Plan to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero Riles Families of 9/11 Victims

It takes a long time to grieve for some, especially when the grief is complicated. And grief can lead to depression and drug abuse.
Click to expand...

So until every person from every tragedy has been able to move on, we should adjust laws, bend rules, rely on feelings over facts? My grandfather died from complications of emphysema as a result of smoking for years while in the military (where it is rampant). I'm not going to protest 7-11 carrying cigarettes, or tell soldiers it's insensitive for them to smoke until I'm over my grief. When you start using feelings over facts to govern, you create arbitrary decisions that vary from case to case. That works well in a household (believe me, I know. Father of a 4 and a 1.5yr old-Daddy can do X, you can't. You're a child.)

So people can oppose the employer or Juan for the right reasons and wrong reasons and support the employer or Juan for the right reasons and wrong reasons. Name me an issue where there are not those who support/oppose for right/wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

I admit I'm not a smart man, but can someone explain to me what "not those who support or oppose for right or wrong reasons" means. Are you asking for a time not when people don't oppose or support anything for a good or bad reason? Or are you asking for a time when people do or do not, not support something for the right or wrong reasons? Either way, I don't understand what in the hell this means.
 
[quote name='J7.']Maybe you didn't but that wasn't clear.[/quote]

Sorry, not my responsibility to police everything you possibly could misconstrue.

And I was referring to that stuff as research and you never stepped in to say that's not what I'm talking about back then.
Click to expand...

See above.

If you don't see a distinction between wading through pages of a thread and knowing a few basic facts about the matter then I don't know what I can do to help you.

It doesn't matter how close the other mosque is
Click to expand...

What about if there was a mosque one block away?

Or one actually at Ground Zero the way there are prayer rooms at the Pentagon also attacked on 9/11?
 
[quote name='berzirk']So until every person from every tragedy has been able to move on, we should adjust laws, bend rules, rely on feelings over facts? My grandfather died from complications of emphysema as a result of smoking for years while in the military (where it is rampant). I'm not going to protest 7-11 carrying cigarettes, or tell soldiers it's insensitive for them to smoke until I'm over my grief. When you start using feelings over facts to govern, you create arbitrary decisions that vary from case to case. That works well in a household (believe me, I know. Father of a 4 and a 1.5yr old-Daddy can do X, you can't. You're a child.)



I admit I'm not a smart man, but can someone explain to me what "not those who support or oppose for right or wrong reasons" means. Are you asking for a time not when people don't oppose or support anything for a good or bad reason? Or are you asking for a time when people do or do not, not support something for the right or wrong reasons? Either way, I don't understand what in the hell this means.[/QUOTE]
It's not every tragedy, it's a very rare case. If it became common obviously the law would need to be abolished. There have been regulations against cigarettes, but people are still allowed them if they want them. It's not legal to smoke in certain areas. Your grandfather probably did not know the health risks but he chose to smoke. WTC employees may and/or may have not known the health risks of working in the WTC, but it was their job. Maybe people shouldn't have been allowed to smoke in the military, such a law would have prevented your grandfather from being so exposed to smoking and end up smoking too.

I meant name an issue where there are not both people who oppose something for right or wrong reasons and there are not both people who support for right or wrong reasons.

1 issue, and 4 potential groups of people.

Issue 1. People A oppose for the right reasons. People B oppose for the wrong reasons. People C support for the right reasons. People D support for the wrong reasons.

Name an issue where it is not possible for this to occur.

[quote name='Msut77']Sorry, not my responsibility to police everything you possibly could misconstrue.

See above.

If you don't see a distinction between wading through pages of a thread and knowing a few basic facts about the matter then I don't know what I can do to help you.

What about if there was a mosque one block away?

Or one actually at Ground Zero the way there are prayer rooms at the Pentagon also attacked on 9/11?[/QUOTE]

It had become clear that I interpreted what you said differently than what you may have meant, yet you never clarified what you meant even after it was clear I interpreted it differently than what you claim to have meant. You had an opportunity to but you waited until later. Now you're being arrogant and rude about it.

In this post (which took place after I already looked up quotes for you)
[quote name='J7.'] Do I have to do more research for you to find the exact amount of blocks as the closest mosque? What am I your secretary?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']I am fairly certain I already mentioned it, either way it would be the least you could do.
[/QUOTE]http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7738553&postcount=982
you admit the answer was (or at least, also was) in your quote after I ask about having to research it for you.

