What part of freedom of religion do you have a problem with? Regular Muslims didn't attack us, it was a very small fringe group who mainstream Muslims view as having perverted the religion to justify an act they condemn.

If you think those few radicals are representative of the Muslim religion, it's like saying the KKK is representative of Christianity... Though talking to you sometimes I start to wonder.

I thought you stood for LESS government intervention, yet you seem willing to trample on your own principles in favor of having the government intervene and prevent a private group from building on land they own.

You're falling in to the trap Bin Laden set for you. Bin Laden actually wrote his strategy down long before 911 happened. He wrote that in order to convert mainstream Muslims to join his cause, it would take an attack on the US, to which a "stupid president" would over-react to... This would cause anger in the mainstream Muslim community so they will join my Jihad.

Clinton didn't take the bait when Bin Laden attacked the WTC the first time, but he sure found the "stupid president" he needed in Bush.

This isn't the United States of Christian Right Wing Fucks Rex, It's the United States of America, and we have many, many good Muslim Citizens who have every right you have to worship as they see fit.

Oh look at this!



Michael Rubens Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) is the current Mayor of New York City, and the 8th richest person in the United States, having net worth of US$18 billion in 2010.

Political party	Democratic (until 2001) Republican (20012007) Independent (2007present)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

I had him pegged from the start before I even googled him! TURN COAT!

Seems he has changed hands more times than a whore on Woodward Ave! Good thing he has money, he's going to need it come re-election time.

Seems he has pleanty of money. Perhaps he should just stay out of politics all together. That sounds like a good idea!

-- Edited by SELLC on Saturday 14th of August 2010 02:30:39 PM

Yeah all the Republicans agree the Democrats are fucking up the nation!

Really? I seem to recall that when Bush was in office we were fighting with other nations, yet every time a Democrat gets in office the war seems to come home.

I myself feel the Republicans are more for fucking up other nations, while the Democrats are more for fucking up our country.

That's just my view, yours may differ.

911 was retaliation for a black ops mission that Clinton tried to keep under wraps. The fact that they were able to pull it off was because of Clinton gutted our military.

The economic collapse happend when the .com bubble popped. Then when the correction came the housing market sank. All of these things can be attributed to your Democrat buddy Clinton. Makes me sick to think what kind of shit Hillary is stirring up.

If you read the news you will see Obama is doing the same thing with drones and black ops, which will no doubt leave a mess for the Republicans to clean up. Nothing pisses people off more than a cowardly attack. Bush was not a coward in his war. He gave warning to the people prior to his attack of Iraq. Anyone who choose to stick around would soon witness "Shock and awe". There can be civilty in war PowerStroker. RESPECT.... Something the Democrats lack even within their own circle.

PowerStroker wrote:

---

I always thought 911 happened because Bin Laden was upset about US military bases being located in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. What black ops mission???

---

Oh I am so glad you asked PowerStroker!

Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office.

In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.

The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.

The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.

Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.

The lines Clinton opted not to cross continued to define U.S. policy in his successor's first eight months. Clinton stopped short of using more decisive military instruments, including U.S. ground forces, and declined to expand the reach of the war to the Taliban regime that hosted bin Laden and his fighters after 1996.

Not until the catastrophe of Sept. 11 -- when terrorists used hijacked airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the Pentagon -- did President Bush obliterate those boundaries

Jihad - In western societies the term jihad is often translated as "holy war".

Yet we should think nothing of a Mosque being built at ground zero because it's their right to worship.

Go fuck yourself PowerStroker.

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Thanks, I will

---

Eh... Uhhhh... Okay.. Knock yourself out!

 

I am neither.. I am a realist.

That's the great thing about the Democratic Party... We have room for differing opinions.

Republicans want a leader

Democrats want a meeting

PowerStroker wrote:

---

What part of freedom of religion do you have a problem with? Regular Muslims didn't attack us, it was a very small fringe group who mainstream Muslims view as having perverted the religion to justify an act they condemn.

This isn't the United States of Christian Right Wing Fucks Rex, It's the United States of America, and we have many, many good Muslim Citizens who have every right you have to worship as they see fit.

---

Hey PowerStroker... Where is this freedom of religion you speak of?

 

Just like PowerStroker you don't even bother to read.

No one is saying they don't have a right to worship. No one is asking these people to change religions. No one is saying that the countless other mosques should be torn down.

What people are saying, both Republicans and Democrats, is that building such mosque at ground zero is more to do with their arrogance than anything else. Much as I have said in the past, there are things that TRUMP your little 1st amendment argument. Things such as public safety, and the will of the people in the surrounding area. The fact they take such pleasure in upsetting so many people will ultimatly backfire on them when the local people have their say and the mosque is denied.

Much like how communities would not allow a whore house next to a public school, or a power-plant in their back yard this mosque is a building, and should it be deemed that the public does not want it there, it wont be. Plain and simple. So let them waste time and show America their true colors, it's only going to hurt them.

The issue of weather this structure is denied permits and scrapped is really none of Obama's business. It's a local matter for the people in that area to deal with and NOTHING OBAMA says or does will change that. He only hurts the democratic party and himself when he tries to overstep his bounds like this.

You can kiss donky ass all day long Princess Putz, but it wont make no diffrence when the people of that area have spoken. There are moral issues at play here that have nothing to do with religion. For example if someone decided to open up a small pork stand on wheels next to a mosque where they sold and cooked bacon, ham and pork chops right on public sidewalks, and had the permit to do so, you dont think they would complain? You dont think they would move to have the business person removed from their area? You don't think they would be claiming it was being done just to piss them off? See you are just too much of a donkey kiss ass to admit when your wrong, just like PowerStroker.

-- Edited by SELLC on Friday 20th of August 2010 12:30:16 AM

The bright side? What kind of bright side is there to 911? The idea that these people are known to build mosques on the rubble of what they consider conquered land is appaling. Your suggestions that we build mosques as a "anti-terror" vaccine is beyond disturbing, it's just plain sick.

The only thing Obama seems to know is how to piss off America. He is WAY to busy catering to the outsiders to manage the issues that Americans elected him to fix. Since when is our president supposed to make statements for other nations? I thought he was president of the USA?

There is no gaining moral high ground with these islamic fucks. They dont give a shit about anything but themselves. The troops that are in harms way are there because Owebama put them there, and really nothing you have said makes any sence. Being tolerant is not a one way street.