• 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

Boo Radley said:
Now you know how I feel about the American (non)Thinker. What were you thinking?

:lamo
Click to expand...


How many times have I heard from you when you use your ultra liberal sources that you should argue the content of what is said in the article, and not the website? Is that only applicable to liberal websites?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
We are talking the here and now Joe, not some perceived PC grievance you liberals have from times past damnit! He DID say that laws in the US should be Shria compliant, and I don't know about you, but I don't try and shroud the man's words like you do.


j-mac
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. you're misreading. He said the muslim looks for laws to not go against the higher law. There is no call for the US to change anything. In act, he says we have a good system that does meet the spirit of God's law.

Again, like AF, you misread it.
 
j-mac said:
How many times have I heard from you when you use your ultra liberal sources that you should argue the content of what is said in the article, and not the website? Is that only applicable to liberal websites?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't use atlra libera sources. No Move on or Oberma for me, so you're really just looking through your own skewed prism tomiscast those around you. Sorry.

but, do you remember this letter?

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

The problem with taking the Bible literally- a letter to Dr. Laura | The Good Human
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't use atlra libera sources. No Move on or Oberma for me, so you're really just looking through your own skewed prism tomiscast those around you. Sorry.

but, do you remember this letter?

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

The problem with taking the Bible literally- a letter to Dr. Laura | The Good Human
Click to expand...



:lamo the Good Human? Really? :lamo Noooooo, nothing ultra anything about them is there? :lamo

A list of their "Friends"



Alternative Consumer
Best Green Blogs
Big Green Purse
BTC Elements
Chelsea Green
Earth & Industry
Eco Chick
Ecopolitology
EcoSalon
EnviroMom
EverydayTrash
Explore.org
Green Blog List
Green Pepper
Greenopia
greenUPGRADER
Greenzer
Healthy Child Healthy World
LaMiDesign – Modern Home Plans
Life Goggles
Live.Work.Dream.
Mother Nature Network
My Two Dollars
No Credit Needed
No Impact Man
On Earth
Organic Authority
Simple. Organized. Life.
Tara Burner
The Green Providers Directory
The Greenists
The New Ecologist
Twilight Earth
Wildlife Promise


Yeah, ok Joe....Thanks for exposing yourself yet again.....:lamo:2wave:


j-mac
 
New York City is not allowing the Greek Orthodox Church that was across the street from the World Trade Center to be rebuilt.

Why not?
 
Erod said:
New York City is not allowing the Greek Orthodox Church that was across the street from the World Trade Center to be rebuilt.

Why not?
Click to expand...

That's been explained already. Try to keep up.

But it has no bearing on this community centre with a mosque inside it. The two are seperate issues.
 
I think the thread title is a bit off-mark and perhaps somewhat deceiving. What I heard on TV was Obama coming out in support of the constitution and the law of the land. Of course, the president-haters seized the oppertunity to spin and and put his words out-of-context, but what else is new? Ha! Even when Obama came back on the TV the next day to clarify and dispel their faux-fantasies, they spin it to suit their agenda. Honestly, it's becoming so predictable it is starting to get rather boring, but I digress.

But I think the smarter people "get it." So, no harm, no foul.
 
Erod said:
New York City is not allowing the Greek Orthodox Church that was across the street from the World Trade Center to be rebuilt.

Why not?
Click to expand...

Because they are in talks with Port Authority to build a new church in a different place. The church were it stood is allowed to be rebuilt.
 
Captain America said:
I think the thread title is a bit off-mark and perhaps somewhat decieving. What I heard on TV was Obama coming out in support of the constitution and the law of the land. Of course, the president-haters seized the oppertunity to spin and and put his words out-of-context, but what else is new? Ha! Even when Obama came back on the TV the next day to clarify and dispel their faux-fantasies, they spin it to suit their agenda. Honestly, it's becoming so predictable it is starting to get rather boring, but I digress.

But I think the smarter people "get it." So, no harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

Sadly this is what politics in our country have become.
 
Captain America said:
I think the thread title is a bit off-mark and perhaps somewhat deceiving. What I heard on TV was Obama coming out in support of the constitution and the law of the land. Of course, the president-haters seized the oppertunity to spin and and put his words out-of-context, but what else is new? Ha! Even when Obama came back on the TV the next day to clarify and dispel their faux-fantasies, they spin it to suit their agenda. Honestly, it's becoming so predictable it is starting to get rather boring, but I digress.

But I think the smarter people "get it." So, no harm, no foul.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...What an offensive thing to say? Those that don't agree with Cap, must be stupid....Yeah, keep that one up, I am sure it wins friends.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, ok Joe....Thanks for exposing yourself yet again.....:lamo:2wave:


j-mac
Click to expand...

I suspect you misunderstood again. Sadly. I'm not using a source as the gospel here. It is to show you how a site can misrepresent something. Again, you miss the meaning.
 
Last edited:
All apologies J-mac. I just call's 'em like I see's 'em. I mean, it is what it is. Didn't mean to touch a nerve.
 
Boo Radley said:
I suspect you misunderstood again. Sadly. I'm not using a source as the gospel here. It is to show you how a site can misrepresent something. Again, you miss the meaning.
Click to expand...

so you disagree with the argument made to this Dr. Laura character?


j-mac
 
Captain America said:
All apologies J-mac. I just call's 'em like I see's 'em. I mean, it is what it is. Didn't mean to touch a nerve.
Click to expand...

