If a mosque opens at Ground Zero on 9/11 next year,Obama can kiss the White House goodbye

[Mark B. Morrow]

This is incorrect. Gun sales by dealers at gun shows are subject to the same regulations - including background checks - as gun sales at shops.

 

Not true. Sellers at gun shows are not required to conduct backround checks. The Virginia Tech killer got his at a gun show as well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0420/On-Columbine-school-shooting-anniversary-focus-on-gun-loophole

 

There is no proof that mandatory background checks would have prevented the Columbine massacre. A background check would not have prevented someone from buying a gun and giving it to someone else, unless the purchaser was in some way forbidden to buy a gun, and there is no proof that this particular purchaser was under that restriction.

 

Maybe, maybe not. The fact that no check was necessary likely made it easier to get a straw purchaser to buy the guns.

 

Except that a branch of Islam does advocate the murder of infidels, and I have yet to see proof that the NRA, or any of its chapters, has advocated that its members commit massacres.

 

Nothing connects the Islamic Community Center to any such sect. Actually, there are several prominent Jews and Christians on the ICC board including the Rabbi who runs the New York JCC (Jewish Community Center) on which the Park 51 center is based. The rabbi and the wife of Imam Rauf were on ABC's This Week. Rauf has been lauded as a moderate voice among Muslims by both The Bush and Obama Administrations.

 

Conversely, Newt has compared the building of this center to Nazis protesting next to the Holocaust Memorial.

 

Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington, Gingrich insisted, speaking of the museum where just a year ago a guard was killed by a white supremacist trying to enter the building with a gun.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41112.html#ixzz0xIuYWJ8y

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=1

 

That was one man who was not part of an organized movement, and he didn't shot those officers in the name of the NRA. Are you going to say that Bin Laden's brand of Islam is not part of an organized movement? Have you paid attention to what has happened in Europe, Africa and Indonesia?

 

Poplawski was active on several anti-Obama and neo-Nazi internet groups, including Stormfront.org, advocating violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

 

"Richard Poplawski's buddy Eddie Perkovic told the press that his friend feared that President Obama would ban guns. Perkovic seemed to think this had some bearing on the crime for which Poplawski stands accused: the shooting deaths of Pittsburgh, PA police officers Eric Kelly, Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo III."

 

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/04/richard_poplawski_accused_pitt.php

 

 

Except that the examples are not comparable, except, apparently, to Mr. Stewart, who obviously needs a lesson in logic and reasoning before he attempts to tackle constitutional law.

 

Stewart plays the tapes. He doesn't hold himself out as a Constitutional scholar. As you keep ignoring, these Muslims building the Community Center had nothing to do with 9/11. Just as no Christian Church had anything to do with Eric Rudolph's murder of abortion providers or the Olympic bombing. Would you oppose the building of a Christian Community Center near the site of one of Rudolph's crimes? Clearly, there are some self professed Christians who believe Rudolph's crimes and the murder of abortion doctors are justified.

 

The comparison of using hurt feelings and claims of insensitivity to prohibit constitutionally protected rights is completely logical. You just disagree with it.

 

You are right about one thing, There are Muslims that support a fundementalist brand of Islam that is hostile to America and the West. The ground zero for these islamists is Saudi Arabia, a Kingdom ruled by a Wahabbist Monarchy that enforces Sharia Law. The No. 2 investor in News Corp and Fox News is Prince Alwaleed, a member of the Royal Family. Stewart made mention of this as well.

 

"Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by Alwaleed's uncle King Abdullah, is, of course, an authoritarian petro-monarchy that actually is governed by Sharia law and is known as one of the top global sponsors of terrorism. A spokesperson for the Saudi embassy in Washington says that while Alwaleed is part of the royal family, he isn't a member of the government, but rather a private citizen."

 

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/crp19D

 

While all the talking heads on Fox go on and on about how No Muslim facility should be built near Ground Zero, they seem oblivious to part of their own ownership being a Saudi and a Muslim. I guess Saudi money is OK as long as American Muslims are kept away from the site although no one seems clear as to how far away would be appropriate is ti 4 blocks, 6, 12?. BTW, The proposed site isn't in the shadow or visable from the WTC site. The Burlington Coat building is two very large New York blocks away.

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/news-corp-the-saudi-prince-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/19593554/

Edited August 23, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[BlackHorse]

 

 

 

 

The United States is very much not a Christian country, and the founders never intended it to be.

 

 

The United States is in fact a predominately Christian country, there is no debate on the issue. To argue against it is to argue against common sense and reality. It's just fact. The founders were in fact Christians themselves. Of the original 13 colonies 9 had official religions but all were sects of Christianity. The founders knew that in order to establish the Republic where all of the colonies and all of the citizens could be a part that it would be wrong for the federal government to establish an official religon, but make no mistake SUV the Founders of this nation were Christian and they fully intended for the populace to be able to keep and pursue their Christian beliefs for generations yet to come. Sorry to burst your athiest bubble but facts are stubborn things.

 

Now as I said, no one is saying that Muslims can't practice their religon here. They are more than welcome to do so. Similarly no one is denying the Hindus and the

Buddhists their religous rights either. But you have to apply some common sense and respect in these matters. Those 19 terrorists on 9 / 11 were in fact Muslim and they carried out what they considered to be a Jihad against the United States. In other words, they killed 3000 people in the name of Islam. Flight recorders on flight 93 picked up the terrorists yelling "God is Great" as the plane plummted to the ground. Regardless of who may or may not attend the proposed Cordoba Mosque and their innocence with respect to 9 /11 it doesn't change the fact that a mass murder in the name of Islam was committed right down the street. It doesn't change the fact that throughout history Muslims have been known to erect Mosques at the site of their victories in battle. How can you not expect many Americans to be offended by this? Most importantly it doesn't change the fact that this Imam Rauf said that the United States deserved what happened on 9 / 11. Yeah, we shouldn't at all be upset about this proposed Mosque. Get a clue man of course people are going to be outraged by this. You try to make it sound like were talking about constructing a McDonalds or something.

 

 

 

By the way, Japan is governed by a Constituion established in 1946 during the American occupation. It has a 480 member house of representatives, a 242 member house of councilors and a Prime Minister. The royal Emporor is not in fact a "ruler" as you have incorrectly stated. Additionally Japanesse Emperors were in fact considered living Gods up until 1946. The Japanesse believed that Emperor Jimmu was a descendent of the sun goddes amaterasu who created Japan. Since all subsequent Emperors were claimed to have direct lineage to Jimmu they also claimed to be living Gods until Hirohito renounced his divinity in 1946.

Edited August 23, 2010 by BlackHorse

[suv_guy_19]

The United States is in fact a predominately Christian country,

 

The fact that most people in a country are Christian doesn't make the country itself Christian. In the words of John Adams:

 

"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

 

he founders were in fact Christians themselves.

 

Some were. Some were atheists or agnostics, and some were deists.

 

Thomas Jefferson:

 

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

 

Thomas Paine:

 

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

 

Sorry to burst your athiest bubble but facts are stubborn things.

 

I've said more than once (many many times) that I believe in a God...perhaps believe isn't the right word, since I consider myself to be a deist.

 

Those 19 terrorists on 9 / 11 were in fact Muslim and they carried out what they considered to be a Jihad against the United States.

 

Yes

 

In other words, they killed 3000 people in the name of Islam.

 

No. It was carried out in the name of some perversion calling itself Islam.

