ariscus99

I'm sure cm will tell you anyone who is against it is a right wing, christian fundy, republican, warmongering, racist. She can't see past her liberal ideals of how the world "should" work, she doesn't see how the world actually "does" work.

I only attacked your ability to see things outside of your rose colored(uber liberal) glasses. I have said nothing about president bo. I'm not blaming this on him. And you continue to show your ignorance about the "tea party" when you say this bs about "big government" and how all tea partiers want is anarchy and no government whatsoever. So keep posting that, and keep believing it and showing your ignorance. The age of the church is relevant. What I meant and was not clear about, and I apologize for it, is that there are no new churches trying to be built in the same vicinity that this mosque wants to be. Here is one website that talks about it, took about 9 seconds to find, Pajamas Media

You can spin anything can't you? The church, has been a church, for 200 years, this mosque has not, the building has nothing to do with it, the building could be 500 years old, it would not matter, the mosque they want is not that old, and was not there before the towers were built, you obviously can't see it, and you would probably argue with me if I said the sky was blue, your stance would probably be that the sky is orange. We all get it. You obviously don't. If you don't see how this is insensitive to millions of people then your just to hard headed and naive and as you've proven time and again there is no getting threw to you.

St pauls is part of the trinity church. But that point aside both were built close to 200 years before the twin towers were built. Let's compare apples to apples here cm. Noone is trying to build a new church like the Muslims are trying to build a new mosque. Do a little google search about jihadist building temples over places they've "conquered".

I've read on various websites that it is common for the Islamic terrorists to erect mosques at places they've destroyed in order to show their dominance over the people of that area. I don't know if it's true or not but it doesn't sound unreasonable for these people to do something like that. And your insane if you think that there are no terrorist sympathizing Muslims in this country who will look at this as nothing more then a monument to their dominance over the people of new york and the united states. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of muslims in this country that are just as disgusted with the terrorists as most of the rest of us are. But sometimes you need to sacrifice for the greater good of the nation. There is no catholic church or baptist churches built at this site so why does a mosque need to be there? They know it's making people uncomfortable and downright angry so why pursue it? What is the meaning behind having this mosque here vs 5 miles from here?

From CNN Thoughts?

For far too long, automobile insurance carriers have been preying on the wallets and transportational health of the American people. Year after year, drivers in this country pay thousands of dollars to insure themselves against accidents, dings and dents, and personal injuries. We are statutorly mandated to have coverage in order to legally operate a vehicle, but the government does nothing to control costs and make insurance affordable. We pay higher premiums for being too young or too old. We pay higher premiums for the cars that we choose to drive. We pay higher premiums for the misfortune of getting nabbed speeding or running a red light. And some even lose their insurance all together merely for being reckless or negligent behind the wheel. Poor people are forced to under-insure with places like Safe-Auto or The General that do not provide collision insurance and run the risk of bankruptcy if they are involved in a collision that they caused. People with bad driving records are gouged by predatory carriers like Progressive, who charge high monthly rates to provide astronomically high deductables, and in the end don't pay out a dime to fix or replace a vehcile after another unfortunate accident. And what about the millions of uninsured in this country? They are forced to take public transportation, ride a bike, or *gasp* walk to where they want to go just because they cannot afford the cost of insuring their vehicle. Sure, they can find a clunker for $500 on Craigs List, but what carrier will insure them for a reasonable monthly premium? These people are denied their constitutional right to transportation and no one bats an eye. All the while, these wealthy wall-street bankers with clean driving records and expensive cars enjoy their full tort options and gap insurance when they could afford to buy a new car if theirs got dinged in a fender bender. It has become clear that the time has come for change in this country. For far too long, the pampered few with no moving violations and no accidents have benefited from the toils of the terminally lead-footed and accident prone. Every man, woman, and child (over the age of 16) in this great society are entitled to low-cost, government subsidized, and government managed automobile insurance. Let not another day pass without Dear Leader tackling the promise of Universal Car Insurance for all Americans.

What a bunch of garbage, since when is it not okay to be a patriotic American?

What have I said that is reminiscent of Joe the Plumber?

I'd bite, but unfortunately I don't consider myself a libertarian. While I am for minimal government I do understand the need for some government regulation. Though cleos mom would have you believe I want total anarchy, I and probably most Americans see the need for some government regulation, while still keeping it minimalist in nature. As for the 12 million illegals here already, I think the sanctions on business, and assuring they receive the absolute minimum support from the government and tax payer money, will lead many of them to leave the country. If this isn't the land of the free handouts many of them will have no desire to be here. Especially if they know they can't work and earn any money.

I have to agree with McCain, I don't think it's enough. My stance on what needs to be done in relation to immigration, is a three point strategy, first and foremost complete the fence, and a good fence. Complete it, patrol it. Part two has to do with the illegals here already, and more specifically the people who employ them. I know numerous illegals, and deal with them on a daily basis to know that most really are here only to work and make a better life for themselves and their families. However there is a legal way to go about it. I would impose financially devastating fines on companies that knowingly employ illegals, and also heavy fines against companies that employ illegals knowingly or not, including everyday people who use them as maids or gardeners or anything else. I'm confident that this would deter majority of people from employing illegal aliens. And phase 3, would be immigration reform, make it so it's not quite so hard to become a citizen. Though it shouldn't be a walk in the park, along with this I would implement some sort of change to the way work visa's are issued and tracked. I don't disagree with the new AZ law however, and am all for deportation. The argument against deportation is usually that it breaks up families, well, they can take their families back to wherever they came from with them. That will solve the problem of breaking up families. Thats my thoughts in a nutshell. Another issue that needs to be dealt with is anchor babies. That in my opinion should just be done away with.

