• 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

My point is that Rockwell at times can say some things in which I agree with, and at other times badly misses the mark. Much like most libertarians.


j-mac

It misses the mark with you because people like Rockwell dont pick and chose what parts of the Constitution to follow unlike alot you people.
 
Lyndon La Rouche is a moderate isn't he? As well as Chomsky?

I didn't say there weren't moderates. I was saying y'all have your fair share of crazies. And some of your crazies are out of their ever loving minds. Of course you have moderates, in fact the calm and rational make up the vast majority of the group. But every group has crazies.


Propaganda? In what way? As to the words "Under God":

It was inserted in order to differentiate us from the "godless" commies. Though they had their own god; it was called "The State". And not the cool sketch comedy group.


Do you deny that fights to make it so have gone on?

Sure, some people will get pissy because that's what people do. But there's nothing they can do about it; so I don't see it as a problem. You can't force people to not say "Merry Christmas". So I don't worry about it. Much like this mosque. Nothing I can do to stop it. Any bitching and carrying on will only help their side. So fudge it, they can build their mosque and I will ignore it and them.


So you say.


j-mac

If ever we find ourselves in the state where my statement is not true ("It's a free country"); we'll have far worse things to worry about than a mosque.
 
I think everyone here is forgetting to realize that no matter whom the president was they would have done the same thing as Obama did, just maybe not in such a muddy way.
 
I didn't say there weren't moderates. I was saying y'all have your fair share of crazies. And some of your crazies are out of their ever loving minds. Of course you have moderates, in fact the calm and rational make up the vast majority of the group. But every group has crazies.




It was inserted in order to differentiate us from the "godless" commies. Though they had their own god; it was called "The State". And not the cool sketch comedy group.




Sure, some people will get pissy because that's what people do. But there's nothing they can do about it; so I don't see it as a problem. You can't force people to not say "Merry Christmas". So I don't worry about it. Much like this mosque. Nothing I can do to stop it. Any bitching and carrying on will only help their side. So fudge it, they can build their mosque and I will ignore it and them.




If ever we find ourselves in the state where my statement is not true ("It's a free country"); we'll have far worse things to worry about than a mosque.


Well, I don't have much to disagree with you on here, but I still think they should not build it there, and will continue to speak out as such.


j-mac
 
The problem is that religion can't coexist with growth as a species and rational thinking. ANY religion.

Fair point, human development has been rather stagnant for the past 3000 years.

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.

I'm sure that there are those who will disagree, but my impression (and that of various media observers) is that Obama's original speech was intended to convey the impression that he was "in support" of the placement of the mosque while not necessarily nailing him into that position. He initially won fierce applause from some circles for what was seen as a bold and courageous defense, but after there was a fairly large backlash, he retreated the following day, saying that he had merely been defending the constitutional right to build there.

Since there was almost no one actually arguing that they didn't have that constitutional right to build, it strikes me as implausible that Obama would have jumped into a hot button local issue in order to simply repeat what everyone else was already saying. It seems far more likely that (like any good politician), he kept his options open and retained plausible deniability.
 
The problem is that religion can't coexist with growth as a species and rational thinking. ANY religion.

Right, because no religion ever inspired great works of art, or music, or architecture, or rich cultural traditions, or any guiding philosophies which could have helped shepherd humanity toward being better in any way. Because, you know, that Golden Rule has kept more people in darkness than anything else I can think of.
 
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

It starts with the premise. Why is the article written? Who has suggested anywhere that anyone take up these laws that are mentioned. Have you looked at laws under old Christian law? Like the letter on Christianity, many have over the years written and misunderstood Christian positions and used Christina writings to justify all manner of evil. Same with Islam.

"Applying the Old Testament Law Today" by J. Daniel Hays

Many of these laws don't really apply today ad are largely ignored. But we've seen in this country Christians abusing their wives, using the bible to justify slavery and segregation and other abuses. The probem is more how some third world countries misinterpret the word (remember muslims are believers in the book and broters and sisters to both Christans and jews). This si the problem, and the American (non)Thinker does little more than play to the prejudices of it's readers, who seldom if ever question the opening premise.

Agian, there is no spreading of sharia law. The vast majority ofmuslims live leife little differently than Christians do. For them is is more about jsutice and fairness than it is these silly misrepresentations.
 
Obama, your hero, speaks as he always does, as if the American people are stupid, down his nose.

That's because most Americans are stupid. Did you see that study they did where like 37% of Americans couldn't locate the U.S. on a map, of the U.S.!

Steven Shehori: Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on Map of America

You try going to Columbia University and Graduating from Harvard Law at the top of your class and then try talking logic and common political sense to a bunch of yahoos who can't even find their own country on a map and hate you because of the sound of your name. You might not sound so polite either.
 
Liberal education at the "major American universities". LOL.
 
That's because most Americans are stupid. Did you see that study they did where like 37% of Americans couldn't locate the U.S. on a map, of the U.S.!

Steven Shehori: Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on Map of America

You try going to Columbia University and Graduating from Harvard Law at the top of your class and then try talking logic and common political sense to a bunch of yahoos who can't even find their own country on a map and hate you because of the sound of your name. You might not sound so polite either.

I can't believe this has to be pointed out to you, but I don't think that story is 100% accurate.
 
That's because most Americans are stupid. Did you see that study they did where like 37% of Americans couldn't locate the U.S. on a map, of the U.S.!

Steven Shehori: Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on Map of America

You try going to Columbia University and Graduating from Harvard Law at the top of your class and then try talking logic and common political sense to a bunch of yahoos who can't even find their own country on a map and hate you because of the sound of your name. You might not sound so polite either.

No one treated people like they were dumb like Bush and republicans did, and republicans do.
 
I can't believe this has to be pointed out to you, but I don't think that story is 100% accurate.

Sources? Or is this one of those forums where people post opinions that aren't based on facts? I thought they only did that in the conservatives forum?
 
I think everyone here is forgetting to realize that no matter whom the president was they would have done the same thing as Obama did, just maybe not in such a muddy way.

The strange part of this is. I dont think he was muddy at all. He has never said whether he personally supports the mosque being built or not, nor should he. All he has said, in BOTH statements , was that he supported America's constitution, and that because we support freedom of religion they have a right to build it.

It is very odd to me that more Republicans aren't standing up and saying yes, we may not agree with our President on a LOT of things. But here.... this issue ... because we support Freedom of Religion and have fought relentlessly in times past for our rights, we agree and stand behind him. I think they lost an opportunity to show that its not about the man in office, its about what they believe in and fight for. But seems like they can't put their partisanship aside to think for a moment. Its just...President Obama said it so we have to be against it, lets find a way.
 
Last edited:
I think everyone here is forgetting to realize that no matter whom the president was they would have done the same thing as Obama did, just maybe not in such a muddy way.

Of course. Bush would have done the same thing and conservatives would have praised him for holding true to the constitution. This is just an excuse for Obamaphobes to attack Obama.

Obamaphobe: oʊˈbɑːməˈfō-bē
People who have an exaggerated, usually inexplicable fear of Barack Obama. This psychological disorder is usually associated with a fear of uncertainty or a fear of change and is most prominent in middle aged and elderly Caucasians. This fear stems from the fact that Barack Obama doesn't fit the traditional profile of an American president, due to his ethnicity, his birth place and place of childhood (Hawaii and Indonesia rather than Middle America), that his father was a Muslim instead of a fundamentalist Christian and that he enacts socialist democratic policies that are more prominent in wealthy, northern European countries such as universal healthcare. Ultra-conservatives have shown interesting responses during psychological studies. Some, when shown pictures of Barack Obama for prolonged periods of time (more than one minute) began trembling uncontrollably. Others started sobbing heavily, and others started growling and trying to bite the picture like a rabid dog. After several hours some exhibited symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome and started speaking affectionately of the president and his policies. Soon after the pictures were removed however they appeared to be back to normal. This was determined when psychologist asked the question "What do you think of Barack Obama" and most responded that "He is a terrorist" or a "He is a Muslim lover".
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about the examples posters have been giving comparing a status or whatever near the Arizona Memorial to what's happening w/this mosque near ground zero, and it occured to me there are two distinct differences between the two:

1) the mosque isn't being built on Ground Zero. It does make a difference, IMO.

2) I don't believe commercial zoning laws would come into play if the Japanesse were to attempt to erect a statue at or near the USS Arizona Memorial. I could be wrong, but I doubt that would be the case.

So, why would the above make any difference? For starters, building or placing something directly on secrade, hallowed ground is far different from doing so near same. Ground Zero is the epicenter of the 9/11 attacks. You could make the argument that NYC was, but since the city was affected by the attack but not destroyed by it, I think it's clear what the intended target was. Otherwise, all of lower Manhatton was affected by the attack, i.e., dust that covered NYC all the way to the harbor, and you'd have to take the entire city into account.

Second, erecting a statue is very different from constructing a commercial building. You can donate a statue and it likely wouldn't require adherence to any zoning laws; you can't construct a building w/o dealing with zoning laws and having the proper permits issued by law.

So, that gets us back to "locality" on hallowed ground and "obeying the law" of the land. And, of course, upholding Constitutional values domestically and abroad. To some, I know this won't matter, but when you start to really look at the details, it actually does make a bit of a difference.

