Page 16 of 22 FirstFirst ... 61112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 423
  1. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    It's in post #155 a few pages back
    I read that... unfortunately it gives absolutely no information about what the issue actually is, why they haven't been able to rebuild, etc. All it is is arm-flailing.
  2. #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    And also, if he takes funds from the Saudi's or Iranians, *this* mosque will be directly associated.
    Does anyone know where the $100million is coming from? That's a lot to accumulate from passing the offering plate every week.

    I'd love to know who is paying for this, just for fun.
    Run your ad here... reach thousands daily...



    ...Now accepting orders for my upcoming iHandle™.
    Reserve yours today!
  3. #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    I did. What is your claim?
    My point "Maddrassa fail". If only they had noble prize for creative use of explosives it would go to "underwear bomber" or "shoe bomber".
  4. #304  
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    I read that... unfortunately it gives absolutely no information about what the issue actually is, why they haven't been able to rebuild, etc. All it is is arm-flailing.
    Yea, it just gives you something to Google. Someone posted a better link a few posts back on the previous page.
    Run your ad here... reach thousands daily...



    ...Now accepting orders for my upcoming iHandle™.
    Reserve yours today!
  5. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by darkzone View Post
    My point "Maddrassa fail". If only they had noble prize for creative use of explosives it would go to "underwear bomber" or "shoe bomber".
    What?
  6. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #306  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    Yea, it just gives you something to Google. Someone posted a better link a few posts back on the previous page.

    Just saw that. Sorry about that.
  7. #307  
    Wow. I guess the First Amendment was repealed while we weren't looking. There is a new national religion and Ground Zero is its Holy of Holies. I guess we won't be building a new office building there anymore but a temple where every American must make a pilgrimage at least once as a condition of citizenship. At least I got to vote for twenty years before democracy was swept away all of a sudden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    I think there are at least two key differences One is time. That was MANY generations ago that indians and settlers massacred each other (not the place to debate who was or wasn't justified for said massacres). There isn't a major city still mourning a recent act of indian massacre like there is a city mourning a recent act of cowardly terrorism. As I've said before, the timing of this is part of the problem. 50 years from now, I doubt it would be such an issue.

    The other thing is the nature of what is being proposed. This isn't about who is occupying land, it's about what each side considers sacred. NYC residents (and the majority of Americans) see ground zero as a sacred site, just as they would a cemetery. There is a big difference between putting a house of worship on the site as opposed to the Muslims that will no doubt occupy some of the Freedom Tower offices or walk across the plaza - and perhaps mourn those they lost in the attack. You don't generally see anyone building a church on top of a sacred indian burial ground, at least in the current era of political correctness.

    If you read up on Middle East culture, you will find that there is great symbolism to this. For example, there is a graveyard between the Mount of Olives and the Temple/Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem, blocking the gate that the Messiah is prophesied to return through. That graveyard was put there specifically to desecrate the ground so the Messiah couldn't walk through that gate. Forget about religious/doctrine views for a moment, and the fact that there have probably been similar acts of desecration from other religions.

    The point is that there are overt attempts to do this sort of thing through out history, and to those with heritage tied to the Middle East (like Islam) there is much greater meaning than we realize. The time and location appears to be another such attempt. If they are not trying to be provocative, they should choose a different time/place out of respect for those that see Ground Zero as a sacred place. And because it became sacred because of an attack in the name of Islam, please don't chime in that it should be sacred for Islam, too. You don't see a Shinto shrine next to the war memorials in Pearl Harbor, even though there were Japanese deaths during the attack on Pearl Harbor...

    I don't understand why this is so complicated. It's bad form to do what they are proposing. It's been said that "sometimes discretion is the better part of valor" and I think this is one of those times...

    dis·cre·tion/disˈkreSHən/Noun
    1. The quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information.
  8. #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Speaking as an Athiest, no, it has everything to do with them being on public property. Separation of church and state! Now, in my personal opinion, I don't really care, they are in tribute to some fallen heros, leave them up. But what would you be saying if one of those troopers was Muslim and they erected a Cresent Moon on public land in his honor?
    The article said "most" were on public property. I don't think I saw in the article where it said the ones on private property wouldn't have to come down, so is this because the atheists are being "forced" to look at this horrible symbol? If anyone knows if the ones on private property can stay up, I'd be interest in knowing that.

    Oh....LOL.....no problem with a Cresent Moon on public land, honestly, I could care less.....as long as my tax money isn't buying it. Now....if the symbol was put up just to be hurtful, well, I think pressure should be put on that person to take it down. Otherwise....let her rip.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. #309  
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    Something tells you wrong. There will always be people opposed to it, but it is a legal matter specifically because it is public land (to my knowledge. I'm not a lawyer). The difference is a big one and religious motivations don't have to play into that scenario.

    EDIT: Sorry, just read the other story about this. It is a legal issue since it's public land, and the court has decided, and so I stand by the legal process. PERSONALLY, I have no problem with the crosses and I actually like the idea. But my personal feelings are irrelevant.
    But why does this bother an atheist to bring such a court case? Why? Does it hurt this person? Is it painful each time he/she rides by it? Do they almost wreck each time they drive by a cross? (if that is the case, maybe they need to reconsider their not believing in God, lol) I just don't understand why they felt compelled to fight this. Maybe an antheist in here can explain the reasons why looking at a cross causes such pain and discomfort.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. #310  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Now....if the symbol was put up just to be hurtful, well, I think pressure should be put on that person to take it down.
    Now, that's the whole debate, isn't it?
  11. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    But why does this bother an atheist to bring such a court case? Why? Does it hurt this person? Is it painful each time he/she rides by it? Do they almost wreck each time they drive by a cross? (if that is the case, maybe they need to reconsider their not believing in God, lol) I just don't understand why they felt compelled to fight this. Maybe an antheist in here can explain the reasons why looking at a cross causes such pain and discomfort.
    I'm not sure what your beef is with atheists, or why you think it's atheists who are pursuing this (if you have a legimate reason for saying this then please let me know).

    It's a matter of church/state. Nothing else needs to factor into the issue. Period. I don't necessarily agree with the judge's decisions, but they made it. We have a very specific judicial process in this country, and I have to believe that if there was no solid LEGAL (not emotional) case for having them taken down, then the decision would have been different.
  12. #312  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    If some jewish group was going to build a synagogue and "community center" a few yards away from a spot they'd recently bombed out in Gaza - killed a bunch of palestines - men, women and children; I think you'd be singing a totally different tune.

    And also, if he takes funds from the Saudi's or Iranians, *this* mosque will be directly associated.
    Where to begin!!!!

    1. What happens in other countries regarding their "freedoms" is not a fair comparison. We have freedom of religion here in our constitution. There they don't. Apples and Oranges...

    2. You are confusing Muslims with Al Qaeda. All Al Qaeda may be Muslim but not all Muslims are Al Qaeda. A small fringe extremist sect does not equal the entire religion. Was it not you that told me that not all T-Baggers were racist?

    3. So we should ban all things funded by the Saudi's? OK Bye FOX News! BTW News Corp., the parent company of FOX News just donated $1,000,000.00 to the RNC So is that Saudi money in the RNC???? What about "fair and balanced?" Should the DNC be waiting for their Million in Saudi money from News Corp?

    Pensito Review » Like Saddam Hussein, Fox News’ Fourth Largest Investor, Saudi Prince Alwaleed, Funds Terror Through Donations to Families of Suicide Bombers

    I could go on.....
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    It's a matter of church/state. Nothing else needs to factor into the issue. Period.
    Only because that's your only winning position. That's not what's being debated, however. But you can stand over there feeling all self righteous and justified. Tis ok.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #314  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    But why does this bother an atheist to bring such a court case? Why? Does it hurt this person? Is it painful each time he/she rides by it? Do they almost wreck each time they drive by a cross? (if that is the case, maybe they need to reconsider their not believing in God, lol) I just don't understand why they felt compelled to fight this. Maybe an antheist in here can explain the reasons why looking at a cross causes such pain and discomfort.
    WAY OFF TOPIC: You just made the argument for gay marriage but just changed the names of the players! Oh the sweet irony!
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  15. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Only because that's your only winning position. That's not what's being debated, however. But you can stand over there feeling all self righteous and justified. Tis ok.
    Huh? Are you talking about the mosque or the crosses in Utah? And, I believe my winning position is logic, but I'm sure you'll disagree.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #316  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Where to begin!!!!

    1. What happens in other countries regarding their "freedoms" is not a fair comparison. We have freedom of religion here in our constitution. There they don't. Apples and Oranges...
    False argument. It's been repeatedly pointed out that this isn't about the legal right to build there. Next....
    2. You are confusing Muslims with Al Qaeda. All Al Qaeda may be Muslim but not all Muslims are Al Qaeda. A small fringe extremist sect does not equal the entire religion. Was it not you that told me that not all T-Baggers were racist?
    Huh? I didn't confuse anything. Where did that come from? And there's more racists in the Democratic Party than in the Tea Party. But what does that have to do with anything?
    3. So we should ban all things funded by the Saudi's? OK Bye FOX News! BTW News Corp., the parent company of FOX News just donated $1,000,000.00 to the RNC So is that Saudi money in the RNC???? What about "fair and balanced?" Should the DNC be waiting for their Million in Saudi money from News Corp?

    Pensito Review » Like Saddam Hussein, Fox News’ Fourth Largest Investor, Saudi Prince Alwaleed, Funds Terror Through Donations to Families of Suicide Bombers

    I could go on.....
    Why? Please don't bother.... at least not for my sake. What you've said so far seems to be only remotely related to what I've posted. Al Qaeda? Fox News? Saudi Money? Perhaps you meant this message for someone else? It's almost as if you just used my post to launch in to a series of loosely related.... ideas?

    Perhaps you could give a direct answer to my direct comment to you about what your tune would be if Israel was building a synagogue in the Gaza Strip close to a site they had recently bombed?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    Huh? Are you talking about the mosque or the crosses in Utah? And, I believe my winning position is logic, but I'm sure you'll disagree.
    My bad? I assumed you were talking about the mosque near the wtc. And why are you sure I'll disagree?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #318  
    Giuliani on Mosque: "This Project Is Divisive"
    Former mayor acknowledges developers have "right" to build, but defers to question, "should they?"
    By JENNIFER MILLMAN
    Updated 10:47 AM EDT, Thu, Aug 19, 2010

    The former mayor who helped lead the city through the tragic aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, came out in opposition of building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

    "This project is divisive," Rudy Giuliani said on the "Today" show this morning as he commented for the first time on the debate that has swept the nation. "This project is creating tremendous pain for people who've already made the ultimate sacrifice. All you're doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred."

    NBC's Matt Lauer reminded Giuliani of comments he made roughly 14 months after 9/11 in which he evoked freedom of religion as one of America's founding principles, and asked how Giuliani reconciles his opposition to the mosque with his espousal of the idea that "no one's going to interfere with you" because of that principle.

    The one-time presidential candidate quickly acknowledged the developers have a constitutional right to build the mosque but deferred to the question, "Should they build it?"

    "The question here is of sensitivity, of people's feelings, and are you really what you pretend to be," Giuliani said. "If you want to claim to be the healer, then you're not on the side of the person who's pushing those divisive issues.

    "I was the first person on Sept. 11 to step forward in the heat of battle and say, 'No group blame, do not blame Arabs, it's a small group.' But the reality is that, right now, if you are a healer you do not go through with this project. If you're a warrior, you do."

    Giuliani also said he agreed with Gov. David Paterson, who proposed the mosque be built on a location not associated with the same sensitivities as the land near Ground Zero.

    Paterson last week offered to help the mosque developers find a new spot, perhaps on state land. When the developers shot down that idea, the governor said he would at least like to have a meeting with them to discuss it. That meeting has yet to be scheduled, and Paterson told NBCNewYork on Wednesday that there were no concrete plans to hold it at all.

    "That would be their choice," Paterson said. "I'm making myself available. It's up to them."

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg has remained a vociferous supporter of building the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Bloomberg's office didn't immediately respond to an e-mail inquiry seeking a response to Giuliani's comments this morning.

    Weighing in for the first time yesterday, Archbishop Timothy Dolan agreed with Paterson that the mosque should be built elsewhere out of respect for individuals' "sensititivites." Dolan evoked Pope John Paul II's intervention when a convent was set to be built near Auschwitz as an example of how a solution could be found. Giuliani agreed with that approach.

    The issue of the mosque -- whether and where it should be built -- continues to play out on the local and national political stage. The Conservative Party of New York released an ad urging Con Ed to refuse to sell the second building, which they own, to the Cordoba Initiative. That building would need to be demolished, according to the developers' plans for the mosque.

    Meanwhile, conservative fire brand Sarah Palin tweeted a link to another ad using 9/11 family members and survivors to protest the site.

    Giuliani also played to the sentiments of 9/11 families.

    "I know some people who are crying over this," he said.

    President Obama set off a national firestorm last week when he voiced his support for the "right" to build the mosque. Asked Wednesday if he regretted upholding the mosque’s right to be built, the President said he had "no regrets."
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #319  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Perhaps you could give a direct answer to my direct comment to you about what your tune would be if Israel was building a synagogue in the Gaza Strip close to a site they had recently bombed?
    To make things analogous, when you say "recent," you mean 10 years later, right?
  20. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #320  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    My bad? I assumed you were talking about the mosque near the wtc. And why are you sure I'll disagree?
    Because you disagree with me and I feel that I have logic on my side (of course, it is possible that I don't).

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions