Ground Zero Mosque

[Blaziking the God General]

Either way, I doubt I'll change my beliefs. These are hardly my parents' in the first place. I just really care about politics.

Oh you remind me of myself two years ago! Trust me, your beliefs will change somewhat over the next few years, even if its just a very slight change. Two years ago, I was going to a Catholic school and my beliefs were in line with most of the crazy conservative families there. Then I eventually realized "wow these people are crazy" and now most of my beliefs have been tweaked somewhat.

 

[Pwnemon]

Well as I said before these views weren't even rammed down my throat by my parents in the first place. I said "Obamanomics" because it's a fairly common term and quicker to say than "an economic model Obama used to prove that the stimulus was working," although I did first hear it on the radio doesn't mean I'm a parrot. I love how just because I think differently from you guys and am somewhat young you all think I actually didn't make my own opinions, but all those liberal thirteen year olds were totally not indoctrinated.

EDIT: Crud didn't even realize there was another page. Well, in response to the only post that really couldn't be answered by what I wrote before, it isn't a question of the right to build the mosque. Not at all. It's a question of whether it's the right thing to do. We can try as hard as we can to convince this guy to move the mosque but if he won't no way we could sue or anything. But we've tried to move it. It was either Michael Bloomberg or the governor of NY, I forget, that offered to help him look for an alternate site. He REFUSED. The Imam Fiesel (sp) wouldn't even LOOK for an alternate site.

On the contrary, I find it funny how liberals always seem to forget about the second, fourth, and ninth amendments. *Waits for you guys to look those up.*

 

[Minish]

Well as I said before these views weren't even rammed down my throat by my parents in the first place. I said "Obamanomics" because it's a fairly common term and quicker to say than "an economic model Obama used to prove that the stimulus was working," although I did first hear it on the radio doesn't mean I'm a parrot. I love how just because I think differently from you guys and am somewhat young you all think I actually didn't make my own opinions, but all those liberal thirteen year olds were totally not indoctrinated.

EDIT: Crud didn't even realize there was another page. Well, in response to the only post that really couldn't be answered by what I wrote before, it isn't a question of the right to build the mosque. Not at all. It's a question of whether it's the right thing to do. We can try as hard as we can to convince this guy to move the mosque but if he won't no way we could sue or anything. But we've tried to move it. It was either Michael Bloomberg or the governor of NY, I forget, that offered to help him look for an alternate site. He REFUSED. The Imam Fiesel (sp) wouldn't even LOOK for an alternate site.

On the contrary, I find it funny how liberals always seem to forget about the second, fourth, and ninth amendments. *Waits for you guys to look those up.*

...why are you bringing up the amendments? You've just asserted that this is a debate about whether it's the "right thing to do" to build the mosque (even though that's, uh, pretty much what the debate has been for the entirety of the thread, there's not really a question about whether they literally are allowed to or not), and now you're bringing up a bunch of rules?

Also, how are any of those rules relevant? I'm not from the USA and have had no need to ever memorise which rule is which, so yeah, I did just look them up - and I'm a bit confused as to why you're trying to use them as a biting blow against us silly egalitarian liberals.

Am I missing something here?

 

[opaltiger]

On the contrary, I find it funny how liberals always seem to forget about the second, fourth, and ninth amendments. *Waits for you guys to look those up.*

I am really confused.

The second amendment is something of a mess and I am not entirely convinced it's grammatically correct. Nevertheless, the only thing it clearly stipulates is the right for an armed militia to exist.

The fourth amendment says the government doesn't have the right to search people's houses without a reason. This is supposed to show us damn liberals? Do you honestly think liberals support the idea that the government should be able to search anyone's house, whenever?

The ninth amendment pretty much says "just because it's not mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean a particular right doesn't exist". In other words all those "but there's no constitutional right that says two people of the same sex can marry!!!" arguments are baseless.

Somehow I have not been convinced by your scathing sarcasm.

I love how just because I think differently from you guys and am somewhat young you all think I actually didn't make my own opinions, but all those liberal thirteen year olds were totally not indoctrinated.

Well, first thing, most of us debating with you are much older than thirteen. I am quite sure by the time you're eighteen you'll have started developing opinions different from those you hold now.

Now I'm going to try and address your point. This will be difficult without generalising, so bear with me.

I think that, generally, traits such as humanism and rationalism go along with liberalism - to a much greater extent than conservatism, at any rate. As such, I think liberal parents would be far more likely to emphasise coming to your own conclusions - I certainly know I would. The philosophy behind conservatism seems to be "get as many people on your side, it doesn't matter how you do it". Behind liberalism, "get as many people on your side, but only people who have decided that your side is the right one". You cannot deny that the right-wing media obfuscates and plain-out lies far more than the left-wing media. I'm not talking about bias; of course they are both biased; but I've never seen a left-wing media source deliberately change the party affiliation of a disgraced politician.

There is nothing wrong with being a product of your environment. All I'm asking is that you consider that maybe the opinions and values which are very common in that environment are not always the right ones.

 

[Pwnemon]

No, I seem to think Liberals are more along the line of "Get people to your side by calling the other side names that don't even really describe them such as bigoted and unAmerican." Plus, I remember seeing on that article you linked, the liberal media excluding CNN had also screwed it up. Here, this convinced my other liberal friend I wasn't just a bigot: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ann-coulter/2010/07/22/obamas-poll-numbers-down-imaginary-racism-up/.

Secondly, it's funny you say that and yet half this site is saying "Oh I used to be a conservative but I changed." So yes, we OBVIOUSLY just shove our ideas down your throat and you can never become a liberal no not ever.

On the topic, I was pointing out that the article makes fun of us like we forgot the constitution when the whole dang time I was pointing out this mosque is constitutional, and I decided to point out that liberals often forget the constitution. The second amendment is constantly being trampled on with gun restrictions and bans when it clearly says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. The FCC wants to regulate your internet which is clearly a violation of the no search without warrant law, and Elena Kagan thinks that the government should be able to pull you off the street if you've funded "terrorist organizations" which clearly violates that we should be safe in our persons from unreasonable seizure. I'm sorry, I meant to say tenth as the third one, which clearly states that unless a power is expressly stated in the constitution, article one section eight the federal government cannot pass a law and only the states can do something about it. However, we have things such as the newly passed Health Care and others that clearly offend this amendment as well.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

Kam posted, yeah, but he's not... exactly... trying to debate... I don't think.

This forum is called Serious Business. Why would we have an argument about whether or not you can build a mosque on a Burlington Coat Factory a few blocks away from Ground Zero in a forum about serious debate?

 

[opaltiger]

No, I seem to think Liberals are more along the line of "Get people to your side by calling the other side names that don't even really describe them such as bigoted and unAmerican."

Okay, I'm sorry, but the only people I see accusing others of being unAmerican are people like Michelle Bachmann. Also: a lot of conservatives oppose marriage equality. Therefore they are bigots! See, it works if it's true.

Plus, I remember seeing on that article you linked, the liberal media excluding CNN had also screwed it up. Here, this convinced my other liberal friend I wasn't just a bigot: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ann-coulter/2010/07/22/obamas-poll-numbers-down-imaginary-racism-up/.

Ann Coulter? Hang on let me see if I can get through this. Okay, what does this have to do with anything? All it seems to be saying is "tea partiers aren't racist even if the democrats say so" (then claiming anyone who is racist is a liberal plant?). I'm not sure what that has to do with you being a bigot or not.

Secondly, it's funny you say that and yet half this site is saying "Oh I used to be a conservative but I changed." So yes, we OBVIOUSLY just shove our ideas down your throat and you can never become a liberal no not ever.

Uhh... Let's look at what I said:

I am quite sure by the time you're eighteen you'll have started developing opinions different from those you hold now.

You know, like all the people who are saying they used to be conservative.

The second amendment is constantly being trampled on with gun restrictions and bans when it clearly says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged.

No, it does not clearly say that. It says that in the context of keeping a militia. Whether this applies to private individuals is a matter of some debate.

Besides, it is possible for the Constitution to be wrong or out-dated. Two hundred years ago, perhaps it was important that people could own guns. Today, not so much.

The FCC wants to regulate your internet which is clearly a violation of the no search without warrant law, and Elena Kagan thinks that the government should be able to pull you off the street if you've funded "terrorist organizations" which clearly violates that we should be safe in our persons from unreasonable seizure.

Yes! I think both of these things are utterly awful and I think a lot of others would agree! Also I would appreciate a source for the Kagan quote.

I'm sorry, I meant to say tenth as the third one, which clearly states that unless a power is expressly stated in the constitution, article one section eight the federal government cannot pass a law and only the states can do something about it. However, we have things such as the newly passed Health Care and others that clearly offend this amendment as well.

If the health care bill violates the tenth amendment, so does the Patriot Act. So do countless bills, in fact. I did a bit of research, and it appears the tenth amendment is not often cited these days - which makes sense, because passing laws at the federal level is a lot more viable now than it was two hundred years ago.

 

[Pwnemon]

I disagree with the patriot act as well, just so you know. Secondly, the fact that it's not cited is just the problem. Thirdly, it says "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged." Whether or not it's in the context of a militia it's pretty darn clear either way that it should not be abridged which it constantly is by liberals. Fourthly, are you asserting that I'm obviously just misled by my parents and there's no way I could actually think these things? Because you're "quite sure" that I won't have these same opinions in five years. Fifthly, the article debunked every claim used to say that Tea Partiers were racist. Sixthly, Biden called Joe the Plumber unAmerican for not wanting to pay taxes for welfare programs. Nice try.

EDIT: Darn it I said fourthly twice.

 

[1. Luftballon]

firstly, there are other acts which defy the tenth. secondly, there is no reason to cite everything that comes in effect. thirdly, these things are subject to contingent environmental circumstances. fourthly, it doesn't really matter. fifthly, that's kind of exactly the point. sixthly... I'm not going to bother and just let opal cover it; americanism is an overloaded concept.

 

[opaltiger]

I disagree with the patriot act as well, just so you know. Secondly, the fact that it's not cited is just the problem.

I disagree. I think it's good that the constitution isn't seen as a be-all and end-all document, and that as times advance it is interpreted in different ways.

Thirdly, it says "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged." Whether or not it's in the context of a militia it's pretty darn clear either way that it should not be abridged which it constantly is by liberals.

Actually it's "infringed", not "abridged". But that's irrelevant; you're still quoting it out of context. The amendment does not clearly state that anyone has the right to own a weapon. Perhaps that was the meaning, but the wording is sufficiently ambiguous that multiple interpretations are possible.

Again, though, it's an outdated amendment that should be removed.

Fourthly, are you asserting that I'm obviously just misled by my parents and there's no way I could actually think these things? Because you're "quite sure" that I won't have these same opinions in five years.

No, I'm saying that your current opinions are most likely highly influenced by your parents and by your environment, and that as you grow up, go to university, etc., your opinions will change because you'll be exposed to different influences. I, obviously, think you're being misled; maybe in time you'll agree with me, maybe not. Either way your opinions will change.

Fifthly, the article debunked every claim used to say that Tea Partiers were racist.

Yes. It's possible to be racist independent of being a Tea Partier. Also: racist does not necessarily mean you want to lynch all people who aren't white. Racism today is a lot subtler than it was in the past; for example, the whole birther movement, which, if I'm not mistaken, has its support base largely among tea partiers.

Sixthly, Biden called Joe the Plumber unAmerican for not wanting to pay taxes for welfare programs. Nice try.

Correction: republicans say it a lot more often than democrats. This is because right-wing philosophy lends itself much better to the sort of nationalist patriotic rhetoric that works alarmingly well in America. Here is the sort of thing I am talking about.

 

[nyuu]

sometimes cutting spending is irresponsible.

Is welfare a socialist construct? Perhaps it is. Nobody is denying this. So is social security, and so is pretty much every government-managed service that the government taxes your family in order to maintain, like, say, the roads and the schools. Your free public education is socialist. Is it unAmerican?

edit: so like, what do you think about infrastructure spending and reform? What sort of changes to the federal budget do you propose beyond "less welfare"

 

[Pwnemon]

You're horribly mistaken if you try to say that the Tea Party is largely supportive of Birthers.

Secondly, you're glad that the law isn't the root of our government? It was written to BE the end-all document. That was its whole purpose, to keep our government exactly how it was.

Thirdly, if it's an outdated amendment and should be removed then remove it! We've done that to another amendment. Until then, don't say it should be removed. Maybe the law I can't murder is outdated. It sure came around a long time ago. I'll just go kill someone because it SHOULD be removed.

 

[opaltiger]

You're horribly mistaken if you try to say that the Tea Party is largely supportive of Birthers.

Then it's a good thing I didn't say that! All I said was that most birthers (or at least a significant number) also appear to be tea partiers.

Secondly, you're glad that the law isn't the root of our government? It was written to BE the end-all document. That was its whole purpose, to keep our government exactly how it was.

I'm glad that some people realise laws can and should, with time, change. If its whole purpose was to keep the government exactly as it was, then its purpose is wrong. Laws should change to reflect the times.

Thirdly, if it's an outdated amendment and should be removed then remove it! We've done that to another amendment. Until then, don't say it should be removed. Maybe the law I can't murder is outdated. It sure came around a long time ago. I'll just go kill someone because it SHOULD be removed.

What are you even... I shouldn't say it should be removed until it IS removed? How the hell do you think other amendments were nullified? By people not saying anything against them?

And please don't be an idiot. "Don't kill people" is a fairly universal part of people's moral codes. "Be allowed to own guns" is not.

 

[Pwnemon]

No, I'm not saying that Opal. All I'm saying is that you can't infringe upon it which liberals do just because it SHOULD be removed.

Secondly, I guess it's just an ideological difference between us. I think the government worked great back then, you think it should reflect the times. Now that you say it, it reminds me that it's actually the core difference between progressives and conservatives.

 

[nyuu]

Secondly, you're glad that the law isn't the root of our government? It was written to BE the end-all document. That was its whole purpose, to keep our government exactly how it was.

no you are decisively wrong.

Secondly, I guess it's just an ideological difference between us. I think the government worked great back then, you think it should reflect the times.

this sort of speaks for itself.

 

[1. Luftballon]

Was America better segregated and less feminized!?
When America was segregated, we were at the top. We kept our marriages together, there were less divorces in the white community, white men in the justice system and in politics weren't screwing over their own gender like they are now, and there were less interracial marriages. There was a time when we kept our women in check. Now minority men are stealing our women.

Feminism came along to ruined our community. Now there's a rise in teen pregnancies, kids born out of wedlock, and more divorces.

Do you agree that America was better segregated?

http://fstdt.com/QuoteArchives.aspx?Archive=3 / http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100818142125AAo35Om

 

[Pwnemon]

Show me the quote of someone who was in the constitutional convention and I'll believe that it wasn't meant to be. A scholar looking at it two hundred and twenty years later is not the ultimate authority.

OH YES BECAUSE THAT WAS A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OWAIT I FORGOT IT ACTUALLY WASNT.

EDIT for postninja not really necessary but I did just to say it wasn't *head explodes*

 

[surskitty]

If they didn't intend for the Constitution to change, they wouldn't have thrown in a way to change it.

 

[nyuu]

OH YES BECAUSE THAT WAS A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OWAIT I FORGOT IT ACTUALLY WASNT.

Dude that is what the 13th, 15th, and 19th amendments were about fixing

the supreme court once ruled that black slaves were property and not citizens

Also Zuu is currently banned for being flaming you but he replies that one of the founding fathers explicitly supported the idea of the living constitution: "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times." - Thomas Jefferson

The things you are claiming are no longer ideological differences. You are telling lies.

 

[Pwnemon]

I know that they have a way to change it.

If they didn't intend the constitution to be the final rule, they wouldn't have thrown in a way to change it, because that would be silly. But you can change it, so don't just ignore it and trample on it.

EDIT: It wasn't a part of the government. It was part of society which government took upon itself to fix, but the government was in no way segregated itself.