The Payback for Political Correctness...
in [Design]
|
Prev: esd diodes as diodes
Next: Earbud plug weirdness
From: Richard Henry on 5 Aug 2010 17:24 On Aug 5, 1:38 pm, j <jdc1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 1:21 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 1:05 pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 06:55:51 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote: > > > >> Well with all due respect, you might be well served to re-read some of > > > >> the interpretations of this issue in this thread. It is a first > > > >> amendment issue. As you said yourself, anything remotely smacking of > > > >> Islam arouses controversy the question then becomes the context of > > > >> the argument. In this case whats in question is the right of a > > > >> religious group to exercise its constitutional granted privilege of > > > >> establishing a place of worship on private property. > > > > > It's nothing to do with the first amendment. No one has told anyone > > > > they can't be Muslims or practice their religion. It's a zoning > > > > issue, plain and simple. If New Yorkers don't like their Zoning > > > > Board's decision then they can protest the decision, and / or toss the > > > > decision-makers out. > > > > However, a zoning board can only decide rules for a "place of worship". It > > > can't distinguish between a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. That > > > would contravene the first amendment, and it would take more than the > > > local electorate to change that. > > > > The event that appears to have pushed this case into the news was the > > > ruling on whether the existing building should be preserved as a > > > historical building (it wasn't). That decision had to be based solely upon > > > the nature of the existing building; what would replace it doesn't enter > > > into the equation. > > > True, but the board could have decided on historical status for > > reasons that were political in nature. > > > It appears from today's news that the only people remaining in > > opposition are JDL and Glen Beck fans.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yeah, I made the assumption based on news reports that since the > landmark issue had been settled and the reported claim was that the > owners were given the go-ahead to demolish and start construction that > all permits, fillings and procedural stuff had been taken care of. > > I noticed that Pat Robertson and the ACLJ have filed a lawsuit to stop > construction I suspect itll eventually end up as a supreme court > issue. > > But it really is all about religion the root of all evil in my > opinion. ACLJ? I learn something every day. One benefit of this issue is that is rooting out a big nest of real racial and religious bigots.
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 5 Aug 2010 22:01 flipper wrote: > [snip] > > You either have selective amnesia or are demagoguing, or both. > > Mcveigh's bombing had nothing to do with 'religion' nor any religious > ideology, Branch Davidian or otherwise. From his own letter: Count the number of times he says "Waco" and compare it to the number of times he cites any other specific government actions. > "I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma > City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win and > argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as > to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation. > > I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more > purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory > strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent > violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the > preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the > formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other > assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating > in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic > and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the > Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens. > . > . > ." > [snip] > > McVeigh didn't know any more about "Branch Davidians" than you > apparently do and in a recorded interview with Time magazine said he > had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked > it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." For your edification, > Branch Davidians are not Catholics and "never really picked it up" > hardly constitutes 'fundamentalism' of anything. Where does Catholicism enter this discussion? Most of these "citizens militas" are associated with various Baptist groups. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an instance of a secular one. The FBI is well aware of this association. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Porsche 928: 0 to c in 2.125 years, 2.435 light-years per mile^3 of gas
From: Nobody on 6 Aug 2010 09:38 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:38:01 -0700, j wrote: > Yeah, I made the assumption based on news reports that since the > landmark issue had been settled and the reported claim was that the > owners were given the go-ahead to demolish and start construction that > all permits, fillings and procedural stuff had been taken care of. > > I noticed that Pat Robertson and the ACLJ have filed a lawsuit to stop > construction … I suspect it'll eventually end up as a supreme court > issue. I doubt that the supreme court will even agree to hear it. Had the local authorities decided the other way, there might have been a viable first amendment or fourteenth amendment challenge. But with the local authorities in agreement (AFAICT) over the issue, the opponents don't seem to have much of a case. I mean, what *is* their case? "We don't like it" isn't a legal argument. If they want to overturn the planning approval, they need to show either that the board acted outside the law or that there's a problem with the law.
From: Mark Zenier on 5 Aug 2010 10:27 In article <h8ph56prq6bm42bambna8udcf3gtt2bqva(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >I think every corner should have a Hooters ;-) Future employment for your granddaughters? Mark Zenier mzenier(a)eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
From: Jim Thompson on 6 Aug 2010 11:00
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:27:48 GMT, mzenier(a)eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote: >In article <h8ph56prq6bm42bambna8udcf3gtt2bqva(a)4ax.com>, >Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>I think every corner should have a Hooters ;-) > >Future employment for your granddaughters? > > >Mark Zenier mzenier(a)eskimo.com >Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) They are _all_ pleasantly thin, but well-rounded (except for the 9-year-old who hasn't developed yet), but not to Hooter's excess. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel. |