• 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!

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

That's not how a time/place/manner analysis works. It's applied to the governmental restriction, not the actions of someone exercising a right, and for a fundamental right, such a restriction must withstand strict scrutiny.

"A generation" wouldn't exactly be a narrow tailoring. Among various other obvious problems.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
That's not how a time/place/manner analysis works. It's applied to the governmental restriction, not the actions of someone exercising a right, and for a fundamental right, such a restriction must withstand strict scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. I was referring to the potential for a zoning board to deny the permit of operation or for an issuance of said permit to be overturned in court. My fault, I wasn't clear on the intent.

"A generation" wouldn't exactly be a narrow tailoring. Among various other obvious problems.
Click to expand...
This is true. The definition of generation as used would have to be narrowed to ours in my opinion. I think that would be proper for the purposes of this arguement since we are the ones who have the immediate memories of such and are thus affected by the actions. This generation would include we the public, survivors of the incident, those who became ill because of the toxins at the site, and family/friends of the deceased.
 
Morning Joe is an old school conservative that believes balls are balls and strikes are strikes regardless of who the batter is. It is no surprise that the new-day "conservatives" are kicking him to the curb. I can relate.
 
Redress said:
Not to my knowledge actually. As best I understand their position, it is that the people should not build the mosque, not that they cannot. You are actually 100 % correct as best I know.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Captain America said:
Morning Joe is an old school conservative that believes balls are balls and strikes are strikes regardless of who the batter is. It is no surprise that the new-day "conservatives" are kicking him to the curb. I can relate.
Click to expand...

Morning Joe is anywhere between 3-7 MSNBC liberals and one so-called "conservative". The guests are I'd say 3 to 1 liberals, and that's being kind. I watch the show every morning ... doesn't change Joe plays patty cake and is the token RINO.
 
Captain America said:
Morning Joe is an old school conservative that believes balls are balls and strikes are strikes regardless of who the batter is. It is no surprise that the new-day "conservatives" are kicking him to the curb. I can relate.
Click to expand...
I'm not kicking him to the curb myself. Personally I'm offended by the particular cleric and project since on it's face it seems to be a deliberate yet subtle slap in the face to our country and thus not a proper(probably protected though) act of religious expression, however that is my opinion. I think all opinions on this are valid but I definitely think this mosque is offensive, it's New York's business though.
 
Dude. No.

Any time/place/manner restriction must also be viewpoint neutral, so all religious activity would have to be prohibited, and that's never going to fly. As for the "time" aspect, it's about a legitimate reason for keeping someone from doing something at a particular time of day, like denying a parade permit on a residential street at 3:00 in the morning. As for manner, that contemplates keeping someone from doing something in a certain way -- such as not allowing faces to be covered at a demonstration -- and you're talking about a blanket prohibition.

As if all that weren't enough, you have to identify a COMPELLING governmental interest in prohibiting the mosque, and hurt feelings isn't good enough -- and then the measure must be narrowly-tailored to serve that end and only that end.

Sorry, but they're fully within their rights to this and the government can't do anything about it. Which is the way it should be.
 
Harshaw said:
Any time/place/manner restriction must also be viewpoint neutral, so all religious activity would have to be prohibited, and that's never going to fly. As for the "time" aspect, it's about a legitimate reason for keeping someone from doing something at a particular time of day, like denying a parade permit on a residential street at 3:00 in the morning. As for manner, that contemplates keeping someone from doing something in a certain way -- such as not allowing faces to be covered at a demonstration -- and you're talking about a blanket prohibition.
Click to expand...
Actually, TPM restrictions apply to all first amendment restriction cases. For instance yelling fire in a crowded theater is always illegal because it poses a public danger. Disturbing the peace laws are always inforce because of the nuisance factor. It is never legal to incite a riot, and sedition was always illegal as long as the law was within a scope that was reasonable and had demonstrable need such as safety of the public at large from clear and present danger or imminent threat. Time refers to timing, not time itself, place refers to proximity, manner refers to intent of expression.