 

Flight recorders on flight 93 picked up the terrorists yelling "God is Great" as the plane plummted to the ground. Regardless of who may or may not attend the proposed Cordoba Mosque and their innocence with respect to 9 /11 it doesn't change the fact that a mass murder in the name of Islam was committed right down the street.

 

What was done down the street doesn't matter, since these Muslims had nothing to do with it. Did you know that Cordoba is now a monument to peace, with a cathedral existing inside of a mosque?

 

Most importantly it doesn't change the fact that this Imam Rauf said that the United States deserved what happened on 9 / 11.

 

That is a perversion of his words. What he actually said, about US policy being partly to blame, isn't far off the mark. The fact that the policy sparked such anger is likely not intentional, but it is partly to blame. That's not the same as saying that the US deserved something.

 

By the way, Japan is governed by a Constituion established in 1946 during the American occupation. It has a 480 member house of representatives, a 242 member house of councilors and a Prime Minister. The royal Emporor is not in fact a "ruler" as you have incorrectly stated.

 

The Japanese Emperor is and probably always will be head of state of Japan. Now, because of the constitution, the powers of the emperor are far less than most other monarchs, but Japan is very much still a monarchy. Constitutional monarchy doesn't work in the way you assume. In most (not Japan, because of the US constitution) power lies with the sovereign, but is exercised by the people's elected representatives. It is done in many European countries....and this country.

Edited August 23, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[BlackHorse]

Alright, I'm not going to get dragged into a internet argument about this SUV. Jefferson was a Episcopalian Diest which means he believed in a divine being and Thomas Paine was a Quaker which, you guessed it, is a sect of Christianity. As for John Adams

 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -- John Adams

 

And I know when you did your little quote search that you must have run across that but you conveniently chose to ignore it which is pretty much your modus operandi.

 

Adams was a Congregationalist; Unitarian, he believed that his views applied not only to Christianity but to all religous views.

 

You can quote a few guys here and there if you want to but the fact is that well over 90% of the founding fathers of this nation were Christians of various sects. Christianity has been by far the predominate religon of this nation for its entire existance and since a country is nothing bot the compilement of its citizens that does in fact make America a Christian nation.

 

The Emperor of Japan is a ceremonial postion at best, he has no power to enact legislation or set policy. He is rather like a British royal Prince in that he has a title and he gets to host some nice state dinners but other than that he has no involvement in the governing of Japan. This again, is not a debateable subject, go look it up. You are simply, once again, wrong. This mosque in NY will not be built out of some notion of peace or reaching out to Christians or Americans on behalf of Islam. It's intent is to glorify the killing of 3000 people on 9 / 11 / 01 and because of that it should be opposed. And frankly you're Canadian so it doesn't apply to you and maybe you should mind your own business and let us Americans handle this ok?

Edited August 23, 2010 by BlackHorse

[Ford Jellymoulds]

In point of fact SUV you are entirely wrong, both in your analogy and with respect to the topic at hand. First of all, yes Japanesse was a religon of sorts. Keep in mind that back in 1941 Japan was ruled by an Emporer. The Emporer was considered a living god and everything in Japanesse society centered around service to the Emporer and the Bushido code. There entire culture was, in essence and in practice, a religon. Sound familiar?

 

Now with respect to this ground zero Mosque. I have personally thus far kept my opinon to myself on it because religon is a very personal issue, at least to me. I happen to be in the camp that thinks it is, at the least, in very bad taste to erect a Mosque so close to ground zero, and at most, an outright intentional insult to this country that is no doubt viewed by Muslims as a Christian country (because it is). I absolutely support the right of Muslims to worship freely here. In fact they are able to worship with greater freedom here in the US than they are in many Muslim countries. Despite what the left wing media will try and tell you, this is not about a bunch of right wing bigots trying to oppress Muslims. By the way many liberals including plenty of elected democrats are opposed to the cordoba mosque as well.

 

Now today the wife of this Imam said that they will meet with all of the stakeholders and discuss the possibility of moving the Mosque to another location. But she also added this.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.c...keholders-meet/

 

Is the muslim community around the nation going to attend this Mosque? No. Do we have to worry about the Christian community around the nation with respect to rebuilding the Chruch that was near ground zero? No. This is whitewash stalling and she made it clear that for now the project will go forward at the proposed site near ground zero. Personally I think that this mosque is not about reaching out to the community. I think this just an "in your face" move on the part of this Imam to the people of America with respect to the attack at the WTC and it should be opposed. Let them build their mosque somewhere else.

 

Great post BlackHorse

Edited August 23, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Whilst our brave troops put their lifes on the line selflessly for us everyday in Afghanistan & Iraq as they get used as target practice or get blown into a thousand bits by a land mine. Obama meantime back home helping to erect mosques on ground zero what ever must our brave troops be thinking?

 

Gotta say l don't know what would have happen if Winston Churchill had started erecting a statue of German God Hitler as an OK cool thing to do in the centre of Luftwaffe London bombings because German Londoners who had not killed any Brits felt oppressed let down because they could not have a statue for the innocent German Londoners that also got killed by the Luftwaffe bombs.

 

John Stewart, SUV GUY & Mark and the rest of the yellow belly clowns like Obama would be kneeing down before the statue of Hitler no doubt, just like they piss on the graves of the 911 non Muslims because the don't care and are totally insensitive. Nobody is saying you cant build a mosque in the USA, you can build it elsewhere l don't have a problem with that at all. Building it is on the door step ground zero is absolutely a provocative troublemaking disgrace, shows no respect at all to Non Muslims that died in the 911 twin towers attack on the USA at all which is absolutely outrageous Obama wants the Non Muslims to have NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM in the USA by pissing on the graves of the Non Muslims who died in the 911 Muslim flown weapons of mass destruction by erecting a mosque on 911s doorstep.

 

Never forget 911

 

Why were Muslims dancing in the streets around the world when 911 happened when two Boeings blasted into the trade centers SUV GUY & Mark? If they had celebrated it on the streets in New York on that very sad 911 day they would have had their fooking heads blown off, they were to spineless to do so and you know that.

 

Mark & SUV Guys new vision of ground zero twin towers Muslim tribute is not mine it is absolutely outrageous and a disgrace sorry but l don't agree with you it could have been built elsewhere and not caused any trouble what so ever but Muslims love troublemaking and are not peaceful loving people, not one little bit.

 

Edited August 23, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[goinbroke2]

Excellent post Blackhorse.

[Len_A]

In point of fact SUV you are entirely wrong, both in your analogy and with respect to the topic at hand. First of all, yes Japanesse was a religon of sorts. Keep in mind that back in 1941 Japan was ruled by an Emporer. The Emporer was considered a living god and everything in Japanesse society centered around service to the Emporer and the Bushido code. There entire culture was, in essence and in practice, a religon. Sound familiar?

 

Now with respect to this ground zero Mosque. I have personally thus far kept my opinon to myself on it because religon is a very personal issue, at least to me. I happen to be in the camp that thinks it is, at the least, in very bad taste to erect a Mosque so close to ground zero, and at most, an outright intentional insult to this country that is no doubt viewed by Muslims as a Christian country (because it is). I absolutely support the right of Muslims to worship freely here. In fact they are able to worship with greater freedom here in the US than they are in many Muslim countries. Despite what the left wing media will try and tell you, this is not about a bunch of right wing bigots trying to oppress Muslims. By the way many liberals including plenty of elected democrats are opposed to the cordoba mosque as well.

