How many Walmart stores has the left prevented from being built?

[sandorski]

Well - at least Ironwing isn't demanding an exact Christian lawsuit analogy to the non-existent Muslim mosque lawsuit. Maybe I'm getting somewhere with someone.

You're getting no where. These are not remotely similar. Some are most definitely Unconstitutional even.

 

[werepossum]

That's Ironwing not me. Keep going though, this getting beyond funny. You quoted us both and asked us what was unconstitutional about opposing the mosque (or something I don't really care enough to check at this point). As to your points your political point of view doesn't matter, its telling though that you try and justify it by saying well the difference is we aren't liberals!!!1!

Mosques all over the country get opposed by Christians. A group just burned korans in Florida. The one here in Boston caused the same kind of national controversy. I believe it was during an election year as well, after the elections ended mosque opens and no one cares.

FINALLY, FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME I KNOW IT'S NOT A FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE YOU FUCK.

Ah, my bad. I'm getting you guys confused, sorry. You aren't claiming that opposing the mosque is unconstitutional, and I'm not claiming building the mosque is unconstitutional. It was Carmen that (this thread) specifically said opposing the mosque was unconstitutional, and various other lefties (including Ironwing) who have said in various threads that opposing the mosque is unconstitutional.

I apologize for my confusion.

 

[heyheybooboo]

1. You cannot build a WalMart here.

2. If you try, men with clipboards will come out and order you to desist.

3. If you continue, men with guns will come out and intervene.

QED

Anything government does not allow is backed by the armed might of government. This is understood by most people, which is why the actual armed might of government is not usually required.

Dude --- LOL

Zoning enforcement officers don't wear guns.

However, the judge who issues the order for your arrest (after you violate his order on the zoning matter) may well be packin' underneath his robe.







--

 

[werepossum]

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...o-stop-ground-zero-mosque-20100805-11htj.html



I'll provide something even better. Freedom of religion!!1!!

Ah, I hadn't seen that. And I'll officially oppose it, as I do attacks through the legal system on Christianity, even though I don't want this imam to build this mosque.

 

[werepossum]

Dude --- LOL

Zoning enforcement officers don't wear guns.

However, the judge who issues the order for your arrest (after you violate his order on the zoning matter) may well be packin' underneath his robe.







--

I do construction engineering. A few times I've seen cops dispatched with building officials to shut down a site where a cease and desist order was being ignored and where a permit had not been properly applied for and approved. And in all cases the cops who carry out that arrest order WILL be packing - openly.

Honestly, that all government's authority is backed by government's armed might ought to be something even the most left wing person should be able to admit without being threatened.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Fear No Evil

I'll type slowly so you can follow along. Virtually everyone opposing the center has JUDGED Islam as a whole as sharing responsibility with the attacks. The SENTENCE is that it is now acceptable to find the mere presence of something Islamic to be offensive.

I keep hearing "the left is saying that to protest the center is is unconstitutional". That is total BS. Some of us have said that it is un-American, because it is. Nowhere in any American values can I find something that suggests that it is OK to take the position that innocent parties should be restricted or penalized in any way for the actions of others. You are taking the position that some of your fellow Americans should be kept at arms length from your sacred site because of actions taken by foreigners not affiliated with these Americans. And I specifically said "your sacred site" because you seem to feel that the philosophical possession of the site is limited to only a subset of Americans. If someone is American, but Muslim, it is not really their sacred ground. They have no right to share in its significance. No proof is required to claim it could only be for nefarious reasons that they should build inside some magic radius of the site.

Sounds un-American to me. And completely Constitutional.

 

[Jhhnn]

WTF? Yes, the mosque is the issue. This particular mosque by this particular imam is THE issue. Not every issue non-liberals support is because of a perceived violation of the Constitution. WalMart was brought up by Fear No Evil presumably because the same liberals that use the armed might of government to prohibit evil Walmart stores from being built are now arguing that even voicing opposition to the victory mosque is unconstitutional. To break it down to a level you MIGHT understand, this is pointing out hypocrisy. WalMart itself is not "the issue", nor is bringing it up some sort of strawman.

Uhh, No, not at all. As I offered earlier, opposition to a specific Walmart is always local- from the community or neighborhood. That's not true wrt the mosque in lower Manhattan, where groups outside the community are attempting to use it as a wedge issue on a national scale. The strawman, in this case, is your attribution as to liberal motives wrt the mosque.

While I'm no great fan of Walmart, they're welcome to build anywhere that the local community is comfortable having them. The same goes for the Manhattan mosque, which is *not* located at ground zero as claimed by the hystericals. It's an issue for the people who live in the neighborhood and the borough to figure out, not a national issue at all. It's the Righties who end up looking the fools, because they hysterically raised it to a national level, because the constitution doesn't support their claims, and because it's none of their business in the first place.

