AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

Quote:

Any eventual park or national historic site there in Manhattan is very likely going to encompass more than the exact and only Ground Zero as strictly defined, but also an area or perimeter around it. That is simple common sense.

They've already defined that, and this mosque isn't anywhere close to those boundaries.

I'll repeat again that you have no clue as to the region you are talking about. This isn't the middle of some field where a battle took place and nobody gives a **** about what is built there. This is downtown Manhattan, the most expensive real estate in the country in many ways. They aren't creating any sort of exclusionary zone at all; they can't.

Why don't you just admit that you're against it because you are bigoted against Muslims? It would save all this tying yourself in knots, and be more accurate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

That is true, Okie, but it is interesting that Wargotz skips over that part of the discussion. He talks about a Ground Zero National Monument but glosses over what portion of Manhatten should be included. How many square blocks do you think the government should buy via eminent domain?
Dr Wargotz, by the way, is one of three candidates for the Republican nomination to Senate. He trails the incumbent, Barbara Milkulski (D), by 55% to 39% in heavily Dem MD. She got 65% of the vote in 2004.

Just to clear up a bit of confusion from a few pages ago. The site of the proposed Islamic Center is two NY city blocks from Ground Zero. It has been unoccupied since 9/11. The NYC equivalent of what in my city is called the Board of Architectural Review unanimously approved the demolition of the existing building and the preliminary design of a 13-story office building.

0 Replies

@okie,

The only topic of debate is ground zero; not a few blocks from that site. When you begin to talk about "surrounding area," it becomes obvious whey people like you wish to continue the debate. There is nothing in American history that makes a coat factory "sacred" ground.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There is nothing in American history that makes a coat factory "sacred" ground.

There is nothing in American history (or in the U. S. Constitution for that matter) that allows Congress to 'regulate' interstate commercial inactivity but it has done so in order to 'justify' the rationale for the individual mandate found in Obamacare...so why not legislate a three ( or 4 or 5 or...) square block 'sacred' or 'historical' area centered around the WTC area in question? Wink

JM

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

Agreed James. Have you read my comparison of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site in Colorado on the past couple of pages or three of this thread? I think it is a rather brilliant comparison if I say so myself!! About 160 peaceful Native Americans were massacred at Sand Creek on that fateful day in 1864, while almost 3000 peaceful Americans died in New York on 9/11. Plus as I pointed out, the event in New York has world implications as opposed to just Western United States issues for the Sand Creek event. The Sand Creek site has just been created into a National Historic Site during the past few years, and I think it is a given that the area in Manhattan should become a national historic site, and what better time to start planning it than now?

2 Replies

@okie,

You forget to mention that Fox News at the time of the WTC attacks reported 4 or 5 Midlle Eastern types were seen by a woman on the roof top celebrating while the buildings were burning. Turns out they were Israelis and quickly tranported out of the United States.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Oh no!! And I also have not mentioned the fact that the news was welcomed in various Islamic countries abroad, and guys like Obama hero Jeremiah Wright essentially saying we deserved it. Imagine all the useful information that could be compiled into films for tourists to see when visiting a nicely built visitor center near Ground Zero. After all, I remember being shown the Pearl Harbor film a few times in school when I was a kid, so that the younger generation would learn what had happened. The same should be done now so that people do not forget the reality of history, lest it be repeated too many times.

1 Reply

@okie,

No, it shows the Israelis knew about it therefore it cannot be a Jewish holy or sacred site. How come they didn't prevent it or scream about it? No, they were celebrating to show how bad the Saudis or Arabs were.

0 Replies

AN INTERESTING COINCIDENCE

Quote:

The year is 1947

Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 62 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell , New Mexico . This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.

However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:

Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer

See what happens when aliens breed with sheep and [mules]?

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

...so why not legislate a three ( or 4 or 5 or...) square block 'sacred' or 'historical' area centered around the WTC area in question?

It is very easy to print out a map of that portion of NYC. Note that the World Trade Center site occupies a very large chunk of real estate. You can also see that the streets in that portion of Manhatten tend to not be parallel. If you define a block as being surrounded by 4 streets, the blocks are about half the size then in, say, Chinatown or Little Italy.
If you want to include an area one block deep from the WTC site in the sacred area, you would need to figure on about 12 blocks. Or 6 Chinatown sized blocks.
That would eliminate some of the porn shops, Off-track betting parlors and Burger King. But the mosque site would still be outside of the park area. If you want to include the mosque site (2 or 3 blocks away from the corner -not the center- of the WTC site) it looks to me like you would be up to about 24 blocks; or 12 blocks of the commonly sized blocks.
Does that the way you see it when you look at the map?
Do you think the Senate candidate from MD and others who propose a monument park have looked at a map? Or have any idea of how much it would cost to by 12 blocks of Manhatten real estate?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Personally, I don't really care, as I have been to Manhattan one time and never saw anything there I cared to go back to see

Too dagnabbit full of dem dare cultural artifacts! The NY Public Library! The Metropolitan Museum! The Guggenheim! The Metropolitan Opera! The Cloisters! Shuckuns, if I was to hang 'round there too much, I jest might larn sompin!

0 Replies

@okie,

I wrote:

But, YOU SAID that those who lost relatives in the collapse should set such boundaries. So, which way is it?

okie answered:

No, I did not. This is but another example wherein you make up stuff or distort what I have said.

So, here is okie's writing from Tuesday of this week:

Quote:

okie
1REPLYREPORT Tue 24 Aug, 2010 02:23 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

EDIT: Also, what would be the exclusion radius for religious buildings - how many blocks around the WTC site?

I don't know, but I think that should be debated between folks that have a stake in this historical site, including the relatives of those that died there, New York City officials, plus other agencies as well like maybe Homeland Security, etc.

Just in case anyone missed what okie wrote yesterday, here it is again:

Quote:

I don't know, but I think that should be debated between folks that have a stake in this historical site, including the relatives of those that died there, New York City officials, plus other agencies as well like maybe Homeland Security, etc

Either okie is the biggest sieve brain in the world or else he is so completely dedicated to lying that he can not remember what he said a mere 24 hours ago. Make that 26 hours!

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

This is the second time this week that plainoldme has looked for, cut and pasted things that okie wrote which he subsequently denied writing.

Presenile dementia?

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

pom, People like okie will fall into their own traps by stating contradictory statements sooner or later. That's because liars are unable to remember previous lies they have told; it only piles up, and becomes meaningless.

The shame of it all is that okie doesn't understand this simple truism.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

This is the second time this week that plainoldme has looked for, cut and pasted things that okie wrote which he subsequently denied writing.

Presenile dementia?

This is a prime example of your claim being totally and just plain flat wrong, pom. You are the one lying if anyone is. To hopefully clarify for you again, I never said the relatives should determine anything there. What I have said is that they should be allowed to provide input, along with other pertinent agencies and people. The local authorities have the authority, but I said they should consult others as I have described, including surviving family members or their representatives to help them make a sound policy decision there. I think I also at one point suggested Homeland Security would be another agency to consult, and now I also think the National Park Service may be another, in the event a park is created, and I have posted strong evidence and opinion as to why I think this is not only appropriate but likely. This is what I have said more than once. I don't know if you are intentionally twisting my words or you do in fact have a reading comprehension problem, pom?

Pom, I do not appreciate being repeatedly misrepresented and misquoted, and accused of being a liar without any evidence. I will once again ask for an apology, but if the pattern holds true, you probably do not have the courtesy or the honor to provide it.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

pom, People like okie will fall into their own traps by stating contradictory statements sooner or later. That's because liars are unable to remember previous lies they have told; it only piles up, and becomes meaningless.

The shame of it all is that okie doesn't understand this simple truism.

See my last post, ci. It is pom that is a liar or she has a reading comprehension problem, as I have provided evidence of and have pointed out. An apology is requested from her, and you could also do the same if you had any honesty about this as well. I do not lie here. Unless you can provide at least one example of it, an apology would be appropriate.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

The local authorities have the authority, but I said they should consult others as I have described, including surviving family members or their representatives to help them make a sound policy decision there.

Why would family members help them make a sound policy decision in any way?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

...to help them make a sound policy decision there.

What you claim as "sound policy decision" doesn't exist on this issue with outside input. The only sound decision are "non-discrimnatory, non-bigoted, and is consistent with our Constitution."

Your claim that the majority input will result in fairness and tolerance misses the reality of this situation, because people come in with emotion rather than logic and common sense.

All the necessary zoning laws, consistency to fairness, tolerance, and our Constitution are all that is needed for this project. Trying to input emotion is no solution.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

YOU SAID that those who lost relatives in the collapse should set such boundaries. So, which way is it?

Quote:

okie answered:
No, I did not. This is but another example wherein you make up stuff or distort what I have said.

okie, was previously asked:
what would be the exclusion radius for religious buildings - how many blocks around the WTC site?

okie answered that previous question:
I don't know, but I think that should be debated between folks that have a stake in this historical site, including the relatives of those that died there, New York City officials, plus other agencies as well like maybe Homeland Security, etc.

plainoldme responded:
But, YOU SAID that those who lost relatives in the collapse should set such boundaries. So, which way is it?

OBVIOUSLY, the "way it is" is:

should be debated between
folks that have a stake in this historical site,
relatives of those that died there,
New York City officials,
other agencies
Homeland Security,
etc.

If a person cites 6 groups--including "etc."--whose opinions should be debateded, then it is a STUPID and/or FRAUDULENT falcity to claim that person cited only one of those conditions.

2 Replies

No wonder we are in trouble: http://www.wbur.org/npr/129425186/the-brothers-koch-rich-political-and-playing-to-win

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know