 

Now today the wife of this Imam said that they will meet with all of the stakeholders and discuss the possibility of moving the Mosque to another location. But she also added this.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.c...keholders-meet/

 

Is the muslim community around the nation going to attend this Mosque? No. Do we have to worry about the Christian community around the nation with respect to rebuilding the Chruch that was near ground zero? No. This is whitewash stalling and she made it clear that for now the project will go forward at the proposed site near ground zero. Personally I think that this mosque is not about reaching out to the community. I think this just an "in your face" move on the part of this Imam to the people of America with respect to the attack at the WTC and it should be opposed. Let them build their mosque somewhere else.

Excellent post, BlackHorse, and dead-on accurate. +1

[suv_guy_19]

Alright, I'm not going to get dragged into a internet argument about this SUV. Jefferson was a Episcopalian Diest which means he believed in a divine being.

 

You can gloss over the intentions of the founders if you want. Like you've already said, this isn't my country, and if you want to go down the road of setting up free religion zones, go ahead. Just don't be surprised if you don't like where it goes. BTW, deists don't believe in anything, they don't have faith...and you can find many sources that in fact say that the founding fathers were not Christian.

 

Christianity has been by far the predominate religon of this nation for its entire existence and since a country is nothing bot the compilement of its citizens that does in fact make America a Christian nation.

 

You just keep on believing that.

 

The Emperor of Japan is a ceremonial postion at best, he has no power to enact legislation or set policy.

 

Like every constitutional monarch, except that his position is a bit more ceremonial in that he is unable to refuse anything. He is still technically the ruler of Japan, it's just that unlike other monarchs, he isn't a chief executive. Like I said, you don't understand how constitutional monarchy works. I on the other hand, deal with it for hours a day.

 

This mosque in NY will not be built out of some notion of peace or reaching out to Christians or Americans on behalf of Islam. It's intent is to glorify the killing of 3000 people on 9 / 11 / 01 and because of that it should be opposed.

 

Only because you choose to see it that way. You, and so many others, are playing directly into the hands of terrorism. If you're in a war, people like you have already lost. You are abandoning every principle in the name of hurt feelings and some kind of strange safety. Opposing this mosque only causes further strife with the muslim world...and they'll see it as a further example of American interference and intolerance towards them.

 

And frankly you're Canadian so it doesn't apply to you and maybe you should mind your own business and let us Americans handle this ok?

 

Frankly, I don't really care what you or anyone else here thinks...and this is an internet forum, we aren't handling anything.

[grbeck]

Not true. Sellers at gun shows are not required to conduct backround checks. The Virginia Tech killer got his at a gun show as well.

http://www.csmonitor...on-gun-loophole

 

Here's a paragraph from the Christian Science Monitor story:

 

Now, on the 11th anniversary of the Columbine school shooting where Harris and Klebold killed 12 classmates and a teacher and injured 23 others before shooting themselves, gun-control activists are focusing on the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to purchase guns from private sellers without the normal paperwork and background checks. (emphasis added)

 

"Private sellers" are not synonomous with registered gun dealers.

 

Registered gun dealers are required to perform background checks on purchasers, whether they are selling their goods at a shop or at a gun show.

 

Nothing you have posted proves this incorrect.

 

Private sellers do not have to perform background checks whether they sell a gun out of their homes or at gun show. Burdening them with this requirement is impractical. They can sell a gun from their home without a background check, because the law recognizes this as a private sale - it's no different if they sell the gun at a gun show.

 

It's the same with cars - a person does not have to register as an official dealer within Pennsylvania just because he sells a car at one of the Carlisle events, as opposed to selling it on his front lawn. Individuals bring their cars to sell at these events all the time. At that same time, several dealers bring several cars at a time to sell at these events.

 

A person selling one or two cars is still recognized as a private seller.

 

The "gun show loophole" is a myth devised to kill all private sales of guns, plain and simple. Private sellers have always been treated differently from dealers.

 

Maybe, maybe not. The fact that no check was necessary likely made it easier to get a straw purchaser to buy the guns.

 

A background check would not have stopped the sale. I see nothing in the story that says the person who bought the guns was not permitted to make that purchase. A background check would not have prevented him from handing off the guns to someone else. (He could have simply claimed that they were stolen.)

 

Reading the story, it is apparent that the guns were easily traced to back him, so the authorities obviously didn't need a background check to find out that crucial information.

 

This is starting to remind me of the hysteria over the speed limit - every time someone gets plastered, drives a car and has a horrific accident, it proves that...we need to crack down on completely sober people driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone. Never mind that there is no reputable proof that driving 80 mph on a limited access highway is more dangerous than driving 65 mph. Facts and logic never stop the "speed kills" Chicken Littles anymore than it stops the people who get hysterical at the sight of a firearm.

 

Nothing connects the Islamic Community Center to any such sect. Actually, there are several prominent Jews and Christians on the ICC board including the Rabbi who runs the New York JCC (Jewish Community Center) on which the Park 51 center is based. The rabbi and the wife of Imam Rauf were on ABC's This Week. Rauf has been lauded as a moderate voice among Muslims by both The Bush and Obama Administrations.

 

Conversely, Newt has compared the building of this center to Nazis protesting next to the Holocaust Memorial.

 

“Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” Gingrich insisted, speaking of the museum where just a year ago a guard was killed by a white supremacist trying to enter the building with a gun.

http://www.politico....l#ixzz0xIuYWJ8y

 

Please show me where Newt Gingrich was speaking on behalf of the NRA regarding this particular tragedy. For that matter, please show me where the NRA had anything to do with the Columbine Massacre. I'm still waiting for proof of that one.

 

"John Stewart says so" does not constitute sufficient proof regarding that analogy.

 

Poplawski was active on several anti-Obama and neo-Nazi internet groups, including Stormfront.org, advocating violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

 

"Richard Poplawski's buddy Eddie Perkovic told the press that his friend feared that President Obama would ban guns. Perkovic seemed to think this had some bearing on the crime for which Poplawski stands accused: the shooting deaths of Pittsburgh, PA police officers Eric Kelly, Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo III."

 

That still doesn't prove that the NRA had anything to do with the shooting. Please note that Stormfront is not a part of the NRA, nor has it ever been. Meanwhile Bin Laden's brand of Islam has been recognized as a legitimate branch of the religion.

 

The shooting in Pittsburgh was sparked by an argument with his mother after his dog had an accident in the house, and she demanded that he get rid of it.

 

Perhaps, using Mr. Stewart's logic, we should blame this on the American Kennel Club, and demand that it never hold another dog show in Pittsburgh...

 

Stewart plays the tapes. He doesn't hold himself out as a Constitutional scholar. As you keep ignoring, these Muslims building the Community Center had nothing to do with 9/11. Just as no Christian Church had anything to do with Eric Rudolph's murder of abortion providers or the Olympic bombing. Would you oppose the building of a Christian Community Center near the site of one of Rudolph's crimes? Clearly, there are some self professed Christians who believe Rudolph's crimes and the murder of abortion doctors are justified.

 

No, you keep ignoring that the NRA had nothing do to with Columbine, and that Stewart made a bad analogy.

 

You initially referred to the analogy. The rest of us are pointing out that it's a bad analogy.

 

The comparison of using hurt feelings and claims of insensitivity to prohibit constitutionally protected rights is completely logical. You just disagree with it.