Those of us who don't live or work in the immediate area just need to butt out. Yeh, I know, no wedge, no distraction from the crashed economy and the ongoing occupation of a few places we'd really like to exit, no avoiding the issue of rightwing failure at governance...

 

[sandorski]

Uhh, No, not at all. As I offered earlier, opposition to a specific Walmart is always local- from the community or neighborhood. That's not true wrt the mosque in lower Manhattan, where groups outside the community are attempting to use it as a wedge issue on a national scale. The strawman, in this case, is your attribution as to liberal motives wrt the mosque.

While I'm no great fan of Walmart, they're welcome to build anywhere that the local community is comfortable having them. The same goes for the Manhattan mosque, which is *not* located at ground zero as claimed by the hystericals. It's an issue for the people who live in the neighborhood and the borough to figure out, not a national issue at all. It's the Righties who end up looking the fools, because they hysterically raised it to a national level, because the constitution doesn't support their claims, and because it's none of their business in the first place.

Those of us who don't live or work in the immediate area just need to butt out. Yeh, I know, no wedge, no distraction from the crashed economy and the ongoing occupation of a few places we'd really like to exit, no avoiding the issue of rightwing failure at governance...

It's like Mary Braindead Schiavo(sp), all over again, except without the Emergency Session.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's like Mary Braindead Schiavo(sp), all over again, except without the Emergency Session.

Yep. righties would likely be having that emergency session if they were in the majority, calling the agenda- bet on it. They desperately need to distract the electorate from their actual accomplishments.

 

[jackschmittusa]

werepossum

"But the Cordoba House driven by an Imam notorious for supporting Sharia and naming the USA as responsible for 9/11 is something anyone with an ounce of patriotism or common decency ought to oppose."

Saying that this guy called the U.S. responsible for 9-11 is a lie, meant to outrage. He simply said that the actions of our country played a role in developing the thinking used by some nutjobs to justify an attack. A correct assessment without question IMHO. I have heard others say that he claimed that we deserved it. Another lie. I have heard the lie that it is to open on 9-11. I do not grant any credibility to people that use lies to bolster their arguments.

And so what if he likes Sharia Law? Show me where he is leading the charge to replace the Constitution. Just another red herring.

You're another one that seems to think that the site of the attacks only belongs to some Americans. Americans who are also Muslim need not apply.

 

[werepossum]

Uhh, No, not at all. As I offered earlier, opposition to a specific Walmart is always local- from the community or neighborhood. That's not true wrt the mosque in lower Manhattan, where groups outside the community are attempting to use it as a wedge issue on a national scale. The strawman, in this case, is your attribution as to liberal motives wrt the mosque.

While I'm no great fan of Walmart, they're welcome to build anywhere that the local community is comfortable having them. The same goes for the Manhattan mosque, which is *not* located at ground zero as claimed by the hystericals. It's an issue for the people who live in the neighborhood and the borough to figure out, not a national issue at all. It's the Righties who end up looking the fools, because they hysterically raised it to a national level, because the constitution doesn't support their claims, and because it's none of their business in the first place.

Those of us who don't live or work in the immediate area just need to butt out. Yeh, I know, no wedge, no distraction from the crashed economy and the ongoing occupation of a few places we'd really like to exit, no avoiding the issue of rightwing failure at governance...

Actually, it's NOT an issue for the people who live in the neighborhood and the borough to figure out. The Cordoba Initiative has the legal right to build its victory mosque, Cordoba House, on private property it (or more properly its developer) owns. The moral issue is not bounded geographically, and the legal issue is not a matter of public opinion within any boundaries.

We'll have to agree to disagree that this site isn't Ground Zero, since the building was struck (and severely damaged) by parts of one of the planes. The left has taken the position that this building is not Ground Zero because, um, it just isn't I suppose. You'll have to tell me. Maybe because no one died there? In any case, its status as Ground Zero is really immaterial legally.

Just so I can keep my lefties straight, when you say "because the constitution doesn't support their claims", are you alleging that the opponents of the mosque are making claims that building the mosque is unconstitutional, or are you alleging that simply opposing the mosque is unconstitutional?

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty clumsy soft shoe, WP. I recognize that righties need a mighty big smokescreen atm, and they also need outrage suitable to prevent them from looking at themselves, suitable to maintain denial as to what they've brought to this country. Can't have that, best to... obfuscate, wave the bloody shirt, drag the national tragedy of 9/11 back from the grave so as to hopefully wring another tiny bit of political mileage and smug self satisfaction out of it...

Attempting to put words in my mouth with deliberately obtuse questions just makes you look worse, btw.

 

[jackschmittusa]

werepossum

Can we count where all of the dust settled (surely miles away) as part of this sacred ground too?

Any reason you think it is a "victory mosque" other than an irrational imagination?

 

[dahunan]

fwiw.. Christians should feel very fortunate the USA protects them like they do... as big of assholes as many of them are

 

[dahunan]

werepossum

Can we count where all of the dust settled (surely miles away) as part of this sacred ground too?