In this next post
[quote name='J7.']So I am supposed to research my own quotes for you AND I am supposed to research your quotes for you?
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']If you want anyone to value your opinion you should be aware of at least a few facts of the matter.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7742065&postcount=984
I specifically ask if I am supposed to research my own quotes and your own quotes regarding the matter. At that point it is clear what I am referring in terms of what I felt needed to be researched and you could've and should have clarified you did not mean the quotes, but you chose not to.

In this next post
[quote name='J7.']I researched my quotes for you.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']When I said research I didn't mean anything you or I said.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7746047&postcount=990
you now claim when you said research you didn't mean anything you or I said... Let's go back to your earlier quote again.

[quote name='J7.'] Do I have to do more research for you to find the exact amount of blocks as the closest mosque? What am I your secretary?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']I am fairly certain I already mentioned it, either way it would be the least you could do.
[/QUOTE]

The answer was available both in your quotes and in outside research. So in post 982 you admitted the answer was in your quote and I should have noticed that/go back and look for that (research it). But now you're saying you never meant I should have gone back and researched your quote.

And now you're claiming you shouldn't have to police everything I misconstrue.

This whole exchange you pulled is... not right and you know this. I ain't going to even bother posting anything negative about you because the proof is in the pudding. I don't really want to talk to you anymore if you're going to pull something like that. At this point you can say something that is going to make me ignore you or you can try to fix this. Don't play dumb about it. Obviously you're intelligent. Now show your character.

If there is an existing mosque 1 block away or within GZ then build the new one 1 block away or within GZ.
 
[quote name='J7.']If there is an existing mosque 1 block away or within GZ then build the new one 1 block away or within GZ.[/QUOTE]

So you are admitting it does matter how close other mosques are?

Anyhoo you are aware there are 9/11 families who are pro-building right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you are admitting it does matter how close other mosques are?

Anyhoo you are aware there are 9/11 families who are pro-building right?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='J7.']
I don't really want to talk to you anymore if you're going to pull something like that. At this point you can say something that is going to make me ignore you or you can try to fix this. Don't play dumb about it. Obviously you're intelligent. Now show your character.
[/QUOTE]

Here's a response to your new questions, I expect one to what I wrote in my last post. Otherwise I will be ignoring you.

It doesn't matter how close existing mosques are. They were there before 911. It's the intentional building of one closer than any existing mosque. We've talked about this point already. Yes there are families who are pro-building, just as there are Muslims who are against building the mosque at that location. That doesn't mean families who oppose the mosque are wrong and it doesn't mean Muslims who support the mosque are wrong.
 
[quote name='J7.']It's not every tragedy, it's a very rare case. If it became common obviously the law would need to be abolished.[/QUOTE]

J7. you are basically using the same argument that people use to try and censor the internet. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLACKLIST SITES BECAUSE THERE IS CHILD PORN OUT THERE! WE HAVE TO GET THESE SITES DOWN! WHAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF?!? WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN?!? THIS WILL ONLY BE USED TO TAKE DOWN CHILD PORN SITES!!!!!

wikileaks on Denmark's blacklist said:
The list is generated without judicial or public oversight and is kept secret by the ISPs using it. Unaccountability is intrinsic to such a secret censorship system.

Most sites on the list are still censored (i.e must be on the current list), even though many have clearly changed owners or were possibly even wrongly placed on the list, for example the Dutch transport company Vanbokhorst.

The list has been leaked because cases such as Thailand and Finland demonstrate that once a secret censorship system is established for pornographic content the same system can rapidly expand to cover other material, including political material, at the worst possible moment -- when government needs reform.

Two days ago Wikileaks released the secret Internet censorship list for Thailand. Of the 1,203 sites censored this year, all have the internally noted reason of "lese majeste" -- criticizing the Royal family. Like Denmark, the Thai censorship system was originally promoted as a mechanism to prevent the flow of child pornography.

An Australian anti-censorship activist submitted the page to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), requesting that they censor it, under their internal guidelines. The activist wished to expose the "slippery scope" of the proposed Mandatory Internet Censorship scheme.