 

That's the problem right there. Both of you are relying on hurt feelings and "claims of insensitivity" (as we've seen numerous times, professional race hustlers and feminists can make the latter so broad that burping in the presence of a so-called victim can be proof of insensitivity) instead of facts and knowledge of history.

 

You are right about one thing, There are Muslims that support a fundementalist brand of Islam that is hostile to America and the West. The ground zero for these islamists is Saudi Arabia, a Kingdom ruled by a Wahabbist Monarchy that enforces Sharia Law. The No. 2 investor in News Corp and Fox News is Prince Alwaleed, a member of the Royal Family. Stewart made mention of this as well.

 

You'll get no argument regarding the Saudis from me. I believe that we can't trust them as far as we can throw them.

 

But I'm missing the part where I'm relying on Fox News for any of my arguments. And does Fox News own the NRA?

 

For that matter, is Fox News the only source of opposition to this mosque? Do all of those New Yorkers - several of whom must be Democrats - and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - all of whom have gone on record as opposing the mosque - now take their marching orders from Fox News? That's a new one.

 

Perhaps Mr. Stewart needs to learn the difference between those who report the news and the actual news itself. Given that he has relied on mainstream media, one can understand his belief that all news is tainted by the bias of those who report it.

 

Interestingly, this example only proves that Fox News is apparently not influenced over what it reports by one of its major stakeholders - otherwise, it would be cheerleeding FOR the mosque. So I don't believe that this proves what Mr. Stewart intended.

 

Mr. Stewart is the one who relies on bogeymen - in this particular case, Fox News and the NRA - as a diversion from a discussion over the issues.

 

So we may want to throw that red herring back into the water where it belongs.

Edited August 23, 2010 by grbeck

[goinbroke2]

 

But I'm missing the part where I'm relying on Fox News for any of my arguments. And does Fox News own the NRA?

 

For that matter, is Fox News the only source of opposition to this mosque? Do all of those New Yorkers - several of whom must be Democrats - and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - all of whom have gone on record as opposing the mosque - now take their marching orders from Fox News? That's a new one.

 

What your missing is the fact that no matter what happens, SOMEHOW Fox is related because it is evil.

I thought you realised that the left spew anti fox even when it doesn't have anything to do with it. It's like pavlov's principal

 

Liberal

fox :angry:

lib

fox :angry:

 

 

 

lib...FOX :unsure:

 

:lol:

[napfirst]

I'm at a loss to understand what was so disrespectful. I said nothing against the site and I said nothing in support of the act. This seems to be as much a manufactured controversy as the mosque.

Not surprised that you "are at a loss"....if you can't understand that then any explanation I could offer would probably just add to your "loss"...

[suv_guy_19]

Not surprised that you "are at a loss"....if you can't understand that then any explanation I could offer would probably just add to your "loss"...

 

Let me put it this way - there was nothing disrespectful there. if you take it that way, it's your problem, not mine.

[napfirst]

Let me put it this way - there was nothing disrespectful there. if you take it that way, it's your problem, not mine.

Thanks for not disappointing me...I expected no less......

[Mark B. Morrow]

Whilst our brave troops put their lifes on the line selflessly for us everyday in Afghanistan & Iraq as they get used as target practice or get blown into a thousand bits by a land mine. Obama meantime back home helping to erect mosques on ground zero what ever must our brave troops be thinking?

 

Just who do you think we are protecting in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's right primarily Muslims. Be honest, The Islamic Community Center is not a Mosque and it's not being built on Ground Zero. The center is planned for a vacant Burlington Coat Factory store (a former discount clothing store). I suppose that our troops will be thinking that we really really mean it when our Constitution says we defend freedom of religion.

 

I certainly hope the Muslims we are trying to protect and whose help we need to wrap up the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will believe that the American model of freedom and tolerance of all religions is the way they should model their own society.

 

Gotta say l don't know what would have happen if Winston Churchill had started erecting a statue of German God Hitler as an OK cool thing to do in the centre of Luftwaffe London bombings because German Londoners who had not killed any Brits felt oppressed let down because they could not have a statue for the innocent German Londoners that also got killed by the Luftwaffe bombs.

 

Are you trying to be provocative or are you mentally infirm? This is just an insane comparison. No one is suggesting that we build a statue of Bin Ladin in New York, or anywhere else in America. I would certainly be opposed to doing so and believe that anyone who would build such a statue deserves an asskicking (although they would have the right to do so on their private property). The Islamic Community Center is not a Bin Laden worshiping group. The people involved are moderates who have condemned the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

John Stewart, SUV GUY & Mark and the rest of the yellow belly clowns like Obama would be kneeing down before the statue of Hitler no doubt, just like they piss on the graves of the 911 non Muslims because the don't care and are totally insensitive. Nobody is saying you cant build a mosque in the USA, you can build it elsewhere l don't have a problem with that at all. Building it is on the door step ground zero is absolutely a provocative troublemaking disgrace, shows no respect at all to Non Muslims that died in the 911 twin towers attack on the USA at all which is absolutely outrageous Obama wants the Non Muslims to have NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM in the USA by pissing on the graves of the Non Muslims who died in the 911 Muslim flown weapons of mass destruction by erecting a mosque on 911s doorstep.

 

Some people are saying that you can't build a Mosque in tha USA. Look at the opposition to mosques and comminity centers in places like Temecula, California and Murfreesboro, Tennesee. Since you're not in the USA, let me assure you that neither place is near Ground Zero.

 

The Muslims who committed the 9/11 terror are not representative of all Muslims, and certainly not the Muslims building the community Center. No one is suggesting that non-Muslim victims and their families have NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM. What they or anyone else don't have is the freedom to trample the Constitutional religious and property rights of other law abiding citizens because in their grief, they insist on lumping all Muslims together with the tiny minority who are murderers.

 

So Jelly, how many blocks away should the Center be moved?

Never forget 911

 

Why were Muslims dancing in the streets around the world when 911 happened when two Boeings blasted into the trade centers SUV GUY & Mark? If they had celebrated it on the streets in New York on that very sad 911 day they would have had their fooking heads blown off, they were to spineless to do so and you know that.

 

Some Muslims who hate the USA did dance on 9/11. I certainly remember the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank doing so.Yes, anyone who might have tried to do so here wouldn't have lived long to talk about it. Again, none of the people involved in this center did. On the contrary, they denounced the 9/11 murders.

 

Mark & SUV Guys new vision of ground zero twin towers Muslim tribute is not mine it is absolutely outrageous and a disgrace sorry but l don't agree with you it could have been built elsewhere and not caused any trouble what so ever but Muslims love troublemaking and are not peaceful loving people, not one little bit.

 

So you do think all Muslims are the same. If you think the views of 1.5 Billion people are uniformly supportive of the 9/11 attacks you either don't know many Muslims or you are just a bigot and a moron.

 

I suppose all Brits could be stereotyped by the worst excesses in British history. After all that's just the way they are.

 

[Mark B. Morrow]

Here's a paragraph from the Christian Science Monitor story:

 

Now, on the 11th anniversary of the Columbine school shooting where Harris and Klebold killed 12 classmates and a teacher and injured 23 others before shooting themselves, gun-control activists are focusing on the so-called gun show loophole that allows people to purchase guns from private sellers without the normal paperwork and background checks. (emphasis added)

 

"Private sellers" are not synonomous with registered gun dealers.

 

Registered gun dealers are required to perform background checks on purchasers, whether they are selling their goods at a shop or at a gun show.

 

Nothing you have posted proves this incorrect.

