The Payback for Political Correctness...
in [Design]
|
Prev: esd diodes as diodes
Next: Earbud plug weirdness
From: Bill Sloman on 4 Aug 2010 23:44 On Aug 5, 12:37 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. Since there's a disaster of some sort every day, James Arthur is effectively asking the president to live in hair shirt mode. This is the sort of irrational nonsense we have learned to expect from James Arthur - he wouldn't ask it of a Republican president, and wasn't visibly critical of Dubbya's abysmal performance during and after Katrina, but no argument is to fatuous to use against a Democratic president. > 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. The performance at the White House wasn't an assembly of ethnic specialists from a range of different tribes each show-casing their own tradition, but "African-American singers and Hispanic-American dancers belting out the words of Jewish and Irish immigrant composers" which doesn't qualify as Balkanisation anywhere outside James Arthur's feeble excuse for a brain. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > -- > Cheers, > James Arthur- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Richard Henry on 4 Aug 2010 23:51 On Aug 4, 6:23 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > flipper wrote: > > > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:05:17 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > > <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > > > >As long as we don't let anyone build a church in Oklahoma City anywhere > > >near the site of the Murrah Federal Building. > > > Would be fine with me if your mythical 'church' had anything to do > > with the ideology of the bombing. > > It was payback for the ATF attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco > (according to McVeigh). > > -- > Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...(a)Hovnanian.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my pants! I don't think the Branch Davidians have much of a church any more.
From: Bill Bowden on 5 Aug 2010 01:12 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. > Well, there would have been a ruckus if you tried to build a Baptist church in Saudi Arabia. > 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 5 Aug 2010 02:36 > Well, there would have been a ruckus if you tried to build a Baptist > church in Saudi Arabia. But thats exactly the point we arent Saudi Arabia. Geeze!!!!
From: Greegor on 5 Aug 2010 02:55
PH > As long as we don't let anyone build a PH > church in Oklahoma City anywhere near PH > the site of the Murrah Federal Building. JY > churches are not advocating and JY > working towards jihad. Jihad is a JY > basic tenet of Islam,and is required of Muslims. When you were in College, did you ever have friends that conned you into going to a Campus CRUSADE for Christ meeting? Back in 1978 I pointed out that they were talking about the campus Jihadh for Christ or campus BLOOD WAR for Christ. Onward Christian soldiers and all that... To say that Christendom has not advocated or worked toward Jihadh is far from truthful. The song "A Mighty Fortress is our God" is almost like a National anthem for Norway and Lutherans! I'm descended from Vikings. They owned England for over 100 years until Harold of Brittany caught Harold of the Vikings and his men too far from their armor and chased them out. It was NOT a tea party. JY > BTW, there's a reason the WTC mosque JY > is named the CORDOBA center. JY > Cordoba,Spain was where Muslims JY > defeated the Christians,took the Catholic JY > church and converted it to a mosque to JY > CELEBRATE their victory over the infidels. JY > The WTC mosque is intended to celebrate JY > the destruction of the WTC. JY > Muslims do this at all their major victories JY > over infidels. It's an "in your face" sort of thing. If Cordoba Spain was a Victory Mosque, then WHEN are you saying they had this ""VICTORY""?? It looks like the Cordoba site ping-ponged back and forth. Temple of Janus, Christian Visigoths 500 CE Mosque Ummayads 756-1031 Christian sanctuary Cathedral in the middle of the Mosque 1523 http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/cordoba.html Córdoba was the capital of the Spanish Muslim dynasty of the Ummayads (756-1031). The Great Mosque of Córdoba (La Mezquita) was founded 785 CE. It was added to and expanded over the next two hundred years to make it the third largest structure in the Islamic world. The prayer hall (23,400 square meters) is filled with almost 500 hundred slender columns and superimposed striped arches; a forest sprouting from the marble floor. Previously the site had been occupied by a Christian church dedicated to Saint Vincent that had been built by the Visigoths around 500 CE. Before that, when Córdoba was a provincial capital in the Roman Empire, the site was occupied by a temple dedicated to Janus, the double-headed god of doorways and gates. When Córdoba was captured by the Christian Spanish king of Castile, Ferdinand III, in the 13th century, the mosque reverted to a Christian sanctuary. Then in 1523, the local clergy, with the support of Emperor Charles V, built a cathedral in the middle of the mosque |