Cut defense spending by half? Can you tell me where the money in the defense department is spent dollar for dollar? And once you've done that please tell me where you wish to make these cuts? Should it be from the armored vehicles that protect our brothers and sisters, and mother and fathers, and sons and daughters? Maybe from developing new technology to keep them from having to enter combat area's? Or maybe we cut the spending on the programs and people that staff our destroyers, and aircraft carriers? You know the one that go to supply medical necessities and hospitals to countries that can't support their own, that have just suffered earthquakes, and tsunami's and other natural disasters? Development of new aircraft everyone deems to be so wasteful, that can and will saves lives, lets get rid of all of that stuff. And since your all for cutting expenses now, lets not do wasteful programs like cars for clunkers and paying for all the other hand out programs. Why should you get free money for buying a house? Why don't we do what is necessary to save the country, make the necessary cuts, yes some people will suffer, but unfortunately thats life, there will always be those who are hungry and sick and doesn't mean we can save them all. We can give a hand up to those who will use it, but for those who only want to use the system, they should get nothing.

All I said was you were being hypocritical, nothing in that statement says a word about your intelligence. Like I said, please re-read it.

Don't forget what most economist believe drove the roaring 20's, capitalism, invention, and entrepreneurship. Mixed well with minimal government intrusion and regulations.

No, there was a recession immediately following WW1, that lasted about 7 months, but the economy quickly recovered, the depression of 1920 was another valley, in our economic times, which economist have shown we should go through. Highs, and lows. What the left is trying to do is create a levelness through our markets, which has been shown time and again doesn't work. We must have highs and lows. And the way out of the lows was is exactly what Wilson and Harding did during this time, cut spending.

It's good to see I've got you so worked up your being completely illogical and even name calling. Your that far off base just by a couple little comments you don't agree with? Your handling things like like the group of people you just tried to put me in. Your just making my case for me more and more, by showing your fear, incompetence, inability to reason and understand. You talk about illogical debate? What do you think your last post says about you?

Go ahead and re-read that when your own prejudices aren't flaring up so wildly. As it's pretty logical to most people who aren't left wing loons.

*sigh* We don't live in a democracy where two wolves and a sheep can merely "vote" on what's for dinner. Our governmental system is not simply based on what you cna get 51% of the people to agree on. We live in a Constituional Repulblic, which protects certain "rights" as a matter of principle. By your way of thinking, if most people suddenly decided that they wanted racial segregation again, we should be able to have it, and not only that, but that it would be correct . . . by your line of reasoning. So, how does this make you hypocrite? Because you are perfectly fine with men with guns forcing views on others in the private sector, as long as it is something you agree with. However, the converse is not true. Would you be fine with men with guns making sure minorities had to sit a certain part of an eating establishment as government policy? When you understand why you would not be ok with the latter, you will then understand your inconsistencies and why you are a hypocrite.

And thats where the debate is just comical buy the left. All he said, if you re-watch the clip with unbiased eyes and ears you'll see, is that, if, he were around back then, he would have like some more debate on the issue of private businesses not being allowed to serve who they want. Why can a business have a sign, and enforce it, that said business can refuse service to anyone for any reason? But back to the point, he said he would have liked more debate on the subject, and furthermore that he is against discrimination in any form and wants nothing to do with anyone who discriminates. What rachel maddow and the rest of left are doing is taking something that she said was his view, and broadcasting it around as fact, when he said just seconds later that NO in fact that is not his view. But the more the left can get that lie out there and circulated and the faster, the more they can get people to believe it. Watch the interview again, most of what I've read on this board in regard to Rand Paul has been untrue. When it comes to that interview. rachel maddow is the person who said Rand Paul was against the civil rights act, he countered immediately that he was not, but she just kept saying he was, and now people on the left are also saying that is his stance when he has made it very clear that it is not.

Here's a little piece of forgotten history on the depression that happened in 1920, how were they able to get out of it so quickly? By cutting spending.

In the official transcripts released by MSNBC they said Mr. Paul said "yes" he did agree that people should be able to discriminate, and since you watched the interview live you know better cm, here is the interview, cued up to the right moment when the question is asked and answered. They are also okay with "Blacks Only" and "No Christians Served" signs in business.

Keep trusting our mainstream media. What they are doing is clear evidence that they FEAR the TEA Party/Libertarian movement - lest they loose their grip on our government. They cannot conceive power returning to The People's hands. As evidence by the fake transcripts produced by MSNBC and spread around the remainder of the MSM.

You didn't call me racist, and I didn't say you did, I was preempting you calling me one, because it didn't seem to far down the road, with me saying I don't think it's against the law to be a racist. I imagine there are some really racist area's where if the owner refused to serve to white people blacks, and latinos might flock to their business. Discrimination and racism works both ways, don't forget.

Absolutely. Great point Cleo's Mom:thumbup: Though by saying room for only one flag, the American flag, what you said is implied.

Teddy Roosevelt on discrimination Tom McClintock on president calderons visit and speech.