ariscus99

If its not a problem why is there so much outrage, why didnt they just do it? Because people are pissed, thats why!

I'm sure cm will tell you anyone who is against it is a right wing, christian fundy, republican, warmongering, racist. She can't see past her liberal ideals of how the world "should" work, she doesn't see how the world actually "does" work.

You're the one spinning things. The age of the building is irrelevant. As is the age of the church. You said there were no churches near ground zero. Not true. And the proposed mosque is two blocks from ground zero, not right next to it.

I asked this question before but have not received an answer. This is a privately owned building. Do you want government to tell somewhat what they can do with privately owned property that doesn't violate zoning laws?

I really don't care one way or another whether they build or create a mosque there or not. I just find it yet another issue that those on the right can get angry and yell about and try to blame Obama for.

And when posters who argue with me have nothing, they start attacking me personally. As you have.

And P.S. Still waiting for those websites.

I only attacked your ability to see things outside of your rose colored(uber liberal) glasses. I have said nothing about president bo. I'm not blaming this on him. And you continue to show your ignorance about the "tea party" when you say this bs about "big government" and how all tea partiers want is anarchy and no government whatsoever. So keep posting that, and keep believing it and showing your ignorance. The age of the church is relevant. What I meant and was not clear about, and I apologize for it, is that there are no new churches trying to be built in the same vicinity that this mosque wants to be. Here is one website that talks about it, took about 9 seconds to find, Pajamas Media

Here's the "apple" (re: the building where the mosque will be):

The five-story building on Park Place, a few blocks north of Wall Street, was completed between 1857 and 1858 and is an Italian Renaissance-inspired palazzo. It formerly housed a department store, which closed after the building was damaged on Sept. 11. Muslim prayer service is held at the building at least one day a week.

The church is 200 years old, this building is 152, so what's your point?[/OLOR]

[/CLOR]

I did the google search. Couldn't come up with anything but I'm sure you can give us your websites.[/COLO]

[/COLR]

[/COOR]

You can spin anything can't you? The church, has been a church, for 200 years, this mosque has not, the building has nothing to do with it, the building could be 500 years old, it would not matter, the mosque they want is not that old, and was not there before the towers were built, you obviously can't see it, and you would probably argue with me if I said the sky was blue, your stance would probably be that the sky is orange. We all get it. You obviously don't. If you don't see how this is insensitive to millions of people then your just to hard headed and naive and as you've proven time and again there is no getting threw to you.

St pauls is part of the trinity church. But that point aside both were built close to 200 years before the twin towers were built. Let's compare apples to apples here cm. Noone is trying to build a new church like the Muslims are trying to build a new mosque. Do a little google search about jihadist building temples over places they've "conquered".

I've read on various websites that it is common for the Islamic terrorists to erect mosques at places they've destroyed in order to show their dominance over the people of that area. I don't know if it's true or not but it doesn't sound unreasonable for these people to do something like that. And your insane if you think that there are no terrorist sympathizing Muslims in this country who will look at this as nothing more then a monument to their dominance over the people of new york and the united states. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of muslims in this country that are just as disgusted with the terrorists as most of the rest of us are. But sometimes you need to sacrifice for the greater good of the nation. There is no catholic church or baptist churches built at this site so why does a mosque need to be there? They know it's making people uncomfortable and downright angry so why pursue it? What is the meaning behind having this mosque here vs 5 miles from here?

Opps....I`m sincerely sorry and apologize for posting my response to you! This Oil Spill and BP situation in the Gulf has got me so upset, I replied to you instead of ariscus99. Usually its my misguided friend PG from CT that gets me jacked up and force`s me into a rant!

What have I said that is reminiscent of Joe the Plumber?

From CNN

Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living organism in an experiment that raises profound questions about the essence of life.

Craig Venter, the U.S. genomics pioneer, announced on Thursday that scientists at his laboratories in Maryland and California had succeeded in their 15-year project to make the world's first "synthetic cells" -- bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides.

"We have passed through a critical psychological barrier," Dr. Venter told the FT. "It has changed my own thinking, both scientifically and philosophically, about life, and how it works."

