Common sense from Bloomberg over the Mosque

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another."
 
“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another."
Interesting....
You're claiming that this Mosque IS NOT new and different building on a now vacant lot....is the right ?

The "new mosque" will be located INSIDE an existing building, so there IS NO NEW STRUCTURE?.....Is the the case?

Now a link to those claims would be excellent...

 
I would like to see this go the SC, because it would force them to rule strongly in favor of property rights. After the New London decision, the Court owes us all blowjobs, but perhaps this would help to make up for that colossal act of tyranny, stupidity, and debauchery.
 
I would like to see this go the SC, because it would force them to rule strongly in favor of property rights. After the New London decision, the Court owes us all blowjobs, but perhaps this would help to make up for that colossal act of tyranny, stupidity, and debauchery.

It would never make it to the SC. Even if it did the court could easily draw a distinction between this and Kelo. That was an abuse of eminent domain; this is a first amendment issue.
 
Interesting....
You're claiming that this Mosque IS NOT new and different building on a now vacant lot....is the right ?

The "new mosque" will be located INSIDE an existing building, so there IS NO NEW STRUCTURE?.....Is the the case?

Now a link to those claims would be excellent...


It was not claimed. Read it again. He is saying, they could use that building IF it had some sort of landmark value. It would not have changed anything.

Why should it matter?
 
It was not claimed. Read it again. He is saying, they could use that building IF it had some sort of landmark value. It would not have changed anything.

Why should it matter?
One of us don't understand what we read and I think its you..........there are no IF's at issue.

Originally Posted by Wickedjews
“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
They would not extend landmark stauts on building where mosque and community center are planned.

Why? Because the building has no architectural significance.

Buildings landmark status makes no difference...

because

This building is private property

There is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.
 
Last edited:
One of us don't understand what we read and I think its you..........there are no IF's at issue.

They would not extend landmark stauts on building where mosque and community center are planned.

Why? Because the building has no architectural significance.

Buildings landmark status makes no difference...

because

This building is private property

There is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.
So what is your point then?
 
So what is your point then?
My point, in POST 2 was to clarify what "Wickedjews" meant by his post and to ask for a link to the claims he presented....

and the point of post 6 was to correct RStringfield as to what the hell he was mis-reading...\

What the hell is your point?
 
My point, in POST 2 was to clarify what "Wickedjews" meant by his post and to ask for a link to the claims he presented....

and the point of post 6 was to correct RStringfield as to what the hell he was mis-reading...\

What the hell is your point?
That I don't have that first clue WTF you're talking about.

Calm down and type in complete thoughts. You off your BP meds today?
 
One of us don't understand what we read and I think its you..........there are no IF's at issue.

They would not extend landmark stauts on building where mosque and community center are planned.

Why? Because the building has no architectural significance.

Buildings landmark status makes no difference...

because

This building is private property

There is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.

LOL, yeah right dude. Nice attempt to walk away from your faceplant as if nothing happened.

Now you are getting it. You obviously didn't with your first response. No one was claiming what you said.
 
My point, in POST 2 was to clarify what "Wickedjews" meant by his post and to ask for a link to the claims he presented....

and the point of post 6 was to correct RStringfield as to what the hell he was mis-reading...\

What the hell is your point?

LOL. Your point in post 2 was to misread Bloomberg's comments. Water made no claims, it was all quote, and Bloomberg did not make any claim. I had to explain Bloomberg's comments to you. Then you just reworded what I said and tried to claim I had misread. No one was claiming the plans did not include a new building. You misread, otherwise the following makes no sense.

Interesting....
You're claiming that this Mosque IS NOT new and different building on a now vacant lot....is the right ?

The "new mosque" will be located INSIDE an existing building, so there IS NO NEW STRUCTURE?.....Is the the case?

Now a link to those claims would be excellent...
 
Last edited:
LOL, uh huh. Your mistake is obvious in your first repsonse. I had to explain Bloomberg's comments to you. Then you just reworded what I said and tried to claim I had misread. No one was claiming the plans did not include a new building. You misread, otherwise the following makes no sense.
How could asking questions and clarification "make no sense"......
Question are by definition expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.

Like I said about your response...their is no issue of IF as you tryed to state.
 
How could asking questions and clarification "make no sense"......
Question are by definition expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.

Like I said about your response...their is no issue of IF as you tryed to state.

Bloomberg did not claim the plan called for a new building. He was pointing out that they could have built a mosque in the existing building if they wanted to, so it would not have stopped the mosque anyway.
 
RStringfield says...

they could use that building IF it had some sort of landmark value.

Explain that to me...I'm all ears....

Thats an EXACT QUOTE from you.

Who could use what building IF it had some landmark value....
WTF are you talking about....
 
Explain that to me...I'm all ears....

Thats an EXACT QUOTE from you.

Who could use what building IF it had some landmark value....
WTF are you talking about....

Learn to read bravo. Bloomberg said...

This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
 
Bloomberg did not claim the plan called for a new building. He was pointing out that they could have built a mosque in the existing building if they wanted to, so it would not have stopped the mosque anyway.
Now you got it....there is no IF involved....
It didn't matter the status of the building.....there is no IF

So saying, "they could use that building IF it had some sort of landmark value. is what makes no sense.....

you;re dismissed.....this is getting silly to even argue about.
 
Now you got it....there is no IF involved....
It didn't matter the status of the building.....there is no IF

So saying, "they could use that building IF it had some sort of landmark value. is what makes no sense.....

you;re dismissed.....this is getting silly to even argue about.

LOL, IF the building is a landmark or not, a mosque could be built there. That was Bloomberg's point. You misread thinking that water was claiming that the existing structure was going to be used.

Are you still confused or are you attempting to spin out of your mistake? Either way it is pretty pathetic.
 
LOL, IF the building is a landmark or not, a mosque could be built there. That was Bloomberg's point. You misread thinking that water was claiming that the existing structure was going to be used.

Are you still confused or are you attempting to spin out of your mistake? Either way it is pretty pathetic.

OR NOT....yeah, adding that makes more sense...too bad you didn;t say that from the getgo.....

Give it a break sonny....you've been schooled enough for one night.
 
OR NOT....yeah, adding that makes more sense...too bad you didn;t say that from the getgo.....

Give it a break sonny....you've been schooled enough for one night.

Bloomberg's point was clear. The only thing you are teaching anyone is that you can't read.
 
Back
Top