Obama supports mosque by Ground Zero

mca47

Jason P wrote:

mca47 wrote:

Other than not responding, anything he said was going to be lose-lose.
There have been polls asking Americans what their thought was on a mosque being built near ground zero and most polls showed a 50:50 response (yes-no). A poll on CNN today asking "If you agree with Obama's response"...again 50:50.

HIs response was the legal and responsible one. I also feel that it is more of a response of Obama as a constitutional law professor rather than Obama the politician.

To this day people are still emotional about the whole situation, and rightfully so. That said, laws supersedes emotions.

I think his response was correct. How it will work out for him politically is to be seen...

I agree with your assessment but it still boggles my mind that Obama even addressed this issue, especially with elections around the corner. I'll bet republican campaign managers across the country were popping open bottles of champaign and hi-fiving each other last Friday evening.

Yeah, they will certainly try to use this to their advantage. While common sense and reason don't usually come into play for most voters, I think the Dems should grow a spine (...that'll be the day :roll: ) and stand up with Obama for making the right choice.

Jason P

mca47 wrote:

Yeah, they will certainly try to use this to their advantage. While common sense and reason don't usually come into play for most voters, I think the Dems should grow a spine (...that'll be the day :roll: ) and stand up with Obama for making the right choice.

Doesn't like they are showing any spine . . . even the Obama administration is trying to back-track and put revisionist spin on something less then a week old. Harry Reid, fearing for his political life, has shown his true colors and spoken out against the mosque. Now, all the democrats will be forced to weigh-in on the issue.

I'm guessing Obama received a lot of "what the fuck!?" calls from democrats over the weekend.

BamaPJFan

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

gimmesometruth27

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

do do you agree that they have the right to build it wherever they want?

BamaPJFan

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

do do you agree that they have the right to build it wherever they want?

I just answered your question with my first post.

fuck

BamaPJFan wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

do do you agree that they have the right to build it wherever they want?

I just answered your question with my first post.

Well I'm a bit confused too. You say you know the first amendment and then write "The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic." So which decision would not have been pathetic? "You're not allowed to build here" ??

fuck

BamaPJFan wrote:

It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

Ok so if I'm understanding correctly:

SS:Nazism::All 1.4 Billion Muslims in the world:Terrorism/911 Attacks

right ??

what about

SS:Nazism::All 300 Million Americans:Iraq War/Abu Ghraib

OR

SS:Nazism::All 300 Million Americans:American mother suffocating sons (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38734910/ns ... nd_courts/)

I guess allowing any American mother to have children now would be a 'horrendously pathetic decision', since you know, clearly all American women suffocate children. It would be a horrible injustice to the deaths of these innocent children if any more American women were allowed to have children. who's ready to start lobbying for this??

gimmesometruth27

BamaPJFan wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

do do you agree that they have the right to build it wherever they want?

I just answered your question with my first post.

no, you didn't...i agree with outlaw's reply...

fife

Message to Obama.

you country owes a shit load of money to China, you have an oil leak, you have high unemployment, your party is getting mad at you, the left is getting mad at you, you are losing your indep., you still have 2 wars going on. why the fuck are you getting involved is stuff that is not your job. stop trying to do everything for everyone.

Message to the Mosque builders. I don't know if you have done this but talk to the family of the dead on 911 and answer their question and listen to their words.

BamaPJFan

_outlaw wrote:

BamaPJFan wrote:

It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

Ok so if I'm understanding correctly:

SS:Nazism::All 1.4 Billion Muslims in the world:Terrorism/911 Attacks

right ??

what about

SS:Nazism::All 300 Million Americans:Iraq War/Abu Ghraib

OR

SS:Nazism::All 300 Million Americans:American mother suffocating sons (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38734910/ns ... nd_courts/)

I guess allowing any American mother to have children now would be a 'horrendously pathetic decision', since you know, clearly all American women suffocate children. It would be a horrible injustice to the deaths of these innocent children if any more American women were allowed to have children. who's ready to start lobbying for this??

That's the most ridiculous post I've read in a long time. How do you think of this stuff?

inmytree

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

That's the most ridiculous post I've read in a long time. How do you think of this stuff...?

Kel Varnsen

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

If all Muslims are the same as the SS, why not just set up security check points in lower Manhattan so that no Muslims are allowed to get close to the WTC site. There are probably some residential properties or apartments in lower Manhattan, so should Muslims be allowed to live in those homes? When I was in NYC in the spring, there was a fire hall right near ground zero. Should Muslim firefighters be allowed to work in that station?

unsung

unsung wrote:

So he will cite The Constitution in this case but has no problem resigning the PATRIOT Act.

Still wondering if anyone thinks this is an issue.

fife

unsung wrote:

unsung wrote:

So he will cite The Constitution in this case but has no problem resigning the PATRIOT Act.

Still wondering if anyone thinks this is an issue.

yes it is an issue but doesn't fit this tread. maybe you should start of tread about paradoxes.

whygohome

unsung wrote:

unsung wrote:

So he will cite The Constitution in this case but has no problem resigning the PATRIOT Act.

Still wondering if anyone thinks this is an issue.

The Constitution has become a document of convenience. When politicians, activists, citizens feel that it can support their cause, they cite it. When it doesn't, it isn't mentioned.

I guess the same can be said for Obama resigning the Patriot Act. In a sense, and I feel that this is falsely accepted, 9/11 changed the rules when it came to national security. Do we still have a clear understanding of why we were attacked on 9/11. According to Bush it was because "our enemies hate freedom." Unfortunately, that was explanation enough for a majority of our country. Bush consolidated as much power as possible into the Oval office (moreso the Exec. branch) under the guise of emergency powers to prevent another 9/11. Let's not forget that Bush was praised for preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil - something many presidents have been able to do.
In my opinion, Obama resigned the Patriot Act due to this "new normal" in national security policy, a new normal that suspends, or disregards, citizen's rights according to the constitution.

In an interesting sidenote, the disgusting conservative branch of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the enemy - corporate America - cited the Constitution as the basis for their decision to allow corporations to contribute as much as they want, anonymously, to campaigns. According to them, the Constitution stated that big business and corporate America have the same rights as individual citizens. How convenient.

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

unsung wrote:

unsung wrote:

So he will cite The Constitution in this case but has no problem resigning the PATRIOT Act.

Still wondering if anyone thinks this is an issue.

The Constitution has become a document of convenience. When politicians, activists, citizens feel that it can support their cause, they cite it. When it doesn't, it isn't mentioned.

I guess the same can be said for Obama resigning the Patriot Act. In a sense, and I feel that this is falsely accepted, 9/11 changed the rules when it came to national security. Do we still have a clear understanding of why we were attacked on 9/11. According to Bush it was because "our enemies hate freedom." Unfortunately, that was explanation enough for a majority of our country. Bush consolidated as much power as possible into the Oval office (moreso the Exec. branch) under the guise of emergency powers to prevent another 9/11. Let's not forget that Bush was praised for preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil - something many presidents have been able to do.
In my opinion, Obama resigned the Patriot Act due to this "new normal" in national security policy, a new normal that suspends, or disregards, citizen's rights according to the constitution.

In an interesting sidenote, the disgusting conservative branch of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the enemy - corporate America - cited the Constitution as the basis for their decision to allow corporations to contribute as much as they want, anonymously, to campaigns. According to them, the Constitution stated that big business and corporate America have the same rights as individual citizens. How convenient.

Just a question, why shouldn't businesses be able to participate in the political process? The only stipulation I would like to see is that the businesses should have to be headquartered here

WaveCameCrashin

BamaPJFan wrote:

This isn't about the Constitution; this is about making a thoughtful, appropriate decision. I'm sick of the out-of-touch media hacks across the board (as well as the sheeple on this message board) continuing to invoke the Constitution. Anyone with a slice of a brain knows about the First Amendment. The decision to allow this multi-purpose mosque to be built in eyeshot of Ground Zero is horrendously pathetic. It is akin to allowing members of the SS to construct a gathering place next to a former Nazi death camp.

The majority of New Yorkers are against this foolish $100 million garbage can (as well as a sizeable majority of Americans), but as usual, a select few in power will ignore the people's wishes and will yet again cram an unpopular action down our throats.

:thumbup:

FiveB247x

But what specific aspect of the political process are you referring too? Lobbying? Reform? Oversight? Regulation and Laws? Business is a necessary part of government, but when it is allowed to focus on their own interests solely, they do become above the law and hold more power than simply voters.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Just a question, why shouldn't businesses be able to participate in the political process? The only stipulation I would like to see is that the businesses should have to be headquartered here

whygohome

FiveB247x wrote:

But what specific aspect of the political process are you referring too? Lobbying? Reform? Oversight? Regulation and Laws? Business is a necessary part of government, but when it is allowed to focus on their own interests solely, they do become above the law and hold more power than simply voters.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Just a question, why shouldn't businesses be able to participate in the political process? The only stipulation I would like to see is that the businesses should have to be headquartered here

Do I need to answer the question?
By the way, I am speechless that anyone would support the corporate takeover of our citizenship that the Citizens United case has enabled Corporate America to attempt (and, as I feel they will, succeed).

FiveB247x

Absolutely... for those who don't believe our nation is run by private interests, they will see soon enough as that court ruling will further enhance and empower big business to overrule the land more than ever.

whygohome wrote:

Do I need to answer the question?
By the way, I am speechless that anyone would support the corporate takeover of our citizenship that the Citizens United case has enabled Corporate America to attempt (and, as I feel they will, succeed).