Now, would I be okay with the Japanesse placing a statue over the Arizona Memorial? Nope! Absolutely not!! Why? Because I'd see that as desecrating a national monument left to honor the dead. I would, however, be okay with the Japanesse placing a statue near (as in "next to") the Arizona Memorial depending on why they're doing it and what the inscription would read. If they did so to honor their dead along with ours, my answer would be no. But if they did so to honor our dead only, sure...I'd have no problem with that because I'd see that as a form of an apology. This mosque thing is different in that you don't dedicate places of worship. You simply go their to worship. And the argument that there's already a mosque in the area is invalid. I can drive within a quarter mile from my house and pass 3 churches. In fact, there are atleast 7 churches in my neighborhood alone, most Christian, one Korean, one Catholic, one Penecostal. So, the 1 or more mosques at or near Ground Zero argument is a weak one, IMO.

Anyway, just some food for thought...
 
Objective Voice: the problem is, you are searching for rational and logical analysis and comparisons to this issue. However, if you've noticed, most people who staunchly oppose this building (especially on this forum) don't use logic or rationale in their arguments, but simply pure, unadulterated fear and hate driven emotions to rationalize their arguments. The biggest reason why none of the comparisons that have been brought up 'work', such as building a Japanese memorial at Pearl Harbor or a German cultural center at Auschwitz is because the Pearl Harbor bombings and the Holocaust were state backed, that is, the Japanese government and the German government at the time initiated, funded and carried out those events. However, 9/11 was not backed, funded, supported or carried out by any major Islamic sect, but instead, only by a radical Islamic terrorist organization. However, most conservatives are unable to differentiate between the two. To them, it was simply an attack from all of Islam. If you notice, whenever I've tried to tell this to people on here they reply with ridiculous, emotion driven answers that really don't provide for good arguments at all. So now I just try to be sarcastic. I figure, if someone who is delusional hears someone else saying delusional things, and says to himself "Wow, that guy is delusional" and then realizes "Wait a minute, he is simply mocking me! Therefore I must be delusional!"
 
Hence, the reason I've said time and again we must take our emotions out of this issue and see the application of our local and state laws and how the values under our Constitution apply. I do understand the emotional side here despite not losing a loved one in the attacks. I'm an American and a Navy veteran. So, I do understand what that day means to all of us. But I also understand that portion of the oath I took so long ago, "...to support and defend the Constitution...". I understand the value of our 1st Amendment rights. However, I also understand the sensativity issue here. Nonetheless, I believe that upholding our laws and remaining true to the Constitution is far more important than how we may feel.

"To then own self, be true."

Are we a country that espouses hate and huddles in fear just because there's an issue that may make us feel uncomfortable, or are we a country that believes in the same basic freedoms for all that we'd want for ourselves?
 
Many of these laws don't really apply today ad are largely ignored. But we've seen in this country Christians abusing their wives, using the bible to justify slavery and segregation and other abuses. The probem is more how some third world countries misinterpret the word (remember muslims are believers in the book and broters and sisters to both Christans and jews). This si the problem, and the American (non)Thinker does little more than play to the prejudices of it's readers, who seldom if ever question the opening premise.
Many of your examples don't apply today either bub..... :roll:
 
Hence, the reason I've said time and again we must take our emotions out of this issue and see the application of our local and state laws and how the values under our Constitution apply. I do understand the emotional side here despite not losing a loved one in the attacks. I'm an American and a Navy veteran. So, I do understand what that day means to all of us. But I also understand that portion of the oath I took so long ago, "...to support and defend the Constitution...". I understand the value of our 1st Amendment rights. However, I also understand the sensativity issue here. Nonetheless, I believe that upholding our laws and remaining true to the Constitution is far more important than how we may feel.

"To then own self, be true."

Are we a country that espouses hate and huddles in fear just because there's an issue that may make us feel uncomfortable, or are we a country that believes in the same basic freedoms for all that we'd want for ourselves?

We are a nation of people who understand the sensitivity of others, even when others want to stomp on our own sensitivities.

Basically, we are pushovers when it comes to "sensitive groups".
 
Hey Sarge, did you know the Imam helped the FBI?

What does that tell you about your fringe-right sources?

Hey Hazlnut, did you know that bringing a bit of information into a debate as fact without providing someone a source to investigate WHILE criticizing someone elses source is not going to get you anywhere?
 
QUOTE CORRECTION - "To thyn own self, be true."

I need a spell checker on this darn thing. :mrgreen:

WhooHoo! I made the 1,000th post to this thread!!! Congratulations to me!! Yea!!! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom