* Login   * Register
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:42 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Honest Question
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:01 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm
Posts: 35483
No rhetoric. No talking points.

Why do you oppose this mosque two blocks from the WTC (or as others would put it: violate the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights)?


Because I don't get it. This is not about flame wars anymore. Fights are breaking out in the streets. If you must know, I was standing there with Muslim airman (American and Saudi) dealing with Bin Laden before most of you had any idea such a person existed or that "terrorism" could affect you so badly. When people talk trash about the people who helped to defend their lives, I tend to take issue but not here. No fights. No flame war. I just don't get it.

Most of you are veterans. You know better. If you are my age you know the men with whom you served and the honor with which they stood by your side. Now we have punk kids starting fights for what? A word? Muslims? Mosque? They don't even know what that means.


I don't want to fight over this anymore. I just want to understand why you would impel these guys into this bullshit. I don't mean you clowns who were not there. The people to whom I address know exactly who they are.

Why does this have to turn into a fight? No flame war on the internet will rage without fists and boots landing on human bodies in the streets. We all know this. So why do it? Should I turn my back on the Muslims who served with me? Should I betray them? What is the alternative here?

I am too old for this shit. Now there are moms wondering what the hell happened to their dumbass kids. But I could have been one of those kids so many years ago. It takes almost NOTHING to push them into this fight. Why do that?

Everybody in this nation has a right to build any religious structure they want practically anywhere. If there are Christian churches in a zone, then there is not a single Constitutional ground to deny a mosque and everybody here knows that without any reasonable doubt. So why push kids into fights all over this country? Why push people into violent protests?

Do you really want war? Do you want civil war? Do you miss the Cold War? Because truth be told, that never changed. You can change a name and it means jack shit and all of you should know better.

So why? Honestly, why do you push kids into this?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:33 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm
Posts: 35483
I will even make it easy.

Which of you gave your solemn oath to this:

Quote:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.




Quote:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)




If you EVER gave your word, the name of your fathers, to one of those oaths, then please tell me how you can oppose the Constitution now? All I can see right now are people who oppose the Constitution and people who gave an oath to uphold it pushing them into the fray.

No 9-11 Mosque, no Bill of Rights. Lose the Bill of Rights, and lose it all. It's that simple. This is not a gray issue. You get to choose whether you have the balls to stand for that which our fathers fought like lions or to act like wolves and pack-up with the clan that we think best serves our personal interests.

Right now.. I think there are more veterans on the side of the Constitution than otherwise. I think this battle is lost for those who would oppose it. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I will even die defending it. But I will die like a man with honor upholding the honor of my forebears.

You can forget the "sacred ground" bullshit rhetoric. It's your Bill of Rights or No Bill of Rights. Choose.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:52 am 
Online
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:53 am
Posts: 4035
For my part it is an issue of sensitivity, Islam has a nasty little habit of planting Mosque in certain locations to signify a military victory. Sure they have a right but should they? If the place where George Tiller was shot was proposed to become a pro-life center I think you would change your tune. You know what really gets me is after nine years we still have a seven story hole in the ground, we hate each other and ourselves so much we can't even decide on a memorial or if there should be one at all. Everyone talks about how slow the rebuilding of New Orleans and other Gulf states is after Katrina, but this is ok? Another thing there was a Greek Orthodox church close to the World Trade Center that was heavily damaged by the attack. They can't rebuild after how much bureaucratic wrangling but these people will clear the way to make a political statement. These people wanted this argument well they got it. As for you you should consider yourself lucky. Chicago as I understand it was having a problem with very violent youth killing innocent people caught up in a turf war. These youth now seem higher minded and less violent a marked improvement.

_________________
"I try to be creative and have some quips, with a unique viewpoint, especially among denizens of this board. That makes me Ryan Leif. But someone who spews the typical mainstream media viewpoint pablum which anyone could get from 75% of the rest of the board with the wit of a Superbowl ad from the 80's, is Peyton Manning. The double standard is alive and strong."
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:00 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm
Posts: 35483
clubgop wrote:
For my part it is an issue of sensitivity, Islam has a nasty little habit of planting Mosque in certain locations to signify a military victory. Sure they have a right but should they? If the place where George Tiller was shot was proposed to become a pro-life center I think you would change your tune. You know what really gets me is after nine years we still have a seven story hole in the ground, we hate each other and ourselves so much we can't even decide on a memorial or if there should be one at all. Everyone talks about how slow the rebuilding of New Orleans and other Gulf states is after Katrina, but this is ok? Another thing there was a Greek Orthodox church close to the World Trade Center that was heavily damaged by the attack. They can't rebuild after how much bureaucratic wrangling but these people will clear the way to make a political statement. These people wanted this argument well they got it. As for you you should consider yourself lucky. Chicago as I understand it was having a problem with very violent youth killing innocent people caught up in a turf war. These youth now seem higher minded and less violent a marked improvement.



Okay.. I understand the "should they?" issue. But the question is "can they?" and the answer is yes. To renege on that liberty, that solemn social contract, is to trash the entire Bill of Rights and our Constitution with it.

If the Muslims want to build a Mosque right next door to the WTC, then there is nothing we can do for to deny them that right is to shove a sword straight into the heart of what it means to be America.

I never heard about the Greek Orthodox Church. That is absolute bullshit. Please provide me the link and I will give them what little I can. Muslims take care of Muslims. I will take care of Orthodox Christians. It is the way of the world since.. well since before the Roman Empire fell.

New Orleans was designed to depopulate the city of blacks just as every other tidal surge has served in the past. I am southern. I have deep southern roots. It is no mystery to me what happens when the tidal surge washes out the black in New Orleans. They go to Chicago, Atlanta, or New York. This is the Black American experience.


Chicago is a battleground. The issues here are too difficult to discuss on a national level. There are some national level aspects affecting this but it mostly has to do with local politics, local crime, and the Chicago Outfit's unwillingness to use their power to reduce the obvious violence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:23 am 
Online
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:53 am
Posts: 4035
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... als-forgot

About the Church.

Quote:
But the question is "can they?"


No it is not I have not heard a single person say anything of the sort. This a straw man. Your fancy rhetoric doesn't change that.

_________________
"I try to be creative and have some quips, with a unique viewpoint, especially among denizens of this board. That makes me Ryan Leif. But someone who spews the typical mainstream media viewpoint pablum which anyone could get from 75% of the rest of the board with the wit of a Superbowl ad from the 80's, is Peyton Manning. The double standard is alive and strong."
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:36 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm
Posts: 35483
clubgop wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/ground-zero-church-archdiocese-says-officials-forgot

About the Church.

Quote:
But the question is "can they?"


No it is not I have not heard a single person say anything of the sort. This a straw man. Your fancy rhetoric doesn't change that.


I am eight or nine beers in the hole with bruised knuckles. I don't know what fancy rhetoric I can use right now. I am not civy drunk but enough.

You ask "can they?" and I have to reply:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Now you say there exists a Greek Orthodox church just next door. I truly want to find a way to help that church if it exists. They are not Roman Catholic but they are Orthodox and therefore my responsibility as well. However, if that Greek Orthodox church exists closer to the WTC than this mosque, there exists no rational or moral argument any self-respecting Constitutional attorney would take before the Supreme Court to affirm the First Amendment to one group of people but deny it to another.

We have suffered so many centuries of segregation and Jim Crow. I was born after the Civil Rights Act but I can still remember those fading signs in rural Florida towns. There may have been a law that banned the practice but there was no law that banned the signs. Not that I saw as a child in white-dominated towns.

Do you remember that skit with Dave Chappelle about his white friend who could get away with crazy ass shit? He either outright stole that shit from me or it is rampant truth. I was doing that shit decades before Dave Chappelle did his first stand-up.



That was the south in the 1980s and 1990s. If you were an adult Colombian, then you were HANDS OFF.

Now look.. there is no law you an pass that will stop this mosque which will somehow make it to the Supreme Court and actually be affirmed. NO WAY.

I say the Constitution is more important than fear. But that is me. The only time I feel fear is when my child is involved. Outside of that, I just start looking for props.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:03 am 
Offline
New Member

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:15 am
Posts: 1
Quote:
I am eight or nine beers in the hole with bruised knuckles. I don't know what fancy rhetoric I can use right now. I am not civy drunk but enough.


Are you drinking so hard? Why? Is there anyway I can help or I will join you to drink together to make it up to 12 beers...hahaha

_________________
brass knuckles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:11 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 6509
Location: The 50th State
Do zoning laws permit it? Do they own the property?

Edit: to be honest, I'm not keen on charity organizations owning prime real estate because they pay no taxes. If they own the building, and zoning laws permit it, I see no reason to deny them.

_________________
Griz

“We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-Edward R. Murrow

My political compass score


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:37 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Posts: 6816
Location: Clarksville, TN
Quasigriz wrote:
Do zoning laws permit it? Do they own the property?

Edit: to be honest, I'm not keen on charity organizations owning prime real estate because they pay no taxes. If they own the building, and zoning laws permit it, I see no reason to deny them.




Not understanding the point of this thread.

If an organization has the money to buy property and build a building that complies with local laws, I see no issue.

Now, I have heard there are oppositions based on "feelings" like "I feel this is an insult" but feelings are not laws and more likely to be the opinions of the expressers.



Now, if the point is to try and claim hypocracy for supporting the right to build a building that complies with laws and this Catholic argument, sorry , none is there.

A employer has no right to control what their employee does with their earned payroll and yes, benefits are a form of payroll as they are compensation for work performed.

_________________
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:06 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:17 pm
Posts: 3481
Why? Because some nut is going to blow it up.

Then we'll all look at the horror with innocent lives lost and say "how could be have known." "We had the best intentions." "We need to punish those responsible."

I support the mosque's second ammendment rights to do what they want, but if society can't come up with some means to peacefully prevent this from happening we've lost our minds.

Don't build your porno studio across across from a woman's shelter.

Don't built your catholic church across from an abortion clinic.

Don't build your rehab center across from a liquor store.

Don't build your mosque at ground zero.

These aren't supreme court level decisions, they are responsible judgement calls at the zoning commission level.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:19 am 
Offline
Satrap

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:44 am
Posts: 3172
marjon wrote:
Are you drinking so hard? Why? Is there anyway I can help or I will join you to drink together to make it up to 12 beers...hahaha


You missed the party. You responded to a thread that's about 18 months old!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:26 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:22 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Portland, OR
e_room_matt wrote:
Why? Because some nut is going to blow it up.

Then we'll all look at the horror with innocent lives lost and say "how could be have known." "We had the best intentions." "We need to punish those responsible."

I support the mosque's second ammendment rights to do what they want, but if society can't come up with some means to peacefully prevent this from happening we've lost our minds.

Don't build your porno studio across across from a woman's shelter.

Don't built your catholic church across from an abortion clinic.

Don't build your rehab center across from a liquor store.

Don't build your mosque at ground zero.

These aren't supreme court level decisions, they are responsible judgement calls at the zoning commission level.

And I suppose women shouldn’t ware short skirts too, hu, they’re just asking for it right
And all the races should just stay segregated and not interact so as not to stir up the bigots, right

_________________
1.Prior attitude effect. Subjects who feel strongly about an issue—even when encouraged to be objective—will evaluate supportive arguments more favorably than contrary arguments.
2.Disconfirmation bias. Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments.
3.Confirmation bias. Subjects free to choose their information sources will seek out supportive rather than contrary sources.
4.Attitude polarization. Exposing subjects to an apparently balanced set of pro and con arguments will exaggerate their initial polarization.
5.Attitude strength effect. Subjects voicing stronger attitudes will be more prone to the above biases.
6.Sophistication effect. Politically knowledgeable subjects, because they possess greater ammunition with which to counter-argue incongruent facts and arguments, will be more prone to the above biases.

- Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge - Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:39 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:17 pm
Posts: 3481
Vox Contra wrote:
And I suppose women shouldn’t ware short skirts too, hu, they’re just asking for it right
And all the races should just stay segregated and not interact so as not to stir up the bigots, right

What is the purpose of a planning/zoning commision of not to keep your city development safe, coherent, and functional?

This isn't some moral stance. I'm not saying women can't wear skirts. I'm saying girls aren't allowed in the boys locker room.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:53 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Posts: 6816
Location: Clarksville, TN
So, not understanding you.

Zoning laws should decide on permit approval based on?

Your future telling capabilities to tell what is going to happen in the future?

Or, feelings?
Or, possibility of offense?


Hell son, I can find someone to oppose ANY building being built.

_________________
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honest Question
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:02 pm 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:22 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Portland, OR
e_room_matt wrote:
Vox Contra wrote:
And I suppose women shouldn’t ware short skirts too, hu, they’re just asking for it right
And all the races should just stay segregated and not interact so as not to stir up the bigots, right

What is the purpose of a planning/zoning commision of not to keep your city development safe, coherent, and functional?

This isn't some moral stance. I'm not saying women can't wear skirts. I'm saying girls aren't allowed in the boys locker room.

Frankly I’m not sure how to wrap my brain around your statements

Just give in to prejudice and intolerance?
Blame the victims; it’s their fault for being there in the first place?
We shouldn’t do anything that might possibly offend even the worst elements of our society?

These are the antithesis of everything that have made this country great and driven every social advancement of our culture.

If this is really where you’re coming from I’m not even sure how to start the conversation.

_________________
1.Prior attitude effect. Subjects who feel strongly about an issue—even when encouraged to be objective—will evaluate supportive arguments more favorably than contrary arguments.
2.Disconfirmation bias. Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments.
3.Confirmation bias. Subjects free to choose their information sources will seek out supportive rather than contrary sources.
4.Attitude polarization. Exposing subjects to an apparently balanced set of pro and con arguments will exaggerate their initial polarization.
5.Attitude strength effect. Subjects voicing stronger attitudes will be more prone to the above biases.
6.Sophistication effect. Politically knowledgeable subjects, because they possess greater ammunition with which to counter-argue incongruent facts and arguments, will be more prone to the above biases.

- Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge - Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us