Reply With Quote
That's because there aren't enough female pedophiles.
Darrin, did you know that Catholics don't allow their second-class women to become priests?
It's true!
That's because there aren't enough female pedophiles.
So you want to outlaw the Catholic church as well?
Yes or no.
Well, if the Catholics had carried out 9/11, I'm sure a 100 million dollar church at ground zero would raise eyebrows.
But pedophilia is OK in your book. It doesn't raise your eyebrow. Maybe it raises something else for you.
I'll bet the Catholics have built several community centers near places where priests molested children.
You're against that, right Darrin?
Wow. It's as if conservatives got together and agreed to call it that name.
But nothing like that ever happens.
In 2007-8 forums, sure it did.
I first saw the phrase on SR, but I've seen it here too.
You know what, i don't take back my posts on Islam. But I morally support the Ground zero mosque. These guys are nowhere near radical islamist, they're good people and they're just a bunch of mystic hippies, tbh.
Wild cobra, Yoni and the rest need to look up Sufi Islam.
WC and Yoni already know everything they need to know.
s bag Rove spews his inflammatory, bigoted crap
"Who believes that skinheads should show up at a Black sorority convention and scream bigoted remarks?
Who believes Neo-Nazis should show up at the B’nai B’rith hotel and have their meeting in the next meeting room? "
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/18/...nheads-mosque/
skinhead = neo-nazis = Muslims, got it.
Thanks, Karl. (that's the German spelling, is Karl a Nazi?)
Your campaign-season dog whistle has been heard loud and clear.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-18-2010 at 02:56 PM.
Thanks for doing research Ig.
Uhhhhh last time I checked it wasn't just Republicans.
Do you know who Harry Reid is?
“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement. "Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.
If you noticed, I wasn't one of the voices opposing it. Do you get that from this statement?
A response later came that they can rebuild, however, the authority isn't allowing it. Since the Mosque is outside the port authority, they fall under difference rules. Even though it's two different authorities, it bothers be that the original church cannot rebuild, yet a new one can. Set religion aside on that.Well, two things bother me. First of, the Orthodox church that was destroyed when the towers came down cannot get permission to rebuild. The second is that the leader of the new mosque is an avid promoter of Sharia law.
You would think that the other church has dibbs on rebuilding.
True.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...-moral-courageBy contrast, Obama's fellow Democrats, in the face of this Republican assault, have largely been a model of cowardice, or worse. Indeed, one reason it was necessary for Obama to intervene is because the New York City Congressional delegation, with the noble exception of Manhattan Democrat Jerry Nadler, had been con uously and inexcusably silent. Two weeks ago, mayoral hopeful and Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner finally managed to issue a statement, but it was so vapid and incoherent that few people even knew what it meant.
Worse, some Democrats -- led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- have now joined with the right in opposing Park51. Democratic Representative Michael Arcuri even attacked his G.O.P. challenger for supporting the project, causing the challenger to reverse course. New York's Governor David Paterson made it known on Tuesday that he intends to meet with project developers to encourage them to move, while three more Democrats from the New York Congressional delegation followed in Senator Reid's shameful footsteps by advocating that a new site be found.
The religious right- s shot themselves in the foot:
"One reason that opponents are going to have trouble legally preventing Park51 from building its Muslim cultural center is that, in 2000, a Republican Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Ins utionalized Persons Act… The goal of the legislation, supported by a coalition of religious groups, was to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Employment Division Department of Human Resources v. Smith and give churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship more power in disputes with local and municipal authorities."
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...aign=alternet#
F'ing stupid Democrats AND Republicans. Watch them block teh bilding of that mosque, and see how many terrorists use it as a sign that America hates muslims, no matter how false that might be.
And since so many Republicans were saying that denigrating the troops/war/etc "emboldens" the enemy, I'm sure that's the last thing they want.
I think it would be just be funny as if at least one union came out against it. Without the unions in NYC, no matter how much money they raise it ain't getting built. For instance, if the steelworkers strike the site, EVERYBODY strikes the site.
Not sure why so many evangelicals are on board with this, considering the popular meme of the secularized Uncle Sam out to purge Christ from the public square.
That's because they're trying to purge Allah, not Christ.
So most likely what will happen is the mosque will be built a few blocks away. Meanwhile, when does the first Presbyterian Church go up in Mecca?
We do want to teach the world to sing, no? Or is it that anything other than whitebread Christians is tolerable, even fundy Moslems?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
