shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Who owns the property? It is up to them to decide what is built there. Personally I think we should all chip in money and offer to buy it more for then the Muslims and put up a giant MT.net sign.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

That's the American way right there. We should go on our own State Dept. sponsored trip to Iran to get donations for the MT.net Shrine.

jtothawhat

iTrader: (7)

I think that's what Americans should do, all chip in an buy the land. I am sure that there is enough American's who DO NOT want the Mosque built that it will only cost less than .60 cents each to buy out the land.

Godless Commie

iTrader: (2)

C'mon guys..

It is common knowledge that "public enemies" like Bin Laden and Noriega have been on CIA payroll for years.

Bush (senior) himself had entered a partnership in an oil venture with Bin Laden Sr. in 1979.

Long time bedfellows.

Not gospel, at all.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

Then they're all going to agree on what to do with that land.....right? Good plan. I say we just let them build the damn thing so that some "gun-toting right wing extremist redneck" can blow it up.

I'd like to be able to say what I want to you but I'll end up with another warning if I do.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

cool story. You know what i just realized?!

We also funneled millions of dollars in weapons to the afgans to fight off the Russians, those same weapons are being used to fight us today...we also funded the Contras ot over throw the dictator in Nicaragua, so therefore the Japanese did not bomb peral harbor it was the Canadians! I'm going to go post a video on youtube, i hope i get a million hits, that will make it truth. BBL.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I think you mean a "progressive liberal extremist posing as a gun-toting right wing extremist redneck" can blow it up.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

I figured I'd be opening up a whole new argument with that, but yea, something along those lines.

jtothawhat

iTrader: (7)

It isn't that much land, so we should just build a park there...I am sure most people can agree on planting trees.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

someone owns the property, therefore he has a choice:

1. customer wants to pay millions of dollars for land rights
2. tree hugger wants me to build a park rendering the land unprofitable.

miatanutz

iTrader: (8)

Freedom of religious expression dictates that the muslims (or any other religious group) should be allowed to build on private property. Perhaps its not a great idea from the perspective of 'an out reach' from muslims...BUT, thats rather irrelevant. Besides, I have never thought the islamic faith to be particularly wise in either their beliefs or practice.
But thats only my opinion. Even if a majority find a religion to be distasteful they still must be allowed to practice free expression of their religion.

Criminal activity (IF any is present) should be prosecuted as such. Religious activity (when not criminal in nature) must be tolerated 100% of the time. To erode that right is to destroy that right for all.

My ancestors fought and died for these principles...among others. Arguably those who died in the WTC died in pursing that same American dream and cause. Such is the irony of freedom.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

Uuuuuuhhh, on this note, Freedom of Religion means just that freedom to practice any religion you so choose, that does NOT give you the Freedom to build whatever you want wherever you want.

I'm not saying the Government should tell them they can't build a Mosque, I'm saying that Freedom of Religion doesn't mean they can build a Mosque wherever they want, it simply means they have the freedom to practice any religion they so choose to practice.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yes, they should be allowed because they have every right to. No one is contesting this.

Have you ever watched a feel good movie, for example Bedtime Stories featuring Adam Sandler? In this movie, a hotel developer is going to level a grade school in the neighborhood to build a huge hotel on the land. In the end, they stop the school from being demolished and they build the hotel in a better location and everyone is happy.

The hotel developer had every right to buy the school and build his hotel where he wanted, however, all the soccer moms got together and figured out a compromise.

It's not about the right, it's about the compromise. Where's Henry Clay when you need him?

miatanutz

iTrader: (8)

Oh but it does.
Freedom of religious expression does mean you can build where you wish on private proerty...within civil/zoning laws etc...of course.
To have true freedom of expression you cant have it both ways.
But thanks for your spin on it.

turotufas

iTrader: (7)

Let me fast in peace...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

exactly, if zoning laws preventing them from building a mosque in that locations, they couldn't build a mosque in that location. so what's the argument. The people protesting are simplifying asking for the location to be reconsidered. the end, if i remember correctly the constitution also allows the freedom of assembly.

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

I think my explanation of my statement was pretty clear. Yes their right to build where they want is protected, but not by Freedom of Religious Expression. Freedom of Religious expression simply means that you can worship whatever ******* God you please without fear of the Government hanging you by your ball sack in Times Square, **** people.

miatanutz

iTrader: (8)

People do have a right assemble, protest, speech etc.
Its my understanding that the proposed building is within the zoning laws for that area. In fact, having spent a bunch of time in that area in my youth it seems quite normal. Its a business area, all kinds of business's function there, religious and otherwise....including **** shops. lol...
At the end of the day, after all the bitching, if the muslims wish to continue anyway, they should be allowed to do so without interference from government.

This same scenario has played out in locations around the USA in the past, against other religions as well.

Now there are some Baptist tards in CA that dont want a mosque built near their church. Idiots.

miatanutz

iTrader: (8)

It would be a huge waste of valuable commercial property to use for a park.
There is already a park right in that area. Plus it makes the wrong statement IMO. Those who died there should be honored with a structure even more imposing then the former. If it was up to me another trade/business center would be built, and instead of 110 stories it would be 200.

And all the toilets in it would have Bin Laden's picture in the bowl.

jtothawhat

iTrader: (7)

^^ True, well either way it shouldn't be a Mosque. Who is funding this Mosque anyways? Isn't it supposed to close over 25 Million Dollars to build?