Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Cy Tolliver on October 29, 2010, 07:37:36 PM
-
if the tea party folks are so passionate about our freedom, why are they trying to restrict our freedom to worship as we please? ???
-
if the tea party folks are so passionate about our freedom, why are they trying to restrict our freedom to worship as we please? ???
This has been gone over 1000x. Nobody's arguing their right to build, they're arguing whether it's appropriate or not. Your post is a strawman.
-
if liberals are all about freedom of speech why are the always trying to censor ppl???
::) ::) ::)
-
if the tea party folks are so passionate about our freedom, why are they trying to restrict our freedom to worship as we please? ???
Funny how some people completely don't get what the tea party is about. The tea parties main platform consist of keeping the free-market free, lowering taxes, reducing the size of government, reducing debt and spending, holding all laws passed to constitutional approval, etc. The tea party does not stand on a platform of restricting the practice of religious freedom nor the freedom of worship for any religion.
With that in mind, we know that around 2/3 of the population are opposed to the ground zero mosque, we also know that the tea party does not have the support of 2/3 of the nation. What can we gather from this? Opposition to the mosque goes far beyond the tea party.
-
This has been gone over 1000x. Nobody's arguing their right to build, they're arguing whether it's appropriate or not. Your post is a strawman.
not true guy, people here were arguing that they shouldbnt be allowed to build
-
if liberals are all about freedom of speech why are the always trying to censor ppl???
::) ::) ::)
When are liberals ever for freedom other than abortion or gay marriag?
-
not true guy, people here were arguing that they shouldbnt be allowed to build
You're right, people are arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to build. No one is denying that they have the right to build, everyone admits that, some are simply saying they don't want them to have that right when it comes to building this thing at GZ.
Why is this thing so hard for some to see?
-
I'm looking for the word 'appropriate' in the constitution.
They talk about all sorts of legal stuff... but somehow the Hallmark touchy-feely "appropriateness" clause eludes me.
We should be able to pick and choose which religions are allowed to worship where because of public opinion. Cool.
-
I'm looking for the word 'appropriate' in the constitution.
They talk about all sorts of legal stuff... but somehow the Hallmark touchy-feely "appropriateness" clause eludes me.
We should be able to pick and choose which religions are allowed to worship where because of public opinion. Cool.
::)
I would tell you to shut the fuck up but I have slightly more respect for you than the other space cadets on here.
-
i appreciate it man :)
-
It's not the act of building a mosque, it's that it planned for ground zero.
They have been offered the ability to build in a neighboring area that isn't considered part of "ground zero," and they refused. At that point, it was no longer that they wanted to build a mosque. They only wanted to build a mosque at ground zero.
No one would make much of a fuss about a group simply wanting to erect a monument to Japanese culture, but people would make a fuss about that group wanting to erect that monument only at Pearl Harbor.
You could say the same thing about a monument to Germanic culture at Auschwitz or Birkenau.
There are also many sites devoted to nuclear technology, even historical monuments to nuclear weapons, but you're not going to find a monument celebrating nuclear weaponry at Hiroshima.
I don't understand how people feel they have to take some kind of absolute stance on things and then try to make every scenario either fit with or against those absolutes instead of looking at each situation individually.
-
I'm looking for the word 'appropriate' in the constitution.
They talk about all sorts of legal stuff... but somehow the Hallmark touchy-feely "appropriateness" clause eludes me.
We should be able to pick and choose which religions are allowed to worship where because of public opinion. Cool.
I know you don't like acknowledging this but no one is arguing that they don't have a constitutional right to build it...no one has said it's constitutionally inappropriate.
-
if the tea party folks are so passionate about our freedom, why are they trying to restrict our freedom to worship as we please? ???
The "tea party folks" are not the people upset about the GZ mosque. For example, go read what Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz thinks about this.
And the following is a little puzzling: "why are they trying to restrict our freedom to worship as we please?" Who are "our" and "we"? You referring to the foreign money that is likely funding a substantial portion of this mosque?
-
You're right, people are arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to build. No one is denying that they have the right to build, everyone admits that, some are simply saying they don't want them to have that right when it comes to building this thing at GZ.
Why is this thing so hard for some to see?
You want to ban all religious centers at GZ? ???
-
The "tea party folks" are not the people upset about the GZ mosque. For example, go read what Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz thinks about this.
And the following is a little puzzling: "why are they trying to restrict our freedom to worship as we please?" Who are "our" and "we"? You referring to the foreign money that is likely funding a substantial portion of this mosque?
There are muslims americans you know....
-
You want to ban all religious centers at GZ? ???
The question is why do some people insist upon always twisting everything others say. For example, if I say I don't like apples, your response might be "So you're saying you want to ban all fruit." Can you see how re-re this is?
-
The question is why do some people insist upon always twisting everything others say. For example, if I say I don't like apples, your response might be "So you're saying you want to ban all fruit." Can you see how re-re this is?