I don't think Obama has a problem of others pulling him 'out of context' as it were, I think he has a problem because he is a rank amateur, and sympathizes with those that want to destroy America as it currently exists.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
so you disagree with the argument made to this Dr. Laura character?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Oh, it points out some silliness, but most actual christians don't meet the stero type provided in the letter. And it is much the same type of misrepresentation, though not going as far as to present itself as serious, as we see with the American (non)Thinker article. Both are sad misrepresentation, the only difference being one uses some humor.
 
Boo Radley said:
Oh, it points out some silliness, but most actual christians don't meet the stero type provided in the letter. And it is much the same type of misrepresentation, though not going as far as to present itself as serious, as we see with the American (non)Thinker article. Both are sad misrepresentation, the only difference being one uses some humor.
Click to expand...


Ok Joe, now put on your teaching hat here, and show me in the AT article exactly where the misrepresentations are if you would be so kind. And be specific with actual back up sourcing to show and prove your hypothesis.....


j-mac
 
Captain America said:
I think the thread title is a bit off-mark and perhaps somewhat deceiving. What I heard on TV was Obama coming out in support of the constitution and the law of the land. Of course, the president-haters seized the oppertunity to spin and and put his words out-of-context, but what else is new? Ha! Even when Obama came back on the TV the next day to clarify and dispel their faux-fantasies, they spin it to suit their agenda. Honestly, it's becoming so predictable it is starting to get rather boring, but I digress.

But I think the smarter people "get it." So, no harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

Yeah, buddy, keep up with the insults. That will play well in November.

Obama couldn't care less about the Constitution, other than trying with all his might to burn it in the public square. The Constitution is nothing but an inconvient nuisance to him. This is solely, and entirely, about politics, and sticking it in the eye of conservatives; that's the only play he knows, and the only goal he understands.

Obama is an abortion. Or at least he's a good argument for it.
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
I think the thread title is a bit off-mark and perhaps somewhat deceiving. What I heard on TV was Obama coming out in support of the constitution and the law of the land. Of course, the president-haters seized the oppertunity to spin and and put his words out-of-context, but what else is new? Ha! Even when Obama came back on the TV the next day to clarify and dispel their faux-fantasies, they spin it to suit their agenda. Honestly, it's becoming so predictable it is starting to get rather boring, but I digress.

But I think the smarter people "get it." So, no harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

Every part of the media misconstrued his original remarks - not just the anti-Obama crowd. When I first saw the headlines I facepalmed, wondering why Obama would take sides as to whether or not the mosque should be built. None of his comments supported those headlines, though. The right harped on it more, but even the left wing media's stories claimed that he was in favor of the mosque.
 
Erod said:
New York City is not allowing the Greek Orthodox Church that was across the street from the World Trade Center to be rebuilt.

Why not?
Click to expand...

That's not the case.

St. Nicholas Church is not looking to be rebuilt at the same location on which it stood before. It is looking to be built on a larger piece of land currently owned by the Port Authority. There was a dispute over terms involved in a possible land swap, including the possibility of a government subsidy. The Church can rebuild on its original plot of land.

From The New York Times:

The fate of the church, a narrow whitewashed building that was crushed in the attack on the World Trade Center, was supposed to have been settled eight months ago, with a tentative agreement in which the church would swap its land for a grander church building on a larger parcel nearby, with a $20 million subsidy from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This would have allowed work to begin at the south end of the site...

The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street.
 
j-mac said:
I don't think Obama has a problem of others pulling him 'out of context' as it were, I think he has a problem because he is a rank amateur, and sympathizes with those that want to destroy America as it currently exists.


j-mac
Click to expand...

If that were true, wouldn't he be making frequent donations to some Tea Party or FOXNews, perhaps?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Every part of the media misconstrued his original remarks - not just the anti-Obama crowd. When I first saw the headlines I facepalmed, wondering why Obama would take sides as to whether or not the mosque should be built. None of his comments supported those headlines, though. The right harped on it more, but even the left wing media's stories claimed that he was in favor of the mosque.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. But as I said earlier, the folks who actually listened to what Obama said, rather than what rightwing spin-doctors are saying, know better. And those who heard what he said and still prefer the spin-doctor FOX version, well, I will stop short of calling them "not smart." I don't want to offend anyone.
 
Captain America said:
I hear ya. But as I said earlier, the folks who actually listened to what Obama said, rather than what rightwing spin-doctors are saying, know better. And those who heard what he said and still prefer the spin-doctor FOX version, well, I will stop short of calling them "not smart." I don't want to offend anyone.
Click to expand...


Obama, your hero, speaks as he always does, as if the American people are stupid, down his nose. Polls out before his incredibly dumb comments showed that people knew this question quite well by showing that 61% believed that they had the right to build, but that 64% thought they shouldn't.

So I agree with Erod, keep showing your contempt for America and see what that gets you Cap. My guess is we won't see you again until January, and that will be bitching about something the repubs do.....:roll:

Now I'll stop short of calling that stupid, wouldn't want to offend.


j-mac
 
Moderator's Warning:
Numerous members have been thread-banned and infracted for posting subsequent messages. Members should adhere to the moderators' various in-thread warnings, most of which converge around the following:

1. No personal attacks and/or making fellow members the object of discussion.
2. Conspiracy theories concerning President Obama's birth and/or religion belong in the conspiracy theories forum, not this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom