OHV notec wrote:I drive a silver car wrote:Again I can see it both ways. Personally the D bag that is pushing to have it there should have enough common sense not to put it there and not be such an insensitive prick hole that gets raped in the face by retarded gay elephant.You clearly didn't watch the video posted above you there^^^
I drive a silver car wrote:I would have to see more then one video saying this isn't going to be a mosque. More than 5 credible news sources that I have read keep calling this a mosque. This video (still haven't watched it) would be the first saying otherwise. Even if there was a Mosque on the property 100 years before this happened. I would still personally consider it disgraceful to erect a new one one or within close vicinity to the WTC.Note that I put mosque in quotes. This will have a "prayer center" included, but also all kinds of community center stuff as well. Basically, he's saying it's not the traditional form.
I drive a silver car wrote:That was there before anything every happened so it shouldn't be an issue. As I stated before I can see it go either way. I think that is the last "New Addition" of "Mosques" that are needs to see at this time. Me being the person in charge of deciding the location should have enough common sense that it is simply a bad idea. Me being the one to choosing the site has every right to build it there anyway.That would be your version of "common sense", not a universal one. What if this was a Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Scientologist facility? Not all Muslims support terrorist attacks; does that mean we should prevent those who don't from practicing their religion? Hundreds of non-terrorist Muslims died in the 9/11 attacks, and there were Muslims responding in FDNY and NYPD. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Tri-state area, and they expect thousands to show up every week during Friday prayer services. Do you damn the many for the actions of the few? Can you support that position in this case and criticize it when it comes to gun control?
Again either way but IMO it should never have gotten to the drawing board at that location despite there being one closer and before the WTC. Common sense and basic empathy wouldn't allow that to happen.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Quite frankly, I've had it with this kind of PC crap.
OHV notec wrote:Quik is just inserting a strawman into this so he can avoid commenting on the "data"Actually, I'm simply pointing out Olbermann's hypocrisy, and attachment to anything on the left.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:What he meant:LOL. You've got so little to offer any discussion, that you've focussed your attention on feeble personal jabs at me trying to put words in my mouth. Way to go, dumbass.
"I'd prefer to express my hatred about religious groups as I see fit, openly and without criticism."
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Exactly. You ream Bill for attacking this source instead of the content; where's the hypocrisy now?OHV notec wrote:Quik is just inserting a strawman into this so he can avoid commenting on the "data"Actually, I'm simply pointing out Olbermann's hypocrisy, and attachment to anything on the left.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Are you really getting that clouded, notec, or are you just being facetious? I am used to you being a little more realistic than that.My point is that you completely skipped the facts (some of which went against what you said earlier in the thread, and I've found more since) and went straight to screaming "BIASED!!!"
While Olbermann provided some facts in his rant, it was mostly a 15 minute propaganda video.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:I have a problem with this building being built where it is for the following reasons:
1) The Imam who is heading it is a radical, who has made many anti-American statements.
2) The location has been under landmark legislation for years, and no one has been allowed to do anything. Suddenly all red tape is cut for this guy? Isn't anyone asking questions as to who was paid off for this?
3) Being right near ground zero is not breaking down barriers, it's pouring salt in the wounds of everyone who lost a friend or relative in the attacks.
There are plenty of other locations where they could build a mosque, and there are already plenty of mosques around. They don't need to build it there. This is not about racial or religious intolerance, it's about insensitivity, and about what seems to be some level of impropriety regarding how this was made possible.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:It's just an Olbermann monologue full of condemnation of religious intolerance. Just like he stepped up and condemned the ACLU in the past when they slam any Christian displays of religion, such as a private college putting up crosses in it's rooms, or a church being forced to remove a manger from it's front lawn because it offended a few people.
Oh, wait a minute. I don't remember him defending religion in those cases. Does anyone else?
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:$$$$$$.
Quote:
Defender of My Waterpark
Quote
Reply
$$$$$$. <----- follow it
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Since he has a MSNBC icon on the lower left of the screen, I can see why you would dismiss what he had to say.LOL. I'll be sure to keep this quote in my favorites for the next time you brush off a link, video, or quote from Fox.
The real question is is the man lying?
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Since he has a MSNBC icon on the lower left of the screen, I can see why you would dismiss what he had to say.LOL. I'll be sure to keep this quote in my favorites for the next time you brush off a link, video, or quote from Fox.
The real question is is the man lying?
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:What he meant:LOL. You've got so little to offer any discussion, that you've focussed your attention on feeble personal jabs at me trying to put words in my mouth. Way to go, dumbass.
"I'd prefer to express my hatred about religious groups as I see fit, openly and without criticism."
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:Defender of My Waterpark
Quote
Reply
Quote me blah-blah ...
$$$$$$.
OHV notec wrote:R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Exactly. You ream Bill for attacking this source instead of the content; where's the hypocrisy now?OHV notec wrote:Quik is just inserting a strawman into this so he can avoid commenting on the "data"Actually, I'm simply pointing out Olbermann's hypocrisy, and attachment to anything on the left.
OHV notec wrote:I drive a silver car wrote:That was there before anything every happened so it shouldn't be an issue. As I stated before I can see it go either way. I think that is the last "New Addition" of "Mosques" that are needs to see at this time. Me being the person in charge of deciding the location should have enough common sense that it is simply a bad idea. Me being the one to choosing the site has every right to build it there anyway.That would be your version of "common sense", not a universal one.
Again either way but IMO it should never have gotten to the drawing board at that location despite there being one closer and before the WTC. Common sense and basic empathy wouldn't allow that to happen.
I drive a silver car wrote:OHV notec wrote:I drive a silver car wrote:That was there before anything every happened so it shouldn't be an issue. As I stated before I can see it go either way. I think that is the last "New Addition" of "Mosques" that are needs to see at this time. Me being the person in charge of deciding the location should have enough common sense that it is simply a bad idea. Me being the one to choosing the site has every right to build it there anyway.That would be your version of "common sense", not a universal one.
Again either way but IMO it should never have gotten to the drawing board at that location despite there being one closer and before the WTC. Common sense and basic empathy wouldn't allow that to happen.
Don't put words in my mouth, your response should have stopped here. ^
Exactly if I was him I wouldn't push for something that controversial out of respect. I have no comment made to any other religion because this was the work of Muslim extremists. I understand that there are plenty that died that had nothing to do with the terrorists nor did I right them all of as being the same. I simply said I think it something that out of respect shouldn't even make it to the drawing boards at that location (again my personal opinion). I've also stated over and over that they have every right to build there, my point is that I would have hoped that it was realized that simply wouldn't be a tasteful choice.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:I drive a silver car wrote:OHV notec wrote:I drive a silver car wrote:That was there before anything every happened so it shouldn't be an issue. As I stated before I can see it go either way. I think that is the last "New Addition" of "Mosques" that are needs to see at this time. Me being the person in charge of deciding the location should have enough common sense that it is simply a bad idea. Me being the one to choosing the site has every right to build it there anyway.That would be your version of "common sense", not a universal one.
Again either way but IMO it should never have gotten to the drawing board at that location despite there being one closer and before the WTC. Common sense and basic empathy wouldn't allow that to happen.
Don't put words in my mouth, your response should have stopped here. ^
Exactly if I was him I wouldn't push for something that controversial out of respect. I have no comment made to any other religion because this was the work of Muslim extremists. I understand that there are plenty that died that had nothing to do with the terrorists nor did I right them all of as being the same. I simply said I think it something that out of respect shouldn't even make it to the drawing boards at that location (again my personal opinion). I've also stated over and over that they have every right to build there, my point is that I would have hoped that it was realized that simply wouldn't be a tasteful choice.
"Common sense" is exactly that...a majority or common view. Same with "basic empathy". This inherently infers a more tolerant perspective, so yes...I also disagree with the use of these terms as a rationale for denying a religious structure...of ANY faith.
This structure in that location may offend you, and that's fine. That still doesn't make your discomfort "common sense" or "basic empathy". Quite frankly, I find your discomfort to be framed in a LACK of either aspect.