|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted August 07, 2010 04:15 PM |
|
|
Warning!
If this won't stop here, I will not waste time to penalize, I will silence right away!
@ JJ
If you do not stop provoking, especially towards Binabik, you will be the first to be silenced.
@ Binabik
Please don't let yourself get provoked that easy and answer with words and phrases which really don't fit in your normal behaviour.
@mvass
If you start again your devil's advocate role and only post to provoke instead of contributing something, it will hit you aswell.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2010 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Warning!
If this won't stop here, I will not waste time to penalize, I will silence right away!
@ JJ
If you do not stop provoking, especially towards Binabik, you will be the first to be silenced.
@ Binabik
Please don't let yourself get provoked that easy and answer with words and phrases which really don't fit in your normal behaviour.
@mvass
If you start again your devil's advocate role and only post to provoke instead of contributing something, it will hit you aswell.
Is that to be an impartail call?
Considering that Binabik hasn't said one reasonable word in this thread, execept admitting to being anti-intellectual (like Hitler, all fascists and most military men, I can't fail to notice), banging out fascist paroles about teaching muslims lessons and insulting others, you seem to give him a lot of leeway. Why, you even parrot his text about Mvass - how was the principle? Guilty until proven innocent? Sometthing like that, I suppose.
In any case I don't think I need this intellectual wasteland.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 07, 2010 04:54 PM |
|
|
Binabik has said reasonable words in the thread. Numerous times.
____________
The empty set
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2010 08:59 PM |
|
|
angelito:
I assure you I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. It is what I sincerely believe.
Binabik:
Quote:
Some try to act like it's a benevolent gesture to build the mosque, a gesture to improve relations. Since when does a benevolent gesture start with cramming something down the throat of people who clearly don't want it?
Obviously, if they're trying to make a benevolent gesture, then this is a bad idea. But I don't think that's their goal. I just think they want a mosque there, and that's all.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2010 09:22 PM |
|
|
We talk about discrimination of a minority here. Everytime peoply say a minority has a right to, but shouldn't do something, we talk about DISCRIMINATION: 60s, Black Americans, a good example. They had the right to take EVERY seat everywhere, but they really SHOULDN'T do it. If someone did, chances were, they would be taught a lesson - while the authorities would add one up because of provoking.
Reign of the majority mob on the street. The righteous christian whites dictate "healthy public feeling" as it was called in Germany, some 70 years ago.
Best of all - the moderational authority supports it.
P.S.:
blizzardboy, you have my honest respect. Not just because of this thread. Of course that will mean squat to you... 
Mytical, you suck - but I like you nevertheless.  That's probably because I suck as well.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 12:08 AM |
|
|
Equal Rights and Justice for All
Where is the social justice and the governmental sense of responsibility towards its citizens, when the majority of the new yorkers (and americans in a broader sense) are against the construction of the mosque ?
In fear of being accused for discriminating against one group of people, are you now discriminating against another group ?
Is this justice, equality, and in the spirit of democracy ? I really doubt.
What happened to the expression "from the people, by the people, and for the people" ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 12:36 AM |
|
|
dimis: you are confusing the notion of being "ridiculessy politically correct" with "just a weird situation".
If they buildt a skyscraper mosque(or church for that matter), the general populance would have a right to exclaim that its "completely ridicules!". I am not even going to recheck the first page here, but I think they wanted somewhere to sit down and pray, alongside what will be another "convinience place for workers and companies"?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 12:54 AM |
|
|
dimis, what you're calling for is tyranny of the majority. The government has to respond to the will of its citizens - in certain things. Other things it should not do at all, no matter how many citizens want it
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 12:57 AM |
|
|
The comparison to the black south is not a good analogy. As I said early in the thread, if they waited to build the mosque it would be different. There is the saying that "time will heal". It's one of the best healers there are. In New York, time has not had a chance to heal.
In the black south it had been almost a hundred years since the Civil War. The prejudice and racism still ran deep. The laws against discrimination were even in place. Those laws had been challenged and went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the laws. Many places in the south simply ignored them.
The concept of "time will heal" just wasn't working. It got to the point where the issue had to be forced. It got to the point that federal law enforcement had to be brought in, potentially ending in a standoff with local law enforcement. That type of action is a last resort. But the idea of "time will heal" and even the passing of laws didn't work. So there was not much choice but to use far less desirable methods.
In New York, it's still fresh. The best course of action is to allow the best healer of all to do its work, and that's time. New York is an extremely diverse place. Contrary to the impression that a lot of people have, New Yorkers are pretty laid back. They've grown up in a very diverse environment, surrounded by people from a lot of nations, cultures, languages, ethnic groups and religions. It's nothing new to them. They are used to it.
But right now it's still fresh. It's just not the time to force the issue, especially when there is no need to if time is allowed to work its magic. And I don't mean a hundred years like in the south. But at least wait long enough to take away the daily reminder of the cleanup and rebuilding, and allow people to get on with their lives.
After that, stand back and take a look at how things are. Look at the situation and decide what, if anything, should be done. If nothing else happens to antagonize the situation, most likely no action will be required, because time was allowed to do it's thing.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 01:03 AM |
|
|
@Dimis:
Quote:
Where is the social justice and the governmental sense of responsibility towards its citizens, when the majority of the new yorkers (and americans in a broader sense) are against the construction of the mosque ?
What does that have to do with social justice? This isn't some sort of primitive and thuggish ancient Athenian democracy where things are done at the behest of a fickle mob. I would sooner accept being ruled by a dictator, because at least with a dictator there's a small chance the person will run things fairly and intelligently. With the mob, that chance is almost zero.
Justice is protecting these people's right to build what they please on their own land while being protected from the hostile majority.
Quote:
In fear of being accused for discriminating against one group of people, are you now discriminating against another group?
Wow.
They're not being discriminated against, they're just (hopefully) not allowed to bully people over what they can and can't build on their own property. This rule applies to Muslim Americans every bit as much as it applies to any other citizen.
If Muslim Americans whined about a bar being constructed next to a mosque and they successfully used the government as a brute to prevent that from happening, that would be discrimination to the other group.
Quote:
Is this justice, equality, and in the spirit of democracy ? I really doubt.
It's in the spirit of justice and equality. It's not in the spirit of purist democracy, but purist democracy is a despicable and brutish system that should be avoided like the disease it is.
Quote:
What happened to the expression "from the people, by the people, and for the people" ?
It got taken out of context by some guy on the internet.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 03:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What happened to the expression "from the people, by the people, and for the people" ?
It got taken out of context by some guy on the internet.
doesn't it apply perfectly to totalitarianism?
well, it's not really for the people, but Hitler was a good liar.
Quote:
You think property damage is the only negative outcome? Some try to act like it's a benevolent gesture to build the mosque, a gesture to improve relations. Since when does a benevolent gesture start with cramming something down the throat of people who clearly don't want it?
do they at least know exactly why they don't want it? they might have completely irrelevant reasons
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 05:30 AM |
|
|
Ghosts and Apathy
I will take that phrase again out of context then. It is a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". It is a government that is "powered" by the people, by the many, and hence it is called democracy; that's the very spirit of the political system, regardless of what you believe about ancient Athens or democracy in general. It is also a government by the people, and for the people. So the government is also there to protect its citizens and has responsibilities towards them. And this is more or less what I mean with the term social justice and where it comes into play. Ideally, the government, apart from equal rights and opportunities for everyone, should, among others, also seek for social cohesion and eliminate unrest. In other words create a happier place to be, where people are not prejudiced against each other (read: the race, the color, the religion, or <whatever nonsense here> do not affect rights and opportunities of individuals or groups of individuals in one way or another).
Now, in the land of freedom, you are not free from a "discrimination" ghost of the past. And the ghost is there, because simple principles like the ones above were not in effect for a long time. One consequence of this, are all the "affirmative" policies that are applied everywhere. And now we are no longer talking about equal rights either. In other words, a mistake from the past called "discrimination" now has a sibling called "affirmative action". And many times, people who belong to minorities do not simply exercise their rights; they do not try to enforce some law; they actually try to exploit the law and push legality to its limits for their own good or step on others' rights and/or feelings. And do not start with me being emotional. Just look how many visit the "shrinks", or have psychological problems around you. Spiritual/psychological calmness of the citizens is an ideal that we should look for in every healthy society. These are simple stuff if you don't suffer from apathy.
So, my approach, if I were in their shoes, is no, not now and there. Nobody is taking their right to build a mosque and nobody is "bullying" them (are you a muslim or is it just your age ?). But they can build it in so many other places - not that far away -, or at the same place later in time when the feelings will settle. A mistake of the past (discrimination) is not rectified by another mistake (affirmative policy/action). History and mistakes from the past are there to teach us. It is good to make mistakes, as long as we learn from them. And it is up to us to interpret them right. But of course, now we are talking about the land where everything starts with an "I". This is probably why mvass got scared and started talking about tyranny when I said that the majority is against; it doesn't represent an individual but a "majority" (yuck!). Clearly, you can not follow the majority always, sometimes not even the plurality, and of course the government has to go against them every now and then. But if a vast majority of the citizens are against an action, then this is at least an indication that something might be wrong. I believe in societies where people understand, and at least about basic human needs they agree. And human needs is not just water, food, a house, and materialistic stuff. Besides, this should be a goal. But of course we are talking about a country that wants to preserve strategic oil reserves, and have good relations with Saudi Arabia and the islamic/oil world. We are talking about a land where a significant percentage is disproportionally owned by Saudi Arabians. So, the mosque will be built. They are killing the psychology of the citizens and you are affirmatively saying "thank you". And all these because some religious guys decided to build a mosque. Guess what ? I am not buying. I don't suffer from apathy, neither a discrimination ghost is chasing me to say 'yes' to every minority nut.
____________
The empty set
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 07:41 AM |
|
|
Dimis, this is private property. It has nothing to do with affirmative action. It's a question of freedom. Do these people have the right to build this on their property? They do. And the government will protect their property, as it generally protects people's property. (Except when it comes to eminent domain, but that's a separate subject.) So who cares what the majority thinks? Their rights are not being violated. How are they harmed by this? Being offended doesn't count - there's no right to not be offended.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 09:49 AM |
|
|
Ok then Jolly..why have any laws at all then? How dare we discriminate against people who want to kill, sell drugs, have sex with unwilling people? DISCRIMINATION!!! Hey thieves are a minority, we should discriminate against people who want to take something.
Not all laws are bad, but not all laws are the end all and be all either. There have been bad laws. Your argument that people should be able to do something just because it is legal doesn't make sense. In fact many laws have been created because people were doing something that was perfectly legal, but shouldn't have been. Yes they CAN do it, if they SHOULD or not is the question.
Now I am totally neutral when it comes to religion. I don't think Christianity is any better, or worse, then Muslim. I happen to think that there are places Christian Churches don't belong either.
However, here is the question you have to ask yourself. Are YOU willing to be responsible when some idiot attacks the Mosque? Because as much as I like my country, there are idiots here (like there are in every corner of the world). They are the ones who give normal, sane Americans the reputation we have. There will be violence, and it will be a tragedy. I would like to avoid that. So .. are you JJ going to say 'oops' I guess people were right..when it happens? Or just do the "Americans are haters"?
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 10:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Where is the social justice and the governmental sense of responsibility towards its citizens, when the majority of the new yorkers (and americans in a broader sense) are against the construction of the mosque ?
Hey dimis, that's a good question in my opinion!
I do however not change opinion due to it, rather I'd like to ask you back, what is the purpose of government according to you?
((My guess is what the purpose of government is, is one point where we probably disagree)).
@Mytical wrote:
Quote:
There will be violence, and it will be a tragedy. I would like to avoid that.
I'd like to note here something that America did very well, some of the times, and many other countries have followed up on. Not being tyranised, because someone threats to be violent against you.
I think we agree on that power does not make necessary make right and when you first start to give in to those threats you're starting to loose. I mean isn't that what this war about terrorists was all about in the first place? [At least according to the propaganda].
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 10:41 AM |
|
|
I'd like to make another contribution here.
When you hear "Rammstein", most of you think, about the Rockband. A few may remember, that it's the name of a large US Air Base in Germany, and some may remember that there has been a big accident at an air show - interestingly enough, probably NO ONE will remember, that Rammstein was the place of a terror assault as well.
If you look at the English wiki entry about Rammstein Air Base
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramstein_Air_Base
you'll find no entry. In the German version there is a small mentioning (only).
I don't know how many of you Americans know the RAF (no, not the Royal Air Force of Britain, but the Rote Armee Fraktion or Red Army Faction), but it may pay to have a look at their wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
At the bottom of the article there's a list of their assaults. I'll quote the relevant assaults here:
Quote:
1) 11 May 1972 Frankfurt am Main, Bombing of US barracks, US Officer Paul A. Bloomquist dead, 13 wounded...
2) 24 May 1972 18:10CET Heidelberg, Bombing outside of Officers Club followed by a second bomb moments later in front of Army Security Agency (ASA), U.S. Army in Europe (HQ USAREUR) at Campbell Barracks, 3 dead (Ronald A. Woodward, Charles L. Peck and Captain Clyde R. Bonner), 5 wounded...
3)4 January 1977 Giessen, Attack against US 42nd Field Artillery Brigade at Gießen. In a failed attack against the Gießen army base, the RAF sought to capture or destroy nuclear weapons present. A diversionary bomb attack on a fuel tank failed to fully ignite the fuel, and the assault on the armory was then repulsed, with several RAF members killed in the ensuing firefight. The presence of U.S. warheads on German soil was classified and officially denied at the time, and the incident received little publicity. General William Burns, who commanded the base in 1977, detailed the attack in a 1996 interview...
4) 25 June 1979 Mons, Belgium Alexander Haig, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO escapes an assassination attempt A land mine blew up under the bridge on which Haig's car was traveling, narrowly missing Haig's car and wounding three of his bodyguards in a following car...
5) 31 August 1981 Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, Large car-bomb explodes in the parking lot of Ramstein Air Base, 20 wounded, some seriously...
6) December 1984 Oberammergau, West Germany, Unsuccessful attempt to bomb a School for NATO officers. The car bomb was discovered and defused. A total of ten incidents followed over the next month, against US, British, and French targets...
7) 8 August 1985 Rhein-Main Air Base (near Frankfurt), A Volkswagen Mini-Bus exploded in the parking lot across from the base commander's building. Two people are killed: Airman First Class Frank Scarton and Becky Bristol, a U.S. civilian employee who also was the spouse of a U.S. Air Force enlisted man. A granite monument marks the spot where they died. Twenty people are injured. Army Spec. Edward Pimental was kidnapped and killed the night before for his military ID card which was used to gain access to the base.
Admittedly, this isn't the attack on the twin towers with 3000 dead. However, it was an ongoing series of attacks on the US forces in Germany or even Europe, made by GERMAN terrorists. I direct your attention to assault no. 3 - you can easily see, that a successful attempt might have lead to a much more relevant result in terms of public attention, with the twin towers being a nice little living room spectacle in comparison.
It should be mentioned, that there have been ALOT of anti-American actions, demonstrations and so on in Western Germany, centered around the time of the so called NATO double track decision in the end of '79 (before and after), with a sizable part of the German population being against it and part of that part even militantly against it. (Many of those found a political home in the Green Party of Germany, which was officially founded in 1980 (the short timely distance is no happenstance).
A opinion of the more conservative political Germany at the time was, that the Green Party was for the RAF whar Sinn Fein was or is for the IRA, the legal arm of a terror organization.
In fact, Mr, Fischer, 7 years Secretary of State in Germany (1998-2005) has had a history of throwing stones onto policemen in violent demonstrations in that time...
Question for all of you: how come, all this has not only never led to any repercussions against Germans in the US - no, it wasn't even made public there. NO FUSS. Conversely, if there is a person from the US anywhere in the muslim part of the world getting only a slap, it will be on all news nets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the Binabiks and dimisses of this world still fail to outline the connection between the American citizens of muslimic religion and the terror attack on the twin towers. Did the American muslims somehow express their solidarity or sympathy or any other kind of afiliation with them, for example? Did they say something along the lines they were muslims first and Americans second? Did they aggravate the non-muslimic American population in any way?
Closing the gap between the first part of my posting and my second part, you could simply switch "muslimic" for "German origin" and ask the same questions - with the Germans there seem to have been no problem.
The Binabiks and dimisses admit that the muslims, sure, have the right, but shouldn't do it because it would piss off a majority.
The first thing is, and I explained that - EVERY such notion amounts to a discrimination of a minority, because said minority would abandon their rights IN FEAR OF REPRESSIONS. The US constitution EXPLICITLY states that this MUST NOT happen, no matter "majority wishes". (You remember the passus, that no one can have disadvantages because of their religion, right?)
The second thing is the question - why IS a majority so biassed against muslims IN GENERAL?
THAT, in turn, is a question you may want to ask the former US government who did a lot to create aversions against muslims. Of course there is a connection with the strong ties to Israel, there is a connection with the oil, there is one to Iran and there are probably some more, but there is no doubt that the government of the US either willingly took the bait the terrorists held up for them OR had their own reasons to take the incident and use it to create aversions against muslims.
The result of which you can see everywhere.
Lastly - and frankly I don't care whether this may be an unfair statement against a board member -, with any reasonable long time board members there should be something like a golden rule meanwhile: if, in any political issue, you find yourself in the same boat as Elodin - rethink your position and try to inform you more thoroughly.
This doesn't mean that all of Elodin's positions are necerssarily doubtful - it just means that there should a little warning lamp start to blink as soon as you realize you seem to have the same position than he.
`
*Sigh* Another wasted post...
Addendum: Mytical, I suppose you can find the answer to your questions in this post here.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 01:49 PM |
|
|
On second thought it may be better to answer this:
1)Quote:
Ok then Jolly..why have any laws at all then? How dare we discriminate against people who want to kill, sell drugs, have sex with unwilling people? DISCRIMINATION!!! Hey thieves are a minority, we should discriminate against people who want to take something.
I do not understand this point. Are you implying the American muslims are criminals?
2)Quote:
Not all laws are bad, but not all laws are the end all and be all either. There have been bad laws. Your argument that people should be able to do something just because it is legal doesn't make sense. In fact many laws have been created because people were doing something that was perfectly legal, but shouldn't have been. Yes they CAN do it, if they SHOULD or not is the question.
The pertinent law here is, that no one must have disadvantages because of their religious beliefs. Are you saying that this is a bad law?
Now, usually, how do you see a law is "bad"? You see it only, when it is used, that is, if the regulations of the law are put to the test and the results are found wanting. Until the point of changing a law, there is no should-not, at least no "objective" one with any pull. I explained that.
3)Quote:
Now I am totally neutral when it comes to religion. I don't think Christianity is any better, or worse, then Muslim. I happen to think that there are places Christian Churches don't belong either.
For the actual issue it's not relevant, because only muslim churches are the question here. Of course it WAS correct, if there was a decision that NO churches of ANY religion could be built.
4) Quote:
However, here is the question you have to ask yourself. Are YOU willing to be responsible when some idiot attacks the Mosque?
I am not responsible, if and when that happens.
5) Quote:
Because as much as I like my country, there are idiots here (like there are in every corner of the world). They are the ones who give normal, sane Americans the reputation we have. There will be violence, and it will be a tragedy. I would like to avoid that. So .. are you JJ going to say 'oops' I guess people were right..when it happens? Or just do the "Americans are haters"?
You know that it would be wrong to give in to street pressure to take rights off of people just to please violent idiots. In that case you can hand over everything to street gangs. It is the task of the government to keep the order, to suppress rioting and so on. In this case one problem is, that the government has let it come to this/has put oil into the fkire themselves.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 09, 2010 06:00 AM |
|
|
mvass, if you follow precisely the current law, almost surely you will not be able to obstruct the construction of the mosque even if you are against it. This means that it is a legal request for the system.
So, if you think that this is a question of freedom about private property, I will ask you another question of freedom. Do you believe you are free to say 'no' to such a request right now with the excuse and the reasoning I have above ? Of course not. Because if you do say 'no', then someone will show up, accuse you for discrimination (I would even do it just for the fun of it to see if you are gonna bite!), and then all of a sudden you will turn around your head and start wondering: "WTF ? What did just happen ? Did someone accuse me of discrimination ? I thought we were over with this crap a long time ago. Didn't we make any progress ? Are we still doing the same mistakes that we did in the past ? WTF man ? W T F ?"
In a sense, it is an affirmative action. You are hopeless saying any form of 'no' to anyone in such weird situations and justify it as "common sense" for the time being, or respecting human values, or eliminating unrest, or <something that you can not quantify>. If the justification does not come from a "book", it is not accepted as a justification. As if laws are not written by humans like us, for humans like us. As if laws never change. Quite the contrary. Laws evolve over time, as we evolve, as every-day life changes. And in any case, in every country, laws are far from being 'complete'. But all these laws, which are created in a democratic environment, want to capture the rules of the society. In the end, their objects are humans and human relations. Laws are there to serve and protect. Laws are not there to oppress. Laws try to capture and quantify the "common sense" of the citizens with as little ambiguity as possible (ideally, no ambiguity). However, not everything related to humans can be quantified. For example, how much does a life cost to you ? Are you going to refer me to an insurance company and try to convince me that your answer is correct ? No hope! As another example, can you quantify feelings and reach an agreement to create laws about them ? Again, no hope. This doesn't mean that feelings are not there though. You are just not able to embed them into the legal system.
The situation now is somewhat similar. You can not really value the pain and the anger of those who do not want the mosque to be built. And the pain and the anger is/will-be there, because it will bring back memories. Most of the guys that are "fanatically" against the construction, actually lost members of their families on 9/11. So, when you say that it doesn't count if they are offended because it is not written in some book, you really are saying to all those who lost people - that they loved and cared - on 9/11, that it doesn't really count for you and of course for the system. In other words, the system doesn't care about the guys who died that day. Seriously ? Is this your country ? No respect at all for its citizens ? But now, the problem appears. How would you be able to define such an offense in a "book", so that you can go by your beloved "book" ? It seems impossible to achieve something like that. And it is precisely here that "common sense" is needed from people, and I think you have to look into you and figure out what values do you want to guide you in your life, and what values do you really want for your society. In what do you actually believe ? So, is this some sort of price for the moto 'live and let die' ? I guess in some form it is. In situations like these, you really need to let time heal the wounds. And there hasn't been enough time yet. Have you been in NY at GZ ? At least last year, when I went there, it was a construction site where everything reminded the attack.
The books do not have all the answers. You can not always go by some "book". It is 'we' the ones who write the books, and we are only humans.
OhforfSake, did you skip one of my posts, or do you want me to write down a constitution ? 
____________
The empty set
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2010 06:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you believe you are free to say 'no' to such a request right now with the excuse and the reasoning I have above ?
Before I can answer - what request are you referring to?
But all I see in your post is an appeal to emotion. Sure, these people may be saddened or offended. But we can't make laws based on feelings.
And you're wrong - I'm not only saying that we can't stop the construction because the law says it is private property. I'm also saying that this is correct and this is what the law should be.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2010 08:32 AM |
|
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
