The Payback for Political Correctness...
in [Design]
|
Prev: esd diodes as diodes
Next: Earbud plug weirdness
From: j on 4 Aug 2010 12:12 On Aug 4, 7:37 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:11 am, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 3:29 am, j <jdc1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>I liked Mark Levin's suggestion of a Hooters next door. Doesn't the > > > > >>same first amendment apply to Hooters ? > > > > Absolutely thats the point. Freedom isnt cheap, nor is it > > > painless. There will always be risks involved. > > > > No matter how painful or contrary to your own beliefs an organization > > > is, you either believe in the concept of freedom of religion and > > > freedom to gather or you dont. > > > > Again despite the claim that this is a political correctness claim, it > > > just isnt. This is strictly a constitutional issue. > > > > Perhaps some of you are supports of a dynamic constitution??? > > > The silence is deafening, as you might expect. You won't get a > > reasoned response to your query - the paper tigers here want both to > > have their constitution and to eat it. > > It's not constitutional at all--the federal government isn't banning > anything. It's a zoning issue, and strictly local. New York can do > whatever it wants, and commonly do. > > > Here's a piece by a guy who thinks a little before he opens his mouth: > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04friedman.html?th&emc=th > > I heard that Broadway show from the White House. While the country > suffers, from a President who'd pledged not to rest, he imports > Broadway to perform in his court whilst he fetes and feasts--a truly > terrible display. > > And Friedman gets his entire rationale entirely wrong. Where he > closes on the Melting-Pot miracle, he's spent his entire piece > describing not assimilation but Balkanization, the anti-melting pot. > > -- > Cheers, > James Arthur- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Once the board granted zoning permission, by definition its not a zoning issue. The controversy is whether an Islamic Mosque should be allowed to be built near ground zero. If the proposal would have been a Baptist or Catholic Church its doubtful that there would have been any ruckus at all. The zoning issue was a procedural quest in an attempt to block the mosque from being built. If the argument is that building churches or places of faith are a pc maneuver, well maybe that flies.
From: j on 4 Aug 2010 12:18 Question for Peter D, does the constitution have anything to do with being American? Or does it just apply to certain Americans?
From: mpm on 4 Aug 2010 12:22 On Aug 4, 2:29 am, j <jdc1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>I liked Mark Levin's suggestion of a Hooters next door. Doesn't the > > >>same first amendment apply to Hooters ? > > Absolutely thats the point. Freedom isnt cheap, nor is it > painless. There will always be risks involved. > > No matter how painful or contrary to your own beliefs an organization > is, you either believe in the concept of freedom of religion and > freedom to gather or you dont. > > Again despite the claim that this is a political correctness claim, it > just isnt. This is strictly a constitutional issue. > > Perhaps some of you are supports of a dynamic constitution??? I'm not against the mosque on constitution grounds. But I do think its construction could be delayed in honor of those killed (and otherwise affected) in the attacks. I don't see a 50-year moratorium as a constitution crisis, for example.