 

Private sellers do not have to perform background checks whether they sell a gun out of their homes or at gun show. Burdening them with this requirement is impractical. They can sell a gun from their home without a background check, because the law recognizes this as a private sale - it's no different if they sell the gun at a gun show.

 

It's the same with cars - a person does not have to register as an official dealer within Pennsylvania just because he sells a car at one of the Carlisle events, as opposed to selling it on his front lawn. Individuals bring their cars to sell at these events all the time. At that same time, several dealers bring several cars at a time to sell at these events.

 

A person selling one or two cars is still recognized as a private seller.

 

The "gun show loophole" is a myth devised to kill all private sales of guns, plain and simple. Private sellers have always been treated differently from dealers.

 

I have no problem with Private sellers having to conform to the law that applies to dealers at gun shows. The loophole merely makes it easy for convicted felons, the mentally ill and others who are by law prohibited from purchasing guns to obtain them. Limit gun show sales to licensed dealers.

 

Cars do not equal guns. Your analogy makes no sense.

 

A background check would not have stopped the sale. I see nothing in the story that says the person who bought the guns was not permitted to make that purchase. A background check would not have prevented him from handing off the guns to someone else. (He could have simply claimed that they were stolen.)

 

Reading the story, it is apparent that the guns were easily traced to back him, so the authorities obviously didn't need a background check to find out that crucial information.

 

This is starting to remind me of the hysteria over the speed limit - every time someone gets plastered, drives a car and has a horrific accident, it proves that...we need to crack down on completely sober people driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone. Never mind that there is no reputable proof that driving 80 mph on a limited access highway is more dangerous than driving 65 mph. Facts and logic never stop the "speed kills" Chicken Littles anymore than it stops the people who get hysterical at the sight of a firearm.

 

I don't disagree with you on the speed laws.

 

Please show me where Newt Gingrich was speaking on behalf of the NRA regarding this particular tragedy. For that matter, please show me where the NRA had anything to do with the Columbine Massacre. I'm still waiting for proof of that one.

 

I never said Gingrich was speaking for the NRA. Why would you even make that connection?

 

I will try one final time to explain the analogy between the anger over building the ICC and the NRA Convention in the "shadow" of Columbine.

 

Lets say that Klebold and Harris did terrible things with guns at Columbine that left the community in shock. What ever their motives, they did not murder their teachers and classmates on behalf of the NRA. Yet in the midst of the pain and suffering caused with guns, a group of Gun Enthusiasts Let's call them the NRA, decide to hold a celebration of their guns and their rights under the Second Amendment. The Convention is perfectly legal. The NRA rents the hotel and auditorium. They are within their rights to do so. The Question was whether they SHOULD do so in the midst of the suffering victims and families. Whether it was insensitive to celebrate guns so close to the Columbine tradgedy.

 

Now lets say that some hijackers did terrible things at the WTC, Pentagon and over Shanksville, PA. that left the entire USA in shock. What ever their motives or beliefs (I'll accept for this argument that they really believed that their actions were sanctioned by Islam) It is certainly not generally accepted that these acts are sanctioned by Islam. Now there is another group, let's call them moderate Muslims. They have specifically denounced the attacks (Much as the NRA denounced the Columbine murders). These Islam enthusiasts want to build a community center to serve their community. It is perfectly legal to do so. They bought the property. They are within their First Amendment rights. The Question was whether they SHOULD do so in the midst of the suffering victims and families (some of whom were Muslims). Whether it was insensitive to celebrate their religion so close to the site of the 9/11 tradgedy.

 

Please show me where these Muslims had anything to do with 9/11. I'm still waiting for proof of that one.

 

 

 

 

"John Stewart says so" does not constitute sufficient proof regarding that analogy.

 

 

 

That still doesn't prove that the NRA had anything to do with the shooting. Please note that Stormfront is not a part of the NRA, nor has it ever been. Meanwhile Bin Laden's brand of Islam has been recognized as a legitimate branch of the religion.

 

Bin Ladin's brand of Islam is not recognized as a legitimate branch of Islam anymore that Nazis are recognized as a legitimate political party. They are a far fringe group. Again. what proof do you have that Imam Rauf and his group have anything to do with Bin Laden? Are you really saying all Muslims are the same?

 

The shooting in Pittsburgh was sparked by an argument with his mother after his dog had an accident in the house, and she demanded that he get rid of it.

 

Perhaps, using Mr. Stewart's logic, we should blame this on the American Kennel Club, and demand that it never hold another dog show in Pittsburgh...

 

That is simply moronic. He has stated in his webposts and his statements that he was afraid Obama was coming to take his guns.

 

No, you keep ignoring that the NRA had nothing do to with Columbine, and that Stewart made a bad analogy.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I never said the NRA had anything to do with Columbine. They didn't.

 

You are ignoring that not all Muslims had anything to do with 9/11 or that Imam Rauf and his community have in any way supported Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. There is no Muslim equivelent of the Pope that dictates what the Koran means with authority. there are many different sects that have varying views. Just as there are many different interpretations of Christian scripture or Jewish law.

 

I'm waiting for you to show that other than being Muslims, there is any connection at all. Unless you are willing to concede that the issue isn't support for the 9/11 attacks it is all about being Muslims.

 

You initially referred to the analogy. The rest of us are pointing out that it's a bad analogy.

 

For the reasons stated above I disagree. I think the analogy is appropriate.

 

That's the problem right there. Both of you are relying on hurt feelings and "claims of insensitivity" (as we've seen numerous times, professional race hustlers and feminists can make the latter so broad that burping in the presence of a so-called victim can be proof of insensitivity) instead of facts and knowledge of history.

 

And now opportunist Republicans and Conservatives and those who just hate Islam can join in on the victimhood too. Insensitivity police for all.

 

You'll get no argument regarding the Saudis from me. I believe that we can't trust them as far as we can throw them.

 

But I'm missing the part where I'm relying on Fox News for any of my arguments. And does Fox News own the NRA?

 

Again, the issue isn't the NRA. it is the hypocrisy of FOX having as its second largest shareholder a member of tha Saudi Royal Family while many of its commentators are ranting about how Muslims should not be accorded their 1st Amendment and property rights within 2 blocks of Ground Zero.

 

Think about the message this sends to the Muslim population when we keep trying to convince them we are not at war with all Muslims, just the terrorists.

 

For that matter, is Fox News the only source of opposition to this mosque? Do all of those New Yorkers - several of whom must be Democrats - and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - all of whom have gone on record as opposing the mosque - now take their marching orders from Fox News? That's a new one.

 

No. I think Reid shamed himself as have several other Democrats. I was disappointed that Obama "clarified" his original statement on the Community Center which was Constitutionally correct and even courageous in the light of the FOX NEWS and talk radio onslaught. I never said FOX and Rush et. al weren't powerful.

 

Perhaps Mr. Stewart needs to learn the difference between those who report the news and the actual news itself. Given that he has relied on mainstream media, one can understand his belief that all news is tainted by the bias of those who report it.

 

Perhaps your view is equally colored by bias.

 

 

Interestingly, this example only proves that Fox News is apparently not influenced over what it reports by one of its major stakeholders - otherwise, it would be cheerleeding FOR the mosque. So I don't believe that this proves what Mr. Stewart intended.

 

I think it proves that money is the only religion at FOX. Precisely the point he was making. When FOX criticizes Liberal media for taking money it ia always follow the money on Glenn Beck's blackboard.

 

Mr. Stewart is the one who relies on bogeymen - in this particular case, Fox News and the NRA - as a diversion from a discussion over the issues.

 

Again, you ignored the part where Stewart said Charlton Heston was right, that Constitutional rights are more important than claims of insensitivity and hurt feelings.

 

So we may want to throw that red herring back into the water where it belongs.

 

There, now I'm finished. you either get it or you don't.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[Mark B. Morrow]

A well reasoned word on this subject from Ron Paul:

 

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

 

"The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque."

 

"Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

 

 

"It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, dont want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free societyprotecting liberty."

 

"The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives aggressive wars."

 

I don't often agree with Ron Paul, but he has a firm and abiding understanding of what our Constitutional rights mean.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[xr7g428]

Mark, you and your kind are so naturally attracted to forcing people to live by your prescribed rules that you have missed the point entirely. No one here is trying to force them not to build. The Muslims have every right to build what ever they chose. No one here has questioned their right to do what ever they want on their own property, within the law. I know that it is your people's inclination to make anything you don't like illegal (regardless of constitutional protection), like say gun ownership, but that is not the point here. We are not saying that it should be made illegal, just that is a bad idea in this location, and would be better done elsewhere.

 

However, we do have every right to protest what they are doing. You can say that burning a cross and wearing white robes and pointy hats is a religious right. We are free to find a different meaning. In the same way that we find KKK rallies offensive in certain contexts, we also find this DISRESPECTFUL to those that died that day.

 

I know that your people have little compassion for victims and much sympathy for criminals so this may be hard to grasp, but those people who died, they can't speak for themselves. They are counting on us. The victims and their families were not mildly inconvenienced by 9/11/01, as the attendees of this mosque might be if another location were chosen. The very fact that the mosque builders are this insensitive, that they have the audacity to ask every one else to bend to accommodate them, tells us much more about their true nature than any whispered statement they might have been made to disclaim the actions of their brothers on 9/11.

 

You may be happy with the disclaimers made by some Muslim groups, but every statement I have ever heard always includes some form of equivocation or justification that points the finger of blame right back at the US. I have yet to read hear or see any out-right, compete, and unreserved, denunciation of the events of 9/11 by any credibly authoritative Muslim group. We are still waiting. It is not our obligation to prove that every Muslim is the same, it is their obligation to make it crystal clear to all of us that they are different. Building this mosque certainly doesn't send that message. I guess we just don't have an example, of how some other religious group would handle this, as they just don't seem to have the same flair for mass murder that we have seen time after time from the so called "religion of peace". I fully expect that this mosque will become a shine to the "19 martyrs" of 9/11. And a grand shrine it will be for $100 million.

 

So if you are worried about their constitutional rights to be offensive, no worries. I can only imagine the bill board that will go up across the street.

[RangerM]

I don't often agree with Ron Paul, but he has a firm and abiding understanding of what our Constitutional rights mean.

The Imam has a Constitutional right to build whatever he wants, under his religious and property rights, so long as he abides by local laws.

 

Others have Constitutional rights to protest the location of said mosque.

 

If the "others" have no ability to stop the construction, then why deride them?

[Mark B. Morrow]

Mark, you and your kind are so naturally attracted to forcing people to live by your prescribed rules that you have missed the point entirely. No one here is trying to force them not to build. The Muslims have every right to build what ever they chose. No one here has questioned their right to do what ever they want on their own property, within the law. I know that it is your people's inclination to make anything you don't like illegal (regardless of constitutional protection), like say gun ownership, but that is not the point here. We are not saying that it should be made illegal, just that is a bad idea in this location, and would be better done elsewhere.

 

You know nothing about me or "my kind" . I have no desire to force people to live by my rules or to proscribe anyone's right to peacefully protest. That includes speech I personally find offensive like Nazis and the KKK. If you want freedom you have to accept the freedom of others.

 

A church in Gainsville Florida plans a Koran burning on September 11. They have the right to do so just as people have the right to burn the American Flag. I find both to be disrespectful and stupid, but I defend the rights of others to protest peacefully as they wish. You have the right to be an ass. You do not have the right to go through life unoffended.

 

It is many of the Conservatives who want to enforce their rules on others like the gay marriage debate. When politicians on both sides, demagogue the issues and use then as a wedge for their own cynical purposes, I do object. When Gingrich compares the building of this center to Nazis placing signs on the Holocaust Memorial he goes way too far. Some of these people are calling for the use of the law to ban the building of this community center as well as Mosques and centers in other places around the country.

 

I have never had any objection to gun ownership so long as it is legal. I do support reasonable protections on gun availability. Once you agree that certain people should not have access to guns i.e. criminals and the mentally ill, you need to have some restrictions on their access to guns.

 

However, we do have every right to protest what they are doing. You can say that burning a cross and wearing white robes and pointy hats is a religious right. We are free to find a different meaning. In the same way that we find KKK rallies offensive in certain contexts, we also find this DISRESPECTFUL to those that died that day.

 

You have the right to be bigoted, to hate Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Whites, Conservatives and Liberals. You have the right to protest and to make your views known. Others have the right to question your motives and challenge your assumptions. We have the right to ask you if all Muslims are terrorists?

 

If you agree that the Imam has the legal right to build at Park 51 and you have no right to legally prevent the building then what is your next move? Is it accepting that in America we have to respect the rights of others we don't agree with? Is it an attempt to change laws? Where to you go from here if your protest is unsuccessful?

 

I know that your people have little compassion for victims and much sympathy for criminals so this may be hard to grasp, but those people who died, they can't speak for themselves. They are counting on us. The victims and their families were not mildly inconvenienced by 9/11/01, as the attendees of this mosque might be if another location were chosen. The very fact that the mosque builders are this insensitive, that they have the audacity to ask every one else to bend to accommodate them, tells us much more about their true nature than any whispered statement they might have been made to disclaim the actions of their brothers on 9/11.

 

Again, you insist on telling me what I believe. You are again wrong. I have great compassion for the victims and I have no sympathy for the criminals. I have never suggested that some of the families of those murdered on 9/11 have no right to oppose this building or to have ill will towards Muslims in general. Not all the survivors and families agree and not all of them oppose the building. My compassion does not extend to giving up Constitutional rights to make people feel better. The Rights are too important to be put to a vote. Don't bend to accomodate any group. Obey the Constitution.

 

So you believe they are insensitive. Do you want to have each of your views and actions examined to see if you are insensitive to others?

 

Why is it that

 

You may be happy with the disclaimers made by some Muslim groups, but every statement I have ever heard always includes some form of equivocation or justification that points the finger of blame right back at the US. I have yet to read hear or see any out-right, compete, and unreserved, denunciation of the events of 9/11 by any credibly authoritative Muslim group. We are still waiting. It is not our obligation to prove that every Muslim is the same, it is their obligation to make it crystal clear to all of us that they are different. Building this mosque certainly doesn't send that message. I guess we just don't have an example, of how some other religious group would handle this, as they just don't seem to have the same flair for mass murder that we have seen time after time from the so called "religion of peace". I fully expect that this mosque will become a shine to the "19 martyrs" of 9/11. And a grand shrine it will be for $100 million.

 

I am looking at the statements made by Imam Rauf and this group.Do some research. He was active in the Bush Administration's Muslim outreach to moderates, as a means of combating the militants. He did denounce the 9/11 attacks as a perversion of Islam. Has US policy contributed to the rise of violent Islamist groups? Undoubtedly. We have supported unpopular and vicious dictators in the Muslim world. Many Conservatives including Glenn Beck have made this same point. Do you remember the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Husein? We funded and supported Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan when it suited our purposes in thwarting the Russians and Iraq against Iran.

 

 

Your argument about Muslims proving their loyalty smacks of the Japanses internment during WWII, one of the most shameful acts in American history. So I guess guilt by association until proven innocent works for you. It doesn't work for me.

 

Yeah the history of Christianity and Judiasm is totally free from any acts of mass murder. Ever heard of the Inquisition? Crusades? Bombings of civilians in Northern Ireland? Conquests of the Jews in the Old Testament? The Irgun in the fight for Israel? Civilians killed in Lebanon?

 

The perversion of Islam by Bin Ladin and the terrorists is not the view of the majority. It is a tiny minority. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church does not represent all Christians.

 

So if you are worried about their constitutional rights to be offensive, no worries. I can only imagine the bill board that will go up across the street.

 

That's fine by me. Billboards may be offensive but they are peaceful and Constitutionally protected.In the end you are either for the Constitution or you're against it.

 

 

So tell me XR7G428, How many blocks away does the Islamic Community Center need to be ?

[grbeck]

I have no problem with Private sellers having to conform to the law that applies to dealers at gun shows. The loophole merely makes it easy for convicted felons, the mentally ill and others who are by law prohibited from purchasing guns to obtain them. Limit gun show sales to licensed dealers.

 

All that you will do is encourage private sellers to sell their gun from their homes - which is much easier in the age of the internet, and is impossible to ban. That will not make tracing guns any easier, if this is the real goal. (I wouldn't be surprised if gun show attendance is declining because of the internet. I've noticed that the internet has had an impact on the Carlisle events, which are slowly shifting in emphasis from flea markets and car corrals to car shows. You can't hold a car show on the internet.)

 

Nor will you discourage gun shows - which is the real intent on those who fabricate the myth of the gun show loophole. (As I've said, the internet is probably doing a better job of causing a decline in attendance at both gun and car swap meets.)

 

Registered dealers have always been required to perform background checks, regardless of where the gun is sold. The hysteria over the so-called "gun show loophole" never made the distinction between private sellers and dealers - which was the intent. The real goal was to demonize gun shows and those who attend them (both as buyers and sellers).

 

Cars do not equal guns. Your analogy makes no sense.

 

The analogy refers to the status of the party selling the particular item, not the item itself. Gun shows, just like car shows, draw both registered dealers (in Pennsylvania, car dealers must register with the Department of State) and private parties selling their cars. The law treats them differently in regards to registration requirements (regarding their status) and, in some cases, taxes.

 

The fact that a peson is selling his or her car at a Carlisle event instead of on the front lawn does not change his or her status as a private seller. It's no different for private sellers at gun shows.

 

I will try one final time to explain the analogy between the anger over building the ICC and the NRA Convention in the "shadow" of Columbine.

 

Lets say that Klebold and Harris did terrible things with guns at Columbine that left the community in shock. What ever their motives, they did not murder their teachers and classmates on behalf of the NRA. Yet in the midst of the pain and suffering caused with guns, a group of Gun Enthusiasts Let's call them the NRA, decide to hold a celebration of their guns and their rights under the Second Amendment. The Convention is perfectly legal. The NRA rents the hotel and auditorium. They are within their rights to do so. The Question was whether they SHOULD do so in the midst of the suffering victims and families. Whether it was insensitive to celebrate guns so close to the Columbine tradgedy.

 

Now lets say that some hijackers did terrible things at the WTC, Pentagon and over Shanksville, PA. that left the entire USA in shock. What ever their motives or beliefs (I'll accept for this argument that they really believed that their actions were sanctioned by Islam) It is certainly not generally accepted that these acts are sanctioned by Islam. Now there is another group, let's call them moderate Muslims. They have specifically denounced the attacks (Much as the NRA denounced the Columbine murders). These Islam enthusiasts want to build a community center to serve their community. It is perfectly legal to do so. They bought the property. They are within their First Amendment rights. The Question was whether they SHOULD do so in the midst of the suffering victims and families (some of whom were Muslims). Whether it was insensitive to celebrate their religion so close to the site of the 9/11 tradgedy.

 

You run off the rails when you claim that the suffering at Columbine was "caused with guns." You betray your biases right there.

 

The suffering was caused by two enraged high schoolers who, for whatever reason, hated their high school and virtually everyone - students, teachers, administrators - associated with it. They weren't motivated by gun rights, they were motivated by an inner rage that even today people have trouble understanding. Don't blame the guns - blame the person who used it, and his motivations.

 

The appropriate analogy to 9/11 would be to say that the suffering on 9/11 was caused with jet airliners, and therefore demonize Boeing.

 

As I've said before, - let's compare apples to apples, please.

 

You need to stop focusing on the wrong thing. This is why Stewart's analogy quickly fails.

 

The original plan at Columbine, by the way, was to blow up the school with propane canisters. Klebold and Harris planned to kill thousands that day with pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, and bombs they had built using propane canisters. If the bombs planted in the school cafeteria had gone off as planned, the death toll would have numbered in the hundreds. (They fired into the propane canister in the high school cafeteria, but, fortunately, it failed to detonate.)

 

Klebold and Harris had even rigged their cars with bombs and parked them where they thought that fire and rescue vehicles would park. Fortunately, they couldn't build a timer that worked, so the car bombs never detonated.

 

If that plan had succeeded, should we have restricted any conventions held by the American Propane Association? Because then the suffering would have been caused with propane canisters. Based on "Jon Stewart logic" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), we should.

 

That is simply moronic. He has stated in his webposts and his statements that he was afraid Obama was coming to take his guns.

 

Which are irrelevant to this particular crime.

 

The entire tragedy was caused after he had an argument with his mother over an accident his dog had in the house. She called the police to have him removed from the house. He may have ranted over the internet about a variety of things, but he never did anything until this particular argument with his mother.

 

He didn't believe that the police were coming to take his guns. Nor did he believe that President Obama had anything to do with it.

 

The local police were coming to evict him from his mother's house because of a serious argument he had with her regarding a dog. He was a legal adult, so she was within her rights to have him evicted. He was well aware of that.

 

Sorry, but blaming this on internet posting, or attempting to attributte this crime to his postings, is as moronic as blaming the dog. I just called you out on it, using "Jon Stewart logic."

 

You are ignoring that not all Muslims had anything to do with 9/11 or that Imam Rauf and his community have in any way supported Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. There is no Muslim equivelent of the Pope that dictates what the Koran means with authority. there are many different sects that have varying views. Just as there are many different interpretations of Christian scripture or Jewish law.

 

I'm waiting for you to show that other than being Muslims, there is any connection at all. Unless you are willing to concede that the issue isn't support for the 9/11 attacks it is all about being Muslims.

 

Except that the developer of this particular mosque is hardly a moderate. Here is some information on him.

 

Our first problem is that many radical Muslims practic taqiyya - which advocates the use of deceptive speech and action to advance the interests of Islam. You must look therefore look at what they do, and at their associates.

 

Second, one of the close associates of the mosque's builder - Feisal Abdul Rauf - is Karen Armstrong, a former nun who converted to Islam and advocates for the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a terrorist organization, plain and simple.