Thoughts?

I think most people would agree we need more enforcement of the border and a more expeditious approval of work visas. Twelve hundred troops added to the current 20,000 border patrol agents isn't going to do the trick and $500M won't go far. So clearly we need Congress to act quickly pass a comprehensive plan.

The more controversial issue is what to do with the 12 million folks already here illegally. Should we pay the estimated $200 billion needed to deport them all or offer some sort of amnesty program? If deportation is the answer how do you envision this taking place?

Just to play devil's advocate what would the Libertarian take be on government mandates that prevent employers from hiring the work force they need for their businesses? Wouldn't free trade be better served if businesses could hire who they want without burdensome rules, regulations and paperwork?

I'd bite, but unfortunately I don't consider myself a libertarian. While I am for minimal government I do understand the need for some government regulation. Though cleos mom would have you believe I want total anarchy, I and probably most Americans see the need for some government regulation, while still keeping it minimalist in nature.

As for the 12 million illegals here already, I think the sanctions on business, and assuring they receive the absolute minimum support from the government and tax payer money, will lead many of them to leave the country. If this isn't the land of the free handouts many of them will have no desire to be here. Especially if they know they can't work and earn any money.

I found the post to be insulting. In any case, I've held out the olive branch and am willing to move on to other topics.

So in this spirit of a topic change, what do you think of Obama sending troops to the southern border? Do you think it will help?

I have to agree with McCain, I don't think it's enough.

My stance on what needs to be done in relation to immigration, is a three point strategy, first and foremost complete the fence, and a good fence. Complete it, patrol it. Part two has to do with the illegals here already, and more specifically the people who employ them. I know numerous illegals, and deal with them on a daily basis to know that most really are here only to work and make a better life for themselves and their families. However there is a legal way to go about it. I would impose financially devastating fines on companies that knowingly employ illegals, and also heavy fines against companies that employ illegals knowingly or not, including everyday people who use them as maids or gardeners or anything else. I'm confident that this would deter majority of people from employing illegal aliens. And phase 3, would be immigration reform, make it so it's not quite so hard to become a citizen. Though it shouldn't be a walk in the park, along with this I would implement some sort of change to the way work visa's are issued and tracked. I don't disagree with the new AZ law however, and am all for deportation. The argument against deportation is usually that it breaks up families, well, they can take their families back to wherever they came from with them. That will solve the problem of breaking up families. Thats my thoughts in a nutshell.

Another issue that needs to be dealt with is anchor babies. That in my opinion should just be done away with.

I agree with you 100%. Lets start by cutting the Defense Department Budget and that of the Pentagon by half. Bring the troops home from Germany, Panama, Korea, Japan, and last but not least Iraq and Afganistan. There will be plenty of money left over for Prescription drug coverage for Medicare, National Health Care Reform, and Cash for Clunkers! You can`t fight terrorism when it has no defined leader, country of origin, and consists of hundreds of splintered cells that can only agree on their hatred of the West and Israel. When they strike, you retaliate much as the Israel does. A school bus or rocket attack hits from Gaza or the West Bank, NO PRESS CONFERENCE, just fighter planes in the air within minutes for a heavy handed response! Case closed!

Cut defense spending by half? Can you tell me where the money in the defense department is spent dollar for dollar? And once you've done that please tell me where you wish to make these cuts? Should it be from the armored vehicles that protect our brothers and sisters, and mother and fathers, and sons and daughters? Maybe from developing new technology to keep them from having to enter combat area's? Or maybe we cut the spending on the programs and people that staff our destroyers, and aircraft carriers? You know the one that go to supply medical necessities and hospitals to countries that can't support their own, that have just suffered earthquakes, and tsunami's and other natural disasters? Development of new aircraft everyone deems to be so wasteful, that can and will saves lives, lets get rid of all of that stuff. And since your all for cutting expenses now, lets not do wasteful programs like cars for clunkers and paying for all the other hand out programs. Why should you get free money for buying a house? Why don't we do what is necessary to save the country, make the necessary cuts, yes some people will suffer, but unfortunately thats life, there will always be those who are hungry and sick and doesn't mean we can save them all. We can give a hand up to those who will use it, but for those who only want to use the system, they should get nothing.

All I said was you were being hypocritical, nothing in that statement says a word about your intelligence. Like I said, please re-read it.

[bCOLOR=red]The expansion of consumer demand is what fueled the economic growth of the 1920's. In other words, spending money on radios, iceboxes, cars, fans, lamps, etc...Plus there was an expansion of roads into suburbs and people moving there. More spending. Moreover, if people were spending, the government didn't need to, unlike the economy bush left Pres. Obama. No one was spending. [/color][/b]

Don't forget what most economist believe drove the roaring 20's, capitalism, invention, and entrepreneurship. Mixed well with minimal government intrusion and regulations.

Wasn't this huge spike of unemployment in 1920 caused by solders returning from WWI?

No, there was a recession immediately following WW1, that lasted about 7 months, but the economy quickly recovered, the depression of 1920 was another valley, in our economic times, which economist have shown we should go through. Highs, and lows. What the left is trying to do is create a levelness through our markets, which has been shown time and again doesn't work. We must have highs and lows. And the way out of the lows was is exactly what Wilson and Harding did during this time, cut spending.

[i

No Ariscus, I'll simply ignore you as being a person whose intellect isn't up to the task of a logical debate. Hey, I think your show is on --are you smarter than a 5th grader? Of course you haven't been out of the 5th grade that long have you?/I]

It's good to see I've got you so worked up your being completely illogical and even name calling. Your that far off base just by a couple little comments you don't agree with? Your handling things like like the group of people you just tried to put me in. Your just making my case for me more and more, by showing your fear, incompetence, inability to reason and understand. You talk about illogical debate? What do you think your last post says about you?

By the way, I'm making an exception to my policy against name calling since you've taken it upon yourself to do so.

Go ahead and re-read that when your own prejudices aren't flaring up so wildly. As it's pretty logical to most people who aren't left wing loons.

*sigh* We don't live in a democracy where two wolves and a sheep can merely "vote" on what's for dinner. Our governmental system is not simply based on what you cna get 51% of the people to agree on. We live in a Constituional Repulblic, which protects certain "rights" as a matter of principle. By your way of thinking, if most people suddenly decided that they wanted racial segregation again, we should be able to have it, and not only that, but that it would be correct . . . by your line of reasoning.

So, how does this make you hypocrite? Because you are perfectly fine with men with guns forcing views on others in the private sector, as long as it is something you agree with. However, the converse is not true. Would you be fine with men with guns making sure minorities had to sit a certain part of an eating establishment as government policy? When you understand why you would not be ok with the latter, you will then understand your inconsistencies and why you are a hypocrite.

And that political philosophy should be repulsive to americans because that is not who we are as a people or a country.

I understand perfectly what he stands for. I don't need the media or anyone else's interpretation of what his word yes meant.

You need to say whether YOU support signs that say "Whites Only", "Blacks Only", "No Jews Served" or "No Christians Served". I am on record as saying I am not, and therefore don't support the position of Rand Paul.

And thats where the debate is just comical buy the left. All he said, if you re-watch the clip with unbiased eyes and ears you'll see, is that, if, he were around back then, he would have like some more debate on the issue of private businesses not being allowed to serve who they want. Why can a business have a sign, and enforce it, that said business can refuse service to anyone for any reason? But back to the point, he said he would have liked more debate on the subject, and furthermore that he is against discrimination in any form and wants nothing to do with anyone who discriminates. What rachel maddow and the rest of left are doing is taking something that she said was his view, and broadcasting it around as fact, when he said just seconds later that NO in fact that is not his view. But the more the left can get that lie out there and circulated and the faster, the more they can get people to believe it. Watch the interview again, most of what I've read on this board in regard to Rand Paul has been untrue. When it comes to that interview. rachel maddow is the person who said Rand Paul was against the civil rights act, he countered immediately that he was not, but she just kept saying he was, and now people on the left are also saying that is his stance when he has made it very clear that it is not.

Here's a little piece of forgotten history on the depression that happened in 1920, how were they able to get out of it so quickly? By cutting spending.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

I watched the entire Rachel Maddow interview on the day it happened. I heard and cringed at almost everything Rand Paul said. He later said that he thought her interview was fair.

I have heard his word "yes" analyzed on MSNBC and what it really meant. There was no fake anything or misinterpretation.

This is hardly a case of the media being afraid or having a grip on our government. It's a case of reporting on what a whacko Rand Paul's libertarian views are.

Here it is in a nutshell: He wants private businesses to be able to discriminate against the protected classes in the civil rights bill.

He, AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT HIM, are okay with a "Whites Only" or "No Jews Served" signs in a place of business. I am not, and most of america supports my position on this.

PERIOD.

In the official transcripts released by MSNBC they said Mr. Paul said "yes" he did agree that people should be able to discriminate, and since you watched the interview live you know better cm, here is the interview, cued up to the right moment when the question is asked and answered.

They are also okay with "Blacks Only" and "No Christians Served" signs in business.

Keep trusting our mainstream media. What they are doing is clear evidence that they FEAR the TEA Party/Libertarian movement - lest they loose their grip on our government. They cannot conceive power returning to The People's hands. As evidence by the fake transcripts produced by MSNBC and spread around the remainder of the MSM.

Please show where I called you a racist. Also, Jim Crow Laws allowed a business to legally segregate. To let them do so now would be no different. You are saying that you are okay with a private restaurant owner being allowed to only serve whites. I am not. And I really disagree with you that they might lose money. I imagine that there are some really racist areas where if the owner refused entrance to blacks or latinos that the whites would flock to that business.

Here's what Rand Paul and similar thinking people would be fine with:

You didn't call me racist, and I didn't say you did, I was preempting you calling me one, because it didn't seem to far down the road, with me saying I don't think it's against the law to be a racist. I imagine there are some really racist area's where if the owner refused to serve to white people blacks, and latinos might flock to their business. Discrimination and racism works both ways, don't forget.

[colorred]This also includes the confederate flag. [/color]

Absolutely. Great point Cleo's Mom:thumbup:

Though by saying room for only one flag, the American flag, what you said is implied.

Teddy Roosevelt on discrimination

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Tom McClintock on president calderons visit and speech.

But if a private business which gets no public funding, chooses to be racist, that should be their right. It's not against the law to be racist.

------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes it is -- read the Civil Rights Act Title II. Also see that private clubs are exempt. Ya know, people were beaten and killed to have the right to use a restroom and sit at a lunch counter. Discrimination is illegal regardless of what that dipsick Paul would like it to be. Anybody that purports otherwise is a racist.

Nowhere in there does it say it is illegal to be a racist, it says you cannot discriminate at a business, which like I said I'm fine with. But it is not yet illegal to be a racist. And that is how it should be, the day the government tells me how I'm allowed to feel, I will leave.

Joining a union is different than going into a restaurant. There are a list of qualifications for joining a union. I couldn't join either one of the unions to which you refer. But a public establishment, privately owned, does not have the right in my view to refuse to allow/serve people based on one of the protected categories in the civil rights bill.

Whether or not they would lose money or go out of business is a matter of debate and frankly irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is whether we as a country want to go back to the Jim Crow laws and apparantly you are okay with that.

I am not.

The Jim Crow laws MADE BUSINESSES SEGREGATE! Made segregation mandatory, at public and private places. So when we revoked these laws with the civil rights bills we said the government can no longer make us segregate. I don't want segregation. As I've said before all people are equal to me. I have numerous friends of many races, religions, and countries of origin. I think any LAW that makes us segregate is outrageous. But if some business owner decides he's a racist and doesn't want to serve a particular group of people that would be his choice, NOT JIM CROW LAWS in effect. Just personal choice. And whether or not it's relevant, I don't see any business that segregates being successful, which if nothing else is a deterrent to running a business in a racist matter. But again, it's not against the law to be racist, that is not what the civil rights laws addressed. No law can change the way a person feels. And so there's no undue mudslinging here with you calling me a racist, I'll just put this out there, I'm fine with the laws the way they are, but if it were left to the business owners discretion I'd be fine with that too.