That's so far off it's comical....
I just want to understand, I really do.
Won't this open the door to also limiting where Christians, and Jews can worship? Maybe the Muslims in cities in Michigan aren't comfortable with Synagogues in their neighborhood, can the local muslim populations restrict those?
-
There are muslims americans you know....
I see. You were referring to Americans who happen to Muslim, but not the foreigners financing the mosque?
-
There are muslims americans you know....
I am so sick of hearing things like that: there are Muslim Americans, Christian Americans, black Americans, white Americans, Chinese Americans, on and on and on....
How about there are just Americans and there are good things we do and bad things we do, smart things we do and stupid things we do, etc, etc.
-
The question is why do some people insist upon always twisting everything others say. For example, if I say I don't like apples, your response might be "So you're saying you want to ban all fruit." Can you see how re-re this is?
That is so true.
-
That's so far off it's comical....
I just want to understand, I really do.
Won't this open the door to also limiting where Christians, and Jews can worship? Maybe the Muslims in cities in Michigan aren't comfortable with Synagogues in their neighborhood, can the local muslim populations restrict those?
Again, no one is saying they can't build, no one is saying there should be a law to prohibit them from building. But if you are going to do so you must do so within the required limits of the law, you must provide full-disclosure.
If I'm building a structure on land I own, and on the land I am building the church of Hitler, fine, I have that right...distasteful? Absolutely, but I have the right. Now, if to build this church I am receiving funds to build from groups around the world who are Jew killing machines, if I am receiving money from enemies of the U.S. and in-turn supporting them as well, the story then changes...I have then forfeited my liberty to build my church unless I can prove otherwise and if I absolutely refuse disclosure, how does that look?
-
Nothing like rehashing the rehash.
-
Nothing like rehashing the rehash.
lol. Slow news day. :)
-
Again, no one is saying they can't build, no one is saying there should be a law to prohibit them from building. But if you are going to do so you must do so within the required limits of the law, you must provide full-disclosure.
If I'm building a structure on land I own, and on the land I am building the church of Hitler, fine, I have that right...distasteful? Absolutely, but I have the right. Now, if to build this church I am receiving funds to build from groups around the world who are Jew killing machines, if I am receiving money from enemies of the U.S. and in-turn supporting them as well, the story then changes...I have then forfeited my liberty to build my church unless I can prove otherwise and if I absolutely refuse disclosure, how does that look?
fine, i was mistaken.
I was under the impression that people actually wanted to completely ban any mosques from being built at GZ.
I agree completely, they should be made to do it to the full extent of whats required legally, and if they can't comply they should be denied...
-
fine, i was mistaken.
I was under the impression that people actually wanted to completely ban any mosques from being built at GZ.
I agree completely, they should be made to do it to the full extent of whats required legally, and if they can't comply they should be denied... detained
fixed
-
fine, i was mistaken.
I was under the impression that people actually wanted to completely ban any mosques from being built at GZ.
I agree completely, they should be made to do it to the full extent of whats required legally, and if they can't comply they should be denied...
That's pretty much one of the biggest things a lot of people have a problem with. We know they are receiving funds from overseas sources yet they refuse to show who these sources are...and when members of your board have supported radical Sharia, that's a problem.
-
That's pretty much one of the biggest things a lot of people have a problem with. We know they are receiving funds from overseas sources yet they refuse to show who these sources are...and when members of your board have supported radical Sharia, that's a problem.
i guess my biggest problem is that i don't believe in Al Qaeda (not to say I don't understand what a plague radical Islam is).
i'd much rather ban the use of 9/11 as our governments great tool for abusing us.
-
i guess my biggest problem is that i don't believe in Al Qaeda (not to say I don't understand what a plague radical Islam is).
i'd much rather ban the use of 9/11 as our governments great tool for abusing us.
What do you mean you don't believe in Al-Qaeda? I don't get it. You don't believe it exist? That doesn't make sense.
-
What do you mean you don't believe in Al-Qaeda? I don't get it. You don't believe it exist? That doesn't make sense.
I believe there's a terrorist organization called Al-Qaeda, I just don't believe they really wield all the power our politicians would like us to believe.
-
If they are so powerful, why haven't they attacked us?
Our southern boarder is wide open for anyone to enter, it would be super easy to cause mass causalities in stores, parks, movies theaters, etc all over the country with any number of weapons or chemicals.
So why haven't they attacked us?
Why do they conveniently "attempt" to attack only when some political or economic goal (of our government) is at stake.
-
If they are so powerful, why haven't they attacked us?
Our southern boarder is wide open for anyone to enter, it would be super easy to cause mass causalities in stores, parks, movies theaters, etc all over the country with any number of weapons or chemicals.
So why haven't they attacked us?
Why do they conveniently "attempt" to attack only when some political or economic goal (of our government) is at stake.
I don't have an answer for that. The southern border is wide open, you're right. You could drive a fleet of armored cars right across the line and they'd probably waive you in and give you candy in the process.
-
Why do they conveniently "attempt" to attack only when some political or economic goal (of our government) is at stake.
it's funny... every time they attack, it's the ppl in power here who benefit MOST from it.
Bush was asleep at the wheel at 911 (at BEST)... his approval rating skyrocketed, his friends got their wars, he got re-elected, he got to avenge daddy's iraq snafu...
-
it's funny... every time they attack, it's the ppl in power here who benefit MOST from it.
Bush was asleep at the wheel at 911 (at BEST)... his approval rating skyrocketed, his friends got their wars, he got re-elected, he got to avenge daddy's iraq snafu...
that's interesting, when law enforcement investigate a crime don't they look at motive?
???
-
If they are so powerful, why haven't they attacked us?
Our southern boarder is wide open for anyone to enter, it would be super easy to cause mass causalities in stores, parks, movies theaters, etc all over the country with any number of weapons or chemicals.
So why haven't they attacked us?
Why do they conveniently "attempt" to attack only when some political or economic goal (of our government) is at stake.
i think you underestimate the ability and scope of american/allied intel.
if terrorists wanted to sneak in a bomb, it (9 times out of ten) would be foiled before it saw the light of day. Homegrown terrorism, from muslim or anyone else poses a greater threat.
When there is a foiled attack, the media will senationalize the event by spoon feeding us the story to no end. Idiots like you will be rubbed the wrong way, in turn developing a complex that the government is a two faced entity that fabricates these events in order to further its mysterious agenda of a one world government. You do the work for them.
I had the same mentality when i was 16.
my $.02
-
that's interesting, when law enforcement investigate a crime don't they look at motive?
???
What if law enforcement doing the actual investigation is the one who benefits from it/holds the motive?
I mean, imagine a small town sheriff's wife being murdered... and the sheriff gets to investigate and declare it a murder/suicide, and then he gets to enjoy the $1mil life insurance money with his long-time girlfriend.
oh, and his brother, the editor of the local newspaper, writes articles in the paper declaring how brave the sheriff is for "overcoming tragedy with such bravery!"
Then, the sheriff's other brother, the mayor, writes a lot of new laws giving the sheriff more power to crack down on local criminals.
Then, the sheriff's cousin, the town accountant, delivers a 50% increase on the sheriff's budget so he can get new squad cars, pay himself more overtime, etc.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
-
i think you underestimate the ability and scope of american/allied intel.
if terrorists wanted to sneak in a bomb, it (9 times out of ten) would be foiled before it saw the light of day. Homegrown terrorism, from muslim or anyone else poses a greater threat.
When there is a foiled attack, the media will senationalize the event by spoon feeding us the story to no end. Idiots like you will be rubbed the wrong way, in turn developing a complex that the government is a two faced entity that fabricates these events in order to further its mysterious agenda of a one world government. You do the work for them.
I had the same mentality when i was 16.
my $.02
Theoretically, I believe Islamic extremists could be carrying out attacks with zero communication, money transfers, (and what ever else would be picked up by intelligence services).
I mean at the very least they could be shooting places up, I know for a fact they can come here (under the radar), and I know anyone can get a gun here (again under the radar).
-
What if law enforcement doing the actual investigation is the one who benefits from it/holds the motive?
I mean, imagine a small town sheriff's wife being murdered... and the sheriff gets to investigate and declare it a murder/suicide, and then he gets to enjoy the $1mil life insurance money with his long-time girlfriend.
oh, and his brother, the editor of the local newspaper, writes articles in the paper declaring how brave the sheriff is for "overcoming tragedy with such bravery!"
Then, the sheriff's other brother, the mayor, writes a lot of new laws giving the sheriff more power to crack down on local criminals.
Then, the sheriff's cousin, the town accountant, delivers a 50% increase on the sheriff's budget so he can get new squad cars, pay himself more overtime, etc.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Oh damn!
I think we're treading dangerously close to "conspiracy theories board" territory... ;D
-
Guys can we stop talking about this fucking mosque already it's such a non issue. American dosen't even have a real muslim population yet, mexicans are a far greater concern. Muslims are Europes problem.
Terrorism is something altogether different.
-
When you dolts are prepared to support a floating shinto shrine dedicated to the emporer of japan on top of the Arizona in Pearl Harbor, come back and we will discuss thisw is an ounce of common sense.
-
Guys can we stop talking about this fucking mosque already it's such a non issue. American dosen't even have a real muslim population yet, mexicans are a far greater concern. Muslims are Europes problem.
Terrorism is something altogether different.
STFU you dyslexic, loan-shirking, benefit-leeching Canadian retard. What is it with you and googly-eyes sticking your nose into American affairs and then telling us what we should and shouldn't talk about? Nice try, Iranian ASJ_Chaotic.