The press release and the list itself have now been placed into the secret Australian government blacklist of "Prohibited Online Content".

The content on the blacklist is illegal to publish or link to in Australia, with fines of upto $11,000 a day for contraventions.
Click to expand...

oops :whistle2:#

Or if you want one at home more on this type of wavelength

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database

Unit employees, who are not authorized to request records in investigations, sent form letters to telephone companies to acquire detailed billing information on specific phone numbers by falsely promising that subpoenas were already in the works.

According to a third source, FBI officials also said at the meeting that some bureau employees have already been granted immunity from prosecution in the investigation. The third source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, did not recall, however, that FBI officials described the investigation as "criminal."

FBI spokesman Richard Kolko confirmed that the meeting took place but declined to comment on the content of the conversation, saying only, "The FBI does not confirm or deny investigations."

Neither the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General nor the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility returned calls for comment.

While the scope of the alleged investigation is unknown, investigators could be examining whether the unit violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or committed fraud by falsely swearing that subpoenas were being prepared.

National Security Letters are self-issued subpoenas that allow investigators in terrorism and espionage cases to require phone companies, banks, credit reporting agencies and internet service providers to turn over records on Americans considered "relevant" to an investigation. Those records are then fed into three computer systems, including a shared data-mining tool known as the Investigative Data Warehouse.

Though warned in 2001 to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 National Security Letters in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans.

Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have downplayed the gravity of the reported errors while attempting to mollify critics by promising to strengthen internal oversight.

The Communications Analysis Unit, part of the FBI's Communications Exploitation Section based in the agency's headquarters building, is tasked with analyzing terrorist communications and providing intelligence to the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. However, because it only supports investigators, unit employees cannot issue subpoenas and instead need to have counterterrorism investigators do so.

However, the Justice Department's Inspector General reported (.pdf) in March that the office issued 739 "exigent letters" to AT&T, Verizon and MCI seeking information on more than 3,000 phone numbers. The letters stated: "Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone numbers be provided. Subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office who will process and serve them formally to (Phone Company Name) as expeditiously as possible."

However, no such subpoenas had been filed with U.S. Attorneys and only later were some of the requests followed up with proper legal process, according to the Inspector General's report.

Several of the letters included requests for records for more than 100 phone numbers.
Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation

oops american style :whistle2:#
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Sporadic']J7. you are basically using the same argument that people use to try and censor the internet. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLACKLIST SITES BECAUSE THERE IS CHILD PORN OUT THERE! WE HAVE TO GET THESE SITES DOWN! WHAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF?!? WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN?!? THIS WILL ONLY BE USED TO TAKE DOWN CHILD PORN SITES!!!!!

[/QUOTE]

What you don't want to regulate businesses so harshly? Don't you want to stop corporate greed or accidents such as the oil spill? The power we give the government will only be used to make corporations less greedy! Never to gain leverage on the private sector.

Oops
 
[quote name='J7.']Here's a response to your new questions, I expect one to what I wrote in my last post. Otherwise I will be ignoring you.[/quote]

I view this is an admission that you have no good response just so you know.

It doesn't matter how close existing mosques are.
Click to expand...

I assure you it does.

Yes there are families who are pro-building, just as there are Muslims who are against building the mosque at that location. That doesn't mean families who oppose the mosque are wrong and it doesn't mean Muslims who support the mosque are wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has polled everyone effected by 9/11 their families or survivors (or even bothered to define what makes someone part of a 9/11) so you don't know what a majority or even a plurality feel.

And then like I said before, peoples feelings don't count for more than peoples rights.

Even you don't even seem to be aware what you are "arguing" anymore, unless you seem to think that hypothetical grief should be grandfathered in because of the pre existing mosque condition.

It might just be quicker to admit you are just making it up as you go along.
 
Sporadic I'll reply to you later, I'm not in a mood to debate right now and can't address your question fully tonight due to time constraints.

[quote name='Msut77']I view this is an admission that you have no good response just so you know.

I assure you it does.

I don't think anyone has polled everyone effected by 9/11 their families or survivors (or even bothered to define what makes someone part of a 9/11) so you don't know what a majority or even a plurality feel.

And then like I said before, peoples feelings don't count for more than peoples rights.

