What this proves is the Constitution is over 250 yrs old. It was written in a time when terrorism was not a major threat. Trying to live by this document today can get a lot of people killed. It's time to move on.
Ground Zero: Mosque; or No Mosque
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
What this proves is the Constitution is over 250 yrs old. It was written in a time when terrorism was not a major threat. Trying to live by this document today can get a lot of people killed. It's time to move on.
Ok, George Bush!
I see no problem with it, especially if it can quell the negativity, relationships, and stereotypes associated with the progressive Islamic community and brigde a gap for the divide that exists in NYC of those that aren't familiar with Muslims that were disgusted by the terrorists attacks of 9/11 just as any other American was.
But that's my opinion, I could be wrong...
But that's my opinion, I could be wrong...
I see no problem with it, especially if it can quell the negativity, relationships, and stereotypes associated with the progressive Islamic community and brigde a gap for the divide that exists in NYC of those that aren't familiar with Muslims that were disgusted by the terrorists attacks of 9/11 just as any other American was.
But that's my opinion, I could be wrong...
But that's my opinion, I could be wrong...
lol Bush's administration did get away from the rule of law and it didn't go too well. He went too far too fast trying to undo Clinton. Have to give him credit for seeing how the Constitution can be oppressive if it isn't altered to fit today's challenges. Anyway he is a good example of recklessness and total disregard for the law.
On to what?
Terrorism wasn't just invented in the last 10 years, bruh. It's as timeless as war.
I started to say something here, but there's simply nothing to be gained by
I thought that too but his last line forced me to ask him what he would use in place of the Constitution. I gotta know.
Today we have the technology for a true democracy but everyone is not capable of deciding matters of state. So the government today should be a combination of democracy and state representatives. The representatives should get their marching orders from their constituents and work with other reps for a common good, national protection and fair distribution of wealth. In this scenario the Constitution would not be a static document, it would be flexible to the problems of the times. For instance
It would no longer be a system that put the interest of the few ahead of the will of the people, like the situation we have with the mosque, drug laws, campaign finance etc. This just my vision of a new constitution there's other out there but we should start making a gradual transition from the current one to a new model.
The hell we don't. Just get off of your asses and vote! The group least likely to vote is the under thirty demographic, yet they seem to be the most complaining group of late. How do you think President Obama got elected? The greatest turn out of youth vote in years. I understand the disappointment of the raised expectations of 'Yes We Can," but you don't change that by not participating, you turn at even greater numbers than before.
Precisely. Nittie just offered to exchange our system of government for our system of government. The same things that corrupt it now would corrupt it under his idea: apathy and lack of participation.
Both of you are missing the point. We have a system where the majority can oppose something yet it still becomes law because the Constitution says it's ok. In effect those old, rich white men who wrote the thing 250yrs ago are still governing. Electing officials doesn't mean you have rights if those elected govern through a flawed system. There is no way 61% of the population should oppose that mosque but it still gets built. There's no way 1% of the population should control 40% of the wealth, the list goes on and on. The constitution can be interpeted and manipulated to where the interest of a few out weighs the will of the many. What you end up having is a ruling class who eventually lose touch with the people. Jeb Bush is considering running for pres in 2012 wtf. What I'm proposing is a system where the majority rules.
First, nothing is becoming law in this situation.
Second, if you're not white, you're an idiot. The majority of people are white and greatly enjoy the fruits of discrimination. Which means majority votes could lead to very bad situations for minorities without protections like the constitution.
Third, in this 100% democracy, who determines what gets voted on?
Fourth, ruling class???? Are the muslims now the ruling class of New York?
First, nothing is becoming law in this situation.
Second, if you're not white, you're an idiot. The majority of people are white and greatly enjoy the fruits of discrimination. Which means majority votes could lead to very bad situations for minorities without protections like the constitution.
Third, in this 100% democracy, who determines what gets voted on?
Fourth, ruling class???? Are the muslims now the ruling class of New York?
In your attempt at comedy, cleverness or whatever the hell it is you're doing you made a good point. Whites are no longer the majority, minorities prolly outnumber whites now. If we got rid of that racist document, written by slave owners, it would end white supremacy and maybe class warfare too. You would have a document that reflects todays multi-racial world.
Yet you failed to respond to anything I said. Let's try again I will dissect your statement and you could try to explain or answer questions....
What group is the majority in America? black people, latinos, asians whites, etc?
Last I checked.... it was still whites. Now if all the minorities agreed on shit and were in one group then you might be saying something but since it isn't like that.. whites have the advantage and 100% democracy will only empower white supremacy even more than now.
In this 100% democracy who decides on what is voted on to put in this multi-racial reflected document?
What happens if a good portion of blacks and Asian join the majority of white people to discriminate against Mexicans? or other minorities against blacks? or whoever?
Majority decides right.
We have a system of majority rules but in our system the rights of the minority are protected.
Your examples of the mosque and wealth distribution are two different things. Not even apples and oranges but apples and hairbrushes. The civil rights of individuals or minority groups should NOT be at the whims of the majority. I'm surprised that a Black man, considering our progress in this society has never been popular, would espouse an idea of "majority rule".
Written by slaveowners but it's the same document that outlaws slavery (in most cases). It's not the static document that you seem to want to believe it is.Yet you failed to respond to anything I said. Let's try again I will dissect your statement and you could try to explain or answer questions....
What group is the majority in America? black people, latinos, asians whites, etc?
Last I checked.... it was still whites. Now if all the minorities agreed on shit and were in one group then you might be saying something but since it isn't like that.. whites have the advantage and 100% democracy will only empower white supremacy even more than now.
In this 100% democracy who decides on what is voted on to put in this multi-racial reflected document?
What happens if a good portion of blacks and Asian join the majority of white people to discriminate against Mexicans? or other minorities against blacks? or whoever?
Majority decides right.
Waiting...
Interesting!
IMO, democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep trying to decide whats for dinner.
The nation was set up to be a republic but thats another thread
Interesting!
IMO, democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep trying to decide whats for dinner.
The nation was set up to be a republic but thats another thread
That line about the wolves
You are venturing into actinanass territory. First, to your comment about the majority opposing something. It's call protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. These are call The Bill of Rights, which is the very first part of the US Constitution.
Second, if 99% of the American people don't want the Islam welcome center, it is not a Mosque, to be built, that means nothing. If you took a poll, I'm sure most people would appose so called interracial marriages. Especially between so called Blacks and whites. Do you think that the majority should rule on that?
You are just ignorant of history and the world outside of were you exist.
Still waiting...
Yet you failed to respond to anything I said. Let's try again I will dissect your statement and you could try to explain or answer questions....
What group is the majority in America? black people, latinos, asians whites, etc?
Last I checked.... it was still whites. Now if all the minorities agreed on shit and were in one group then you might be saying something but since it isn't like that.. whites have the advantage and 100% democracy will only empower white supremacy even more than now.
In this 100% democracy who decides on what is voted on to put in this multi-racial reflected document?
What happens if a good portion of blacks and Asian join the majority of white people to discriminate against Mexicans? or other minorities against blacks? or whoever?
Majority decides right.
I didn't fail to respond to what you said I simply noticed that you can't or won't understand what I said earlier which is
With that being said there's no need to go into details because it's just a starting point in the debate. Surely you don't expect me to write a new U. S. Constitution in 20 minutes on bgol.
No but we expect you to have an alternative to what already exists otherwise you're just gumbumping.
Interesting!
IMO, democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep trying to decide whats for dinner.
The nation was set up to be a republic but thats another thread
Democratic Republic to be exact. What does that mean Lamarr?
Maaan, I was about to go there
I'ma take the high road on this one. It mean whatever you want it to mean Thought
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jRQ76FYvw7M?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jRQ76FYvw7M?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Constitutional Republic
You know you cats are funny, right?
If this is your logic actinanass is going to have plenty of company. According to Jefferson the Constitution, republic, and democracy were suppose to be works in progress. Instead they've stop evolving and become the slavemasters they were intended to replace. How can 99% of the republic oppose something and not have it matter unless you're living on a plantation.
If the 99% are voting to oppress the rights of a minority, then it shouldn't matter. Rights are not (should not be) up for popular vote.
I think it was Ben Franklin who said 'hypotheticals are the last refuge of a scoundrel'.
Are you being ironic on purpose? Your whole premise is built on hypothetical situations and theories.
The Superior Court in California just struck down Prop 8 based on the idea that the majority cannot dictate the rights of a minority (loosely translating, of course). Equal rights means just that.
The slavemasters shit is classic. You are the philosophy of actually slave master to denigrate the minority as slave masters. Who are the current slave masters? The Muslims?
99% of people don't oppose the cultural center... even if they did, no minority will have any rights unless it is by the good graces of the majority under your thought process. Even a groups basic right to existence could be at the whim of a majority.
Last edited:
No one is debating the constitution but you so how are you setting a starting point? I would think if you are going to trash document that is the foundation of the American government and American laws, you would have put some deep thought into something that would be better. If you haven't thought this through maybe you should stop posting, go do some thinking and come back with a plan.
Wow! The American propaganda system is unequaled & unrivaled on the planet earth. <s>FOX</s> FAKE News is the flag-bearer for all the “digital brownshirts” that comprise 95% of US media.
<img src="http://i.min.us/ibwvUq.jpg" />
[PDF]http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Nation-Entertainment_Nation-2006.pdf[/PDF]
Couple this reality with the profound willful ignorance of most US inhabitants & you get the fake controversy over the Islamic Community Center.
Some of you peeps want to ignore & trample the constitution like the neo-fascist BUSHIT administration did for eight years READ:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/03/060703fa_fact1?printable=true
Lightweight CNN personality Don Lemon- (I’m not picking on Don, most 21st century media personalities are lightweights when it comes to knowing the facts) - embodies the ignorance that imbues most Americans when it comes to a “constitutional guarantee” such as freedom of religion.
<blockquote>
CNN anchor Don Lemon hosted a "debate" this weekend over the Park 51 Community Center in Lower Manhattan (misleadingly described everywhere as the "Ground Zero mosque") in which Lemon dropped his mask of journalistic objectivity completely and, in doing so, perfectly captured the crux of the ugly case against Park 51. This is the exchange he had with Eboo Patel, Executive Director of the Interfaith Youth Core, after Patel explained that religious liberty and pluralism have been core values of America since the founding
Lemon: Don't you think it's a bit different considering what happened on 9/11? And the people have said there's a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that's why it's being built there. What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this? That's not understandable?
Patel: In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place --
Lemon: [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance. You understand that this is very heated. Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 --
Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . . .
Lemon: Consider the context here. That's what I'm talking about.
Patel: I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago: you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.
Lemon: I think that's apples and oranges – I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building. That's a completely different circumstance.
Patel: And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.
That sums it up about as well as anything I've heard. Nothing related to Muslims should be near Ground Zero, because it was Muslims generally -- not the handful of extremists -- who flew the planes into those buildings. It's just amazing that that last point from Patel even needs to be uttered, but it does. This campaign is nothing different than all of the standard, definitively bigoted efforts to hold entire demographic groups of people responsible for the aberrational acts of a small percentage of individual members. Congratulations to CNN's Don Lemon for laying it all out in its naked clarity. This whole controversy is exactly that disgusting.
A CNN Anchor Expresses The Crux Of "Mosque" Opposition
<object width="416"height="374"classid="clsid
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2010/08/15/nr.islamic.center.debate.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2010/08/15/nr.islamic.center.debate.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object></blockquote>
Furthermore the same willfully ignorant morons who are braying like hyenas about the Islamic Community Center are unaware that a Muslim Saudi Prince Billionaire Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal,
who practices and condones the most radical brand of Islam next to the Taliban, is the largest shareholder of their favorite propaganda network <s>FOX</s> FAKE News after Rupert Murdoch.
He also is the largest shareholder after the US government of CITIBANK, a bank that along with 5 other banks controls 62% of all US deposits.
READ: Alwaleed Holds Wallet With Warren Buffett
For some of you peeps mentioning polls you’ve got to be kidding!!!!
When Truman integrated the armed forces less than 20% of Americans thought it was the right thing to do. In 1964 when President Johnson ended De Facto US apartheid less than 15% of Americans thought it was the right thing to do. In the 1950’s most Americans 75+% thought that quotas regulating the amount of “JEWS” permitted to be university professors should NOT be ended.
More importantly were talking about the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, not some polling of ignorant US citizens, 50% who don't know Hawaii is a state, according to a recent poll.
Oh by the way there is a Mosque in the US Pentagon 50 feet from the spot where they say the 9/11 hijacked jet crashed into the Pentagon killing many. Should this mosque be closed???
The young Muslim American solider, a picture of his tombstone is below with his grieving mother, Should his body be dug up from Arlington cemetery and fed to a pack of jackals because he is one of those filthy, degenerate, soulless , scum Muslims?????
This mass hysteria will only get worse. The “digital brownshirts” are winning the propaganda war.
Last edited:
Similar threads