As if all that weren't enough, you have to identify a COMPELLING governmental interest in prohibiting the mosque, and hurt feelings isn't good enough -- and then the measure must be narrowly-tailored to serve that end and only that end.
Click to expand...
You are correct, there is no guarantee against offense in the first amendment and nor should there be. The case could be made however that public safety is at risk due to the incindiary nature of the project in question. This admittedly is a tricky area.

Sorry, but they're fully within their rights to this and the government can't do anything about it. Which is the way it should be.
Click to expand...
Well, they are technically within their rights however ill advised it may be. The point I was making was strictly from the position of those who would ban the buiding of the mosque due to public concerns. Again, a good plaintiff's attorney could stop the mosque or delay it indefinitely.
 
donc said:
Anyone want to count the number of amendments to the constitution the republicans want to change so far this year? :roll:
Click to expand...

Try to keep up Don.... it isn't about whether they have a right to build a Mosque (they do), it's about whether it's right of them to build it where they want to build it. Most people think that is wrong.














You're welcome. :mrgreen:
 
Harshaw said:
Sorry, but they're fully within their rights to this and the government can't do anything about it. Which is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

I used this line in another context, but I think it fits here at least as well: rights are their most important when they are the hardest to grant. Saying people have free speech is easy, till it's the Westboro church protesting at funerals. Saying people have freedom of religion is easy, till it's Muslim's wanting to build a mosque at ground zero. It's when limiting those rights seems most reasonable that we have to stop, step back and realize that it is never the right time to limit the rights of people in this country.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Morning Joe is anywhere between 3-7 MSNBC liberals and one so-called "conservative". The guests are I'd say 3 to 1 liberals, and that's being kind. I watch the show every morning ... doesn't change Joe plays patty cake and is the token RINO.
Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me. It is, after all MSNBC. The most left biased station on the networks. Joe is to Morning Joe what Colmes was to Hannity. Token liberal/conservative. I get it. No argument there.

I'm just saying, having been once well known amongst my peers as a conservative myself, I understand how the new-day "conservatives" :roll: would get sideways with him. I have experienced this myself. Just sayin'.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, TPM restrictions apply to all first amendment restriction cases. For instance yelling fire in a crowded theater is always illegal because it poses a public danger.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, no, it's not.

Disturbing the peace laws are always inforce because of the nuisance factor. It is never legal to incite a riot, and sedition was always illegal as long as the law was within a scope that was reasonable and had demonstrable need such as safety of the public at large from clear and present danger or imminent threat.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have anything to do with TPM.

Time refers to timing, not time itself
Click to expand...

Split hair.

place refers to proximity
Click to expand...

Not always.


manner refers to intent of expression.
Click to expand...

Never. Refers to restrictions on manner of expression, such as not allowing fireworks on a city street.


Again, a good plaintiff's attorney could stop the mosque or delay it indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Besides, who would be the "plaintiff"? Who could possibly have standing to bring the suit? Who is being harmed by what a religious organization does on its own property?

With as much energy is behind opposition, don't you think that if this could be done, and any good attorney could do it, it would be happening?
 
Harshaw said:
I think you should explain specifically how they contradict me.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply they did, however Scarborough and McKinnon seemed to imply they were at odds with the GOP leadership on this issue. Scarborough talked about the comments made by Newt Gingrich.

"Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington," Gingrich said on Fox News. "We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There is no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center," he said.

Reflecting on Gingrich's comments, Scarborough didn't know where to begin. "To suggest that someone trying to build a -- a tolerant center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me," he said.

"It's stunning and it is so contrary to our country's principle and the Republican party," McKinnon agreed, then added, "I'm glad to see we're together on this and unfortunately I think we may get our membership revoked at the Pachyderm Club."

"Screw 'em," interrupted Scarborough.

"I agree," said McKinnon.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
I used this line in another context, but I think it fits here at least as well: rights are there most important when they are the hardest to grant. Saying people have free speech is easy, till it's the Westboro church protesting at funerals. Saying people have freedom of religion is easy, till it's Muslim's wanting to build a mosque at ground zero. It's when limiting those rights seems most reasonable that we have to stop, step back and realize that it is never the right time to limit the rights of people in this country.
Click to expand...

Actually, building a mosque is a cakewalk. Saying people have freedom of religion is easy until they get all weird and build a self-sufficient, closed-off compound somewhere in Texas.
 
I agree with ALL the posters here that agree they have the right even if it's wrong. That the topic is more about "what's right" than "rights," to many. You know. That thing the president said.

It's a shame the Muslim's don't recognize the oppertunity to extend the olive branch in this matter. But I am not really surprised they would pass it up.

But we can go around about all this until the sun goes down and it will still be what it is.

They have the right to be insensitive bastards too, I suppose.

Hey, in 30 years I'll be gone anyways. And next week this will be old news when Michael Jackson raises from the dead.

I just hope the fish keep bitin'.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
I didn't mean to imply they did, however Scarborough and McKinnon seemed to imply they were at odds with the GOP leadership on this issue. Scarborough talked about the comments made by Newt Gingrich.
Click to expand...

Scarborough's had a hard on for Newt since the 1990's when he was in the house and Newt was the speaker. If you haven't watched very much, you'll see that Scarborough and Newt never really hit it off - so making comments on MSNBC criticizing Newt... that's a weekly occurance.
 
pbrauer said:
I didn't mean to imply they did, however Scarborough and McKinnon seemed to imply they were at odds with the GOP leadership on this issue. Scarborough talked about the comments made by Newt Gingrich.
Click to expand...

Seeing as that has nothing to do with what I said, why would you think I "need" to watch the video?
 
Captain America said:
I agree with ALL the posters here that agree they have the right even if it's wrong. That the topic is about "what's right" than "rights," to many. You know. That thing the president said.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Never mind; I misread you. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Scarborough's had a hard on for Newt since the 1990's when he was in the house and Newt was the speaker. If you haven't watched very much, you'll see that Scarborough and Newt never really hit it off - so making comments on MSNBC criticizing Newt... that's a weekly occurance.
Click to expand...

Let's also remember that Scarborough's gig is paid by MSNBC. He is just another paid talking head, not really part of political party, unless you count GE as a semi=political party.
 
This worth reading......... they get it.

Mischief in Manhattan
We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation
By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special August 17, 2010


Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

(Gallery: The Ground Zero Mosque debate)

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.
Click to expand...

Read more: Mischief in Manhattan

And this is really stupid.


A New York City Police officer looks on as the Landmarks Preservation Commission prepares to rule on August 3, 2010 that a 152-year-old building is not a historical site, and can be demolished making way for the construction of a mosque a few blocks from the Ground Zero site in Manhattan. Controversial plans to build a mosque near the site of the New York towers destroyed in the Septmeber 11, 2001 terror attacks cleared a big hurdle Tuesday as a city panel voted to end protected status for an existing structure on the site.
Click to expand...

also at same URL

So let me get this straight.... a building that is 152 years old isn't worth saving, so they are going to tear it down to put up a Mosque in it's place the majority of the people don't want, in a business district where no Muslims live.

And of course it’s all about tolerance and bridge building.

Speaking of bridges,

For sale:
16 lane bridge, freshly painted

Just $19.95

Plus shipping and handling
 
Harshaw said:
Actually, building a mosque is a cakewalk. Saying people have freedom of religion is easy until they get all weird and build a self-sufficient, closed-off compound somewhere in Texas.
Click to expand...

Building a compound in Texas is easy too, and you know full well that was not the problem there.
 
Originally Posted by Harshaw
Saying people have freedom of religion is easy until they get all weird and build a self-sufficient, closed-off compound somewhere in Texas.

chevydriver1123 said:
Im confused, what does this mean?
Click to expand...


Waco, TX..... Branch Dravidians.

Any of that ring a bell?
 
Crunch said:
This worth reading......... they get it.



Read more: Mischief in Manhattan
Click to expand...

Many get it. Someone should clue in the New Yorkers dead set on supporting what is, to those of us with at least a smidgen of common sense clearly see, a clear provocation. The proponents of building the mosque are in two major groups: The first being strict Constitutionalists who see following law more important than any thing else (which at least I can respect, though disagree) and the second being those who want to kiss up to any group to show how uber liberal and tolerant they are than everyone else.

The rest of us are somewhere in the middle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom