• 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!

President Obama comes out in support of Ground Zero mosque

j-mac said:
Damned straight....I can't believe that those in here arguing like I am some kind of ignoramus because I don't support this poke in the eye from Rauf and Bloomberg, now come back and ask me what I am talking about mentioning St Nick's? Amazing!


j-mac
Click to expand...

How you been j?


Speaking for me, I would argue it is merely false outrage. There is no poke in the eye, none. Not at all. This is a non issue all around.

But, I did want to say hi. ;)
 
j-mac said:
Damned straight....I can't believe that those in here arguing like I am some kind of ignoramus because I don't support this poke in the eye from Rauf and Bloomberg, now come back and ask me what I am talking about mentioning St Nick's? Amazing!


j-mac
Click to expand...

The reason people are giving you a hard time over bringing it up is because it is an entirely different situation.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No they didn't they only sold their parking lot, they just need to Port Authority to finalize a land swap.
Click to expand...

And the Port Authority said they could not do so due to financial reasons. There would be a case if someone was barring the church from being built simply because it's a Christian place of worship. The two issues are different and both have different issues attached to them. The issue with the GZ mosque is that because a mosque is a Muslim place of worship, and Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks,. Therefore it is wrong to allow them the right to build their mosque near GZ. The issue with the church isn't the same. No one is barring it from being built because it's a Christian place of worship, it's due to financial reasons as stated in other posts.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Which as best as I can see has nothing to do with it being a church....
Click to expand...

Did you read how they were telling the church that the Dome couldn't be higher than they visitor center? Yeah, ok.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
How you been j?


Speaking for me, I would argue it is merely false outrage. There is no poke in the eye, none. Not at all. This is a non issue all around.

But, I did want to say hi. ;)
Click to expand...

wha'sup man.....No mystery here that I totally disagree.

heh, heh.....


j-mac
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So freaking what?
Click to expand...

LOL! (your tone)

anyway, rauf's the fella who says he's trying to improve relations with his neighbors

obama backs him up (well, that was before the "walk back," but later burton "elaborated" on obama's "clarification")

bottom line, it's not working

by all means, go for it!
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's largely an irrelevant issue.

We're arguing over, whether or not, a religion should be allowed to build a building for themselves.

It's moronic.
Click to expand...
If the church had evidence that the zoning laws are not content-neutral, or that they were being applied to them differently than they are applied to anyone else, they'd have a clear-cut First Amendment case. They'd probably be running to Federal court as fast as their legs could carry them, and rightfully so.
 
j-mac said:
Did you read how they were telling the church that the Dome couldn't be higher than they visitor center? Yeah, ok.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Perhaps the reason for the delay is because the church wants to build on land that is actually owned by the port authority, which is a bureaucratic hellhole, while the mosque is building on property owned by private investors.

I can guarantee that if the church had purchased land two blocks away from the site from a private investor, it would be running already.
 
j-mac said:
Did you read how they were telling the church that the Dome couldn't be higher than they visitor center? Yeah, ok.


j-mac
Click to expand...

And? It still has nothing to do with the church being a church. It's still entirely irrelevant to the mosque story.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's largely an irrelevant issue.
Click to expand...

no, it's rauf's stated purpose

We're arguing over, whether or not, a religion should be allowed to build a building for themselves.
Click to expand...

you seem to be

i'm rather looking at how relations are improved or worsened

cuz i'm obsessed with politics, y'know, elections

in other words---bottom line

come, november!

hey, we all have 9-11 to observe in the meantime

i wonder what that's gonna look like in the neighborhood around the burlington coat factory
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Perhaps the reason for the delay is because the church wants to build on land that is actually owned by the port authority, which is a bureaucratic hellhole, while the mosque is building on property owned by private investors.

I can guarantee that if the church had purchased land two blocks away from the site from a private investor, it would be running already.
Click to expand...

No, the church owns the land, they only sold the parking lot. In any case they did offer to move the church a block away and that was scuttled as well. I just think there is huge hypocrisy going on here.

BTW, you mention private investors....Who are they?


j-mac
 
The Prof said:
LOL! (your tone)

anyway, rauf's the fella who says he's trying to improve relations with his neighbors

obama backs him up (well, that was before the "walk back," but later burton "elaborated" on obama's "clarification")

bottom line, it's not working

by all means, go for it!
Click to expand...

Uses Morris code to transmit message back to prof.

It doesn't matter <stop>

We have religious freedom <stop>

Don't worry <stop>

This will likely blow over <stop>

End transmission.
 
j-mac said:
No, the church owns the land, they only sold the parking lot. In any case they did offer to move the church a block away and that was scuttled as well. I just think there is huge hypocrisy going on here.

BTW, you mention private investors....Who are they?


j-mac
Click to expand...
There would only be hypocrisy if the reasoning behind preventing the church was solely on the basis that it is a Christian place of worship.
 
digsbe said:
There would only be hypocrisy if the reasoning behind preventing the church was solely on the basis that it is a Christian place of worship.
Click to expand...

Why the flap over the dome then?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No, the church owns the land, they only sold the parking lot. In any case they did offer to move the church a block away and that was scuttled as well. I just think there is huge hypocrisy going on here.

BTW, you mention private investors....Who are they?


j-mac
Click to expand...

You are not actually showing any of that hypocrisy. The church is being held up by money negotiations, not that it is a church. That is why it has nothing to do with the mosque issue. Nice red herring, really, but that is all it is.
 
j-mac said:
wha'sup man.....No mystery here that I totally disagree.

heh, heh.....


j-mac
Click to expand...

No, not a mystery.

;)

BTW, above you talk about feeling. Is feeling the standard? Just asking.
 
j-mac said:
No, the church owns the land, they only sold the parking lot. In any case they did offer to move the church a block away and that was scuttled as well. I just think there is huge hypocrisy going on here.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the rest of my post?

The church wants to build on land owned by the port authority. That's a lot harder than building on privately owned land.

BTW, you mention private investors....Who are they?
Click to expand...

Who the **** cares?
 
j-mac said:
Says you. Others feel differently.


j-mac
Click to expand...

But you and they have not documented any evidence to back up that feeling. None. Zero.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, not a mystery.

;)

BTW, above you talk about feeling. Is feeling the standard? Just asking.
Click to expand...


I guess only when liberal feelings are at stake, but never when the families of the murdered 9/11 victims come into play....

Nice.


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