From: mpm on 4 Aug 2010 12:32 On Aug 4, 11:12 am, j <jdc1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:37 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 7:11 am, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 3:29 am, j <jdc1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>I liked Mark Levin's suggestion of a Hooters next door. Doesn't the > > > > > >>same first amendment apply to Hooters ? > > > > > Absolutely thats the point. Freedom isnt cheap, nor is it > > > > painless. There will always be risks involved. > > > > > No matter how painful or contrary to your own beliefs an organization > > > > is, you either believe in the concept of freedom of religion and > > > > freedom to gather or you dont. > > > > > Again despite the claim that this is a political correctness claim, it > > > > just isnt. This is strictly a constitutional issue. > > > > > Perhaps some of you are supports of a dynamic constitution??? > > > > The silence is deafening, as you might expect. You won't get a > > > reasoned response to your query - the paper tigers here want both to > > > have their constitution and to eat it. > > > It's not constitutional at all--the federal government isn't banning > > anything. It's a zoning issue, and strictly local. New York can do > > whatever it wants, and commonly do. > > > > Here's a piece by a guy who thinks a little before he opens his mouth: > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04friedman.html?th&emc=th > > > I heard that Broadway show from the White House. While the country > > suffers, from a President who'd pledged not to rest, he imports > > Broadway to perform in his court whilst he fetes and feasts--a truly > > terrible display. > > > And Friedman gets his entire rationale entirely wrong. Where he > > closes on the Melting-Pot miracle, he's spent his entire piece > > describing not assimilation but Balkanization, the anti-melting pot. > > > -- > > Cheers, > > James Arthur- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Once the board granted zoning permission, by definition its not a > zoning issue. > > The controversy is whether an Islamic Mosque should be allowed to be > built near ground zero. If the proposal would have been a Baptist or > Catholic Church its doubtful that there would have been any ruckus at > all. > > The zoning issue was a procedural quest in an attempt to block the > mosque from being built. If the argument is that building churches or > places of faith are a pc maneuver, well maybe that flies.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - My understand is that the zoning decision was narrowly focused on whether the proposed building could be added to a register of historic places, thus hindering any chances of converting the site to a mosque. I've not followed this closely, so maybe FINAL approval has been given. (?) Even so, if you truly believe zoning decisions are paramount, you're a bit naive. See the headache at DTV-Denver (Jefferson County, CO) if you want a lesson in how little local land use decisions really matter. (For example) Also, the Courts can strike down zoning decisions, and often do. Just because a zoning board rules, doesn't mean that's the end of it.
From: Nunya on 4 Aug 2010 13:05
On Aug 4, 9:12 am, j <jdc1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:37 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 4, 7:11 am, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg...(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 3:29 am, j <jdc1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>I liked Mark Levin's suggestion of a Hooters next door. Doesn't the > > > > > >>same first amendment apply to Hooters ? > > > > > Absolutely thats the point. Freedom isnt cheap, nor is it > > > > painless. There will always be risks involved. > > > > > No matter how painful or contrary to your own beliefs an organization > > > > is, you either believe in the concept of freedom of religion and > > > > freedom to gather or you dont. > > > > > Again despite the claim that this is a political correctness claim, it > > > > just isnt. This is strictly a constitutional issue. > > > > > Perhaps some of you are supports of a dynamic constitution??? > > > > The silence is deafening, as you might expect. You won't get a > > > reasoned response to your query - the paper tigers here want both to > > > have their constitution and to eat it. > > > It's not constitutional at all--the federal government isn't banning > > anything. It's a zoning issue, and strictly local. New York can do > > whatever it wants, and commonly do. > > > > Here's a piece by a guy who thinks a little before he opens his mouth: > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04friedman.html?th&emc=th > > > I heard that Broadway show from the White House. While the country > > suffers, from a President who'd pledged not to rest, he imports > > Broadway to perform in his court whilst he fetes and feasts--a truly > > terrible display. > > > And Friedman gets his entire rationale entirely wrong. Where he > > closes on the Melting-Pot miracle, he's spent his entire piece > > describing not assimilation but Balkanization, the anti-melting pot. > > > -- > > Cheers, > > James Arthur- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Once the board granted zoning permission, by definition its not a > zoning issue. > > The controversy is whether an Islamic Mosque should be allowed to be > built near ground zero. If the proposal would have been a Baptist or > Catholic Church its doubtful that there would have been any ruckus at > all. > > The zoning issue was a procedural quest in an attempt to block the > mosque from being built. If the argument is that building churches or > places of faith are a pc maneuver, well maybe that flies. I doubt that it will ever be built. Every attempt at new construction will result in a DEstruction 'event'. I would commend any and all involved with such a denial to the bastards. They are trying to make a 'victory mosque', and it ain't gonna fly. Not this time. The retarded bastards did it in Cordoba, and Jerusalem. Here, they will fail... and they should. |