Scarborough: 'Screw' GOP if they kick me out for defending mosque

ptif219 said:

Ground Zero Islamic Mosque Moves Forward, Christian Church in Limbo - HUMAN EVENTS

The Port Authority agreed to give the church a parcel of land at Liberty and Greenwich Streets, and contribute $20 million toward construction of a new sanctuary. The Port Authority also agreed to build an explosion-proof platform and foundation for the new church building, which would sit on top of a screening area for cars and trucks entering the underground garages at the new World Trade Center.

Trouble emerged after St. Nicholas announced its plans to build a traditional Greek Orthodox church building, 24,000 square feet in size, topped with a grand dome. Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial. The deal fell apart for goodin March 2009, when the Port Authority abruptly ended the talks after refusing to allow church officials to review plans for the garage and screening area underneath. Sixteen months later, the two sides have still not met to resume negotiations.

Click to expand...

Here, let's look at an actual, honest to god news story, not some blog. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html?_r=1

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. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.

“We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” said Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “They have now given us no choice but to move on to ensure the site is not delayed. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Here, let's look at an actual, honest to god news story, not some blog. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html?_r=1

Click to expand...

NYT is honest?


Your article says the same thing my did. From your link

Last July, the Port Authority and the Greek Orthodox Church announced a tentative plan to rebuild the church just east of its original site, at Liberty and Greenwich Streets. The authority agreed to provide the church with land for a 24,000-square-foot house of worship, far larger than the original, and $20 million. Since the church would be built in a park over the bomb-screening center, the authority also agreed to pay up to $40 million for a blast-proof platform and foundation.

In recent negotiations, the authority cut the size of the church slightly and told church officials that its dome could not rise higher than the trade center memorial. The church, in turn, wanted the right to review plans for both the garage with the bomb-screening center and the park, something the authority was unwilling to provide. More important, authority officials said, the church wanted the $20 million up front, rather than in stages. Officials said they feared that the church, which has raised about $2 million for its new building, would come back to the authority for more.

Redress said:

This is not accurate. We discussed this in another thread. The story is they where negotiating with the Port Authority for a location to build a larger church, and the discussion broke down on money. If the church wanted to rebuild at it's former location, it could have already started.

Click to expand...

You may have discussed it but the issues is far from settled and there are two different story's from each side. I happened to see the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese speaker say this morning on Fox that the Port Authority lawyer has not responded to the Archdiocese in over a year. As well, the following is on FoxNews's website.

FoxNews said:

August 17, 2010
...
Father Alex Karloutsos, assistant to the archbishop, told FoxNews.com. He said "religious freedom" would allow a place of worship for any denomination to be built, but accused officials with the Port Authority of making no effort to help move the congregation's project along.

"Unfortunately, they have just been silent -- dead silent, actually," said Karloutsos, whose father was ordained at St. Nicholas. "They just simply forgot about the church."

The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild it in a new location -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended. Port Authority officials told Fox News that the deal is dead.

The archdiocese and Port Authority offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has previously claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

"The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building," a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

But Karloutsos called the Port Authority's claims "propaganda" and said the church has complied with all conditions. He said the government should honor agreements that date back to 2004, under former New York Gov. George Pataki.

Pataki, speaking with Fox News on Tuesday, agreed that the church should be rebuilt.

"I don't understand it," Pataki said. "Why the Port Authority now has so far put roadblocks in the way of its reconstruction is beyond me. It's not the right thing to do."

Click to expand...

FOXNews.com - What About the Ground Zero Church? Archdiocese Says Officials Abandoned Project

So I am not seeing your claim of inaccuracy as being correct. It sounds like there's more to this than just a money issue.

Harshaw said:

You will never, ever succeed with the argument that building the mosque is expression. Ever. And if someone, somewhere bought into it, it's still trumped by the fact that it's absolutlely exercise of religion.

Click to expand...

Expression v. Excercise is not all that different. For example, if there were religions in the U.S. requiring virgin sacrifice they would not stand up to a legal challenge against murder statutes, the same could be said to a lesser degree about the particular placement of this mosque according to building codes or community standards. First, it is proposed on commercial property so dependent on NYC civil code the law may well be on the side of the board of alderman *if* they wanted to vote nay on the particular location, as well if the residents have the right of veto then that also could be a factor.

Not if there's no ordinance or law against it. And also not if the specific facts of the case don't satisfy the elements of whatever ordinance or law might exist. There are thousands of permutations which could come into play. Not the least of which being that a case where no one was harmed at all.

