Critical thinking and political matters.

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
No one is attacking any Muslims. Where did you ever get that idea? As Obama later said, although they had a legal right to build, he questioned whether it was a wise thing to do. And so do I. And so do many people.

It is my understanding that President Obama took no position whatsoever on the "wisdom" of building a cultural center near "ground zero."

Why should we care if you question the wisdom of building a Muslim cultural center and prayer room near "ground zero"? Do you think your personal opinion concerning the wisdom or lack thereof should serve as the basis for discriminatory government action?

It is my understanding that President Obama took no position whatsoever on the "wisdom" of building a cultural center near "ground zero."

Your understanding is wrong. Last Saturday, after his Ramadans speech on Friday, where he indicated that the mosque issue was a legal, but not a moral, or even a sensitivity issue, he admitted that it might not be "wise" to build the mosque.

I never claimed that anyone should care whether I think the mosque is a good idea or not. Where did you ever get that idea. You seem to be as well informed about what I wrote as you are about what president Obama said. And I certainly did not advocate any government action, descriminatory or not. I think you must have read another discussion. Not something I wrote. Do try again.

In any case, it seems as if the mosque-group have been (not surprisingly) unable to get money for the project, and they were probably happy to schedule a meeting with the Governor of New York to discuss moving the proposed site. You should be happy for them. But whether the mosque ought to be built is really not relevant to what I was saying, anyway. The issue is the red herring floated by the President which tried to make it seem as if the only issue was a legal issue when, it fact (as I hope he, or at least someone in the White House smarter than he is knew) it was not a legal issue at all.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

kennethamy will "never get it." He suffers from myopia, and continues to opine about "feelings" that doesn't make any sense based on how they try to rationalize it. We were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and kennethamy wants to worry about "feelings" only for those in America.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

kennethamy will "never get it." He suffers from myopia, and continues to opine about "feelings" that doesn't make any sense based on how they try to rationalize it. We were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and kennethamy wants to worry about "feelings" only for those in America.

Whether or not that is true, does that make it all right to offend people? Of course not. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs just compound the wrong. In any case, not to worry. It looks as if the Muslim group have seen the light (especially since they could get no money for their project-that helped them to see the light) and they are now negotiating for a more sensible site. Perhaps outside of Nome.

3 Replies

@kennethamy,

"Offending people" is not against the law. It's an emotional response that usually changes with time. Many surviving victims have forgotten about 9-11 except for the firemen and police who did their best to save people, and our government ended up crapping on them. Why don't you have "feelings" for them? That's a more important issue over building a community center in any place they damn well please. We lost over 4,000 men and women in Iraq for fighting a illegal war that was started by GW Bush who chased out UN Inspectors to start his war based on Saddam's WMDs that he didn't have.

Feel for those families who lost loved ones in that war.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

...All knowledge is judgement

I must respectfully dissent:
if I know that I have an appointment to see my girlfriend,
that knowledge is not judgment.

If I know that my gun is colored silver,
that knowledge is not a judgment.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

When nature calls, and I have to relieve myself by pissing and/or crapping, that's not judgment.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

. In any case, not to worry. It looks as if the Muslim group have seen the light (especially since they could get no money for their project-that helped them to see the light) and they are now negotiating for a more sensible site. Perhaps outside of Nome.

Perhaps you could provide a link to that information. The same thing was reported yesterday, but turned out to be a false report.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It is in bad taste to refer to such things in polite conversation.

1 Reply

When we get rid of the Musilams mabey we can start on the ultra conseratives.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

. In any case, not to worry. It looks as if the Muslim group have seen the light (especially since they could get no money for their project-that helped them to see the light) and they are now negotiating for a more sensible site. Perhaps outside of Nome.

Perhaps you could provide a link to that information. The same thing was reported yesterday, but turned out to be a false report.

Certainly.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/paterson-would

1 Reply

@rabel22,

rabel22 wrote:

When we get rid of the Musilams mabey we can start on the ultra conseratives.

America belongs to US, not to u.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
When we get rid of the Musilams mabey we can start on the ultra conseratives.
America belongs to US, not to u.

David

This thread has really degenerated.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Intrepid wrote:

Perhaps you could provide a link to that information. The same thing was reported yesterday, but turned out to be a false report.

Quote:

Certainly.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/paterson-would

That is a week old. It was rejected.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
If I read you correctly, I am agreed the issue is really whether it is insensitive of the Islamic community to build a mosque so near to ground zero.
Our government has no place deciding any such issue.

Except the government clearly has a place in deciding the issue. Government created the zoning laws that would allow it. Government issues the building permits. Government decided the existing building wasn't an historical landmark so it could be torn down.

Quote:
Now comes the issue of insensitivity.
Public opinion must be the arbiter of that, although, it remains to the Islamic community the final decision.

Why does public opinion have any place in the issue at all? The public through it's elected government has already assented to it when that government voted to let the project move forward. The public is free to throw out the government at the next election if they disagree but other than that, they really have no say in the matter.

In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Whether or not that is true, does that make it all right to offend people? Of course not. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs just compound the wrong.

Your comments offend me kennie. Does that make you wrong? Or is life such that sometimes people are offended.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Perhaps you could provide a link to that information. The same thing was reported yesterday, but turned out to be a false report.

Quote:
Certainly.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/paterson-would

That is a week old. It was rejected.

It happened just yesterday. You are thinking of a previous episode when the Governor had not yet intervened and it was suggested that a different site be chosen, and that suggestion was rejected. This is entirely different, and new. The builders and the Governor of New York are going to discuss the matter in the near future.
Here is the article from today's newspaper.

http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Paterson-mosque-group-to-meet-619836.php

Trust me. The possibility that the mosque will be build on that site is dead. And so it should be.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

That's an interesting argument kennie. Didn't you argue that the Constitution has no bearing in this argument because it has nothing to do with the government? Now you are arguing that this is an issue that does involve the government because we are a democracy.

As soon as you involve the use of the government it is a constitutional issue and the will of the majority is tempered by the Constitution.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Trust me. The possibility that the mosque will be build on that site is dead. And so it should be.

Trust you? You can't even make a coherent argument but we should trust your conclusions?

There are a lot of reasons why it might not be built. Public opinion is pretty short on the list. If it takes 3 years to get funding, the public won't care about it in that time period. They will be up in arms over something else that the RW has ginned up as some horrible thing that will destroy America.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Trust me. The possibility that the mosque will be build on that site is dead. And so it should be.

parados wrote:

Trust you? You can't even make a coherent argument but we should trust your conclusions?

There are a lot of reasons why it might not be built. Public opinion is pretty short on the list.
If it takes 3 years to get funding, the public won't care about it in that time period.

They will be up in arms over something else that the RW has ginned up as some horrible thing that will destroy America.

I 'll get right on it, Parados.

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

That's an interesting argument kennie. Didn't you argue that the Constitution has no bearing in this argument because it has nothing to do with the government? Now you are arguing that this is an issue that does involve the government because we are a democracy.

As soon as you involve the use of the government it is a constitutional issue and the will of the majority is tempered by the Constitution.

Public opinion ought not to affect constitutional issues (at least not directly). But this is not a constitutional issue, as I have pointed out over and over again, and as the president either did not know, or did not want to know. The issue is not whether the erection is constitutional but whether it is moral. And, public opinion should (and does) affect that issue. I think you are getting confused. Again, public opinion has a right to be heard exactly because this is a moral issue. It is not a constitutional issue.

1 Reply

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know