 

Rauf has organized several events under the banner of Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow includes radicals like Yasir Qadhi, a favorite speaker at conferences of the Muslim Brotherhoods Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

 

So, Mark, if those moderate Muslims want to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, let them. Only problem is, I don't see any - more like a radical who is very adept at practicing taqiyya.

 

The problem is that some of us can see a wolf in sheep's clothing, and all of the lecturing about tolerance and attempts to obsfucate the issue with Columbine and the NRA convention don't change that fact. My suggestion to you is to learn more about Islam than what Jon Stewart says - in particular, learn how to look at what people DO and whom they associate with, as opposed to what they say.

 

For the reasons stated above I disagree. I think the analogy is appropriate.

 

That's an argument for spending less time watching Jon Stewart.

Edited August 24, 2010 by grbeck

[grbeck]

And now opportunist Republicans and Conservatives and those who just hate Islam can join in on the victimhood too. Insensitivity police for all.

 

For the third time, most New York City residents are Democrats, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has gone on record opposing the construction of the mosque there. (President Obama has been all over the place.)

 

You need to face reality and stop pretending that only Fox News and Republicans oppose the construction of this mosque. Unless Senator Harry Reid is now a Republican.

 

Again, the issue isn't the NRA. it is the hypocrisy of FOX having as its second largest shareholder a member of tha Saudi Royal Family while many of its commentators are ranting about how Muslims should not be accorded their 1st Amendment and property rights within 2 blocks of Ground Zero.

 

And if they had towed the Saudi line, you'd be complaining about Saudi money influencing the viewpoint of Fox News. Let's be real here - you don't like Fox News, and nothing it can do would ever make you or Jon Stewart happy, and bashing Fox News is often a convenient substitute for a discussion of the actual issues among many liberals.

 

Be honest, admit it, and move on. The "Saudi ownership" is a red herring. It has nothing to do with this debate, except to show that Fox News is apparently not influenced by its owners, which is supposed to be a good thing.

 

It's like a Toyota lover nitpicking a new Ford. For some people, nothing Ford can do is good enough, even if it built a car that ran on cow manure, could survive an 80-mph collision, looked like a 1961 Continental and out-performed a Ferrari.

 

Incidentally, the last time I checked, the Saudi royal family is free to sell its holdings in Fox News if it is unhappy about what the network reports. If anyone should be worried about this, it is the Saudi royal family. It is not especially relevant to the discussion, if for no other reason that it really doesn't help your arguments.

 

Think about the message this sends to the Muslim population when we keep trying to convince them we are not at war with all Muslims, just the terrorists.

 

That owing a substantial stake in a major news outlet won't necessarily let you influence what it reports? I'm not sure that this is a bad message to convey...if anything, it is one that lots of people - Muslim and otherwise - need to hear.

 

No. I think Reid shamed himself as have several other Democrats. I was disappointed that Obama "clarified" his original statement on the Community Center which was Constitutionally correct and even courageous in the light of the FOX NEWS and talk radio onslaught. I never said FOX and Rush et. al weren't powerful.

 

Ultimately, it's a local issue, and President Obama would be smart to remember that.

 

(Please remember that I posted back on this thread a few days ago that he will most certainly NOT lose the election over this issue. Most of us recognize that this is ultimately a local issue.)

 

We can certainly weigh in on it - what really upsets people is that someone has a view different from theirs - but New Yorkers will ultimately decide this issue.

 

I think it proves that money is the only religion at FOX. Precisely the point he was making. When FOX criticizes Liberal media for taking money it ia always follow the money on Glenn Beck's blackboard.

 

I hate to break it to you, but liberals are motivated as much by money as anyone else is. If you believe otherwise, you just fell off the turnip truck.

 

For example, is Jon Stewart working for $250,000 a year because it would be shameful to make any more? (Remember, Obama wants to raise taxes on incomes above that level, so apparently that is "enough" for everyone. Or will he pull a Geithner, and simply not pay those taxes - which would apparently qualify him for a position in the Obama Administration.)

 

Does Mr. Stewart skip raises or never demand them in his contract when it comes up for renewal?

 

What is the party affiliation and ideology of Charles Rangel?

 

How much did Chelsea Clinton's wedding cost?

 

For that matter, why was her father-in-law sent to jail a few years ago?

 

The simple fact is that liberals are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to money and financial matters. (With conservatives, the hypocrisy centers more on sex - we expect them to go for as much money as possible.) They love money - and the things it buys - as much as any conservative Republican. They may like DIFFERENT THINGS - a BMW 5-Series instead of a tricked-out F-250, luxury vacations instead of a giant flat-screen television - but they still like money and the things it buys.

 

(The First Lady sure isn't slumming it lately.)

 

Actually, more so in some cases.

 

If I were you, I would definitely not go there. If Glen Beck is saying that liberals love money, and excoriates them for hypocrisy on this issue - I don't watch him, so I don't know - he is 100 pecent correct in this case. Just say that a stopped clock is right twice a day, enjoy whatever luxuries you can afford, and move on...

Edited August 24, 2010 by grbeck

[RangerM]

For the third time, most New York City residents are Democrats, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has gone on record opposing the construction of the mosque there. (President Obama has been all over the place.)

 

So has Howard Dean, who I'd call the King of Liberals.

 

Former Democratic Presidential Candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is defending his comments on the so-called "ground zero mosque," which he has called "a real affront to people who lost their lives."

[rn4]

You can not just sell a gun over the internet, you still have to ship it to a dealer with an FFL. A car is not the same as a gun, cars have to have a title, which means it likely isn't stolen, same can't be said for guns.

[xr7g428]

You have the right to be an ass.

This is your party symbol right?

 

Many of the Conservatives who want to enforce their rules on others like the gay marriage debate

 

Now who wants to change the rules? This is a perfect example of you and your people wishing to mandate the behavior of others. I support civil unions but not marriage, as marriage is both a civil and religious matter, and for many the religious aspect out weighs the civil. The truth of the issue is that many want to force churches to accept same sex marriages. And please don't tell us that this won't be the case. Look at what has happened in the cases of religious groups and adoption, family planning, and abortion counseling.

 

Why is that you say one thing:

I have never had any objection to gun ownership

and then in the next breath you buy it all back:

I do support reasonable protections on gun availability.

 

And again....

 

I have never suggested that some of the families of those murdered on 9/11 have no right to oppose this building or to have ill will towards Muslims in general.

 

When you really mean:

Don't bend to accommodate any group.

 

I got a laugh out of this line... From the people who brought you political correctness! LOL!

 

Do you want to have each of your views and actions examined to see if you are insensitive to others?

 

For years now we have been conditioned to listen to idiocy and let it pass because speaking out was not politically correct. The "less is more" message is a lie, less is just less. The "high self esteem" movement has succeeded in making losers feel like winners, but in the end we needed the winners, not happy losers. Your people have so damaged the fabric of the country that our children will probably be the first generation to see a declining standard of living. The kind of gross stupidity that would not allow skimmers in the gulf because the water they return ed to the gulf wouldn't pass for tap water, is a perfect example of why the people are fed up with Washington. No longer should you expect us to suffer fools gladly.

 

 

You can't even categorically say that the murder of 3000 was wrong. Instead you become an apologist for the attackers, offering your soft justification of their acts. Can you not grasp that some things are just wrong, and never justified?

 

Has US policy contributed to the rise of violent Islamist groups? Undoubtedly. We have supported unpopular and vicious dictators in the Muslim world.

 

 

Guess not... How the guilt must rend at your soul, knowing that the US is the source of all evil in the world.