Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK

Regnery Publications wrote:

President Obama is wrong AGAIN!

Last Friday evening at a White House dinner on the third night of Ramadan,
President Obama came out enthusiastically in support of building the Islamic
supremacist mega-mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

On this issue, Obama stands with our enemies.

The very idea of a 15-story mega-mosque on that hallowed ground is indecent,
offensive, and outrageous.

The Anti-Defamation League stated that this is "not a question of rights,
but a question of what is right."

What is right is this: Ground Zero is a battlefield, and the Ground Zero
mosque is an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in
the 2001 attacks.

Help us protect and honor the memory of the nearly 3,000 people who perished
on 9/11. Let's keep our promise to "Never Forget."

Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK

http://www.facebook.com/humaneventsmedia


U R a fool and a tool.

JAM

Why do your write such untruth about Islam?
Do you really know about Islam, or just what you hear on Fox News and the
hateful talk radio persons?

Islam Brings The one Who Accepts it Peace of Mind

Please learn about Islam before writing such hateful comments.
This is abuse of the Internet and religious freedom.

www.sunnahfollowers.net

"Regnery Publications" wrote in message
...
President Obama is wrong AGAIN!

Last Friday evening at a White House dinner on the third night of Ramadan,
President Obama came out enthusiastically in support of building the
Islamic supremacist mega-mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

On this issue, Obama stands with our enemies.

The very idea of a 15-story mega-mosque on that hallowed ground is
indecent, offensive, and outrageous.

The Anti-Defamation League stated that this is "not a question of rights,
but a question of what is right."

What is right is this: Ground Zero is a battlefield, and the Ground Zero
mosque is an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists in
the 2001 attacks.

Help us protect and honor the memory of the nearly 3,000 people who
perished on 9/11. Let's keep our promise to "Never Forget."


Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK

http://www.facebook.com/humaneventsmedia

You're feeding a troll. This sick person has no interest in truth or
learning, just in spewing his hate and ignorance.

Any response whatsoever just plays into his agenda. Don't feed the troll.


"Amy Huia" wrote in message
...
Why do your write such untruth about Islam?
Do you really know about Islam, or just what you hear on Fox News and the
hateful talk radio persons?

Islam Brings The one Who Accepts it Peace of Mind

Please learn about Islam before writing such hateful comments.
This is abuse of the Internet and religious freedom.

www.sunnahfollowers.net

"Regnery Publications" wrote in message
...
President Obama is wrong AGAIN!

Last Friday evening at a White House dinner on the third night of
Ramadan, President Obama came out enthusiastically in support of building
the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.

On this issue, Obama stands with our enemies.

The very idea of a 15-story mega-mosque on that hallowed ground is
indecent, offensive, and outrageous.

The Anti-Defamation League stated that this is "not a question of rights,
but a question of what is right."

What is right is this: Ground Zero is a battlefield, and the Ground Zero
mosque is an insult to the memory of those killed by Islamic terrorists
in the 2001 attacks.

Help us protect and honor the memory of the nearly 3,000 people who
perished on 9/11. Let's keep our promise to "Never Forget."


Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK

http://www.facebook.com/humaneventsmedia

On Aug 30, 3:09*pm, "Zapp Brannigan" wrote:
"mazorj" wrote in message

...

You're feeding a troll. *This sick person has no interest in truth or
learning, just in spewing his hate and ignorance.

Any response whatsoever just plays into his agenda. *Don't feed the troll.

Do you consider those who are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque to all be
"trolls"?
Just asking...

They are 100% off topic on this forum.

"Zapp Brannigan" wrote in message
...

"mazorj" wrote in message
...
You're feeding a troll. This sick person has no interest in truth or
learning, just in spewing his hate and ignorance.

Any response whatsoever just plays into his agenda. Don't feed the
troll.

Do you consider those who are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque to all be
"trolls"?
Just asking...

Not all of them. Just the ones posting here. Including you when you're not
discussing coins but just trolling your personal brand of bigoted politics,
which has been quite often over the years.

Do you consider people who object to building an Islamic cultural center
blocks away from Ground Zero to be hypocrites when they see nothing
objectionable in having a rabid neocon crypto-racist like Beck cynically
desecrate the site and date of MLK's seminal speech?

Just asking (and yes, veering OT, mea culpa).

On Aug 30, 4:55*pm, "mazorj" wrote:

Do you consider people who object to building an Islamic cultural center
blocks away from Ground Zero to be hypocrites when they see nothing
objectionable in having a rabid neocon crypto-racist like Beck cynically
desecrate the site and date of MLK's seminal speech?

Just asking (and yes, veering OT, mea culpa).

I guess the 1st Amendment rights only apply when people are saying
what you agree with. "Rabid neocon crypto-racist?" There should be a
penalty for using too many 'buzz words' in the same sentence. Please
tell us all just how you think Beck 'desecrated' the site and date?
Oh, that's right, I am sorry, I forgot...it would have been totally
proper and correct and not desecration if it was someone with whom you
agreed, and in reality, nothing to do with MLK at all. In case you
need a reminder...the Constitution guarantees everyone to air their
grievances.

Jud -mea maxima culpa-
Flame on! You may have the last word.

On Aug 31, 12:14*am, Jud wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:55*pm, "mazorj" wrote:

Do you consider people who object to building an Islamic cultural center
blocks away from Ground Zero to be hypocrites when they see nothing
objectionable in having a rabid neocon crypto-racist like Beck cynically
desecrate the site and date of MLK's seminal speech?

Just asking (and yes, veering OT, mea culpa).

I guess the 1st Amendment rights only apply when people are saying
what you agree with. "Rabid neocon crypto-racist?" There should be a
penalty for using too many 'buzz words' in the same sentence. Please
tell us all just how you think Beck 'desecrated' the site and date?
Oh, that's right, I am sorry, I forgot...it would have been totally
proper and correct and not desecration if it was someone with whom you
agreed, and in reality, nothing to do with MLK at all. In case you
need a reminder...the Constitution guarantees everyone to air their
grievances.

Jud -mea maxima culpa-
Flame on! You may have the last word.

You can't argue or have a civil discussion with an individual with a
far-left viewpoint. All of the Constitutional rights they literally
SCREAM about only apply when you agree with them.

Jerry
"Your rights end when they infringe on mine." - Unknown

READER ALERT: We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy
response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck.

"Jud" wrote in message
...
On Aug 30, 4:55 pm, "mazorj" wrote:

Do you consider people who object to building an Islamic cultural center
blocks away from Ground Zero to be hypocrites when they see nothing
objectionable in having a rabid neocon crypto-racist like Beck cynically
desecrate the site and date of MLK's seminal speech?

Just asking (and yes, veering OT, mea culpa).

I guess the 1st Amendment rights only apply when people are saying
what you agree with. "Rabid neocon crypto-racist?" There should be a
penalty for using too many 'buzz words' in the same sentence. Please
tell us all just how you think Beck 'desecrated' the site and date?
Oh, that's right, I am sorry, I forgot...it would have been totally
proper and correct and not desecration if it was someone with whom you
agreed, and in reality, nothing to do with MLK at all. In case you
need a reminder...the Constitution guarantees everyone to air their
grievances.

Jud -mea maxima culpa-
Flame on! You may have the last word.
=======================

(Jerry, pay attention too)

Why is it that whenever someone's ox gets gored like I just did to Beck's,
the most common (and weakest) response is to rise to the defense with some
drivel about encroaching on the offender's First Amendment rights? This is
a straw-man argument, totally worthless.

Since you know little to nothing about me, you'll just have to take my word
for it that for personal and professional reasons, I have been an ardent
defender of First Amendment rights all my adult life. I firmly believe that
everyone - including the KKK, neo-Nazis, holocaust deniers, on down to the
guy on the corner preaching to prohibit abortions or legalize marijuana -
has just as much right to speak as you and I and all the other upstanding
citizens of America. However, unlike many (apparently including you), I
understand what the FA does and does not mean.

Nowhere did my flame on Beck say or even suggest that he had no legal right
to do what he did, or that he should be muzzled. But "Hello?" Jud, you do
realize, don't you, that just because something is legal doesn't make it
right by any number of non-statutory standards and values that might be
applied?

For example, Islamic schools in America have the FA right to teach their
students their interpretation of their religion, including harsh laws of
punishment, asserting that women are vessels of sin and are inferior to
males and subject to their domination, that as a religious principle,
martydom by suicide bomb is an admirable avenue to heaven, that democracy is
the Satanic illusion, etc. It's all perfectly legal under the FA as long as
they don't cross the line into performing illegal acts or openly urging
others to act out their cruel, violent beliefs on anyone.

But you and I and probably 99% of our fellow Americans would feel that we
have the right - and indeed the responsibility - to exercise our FA right to
denounce these practices and even the teaching of them. THAT is a crucial
part of the FA. If someone speaks, someone else has the right to rebuttal.
It doesn't matter if the rebuttal takes the form of sweet, gentle Koombaya
sessions, or is essayed as a strongly worded Internet flame (which mine
was). You and I can even tell each other to shut the hell yup without
violating the FA. The FA only guarantees the right to make a statement
without prior restraint by the government. (Even that can be curtailed but
we'll skip that for now.) The religious beliefs I described, no matter how
you or I may feel about them, are protected by the FA... and so is our right
of rebuttal. THAT, sir, is the real power of the FA at work.

