cops. Who will protect, the mosque from angry protests and possible vandalism?
The FDNY lost 343 Firefighters and EMTs. Who will do the fire safety inspections for the mosque?
What about the Ironworkers who cleared the rubble of the WTC? What will, the muslims do if everyone refuses to participate in building this place?
 
ric27 said:
Hmmm....

The NYPD lost, I believe 23 cops. Who will protect, the mosque from angry protests and possible vandalism?
The FDNY lost 343 Firefighters and EMTs. Who will do the fire safety inspections for the mosque?
What about the Ironworkers who cleared the rubble of the WTC? What will, the muslims do if everyone refuses to participate in building this place?
Click to expand...

lose millions.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Because rape is not rape when committed by Muslims because it was part of his belief structure.
Click to expand...

No, rape was not rape when there was no criminal intent inherent in the act by the reasoning of the judge. Which was idiotic in its notion and its good it got over turned.

It ruled that rape was not sufficient grounds for a restraining order.
Click to expand...

No, it ruled that something that the judge could not conclude was rape because it was without the necessary intent and thus was not grounds for a restraining order.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, rape was not rape when there was no criminal intent inherent in the act by the reasoning of the judge. Which was idiotic in its notion and its good it got over turned.
Click to expand...

And why did he rule that there was no criminal intent? Oh ya because the man didn't consider it rape under the his own religious views. :roll: That was the ratio decendi sport.

No, it ruled that something that the judge could not conclude was rape because it was without the necessary intent and thus was not grounds for a restraining order.
Click to expand...

lol he ruled that it wasn't rape because he judged that it was not considered rape under his religious beliefs or in other words rape wasn't rape because he was a Muslim.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Ya let's just ignore a problem and it'll go away. :roll: No capitulation, no surrender, not an inch backwards. They need to know that this isn't a nation of Dhimmi's here to cater to the wants and needs of dar al-Islam for the sake of political correctness bull****, this isn't Europe, this is a country founded on resistance to tyranny and knocking the **** out of anyone who ****s with us. This will work itself out the way stupid ****s who get out of line always get worked out one way or another. This is NYC we're talking about and these guys have definately overplayed their hand. Good luck getting union workers on this job site, good luck passing inspections, good luck getting the building materials out of the docks, good luck with the sabotage. The money these people are going to lose on sick days alone is going to bankrupt them, if they weren't such pricks I'd almost feel bad for them, they have no idea what they're getting into, if this is a year project it's going to take 3 at the minimum. Infact you know what, good luck funding this ****ing monstrosity, they better make sure that every ****ing penny that goes into this thing is crystal clean which I seriously doubt, if just one charity with ties to Hamas funds this thing then that could bring down their entire little group and expose them for who and what they really are just like the un-indicted terrorist co-conspirators in CAIR.
Click to expand...


Good post Ferris. On the part I bolded out, they have already failed from what I can see.

[video]http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdnz8zZuQu[/video]


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom