Pelosi calls for investigation .

[muttly]

Far left radical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the opposition to the mosque. I think the botox she has received has penetrated her brain and is making her delusional. AUDIO - Rep. Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition - Washington Times

 

[RLENT]

That's just about as retarded as those who are seeking to stop it .... almost ......

 

[greg334]

This is not something that needs to be taken lightly, it is very scary to have someone in that position looking to build an enemies list or at least start talking about investigating oppositions.

Can we say Wilson?

 

[RLENT]

Because i oppose this..that makes my opinion retarded? but your opinion is not..?

OVM, read what I wrote very carefully - because I meant exactly what I said .....

I didn't say anything about mere thoughts ..... or having an opinion ...

What I said was "seeking to stop it"

That would mean something along the lines of the following:

prohibit, prevent, obstruct, deny, arrest, bar, block, disrupt, hinder, impede, interrupt, obstruct, rein in, repress, restrain, shut out, still .....

You see, the problem isn't the thought, it's the action .....

I thought you were a supporter of free and independent thought?

LOL .... of course, I am ... people are totally free to think whatever they would care to .... (even if it's utterly retarded ....)

That's as it should be ....

The problem for me comes about when two things beyond thought occur:

1. When people, with manifestly bad intentions and ill motivations, blather on endlessly in public (often rather loudly) with the purpose of inciting others to do bad things.

Often these jokers ain't got enough nut to actually do anything themselves (beyond talk) .... but they're just all too happy and content to get others to engage in all manner of evil .... while they themselves stand on the sidelines, watching with absolute glee .....

One often finds when exploring the past history of such folks that they have been very, very bad little boys (or girls, as the case may be ....)

2. People actually start acting to deny others their rights and freedoms.

 

[RLENT]

This is not something that needs to be taken lightly, it is very scary to have someone in that position looking to build an enemies list or at least start talking about investigating oppositions.

Absolutely correct ..... and I didn't mean to trivialize it by my response.

 

[RLENT]

By signing a petition against this building I now have gone beyond the "thought" process...now I could be considered a retard by trying to "impede" or "obstruct" this project....

Yup, pretty much ..... particularly if that petition was not to the developers, but to any type of governmental authority ....

Now it could be said I am "expressing my thoughts" into action aka Freedom of Expression"... still within my Constitutional rights ....

Yup .... but one's rights only extend to the point where they don't infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others ...

Once you cross that line, any moral high ground that you could previously lay claim to is forfeit ...

One's "rights" are not absolute to the extant that they must, necessarily, consider the rights of others as well .....

 

[Doggie Daddy]

So RLENT,what exactly are you saying.....is OVM a retard or not?

 

[layoutshooter]

Watch out OVM. According to the justice department, being a vet, or following the Constitution is a threat to them!!

 

[Ragman]

This is not something that needs to be taken lightly, it is very scary to have someone in that position looking to build an enemies list or at least start talking about investigating oppositions.

Can we say Wilson?

It may be time to investigate pelosi!

 

[greg334]

I'm a big believer in the Bill of Rights. And I feel that to ensure my rights, I have to ensure that those I disagree with have their rights upheld as well.

WOW! thats a frickn' great concept, may be a few others could think that too?

But there's two sides to the Bill of Rights coin: one reads freedom, the other - responsibility.

TO A POINT THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY
​

The responsibility has everything to do with not infringing on other's rights, not harming the public or not making an idiot out of .... never mind that last one.

Yelling FIRE! in a crowded room is not a right, it can as most of the time directly cause others to be harmed.

Carrying a weapon around and pointing it at people is also not a right, it can cause others harm.

There is an inherent responsibility that goes along with those simple but important rights.

However telling a group of people that they are stupid and sub-human because they are a certain race, color or have a specific defect is not an infringement on other's rights. It does not take anything away from those who it is said to, nor does it control them or harm them.

Setting up an offensive place of worship is also not an infringement of other's rights.

The responsibility does not have anything to do with any issue of offending people. What can offend one, may not offend others.

Society has changed and always does change, we used to be offended by simple stupid things. In the 1880s and 90s, we had a big prono industry in this country, but the feds thanks to people who were offended by some of the mild stuff put a stop to it - which it went underground. The Hayes Commission was setup to police the movie industry and they did some rotten things under the guise of "public safety" like editing a lot of film.

The founding fathers knew this, they didn't include the word offend anywhere in the limitations of the government. BUT alas the modern man, the enlighten man of today has included in every constitution since 1945 and those countries are not free countries by any means.

That's true with all of our freedoms. The right to do something may be guaranteed by the Constitution, but how does exercising that right impact someone else?

There is no may be but an absolute limit on what the government can do.

Again impact directly means to control, do harm or limit other's rights and this is THE only issue. Offending someone is NOT.

Had I the money and position, for example, I could build a church wherever I wanted. It would, however, be inappropriate to do so across from the entrance to Bear Butte - solely because of the significance that sacred ground holds for Native Americans.

But my church will be a place of reconciliation between traditional Native Americans and those of Christian belief. Maybe. But it would still be inappropriate, considering the long history of the negative impacts of Christianity on this country's First People.

It would be better to place my church a few miles down the road and offer cultural understanding encounter groups where I could let Native Americans know that my church wasn't like those that had abused their people and their culture. I could still get my message across that "I'm not like them" or "they were only a small percentage of our churches," while respecting an area that's culturally significant to Native Americans.

What's inappropriate is not the building of your church but the Indians who feel it is not your right to build it. If you were a true Christian, you would not build it anyways. Nevertheless it is not their place to dictate what other's rights are based on being offended. Even though the history of the "natives" of North America has been a harsh one under not just our rule but those of Canadians, Mexicans, Spanish, French, English, Portuguese and even the Vikings. The times were harsh, most do not understand the political climate while ignoring the reality that not all Natives were nice people, and they themselves displaced others by arriving here or expanding into other's territory at one time or another. It wasn't right what was done to them after they were conquered but I can't change history

The same holds true at Ground Zero in New York City, where controversy has erupted over a proposed mosque in a building near the former World Trade Center site; a building that was, in fact, damaged by debris from the twin towers collapse.

A spokesman for the mosque criticized opponents' efforts to preserve the building by having it recognized as an historic landmark. Sharif El-Gamal, owner of the property, sees no need to designate the building an historic landmark because "it's not the Woolworth building or the Chrysler building."

He's right. It's not a former department store nor auto manufacturer headquarters. It is one of the few structures impacted by the 9/11 terrorist attacks that remains standing as a memorial to those who died that fateful day when the world we knew changed forever. And perhaps it wasn't "only" construction debris that hit the building that crisp September morn. Perhaps it was also remains of those who died there.

SO?

We have desecrated graves and remains of other victims of other tragedies in this country without thinking about it twice - this include veterans too. We move graves all the time to make room for strip malls or air port expansions. We p*ss on more hallowed ground where thousands died either fighting for one cause or another so we can live free. 9/11 holds no special merit other than it being attacked by religious fanatics but again the US was attacked by John Brown and he was an equal to any of them.

The thing that really bothers me about this entire "hallowed site" stuff, this 9/11 Mosque thing and how the WTC site keeps expanding to include so much ground in NYC is the fact that we pick and choose the important things in our lives and ignore the actual important issues.

The one thing that really p*sses me off is we have Arlington Cemetery mismanaged for years and NO ONE GIVES A SH*T ABOUT IT. They are claiming that people are not even buried in the right spots, bodies mislabeled which can amount to more than 5000, maybe up to 6000 people according to a Senate subcommittee investigating the cemetery. This may also include serious mishandling of remains, to the point of bodies being dumped into graves without proper care - WE DON'T KNOW THE DEPTH OF THE PROBLEMS.

It is d*mn amazing that we all sit here going back and forth about such a trivial issue as a place of worship which seems to be an issue driven by only by fear and purposely set misinformation while there is little - nope scratch that - ABSOLUTELY NO SCREAMING ABOUT ARLINGTON EVEN THOUGH IT IS MORE DESERVING THAN ANY DISCUSSION OF ANY MOSQUE

 

[RLENT]

Greg,

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting ...

 

[RLENT]

I'm a big believer in the Bill of Rights. And I feel that to ensure my rights, I have to ensure that those I disagree with have their rights upheld as well.

Yeah ?

You're talkin' the talk - but can ya really "walk the walk" ?

Talk is cheap ......

The same holds true at Ground Zero in New York City, where controversy has erupted over a proposed mosque in a building near the former World Trade Center site; a building that was, in fact, damaged by debris from the twin towers collapse.

Actually, it's a community center, open to all, with a small portion devoted to prayer space for use by Muslims.

A spokesman for the mosque criticized opponents' efforts to preserve the building by having it recognized as an historic landmark.

Probably because such efforts were solely motivated by the intentions of some to prevent the development of the property, as envisioned - simply due to who the developers were, and what their religion is .....

The person (not persons) who is really behind getting it declared a historic landmark is one Tim Brown, a retired NYC firefighter who survived 9/11 ....

He did this by having the American Center for Law & Justice file suit on his behalf. The ACLJ was founded by evangelical looney-tune Pat Robertson .... a person known for his vitriolic hatred of people of religions other than his own ......

By the way, speaking of vitriolic hatred, I have a link to an interview of old Timmy Brown you might wanna read to see if it's really all about "sensitivity for the families" ...... or something else entirely ....

It is one of the few structures impacted by the 9/11 terrorist attacks that remains standing as a memorial to those who died that fateful day when the world we knew changed forever.

Sounds quite poetic .... you really write that ?

So what's your proposal: any buildings impacted in 9/11, no matter to how small an extent, shouldn't be owned or occupied by Muslims ?

Or are we just going to regulate the usage and prohibit certain uses - specifically certain uses by Muslims only ?

Should all Muslims be categorically prohibited from even setting foot on the "hallowed ground" ? .... maybe anything south of say, Murray Street ?

How far ya wanna go with it ?

Please do entertain me by further expanding on this matter ....

And perhaps it wasn't "only" construction debris that hit the building that crisp September morn.

Yup, the landing gear and part of the fuselage from United Airlines Flight 175 went thru the roof of some of the buildings (45 - 47 Park I believe)

Perhaps it was also remains of those who died there.

Well, if you really wanna go there ......... then perhaps we need to shut down all the streets and pedestrian sidewalks in Lower Manhattan anywhere around Ground Zero and declare them all "sacred ground" ....... because it's fairly likely that some of the "remains" (microscopic in nature) fell there at some point ..... and were walked on and driven over for an extended period of time ....

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who's Muslim.

Hmmmm ..... really ?

.... you actually wanna go with that ?

You really think that is a credible statement ?

Personally, I'm kinda ticked off with the 9/11 terrorists and those Al-Qaeda dudes (all of whom claim to be Muslim) ... and Hamas and the Taliban don't exactly make me all warm and fuzzy either .....

I am however, quite capable of differentiating between those folks ..... and other people who AREN'T those folks ....

But as much as I agree that those who would like to establish a mosque near the former World Trade Center site have a constitutional right to do so, I strongly disagree with their choice of location

I understand - that is your right - to disagree.

But the moment you take it further and act as part of an effort to get government to deny them their right to do so, or incite others to do the same, you become complicit in denying another's rights.

And, given the issue, it would appear that you are doing so based entirely on their religion .....

Need another analogy? It would be like building a U.S. Army historical center across from the Wounded Knee Massacre site.

Well sorry to have to inform you of this - but that dog don't hunt - try again.

It ain't at all "like" that.

Here's the problem with your logic: the US Army was in fact, the very instrument by which Native Americans were slaughtered at Wounded Knee.

The people involved in this project ARE NOT the same people involved in perpetrating 9/11.

Please, please tell me that you actually do see, and can understand, the difference.

BTW, since you raised the issue of how some victims families feel about it, in terms of being against it, here are the thoughts of some family members who are for it:

"Herb Ouida, whose son Todd died, said: "To say that we're going to condemn a religion and castigate a billion people in the world because they're Muslims, to say that they shouldn't have the ability to pray near the World Trade Center—I don't think that's going to bring people together and cross the divide." (Smart guy)

Marvin Bethea, a former EMS worker who was forced to retire in 2004 because of breathing problems caused by working at the 9/11 site, believes racism is a factor in the controversy, He said "even though my life has changed, I don't hate the Muslims. Especially being a black man, I know what it's like to be discriminated against. I've lived with that."

Donna O'Connor, whose pregnant daughter died on 9/11, expressed the opinion that "This building will serve as an emblem for the rest of the world that Americans ... recognize that the evil acts of a few must never dam(n) the innocent."

Ted Olson, the United States Solicitor General under George W. Bush whose wife Barbara died when her plane was piloted into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, has expressed support for the rights of the Park51 organizers to construct the new site. In remarks on MSNBC, Olson said, "We don't want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith."

Terry Rockefeller, whose sister was killed, said: "this doesn’t insult her at all.This celebrates the city she loved living in. It is what makes America what we are."

Maybe it's just the case that we actually aren't who we think - or say - we are ....

 

[layoutshooter]

There will always be wackos. Some will even run countries, like we see in Iran and North Korea. Those who wish to build this mosque are doing so to just rile things up. Maybe THEY should be the ones that are required to go to "sensitivity" training.

 

[Ragman]

There are going to be American extremists/murderers as well that could act out of ignorance...and kill or harm in the name of the "American Way" which would make them the same as the first group...

Can we say Timothy McViegh!

 

[Pilgrim]

I hope the GOP is making ads with this kind of stuff - Pelosi as Speaker of the House by itself should be motiviation for people to get out this Nov and vote against incumbent Democrat congressmen. Remember her comment about the Tea Partiers being Nazis? She's probably having them investigated too.

 

[greg334]

They won't get aggressive even when the dems hand them all the material and even write the scrips for them, it seems like they are being run by Gandhi.

Ah... never mind, I think Gandhi would have been all over these issues like white on rice.