The Supreme Court never, ever, declared that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was illegal. Ever.

Click to expand...

Point one, every place I know has at least a statute against reckless endagerment, second, the Supreme court held that speech which creates a clear and present danger is in fact not protected because of that example.

DUDE. The MOSQUE is NEVER under scrutiny. The LAW RESTRICTING THE MOSQUE would be. (Except that it wouldn't be, because the mosque isn't expression.)

Click to expand...

That is not accurate. The legal maneuver to allow for the mosque was in fact under scrutiny because of the proximity to ground zero, to state otherwise would mean that this thread would never have existed.

You were saying it always does.

Click to expand...

In a way it always does. Whether or not the argument is out in the open such as a clear cut challenge or whether it is simply a secondary factor Time/Place/Manner always dictate our speech.

That's not a time restriction. And if it were claimed as one -- "until the last one of those people is dead" -- it would never hold up.

Click to expand...

It involves time. The last person will be dead within 130 years, whether or not that is overbroad is debateable but the fact is that there is a time factor.

It's not always relevant because there's not always a restriction on location. But for this, there is. Though I will say, if there were any part of a proposed restriction which would have any chance of succeeding, it's place. But probably not, considering there are buildings in between GZ and the mosque. (And, of course, that it doesn't apply to exercise of religion.)

Click to expand...

Place I think is the best argument, and I will grant that 2 blocks is pretty distant comparitively, however much damage from debris was experienced there.

Restrictions on intentions are not content-neutral and would fail as time/place/manner restrictions.

Click to expand...

Usually I would agree. In this case if the intent is to do harm either physically or mentally then a case could be made about manner. I think both sides could make a decent case towards their ends.

There were some mitigating circumstances. However, McDonald's was also fully aware that it makes its coffee very, very, very hot, much hotter than most other places, that it was dangerously hot, and internal memoranda confirmed that they decided to keep it that hot anyway because they thought it enhanced the flavor. No one else's coffee would have caused the injuries the woman suffered (which also involved melting some of the nylon in her garments and having it stick to her skin; the coffee was just hot enough to that), and certainly not to the degree they were suffered.

Click to expand...

I dunno, there's responsibility and then there is civil law. This one seemed like it started from a postition of plaintiff's negligence and should have ended there.

However, because of mitigating circumstances, the judgment was lowered, but McDonald's was still liable and rightly so.

Click to expand...

I disagree. But then again I wasn't on that jury so it doesn't really matter.

LaMidRighter said:

Expression v. Excercise is not all that different.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, because TPM restrictions are only permissible for expression.

For example, if there were religions in the U.S. requiring virgin sacrifice they would not stand up to a legal challenge against murder statutes

Click to expand...

That is a full-on proscription against murder. It isn't a time/place/manner restriction on religion.

the same could be said to a lesser degree about the particular placement of this mosque according to building codes or community standards. First, it is proposed on commercial property so dependent on NYC civil code the law may well be on the side of the board of alderman *if* they wanted to vote nay on the particular location, as well if the residents have the right of veto then that also could be a factor.

Click to expand...

Then that's a zoning issue; it's not a time/place/manner restriction on an exercise of a right.

Point one, every place I know has at least a statute against reckless endagerment

Click to expand...

Maybe, but that doesn't mean every place does, and it also doesn't mean the specifics of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater will satisfy the elements of those which are there.

second, the Supreme court held that speech which creates a clear and present danger is in fact not protected because of that example.

Click to expand...

No, they didn't. A lot of people think they did, but they didn't -- which is why I call it one of the most misquoted and misapplied legal canards this side of "finders keepers."

And that case has been overruled, anyway.

That is not accurate. The legal maneuver to allow for the mosque was in fact under scrutiny because of the proximity to ground zero, to state otherwise would mean that this thread would never have existed.

Click to expand...

You do not apply "scrutiny" to anything but restrictions of rights.

In a way it always does. Whether or not the argument is out in the open such as a clear cut challenge or whether it is simply a secondary factor Time/Place/Manner always dictate our speech.

Click to expand...

Are you arguing for "always" or not? I'm really not even sure what you're saying on this anymore.

It involves time. The last person will be dead within 130 years, whether or not that is overbroad is debateable but the fact is that there is a time factor.

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you could put down some kind of concrete time, but no, it'll never hold up.

Usually I would agree. In this case if the intent is to do harm either physically or mentally then a case could be made about manner. I think both sides could make a decent case towards their ends.

Click to expand...

No. Intent and manner are separate issues.

I dunno, there's responsibility and then there is civil law. This one seemed like it started from a postition of plaintiff's negligence and should have ended there.

I disagree. But then again I wasn't on that jury so it doesn't really matter.

Click to expand...

No one else's coffee (at least not of the big chains; who knows what mom & pops do) would have done the damage theirs did, because no one else's coffee is that hot. They knew it was dangerous; they took the risk; they lost. Look, their coffee is kept at about 180-185 degrees, whereas most others are around 140. 180-185 is about the internal temperature of well-done meat. Imagine what it can do to your flesh.

Amid all this furore has anyone ever managed to discover the religions of those who dies in the 911 massacre?

I believe that a number of people who were of the Muslim faith died as well as Christians and Jews and perhaps a variety of other faiths?.

MrVicchio said:

Another thread started over the false premise that the argument is over whether they CAN build the mosque.

That's not an issue, hasn't been an issue, it's a BS argument. Of course they CAN.

The issue is whether or not they SHOULD build it.

Click to expand...

mac said:

I agree. I don't think anyone on either side of the fence is trying to deny them the right to build it, but rather to point out the potential "salt on the wound".

Click to expand...

Nobody except Rick Lazio.

Oh, and the large group of protesters who showed up to raise hell about the panel's decision to allow construction. Oh yeah, and this conservative advocacy group headed by Pat Robertson. Well, the editorial staff at the Washington Examiner as well. In more than one piece.

But that's it, except for Newt Gingrich, who said: "There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center." And Sean Hannity on his Fox News show on July 22nd, along with Jay Sekulow. And Rush Limbaugh, who said "[T]he Constitution does not guarantee you can put your church anywhere you want it" on his radio show. And the Southern Baptist Convention, who's leader stated that Muslims "don't have the right to have [mosques] any particular place they want them."

But that's it.

Harshaw said:

And are there any quotes from Harry Reid or Dick Cheney saying they don't have the right to do this?

I would be particularly interested in seeing danarhea answer.

Click to expand...

Their RIGHT keeps coming up.
Can ANYONE point me to ANYONE who DOESN"T think they have a RIGHT.

Not yelling at you Harshaw. Your post was just handy to quote.

Barbbtx said:

Their RIGHT keeps coming up.
Can ANYONE point me to ANYONE who DOESN"T think they have a RIGHT.

Not yelling at you Harshaw. Your post was just handy to quote.

Click to expand...

Why don't you try reading my post one above yours. Also, I was just listening to the Hugh Hewitt show, in which he was talking with a gues about how they don't think they have the right to build the mosque. Essentially, the entire argument from the Republicans has been focused on the builders not having the right to build. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.

Oh cripe I better read the thread. looks like I might find some answers, or not

Oh, and the large group of protesters who showed up to raise hell about the panel's decision to allow construction. Oh yeah, and this conservative advocacy group headed by Pat Robertson. Well, the editorial staff at the Washington Examiner as well. In more than one piece.

So?

Whats your point? Pat R's group cannot protest?

I am gay and I dont mind. So what. *Any* Conservative group can protest.

Liberal-progressives encourage "protesting" from a leftwing perspective, and beleive that all right-wing protesting is "racist" the usual, tired refrain we hear from the Soviet-insired, Marxist professors who lead the Seattle-D.C.-Los Angeles-New York "Peace March" whenever a Republican is in power.

Listen dude, I WATCHED the Seattle "peace march" in 2003 and all that was missing were the white robes. It was filled with hatred, anti-Semitism, and anti-American rhetoric throughout. I even spotted TWO Nazi swastika flags, one spray-painted onto an Israeli flag by the ISM "terrorist" contingent --- this is the group the American terrorist Rachel Correy joined before she got *squashed* by an Israeli bulldozer in Ramallah when she was running weapons for Yassir Arafat.

Left-wing protesting is Marxist-inspired.

Right-wing is grassroots.

This lends credence to Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascist" premise since violence always begins and preceeds a left-wing protest.

I am continually amazed at how closely liberal-progressives match the brownshirt-wearing, coffee-can adorned Sturm Abteilung from 1933.

GayLibertarian said:

Essentially, the entire argument from the Republicans has been focused on the builders not having the right to build. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous

Interesting.

Since I work out of my house I watch, hear and read the 24-hour news cycle throughout the day. I listen to Rush Limbaugh at 11am, check Huffington Post at noon; Daily Kos at 1pm, hit up several conservative websites at 2pm (Breitbart's BigPeace, BigGov't, BigJ) and then watch MSNBC for a complete wrap up.

I have yet to hear ONE Republican state that the mosque could NOT be built - NOT ONE.

The Rep's say NO to building based upon sensativity (which the Islamists lack) not a "right."

I have to disagree with your premise here.

I am hooked onto politics, so I can assure you .... from the left or right perspective, I simply have not heard it ... and I am tied in daily to each.

Click to expand...

Well, since Rush is one of the people who said they don't have the right to build it, I question your statement. Lazio, Gingrich, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson have all said they don't have the right to build. And right after I posted that list of people who say they don't have the right to build it, I turned on the radio and the first thing I heard was Hugh Hewitt saying they don't have the right to build it. Hence my last post.

GayLibertarian said:

Oh, and the large group of protesters who showed up to raise hell about the panel's decision to allow construction. Oh yeah, and this conservative advocacy group headed by Pat Robertson. Well, the editorial staff at the Washington Examiner as well. In more than one piece.

So?

Whats your point? Pat R's group cannot protest?

I am gay and I dont mind. So what. *Any* Conservative group can protest.

Liberal-progressives encourage "protesting" from a leftwing perspective, and beleive that all right-wing protesting is "racist" the usual, tired refrain we hear from the Soviet-insired, Marxist professors who lead the Seattle-D.C.-Los Angeles-New York "Peace March" whenever a Republican is in power.

Left-wing protesting is Marxist-inspired.

Right-wing is grassroots.

This lends credence to Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascist" premise.

I am continually amazed at how closely liberal-progressives match the brownshirt-wearing, coffee-can adorned Sturm Abteilung from 1933.

Click to expand...

WHAT?! What are you talking about? I was responding to "nobody says they don't have the right to build the mosque." The protestors all showed up to voice their opinion that the builders shouldn't have the right to build the mosque. Your response to me was completely out of left field and I have no idea why you think I was saying they don't have the right to protest.

Mustachio said:

Well, since Rush is one of the people who said they don't have the right to build it, I question your statement. Lazio, Gingrich, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson have all said they don't have the right to build. And right after I posted that list of people who say they don't have the right to build it, I turned on the radio and the first thing I heard was Hugh Hewitt saying they don't have the right to build it. Hence my last post.

Click to expand...

Funny, I have been listening to Rush and Hannity and haven't heard them say anything about "rights', but that it isn't right. Now mind you, I don't listen to all of their show every day, just when I'm driving somewhere. Do you have a link with quotes to backup your assertion?

FilmFestGuy said:

And thanks to you, I just read about it. It appears to have everything to do with money. Port Authority states that if they'd like to build on their original land, they can start right now. They want more money from PA than they are willing to offer for reconstruction costs.

In other words, it has next-to-nothing to do with the Islamic Center.

Click to expand...

Wrong the port authority is trying to limit the size of the building

Harshaw said:

Defending the First Amendment is not evidence of "moving left."

Click to expand...

It is when they say things you don't like or agree with. eace

pbrauer said:

What's your excuse for Pat Buchanan being on MSNBC?

Click to expand...

He's senile and wondered into the wrong studio.

American said:

He's senile and wondered into the wrong studio.

Click to expand...

American you should actually switch to watching MSNBC or CNN. Watching Fox News means you are supporting the NYC mosque, since the same guy funding the mosque is also the 2nd biggest shareholder of News Corp. He also, according to Fox News funds terrorist. How great is that, that they call themselves terrorist?

JohnWOlin said:

American you should actually switch to watching MSNBC or CNN. Watching Fox News means you are supporting the NYC mosque, since the same guy funding the mosque is also the 2nd biggest shareholder of News Corp. He also, according to Fox News funds terrorist. How great is that, that they call themselves terrorist?

Click to expand...

You should turn your TV off, and get some air.

American said:

You should turn your TV off, and get some air.

Click to expand...

I only watch TV for like 3 hours at night and that just happened to be one of the things I watched.

"Only" three hours a night?

Harshaw said:

"Only" three hours a night?

Click to expand...

What the hell else am I supposed to do at night? Mow the grass?

JohnWOlin said:

What the hell else am I supposed to do at night?

Click to expand...

If you need to ask, then perhaps television really is right for you. Carry on.