Ted Olson On Mosque: 'I Think Probably The President Was Right About This'

[blacken700]

[blacken700]

well this post was read 19 times and no one responded so i guess ted olson was right

[Soul Crusher]

well this post was read 19 times and no one responded so i guess ted olson was right

Again dipshit - he has an opinion. 

65% of NY'ers, including myself, Reid, Howard Dean, Rudy, Patterson, et al don't want this abonomination there.  If the pofs imam won't move it voluntarily, it will be dealt with other ways by the locals who won't stand for this crap. 

Whether its McVeigh copycots, union strikes, sit in, etc, this thing is not going up. 

 

[blacken700]

Whether its McVeigh copycots, union strikes



so thats the american way, what a great american you are

[Soul Crusher]

Whether its McVeigh copycots, union strikes



so thats the american way, what a great american you are

You don't piss on peoples' graves without consequence.  Remember that. 

Just because this pofs imam has a techincal, limited, narrow right to build this thing there, does not make it the right thing to do.  Its no different than the Westboro Bapitist people.  When someone kills that whole disgusting clan, no one will care and will probably cheer for what  they do.   

Same with this follower of the pedophile prophet, piss be upon him, he has a right to do this, yes, but when his ass gets capped by some aggreived family member with nothing to lose, don't be surprised at all.   

If this imam was as holy and understanding as he and his devotees like yourself claim, he would not be doing this.  This abomonation is being done for socio/political reasons to stick it to this nation, nothing else. 

     

[240 is Back]

Just because this pofs imam has a techincal, limited, narrow right to build this thing there, does not make it the right thing to do.

You're right completely.

But our world doesn't work on a morally right/wrong scale.

It uses the utilitarian goggles when viewing right and wrong.  Our founding fathers decidedall groups have the right to be hateful assholes, as long as they don't impede on the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of others.

it sucks, but our founding fathers wanted it this way.  They could have said "51% makes every decision on everything - no need for a bill of rights!"  But they didn't do that.  They wanted to make unpopular shit possible, as long as the practicers didn't impede the legal rights of others.

[Fury]

Why the fuck should we care about what Ted Olson has to say? I thought the Bush admin. was the worst ever yet now you're hanging onto this guy's opinion? Oh, what a brutal double standard.

[Dos Equis]

You're right completely.

But our world doesn't work on a morally right/wrong scale.

It uses the utilitarian goggles when viewing right and wrong.  Our founding fathers decidedall groups have the right to be hateful assholes, as long as they don't impede on the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of others.

it sucks, but our founding fathers wanted it this way.  They could have said "51% makes every decision on everything - no need for a bill of rights!"  But they didn't do that.  They wanted to make unpopular shit possible, as long as the practicers didn't impede the legal rights of others.

Absolutely wrong.  We have placed all sorts of limits on our rights.  Our rights our conditional.  That's why you have the "right" to free speech, but "fighting words" are not protected.  That's why you have the right to own a gun and vote, except when you are a convicted felon.  You have the right to life, unless you're sentenced to death after a trial in a death penalty state (or by the feds).  You have the right to the free exercise of religion, except when the government shows a compelling state interest to curtail that right.  

So yes, morality, right and wrong, common sense, etc. are all part of the equation.  

[Soul Crusher]

You're right completely.

But our world doesn't work on a morally right/wrong scale.

It uses the utilitarian goggles when viewing right and wrong.  Our founding fathers decidedall groups have the right to be hateful assholes, as long as they don't impede on the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of others.

it sucks, but our founding fathers wanted it this way.  They could have said "51% makes every decision on everything - no need for a bill of rights!"  But they didn't do that.  They wanted to make unpopular shit possible, as long as the practicers didn't impede the legal rights of others.

I'm not thinking in legal terms, but this eye sore is going to be a cause for dvision and hatred for years to come, and you would think a supposedly holy imam interested in healing and beidge building would understand that at this point and mocve the freaking thing. 

[240 is Back]

You have the right to the free exercise of religion, except when the government shows a compelling state interest to curtail that right. 

Can you share some examples of times when the govt has told religious groups they cannot practice?  What compelling state interests were in play?

[Dos Equis]

Can you share some examples of times when the govt has told religious groups they cannot practice?  What compelling state interests were in play?

I could if I felt like it.    

In any event, neither the government nor the people opposed to building this mosque at GZ have said these people cannot practice their religion.

[Soul Crusher]

Can you share some examples of times when the govt has told religious groups they cannot practice?  What compelling state interests were in play?

No one is telling them they can't practice.  If that were the case they would have shut down the mosque near ground zero is there and not issue them a permit to re-open.


Oh wait 240 . . . . .  that's right . . . . . .  

[240 is Back]

I could if I felt like it.    

Really?

[Fury]

Can you share some examples of times when the govt has told religious groups they cannot practice?  What compelling state interests were in play?

That's some nice spin. The government has denied religious groups requests to build houses of worship in proposed areas before.

[240 is Back]

No one is telling them they can't practice.  

33,

Beach Bum has examples of times when the govt has prevented a religion from practicing but won't share them.  

Youre a lawyer 33, can you share any such examples?

[Soul Crusher]

Really?

240 - just because something is legally right does not make it the right thing to do.  

The mooooslims insisting on this are setting themselves back insisting on this in the eyes of even many libs on this.  65% of NY'er are against this and NY is a very lib area.  

You should not have to dictate decency and common sense in this case, the imam should realize that what he is doing is wrong on many levels and move this thing.  

[Soul Crusher]

33,

Beach Bum has examples of times when the govt has prevented a religion from practicing but won't share them.  

Youre a lawyer 33, can you share any such examples?

I posted them a month ago.  And more importantly, the left is saying this is a community center, not a mosque, so then this has nothing to do with religion right? 

What is it?  Is it a mega mosque or a community center where fairy arabs will swim in burghinis? 

[Dos Equis]

That's some nice spin. The government has denied religious groups requests to build houses of worship in proposed areas before.

Correct.  This is not a free exercise of religion issue. 

[24KT]

You don't piss on peoples' graves without consequence.  Remember that. 
     

How about desecrating those graves with pigs blood as you've stated you intend to do?
Can you do that without consequences?

[Soul Crusher]

How about desecrating those graves with pigs blood as you've stated you intend to do?
Can you do that without consequences?

It is what it is.  I read today that concrete unuion guys plan to mix pigs blood in the cement as well if they insist on placing this disgrace there. 

[24KT]

It is what it is.  I read today that concrete unuion guys plan to mix pigs blood in the cement as well if they insist on placing this disgrace there. 

I thought the union guys were vowing not to work on the site?
How are they going to mix pigs blood into the cement if they don't work there?

[Danny]

Why the fuck should we care about what Ted Olson has to say? I thought the Bush admin. was the worst ever yet now you're hanging onto this guy's opinion? Oh, what a brutal double standard.

Is this enough of a reason for you??
wikipedia
 " Olson's third wife,[7] Barbara Olson, was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the E Ring of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."

[George Whorewell]

OK- so the vast majority of 911 victims family's that don't want the Mosque built are now trumped by Bush Republican Ted Olson because his wife died on 911? Brilliant logic as usual.

You *ucking libs are so stupid that it makes my hair hurt.

[Danny]

OK- so the vast majority of 911 victims family's that don't want the Mosque built are now trumped by Bush Republican Ted Olson because his wife died on 911? Brilliant logic as usual.

You *ucking libs are so stupid that it makes my hair hurt.

No, of course the fact Olson has a different position does not mean he is right and the other families are wrong. I tried to stay away from this subject simply because this is a very sensitive issue and while I would like for the Constitution to be respected I have the utmost respect and sympathy  for people who lost relatives on 9/11 and feel the center should not be built. My response is  simply directed to Berzerek's post where he clearly shows he had no idea why Olson had credibility on this issue, and expressed a valid point of view based on his personal experience related to this tragedy. That's all.

[Fury]

No, of course the fact Olson has a different position does not mean he is right and the other families are wrong. I tried to stay away from this subject simply because this is a very sensitive issue and while I would like for the Constitution to be respected I have the utmost respect and sympathy  for people who lost relatives on 9/11 and feel the center should not be built. My response is  simply directed to Berzerek's post where he clearly shows he had no idea why Olson had credibility on this issue, and expressed a valid point of view based on his personal experience related to this tragedy. That's all.

I knew his wife died. Why does that give him some sort of god-like credibility on the issue? It's one view point. He's in favor of it while there are dozens upon dozens of families of 9/11 victims who are against it. Why should his viewpoint be given more credibility and favor than the other families that are against it? Is it because you think he's special?

I don't see the leftists throwing around the opinions of all the families that have come out against it yet they're focusing on one guy who has come out in favor of it. Just another sad double standard being played here.

Why is Olson credible on this but all the families with victims who are against this mosque are not? Why is the left ignoring their wishes? Enlighten me.