Mosque On Ground Zero. An Act Of Aggression: Yea Or Nay?

[ConHog]

Personally i believe if the builders of this large Mosque really wanted to extend a hand of peace,love,and tolerance they would decide to build it somewhere else. Anything less seems like an act of aggression in my opinion. I really am interested in hearing how you all feel about this. Thanks.

How could you construe American citizens exercising their constitutionally protected first amendment rights as "an act of aggression"?

In your avatar, is Paul trying to revive the constitution or flat line it?

In other words, you can cease with your whole "strict constitutionalist" mantra bullshit because it doesn't get much more cut and dry than the establishment clause. You don't support the constitution, you just support the parts you agree with.

easy, I have a right to own a gun. If I wave that gun in your face or act menacingly with it, I am using a constitutional right in an aggressive way.

 

[geauxtohell]

Personally i believe if the builders of this large Mosque really wanted to extend a hand of peace,love,and tolerance they would decide to build it somewhere else. Anything less seems like an act of aggression in my opinion. I really am interested in hearing how you all feel about this. Thanks.

How could you construe American citizens exercising their constitutionally protected first amendment rights as "an act of aggression"?

In your avatar, is Paul trying to revive the constitution or flat line it?

In other words, you can cease with your whole "strict constitutionalist" mantra bullshit because it doesn't get much more cut and dry than the establishment clause. You don't support the constitution, you just support the parts you agree with.

easy, I have a right to own a gun. If I wave that gun in your face or act menacingly with it, I am using a constitutional right in an aggressive way.

That non sequitur is so absurd it doesn't even make sense.

 

[ConHog]

How could you construe American citizens exercising their constitutionally protected first amendment rights as "an act of aggression"?

In your avatar, is Paul trying to revive the constitution or flat line it?

In other words, you can cease with your whole "strict constitutionalist" mantra bullshit because it doesn't get much more cut and dry than the establishment clause. You don't support the constitution, you just support the parts you agree with.

easy, I have a right to own a gun. If I wave that gun in your face or act menacingly with it, I am using a constitutional right in an aggressive way.

That non sequitur is so absurd it doesn't even make sense.

Oh, it makes perfect sense, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[geauxtohell]

easy, I have a right to own a gun. If I wave that gun in your face or act menacingly with it, I am using a constitutional right in an aggressive way.

That non sequitur is so absurd it doesn't even make sense.

Oh, it makes perfect sense, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

It makes no sense and I won't acknowledge it, because it is completely stupid.

 

[jillian]

there is no legal right to menace someone with a gun. in fact, there are laws against it.

there IS a legal right for someone to build on their own property... and no one can interfere with them using it for religious purpose. i also think the same people who are taking the position that we should somehow stop this would be losing their collective minds if someone even suggested that a church not be built on church-owned land.

that said, i do think it's insensitive. but last i checked, there's no law against being insensitive.

 

[geauxtohell]

there is no legal right to menace someone with a gun. in fact, there are laws against it.

there IS a legal right for someone to build on their own property... and no one can interfere with them using it for religious purpose. i also think the same people who are taking the position that we should somehow stop this would be losing their collective minds if someone even suggested that a church not be built on church-owned land.

that said, i do think it's insensitive. but last i checked, there's no law against being insensitive.

Thanks for introducing the legalities of the matter.

For a group that claims to love the constitution with all their being, the legalities should be the only relevant thing.

 

[Shogun]

Ordinarily, a government can exercise eminent domain only if its taking will be for a "public use" - which may be expansively defined along the lines of public "safety, health, interest, or convenience". Perhaps the most common example of a "public use" is the taking of land to build or expand a public road or highway. Public use could also include the taking of land to build a school or municipal building, for a public park, or to redevelop a "blighted" property or neighborhood.



All done by legal process.

If the government is not successful, or if the property owner is not satisfied with the outcome, either side may appeal the decision.

Eminent Domain​

Just because the government has decided that it has the power of eminent domain doesn't make it any less theft. When you take something that doesn't belong to you you're stealing. It doesn't matter if you're a government or a private person.

Interesting stuff. That Supreme Court ruling was gleefully applauded by all Liberals such as yourself. The ruling took place while Bush was in office. All Liberals on this very board applauded Ginsberg for her support of Eminent Domain Laws. So why the sudden change of heart on Eminent Domain Laws by you Liberals? Could it be that da BOOOOOOOOSH is no longer in office? Yea you guys loved that ruling on Eminent Domain when da BOOOOOOOSH was in there. You guys have lost credibility on that issue as well as many others. I do not support Eminent Domain Laws and i never have. Nice to see you Liberals coming around but i'm afraid it's just a matter of political convenience for you guys.

You are simply wrong. stupid and very wrong. I dare you to pull up a thread when kelo v new london was decided, you silly ******* partisan.



talk about loss of credibility, fool...

 

[Shogun]

Personally i believe if the builders of this large Mosque really wanted to extend a hand of peace,love,and tolerance they would decide to build it somewhere else. Anything less seems like an act of aggression in my opinion. I really am interested in hearing how you all feel about this. Thanks.

How could you construe American citizens exercising their constitutionally protected first amendment rights as "an act of aggression"?

In your avatar, is Paul trying to revive the constitution or flat line it?

In other words, you can cease with your whole "strict constitutionalist" mantra bullshit because it doesn't get much more cut and dry than the establishment clause. You don't support the constitution, you just support the parts you agree with.

easy, I have a right to own a gun. If I wave that gun in your face or act menacingly with it, I am using a constitutional right in an aggressive way.

building a building is not aggression. Maybe you should face your fear of buildings before crying that the sky is falling.

 

[ConHog]

there is no legal right to menace someone with a gun. in fact, there are laws against it.

there IS a legal right for someone to build on their own property... and no one can interfere with them using it for religious purpose. i also think the same people who are taking the position that we should somehow stop this would be losing their collective minds if someone even suggested that a church not be built on church-owned land.

that said, i do think it's insensitive. but last i checked, there's no law against being insensitive.

HAHHAhHAhA I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Thanks to our DoJ ruling that beating a baton against your hand is not threatening with a weapon. I believe I can safely brandish my weapon and intimidate you without pointing it at you or making verbal threats while at the same time getting my point across. Not illegal, because you can't be arrested for thought, well not yet anyway, but still using my constitutional right in a menacing manner.

 

[Shogun]

easy, I have a right to own a gun. If I wave that gun in your face or act menacingly with it, I am using a constitutional right in an aggressive way.

That non sequitur is so absurd it doesn't even make sense.

Oh, it makes perfect sense, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

no.. no really.. it makes no ******* sense.

I guess it's time to layer on another of your victim sirens...

WAAAHHOOOOWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHOOOOOOOWWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHOOOOOOOWWW!

 

[saveliberty]

What a crock. You certainly cannot build whatever suits you on your property. There are zoning and building regulations to satisfy. Typically they center on compatible use and a properly zoned area.

For instance, a mosque without adequate parking, might not be a good use. I would recommend a nice Jewish Community Center across the street and an adult book store next door.

 

[jillian]

there is no legal right to menace someone with a gun. in fact, there are laws against it.

there IS a legal right for someone to build on their own property... and no one can interfere with them using it for religious purpose. i also think the same people who are taking the position that we should somehow stop this would be losing their collective minds if someone even suggested that a church not be built on church-owned land.

that said, i do think it's insensitive. but last i checked, there's no law against being insensitive.

HAHHAhHAhA I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Thanks to our DoJ ruling that beating a baton against your hand is not threatening with a weapon. I believe I can safely brandish my weapon and intimidate you without pointing it at you or making verbal threats while at the same time getting my point across. Not illegal, because you can't be arrested for thought, well not yet anyway, but still using my constitutional right in a menacing manner.

The DoJ does not define laws...statutes do....and Courts interpret statutes.

The DoJ exercises prosecutorial discretion... kind of not prosecuting for outing a CIA agent.

sorry... the effort to be spiteful fails.

 

[Shogun]

there is no legal right to menace someone with a gun. in fact, there are laws against it.

there IS a legal right for someone to build on their own property... and no one can interfere with them using it for religious purpose. i also think the same people who are taking the position that we should somehow stop this would be losing their collective minds if someone even suggested that a church not be built on church-owned land.

that said, i do think it's insensitive. but last i checked, there's no law against being insensitive.

HAHHAhHAhA I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Thanks to our DoJ ruling that beating a baton against your hand is not threatening with a weapon. I believe I can safely brandish my weapon and intimidate you without pointing it at you or making verbal threats while at the same time getting my point across. Not illegal, because you can't be arrested for thought, well not yet anyway, but still using my constitutional right in a menacing manner.

The DoJ does not define laws...statutes do....and Courts interpret statutes.

The DoJ exercises prosecutorial discretion... kind of not prosecuting for outing a CIA agent.

sorry... the effort to be spiteful fails.

 

[ConHog]

there is no legal right to menace someone with a gun. in fact, there are laws against it.

there IS a legal right for someone to build on their own property... and no one can interfere with them using it for religious purpose. i also think the same people who are taking the position that we should somehow stop this would be losing their collective minds if someone even suggested that a church not be built on church-owned land.

that said, i do think it's insensitive. but last i checked, there's no law against being insensitive.

HAHHAhHAhA I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Thanks to our DoJ ruling that beating a baton against your hand is not threatening with a weapon. I believe I can safely brandish my weapon and intimidate you without pointing it at you or making verbal threats while at the same time getting my point across. Not illegal, because you can't be arrested for thought, well not yet anyway, but still using my constitutional right in a menacing manner.

The DoJ does not define laws...statutes do....and Courts interpret statutes.

The DoJ exercises prosecutorial discretion... kind of not prosecuting for outing a CIA agent.

sorry... the effort to be spiteful fails.

In effect the DoJ DOES define laws when they choose what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. If you had said the DoJ does not MAKE laws you would be correct, but they certainly DO define them.

Be that as it may, my point stands, I could stand in front of you and threaten you with my gun without ever removing it from the holster or saying a word to you. You know this, and I know this. That is threatening , but it would be damned hard to prove it in a court of law. That would be me using my 2nd amendment right in a aggressive manner.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Sometimes intolerance is a good thing. I know this notion isn't PC enough for many but it is true. We are by far the most tolerant & compassionate nation on this Planet. This just can't be disputed. However i am intolerant of this large Mosque being built in this location. I don't care about being labelled a "Bigot" or "Islamophobe" by the usual suspects. Sometimes intolerance is right & just. This is one of those times in my opinion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What a crock. You certainly cannot build whatever suits you on your property. There are zoning and building regulations to satisfy. Typically they center on compatible use and a properly zoned area.

For instance, a mosque without adequate parking, might not be a good use. I would recommend a nice Jewish Community Center across the street and an adult book store next door.

There are already both of those things within 2 blocks. Why do you think they'd care about either?

There's a strip club on the corner too.

 

[G.T.]

What a crock. You certainly cannot build whatever suits you on your property. There are zoning and building regulations to satisfy. Typically they center on compatible use and a properly zoned area.

For instance, a mosque without adequate parking, might not be a good use. I would recommend a nice Jewish Community Center across the street and an adult book store next door.

There are already both of those things within 2 blocks. Why do you think they'd care about either?

There's a strip club on the corner too.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Just because the government has decided that it has the power of eminent domain doesn't make it any less theft. When you take something that doesn't belong to you you're stealing. It doesn't matter if you're a government or a private person.

Interesting stuff. That Supreme Court ruling was gleefully applauded by all Liberals such as yourself. The ruling took place while Bush was in office. All Liberals on this very board applauded Ginsberg for her support of Eminent Domain Laws. So why the sudden change of heart on Eminent Domain Laws by you Liberals? Could it be that da BOOOOOOOOSH is no longer in office? Yea you guys loved that ruling on Eminent Domain when da BOOOOOOOSH was in there. You guys have lost credibility on that issue as well as many others. I do not support Eminent Domain Laws and i never have. Nice to see you Liberals coming around but i'm afraid it's just a matter of political convenience for you guys.

You are simply wrong. stupid and very wrong. I dare you to pull up a thread when kelo v new london was decided, you silly ******* partisan.



talk about loss of credibility, fool...

Sorry,still gotta call BULL CHIT on you guys. Liberal nutters like you were on this very board applauding Ginsberg on her deciding vote which ruled Eminent Domain to be legal & Constitutional. But that was back when da BOOOOOOOOOSH was in there so? Now you same Liberals suddenly have a different view of Eminent Domain huh? Gee i wonder why you guys have changed your minds? Could it be that Da BOOOOOOOOSH is gone and now your guy is in there? Hmm?

 

[saveliberty]

What a crock. You certainly cannot build whatever suits you on your property. There are zoning and building regulations to satisfy. Typically they center on compatible use and a properly zoned area.

For instance, a mosque without adequate parking, might not be a good use. I would recommend a nice Jewish Community Center across the street and an adult book store next door.

There are already both of those things within 2 blocks. Why do you think they'd care about either?

There's a strip club on the corner too.

Kind of makes me question the motives of the mosque then. Don't they want to keep impure thoughts from the faithful? Do they have a large number of parishers working in local businesses?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Sometimes intolerance is right & just. This is one of those times in my opinion. Don't care what labels people throw at me. It's how i feel.