Remember when Republicans were for Religious Freedom

[Timshel]

Only incoherent to you dork, becuse your head is brick thick and your brains as clear as mud.

The attempts to stop the building of the mosque are not based on anyones belief that they, the muslims who wish to build it, do not have a first amendment right to build dork. That other legal challenges are being made on different grounds is a legal and reasonable recourse of the opposition to the mosque.

To protest is lawful. If that protest or other lawful and legal actions effectively causes the Imam to NOT build there...then no one is denying him a 1st amendment right!!!

You are trying to change your original claim, that no one was trying to stop the building of the mosque to no one is trying to stop them based on a belief that Muslims don't have a first amendment right to build (wtf???). That's incoherent. Your not making any sense.

Any attempt to stop the building of the mosque at this point is obviously motivated by religious discrimination and would violate their first amendment rights.

There are those who hope to stop them from building through state action. That's not a straw man.

 

[leaningright]

Remember when Republicans were for Religious Freedom

That was before they were against it, right?

 

[zappasguitar]

No one has EVER argued that Muslims don't have the right to worship in this country. Since you pinheads have begun this campaign to help radicals build their trophy, you have characterized the position opposite of you, as being in denial of Muslims right to freedom of religion, and it's never been about that.

It's like you keep running it up the flagpole, but the flag gets tattered and torched almost immediately, so you run a new flag up the pole again, over and over... same thing... it keeps getting destroyed, and you keep putting up a new one. How long are you hoping to continue this? How many Flags of Islam do you Pinheads have?

People out here in "fly over country" are shocked and appalled at the behavior of liberal America. I mean, I know you guys live in a liberal bubble world, with your latte's and laptops, but most decent American people are opposed to this mosque at this location! It's not about rights of Muslims, or rights period! It's about WHAT IS RIGHT!

You're WRONG!

So it's all about the Mosque/Community Center they wish to build in Manhattan ONLY?

I see to recall some trouble with intolerant Christians protesting the building of a Mosque in Tennessee.

I also recall more intolerant Christians protesting a Mosque being built somewhere in Wisconsin.

Do you STILL claim it's only about the Mosque being built in Manhattan?

 

[zappasguitar]

So fucking what? Eminent Domain is a legitimate legal tool for governments to use, it has been upheld by the SCOTUS, and it certainly could be applied in this case. There are mosques already in the area, there is no 'denying of religious freedom' here, and you know it. This is the SPIN from liberals, and it's not playing well in the heartland.

So Eminent Domain is acceptable to you as long as those having their land taken belong to a group you hate and disagree with.

Your hypocricy is showing, you two-faced clown.

 

[zappasguitar]

How do you know they weren't? More specifically, how do you know the funding isn't coming from those who were? No one is talking about "punishing all Muslims" just denying the ones who want to build a trophy of conquest at ground zero. It's obvious Rauf and Khan aren't interested in "outreach" as they proclaimed, because this isn't generating the atmosphere for outreach at all, it's doing exactly the opposite of their stated objective. Therefore, we must examine what they claim a bit closer, because it doesn't fit with reality.

YEAH...don't you chucklehead Libtards get it?

Dixie doesn't want to "punish all Muslims", JUST THOSE UPPITY ENOUGH to want to live and worship in our beloved country!

Muslims are nice enough for Dix, as long as they keep their asses out of Dixie's "America"!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are trying to change your original claim, that no one was trying to stop the building of the mosque to no one is trying to stop them based on a belief that Muslims don't have a first amendment right to build (wtf???). That's incoherent. Your not making any sense.

Any attempt to stop the building of the mosque at this point is obviously motivated by religious discrimination and would violate their first amendment rights.

There are those who hope to stop them from building through state action. That's not a straw man.

You're out of your fucking mind. Any attempt to stop the building of the mosque, is covered in the same 1st amendment. They have the right to build it, and people also have the right to protest them building it, including use of any legal channels to prevent them from building it. You are trying to say, they have rights, and the rest of us don't, we just have to stand back and watch.

Technically speaking, Roy Moore had the legal right and constitutional right, to display a monument of the 10 commandments in the Alabama State House. He has the 1st amendment right to free speech, and he also had the state constitutional right, as chief justice of the supreme court, to determine the decorum of the state house. Did he get to do it? Did you pinheads step aside and say, well, he's within his rights, we can't say or do anything about it? No.... because you have constitutional rights too! The courts (as they often do) had to intervene and determine who's constitutional right should prevail, and they ultimately found in favor of Moore's opponents. It didn't mean Moore had no constitutional right, it meant someone else had a constitutional right which trumped his right.

Eminent domain is certainly a viable legal channel to take, to prevent the mosque from being built. There is also the issue of public safety. But besides just the legal actions, opponents also have the right to picket and protest the building project, which you can bet is going to happen, should they ever start laying the bricks and pouring the concrete.

 

[Jarod]

You're out of your fucking mind. Any attempt to stop the building of the mosque, is covered in the same 1st amendment. They have the right to build it, and people also have the right to protest them building it, including use of any legal channels to prevent them from building it. You are trying to say, they have rights, and the rest of us don't, we just have to stand back and watch.

Technically speaking, Roy Moore had the legal right and constitutional right, to display a monument of the 10 commandments in the Alabama State House. He has the 1st amendment right to free speech, and he also had the state constitutional right, as chief justice of the supreme court, to determine the decorum of the state house. Did he get to do it? Did you pinheads step aside and say, well, he's within his rights, we can't say or do anything about it? No.... because you have constitutional rights too! The courts (as they often do) had to intervene and determine who's constitutional right should prevail, and they ultimately found in favor of Moore's opponents. It didn't mean Moore had no constitutional right, it meant someone else had a constitutional right which trumped his right.

Eminent domain is certainly a viable legal channel to take, to prevent the mosque from being built. There is also the issue of public safety. But besides just the legal actions, opponents also have the right to picket and protest the building project, which you can bet is going to happen, should they ever start laying the bricks and pouring the concrete.

Using ED, for the sole purpose of preventing Muslims from building a Community Center when it would otherwise be permissable would violate the First Amendment and would not be legally permissable. Just because you are using ED does not give you the right to violate the first Amendment.

 

[leaningright]

Is that the Bob Dole type ED or the Emminate Domain type ED. Sorry, that struck me very funny when I saw it abbreviated that way.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Using ED, for the sole purpose of preventing Muslims from building a Community Center when it would otherwise be permissable would violate the First Amendment and would not be legally permissable. Just because you are using ED does not give you the right to violate the first Amendment.

Oh I agree, if they waltz into court and tell a judge they are just using ED to prevent Muslims from building a mosque, it will get thrown out of court. However, if they are using ED to rezone the area for aesthetics, or to build a hospital or school, and they show that mosques are already plentiful in the area, they can most certainly win the case. Happens every day!

The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to violate the 1st Amendment!

 

[Timshel]

You're out of your fucking mind. Any attempt to stop the building of the mosque, is covered in the same 1st amendment. They have the right to build it, and people also have the right to.... use of any legal channels to prevent them from building it. You are trying to say, they have rights, and the rest of us don't, we just have to stand back and watch.

The first amendment does not grant a right to government to stop the building of a Mosque. What are you talking about? The first amendment deals with the individual rights of citizens.

Technically speaking, Roy Moore had the legal right and constitutional right, to display a monument of the 10 commandments in the Alabama State House. He has the 1st amendment right to free speech, and he also had the state constitutional right, as chief justice of the supreme court, to determine the decorum of the state house. Did he get to do it? Did you pinheads step aside and say, well, he's within his rights, we can't say or do anything about it? No.... because you have constitutional rights too! The courts (as they often do) had to intervene and determine who's constitutional right should prevail, and they ultimately found in favor of Moore's opponents. It didn't mean Moore had no constitutional right, it meant someone else had a constitutional right which trumped his right.

Again, you are ignorantly claiming that the first amendment grants a right to the government or agents of the government. Moore had rights as a citizen, but no more than any other. Allowing him allow to engage in a speech act in the state house in such a way would create a forum where other speech acts would have to be allowed. Fred Phelps could then come in and demand a monument to hating homosexuals, which is what he has done elsewhere.

 

[zappasguitar]

Using ED, for the sole purpose of preventing Muslims from building a Community Center when it would otherwise be permissable would violate the First Amendment and would not be legally permissable. Just because you are using ED does not give you the right to violate the first Amendment.

And let's not forget...this is the same Dixie who has been arguing AGAINST ED for years now!

Apparently ED is perfectly acceptable to him if the group whose land is being taken is someone Dixie doesn't like.

If those folks were good old fashioned, GOD fearing Americans, Dixie would be HOWLING TO THE HEAVENS how unfair and ILLEGAL ED is, and how the Government should be overthrown!

 

[zappasguitar]

Oh I agree, if they waltz into court and tell a judge they are just using ED to prevent Muslims from building a mosque, it will get thrown out of court. However, if they are using ED to rezone the area for aesthetics, or to build a hospital or school, and they show that mosques are already plentiful in the area, they can most certainly win the case. Happens every day!

The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to violate the 1st Amendment!

So you ADMIT to being a HYPOCRITE when it comes to Eminent Domain...it's nice to see you being HONEST for a change.

 

[Canceled2]

You are trying to change your original claim, that no one was trying to stop the building of the mosque to no one is trying to stop them based on a belief that Muslims don't have a first amendment right to build (wtf???). That's incoherent. Your not making any sense.

Any attempt to stop the building of the mosque at this point is obviously motivated by religious discrimination and would violate their first amendment rights.

There are those who hope to stop them from building through state action. That's not a straw man.

The fucking argument being made against opponents has been a first amendment argument dork! When I stated no one trying to stop them legally, the legal challenge in question by supporters such as yourself was a 1st amendment position...I did not think that neded to be stated.

When you posted about eminate domain, I said fucking great! That is not a first amendment legal argument woo-hoo -yippee skippy (ad-lib)!

All along I have been clear that arguing against and protesting against the propriety of building a mosque at that location is legitimate and that I hoped it worked!

Get a clue dork!

 

[Timshel]

Oh I agree, if they waltz into court and tell a judge they are just using ED to prevent Muslims from building a mosque, it will get thrown out of court. However, if they are using ED to rezone the area for aesthetics, or to build a hospital or school, and they show that mosques are already plentiful in the area, they can most certainly win the case. Happens every day!

So you are saying that any stupid excuse the government gives to violate the first amendment rights of US citizens is good enough for you? The problem with your scenario is the rest of us are not going to pretend it is not about their religion.

The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to violate the 1st Amendment!

?

 

[Timshel]

The fucking argument being made against opponents has bee

No. Let's go back to the replay. You said...

No one is denying the legal right to build the mosque...that's a fucking straw man...

And that was clearly wrong. No matter how much you try to pretend you claimed something else, the facts are that your assertion was incorrect.

Now, the fact is that using eminent domain would be a flagrant violation of the first amendment. The justices are not going to just pretend this was all about building a hospital, school or whatever fairy tale bullshit you fucking Nazis want to tell yourselves it is about. They are going to look at the facts of what is motivating such action.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And let's not forget...this is the same Dixie who has been arguing AGAINST ED for years now!

Apparently ED is perfectly acceptable to him if the group whose land is being taken is someone Dixie doesn't like.

If those folks were good old fashioned, GOD fearing Americans, Dixie would be HOWLING TO THE HEAVENS how unfair and ILLEGAL ED is, and how the Government should be overthrown!

Are you trying to say that Muslims aren't Americans?

 

[Jarod]

Are you trying to say that Muslims aren't Americans?

Liar

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. Let's go back to the replay. You said...

No one is denying the legal right to build the mosque...that's a fucking straw man...

And that was clearly wrong. No matter how much you try to pretend you claimed something else, the facts are that your assertion was incorrect.

Now, the fact is that using eminent domain would be a flagrant violation of the first amendment. The justices are not going to just pretend this was all about building a hospital, school or whatever fairy tale bullshit you fucking Nazis want to tell yourselves it is about. They are going to look at the facts of what is motivating such action.

No, they will take a look at the case on merit, and determine if ED applies. How many mosques are in the area, is there a need for a hospital or school in the area? Things like that.

And again, no one has said they don't have the right to build a mosque, but ED laws do say they may not have the right to build in that location.

 

[Jarod]

No, they will take a look at the case on merit, and determine if ED applies. How many mosques are in the area, is there a need for a hospital or school in the area? Things like that.

And again, no one has said they don't have the right to build a mosque, but ED laws do say they may not have the right to build in that location.

Liar.

 

[Canceled2]

No. Let's go back to the replay. You said...

No one is denying the legal right to build the mosque...that's a fucking straw man...

And that was clearly wrong. No matter how much you try to pretend you claimed something else, the facts are that your assertion was incorrect.

Now, the fact is that using eminent domain would be a flagrant violation of the first amendment. The justices are not going to just pretend this was all about building a hospital, school or whatever fairy tale bullshit you fucking Nazis want to tell yourselves it is about. They are going to look at the facts of what is motivating such action.

You are SO dishonest! I did not know about eminent domain until you posted the link. The legal argument, as far as I knew, was a 1st amendment one which NO ONE from the oposition argued was in question!

You're such fucking asshole.