http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local[^] Good thing his neighbor had paid or he would have burned down as well.

Well you're right that actions have consequences and if the Park 51 center is built that could upset some people enough to inflict violence on muslims. The people who would be in the wrong in this scenario are the ones who resort to violence. I don't really see any similarity between this and the conflict in the Middle East. There is no right to toss missles at Israel. But that also does not give Israel the right to starve and kill the people of the west bank and gaza. That's collective punishment and it is wrong.

Gonzoox wrote:

The towers were attacked by muslims, extremists but muslims, so putting a muslim symbol close to ground zero would mean to many americans and others who lost their dear ones there, an offense, like after an invasion where the victorious country raises its flag

A very small group of terrorists attacked the US. They were muslim. And some people will be offended by the "ground zero mosque" because they ignorantly conflate al queda with all muslims. I see no reason to accomodate that ignorance. No, it's not just like an invading army planting the flag. Islam didn't blow up the WTC, al queda did. Islam is not a county, it is not monolithic and al queda is not it's representative.

Gonzoox wrote:

and don't say "because it's only a group of them we can't think of everyone the same",

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Gonzoox wrote:

well, it happens that way

Yes, ignorance abounds.

Gonzoox wrote:

the US started a war with Iraq, many americans don't support it, but if an american goes outside the US and brings up the subject he/she will be pointed as guilty, as a killer, etc even if he/she doesn't supports the war, it's the same.

That is true. But the US is a country and, as a citizen, others will hold me responsible for the acts of the county, whether I personally supported then or not. Islam is a religion, not a country. Just because a handful of terrorist who happen to be muslim attacked the US does not make all muslims throughout the world complicit in that act.

Gonzoox wrote:

but if we are going to talk about tolerance, how will they react if also someone builds a bikini shop with live models in front of the mosque wearing tiny tiny tops? or a gay bar next to it? will they show their tolerance to others if someones does that? will they respect others? I bet they won't.

Who exactly is this 'they' you are talking about? If you are talking about the specific community of muslims in lower manhatten, then I believe that they will be undisturbed by a titty bar in their midst.

Gonzoox wrote:

It's ok for them to send home made missiles to the jewish cities close to Palestine, missiles that actually have killed people, but if Israel decides to use their army to

Way to go Greenpeace! Very effective ad.

CaptainSeeSharp wrote:

your basis for me being closed minded

My basis is your ignorance of Islam and your mindless repetion of Faux News talking points.

CaptainSeeSharp wrote:

bigotry and hatred

:laugh:

CaptainSeeSharp wrote:

towards a news agency

:laugh: It's nothing more than the propaganda arm of the republican party.

CaptainSeeSharp wrote:

The Kingdom Foundation, funder of the Ground Zero Mosque

Not a mosque and not at ground zero. So, more ingorant repetion of wingnut talking points.

I haven't suggested that you are suggestible or malleable. If fact I am suggesting that you are closed minded and impervious to reason. You ignorant repetition of Faux News claims about Islam support that conclusion.

You are a prime example of wingnut epistemic closure.

Distind wrote:

some people don't bother to check it.

They don't want to check. They listen to the never ending stream of lies from Faux News and they believe. Epistemic closure.[^]

Well, it's never really been about a mosque at ground zero - it's not a mosque and it's not at ground zero. At it's core, it's xenophobia. This is just the most recent incarnation.

harold aptroot wrote:

Yes I know, I'm an a**hole

No shit!

puromtec1 wrote:

Just get your fellow country-men to agree with you to take another's property for your own good, then you will not have the guilt of a burgler. Ok, then it is not theft. Happy now?

And your real world example that related to vacation time for employees? Or universal health care?

puromtec1 wrote:

Forget discussing taxes,

Well, no. Things like universal health care and unemployment insurance are funded by taxes.

puromtec1 wrote:

and my suggesting that you should steal stuff wasn't either?

Nope. Especially since you have throughout this entire series you have repeated the same comparison over and over again. Everything says you are completely serious. Of course, being the obvious jackass that you are makes it all the more plausible that you believe your moronic drivel.

1. Sorry you didn't realize that my "Damn, I want to be a socialist" wasn't sarcastic enough for you. Especially considering your definition of socialism which fits neither Germany nor the US. 2. I never indicated that you thought taxation was an indication of socialism.

puromtec1 wrote:

Nor, have I stated that taxation is theft.

Yes, that is exactly what you have said. Perhaps you need to reread this post of yours[^] and then this post[^]

puromtec1 wrote:

We are to a degree, depending on the particular year, a socialist nation. It fluctuates.

Nuance, good for you!

puromtec1 wrote:

You have repeated to me what I wrote in my last post

I don't think so. "A particular action once considered theft", "subsitive difference is that maybe 1,000,000 people have OK'd the burgler's plan ", "provided a government apparatus to perform the action or coercive transaction against a victim whose personal property is taken." These lines of yours are in response to what I said here: " it's moronic to compare paying taxes and receiving services to theft." "theft", "burgler", "coercive". No I was not repeating you. Taxation is not theft or burglery and I am not being coerced. What I did say is that it occurs with our consent.

puromtec1 wrote:

Also, if you really pay attention, my posts do not advocate any particular position on the matter

OK. So comparing taxation to burglary and theft is not advocating a position. Cool.

the definition of socialism is meaningless since this country is not socialist. Taxation is not theft. It occurs with our consent. So yes, you are way off base.

Like I said, it's moronic to compare paying taxes and receiving services to theft.

Of course it isn't. There's no nice way to say it - only a moron would think that.

No, he has an agenda and the power to implement it. Luckily my brother has tools with which to fight back.

wolfbinary wrote:

I forgot to add that this is the kind of thing that drives people out of public service who are good at what they do.

By the same token these protections from swift (and often arbitrary) terminations are a benefit of public sector employment that is often unavailable in the private sector - unless you are lucky enough to have a union to protect your rights. "One man's fish is another man's poisson."

modified on Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:53 PM

And I have a brother who is quite good at his (public sector)job, but his boss is trying to fire him. But he is using the tools available to him (God bless the Unions) to protect his job. Those same tools will, of course, be available to someone who 'deserves' to be fired to protect their job as well.

wolfbinary wrote:

I wasn't trying to drive a steak in the heart of government workers or compare the two to each other

I thought I might be reading too much into what you said.

wolfbinary wrote:

but when it comes to getting rid of obstructionists they have a lot more to do to get rid of them.

No doubt that that is true. But the ability to fire anybody anytime is not an unalloyed good.

That hasn't been my experience. I've worked in both the public (county) and private. And the type of workers in both is quite similar. I suspect that you are correct that it much easier to fire people in the private sector (with or without cause). I don't have any one cause that might explain government incompetence - though I don't know what you might mean by that. Government does many things quite well, and private enterprise sure has unlimited examples of incompetence. Each has it's place. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

It wouldn't be if that was all I was getting for the increased tax burden, but that isn't all I would get. I'd be getting health insurance, unemployment insurance, pension. All of these things come directly out of my after tax income (or cause my pay to be less to begin with) and are not included in the USA tax burden. So, Damn, I want to be a socialist! [Edit] Sorry didn't do the math. 1436/1804 = 79.6%. So, just on that basis alone, it would almost be worth it. Damn, I want to be a socialist.

modified on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:30 PM