So following that logic, the FA does not give Beck the right or even the
expectation that no other citizen shall call him a moron or evil or question
his motives or the sensitivities of the times and places he chooses to
speak - or even to shut up (which I didn't). You dish it out, you better
be prepared to take it.

I have no beef with the Park Service for granting him the permit, nor do I
want to see the Becks of the world subjected to prior restraint by the
government. The fault, dear sir, lies not in ourselves, but in the star
performer. If he had chosen a different date for his rally at the Lincoln
Memorial, you'd hear scattered disgruntled objections to the place of the
venue but not the massive uproar that this created. Likewise if he had kept
the date but moved the rally. (In either case he'd still hear objections to
the nature of his views, although that's always going to happen and is a
separate debate on the merits, not the circumstances.)

But... for him to hold this event at the same time and place as MLK and then
try to claim that both were pure coincidence, GMAFB. He willfully created a
perfect storm of public outrage against him when he could have avoided most
of it. His adoring fans may be dumb enought to believe that the timing and
venue were "pure coincidence" but I and millions of others aren't buying it.
For us it was a sly, too clever by half, deliberate poke in the eye against
MLK, blacks and other people of color. I think that now he genuinely
regrets his sophomoric decision to make it a "two-fer" by adding the MLK
angle. Not because it was offensive, but because it drew most media
attention away from his intended purpose and the content of the rally. In
communications it's called stepping on your own message.

Let me make it perfectly clear: To paraphrase Voltaire's classic take on
free speech, I will defend to my death Beck's right under the FA to hold his
rally, any time and anywhere he wants; but I also will go to my grave
exercising my FA right to publicly despise and denounce him and all others
of his ilk, his views, his actions, and his hypocricies, in the strongest
terms I can summon.

If you can dispute my characterizations of Beck (allowing for hyperbole)
then please, exercise your FA right to do so. By failing to provide any
factual rebuttals and falling back on a hackneyed Usenet strawman dodge, you
have deserted the field after adding nothing of significance.

And Finnan, don't bother sticking your fetid nose into this again. We
already know what your despicable views are, as posted through your unending
parade of transparent nyms in rcc and the documented history of your bigoted
tirades in other newsgroups.

(Go ahead now, Jud. Try to claim that I am trying to muzzle Finnan and
strip him of his FA rights. As if. Not even close to being true, both here
and with Beck.)

- mazorj
"There's a reason why free speech was part
of the very first amendment to the Constitution."

The Liberals are angrier then usual today. Why is that? Let
me guess.the Welfare checks were mailed out late this month.


On Aug 31, 12:14 am, Jud wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:55 pm, "mazorj" wrote:

Do you consider people who object to building an Islamic cultural center
blocks away from Ground Zero to be hypocrites when they see nothing
objectionable in having a rabid neocon crypto-racist like Beck cynically
desecrate the site and date of MLK's seminal speech?

Just asking (and yes, veering OT, mea culpa).

I guess the 1st Amendment rights only apply when people are saying
what you agree with. "Rabid neocon crypto-racist?" There should be a
penalty for using too many 'buzz words' in the same sentence. Please
tell us all just how you think Beck 'desecrated' the site and date?
Oh, that's right, I am sorry, I forgot...it would have been totally
proper and correct and not desecration if it was someone with whom you
agreed, and in reality, nothing to do with MLK at all. In case you
need a reminder...the Constitution guarantees everyone to air their
grievances.

Jud -mea maxima culpa-
Flame on! You may have the last word.

You can't argue or have a civil discussion with an individual with a
far-left viewpoint. All of the Constitutional rights they literally
SCREAM about only apply when you agree with them.

Jerry
"Your rights end when they infringe on mine." - Unknown

On Sep 2, 11:40*am, "mazorj" wrote:
READER ALERT: *We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy
response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck.

snipped for brevity only

Excellent response. Civil, to the point, and no flamage.

For the most part, I happen to agree with you, but I still (and always
will) challenge the "perception" of Freedom of Speech. Everyone,
including Supreme Courts past, seems to believe that you can say
whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and
there's nothing the recipient can do about it. The truth of the
matter is that the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill
of Rights to allow the people to criticize the government without fear
of retaliation by that government. Any true Constitutional scholar
will tell you that. It's only because of groups like the ACLU and
"open-minded" judges that Crucifixes in urine, burning the flag, Al
Sharpton's racial rhetoric, KKK and neo-Nazi rallies, Glen Beck, Sarah
Palin, the Westboro Baptist Church protests, the National Enquirer,
and everything else is now considered "freedom of expression" (I defy
ANYONE to find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution).

We could go on for hours, but I will close with a saying we used when
I was on active duty, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll
defend to the death your right to say it."

Jerry
Enjoying a good debate.