Even you don't even seem to be aware what you are "arguing" anymore, unless you seem to think that hypothetical grief should be grandfathered in because of the pre existing mosque condition.

It might just be quicker to admit you are just making it up as you go along.[/QUOTE]

I gave you two chances despite you lying through your teeth and trying to make me look stupid based on your lies. It's right there in my questions and your responses in post 995 and the whole context is on pages 49 and 50 of this thread when viewing 20 posts per page. I said you can reveal your character, and so far, you response is to try to insult me. Do you really think I care what your opinion is if you're going to act like that towards me?

I offered a response to you even after you would not give me one... you're projecting your internal thoughts onto me. Find a good response for yourself. You don't deserve any dignified response from me again until you take admission for lying to me and trying to use it against me. This is your third and last chance, before I click ignore.
 
[quote name='J7.']I gave you two chances despite you lying through your teeth and trying to make me look stupid based on your lies.[/quote]

Once again, that is very magnanimous of you to give me chances on a video game forum where you have no power over any one or any thing.

Second, I am not "making you" look stupid. I am pointing out how fucking stupid some of your ad hoc "positions" are.

Lastly, anything I said cannot in any way be considered a lie or even on that border between BS and dishonesty you seem to cross without caring.

Seems to me as if you are looking for a way to bow out of our little exchange in a way where you don't have to admit you are wrong or full of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Once again, that is very magnanimous of you to give me chances on a video game forum where you have no power over any one or any thing.

Second, I am not "making you" look stupid. I am pointing out how fucking stupid some of your ad hoc "positions" are.

Lastly, anything I said cannot in any way be considered a lie or even on that border between BS and dishonesty you seem to cross without caring.

Seems to me as if you are looking for a way to bow out of our little exchange in a way where you don't have to admit you are wrong or full of it.[/QUOTE]

Haha calling me magnanimous again... :lol:

You attempted both, independently.

Reverse the blame because you can't take any responsibility.

We had our exchange, like I said I even continued the exchange with you after telling you I would not without you taking some responsibility for your actions. There's no reason to continue an exchange with someone who is in it for the wrong reasons, no good reason for neither person :shock: .

Goodbye.

If you ever want to discuss things again on CAG you can PM me. Maybe we can sort shit out there. Ya, I'm being fucking nice.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']gj ignoring my post so you could say nothing about the topic at hand[/QUOTE]

I intend to reply to your post. I want to give it enough time, I haven't felt well lately, I've been more busy, I've wanted to avoid intense argumentative posts since getting into a heated argument with Msut77, this thread has been the most intense one for me lately, and I haven't been posting on CAG as much as I usually do. I will make a plan of responding to it soon.
 
[quote name='J7.']I intend to reply to your post. I want to give it enough time, I haven't felt well lately, I've been more busy, I've wanted to avoid intense argumentative posts since getting into a heated argument with Msut77, this thread has been the most intense one for me lately, and I haven't been posting on CAG as much as I usually do. I will make a plan of responding to it soon.[/QUOTE]

so just don't post until you feel better? don't know why you feel the need to give us status updates on your life or the pressure you have to post.
 
It doesn't matter if the situation is unique, if you ban the mosque from being able to be built for one situation, it sets a precedent, and opens the door for many more cases to be made.

The government has no place in telling anyone where to build something as long as it follows all the codes, and procedures in place, and it does.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']so just don't post until you feel better? don't know why you feel the need to give us status updates on your life or the pressure you have to post.[/QUOTE]

Because you forced me to unless you did that out of malice. At this point do you want me to respond or do you just want to put me down?
 
[quote name='J7.']Because you forced me to unless you did that out of malice. At this point do you want me to respond or do you just want to put me down?[/QUOTE]

what? i posted that your stance was dumb, gave examples why it was dumb and you responded back twice that you didn't feel like responding (but you did do a big write up of nothing for Msut77)

if you don't want to post, don't
if something else is going on in your life, i don't care. post whenever you have time or feel better. i'm not on pins and needles waiting for a response.

also

[quote name='Knoell']It doesn't matter if the situation is unique, if you ban the mosque from being able to be built for one situation, it sets a precedent, and opens the door for many more cases to be made.

The government has no place in telling anyone where to build something as long as it follows all the codes, and procedures in place, and it does.[/QUOTE]

wtf me and knoell agree on something?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']J7. you are basically using the same argument that people use to try and censor the internet. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLACKLIST SITES BECAUSE THERE IS CHILD PORN OUT THERE! WE HAVE TO GET THESE SITES DOWN! WHAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF?!? WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN?!? THIS WILL ONLY BE USED TO TAKE DOWN CHILD PORN SITES!!!!![/QUOTE]

I am suggesting a policy for something so rare and only for that thing. I also said if it becomes common the law would need to be repealed. Unless law is changed beyond a law I suggest after this mosque is built, it is not going to lead to every religious building being prevented from being built near other tragedies for a temporary amount of time. IF it did, that law and the law about preventing such building from being built near a huge terrorist tragedy in a country with separation of church and state would both need to be repealed.

[quote name='Sporadic']
oops :whistle2:#[/QUOTE]

Secret censorship system vs publicly known law.


[quote name='Sporadic']
Or if you want one at home more on this type of wavelength

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database [/QUOTE]

The PATRIOT Act covers a very broad amount of things and did so from the start.

NSA wsc has to do with issues of privacy.

NSA database "existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006"

I'm typing caps only so this is noticed: BASICALLY THESE LAWS ARE EITHER ALL OR SOME OF THE FOLLOWING: SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM MY PROPOSAL, DEAL WITH ISSUES OF PRIVACY, WERE HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC, COVER FAR MORE EXPANSIVE THINGS IN THEIR ACTUAL WRITE UP.

[quote name='Sporadic']
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation

oops american style :whistle2:#[/QUOTE]

How does abuse of the PATRIOT Act apply to my future proposed law? Do you mean just abuse of law in general? Then apply that to my proposal. How could it be abused when it would be specified that a certain number of people would have to have died, the destruction of property and consequences of that would have to be an incredibly high and established number, the attack would have to have significant effect on the country's ability to carry out it's duties as well as huge effects on it's citizens and one of our largest cities, etc. It could be abused like any law can be abused, it depends on how it was written up. IF it was abused, it would depend on how abused it was, who did it, why, etc and may have to be repealed (just like any law).

You bring up good point, it is the extension of how far your point applies that I question.

I would like to try and be civil about this. In the immediate future I will be not be spending as much time in the VS threads if I can limit my desire to, for personal reasons. If I don't reply right away that is why.

Msut77, if you're following this thread still. While my views have not changed regarding what we argued over. I feel that perhaps it was also wrong of me to point something out about your posts in the way I did. So I will continue to converse with you as long as something like that doesn't occur again. But not until there is a cooling off period. I don't know how long that will be. For now we should just not reply to each other.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']what? i posted that your stance was dumb, gave examples why it was dumb and you responded back twice that you didn't feel like responding (but you did do a big write up of nothing for Msut77)[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between taking 30-40 minutes to respond to debate something you brought up with many articles I have to examine than there is to take 1 minute to let you know I can't respond right now. Where is the big write up for Msut77 after you asked me the question? Furthermore, Msut77 and I were already in the middle of a long and intense discussion, to the point where I did not want to talk with him ever again. I need to finish my discussion with him before addressing you.

[quote name='Sporadic']
if you don't want to post, don't
if something else is going on in your life, i don't care. post whenever you have time or feel better. i'm not on pins and needles waiting for a response. [/QUOTE]

Then don't post this:
[quote name='Sporadic']gj ignoring my post so you could say nothing about the topic at hand[/QUOTE]
2 days after asking me the question when I already said I needed some time:
[quote name='J7.']Sporadic I'll reply to you later, I'm not in a mood to debate right now and can't address your question fully tonight due to time constraints.
.[/QUOTE]
I was trying to let you know I wasn't going to be able to reply right away, but I wasn't ignoring your question. By letting you know I was also trying to say I do want to respond.

What do you want me to do the next time I don't know when I will be able to be in a position where I can adequately answer your question? Are you saying you want me to completely ignore it for what could be days or weeks? That is fine if that's what you'd prefer, but I need to know so I don't rub you the wrong way unintentionally.
 
[quote name='J7.']Msut77, if you're following this thread still. While my views have not changed regarding what we argued over. I feel that perhaps it was also wrong of me to point something out about your posts in the way I did. So I will continue to converse with you as long as something like that doesn't occur again. But not until there is a cooling off period. I don't know how long that will be. For now we should just not reply to each other.[/QUOTE]

From where I am sitting it looks as if you deliberately misconstrued something and ran with it.

You are using the above as an excuse because you know you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

I doubt you are going to give sporadic a much better response, you spend too much time making excuses not to have an actual response.
 
[quote name='Msut77']From where I am sitting it looks as if you deliberately misconstrued something and ran with it.

You are using the above as an excuse because you know you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

I doubt you are going to give sporadic a much better response, you spend too much time making excuses not to have an actual response.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to make amends. This type of response is not helping, imo.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Maybe we will talk again in a few months. Until then imo it's not good for either of us and it ain't going to go anywhere but into negativeness.
 
I have been remarkably cool headed considering the way you acted and most importantly considering you want to take rights way from fellow Americans based on your personal whim.
 
Now, his 8-year-old daughter and 11-year-old son have been banned from attending Bieber performances.

"I informed them, 'Hey guys, guess what? Justin Bieber spoke out for the ground zero mosque," Sullivan explained to Salon in an interview. "My little girl took down his poster and said she didn't want to have nothing to do with him anymore. These are my kids. They're living this thing."
Click to expand...

I feel so bad for these kids.

- edit Ha, I finished reading the article and it was a hoax interview with Beiber that the guy fell for. Well, that makes everything better and hopefully people like that will start losing credibility by the boatloads as they continually make a giant ass out of themselves.

I was able to reach the proprietor of the site, who confirmed that the Bieber item is in fact a hoax. "[T]he fact that some people take it seriously is hilariously depressing," he said in an e-mail.
Click to expand...
 
Best part:

Bieber went on to say that Muslims are “super cool,” Christians are “lame-o-rama,” and that the mosque will help “start a dialogue” with all religions about which Justin Bieber song is the most awesome.
Click to expand...
 
md_horiz.jpg


lol this pic is a gem
 
I don't see why it's such a big deal, but I can understand why it would be.

Why can't they build it somewhere else? Why does it HAVE to be there?
 
[quote name='2DMention']I don't see why it's such a big deal, but I can understand why it would be.

Why can't they build it somewhere else? Why does it HAVE to be there?[/QUOTE]

They can build it elsewhere out of respect for the victims, but they choose not to because they feel that if they chose to build it elsewhere, they would be alienating their own rights, and cooperating with the belief that they and the hijackers are one and the same.

I can see why they resist the call to not build it there, but I can also see why people do not want it built there.

This is why I have stated for the past 30 or so pages that the guy building it has to weigh the decision, the positives and negatives, and make the choice he wants to make. It is his right. People can appeal to his judgement though without being hateful bigots. To have the opinion that there is a better place for this mosque to do its work peacefully is not a hateful, discriminatory opinion.
 
[quote name='Knoell']To have the opinion that there is a better place for this mosque to do its work peacefully is not a hateful, discriminatory opinion.[/QUOTE]

Saying that does not make it so.

The problem is, nobody on the right is making the argument that "there is a better place." Unless you define "there is a better place" as being told "anywhere but here." Which are kind of vague directions to get to the better place, don't you agree?

And that, of course, ignores the idea of "sensitivity." You are allowing some degree of Plessy v Ferguson logic to influence what you think it appropriate and inappropriate. That keeping groups of people separate is okay.

I mean, don't get me wrong - if people like you are halting the appeal to make legal changes to bar this from happening, and instead just moving onto emotional appeals to the founder of the community center, that's fine. Focus on legal avenues. But that shift doesn't suddenly make your request any less bigoted because you're asking the right people semi-politely.

You don't have to burn a cross in their yard to show insensitivity; you can simply refuse to consider them as being deserving to live in a neighborhood that is not "theirs" to be a bigot.
 
[quote name='Knoell']
This is why I have stated for the past 30 or so pages that the guy building it has to weigh the decision, the positives and negatives, and make the choice he wants to make. It is his right. People can appeal to his judgement though without being hateful bigots. To have the opinion that there is a better place for this mosque to do its work peacefully is not a hateful, discriminatory opinion.[/QUOTE]

Uh...you're the one that called the guy "douchy" for wanting to build there. Big difference between that, and saying "the guy building it has to weigh the decision..." blah, blah, blah.

OK, that's all. I'm quietly leaving the thread again, but I didn't want any revisionist history here, trying to make it sound like you're just reporting facts like Tom Brokaw, rather you're reporting "facts" like Sean Hannity.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Uh...you're the one that called the guy "douchy" for wanting to build there. Big difference between that, and saying "the guy building it has to weigh the decision..." blah, blah, blah.

OK, that's all. I'm quietly leaving the thread again, but I didn't want any revisionist history here, trying to make it sound like you're just reporting facts like Tom Brokaw, rather you're reporting "facts" like Sean Hannity.[/QUOTE]
Rumors are the new facts. Didn't you get the memo?
 
[quote name='2DMention']Why can't they build it somewhere else? Why does it HAVE to be there?[/QUOTE]

NYC Real Estate isn't exactly easy to come by...
 
[quote name='nasum']NYC Real Estate isn't exactly easy to come by...[/QUOTE]

Didn't you hear?

There's open lots all over New York City that could be used for this mosque. Why didn't they just pay double the price for a nice swanky place on the Upper East Side? Hell, they could've paid half the price for some dump in Queens.

We should let the families of 9/11 victims pick a spot and force the mosque to be built there. We have to be sensitive to the families in this instance even though the right is never sensitive to anyone that has a net worth under a million.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Uh...you're the one that called the guy "douchy" for wanting to build there. Big difference between that, and saying "the guy building it has to weigh the decision..." blah, blah, blah.

OK, that's all. I'm quietly leaving the thread again, but I didn't want any revisionist history here, trying to make it sound like you're just reporting facts like Tom Brokaw, rather you're reporting "facts" like Sean Hannity.[/QUOTE]

In my opinion he is douchy for picking that spot because it is where it is. I also believe it is his choice if he wants to pursue that spot. Not sure how they are conflicting opinions.

See what happened there? I can criticize someone's action and still leave it up to them to decide.

Of course you wouldn't know because you left, but I am sure you didn't go back and read the part a long time ago when I said it is solely the guys decision.

The rest of you are operating under the assumption that this lot was not picked because of it's significance and was picked because of property availability. Come on now, the guy even says he picked the spot because it was where it is.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Saying that does not make it so.

The problem is, nobody on the right is making the argument that "there is a better place." Unless you define "there is a better place" as being told "anywhere but here." Which are kind of vague directions to get to the better place, don't you agree?

And that, of course, ignores the idea of "sensitivity." You are allowing some degree of Plessy v Ferguson logic to influence what you think it appropriate and inappropriate. That keeping groups of people separate is okay.

I mean, don't get me wrong - if people like you are halting the appeal to make legal changes to bar this from happening, and instead just moving onto emotional appeals to the founder of the community center, that's fine. Focus on legal avenues. But that shift doesn't suddenly make your request any less bigoted because you're asking the right people semi-politely.

You don't have to burn a cross in their yard to show insensitivity; you can simply refuse to consider them as being deserving to live in a neighborhood that is not "theirs" to be a bigot.[/QUOTE]

You still don't get it....Do we have to go through the entire argument that not wanting this mosque in that spot is not bigoted? That mosques are being built all over the country and there is virtually no outcry from us "bigots". More of us "bigots" show up to protest any outcry. That this spot must have SOMETHING to do with 9/11 because it is virtually the only spot in the US that the majority of the country is upset about a mosque being there.
 
[quote name='Knoell']In my opinion he is douchy for picking that spot because it is where it is. I also believe it is his choice if he wants to pursue that spot. Not sure how they are conflicting opinions.

See what happened there? I can criticize someone's action and still leave it up to them to decide.

Of course you wouldn't know because you left, but I am sure you didn't go back and read the part a long time ago when I said it is solely the guys decision.

