Palin enters debate over Ground Zero Mosque

1. If you cannot tell the difference between the opinions of someone who truly grieves and a political hack high-fiving the sheep for her political campaign then you are truly blind.

The fact is that neither Sarah NOR YOUactually knew anyone who died that day. Its easy to make such blanket statements when those that died are just convenient numbers and not actual people you used to work with. Makes the talking points much easier to regurgitate.
How do you know who Sarah Palin or I know?

You make an awfully lot of assumptions, and high handed statements about people with absolutely no knowledge of them.

I don't agree with Palin's statement or that the city should deny the center be built. (Especially as you say, the city can just because it chooses too)
I don't think much of Palin at all. But, her or my opinion is just as valid as yours.

2. Wrong. There is nothing in the constitution that requires that a Religious building be built on a specific spot. The site is situated in a commercial zone. The city can deny a permit to build if it choses, especially as was mentioned several times earlier the project is not a religious building but a community center.

This is a capitalist country and cities, counties,and government entities can deny building permits. They can not deny permits with out reason or because they choose. Building codes expressly outline usage and building factors. The city would be required to spell out the reason they were denied.
Like I said this is not France.

I guarantee you that if New York denied them a permit based on being a religious or Muslim organization it would end up in court.

Its because we are the ones that have the scars, all you've got is rhetoric. Your not a victim unless you have actually lost something. I lost people I knew, a good portion of my city was in ruins for months. Many people were paralyzed for weeks without telephone, transportation and other basic services. And not to downplay the Pentagon or PA but the overwhelming numbers of death and damage was in NYC thats why the focus in there.

You did not suffer anything, all you did was watch the news on TV. Only people who were there, or were there before, can understand. I wept when I saw the towers fall, Did you?

What a pathetic diatribe. You presume to know and pass judgment on people you have never even met. Your ploy here is to make it seem as if no one cares but you. What a crock of bull ****.

People reading your diatribe are not simpletons, so get off your soap box you look so silly. Only thing revealed here is what a sanctimonious jackass you are.
 
I guess the Country overreacted about Pearl Harbor because the vast majority didn't actually know anyone who was killed......:shock:
 
I guess the Country overreacted about Pearl Harbor because the vast majority didn't actually know anyone who was killed......:shock:
Sure, yeah. We overreacted about an act of war committed by a legitimate country. WTF George? Do you even know what the topic is about?
 
Sure, yeah. We overreacted about an act of war committed by a legitimate country. WTF George? Do you even know what the topic is about?
Get a grip, he said the rest of the Country shouldn't be all that upset because we didn't know the victims, for the moment that is the subject, what diffrence does it make if the perps were Terrorists or a Ligit Military when it comes to knowing the victims???????? Either it's important to know the victims or it's not. Can't have it both ways.
 
That's a lie. Where did he say the rest of the country shouldn't be all that upset? PLEASE supply sources to verify your statement as true.


And your whole "Either it's important to know the victims or it's not" is a lie too. Any time there is a tragedy, and you can feel sad for the victims, but it still affects people who have been personally affected by the tragedy on a deeper level.

Do you really have that small of an emotional capacity? Can you not comprehend that it might be possible to be affected by a tragedy without knowing the victims, but those who KNOW the victims might be affected on a bit of a deeper level?

You're either an idiot or an emotionally stunted man. In either case, you have my utmost pity. I'm sorry.
 
Chukpike, Mmarsh's point was that you can't deny them the right to build it on grounds that Muslim extremists committed the act.
Most people would understand it that way.
But you just had to derail another thread. Well done.
 
This will become a civil discussion without the trolling, baiting, accusations, and name calling , or I will slap a lock on it.
 
That's a lie. Where did he say the rest of the country shouldn't be all that upset? PLEASE supply sources to verify your statement as true.


And your whole "Either it's important to know the victims or it's not" is a lie too. Any time there is a tragedy, and you can feel sad for the victims, but it still affects people who have been personally affected by the tragedy on a deeper level.

Do you really have that small of an emotional capacity? Can you not comprehend that it might be possible to be affected by a tragedy without knowing the victims, but those who KNOW the victims might be affected on a bit of a deeper level?

You're either an idiot or an emotionally stunted man. In either case, you have my utmost pity. I'm sorry.
Obviously those near the Towers are going to be more emotionally involved than those elsewhere, but it was over the top to try to claim that only NY politicians should be able to comment on the event. That's where I was going with it. and that's back on the original subject, Palin's comments.
 
Obviously those near the Towers are going to be more emotionally involved than those elsewhere, but it was over the top to try to claim that only NY politicians should be able to comment on the event. That's where I was going with it. and that's back on the original subject, Palin's comments.
Quite honestly though, it's true. It's a New York city issue, and only those involved in New York politics should weigh in on it. What I mean to say is not that no one outside NYC should be able to say anything about it, but Sarah Palin has a lot more influence than you and I when it comes to these sorts of things. There are those who will make their decision on the matter purely based on her tweets. They are stupid, but they exist.
 
I, and almost all New Yorkers didn't appreciate one bit the GOP using 9-11 as their backdrop to Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, especially because Bush largely responsible for the security lapses that lead to 9-11. He also reneged on most of his promises to help us after it happened. Bush used us like a dirty handkerchief and then tossed us away when he was done. I know Palin doesn't give a damn about NYC, so let her grandstand somewhere else.

mmarsh. I remember reading a book written by the Air Force officer responsible for carrying the "football". He wrote that CLINTON had the ability to take out Bin Laden, but was too busy watching a golf tournament to make the decision. Had he actually had a pair and ordered the strike. IMHO, I don't believe that 9-11 would have happened.
 
-snip- CLINTON had the ability to take out Bin Laden, but was too busy watching a golf tournament to make the decision. Had he actually had a pair and ordered the strike. IMHO, I don't believe that 9-11 would have happened.

Yeah. And had ROBBEN scored vs. San Iker the Dutch would have won the WC.

Rattler
 
mmarsh. I remember reading a book written by the Air Force officer responsible for carrying the "football". He wrote that CLINTON had the ability to take out Bin Laden, but was too busy watching a golf tournament to make the decision. Had he actually had a pair and ordered the strike. IMHO, I don't believe that 9-11 would have happened.
I think Bush 1 also had the opportunity. But, of course, that's neither here nor there, as it's all in the past and we can't do anything to change it now. But Clinton also had a balanced federal budget, something that no one else can say.
 
I think Bush 1 also had the opportunity. But, of course, that's neither here nor there, as it's all in the past and we can't do anything to change it now. But Clinton also had a balanced federal budget, something that no one else can say.
Nixon & others before that, plus Republicans forced Clinton to after they took Congress.
 
I think Bush 1 also had the opportunity. But, of course, that's neither here nor there, as it's all in the past and we can't do anything to change it now. But Clinton also had a balanced federal budget, something that no one else can say.

Rob, This is why I love debating issues with you. I wholeheartedly agree that it is all water under the bridge. Don't see how blancing the budget is relevant, but OK. You win on that point.

Back on topic.

Sarah Palin sounded off on this issue for 1 reason only. It generates headlines and keeps her in the public eye. Same reason that Ann Coulter makes such outrageous statements. (Though Coulter does it to generate book sales).

Aside from that, Sarah Palin was within her rights to sound off about this. We are within our rights to agree or disagree.
 
Rob, This is why I love debating issues with you. I wholeheartedly agree that it is all water under the bridge. Don't see how blancing the budget is relevant, but OK. You win on that point.
Just sayin, Clinton had a bit to lose. If he had tried to start a war, it might've upset his budget that he'd worked so hard on. And let's face it, he didn't know what was going to happen with Bin Laden alive. He probably would've done things differently if he had.

Back on topic.

Sarah Palin sounded off on this issue for 1 reason only. It generates headlines and keeps her in the public eye. Same reason that Ann Coulter makes such outrageous statements. (Though Coulter does it to generate book sales).

Aside from that, Sarah Palin was within her rights to sound off about this. We are within our rights to agree or disagree.
Of course, you're right. Sarah Palin is a media attention *****, which I think is one of the reasons John McCain chose her in the first place. HOWEVER, because of the sensitivity of the situation, since this was and remains to be a local government issue, I think she should've kept her silence on it. This is for the NYC government to handle how they see fit. But thanks to the freedom of speech, she's perfectly allowed to say what she wants to say.
 
Exactly right...

If she were just an ordinary citizen expressing her opinion she wouldn't have irked me. But its patently obvious (to most people) that she is attempting to use the controversy (which is local issue to NY not national) to her personal political advantage. This would have been bad enough if she were a resident, but the fact that she is an outsider politician (with little respect for New York to begin with) and thats simply revolting.

Its the same attitude as that of the freak show Westboro Church. She doesn't care who she hurts or offends, anything is permitted as long as she is able to highlight herself and push her agenda.

She is a crass opportunist who has no common decency at all.
 
I'm really torn on this. As you said, its a war against Islamic extremists, not Islam itself. But that close to Ground Zero....it just feels wrong to me.
This is exactly how I feel.

I am not disagreeing with Islam as a religion, but I think it's disrespectful to even consider putting a Mosque so close to ground zero and I believe with all my heart if this shoe was on the other foot it would bear the same feelings.
 
This is exactly how I feel.

I am not disagreeing with Islam as a religion, but I think it's disrespectful to even consider putting a Mosque so close to ground zero and I believe with all my heart if this shoe was on the other foot it would bear the same feelings.
Why? As we have established, we are not fighting Islam, we are fighting fringe extremists who are barely able to even call their sect a denomination of Islam. What about freedom of religion?
 
Back
Top