Any reason you think it is a "victory mosque" other than an irrational imagination?

He even knows it was planned to be built back in 1997...

 

[Infohawk]

And so what if he likes Sharia Law? Show me where he is leading the charge to replace the Constitution. Just another red herring.

It doesn't seem like you understand what Sharia law is. Do you think any real believer would place the law of god beneath the law of men?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Infohawk

"Do you think any real believer would place the law of god beneath the law of men? '

You mean like I've heard so many Christians say "God's Law is supreme".

If you keep your "God's Law" among yourself and your fellow believers, why should I care?

 

[jackschmittusa]

only clicked once and got a double post!

 

[Craig234]

Uhh, No, not at all. As I offered earlier, opposition to a specific Walmart is always local- from the community or neighborhood. That's not true wrt the mosque in lower Manhattan, where groups outside the community are attempting to use it as a wedge issue on a national scale. The strawman, in this case, is your attribution as to liberal motives wrt the mosque.

While I'm no great fan of Walmart, they're welcome to build anywhere that the local community is comfortable having them. The same goes for the Manhattan mosque, which is *not* located at ground zero as claimed by the hystericals. It's an issue for the people who live in the neighborhood and the borough to figure out, not a national issue at all. It's the Righties who end up looking the fools, because they hysterically raised it to a national level, because the constitution doesn't support their claims, and because it's none of their business in the first place.

Those of us who don't live or work in the immediate area just need to butt out. Yeh, I know, no wedge, no distraction from the crashed economy and the ongoing occupation of a few places we'd really like to exit, no avoiding the issue of rightwing failure at governance...

The issue difference isn't local versus national.

The basis for the mosque opposition is people irrationally linking the attackers with all Muslims and therefore resenting the presence of a mosque.

The basis for the opposition to a Wal-Mart store is a secular and rational issue with their business behavior.

Wal-Marts extract wealth from communities, and cause a variety of concerns for some.

It is legitimate under the law, not a violation of civil rights of people, for them to say 'this business is bad for our community for business reasons and we don't want it'.

These are not comparable. Limit people's religious real estate not for any rational reason - the zoning board addressed those in favor of the Muslims.

Versus limit Wal-Mart's option to 'big box' a community that affects many people in the community financially, what stores there are, extracting wealth.

Someone is likely to respond 'if Wal-Mart is so bad don't shop there'. It doesn't work that way.

Opposing the business practices and effects of Wal-Mart is not the same as opposing the religious building of innocent people.

 

[Painman]

I propose a compromise. Wallah-Mart.

 

[Atreus21]

http://mises.org/daily/1521

Of course, what really bugs the critics is that people choose to shop at Wal-Mart instead of the places where they would want people to spend their money.

The point is this: payment for services involves mutually agreeable exchanges. They are not manifestations of power, as some would say. No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart; people who choose to work there do so because they prefer employment there to other circumstances.

At the local Wal-Mart where I shop (contrary to Bolton, I do not believe that shopping at Wal-Mart violates the Holy Scriptures), I have noticed that many employees have stayed with that company for a long time, and there does not seem to be much turnover there. Furthermore, from what I can tell, they seem like normal people, not the oppressed slaves that the critics claim fill the ranks of Wal-Mart workers.

Now, my personal observations hardly constitute proof that Bolton and the other Wal-Mart critics are wrong, but unless they can repudiate the opportunity cost argument, they have no ground upon which to stand. Wal-Mart is not engaged in a grand conspiracy to push down wages in any given market, and twisted logic cannot prove otherwise.

Good article.

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

- Milton Friedman

 

[Phokus]

http://mises.org/daily/1521







Good article.

The point is this: payment for services involves mutually agreeable exchanges. They are not manifestations of power, as some would say. No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart; people who choose to work there do so because they prefer employment there to other circumstances.

Hahahahaha, horrible article. Give me a fucking break, people 'choose' to work at walmart only because there are no other alternatives for them. Apparently, mises doesn't seem to understand supply of labor vs. demand of labor.

 

[Atreus21]

Hahahahaha, horrible article. Give me a fucking break, people 'choose' to work at walmart only because there are no other alternatives for them. Apparently, mises doesn't seem to understand supply of labor vs. demand of labor.

I defy you to actually read the whole article.

 

[Phokus]

I defy you to actually read the whole article.

Well, you're the one that gave us bits and pieces. FYI, i had a former neighbor who worked at walmart because her husband got injured on the job and was on disability pay. She had trouble finding work and had to get a job at walmart to make up the difference. There's your anecdote to counter their's.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk

"Do you think any real believer would place the law of god beneath the law of men? '

You mean like I've heard so many Christians say "God's Law is supreme".

If you keep your "God's Law" among yourself and your fellow believers, why should I care?

Yes just like you've heard Christians say God's law is supreme. Why do people keep thinking comparing Christianity to Islam is proving something?