The rest of you are operating under the assumption that this lot was not picked because of it's significance and was picked because of property availability. Come on now, the guy even says he picked the spot because it was where it is.[/QUOTE]

No, I did read all the posts since my last, thus the reason I had been lurking the last couple days reading more posts in this subscribed thread. No need to rehash our conflicting opinions, I just wanted to point out that you spent weeks basically calling this guy a jerk (douchy) for trying to build a community center that can be used by all, and currently holds prayer services in the existing building this very day. Then your recent post is all political, and about choices, etc, etc. (That's right, it's a "mosque" right now. People are praying congregational prayers in it right now-or at least a month or so ago they were)
 
You still don't get it....Do we have to go through the entire argument that not wanting this mosque in that spot is not bigoted? That mosques are being built all over the country and there is virtually no outcry from us "bigots". More of us "bigots" show up to protest any outcry. That this spot must have SOMETHING to do with 9/11 because it is virtually the only spot in the US that the majority of the country is upset about a mosque being there.
Click to expand...

Explain to me why a group of people should bear guilt and responsibility, and be punished for what a small minority of their most extreme fringe does.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You still don't get it....Do we have to go through the entire argument that not wanting this mosque in that spot is not bigoted? That mosques are being built all over the country and there is virtually no outcry from us "bigots". More of us "bigots" show up to protest any outcry. That this spot must have SOMETHING to do with 9/11 because it is virtually the only spot in the US that the majority of the country is upset about a mosque being there.[/QUOTE]

I flatly reject that your attempt to restrict the free expression of faith in the United States is not rooted in bigotry - no matter how small or limited in scope.

I get what you're saying, I just don't believe it in the slightest. You may have convinced yourself it's logical and not bigoted, but that doesn't mean it's true.
 
The Park 51 cultural center (which is 13 stories, part of one of them will have a prayer room, not a mosque) is based on the model of of a YMCA and will feature a basketball court, swimming pool, cafe and performance space and will be the first of it's kind in New York. The prayer space will be used to replace the existing local prayer room, a leaky, decrepit basement two blocks away.

Here is where bigotry comes in:

Blaming Sufi Muslims for the actions of Sunni Muslims is like blaming Baptists for the Catholic Spanish Inquisition. Not all Muslims are alike.

Where should we draw the NO MUSLIMS ZONE around the World Trade Center site? Should we tear down the prayer room four blocks away? Or is four blocks OK?
 
Is it bigoted to tell these folks they shouldn't build in the "hallowed" spot? Yes

Do the folks behind the proposed mosque have the right to build there? Yes

Is it ignorant/bigoted to not recognize the difference between extremists and regular Muslims? Yes

Is there a large percentage of 'mericans that are scared of anyone wearing a turban? Yes

Could the group behind the ground zero mosque make some headway with these folks if they decided to "in the name of understanding" build it a few blocks away? Yes.

IMO, of course.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Is it bigoted to tell these folks they shouldn't build in the "hallowed" spot? Yes

Do the folks behind the proposed mosque have the right to build there? Yes

Is it ignorant/bigoted to not recognize the difference between extremists and regular Muslims? Yes

Is there a large percentage of 'mericans that are scared of anyone wearing a turban? Yes

Could the group behind the ground zero mosque make some headway with these folks if they decided to "in the name of understanding" build it a few blocks away? Yes.

IMO, of course.[/QUOTE]

Agreed pretty much across the board in terms of your opinion. People are always scared of what they don't understand, this goes back to anything throughout history and will continue to do so. Is it in bad taste to build it, yes, but since we are the great "America" we let people do whatever the hell they want and will continue to let people do whatever the hell they want. This is why people can have gay pride, white supremacist, panther rally, Muslim, and anything else you can come up with marches/rallies wherever they pretty much damn well please unless the Government says no. People get up and arms over this but, lets ignore the entire history of slavery, holocaust, and every other tragedy and focus on the present. If racism isn't even done with you really think we can conquer religious persecution yet?
 
Why would you even want to make "headway" with these people? Why bow down to ugliest side of our country?
 
[quote name='Clak']Why would you even want to make "headway" with these people? Why bow down to ugliest side of our country?[/QUOTE]

because its a big part of the country.
 
So? You want to show the idiots of the country that if they bitch enough they can win? Morons like the guy in the American flag hat? You really want to bow down to that?
 
I don't agree with you doyle. There's no headway to be made and those people were scared of and hated Muslims before the mosque and will after, regardless of where it is built.

The others who don't are just joining some temporary cause for political reasons and will forget about it regardless of where it is built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top